Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id
Supplier Performance Evaluation on Regular Raw Material Suppliers by Applying AHP and TOPSIS Approaches (Evidence from the Apple
Agroindustry)
Afrizal Wisnu Wardana1*, Silvana Maulidah2, Anisa Aprilia3
Department of Socio-economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University, Veteran St., Malang (65145), Indonesia
Received: 28 January 2022; Revised: 8 March 2022; Accepted: 1 April 2022 ABSTRACT
The supplier is one of the supply chain entities that serves as a provider of raw materials, and poor supplier performance will harm the company's smooth production system. This study aims to identify supplier criteria, analyze priority weights, and evaluate supplier performance in the apple Agro-industry.
Respondents in this study were business owners chosen through the judgmental sampling method. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used to test the priority weights of supplier performance criteria, while the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method was used to test the priority weights of supplier performance priorities. The results showed that the service criteria received the highest priority weighting criteria, followed by price, quality, and delivery. Good service will positively impact integration, making it easier to achieve an effective and efficient supply chain.
Meanwhile, in terms of the company's fixed supplier performance priorities, supplier 1 received the highest rating, followed by suppliers 2 and 3. Thus, supplier performance is quite good, but several things could be improved, specifically fruit size and responsiveness to supplier 3 and prices to suppliers 1 and 2.
Keywords: supplier; criteria; performance; evaluation; AHP How to cite:
Wardana, A. W., Maulidah, S., & Aprilia, A. (2022). Supplier Performance Evaluation on Regular Raw Material Suppliers by Applying AHP and TOPSIS Approaches ( Evidence from the Apple Agroindustry ). HABITAT, 33(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.habitat.2022.033.1.7
1. Introduction
The supplier's performance is closely related to the company's performance in the next chain. Many purchasing companies use raw material suppliers as an effective competitive weapon (Benton et al., 2020). It is related to the distribution, quality, and quantity of raw materials used by suppliers, which will have an impact on the products they manufacture. Good supplier performance is critical because it affects the company's performance on an ongoing basis (Coşkun et al., 2022). Companies, on the other hand, are constantly confronted with challenges, such as changes in competition and the market environment (Ehtesham Rasi et al., 2019). The main issue with agricultural products is the nature of the goods themselves, which are easily damaged, so processing is required to avoid this.
According to Wulandari et al (2017), products such as vegetables and fruit have short shelf life characteristics and are easily damaged, necessitating management that can increase the durability of these commodities (Ji et al., 2020).
The selection of a good supplier for the company is an important step for the company to carry out production activities smoothly and efficiently (Indrapriyatna et al., 2011; Tirkolaee et al., 2020).
Apple commodities have become well- known in East Java, particularly in Batu City, an icon associated with the city. According to Badan Pusat Statistik (2020), in 2019, Batu City's apple production totaled 50,525 tons. Apple chips are a popular processed item among visitors to Batu City. Many apple Agro-industries compete for customers by diversifying processed apple products such as dodol, jenang, sweets, bakpia, and cider. This encourages businesses to continue to innovate to attract customers.
Agriculture products are highly dependent on the seasons and cannot be produced quickly.
---
*Correspondence Author.
E-mail: [email protected]
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id This is something that the producer must keep in
mind to achieve a balance between demand and the stock that they have. The aforementioned is also related to the efficiency and effectiveness of production, which must be run by business actors.
So that collaboration escorts member chain supply needs to make a deep attempt to satisfy users, so that chain supply has the strength to have good deep efficiency and superiority competitively (Heizer et al., 2017).
Suppliers play an important role in supply chain activities as upstream actors in the supply chain. Suppliers play an important role in the supply of raw materials for manufacturing and operations activities in a well-functioning supply chain (Asdidi et al., 2018). The performance of the supplier has a significant impact on the performance of the entity in the next chain.
Because all flows in the supply chain begin with the supplier, poor supplier performance will impede any subsequent process. When suppliers are not accountable for things like punctuality and the quantity and quality of goods they provide, there will be issues (Setiawan & Hendayani, 2015).
