Decision Support System for Optimizing Supplier Selection Using TOPSIS and Entropy Weighting Methods
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52436/1.jpti.456Keywords:
Combination, Entropy Weighting, Optimization, Supplier, TOPSISAbstract
Supplier selection is a crucial process in supply chain management, where companies must determine the best suppliers who are able to meet their needs based on various criteria. Companies often face challenges in managing the various factors that influence supplier selection decisions, suppliers that offer low prices may not always provide the best quality or consistent delivery times. Optimizing supplier selection through the DSS approach, companies can build stronger relationships with high-performing suppliers, while improving overall business resilience and competitiveness. The combination of the TOPSIS method and entropy weighting in supplier selection optimization provides a robust approach to evaluating and selecting the best suppliers based on predetermined criteria. This combination not only improves objectivity and accuracy in the evaluation process, but also allows decision-makers to consider trade-offs between various criteria more effectively. The purpose of the research of the combination of the TOPSIS method and entropy weighting in optimizing supplier selection is to produce objective and data-based criteria weighting through the application of the entropy weighting method, thereby reducing subjectivity in the supplier selection process. The results of the preference value calculated using the TOPSIS method resulted in the first rank with the highest preference value of 0.78393, followed by GH Supplier with a value of 0.75611, and FR Supplier in third place with a value of 0.6913. The next supplier is Supplier AG with a value of 0.59912, followed by Supplier BR with 0.51682, and Supplier TR in sixth position with 0.465. Supplier IH has a preference value of 0.43166, followed by Supplier YS with a value of 0.3984, and finally Supplier RT is in the lowest position with a value of 0.35517. This ranking shows that US Supplier is the best supplier, while Supplier RT is the lowest choice based on the criteria used.
Downloads
References
S. K. Sahoo, S. S. Goswami, and R. Halder, “Supplier Selection in the Age of Industry 4.0: A Review on MCDM Applications and Trends,” Decis. Mak. Adv., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 32–47, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.31181/dma21202420.
A. Nafei, S. P. Azizi, S. A. Edalatpanah, and C.-Y. Huang, “Smart TOPSIS: A Neural Network-Driven TOPSIS with Neutrosophic Triplets for Green Supplier Selection in Sustainable Manufacturing,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 255, p. 124744, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124744.
S. I. Ali et al., “Risk quantification and ranking of oil fields and wells facing asphaltene deposition problem using fuzzy TOPSIS coupled with AHP,” Ain Shams Eng. J., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 102289, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102289.
H. Yousefi, S. Moradi, R. Zahedi, and Z. Ranjbar, “Developed analytic hierarchy process and multi criteria decision support system for wind farm site selection using GIS: A regional-scale application with environmental responsibility,” Energy Convers. Manag. X, vol. 22, p. 100594, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100594.
H. Sulistiani, Setiawansyah, P. Palupiningsih, F. Hamidy, P. L. Sari, and Y. Khairunnisa, “Employee Performance Evaluation Using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) with PIPRECIA-S Weighting: A Case Study in Education Institution,” in 2023 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Informations System (ICIMCIS), 2023, pp. 369–373. doi: 10.1109/ICIMCIS60089.2023.10349017.
Setiawansyah, A. A. Aldino, P. Palupiningsih, G. F. Laxmi, E. D. Mega, and I. Septiana, “Determining Best Graduates Using TOPSIS with Surrogate Weighting Procedures Approach,” in 2023 International Conference on Networking, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology (IConNECT), 2023, pp. 60–64. doi: 10.1109/IConNECT56593.2023.10327119.
P. William, O. J. Oyebode, A. Sharma, N. Garg, A. Shrivastava, and A. Rao, “Integrated Decision Support System for Flood Disaster Management with Sustainable Implementation,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 1285, no. 1, p. 012015, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1285/1/012015.
I. M. Jiskani, Q. Cai, W. Zhou, X. Lu, and S. A. A. Shah, “An integrated fuzzy decision support system for analyzing challenges and pathways to promote green and climate smart mining,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 188, p. 116062, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116062.
H. Dinçer, S. Yüksel, and S. Eti, “Identifying the Right Policies for Increasing the Efficiency of the Renewable Energy Transition with a Novel Fuzzy Decision-Making Model,” J. Soft Comput. Decis. Anal., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 50–62, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.31181/jscda1120234.
Q. Wang, T. Cheng, Y. Lu, H. Liu, R. Zhang, and J. Huang, “Underground Mine Safety and Health: A Hybrid MEREC–CoCoSo System for the Selection of Best Sensor,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 4, p. 1285, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/s24041285.
S. Chatterjee and S. Chakraborty, “A study on the effects of objective weighting methods on TOPSIS-based parametric optimization of non-traditional machining processes,” Decis. Anal. J., vol. 11, p. 100451, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.dajour.2024.100451.
H. Sulistiani, S. Setiawansyah, A. F. O. Pasaribu, P. Palupiningsih, K. Anwar, and V. H. Saputra, “New TOPSIS: Modification of the TOPSIS Method for Objective Determination of Weighting,” Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 991–1003, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.22266/ijies2024.1031.74.
S. Tabatabaei, “A new model for evaluating the impact of organizational culture variables on the success of knowledge management in organizations using the TOPSIS multi-criteria algorithm: Case study,” Comput. Hum. Behav. Reports, vol. 14, p. 100417, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100417.
J. Tao, X.-H. Sun, Y. Cao, and M.-H. Ling, “Evaluation of water quality and its driving forces in the Shaying River Basin with the grey relational analysis based on combination weighting,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 18103–18115, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16939-z.
I. Mukhametzyanov, “Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD,” Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 76–105, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.31181/dmame210402076i.
M. P. Libório, R. Karagiannis, A. M. A. Diniz, P. I. Ekel, D. A. G. Vieira, and L. C. Ribeiro, “The Use of Information Entropy and Expert Opinion in Maximizing the Discriminating Power of Composite Indicators,” Entropy, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 143, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/e26020143.
T. Singh, “Entropy weighted WASPAS and MACBETH approaches for optimizing the performance of solar water heating system,” Case Stud. Therm. Eng., vol. 53, p. 103922, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.csite.2023.103922.
M. Gezen Ucar, “Integrated entropy-based MCDM methods for investigating the effectiveness of Turkey’s energy policies,” Energy Syst., pp. 1–30, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s12667-024-00688-2.
N. Shen, H. You, J. Li, and H. Qian, “Utilizing the Entropy Weighting Method to Determine Objective Weights in Robot Trajectory Optimization,” in 2024 6th International Conference on Communications, Information System and Computer Engineering (CISCE), May 2024, pp. 251–255. doi: 10.1109/CISCE62493.2024.10653410.
Z. Su, Z. Xu, and S. Zhang, “Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Method Based on Probabilistic Hesitant Fuzzy Entropy,” in Hesitant Fuzzy and Probabilistic Information Fusion: Theory and Applications, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 73–98. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-3140-4_4.
D. T. Do and N.-T. Nguyen, “Applying Cocoso, Mabac, Mairca, Eamr, Topsis and weight determination methods for multi-criteria decision making in hole turning process,” Strojnícky ?asopis-Journal Mech. Eng., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 15–40, 2022.
