APPLICATION OF THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS IN SUPPLIER

EVALUATION AND SELECTION

A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
Requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Information Technology
By:
Mohammed Khalid Alharthi
Salman Awed Alatwi Sultan EtanAlbalawi
Yasser Mohammed Alabalawi
Supervised By:
Dr. Osman Ahmed Abdalla

Department of Information Technology

Faculty of Computers and Information Technology
University of Tabuk

December 2014

ii

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project report is based on my original work except for citations
and quotations which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it has not been
previously and concurrently submitted for any other degree or award at University of Tabuk or
other institutions.
Name

ID No.

MOHSMMED KHALID ALHARTHI

321000020

SALMAN AWED ALATWI

321001865

SULTAN ETANALBALAWI

321002504

YASSER MOHAMMEDALBALAWI

321001533

Date :

Signature

_________________________

APPROVAL FOR SUBMISSION

I certify that this project report entitled "SUPPLIER SELECTION" was prepared by
Mohammed Khalid Alharthi , Salman Awed Alatwi, Sultan EtanAlbalabwi, Yasser
Mohammed Albalawihas met the required standard for submission in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of Bachelor of information technology at University of Tabuk.

iii

Approved by,
Signature : _________________________
Supervisor : Dr. Osman Ahmed Abdalla
Date
: _________________________
The copyright of this report belongs to the author and is protected under the intellectual
property right laws and conventions. It can only be considered/used for purposes like extension for
further enhancement, product development, adoption for commercial/organizational usage, etc.,
with the permission of the University of Tabuk.
2014, University of Tabuk. All right reserved

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank everyone who had contributed to the successful completion of this
project. We would like to express my gratitude to my research supervisor, Dr. Osman Ahmed for
his invaluable advice, guidance and his enormous patience throughout the development of the
research.
In addition, we would also like to express our gratitude to my loving parent and friends
who had helped and given our encouragement......

v
APPLICATION OF THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS IN
SUPPLIER EVALUATION AND SELECTION

ABSTRACT
The aim of this project is to employ the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method in
order to select the best supplier of personal computers PC purchasing in university of
Tabuk. AHP is powerful and most popular mathematical technique for multi-criteria
decision making. One of the major problems and challenges that facing the modern
organization and companies is the process of selecting the best supplier of products, raw
materials, materials, machines, equipment, and services selection . This process may take
long time and select the wrong supplier.
The propose methodology are:
Determine the data of suppliers with adequate criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives
structure of the hierarchical model , prioritize the order of criteria or sub-criteria , measure
the suppliers performance and Identify supplier's priority and selection.
Propose AHP method contributes in helping decision maker to select the best supplier with
high level of confidence, less time and effort consuming.

vi

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Chapter 1
1.1 Background :
1.2 Statement of the problem:
1.3 Objectives:
1.4 The AHP method :
1.5 Layout :
Chapter 2
Background and literature review
2.1 decision making
2.2 supplier selection
2.3 supplier selection process :
2.4 supplier selection methods :
2.5 the analytic hierarchy process :
2.6 how AHP works
2.7 AHP details
Chapter 3
Methodology
3.1 Planning
3.2 Analysis
3.3 Design
3.3.1 Model formulation
3.4 Implementation
3..5 Requirements analysis
3.5.1 Use case
4.Use case specifications
5. Database table
Chapter 4
Design
4.1. User log in
4.2. Compared to criteria
4.3. compared to a price of preference screen

Page No.
II
IV
V
VII
VIII
IX
X
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
10
11
12
13
13
18
20
20
21
25
26
26
26
27
27

viii

4.4. Compared to a memory of preference screen

4.5. Compared to storage of preference screen
4.6.Compared to delivery of preference screen
4.7.Result of selection screen
REFERENCES

28
28
29
29
30-31

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE

Page No

Table of Contents

VII

List of Tables

VIII

List of Figures

IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Table3. 1 project phases

11

Table: 3. 2 The test data

11

Table: 3.3 measurement scale3 AHP measurement scale

13

Table:3. 4 AHP example: original matrix

14

Table3. 5 AHP example: normalized matrix

14

Table:3. 6 AHP example: processer matrix

15

Table :3.7 AHP example: normalized processer matrix

15

Table:3. 8 AHP example: memory matrix

15

Table:3. 9 AHP example: normalized memory matrix

16

Table:3. 10 AHP example: int-storage matrix

16

Table :3.11 AHP example: normalized int-storage matrix

16

Table :3.12 AHP example: price matrix

17

Table:3. 13 AHP example: normalized price matrix

17

Table :3.14 AHP example: delivery matrix

17

Table:3. 15 AHP example: normalized delivery matrix

18

Table:3. 16 AHP example: summary of results

18

Table: 4.1 Log in

21

Table: 4.2 Compared to criteria

22

Table: 4.3 Compared every criteria of preference

23

ix

Table: 4.4 View result

24

table:5.1 User table

25

Table:5.2 User table

25

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page No.