The assessment and evaluation of supplier performance are necessary to assess the extent of each supplier's ownership by business actors.
Evaluating the supplier's performance will positively impact product quality and benefit the company (Purnomo & Sunardiansyah, 2021).
When there is a problem, MSME business actors often conduct supplier evaluation activities, but there is no periodic assessment of the suppliers' performance. Production activities may hamper this because the supply of primary raw materials is also hampered. According to Bruno et al.
(2012), the supplier evaluation process enables businesses to select suppliers who meet their requirements and develop systems with suppliers who can respond to market demands.
Supplier evaluation activities in the apple Agro-industry must be done based on the problems to avoid things that can harm the company. Therefore, the study aimed to identify criteria that influence supplier performance to meet the demand for apple Agro-industry, analyze priorities for supplier performance criteria affecting the apple Agro-industry, and evaluate supplier performance in the apple Agro-industry.
Supplier evaluation research is expected to provide information for business actors to consider when assessing and evaluating the performance of their suppliers regularly.
2. Theoretical Underpinning 2.1. Supply Chain Management
The supply chain is made up of various entities that perform complementary functions and tasks. According to Schroeder & Goldstein (2018), supply chain actors include suppliers, manufacturing plants, warehouses, and retail stores at four levels: supply, production, distribution, and customers (Tirkolaee et al., 2020). Each actor in the supply chain has its role and function; some functions are performed by one company, while others are performed by another; this is important because it affects long- term results (Hult et al., 2016; Sánchez-Flores et al., 2020). The flow of information, money and other things occurs between supply chain actors as well as products.
To meet customer needs, today's modern businesses must be able to strike a balance between competitive advantage and sustainable activities (Lis et al., 2020). Supply chain management practices include a series of approach activities and practices to integrate entities such as suppliers, producers, distributors, and consumers to improve each entity's long-term performance (Mehdikhani & Valmohammadi, 2019). A series of activities that occur underpin supply chain actors, who are important actors in the supply chain's sustainability and the economic benefits obtained. Sustainability is defined as managing raw materials, information, and capital flows so that when problems arise in the supply chain, the company's competitiveness suffers (Lis et al., 2020).
Cooperation in supply chain management activities will be able to meet the company's long- term goals not only economically, but also environmentally and socially (D’Eusanio et al., 2019). Because the company's long-term strategic relationship affects supply chain activities, a close collaborative relationship between the two is required (Saragih et al., 2020). The company can improve its performance through the smooth flow of information and money that occurs with the cooperation of supply chain actors. Information exchange is frequently recognized as one of the factors that reduce costs, time, and increase competitiveness; thus, reducing costs and time in the supply chain will benefit the partners and stakeholders involved (Mehdikhani &
Valmohammadi, 2019).
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id 2.2. Supplier Performance
Supplier performance is generally evaluated based on some factors, ranging from the product itself to the services provided by the supplier. Suppliers are currently responsible for creating corporate value, so it is critical to carefully assess the performance of suppliers in the upstream supply chain (Maestrini et al., 2018).
When evaluating the performance of a supplier, the company must consider not only the quality and quantity of the products offered by the supplier but also the services provided by the supplier to maintain a good relationship between the supplier and the related company. Companies must develop suppliers through strong relationships to achieve superior performance and improve their performance and ability to meet the company's future needs (Benton et al., 2020).
The supplier's performance is not separated from the criteria specified as points in the assessment of supplier performance. Based on the literature, here are some essential criteria to consider when selecting a supplier (Chen, 2011):
Table 1 Supplier Evaluation Criteria in Literature Evaluation Criteria Weber Importance
Price Very important
Deliver on time Very important Quality Extremely important Equipment and
capability Very important Geographic location Important Technical capability Very important
Management and
organization Important
Industrial reputation Important Financial situation Very important Historical performance Very important
Maintenance service Important Service attitude Important Packing ability Important Production control
ability Important
Training ability Important Procedure legality Very important Employment relations Important Communication system Very important
Mutual negotiation Important
Previous image Important
Business relations Important Previous sales Important Guarantee and
compensation Very important
Companies in the Agro-industry require quick responses from suppliers, both during transactions and during delivery, because agricultural raw materials are easily damaged, so special care must be taken during the procurement process. Supplier response is more dependent on the company's proximity to suppliers and the communication that occurs between them (O’Connor et al., 2018). As a result, business actors must consider what they require when evaluating suppliers, making it easier to determine the criteria that must be considered. Regularly assessing supplier performance will help to reduce problems that arise as a result of the suppliers they have.
