CRITERIA OF SUPPLIER SELECTION FOR A SMALL COFFEE SHOP BUSINESS
3. METHODOLOGIES
This research uses a quantitative method. Data were obtained through questionnaires distributed to resource persons by researchers. The scale used in this study is the Saaty scale 1-9. The samples were the coffee shop owner, production manager, and logistics manager selected based on the purposive sampling technique. The data obtained were processed using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with the help of Expert Choice software. Expert Choice was used because it can help simplify data management and provide better and more measurable results for decision making (Expertchoice.com, 2020). The results of expert choice were validated using the source triangulation technique.
4. RESULTS
The results of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis showed that the most influential criterion in the selection of coffee bean suppliers for Kaikara Koffie is quality with a weight of 0.492. Other influential criteria are service with a weight of 0.227, supplier relationship with a weight value of 0.164, cost with a weight value of 0.067, and finally delivery with a weight value of 0.049. The matrix normalization between these criteria has the correct data consistency because the Consistency Ratio (CR) is ≤ 0.1 and the value obtained is 0.02. Figure 2 illustrates the results of the matrix normalization between the criteria:
Figure 2 Normalization of the Inter-Criteria Matrix
Based on the criteria and sub-criteria in supplier selection and AHP calculations obtained from three respondents, it can be concluded that supplier C (Spill) is the best one with a weight value of 0.539 or 53.9%, followed by supplier A (Java-G) with a weight value of 0.234 or 23.4%, and supplier B (Halu) with a weight value of 0.227 or 22.7% with the correct data consistency because Consistency Ratio (CR) ≤ 0.1 while the value obtained is 0.01.
These results indicate that the alternative or supplier that can meet the priority of all criteria is supplier C (Spill).
Figure 3 shows the final results of supplier selection:
Figure 3 Final Result of Supplier Selection 5 Analysis and Discussion
From the results of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), the most influential criterion in the selection of coffee bean suppliers for Kaikara Koffie is quality with a weight of 0.492. The next influential criteria are service with a weight of 0.227, supplier relationship with a weight of 0.164, cost with a weight of 0.067, and finally delivery with a weight of 0.049. The high weight value of quality criterion in the coffee bean supplier selection shows that Kaikara Koffie prioritizes high- quality raw materials to be used. This is in line with the owner’s desire to use good quality coffee because otherwise, it will have an impact on the quality of the coffee served.
The first criterion of cost has two sub-criteria used in the selection of alternatives, namely the sub- criteria of
raw material price (C1) and discount (C2). Of the two sub-criteria, discount (C2) has a weight value of 0.591, and raw material price (C1) only has a weight value of 0.409, which means that discount is more important to respondents than the price of raw materials. Overall, the cost criterion is occupied by supplier C (Spill) as the top priority with a weight value of 0.658, then the second priority is supplier A (Java-G) with a weight value of 0.179, and the last priority is supplier B (Halu) with a weight value of 0.164. This shows that if the company chooses a supplier based solely on the cost criterion, then supplier C (Spill) will be selected.
The second criterion of quality in this study has three sub-criteria, namely quality management system (Q1), defect level (Q2), and product suitability (Q3). Of the three sub-criteria, product suitability (Q3) has a weight value of 0.484, defect level (Q2) has a weight value of 0.283, and the quality management system (Q1). ) has a weight value of 0.233. Overall in the quality criterion, supplier C (Spill) is the top priority with a weight value of 0.501, then the second priority is supplier A (Java-G)
with a weight value of 0.304, and the last priority is supplier B (Halu) with a weight value of 0.195. This shows that if the company chooses a supplier based solely on quality criterion, then supplier C (Spill) will be selected.
The third criterion of delivery in this study has three sub-criteria, namely delivery time (D1), delivery error (D2), and on-time delivery (D3). Of the three sub-criteria, on-time delivery (D3) has a weight value of 0.590, delivery time (D1) has a weight value of 0.263, and delivery error (D2) has a weight value of 0.148. Overall in the delivery criterion, supplier C (Spill) is the top priority with a weight value of 0.533, then the second priority is supplier B (Halu) with a weight value of 0.254, and the last priority is supplier A (Java-G) with a weight value of 0.212. This shows that if the company selects a supplier based solely on the delivery criterion, then supplier C (Spill) will be selected.