Figure 2.1 The general AHP hierarchy

Figure 3.1 SDLC waterfall methodology

10

Figure 3.2 Hierarchy of the AHP example

12

Figure 3.3 login use case Main Interface

20

Figure 4.1 main interface

26

Figure 4.2 Interface compared to criteria

27

Figure 4.3 Interface compared to a price of preference

27

Figure 4.4 Interface compared to a memory of preference

28

Figure 4.5 Interface compared to storage of preference

28

Figure 4.6 Interface compared to delivery of preference

29

Figure 4.7 Interface as a result of selection

29

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DEA
AHP

Data Envelopment Analysis

Analytical Hierarchical Process

ANP

Analytic Network Process

TCO

Total Cost of Ownership

TOPSIS

Technique for the Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal

Solution

MAUT
CBR

Multiple Attribute Utility Theory

Case-Based-Reasoning

ANN

Artificial Neural Network

RAD

Rapid Application Development Process

OPM

Option Performance Matrix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background :
Choosing the right supplier involves much more than scanning a series of price lists.
This will depend on a wide range of factors such as speed process manager hardest, price and
delaying further to specify the importance of these different factors will be based on your
business' priorities and strategy
Decision making is a key activity and the most important issue in business. Commonly, the
managers locking for reliable and correct forecast for their decisions. To achieve this goal they
should consider scientific criteria. The main problem that facing a decision maker is the
selecting of most appropriate alternative according to at least one goal or criteria from the
alternatives cluster [1].
Nowadays, the interesting of decision makers about supplier selection process has
been rapidly growing because reliable or correct suppliers support in reduction of inventory
costs and the improvement of product quality [2].
For modern organizations and companies the selection of a supplier is become the most
important step in creating a successful alliance. The selection of a suitable supplier is a
significant factor affecting eventual buyersupplier relationship. If the selection process is
completed correctly, a higher quality, longer lasting relationship is more achievable [3].
Supplier selection is the process of finding the appropriate suppliers being able to provide the
purchaser with the right quality products/services at the right price, in the right quantities and
at the right time [4]. Supplier selection includes activities to solve the conflicts between the
buyer and suppliers on the details of products/services.
Most related literatures on supplier selection have been focused on the decision making
approaches. [4] presented a survey of decision methods reported in the literature for
supporting supplier selection process. [5] analysed the decision making methods that have
been utilized for supplier selection based on journal articles from 2000 to 2008. Then,
frequently used of AHP method to solve the multi-criteria decision-making problem of
supplier selection is proposed by [6, 7, 8, and 9].
This project focuses on Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) which is a decision
making method developed for prioritizing alternatives when multiple criteria must be

considered and allows the decision maker to structure complex problems in the form of a
hierarchy, or a set of integrated levels. This method incorporates qualitative and quantitative
criteria. The hierarchy usually consists of three different levels, which include goals, criteria,
and alternatives. Because AHP utilizes a ratio scale for human judgments, the alternatives
weights reflect the relative importance of the criteria in achieving the goal of the hierarchy
The AHP Advantages can be summarized are as follows:
Unity can construct single, easily understood, flexible models for a broad range of
unstructured problems.
Hierarchic Structuring utilizes the natural tendency of people to sort elements of a system
into different levels and to group like elements.
Consistency - does not require judgments to be consistent.
Synthesis determines the relative importance of the criteria in meeting a goal.
Process Repetition - enables the refinement of the definition of a problem; improves judgment
and understanding through repetition.
1.2 Statement of The Problem:
Supplier selection decisions are usually dependent upon various criteria; however
decision maker usually focuses only on the price of materials or services only. Supplier
selection process may contain huge number of suppliers which takes time and need a lot of
effort to make the right decision. Any biased and poor decision might be made would
negatively influence the whole business in the organization.
1.3 Objectives:
The main objective of this project is to develop a supplier selection model based on
Analytical Hierarchy Process model (AHP). The proposed model should:
Support decision making by provide a judgment of supplier selection with a highly
confidence.
Reduce consuming of time, effort, and increase the quality in the supplier selection process.
1.4 The AHP Method :
The AHP Method Steps Can be Summarized as:
Step 1: Model the problem as a hierarchy containing the decision goal, the alternatives for
reaching it, and the criteria for evaluating the alternatives.