2.3. Supplier Evaluation
Supplier evaluation is a type of effort made by the company to continuously improve the company's performance. Supplier evaluation considers a variety of quantitative and qualitative factors in its decision-making process. Businesses must find reliable suppliers who can provide high- quality raw materials in a timely and cost-effective manner (Agarwal et al., 2011). Therefore, supplier performance evaluation criteria must be tailored to the company's needs. Evaluation can also assist businesses in making accurate decisions and earning profits (Coşkun et al., 2022).
The criteria for assessing supplier performance will vary from one company to the others. This is because each company's needs differ and it has suppliers from various companies, so there will be numerous criteria that determine the supplier's performance evaluation activities. In another study conducted by Lau et al. (2020), it was discovered that the criteria used by companies engaged in the field of organic food were product criteria, quality, organic and safety certificates, cost of monitoring, price, delivery, service ability, commercial position, supplier relations, risk factors, and CSR.
The identification of decision-making criteria by selecting the right supplier will encourage the company's growth and competitiveness, so the criteria are critical (Taherdoost & Brard, 2019). The right supplier will be a huge help to the company during the manufacturing process. A positive relationship between the supplier and the company will make it easier for the company to carry out cooperative activities. The company's orientation toward sustainability will be able to improve the financial side while also strengthening the company's competitiveness (Lis et al., 2020).
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id 3. Research Method
The research location was purposefully chosen with the consideration that the famous commodity of Batu City is apple commodity. Batu City, known as a tourist and apple-producing city, has become one of the local tourist destinations on weekends. The subject of the investigation was one of the Batu City business owners involved in processing apples. The company has been in operation since 2001 and continues to innovate to create products that are appealing to and required by tourists as a fruit.
In this study, respondents were chosen using a judgmental sampling method in which researchers determine which respondents have access to and understand the supplier-related issues. The respondents used in the study were the company's owners. The company's owner is aware of all activities with the supplier, including a problem with the raw materials received by the company. Furthermore, company owners have decision-making power, which researchers considered when selecting respondents for this study.
The data in this study was derived from primary sources. Data was gathered directly from the company through interviews, questionnaires, and documentation. Interviews were used to determine what criteria companies use to evaluate the performance of their suppliers, which were then processed into questionnaires that respondents filled out, so that data can be gathered for the weighting of supplier performance criteria and priorities. Documentation data was used to obtain information about company profiles and processes ranging from ordering to raw goods received by the company.
Quality, price, shipping, and service were the criteria used to evaluate supplier performance in the apple Agro-industry in Batu City. The quality criteria were made up of several sub- criteria, including the fruit size, fruits’ ripeness level, and the fruit skin smoothness. While the price criteria included sub-criteria like offered prices and discounts, the third criterion was delivery, which included the sub-criteria of quantity, accuracy, and timeliness of delivery. The selection of criteria and sub-criteria was based on previous research and was tailored to the needs of businesses in evaluating the performance of their suppliers.
The data analysis process used in this study employed both descriptive and quantitative analysis techniques. AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) and TOPSIS were used in research data processing (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution). In assessing the performance of suppliers in the apple Agro- industry, the AHP method was used for decision- making and considered the weight of the criteria.
The AHP method is also known as the method for selecting an alternative (Dwiyana et al., 2017).
The TOPSIS method was used to assess supplier performance in the apple Agro-industry in Batu City based on predefined criteria.