The fourth criterion of service in this study has three sub-criteria, namely renewal/ordering status (S1), warranty (S2), and geographic location (S3). Of the three sub-criteria, geographic location (S3) has a weight value of 0.488, renewal/order status (S1) has a weight value of 0.278, and warranty (S2) has a weight value of 0.234. Overall in the service criterion, supplier C (Spill) is the top priority with a weight value of 0.544, then the second priority is supplier B (Halu) with a weight value of 0.275, and the last priority is supplier A (Java-G) with a weight value of 0.181. This shows that if the company selects a supplier based solely on service criterion, then supplier C (Spill) will be selected.
The fifth criterion of supplier relationships in this study has three sub-criteria, namely supplier condition (R1), supplier reputation (R2), and supplier location (R3). Of the three sub-criteria, supplier reputation (R2) has a weight value of 0.447, supplier condition (R1) has a weight value of 0.338, and supplier location (R3) has a weight value of 0.215. Overall in the supplier relationship criterion, supplier C (Spill) is the top priority with a weight value of 0.608, then the second priority is supplier B (Halu) with a weight value of 0.270, and the last priority is supplier A (Java-G) with a weight value of 0.122. This shows that if the company selects a supplier based solely on the supplier relationship criterion, then supplier C (Spill) will be selected.
Based on the criteria and sub-criteria of supplier selection and AHP calculations obtained from three respondents, it can be concluded that the main criterion chosen by respondents is quality with a weight value of 0.492 or 49.2%. Besides, supplier C (Spill) was chosen as the best supplier with a weight value of 0.539 or 53.9%, followed by supplier A (Java-G) with a weight value of 0.234 or 23.4%, and supplier B (Halu) with a weight value of 0.227 or 22.7%. These results indicate that supplier C (Spill) is the alternative or the supplier that meets all priority criteria.
Supplier C (Spill) is the right choice for respondents to supply their coffee raw material needs because supplier C (Spill) fulfills all the criteria and sub-criteria elements specified in the study by obtaining the highest weight value on the main criterion of quality, which indicates that supplier C (Spill) is of high quality. Therefore, supplier C (Spill) is the best supplier to be Kaikara Koffie’s long-term partner.
5. 6 CONCLUSION
There are five criteria used for the Kaikara Koffie coffee bean supplier selection process, namely cost, quality, delivery, service, and supplier relationship. Except for the cost criterion which only has two sub-criteria, each of the other four criteria has three sub-criteria, so there are fourteen sub-criteria in total. The two sub-criteria of cost as the first criterion are raw material price and discount. The second criterion is quality which has three sub-criteria of the quality management system, defect level, and product suitability. The third criterion is delivery which has three sub-criteria of delivery time, delivery error, and on-time delivery. The fourth criterion is service which has three sub-criteria, namely renewal/order status, warranty, and geographic location. The fifth and final criterion is supplier relationship which has three sub-criteria of supplier condition, supplier reputation, and supplier location.
Data processing and analysis using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method has resulted in priority rankings and weight values for each of the criteria and suppliers of Kaikara Koffie. The results show that the criterion of
quality is the top priority with a weight value of 0.492, and then sequentially followed by the criteria of service with a weight value of 0.227, supplier relationships with a weight value of 0.164, costs with a weight value of 0.067, and delivery with a weight value of
0.049. This shows that quality is the most important criterion in choosing a coffee bean supplier. Then based on data processing, supplier C (Spill) appears as the recommended supplier for Kaikara Koffie
to work together in the long term because it is the top priority supplier with a weight value of 0.539 and has met the existing criteria, especially quality.
Kaikara Koffie deserves to be more selective in choosing raw material suppliers so that their products will always have good and consistent quality considering that quality criterion is their main priority with the highest weight value of 0.492. Although quality is the top priority criterion with a value of 0.492, other criteria must also be considered due to their roles in the selection of coffee bean suppliers for Kaikara Koffie. Future studies can examine supplier selection in other small businesses using the criteria in this study.
REFERENCES
Chopra, Sunil, and Peter Meindl. 2013. Supply Chain Management (Strategy, Planning, And Operation). USA:
Pearson.
Dweiri, Fikri, Sameer Kumar, Sharfuddin Ahmed Khan, and Vipul Jain. 2016. “Designing An Integrated AHP Based Decision Support System for Supplier Selection in Automotive Industry.” Journal of Expert Systems with Applications 62: 273–283.
Ervil, Riko, and Fandy Rahman. 2019. “Analisis Pemilihan Supplier Menggunakan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Studi Kasus PT. Gunung Naga Mas).” 19(2).