Step 2: Establish priorities among the elements of the hierarchy by making a series of
judgments based on pairwise comparisons of the elements. For example, when comparing
potential purchases of commercial real estate, the investors might say they prefer location over
price and price over timing.
Step 3: Synthesize these judgments to yield a set of overall priorities for the hierarchy. This
would combine the investors' judgments about location, price and timing for properties A, B,
C, and D into overall priorities for each property.
Step 4: Check the consistency of the judgments.
Step 5:

The final decision based on the results of this process

1.5 Layout :
This project is documented in 3 chapters. Chapter one introduces the research problem
and objectives. Chapter two will give an introduction to decision-making, and provide a
discussion about the supplier selection, the model Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) that we
have applied, In lastly the chapter three, will explain the methodology.

CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
One of the most important processes performed in organizations today is the
evaluation, selection, and continuous improvement of suppliers. This review first will include
the general framework used in the supplier selection process and the different types of
suppliers. Next, some of the existing methods of supplier selection are discussed followed by a
supplier evaluation system, several software packages useful for these processes are presented.
2.1 Decision Making
The decision-making process a major activity practiced daily by managers regardless
of their administrative levels, but the degree of importance of the decision varies depending on
the levels. There are two types of decision-making first programmed a repetitive nature and
decisions is programmed with a new character and undefined. There are two entrances to the
two decision-making individual decisions entrance and the entrance to regulatory decisions, as
well as quantitative approaches to decision-making and according to specific criteria, and that
all these approaches is a guide for decision-makers to take decisions properly and correctly.
2.2 Supplier Selection
The supplier selection function in modern enterprises and organizations is more
complicated process in which including the process of selecting the following criteria: quality,
delivery performance, production facilities, warranty claims, price and technical capabilities
need to be applied [10].
Some authors have identified several criteria for supplier selection, such as the net
price, quality, delivery, historical supplier performance, capacity, communication systems,
service, and geographic location, among others [11, 12]. These criteria are a key issue in the
supplier assessment process since it measures the performance of the suppliers.
In general, this research intends to provide empirical evidence of the criteria and the
procedures for the supplier selection process used in different corporate environments. Finally,
identify the suitability of the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) to assist in decision
making to resolve the supplier selection problem.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a systematic method widely used for decision
problems with many criteria and alternatives first developed by [13]. It is a tool used for

solving complex decision problems that may have correlations among decision criteria based
on three principles: decomposition, comparative judgments and synthesis of priorities.
Traditionally organizations have been divided in operative functions such as
marketing, planning, production, purchasing, finance, etc. Supply chain is a strategy that
integrates these functions creating a general plan for the organization, which satisfies the
service policy, maintaining the lowest possible cost level due the incredible competition
environment that they are exposed to. A supply chain is a network of departments, which is
involved in the manufacturing of a product from the procurement of raw materials to the
distribution of the final products to the customer.
2.3 Supplier Selection Process :
Experts agree that no best way exists to evaluate and select suppliers, and thus
organizations use a variety of approaches. The overall objective of the supplier evaluation
process is to reduce risk and maximize overall value to the purchaser. An organization must
select suppliers it can do business with over an extended period of time.
Supplier evaluations often follow a rigorous, structured approach through the use of a survey.
An effective supplier survey should have certain characteristics such as comprehensiveness,
objectiveness, reliability, flexibility and finally, has to be mathematically straightforward. To
ensure that a supplier survey has these characteristics is recommended a step-by-step process
when creating this tool.
2.4 Supplier Selection Methods :
There are several supplier selection methods and multi-criteria decision making, therefore,
It is difficult to find the best method evaluate and select the best supplier, thus, the most
important issue in the process of supplier selection is to develop a suitable method to select the
right supplier [14]. Many authors proposed and used have been developed different methods
for supplier evaluation and selection. These are; linear weighted models, total cost models,
mathematical programming models, statistical models and artificial intelligent (AI) based
techniques.
In linear weighted models, each criterion is being weighted and suppliers performance
is multiplied by this weight for each criteria. The sum of these multiplications represents the
total performance of supplier. Although it is a very simple method, it depends heavily on
human decision and also weights the attributes equally, which rarely happens in practice. It is