In Batu City apple Agro-industry, the AHP method is used to determine the weight of each criterion and sub-criteria in supplier evaluation activities. As a result, the method has an advantage in decision-making with complex problems, also known as Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). The AHP method simplifies complex criteria problems into several components, including objectives, criteria, and alternatives.
Data processing techniques using the AHP method were based on Padmowati's (2009) research, which includes the following stages:
a. Determination of the weight of each criterion through interview techniques b. Weights for each criterion are calculated
using a pairwise comparison or a comparison between one criterion and other criteria. Then sort each criterion based on its virtues.
c. Once the matrix is obtained, the Eigenvector's normalization process is carried out to obtain the priority order of criteria. The steps to using the Eigenvector method are as follows:
1) Squaring the pairwise matrix by matrix multiplication
2) Doing the sum of each row
Evaluation of Supplier Performance
Quality Price Delivery Service
Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3
Accuracy of the quantity delivered Delivery
timeliness Price
offered Discounts Apple
Size Ripeness
level Skin
smoothn ess
Warranty Complaint Responsive
ness
Figure 2. Framework of Thought
P u r p
CriterionAlternati ve
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id 3) Normalizing the matrix
4) Iterating on steps 1-3 to obtain a relatively small eigenvalue (<0.000010).
d. After getting the results following the steps above, do the calculation of the consistency index (CI) with the following steps:
1) Calculate the multiplication between the initial matrix and the last Eigen matrix.
2) Calculate the formula:
1 ×
1
ℎ ℎ
3) Calculate Consistency Index (CI):
= −
− 1
4) Calculate Consistency Ratio (CR):
=
Description: if cr < = 0.10 (10%) then the consistent degree of the result can be said to be satisfactory.
TOPSIS is based on the best alternative options which has the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the longest distance from the negative ideal solution (Yuliandono et al., 2015). The TOPSIS method is used to assess performance based on existing decision alternatives. The TOPSIS method was used in this study through the following steps:
a. Determine the normalization decision matrix with the formula below:
r
ij=√∑ 1 2
b. Determine the positive ideal solution matrix and the negative ideal solution matrix through the following formulas:
Yij = wi rij ; i=1,2,3,...,m) and j=1,2,3,....,n)
A+ = ( 1, 2, 3, 4, … . . ) A- = ( 1, 2, 3, 4, … . . ) c. Determine the distance between the
weighted values of each alternative.
Alternate distance with a positive ideal solution using the following formula:
= √∑ 1 − 2; i=1,2,3,....,m
= √∑ 1 − _ 2; i=1,2,3,....,m d. Determine the preference value of each
alternative. The preference value uses the following formula:
Vi= ; i = 1,2,3,... ,m
The value of those preferences indicates that a higher value is a better and more preferred alternative because it indicates that the alternative performs better. In addition, a higher value indicates that the alternative is closer to the positive ideal solution and farther away than the negative ideal solution.
4. Results and Discussion
Quality criteria include fruit size, fruit ripeness level, fruit skin smoothness; prices with sub-criteria of offered prices and discounts;
delivery with sub-criteria of quantity, accuracy and timeliness of delivery; and services with sub- criteria of warranty, complaint procedures, and responsiveness. These criteria and sub-criteria are required for apple Agro-industry to evaluate the performance of its suppliers. The criteria examined in this study were determined through interviews with business owners.
4.1. Analysis of Supplier Criteria
Measurements on supplier performance criteria with several criteria from the company side, namely quality, price, delivery, and services, are tested using the AHP method with the help of the expert choice 11 application. The company's permanent suppliers include up to three groups of farmers located around the company. Therefore, the measurements tested are subject to the subjectivity of companies in meeting their raw material needs. The following table shows the results of the criterion measurement:
Table 1. Assessment of Supplier Performance Criteria and Sub-criteria
No. Criterion Sub-criteria Value 1. Quality
(0,175)
Size 0,584
Ripeness level 0,281 Skin smoothness 0,135
2. Price
(0,241)
Offered Price 0,833
Discount 0,167
3. Delivery (0,175)
Quality Accuracy 0,5 Punctuality 0,5 4. Service
(0,409)
Warranty 0,33
Complaint 0,33
Responsiveness 0,33 Source: Primary Data Processed (2021)
Based on data obtained from questionnaires distributed to business owners, it is known that the level of service interest has the highest value when compared to the criteria of quality, price, and delivery. The service criterion has a criterion value
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id of 0.409, the price criterion has a criterion value of
0.241, and the quality and delivery criteria have a good value. The same value is 0.175. Data analysis reveals that service criteria are the most important in selecting and determining suppliers. According to Aryani and Rosinta (2010), service quality is an obligation for a company, both in terms of manufacturing and services, and is one of the factors that contribute to the company's success.
