
Research Article


Integrated Factor Analysis and Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP) Model for Supplier Selection Based on Supply Chain Risk Factors 

S. Sinrat
and
W. Atthirawong



ABSTRACT

Currently, the supply chain management is an important part of several organizations. The risk in supply chain is a potential variation of outcomes which decreases the efficiency in operations. The supplier selection is one of the most critical functions to the success of a manufacturing firm. The objective of this study was to develop the supplier evaluation in supply chain risk approach based on an integrated factor analysis and Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP) model. The model has applied to an electrical and electronic industry in Thailand. The framework of this study had two main thoughts. The first part was to investigate supply chain risk factors from data collection via questionnaire. The questionnaire was answered by 225 respondents in electrical and electronic companies in Thailand. By means of the statistical technique of factor analysis, it was revealed that supply chain risk factors can be categorized into six factors and thirty subfactors. The second part was to develop a mathematical model for supplier selection decisions via using FANP by incorporating supply chain risk factors acquired from the first part. A detailed step by step implementation method for determining fuzzy scales and calculating weights factors and subfactors were discussed and finally issues prioritize risk value for alternative best supplier were also mentioned.





Received: July 17, 2014;
Accepted: September 27, 2014;
Published: October 15, 2014


INTRODUCTION
Supply chain has become a key element in the global economy. Currently, the supply chain is changing rapidly, resulting in a business environment with uncertainty (Xiao et al., 2012; Wu and Olson, 2008). The global competition is intensifying, making supply chain has become more complex (Tummala and Schoenherr, 2011). The supply chain is the global network used to deliver products and services, since the raw materials sourcing process through the information flow process and physical distributions (Cooper and Ellram, 1993). Supply chain consists of management systems, operations, assembly, purchasing, production scheduling, inventory management, processing, storage and transportation. Thus, supply chain management is the integration of activity over the relation of the supply chain to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Monczka et al., 2008; Rossetti and Dooley, 2010). The increased competition resulted in a manufacturing organization to meet the needs of customers (Vinodh et al., 2011). Supply chain is a network of suppliers (Sahin and Robinson, 2002; Wu and Olson, 2008). Therefore, the supplier selection is the beginning of supply chain process. Thus, the appropriate supplier selection is one of the most important issues for any organization (Amindoust et al., 2012). When changes in the competitive environment, supplier selection is not only based on price and quality but various risk factors should be take into consideration as well. The risk is an inherently subjective construct that deals with the possibility of loss (Yates and Stone, 1992). The risk in supply chain related to the supplier selection. Risk suppliers are important parts of the supply chain risk (Xiao et al., 2012). As a result, the companies need to consider the supplier risks because the supplier risk in the supply chain is the probability of disruption and impact on performance of any firm (Zsidisin and Ritchie, 2008). In order to generate the sustainable maximize profit, the company needs to achieve the goal of low cost, high flexible quality and greater customer satisfaction (Setak et al., 2012). The supplier selection process is a key role which helps the business to be success in a global arena. The purpose of this study, was to develop a supplier selection model based on supply chain risk factors. An electrical and electronic industry in Thailand is selected as a case study to investigate supply chain risk factors and to develop a model for helping decision makers in supplier selection decision. The first part of the study is to identify and explore supply chain risk factors in a supplier selection and the second part is to use the fuzzy analytic network process model to calculate the local weights of the factors and subfactors, inner dependence weights, global weights and then calculate supply chain risk value of each supplier. The results of the application are discussed and main findings and contributions are drawn and future developments are suggested. FACTOR ANALYSIS Factor analysis is a statistical technique commonly used in many areas of science whenever it is intended to extract the relevant information about a data set, usually presented in the form of a table whose rows are the cases and the columns are the variables that characterize these cases (De Sa et al., 2014). The basic idea of factor analysis is based on correlation to group the original variables, to make variable correlation in the same group high and in the different groups less (Niu et al., 2011). The variables in the same group have a high correlation. In contrast, the variables with low correlation are arranged apart into different groups (Jun et al., 2011). The statistical method of studying the internal interdependent relation of the related matrix of the index variable X_{i}(i = 1, 2,..., p) into a few factor F_{j}(i = 1,..., m, m<, p) and the factor F_{j}(i = 1, 2,..., m) reappear (Gao, 2005), can be expressed as follows: Among which, X = (X_{1}, X_{2},..., X_{p})^{T} is the original index F = (F_{1}, F_{2},..., F_{m})^{T}, is the factor of the index X, A = (a_{ij})_{pxm}(m<p) is the factor load matrix and, ε is th special factor. The basic steps to draw major factors with the factor analysis method are show as follow (Wang, 2004): •  To study out the related correlation coefficient matrix of the original data 
• 
To study out the feature value λ_{i}(i = 1, 2,..., p) on the basis of the matrix and define its feature vector’s matrix A meets F = A'X, F, is the major factor matrix 
• 
To fix the number of the major factors by calculating the information contribution and accumulating contribution rates of the feature root λ_{i}. The cobtribution rate: 