divided as categorical method, weighted point model (linear weighted model) and analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) model. In categorical method, the criteria are weighted equally and
the decisions by made with this method are subjective. In weighted point model, because of
the total criteria performance, the criterion with low performance is not taken into account. In
AHP model, human decision forms the main structure of comparison matrices.
Total cost models are complex methods which depend to cost. They consider not only
the products rate but also, indirect item cost. It is divided as cost ratio method and ownership
total cost model. The cost ratio method is not widely used in companies because it requires a
comprehensive cost accounting system which is only to be found in large scaled companies
and has a complex structure. In ownership total cost model, the potential risk is available
during the supplier selection process, the subjectivity cannot be removed.
Mathematical models are used to represent the complex structure of supplier selection
and have been widely used for modeling selection and allocation problems. On the other hand,
Mathematical Programming (MP) models cause a significant problem in considering
qualitative factors. The drawback of MP is that it requires arbitrary aspiration levels and
cannot accommodate subjective attributes. Supplier selection is a Multiple-Attribute DecisionMaking (MADM) problem. The decisionmakers (DMs) always express their preferences on
alternatives or on the attributes of suppliers, which can be used to help rank the suppliers or
select the most desirable one. The preference information on alternatives of supplier and on
attributes belongs to the DMs subjective judgments. In conventional MADM methods, the
ratings and weights of the attributes are known precisely. Generally, DMs judgments are
often uncertain and cannot be estimated by an exact numerical value. Thus, the problem of
selecting suppliers has many uncertainties and becomes more difficult. In conventional
MADM methods, the ratings and the weights of attributes must be known precisely. However,
in many situations DMs judgments are often uncertain and cannot be estimated by an exact
numerical value [15]. The most used are: linear programming, integer programming, mixed
integer programming, multi criteria programming and goal programming.
For using the statistical approaches, it is essential to reach implicit and accurate
knowledge about suppliers. Obtained knowledge about previous performances of suppliers are
significant for the usage of these models. The common models are classification analysis and
fundamental components analysis.

Also, the methods such as data envelopment analysis, neural networks, fuzzy set
theory, and analytic network process and quality function deployment are used for supplier
selection.
2.5 The Analytic Hierarchy Process :
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a mathematical multi-criteria decision-making
method (MCDM) for dealing with multi-attribute and unstructured problems. It was proposed
by [13], the author of the celebrated AHP method, has recently been gaining widely used and
popular. AHP is conceptually easy to use; however, it breaks down a complex problem into
several levels in order to generate a hierarchical structure with unidirectional hierarchical
relationships between levels. This structured hierarchy aim to determine the impact of the
lower level on an upper level, and this is attained by paired comparisons provided by the
decision-maker. The upper level represents the main goal of the decision problem, whereas the
lower levels of the hierarchy represent the tangible and/or criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives
that contribute to the goal Figure1

Figure 2.1 The general AHP hierarchy

(http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process)

There are many outstanding works that have been published based on AHP: these
works applied AHP in different fields, such as selecting a best candidate as in our case,
evaluation, resource allocations, planning, , resolving conflicts, benefits cost analysis,
optimization, forecasting, etc., as well as priority and ranking.
The AHP divides the decision problem into three main steps:

Problem structuring.

Assessment of local priorities.

Calculation of global priorities.

First, the problem is structured hierarchically, i.e. the decision maker constructs the
hierarchies of factors for solving the decision problem. The overall goal is represented by the
upper level of the hierarchy; one or more intermediate levels correspond to the hierarchy of
the decision criteria, while the lower level consists of all considered alternatives.
The term local priority is used both for the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria and
for the rating scores of the alternatives. The assessment of local priorities is performed after
the decision maker provides his preferences by pair wise comparisons among factors in each
level of the hierarchy. Saaty introduced in [13] a nine-point numerical scale to represent the
relative degree of importance for two factors, where the value of 1 stands for equally
preferred, the value of 2 stands for equally to moderately preferred and so forth up to the
value of 9 that stands for extremely preferred. After the comparisons have been per-formed,
a pair-wise comparison matrix A is constructed, in which element Aijof the matrix is the
relative importance of the ith factor with respect to the jth factor at the same level of the
hierarchy. Obviously, the relation Aij=1/Ajialways holds and therefore A is a positive
reciprocal matrix:

A=

The values of weights Wiof the criteria may be obtained from the comparison matrix
by applying a prioritization technique such as the Eigenvector analysis, the Logarithmic Least
Squares method, the Goal Programming method or the Fuzzy Programming method [16-19].
The values of the rating score Riof the alternatives are also obtained from the comparison
matrix for each criterion corresponding to the alternatives in the lower level of the hierarchy.

2.6 How AHP Works

The AHP offers a methodology to rank alternative courses of action based on the
decision makers judgments concerning the importance of the criteria and the extent to which

they are met by each alternative. For this reason, AHP is ideally suited for the supplier
selection problem.
The problem hierarchy lends itself to an analysis based on the impact of a given level
on the next higher level. The process begins by determining the relative importance of the
criteria in meeting the goals. Next, the focus shifts to measuring the extent to which the
alternatives achieve each of the criteria. Finally, the results of the two analyses are synthesized
to compute the relative importance of the alternative in meeting the goal.
Managerial judgments are used to drive the AHP approach. These judgments are
expressed in terms of pair wise comparisons of items on a given level of the hierarchy with
respect to their impact on the next higher level. Pair wise comparisons express the relative
importance of one item versus another in meeting a goal or a criterion. Each of the pair wise
comparisons represents an estimate of the ratio of the weights of the two criteria being
compared. Because AHP utilizes a ratio scale for human judgments, the alternatives weights
reflect the relative importance of the criteria in achieving the goal of the hierarchy.
2.7 AHP Details