Figure 3. Quality Sub-Criteria Value Size is the most important sub-criteria in assessing the quality of apple raw materials used by the apple Agro-industry. Such assessments are subjective evaluations of companies based on the criteria they need to find suppliers of apple raw materials. The company's experience also influences the assessment in selecting suppliers to continue to improve what they need and reduce problems that arise in the supply chain with suppliers over time.
Figure 4. Price Sub-Criteria Value According to the results of the data calculation in the graph above, apple Agro- industry prioritizes the price offered over the discount given. This was chosen because the company believes that the price is the starting point for making transactions with suppliers instead of discounts that refer to a specific relationship point between the company and the supplier. Furthermore, one of the selection criteria
for choosing suppliers is assessing the price offered by suppliers, so that those with attractive prices meet the criteria. As a result, companies will have a greater potential to be selected to be their permanent suppliers.
Figure 5. Delivery Sub-Criteria Value The characteristics of agricultural products that are very sensitive to handling from the time they are harvested until they are consumed make the delivery criteria become one of the important factors in the apple Agro-industry. Based on the data obtained, the apple Agro-industry assessment of the two sub-criteria has the same value of 0.5.
As a result, when evaluating raw material delivery, it is necessary to consider the accuracy of the quantity delivered and the timeliness of delivery. The higher the quality that matches the raw materials ordered by the company, the more confident the company will be, and the likelihood of repeat orders will increase. Similarly, in the punctuality sub-criteria, delivery delays will cause production activities to be hampered and delayed.
The delay will affect the company’s losses because it will be unable to carry out production activities according to their schedules.
Figure 6. Service Sub-Criteria Value In determining the suppliers of apple raw materials in the Agro-industry, service criteria receive the highest rating. According to the data obtained, the service has three sub-criteria with the same value of 0.333. Warranties, complaints, and responsiveness are all viewed as having a vested
0,584
0,281 0,135 0
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
Criteria
Quality Criteria
Apple Size Maturity Level Skin Smoothness
0,833
0,167 0
0,5 1
Criteria
Price Criteria
Price Offered Discount
0,5 0,5
0 1
Criteria
Delivery Criteria
Accuracy of Quantity Delivered Delivery Timeliness
0,333 0,333 0,333 0
0,2 0,4
Criteria
Service Criteria
Warranty Complain Responsiveness
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id interest in the services provided by suppliers.
When the transaction occurs, the form of warranty provided will be adjusted to the previous agreement that has been formed. A warranty can take the form of replacement of defective goods or monetary compensation. A complaint action is taken when there is a problem with the raw materials ordered by the buyer. As the buyer, the company will evaluate how the supplier responds to customer orders and complaints.
4.2. Supplier Performance Priorities
Permanent suppliers in the apple Agro- industry Batu City consists of three groups of farmers located around the company, specifically around Bumiaji Village in Batu City. Agricultural products that cannot always be harvested necessitates the company to have several supplier options to continue meeting their needs. The collection of raw materials from suppliers is done on a rotating basis, allowing companies to maintain relationships with their suppliers.
The TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method evaluates supplier performance. This method makes it possible to see the ideal distance between the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution in the company's decision-making based on the supplier's performance.