reflects the percentage of how much the ith major factor’s degree of variation occupies in the degree of the total variation. The higher the rate is, the more important the factor. The accumulating contribution rate: 

is the important basic to selecting the number m of the major factors which should generally be a higher percentage 
• 
The factor can be rotated to make the loads of m major factors on the variable X_{i}(i = 1, 2,..., p) have noticeable discrepany in order to get the clear meaning of the major factor 
Fuzzy analytic network process (FANP): Fuzzy ANP technique uses both interdependence of criteria and inner dependence of criteria with pairwise comparison matrix. Chang (1996) extent analysis method is used to evaluate fuzzy pairwise comparisons. It is very useful in situations where there is a high degree of interdependence between various attributes of the alternatives. The membership functions of triangular fuzzy number used to represent pairwise comparison of decision variables from “Very bad” to “Excellent” and the middle preference values between them. The membership functions, M_{i} = (m_{i1}, m_{i2}, m_{i3}), where, i =1,2,..., n and m_{i1}, m_{i2}, m_{i3} are the lower, middle and upper values of the fuzzy number M_{i}, respectively. According to the concept of extent analysis, each object is taken and extent analysis for each goal g_{i} is performed, respectively. Therefore, the m extent analysis values for each object are obtained as the following signs:
where, are triangular fuzzy numbers.
The steps of Chang (1996) extent analysis can be given as the following: The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to the ith object is defined as:
To obtain perform the fuzzy addition operation of m extent analysis values for a particular matrix such that:
And to obtain:
perform the fuzzy addition operation of values such that: Then compute the inverse of the vector in Eq. 5 as follows: The degree of possibility of M_{2} = (l_{2}, m_{2}, u_{2})≥M_{1} = (l_{1}, m_{1}, u_{1}) is defined as: and can be equivalently expressed as follows: The degree possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex fuzzy numbers M_{i} (i = 1, 2,..., k) can be defined by: Assume that: Then calculate the weights vector is given by: Via normalization, the normalized weight vectors are: where, W is a nonfuzzy number, and A_{i} = (i = 1, 2,..., n) are n elements. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study proposes the supplier selection modeling based on supply chain risk factors which consists of two main stages. These stages can be divided into 10 steps for using to evaluate suppliers. The first stage is to identify supply chain risk factors for establishing group of factors and subfactors from practical point of views. The second stage is to employ fuzzy ANP method for calculating the weights of the factors and subfactors and calculate supply chain risk value of each supplier for the alternative. The model steps of this study are demonstrated in Fig. 1:
Step 1: 
Identify supply chain risk factors from related literature reviews which included a variety of supply risk sources such as price, financial, material, performance, capability and so on 
Step 2: 
Integrate expert opinions by interviewing key persons about risk and relevant factors in supplier selection process 
Step 3: 
Conduct a questionnaire survey for exploring supply chain risk factors in practices 
Step 4: 
Group supply risk factors and subfactors through factor analysis 
Step 5: 
Determine the fuzzy scale for importance weight of factors and subfactors from a decision maker who takes responsibility in supplier selection process in a company. Choose the appropriate linguistic variables for the relative weights of the factors which are given in Fig. 2 and Table 1, then make a pairwise comparison with respect to each factor from expert opinion by using the linguistic scale 
Step 6: 
Calculate the local weights of the factors and subfactors 
Step 7: 
Calculate the inner dependence weights of the factors, the inner dependence matrix of each factor with respect to the other factors. This inner dependence matrix is multiplied with the local weights of the factors in order to compute the interdependent weights of the factors 
 Fig. 1: 
Step of proposed methodology 
 Fig. 2: 
Linguistic scale for relative importance 
Table 1: 
Linguistic expression for fuzzy scale of relative weights of factors 