The use of the AHP approach offers a number of benefits. One important advantage is
its simplicity. The AHP can also accommodate uncertain and subjective information, and
allows the application of experience, insight, and intuition in a logical manner.
The AHP approach, as applied to the supplier selection problem, consists of the
following five steps [20]:
1. Specify the set of criteria for evaluating the suppliers proposals.
2. Obtain the pair wise comparisons of the relative importance of the criteria in

achieving the goal, and compute the priorities or weights of the criteria based on
this information.
3. Obtain measures that describe the extent to which each supplier achieves the

criteria.
4. Using the information in step 3, obtain the pair wise comparisons of the relative

importance of the suppliers with respect to the criteria, and compute the
corresponding priorities.
5. Using the results of steps 2 and 4, compute the priorities of each supplier in

achieving the goal of the hierarchy.

10

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This project is based on the Waterfall model of Systems Development Life Cycle
(SDLC) methodology whereby construction of the system flows from top to bottom. It is a
structured sequential design process. The phases in the development cycle consist of
feasibility study, systems analysis and requirements, system design, implementation and
testing phases. Deliverables include system codes and this system documentation.
The Waterfall model of Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) methodology is
mainly based on in this project as shown in Figure2.

Figure 3.1 SDLC waterfall methodology

(http://businessobjectsforum.blogspot.com/2008/09/data-modeling-conceptschapter-1.html)

11

Table 1 illustrates the proposed project phases and the description of each phase.
Phase
Description
Project planning,
feasibility
study
Systems analysis, requirements
Definition
System design

A high-level view of the intended project is

established.
End-user
requirements are
identified
and analyzed.
Desired features and operations are described in
detail, including screen layouts, business rules,
process diagrams and other documentations.

Implementation

Real code of the system is written.

Testing

System is presented and errors and bugs are checked.

Table3. 1 Project Phases

3.1 Planning
The planning phase means project initiation. The planning phase will take part in the
first semester. The main activities that will be executed during the planning phase include
AHP application model.
And we'll select the required standards according to the requirements of the system and
the application of the model to the data. We apply the selection system supplier to make sure
you apply it correctly and give satisfactory results.
The first important issue in this project is to collect related data. First a conceptual
model including data on the University of Tabuk for 3 supplier attempt 5 criteria that is
typically used for determine the best supplier such as :( Processor, Memory, Intstorage, Price
and delivery) so the decision depend on this criteria. Table 2 shows the selected criteria for the
3 supplier.

S1
Processor
Memory
Int-storage
Price
Delivery

S2

S3

1.86
3.66
1.86
1024
2000
1024
146.8
440.4
146
20352
48200
25320
4
3
6

Table: 3. 2 The test data

The main objective of this phase is to gathering the data and to gain full understanding
regarding all components. The planning phase is vital as it is the foundation for the project and
the planning phase will determine the course of direction for the project.

12
3.2 Analysis

AHP method is a good choice for handling our gathered data. AHP is the one of the
most systematic analytical techniques of MCDM within the framework of operational research
techniques that facilitates a rigorous definition of priorities and preferences of DMs. It is
widely used as an analytical tool in various fields of studies. Broadly the technique considers
the following steps during modeling of any system under consideration:
(a) Defining a site-specific hierarchic structure;
(b) Calculating weights.
(c) Compared the ratios.

Figure 3.2 Hierarchy of the AHP example

First in the analysis phase and should be available to us are three elements to the
system we design, a methodology, and suppliers, and services suppliers.
Methodology that has been identified is a rapid application development, and here we
chose model (AHP) as hosts previously and our goal is to help in the consumption of time.
Suppliers: suppliers must be available to enter the competition for the tender under the
terms of the tender, and in our system we have three suppliers are the ones who lose access to
the tender.
Services Suppliers: represented in the services they provide, as requested by the
company's existing tender In our experience the company needs computer hardware and

13

focused on five criteria and provide enough information about to enter into the selection
process which (Processor, Memory, Int-storage, Price, Delivery) as hosts in the Table 2 and
we'll build the system according to these basics.

3.3 Design
The design phase will focus on the design of tables and equations, through which we
will apply the AHP model.

3.3.1 Model formulation

The AHP approach, which applied to the supplier selection problem, consists of the
following steps:
i.

Specify the set of criteria for evaluating the suppliers proposals.

ii.