Table 2: Supplier Performance Evaluation Criterion Supplier
1
Supplier 2
Supplier 3
Fruit size 5 4 3
Ripeness level 4 4 4
Skin
smoothness 4 4 4
Offered price 3 3 4
Discount 4 3 3
Quantity
accuracy 4 4 4
Timeliness 4 4 4
Warranty 4 4 4
Complaint 4 4 4
Responsiveness 4 4 3
Source: Primary Data Processed (2021)
Supplier 1 has an advantage in terms of fruit size, tiered discounts, and responsiveness. The fruit size owned by supplier 1 is the best and most follows the company's wishes. Supplier 1 is the primary supplier who frequently conducts transactions and thus frequently provides discounts. It also benefits businesses because they
save money compared to what they would have paid at regular prices. Supplier 1 also provides the best service by maintaining an excellent response time, making it easier for the company to order raw materials from suppliers.
Supplier 2 has an advantage in terms of responsiveness to the company. Fast and precise service is seen as a plus by the company's suppliers. This leads to one of the company's decisions to maintain the relationship, and supplier 2 becomes one of the company's permanent suppliers. Supplier 3 is offering a price advantage. Supplier 3's price is the lowest compared to the other two suppliers, so it has its advantages.
Figure 7. Supplier Performance Priority Value Based on the evaluation results of three suppliers from the company's perspective, it can be seen that supplier 1 has the highest value of 0.661, followed by suppliers 2 and 3 who received values of 0.456 and 0.338, respectively. This demonstrates that supplier 1 has the best performance of the three. The three suppliers differ in several ways, including the fruit size, the offered price, discounts, and responsiveness to the company.
Supplier performance evaluation activities are not performed regularly by the company.
When there is a problem, the company will evaluate the suppliers they have so that it can hinder the company if it does not have another strategy to get the raw material suppliers of apples they want in its implementation. Companies must conduct periodic evaluation activities of their suppliers to determine their suppliers' performance and to determine which suppliers must be evaluated (Sukendar et al., 2021).
If compared to the other two suppliers, Supplier 1 performs best. Supplier 1 receives a lower valuation on the sub-criteria price offered.
0,661
0,456 0,338 0
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
Criteria
Supplier Performance Appraisal
Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Pemasok 3
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id Supplier 1's price is slightly higher than the other
suppliers' prices, but this is due to the higher quality of the fruit, which is more suitable for the other suppliers' needs. In line with Ilhamsyah &
Mulyani (2018) opinion, a high price is usually associated with a high quality of the products offered, so buyers are usually willing to pay a higher price to achieve a certain level of satisfaction.
Supplier 2's performance is also quite good, with the difference in performance assessment between supplier 2 and supplier 1 being in the assessment of fruit size and a lower discount from supplier 1. Supplier 2 offers discounts to businesses less frequently than Supplier 1, but the price offered by Supplier 2 is slightly lower, so it is not a bad deal. It is critical to assess this.
If compared to the other two suppliers, supplier 3 has the lowest performance rating.
There needs to be an increase in several aspects from suppliers, including fruit size, discounts, and response rate to orders. Supplier 3's fruit size quality is lower than the other two suppliers, but it is inversely proportional to the price offered. The assessment of the price offered by Supplier 3 is better because they offer lower prices. The company must consider this for the quality of fruit offered to improve in the future. Performance in terms of responsiveness must also be improved because these criteria are very important in evaluating suppliers. This is necessary to avoid undesirable outcomes, such as Akbar et al. (2016) belief that a less responsive response from suppliers will result in problems such as being out of stock and production time that is increasing backward. Increasingly fierce market competition should encourage businesses to provide the best possible service to their customers for them to be satisfied (Ilhamsyah & Mulyani, 2018).
Several factors must be considered in evaluating supplier performance based on these three suppliers. First, the assessment of the three suppliers is not low enough to cause problems in the company's production activities. There are differences in the quality criteria of fruit size in the data that has been processed; this is considered reasonable because, in agricultural products, care during on-farm activities must be considered. It is also one of the reasons why there is a difference in fruit quality even though the type of fruit is the same and the location of fruit cultivation is the same. Supplier performance is evaluated on a scale of "good enough" to "very good." Suppliers are chosen based on criteria that match the company's wants and needs and will have the
opportunity to work with the company in the long run (Kurniawati et al., 2013). A company must select its supplier carefully to carry out production activities efficiently.