Ervina. 2019. “Tips Memilih Supplier Terbaik Untuk Perkembangan Bisnis Anda.” https://www.talenta.co/blog/
insight-talenta/tips-memilih-supplier/#Mengutamakan_Kualitas (September 5, 2020).
Expertchoice.com. 2020. “AHP Software for Decision Making and Risk Assessment.” https://www.expertchoice.
com/2020 (July 9, 2020).
Handayani, Rani Irma, and Yuni Darmianti. 2017. “Pemilihan Supplier Bahan Baku Bangunan Dengan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Pada PT. Cipta Nuansa.”
Heizer, Jay, Barry Render, and Chuck Munson. 2017. Operation Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management. 12th ed. USA: Pearson.
Igiasi, Teguh Setiandika. 2017. “Kedai Kopi Sebagai Ruang Publik: Studi Tentang Gaya Hidup.” 1(1).
Iqbal, Reza. 2018. “8 Minuman Kekinian Ini Jadi Paling Favorit Di Indonesia Selama 2017.” https://www.
idntimes.com/food/dining-guide/reza-iqbal/8-minuman-kekinian/8 (April 19, 2020).
Ishak, Aulia, and Syafiah Khairunnisa Parinduri. 2019. “Supplier Selection Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) And Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).” International Conference on Engineering and Management in Industrial System (ICOEMIS 2019) 171: 321–328.
Kartaman, Asep Toto, and Ayu Nova Rahmawati. 2018. “Penerapan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Dalam Pemilihan Alternatif Peningkatan Kualitas Produk Electric Cable.” Seminar Nasional IENACO – 2018.
Kemenperin. 2017. “Kemenperin: Industri Makanan Dan Minuman Masih Jadi Andalan.” https://kemenperin.
go.id/artikel/18465/Industri-Makanan-dan-Minuman-Masih-Jadi-Andalan (April 19, 2020).
Krisna, Albertus. 2020. “Tren Konsumsi Minuman “Kekinian”.” https://kompas.id/baca/metro/2020/03/05/tren- konsumsi-minuman-kekinian/ (August 21, 2020).
Laksana, Tri Ginanjar, and Ma’mun Efendi Zarkasy. 2016. “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Selesksi Supplier Pemilihan Bibit Ayam Broiler Menggunakan Metode AHP (Study Kasus: CV. CMB).”
Ningsih, Rahayu. 2016. “Penentuan Pemilihan Supplier Bahan Baku Oli BS150 Menggunakan AHP.” Jurnal Teknik Komputer AMIK BSI 2.
Pradipta, Aldi Yudha, and Anita Diana. 2017. “Sistem Penunjang Keputusan Pemilihan Supplier Pada Apotek Dengan Metode AHP Dan SAW (Studi Kasus Apotek XYZ).” Jurnal Sisfotek.
Prawiro, Ardi. 2019. “Model Seleksi Pemasok Kemasan Berbasis Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process Perusahaan Farmasi.” Journal of Business Economics 24(2): 168–180.
Questibrilia, Bivisyani. 2020. “8 Prinsip Manajemen Kualitas Dalam Perusahaan Yang Patut Diaplikasikan.”
https://www.jojonomic.com/blog/manajemen-kualitas/ (August 26, 2020).
Rimantho, Dino, Fathurohman Fathurohman, Bambang Cahyadi, and Sodikun Sodikun. 2017. “Pemilihan Supplier Rubber Parts Dengan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process Di PT.XYZ.” Jurnal Rekayasa Sistem Industri 6(2): 93.
[2-] Stephanie, Kimberly. 2017. “5 Strategi Dalam Meningkatkan Kepercayaan Konsumen.” https://koinworks.
com/blog/meningkatkan-kepercayaan-konsumen/ (September 5, 2020).
Stevenson, William J. 2015. Operations Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Susetyo, Joko, C Indri Parwati, and Cintia Noor Asmi. 2019. “Usulan Pemilihan Supplier Bahan Baku Dengan Metode AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) Dan TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) Pada Industri Konveksi.” Simposium Nasional RAPI XVIIII – 2019 FT UMS: 42–48.
Zuhriyah, Dewi Aminatuz. 2019. “Startup Kopi Menjamur, Persaingan Bisnis Kafe Di Indonesia Memanas.”
https://ekonomi.bisnis.com/read/20190807/12/1133701/startup-kopi-menjamur- persaingan-bisnis-kafe-di- indonesia-memanas (August 28, 2020)