Obtain the pair wise comparisons of the relative importance of the criteria in
achieving the goal, and compute the priorities or weights of the criteria based on this
information.

iii.

Obtain measures that describe the extent to which each supplier achieves the criteria.

iv.

Using the information in step 3, obtain the pair wise comparisons of the relative
importance of the suppliers with respect to the criteria, and compute the
corresponding priorities.

v.

Using the results of steps 2 and 4, compute the priorities of each supplier in
achieving the goal of the hierarchy.

Assume there are 5 criteria that are being used to evaluate 3 suppliers. This will be
applied by steps for the selected scale in the model of AHP:
Verbal Judgment of Preference
Extremely Prefered
Very Strongly Prefered
Strongly Prefered
Moderately Prefered
Equal y Preferred

Numerical Rating
9
7
5
3
1

Table: 3.3 MEASUREMENT SCALE3 AHP Measurement scale

14

The buyer must now develop a set of pair wise comparisons to define the relative
importance of the criteria to complete the following matrix (Table 4). Table 4 AHP Example:
Original Matrix

Processor Memory Int-storage

Processor

Price

Delivery

Memory

0.33

Int-storage

0.14

0.2

Price

0.11

0.11

0.2

Delivery

0.11

0.11

0.14

0.33

Total

1.69

4.42

13.34 24.33

29

Table:3. 4 AHP Example: Original Matrix

The data in the matrix can be used to generate a good estimate of the criteria weights.
The weights provide a measure of the relative importance of each criterion.
This process is summarized in the following three steps, and shown in the Table 5:
1. Sum the elements in each column.
2. Divide each value by its column sum.
3. Compute row averages

Processor

Memory

Int-storage

Price

Delivery

Weights

Processor

0.591716

0.678733 0.52473763 0.369914

0.310345

0.495089

Memory

0.195266

0.226244 0.37481259 0.369914

0.310345

0.295316

Intstorage
Price

0.08284

0.045249 0.07496252 0.205508

0.241379

0.129988

0.065089

0.024887

0.0149925 0.041102

0.103448

0.049904

Delivery

0.065089

0.024887 0.01049475 0.013564

0.034483

0.029703

Total

Table3. 5 AHP Example: Normalized Matrix

15

Next, the three suppliers must be compared pair wise for each criterion. This process is
virtually identical to the procedure that was used to develop the criteria comparison
matrix. The only difference is that there is a supplier comparison matrix for each
criterion. Therefore, the decision maker compares each pair of suppliers with respect to
the quality criterion, as shown in Table 6:
Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Supplier1

0.33

Supplier2

Supplier3

0.33

Total

1.66

Table:3. 6 AHP Example: processer matrix

Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Weights

Supplier1

0.2 0.19879518

0.2 0.199598

Supplier2

0.6 0.60240964

0.6 0.600803

Supplier3

0.2 0.19879518

0.2 0.199598

Total

Table :3.7 AHP Example: Normalized processer matrix

Furthermore, the memory criterion is compared with each pair of suppliers (Table 8 and
Table 9):
Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Supplier1

0.2

Supplier2

Supplier3

0.2

Total

1.4

Table:3. 8 AHP Example: memory matrix

16

Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Weights

Supplier1

0.142857

0.142857

0.142857

0.142857

Supplier2

0.714286

0.714286

0.714286

0.714286

Supplier3

0.142857

0.142857

0.142857

0.142857

Total

Table:3. 9 AHP Example: Normalized memory matrix

Also, the service criterion is compared with each Int-storage of suppliers (Table 10 and
Table 11):

Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Supplier1

0.2

Supplier2

Supplier3

0.34

0.14

Total

6.34

1.34

11

Table:3. 10 AHP Example: Int-storage matrix

Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Weights

Supplier1

0.157729

0.1492537

0.272727

0.193237

Supplier2

0.788644

0.7462687

0.636364

0.723759

Supplier3

0.053628

0.1044776

0.090909

0.083005

Total

Table :3.11 AHP Example: Normalized Int-storage matrix

17

Consequently, the Price criterion is compared with each pair of suppliers (Table 12
and Table 13):
Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Supplier1

Supplier2

0.11

0.11

Supplier3

0.2

1.31

19

6.11

Total

Table :3.12 AHP Example: Price matrix

Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Weights

Supplier1

0.763359

0.473684

0.818331

0.685125

Supplier2

0.083969

0.052632

0.018003

0.051535

Supplier3

0.152672

0.473684

0.163666

0.263341

Total

Table:3. 13 AHP Example: Normalized Price matrix

Consequently, the delivery criterion is compared with each pair of suppliers (Table 14
and Table 15):

Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Supplier1

0.34

Supplier2

Supplier3

0.34

0.2

Total

4.34

1.54

Table :3.14 AHP Example: Delivery matrix

18

Supplier1

Supplier2

Supplier3

Weights

Supplier1

0.230415

0.220779

0.333333

0.261509

Supplier2

0.691244

0.649351

0.555556

0.63205

Supplier3

0.078341

0.12987 0.111111

0.106441

Total

Table:3. 15 AHP Example: Normalized delivery matrix

The final step of the AHP analysis is summarized in Table 16.
Processor Memory Intstorage Price

Delivery score

Supplier1 0.098819 0.042188 0.0251184 0.03419 0.007768 0.208083

Supplier2 0.297451 0.21094 0.0940797 0.002572 0.018774 0.623817

Supplier3 0.098819 0.042188 0.0107896 0.013142 0.003162 0.164938

Table:3. 16 AHP Example: Summary of Results
According to the previous results, the higher weight belongs to supplier 2, and is
judged to be the best overall.
Among the decision support methods, application of the AHP method to the supplier
selection problem is not new in the artisan be conducted with multi objective such as
neural network or expert system so we can related with other techniques . We apply the
AHP model in vb.net program and we link it with Excel and we'll show you in the next
chapter some forms after completion of the system.
3.4 Implementation
In the implementation phase, we will clarify the equations that have been applied in the
previous tables.
a) Preparation A norm natural matrix by a process of division of each element in

the matrix A in column i to the sum of all elements in the same column as
follows:

19

Rij= aij/

. (1)

I = 1, 2..N
Rij: Natural element of the matrix Anorm
We apply this equation to the previous tables of matrixes
b) Calculate weights matrix "W", if you represent these weights vectors

preference among alternatives according to the criteria, for example, calculates

the weight of the row (i), which represents a variant of the matrix "W" grade
average of the elements of the matrix A also comes:
Wi= (1/N)

.. (2)

Wi : Represents the preference vector Or What called Priority vector.

I = 1, 2..N
We apply this equation to the previous tables of Normalized.
We will show in the next chapter the results after the design of the program and associate
it with these equations.

20

3.5 Requirements Analysis

3.5.1 Use case

Figure 3.3 login use case

21

4. Use Case Specifications

4.1 Log in use case

Use Case ID:

Use Case Name:

Log in

Actors:

User

Description:

A user has to enter to the system before

work in the system.

Post conditions:

1. user enter to main menu in the system

Normal Flow:

1. user open the system icon

2. System prompt form user his username
and password and confirms it.
3. System verify the data
4. main screen show
5. use case end
3.if user is valid the system will show
main menu.

Alternative Flows:

1.

Exceptions:

E.1 Incorrect Username/Password 1.

System

prompts

user

to

re-type

username/password.
2.User re-enters username/password.
Includes:

None
Table: 4.1 Log in

22

4.2 Compared to criteria use case

Use Case ID:

Use Case Name:

Compared to criteria

Actors:

User

Description:

A user select Compared to criteria as

first step in the select supplier process

Post conditions:

1. user enter every criteria value

Normal Flow:

1. User choose to Compared to criteria

2. System display

Compared to criteria

screen
3.user select every criteria value
4.user save data
5.use case end

Alternative Flows:

1.

Exceptions:

E.1 empty data 1. System prompts user to

re-enter criteria value

Includes:

None
Table: 4.2 Compared to criteria

23

4.3 Compared every criteria of preference

Use Case ID:

Use Case Name:

Compared every criteria of preference

Actors:

User

Description:

A user select Compared every criteria of

preferences second step in the select
supplier process

Post conditions:

1. user enter suppliers criteria value

Normal Flow:

1. User choose to

Compared every

criteria of preference
2. System display

Compared every

criteria of preference screen

3.user select every supplier

value for

criteria
4.user save data
5.use case end
Alternative Flows:

1.

Exceptions:

E.1 empty data 1. System prompts user to

re-entercriteria value

Includes:

None
Table: 4.3 Compared every criteria of preference

24

4.4 View result use case

Use Case ID:

Use Case Name:

view result

Actors:

User

Description:

A user select view result of the best

suppliers

Post conditions:

1. system display every supplier and his

rank

Normal Flow:

1. User choose to view result

2. System display suppliers list and their
rank
3.use case end

Alternative Flows:

1.