5. Conclusion
The criteria measured in assessing supplier performance in the apple Agro-industry Batu City are; quality with sub-criteria fruit size, fruit ripeness level, and fruit skin smoothness; price with sub-criteria offered prices and discounts;
delivery with sub-criteria quality, accuracy, and timeliness of delivery; and service with sub- criteria warranty, complaint, and responsiveness.
The highest criterion value is obtained on the service criteria then followed by price, quality and delivery which have the same value. Regarding the evaluation of supplier performance in the apple Agro-industry, several notes are suggested for them to improve their performance. Some characteristics that did not make it to the good category are the fruit size from supplier 3, the prices offered by suppliers 1 and 2, the tiered discounts from suppliers 2 and 3, and the responsiveness from suppliers 3. There must be effective and consistent communication to increase supplier performance, sustain what is already working well for the company, and develop a long-term connection between the company and its suppliers.
References
Agarwal, P., Sahai, M., Mishra, V., Bag, M., &
Singh, V. (2011). A review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques for supplier evaluation and selection. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 2(4), 801–810.
Akbar, P. G., Henmaidi, H., & Amrina, E. (2016).
Usulan Indikator Evaluasi Pemasok dalam Penetapan Bidder List: Studi Kasus Pengadaan Jasa PT. Semen Padang. Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri, 14(1), 39.
https://doi.org/10.25077/josi.v14.n1.p39- 54.2015
Asdidi, M. Y., Alpianto, M., & Yaqin, A. A.
(2018). Evaluasi Supplier Dengan Menggunakan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process Dan Taguchi Loss Function. Jurnal Teknik Industri, 19(2), 178.
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id Badan Pusat Statistik. (2019). Produksi Buah-
Buahan dan Sayuran Tahunan Menurut Jenis Tanaman di Kota Batu (Ton), 2017
dan 2018.
https://batukota.bps.go.id/statictable/2020/
05/18/750/produksi-buah-buahan-menurut- jenis-tanaman-menurut-kecamatan-di-kota- batu-2018-dan-2019.html
Benton, W. C., Prahinski, C., & Fan, Y. (2020).
The influence of supplier development programs on supplier performance.
International Journal of Production Economics, 230(February), 107793.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107793 Bruno, G., Esposito, E., Genovese, A., & Passaro,
R. (2012). AHP-based approaches for supplier evaluation: Problems and perspectives. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 18(3), 159–172.
Chen, Y. J. (2011). Structured methodology for supplier selection and evaluation in a supply chain. Information Sciences, 181(9), 1651–1670.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2010.07.026 Coşkun, S. S., Kumru, M., & Kan, N. M. (2022).
An integrated framework for sustainable supplier development through supplier evaluation based on sustainability indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 335(March 2021), 130287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.1302 87
D’Eusanio, M., Zamagni, A., & Petti, L. (2019).
Social sustainability and supply chain management: Methods and tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 178–189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.3 23
Dwiyana, R., Sitania, F. D., & Rahayu, D. K.
(2017). Pemilihan Supplier Tandan Buah Segar (TBS) Menggunakan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) dan TOPSIS. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknologi IV, November, 89–98.
Ehtesham Rasi, R., Abbasi, R., & Hatami, D.
(2019). The Effect of Supply Chain Agility Based on Supplier Innovation and Environmental Uncertainty. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management, 6(2), 94–109.
Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2017).
Operation Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management. In Pearson (12th ed.). Pearson.
Hult, G. T. M., Slater, S. F., & Ketchen, D. J.
(2016). Information Processing, Knowledge Development, and Strategic Supply Chain Performance Author ( s ): G . Tomas M . Hult, David J . Ketchen Jr . and Stanley F . Slater Published by : Academy of Management Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159575. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 241–253.