Table 2: 
Linguistic values and mean of fuzzy numbers 

Step 8: 
Calculate the global weights of subfactors by multiplying local weight of the subfactors with the interdependent weights of the factors 
Step 9: 
Determine the membership functions of these linguistic variables by expert opinion as shown in Fig. 3 and the average value related with this variables are shown in Table 2. While using this evaluation scale, the linguistic variables can take different values depending on the structure of the subfactor. For example, in the evaluation risk of a subfactor which affects quality product risk is the “Low (L)” linguistic variable takes 0.25 fuzzy average fuzzy average values in the evaluation of a subfactor which affects quality product risk 
Step10: 
Calculate supply chain risk value of subfactors each supplier by multiplying global weights of the subfactors with scale value of subfactors each supplier, then prioritize risk value in order to select the best supplier 
 Fig. 3: 
Membership functions of linguistic values for subfactors rating 
RESULTS An application of this model is implemented in the electrical and electronic industry in Thailand. There are two stages of this process. The first part (step 14) is to explore supply chain risk factors of supplier selection in practices by using interviewing and a questionnaire survey. The second part (step 510) is to employ fuzzy ANP model to calculate supply chain risk value of each supplier in an illustrated example. The case study of a large Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) company in Thailand which has three main suppliers is applied. The proposed model will be explained step by step together with the results as follows:
Step 1: 
Identify supply chain risk factors from literature review to find as mentioned in Table 3 
Step 2: 
Interview key expert opinions from five electrical and electronic companies in Thailand in different departments working in the company’s purchasing team such as purchasing, quality control as well as Research and Development (R and D). Then, develop a questionnaire by integrating the relevant factors from interviewing and literature survey which found significant in supplier selection process 
Step 3: 
The questionnaire was distributed to 225 samples who take responsibility in supplier selection process in electrical and electronic manufacturing companies in Thailand. Respondents were asked to rate question under a fivepoint Likert scale (i.e., 1 = Very low importance, 2 = Low importance, 3 = Medium importance, 4 = High importance, 5 = Very high importance). Results from the survey indicated that the most of respondents (43.11%) who answered questionnaires are in a manager position. Most of them (64%) are working in large companies and 48% of those companies have their own brand products (Table 4) 
Step 4: 
Group supply risk factors and subfactors through factor analysis which detailed are shown in Table 5 using SPSS. Factor analysis using principal component method revealed six factors that collectively described managements’ perspective on their supplier selection These six factors have been extracted from 30 subfactors by using the cutoff initial eigen value of 1.00 which account for 16.042, 12.712, 10.280, 10.278, 9.880 and 7.906% of the variance explained after rotating maximum value as displayed in Table 6. Factor 1 (or R1) is entitled “External risk factor” comprising eight variables including policies, politics, natural disasters, infrastructure, environment, legal, labor disputes and economic. Factor 2 (or R2) is entitled “Quality control risk factor” comprising five variables including industrial standards, technology, safety, collaborative and R and D. Factor 3 (or R3) is entitled “Delivery risk factor” comprising four variables including ontime, quantity, quality delivery and return. Factor 4 (or R4) is entitled “Material control risk factor” comprising six variables including performance, material, purchase order, inventory, information and organization. Factor 5 (or R5) is entitled “Production risk factor” comprising four variables including productivity, quality product, capability and production process. And, Factor 6 (or R6) is entitled “Cost and financial risk factor” comprising three variables including price, financial and forecast as shown in Fig. 4. Extracting factors are shown in Table 7 
Table 3: 
Literature review on supply chain risk factors 

Table 4: 
Summary of the demographic characteristics 

Table 5: 
Total variance explained 

Table 6: 
Rotated component matrix 

Table 7: 
Extracting factors 

Step 5: 
This decision is converted to the hierarchical structure to transform the factors, subfactors and alternative as the schematic structure shown in Fig. 5. The ultimate goal is to choose the best supplier which will be placed in the first level. Main factors (external risk, quality control risk, delivery risk, material control risk, production risk, cost and financial risk) and their subfactors are located in the second and the third level, respectively. Then a decision maker is asked to determine the fuzzy scale for importance weight of factors and subfactors. Choose the appropriate linguistic variables for the relative weights of the factors which is given in Fig. 3 and Table 3. Then the decision maker continues to make a pairwise comparison with respect to each factor using the linguistic scale. For example “What do you think of scale importance between quality control risk factors when it is compared with delivery risk factors?” If the answer is “Quality control risk is Weakly More Important (WMI) than delivery risk”, so the linguistic scale is (1, 3/2, 2) as details appeared in Table 3 
 Fig. 4: 
Model for supplier selection 
 Fig. 5: 
Supply chain risk weight of factors result by suppliers 
Step 6: 
Calculate the fuzzy evaluation matrix and the local weights as shown in Table 814 
Step 7: 
Calculate the inner dependence weights of the factors are calculated and the dependencies among the factors are considered of main factors are shown in Table 15 
Step 8: 
Calculate the interdependent weights of factors by multiplying inner dependence matrix in Table 16 with the local weights of the factors provided in Table 8: 