Exceptions:
Includes:

None
Table: 4.4 View result

25

5. Database table
5.1 Users table
Field name

Data type

Key

Null value

ID

Int

primary key

not null

user_nam

nvarchar(50)

not null

user_passward

nvarchar(50)

not null

Default value

Table:5.1 User Table

Field name

Data type

Key

Null value

SUPPLIER_id

Int

primary key

not null

SUPPLIER_name

nvarchar(40)

not null

SUPPLIER_address

nvarchar(50)

null

SUPPLIER_email

nvarchar(40)

null

SUPPLIER_phone

nvarchar(15)

null

SUPPLIER_mobile

nvarchar(15)

null

SUPPLIER_fax

nvarchar(15)

null

SUPPLIER_notes

nvarchar(100)

null

Table:5.2 User Table

Default value

26

Chapter 4
DESIGN
4.1 Design
We will in this section the system design will be illustrated
4.1. User log in

Figure 4.1 main interface

The use log in screen allow users to enter the system after verify their user name and password

27

4.2. Compared to criteria

Figure 4.2 Interface compared to criteria

Compared criteria screen user depend on the decision-making process.

4.3. compared to a price of preference screen

Figure 4.3 Interface compared to a price of preference

28

4.4. Compared to a memory of preference screen

Figure 4.4 Interface compared to a memory of preference

4.5. Compared to storage of preference screen

Figure 4.5 Interface compared to storage of preference

29

4.6.Compared to delivery of preference screen

Figure 4.6 Interface compared to delivery of preference

4.7.Result of selection screen

Figure 4.7 Interface as a result of selection

Finally, as shown when the button is pressed out to get out of the system note that the last
result to be reserved in the system when you log on to the system again put pressure on the
button get result And introduce us to the last saved result.

30

REFERENCES
[1]
Erol,V.,Balgil,
H.,letmelerdeynetimbiliimsistemiyazlmseimiiinanalitikhiyerariprosesiveyapa
ysiniralarmodeli Mhendislikve Fen BilimleriDergisi, Sigma, 2005.
[2]
Chamodrakas, I., Batis, D., Martakos, D., Supplier selection in electronic
marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications,
vol.37 ,2010, pp. 490498.
[3]
Lee, A.H.I., A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of
benefits, opportunities, costs and risks, Expert Systems with Applications vol. 36
,2009, pp. 28792893.
[4]
L. De Boer, E. Labro, P. Morlacchi, A review of methods supporting supplier

selection,European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7 (2) (2001), pp. 75

89.
[5]

W. Ho, X. Xu, P.K. Dey, Multi-criteria decision making approaches for

supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review, European Journal of Operational

Research, 202 (1) (2010), pp. 1624.
[6]

F.T.S. Chan, H.K. Chan, R.W.L. Ip, H.C.W. Lau, A decision support system

for supplier selection in the airline industry, Proceedings of the Institution of

Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221 (4) (2007), pp.
741758.
[7]

A. Ishizaka, C. Pearman, P. Nemery, AHP sort: An AHP-based method for

sorting problems, International Journal of Production Research, 50 (17) (2012), pp.

47674784.
[8]

F. Mafakheri, M. Breton, A. Ghoniem, Supplier selection-order allocation: A

two-stage multiple criteria dynamic programming approach, International Journal of

Production Economics, 132 (1) (2011), pp. 5257.
[9]

S.M. Ordoobadi, Application of AHP and Taguchi loss functions in supply

chain, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 110 (8) (2010), pp. 12511269. [10]
G.W. Dickson, An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions, Journal of
purchasing, 21 (1966), pp. 517.
[11]

G. Dickson, An analysis of vendor election systems and decisions, Journal of

Purchasing, 2 (1) (1966), pp. 517.

31
[12]

Dempsey, W.. (1978). Vendor selection and the buying process. Industrial

Marketing Management, 7, 257-267.

[13]

Saaty T L (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill International.

[13] Weber, C., Current, J. & Benton, W.. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and
methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50, 2-13.
[14]

C. Chen, C. Lin, S. Huang, A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and

selection in supply chain management, International Journal of Production Economics,

102 (2006), pp. 289301.
[15]
Li DF (2007). Compromise Ratio Method for Fuzzy Multi-attribute Group
Decision Making. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2006.02.003]. Appl. Soft Comput., 7(3):
807-817.
[16]
Golany, B., & Kress, M. (1993). A multicriteria evaluation of the methods for
obtaining
weights from ratio-scale matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 69, 210
220.
[17]
Mikhailov, L., & Singh, M. G. (1999). Comparison analysis of methods for
deriving priorities
in the analytic hierarchy process. In IEEE International Conference on Systems,
Man,and Cybernetics (Vol. 1, pp. 1037-1042 ). Tokyo.
[18]
Saaty, T. (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of
the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 426447.
[19]
Sha DY and Che ZH (2006). Supply chain network design: partner selection

and production/distribution planning using a systematic model. J Opl res Soc 57(1):
52-62.
[20]

Nydick, Robert L. Hill, Ronald Paul Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to

Structure the Supplier Selection Procedure. International Journal of Purchasing &

Materials Management. 28(2): pp. 31-36. (1992).