Table 8: 
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of “Main factors” 

Table 9: 
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of “External risk” subfactors 

Table 10: 
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of “Quality control risk” subfactors 

Table 11: 
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of “Delivery risk” subfactors 

Table 12: 
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of “Material control” risk subfactors 

Table 13: 
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of “Production risk” subfactors 

Table 14: 
Local weights and pairwise comparison matrix of “Price and financial risk” subfactors 

Table 15: 
Computed global weights of subfactors 


Then, calculate the global weights of subfactors by multiplying local weight of the subfactors with the interdependent weight of factors. Computed values are shown in Table 16 
Step 9: 
The membership functions of these linguistic variables as shown in Fig. 4 for eachsupplier are determined by the same decision maker and the average value related with this variables are shown in Table 2. Therefore, the scale value each supplier are shown in Table 17 
Table 16: 
Inner dependence weights of the factors 

Table 17: 
Supplier selection based on supply risk factor 

Step 10: 
Calculate supply chain risk value of subfactors each supplier by multiplying the globalweights of the subfactors with scale value of subfactors each supplier. The risk value results of each supplier are shown in Table 17. The table displays that a total risk value of supplier A = 0.359, Supplier B = 0.246 and Supplier C = 0.366, respectively. Graphicall presentation of results of each supplier are demonstrated in Fig. 5 
From the graphical representation, it can be seen that supplier C has the highest risk on external criteria, quality control and delivery, whereas supplier B has the highest risk on material control. The production risk of every supplier is not different. Supplier A has the highest risk on cost and financial issues, followed by supplier C and supplier B, respectively. As such, in overall it can be concluded that supplier B is the best supplier for this company which has the lowest priority from the other alternatives.
DISCUSSION A decision making of the best supplier selection can increase the efficiency of supply chain operations. Factor analysis and fuzzy ANP are used in the integrated way to supplement the supplier selection process. This study explores supply chain risk factors for supplier selection applied to an actual case study. The results reveal that there are six factors which electrical and electronic companies in Thailand are taken into consideration i.e. risks from external, quality control, delivery, material control, production, cost and financial which include thirty subfactors. quality control has the highest ranking, followed by production and material control, respectively. This proved that this study has validity in practical scenario as quality is always considered as the first priority to evaluation supplier (Dickson, 1966; Ho et al., 2007; Deshmukh and Sunnapwar, 2013). If qualities of raw material or product do not meet the standards or industrial regulations, it will lead to ineffective supply chain and decrease the value of products. Consequently, products cannot be exported or launched to the market in time. Furthermore, production risk was also ranked as the second importance for the electrical and electronic case company. It is pretty much true as production process also will have directly affected to the efficiency of any company. When production process is not flexible or inefficient, it will decrease the performance of the organization. For the risk of material control like material shortages, inventory management low efficiency will affect to inventory holding cost, error on forecasting resulting in incapability to meet customer’ due date. When considering of the important weights of subfactors risk, it found that production process, price and productivity are the top three highest ranked. These three subfactors are also linked to the importance of main factors since they have directed effect to the quality of product, ability to compete on price and flexibility to be able to change quickly to support customers. According to this study, supplier B has found to be the best supplier because overall score was the lowest among all suppliers. CONCLUSION The study employed the fuzzy ANP approach to determine the fuzzy scale for importance weights of factors can application of the proposed method will offer relevant companies for more precise and accuracy analysis and help them to be more flexible in making a decision to evaluate the suppliers. The model can include both subjective and objective criteria which gain more realistic in making a decision. Moreover, it is easy to modify the concepts with other firms who need to find suitable tool in selecting the right alternative. However, there are some imitations in this research. The study applies fuzzy ANP model with a small number of expert, therefore, future study should include a group of expert opinion for determining fuzzy number in making pairwise comparison. in addition, further research can be extended by combining the FANP model to Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method to rank supplier.

REFERENCES 
1: Amindoust, A., S. Ahmed, A. Saghafinia and A. Bahreininejad, 2012. Sustainable supplier selection: A ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Applied Soft Comput., 12: 16681677. CrossRef  Direct Link 
2: Chang, D.Y., 1996. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Operat. Res., 95: 649655. CrossRef  Direct Link 
3: Ho, C., P.M. Nguyen and M.H. Shu, 2007. Supplier evaluation and selection criteria in the construction industry of Taiwan and Vietnam. Int. J. Inform. Manage. Sci., 18: 403426.
4: Cooper, M.C. and L.M. Ellram, 1993. Characteristics of supply chain management and the implications for purchasing and logistics strategy. Int. J. Logis. Manage., 4: 1324. CrossRef 
5: Dickson, G.W., 1966. An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J. Purchasing, 2: 517. Direct Link 
6: Jun, L., D. Jiancong and L. Chun, 2011. The analysis of the unburned carbon in fly ash for tangentially pulverized coalfired boiler based on factor analysis method. Proceedings of the AsiaPacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, March 2528, 2011, Wuhan, pp: 14.
7: Kull, T.J. and S. Talluri, 2008. A supply risk reduction model using integrated multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 55: 409419. CrossRef 
8: Lee, A.H.I., 2009. A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of beneﬁts, opportunities, costs and risks. Expert Syst. Appl., 36: 28792893. CrossRef 
9: De Sa, C.M., F. Noronha and E.F. da Silva, 2014. Factor analysis characterization of minor element contents in sulfides from PbZnCuAg hydrothermal vein deposits in Portugal. Ore Geol. Rev., 62: 5471. CrossRef 
10: Matook, S., R. Lasch and R. Tamaschke, 2009. Supplier development with benchmarking as part of a comprehensive supplier risk management framework. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 29: 241267. CrossRef 
11: Monczka, R., R. Handfield, L. Giunipero and J. Patterson, 2008. Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. 4th Edn., Cengage Learning, Mason, OH., ISBN: 9780324381344, Pages: 840.
12: Niu, D., J. Tian and L. Ji, 2011. Notice of retraction: Research On Chinese cities comprehensive competitiveness based on principal component analysis and factor analysis in SPSS. Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science, July 1517, 2011, Beijing, pp: 868871.
13: Olson, D.L. and D.D. Wu, 2010. A review of enterprise risk management in supply chain. Kybernetes, 39: 694706. CrossRef 
14: Pujawan, I.N. and L.H. Geraldin, 2009. House of risk: A model for proactive supply chain risk management. Bus. Process Manage. J., 15: 953967. CrossRef 
15: Rossetti, C.L. and K.J. Dooley, 2010. Job types in the supply chain management profession. J. Supply Chain Manage., 46: 4056. CrossRef 
16: Sahin, F. and E.P. Robinson, 2002. Flow coordination and information sharing in supply Chains: Review, implications and directions for future research. Decis. Sci., 33: 505536. CrossRef 
17: Deshmukh, S.P. and V.K. Sunnapwar, 2013. Validation of performance measures for green supplier selection in Indian industries. Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res., 3: 16171622. Direct Link 
18: Setak, M., S. Sharifi and A. Alimohammadian, 2012. Supplier selection and order allocation models in supply Chain management: A review. World Applied Sci. J., 18: 5572.
19: Shemshadi, A., M Toreihi, H. Shirazi and M.J. Tarokh, 2011. Supplier selection based on supplier risk: An ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach. J. Math. Comput. Sci., 12: 111121. Direct Link 
20: Shi, D., 2004. A review of enterprise supply chain risk management. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng., 13: 219244. CrossRef 
21: Tummala, R. and T. Schoenherr, 2011. Assessing and managing risks using the Supply Chain Risk Management Process (SCRMP). Chain Manage. Int. J., 6: 474483. CrossRef 
22: Vinodh, S., R.A. Ramiya and S.G. Gautham, 2011. Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organisation. Exp. Syst. Appl., 38: 272280. CrossRef 
23: Wu, D. and D.L. Olson, 2008. Supply chain risk, simulation and vendor selection. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 114: 646655. Direct Link 
24: Wu, T., J. Blackhurst and V. Chidambaram, 2006. A model for inbound supply risk analysis. Comput. Ind., 57: 350365. CrossRef 
25: Yates, J.F. and E. Stone, 1992. Risk Appraisal. In: RiskTaking Behavior, Yates, F. (Ed.). Wiley, New York.
26: Xiao, Z., W. Chen and L. Li, 2012. An integrated FCM and fuzzy soft set for supplier selection problem based on risk evaluation. Applied Math. Modell., 36: 14441454. CrossRef 
27: Zsidisin, G.A. and B. Ritchie, 2008. Supply Chain Risk: A Handbook of Assessment, Management and Performance. Springer, New York, ISBN: 9780387799346, Pages: 368.
28: Gao, H., 2005. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Beijing Publishing House, Beijing, China.
29: Wang, X., 2004. The application of factor analysis to stock appraisal. Math. Stat. Manag., 23: 610.