Ilhamsyah, & Mulyani, A. (2018). Pengaruh Kualitas Pelayanan Dan Harga Terhadap Kepuasan Serta Dampaknya Pada Loyalitas Konsumen Indomaret Bagus Kuning Plaju.
Jurnal Media Wahana Ekonomika, 14(4), 24–46.
https://doi.org/10.31851/jmwe.v14i4.1989 Indrapriyatna, A. S., Meuthia, Y., Fatrias, D., &
Gusti, M. (2011). Integrasi Taguchi Loss Function dengan Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process dalam Pemilihan Pemasok. Jurnal Teknik Industri, 13(2), 65–72.
http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php /ind/article/view/18298
Ji, Y., Du, J., Han, X., Wu, X., Huang, R., Wang, S., & Liu, Z. (2020). A mixed-integer robust programming model for two-echelon inventory routing problem of perishable products. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 548, 124481.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2020.12448 1
Kurniawati, D., Yuliando, H., & Widodo, K. H.
(2013). Kriteria Pemilihan Pemasok Menggunakan Analytical Network Process.
Jurnal Teknik Industri, 15(1), 25–32.
https://doi.org/10.9744/jti.15.1.25-32 Lau, H., Shum, P. K. C., Nakandala, D., Fan, Y.,
& Lee, C. (2020). A game-theoretic decision model for organic food supplier evaluation in the global supply chains.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118536.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.1185 36
Lis, A., Sudolska, A., & Tomanek, M. (2020).
Mapping research on sustainable supply-
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id chain management. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 12(10).
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12103987 Maestrini, V., Luzzini, D., Caniato, F.,
Maccarrone, P., & Ronchi, S. (2018). The impact of supplier performance measurement systems on supplier performance: A dyadic lifecycle perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
38(11), 2040–2061.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2016- 0589
Mehdikhani, R., & Valmohammadi, C. (2019).
Strategic collaboration and sustainable supply chain management: The mediating role of internal and external knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(5), 778–806.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2018- 0166
O’Connor, N. G., Yang, Z., & Jiang, L. (2018).
Challenges in gaining supply chain competitiveness: Supplier response strategies and determinants. Industrial Marketing Management, 72(April), 138–
151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.
04.003
Padmowati, R. de L. E. (2009). Pengukuran Index Konsistensi dalam Proses Pengambilan Keputusan Menggunakan Metode AHP.
Seminar Nasional Informatika 20092, 1(5), 80–84.
Purnomo, D. E. H., & Sunardiansyah, Y. A.
(2021). Implementasi Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Untuk Evaluasi Pemasok Kayu Pada Industri Furnitur.
Journal Of Industrial And Systems Optimization, 4(1), 1–7.
Sánchez-Flores, R. B., Cruz-Sotelo, S. E., Ojeda- Benitez, S., & Ramírez-Barreto, M. E.
(2020). Sustainable supply chain management-A literature review on emerging economies. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12176972 Saragih, J., Tarigan, A., Silalahi, E. F., Wardati, J.,
& Pratama, I. (2020). Supply chain operational capability and supply chain operational performance: Does the supply
chain management and supply chain integration matters? International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 9(4), 1222–
1229.
Schroeder, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2018).
Operations Management in the Supply Chain. In Total Supply Chain Management (Seventh Ed). McGraw-Hill Education.
Setiawan, N., & Hendayani, R. (2015). Analisis Kinerja Pemasok pada Rantai Pasok Perusahaan Importir CV. Prisma Jaya.
Sosiohumanitas, XVII(2), 193–202.
file:///G:/ngajar/Penelitian &
Pemas/penelitian/83-Article Text-118-2- 10-20191011.pdf
Sukendar, I., Fatmawati, W., & Frinzani, A.
(2021). Analisis Kinerja Supplier Berdasarkan Pendekatan Vendor Performance Indicator (VPI) Menggunakan Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Di PT . Idelux Furniture Indonesia.
Jurnal Dinamika Teknik, IV(1), 11–20.
Taherdoost, H., & Brard, A. (2019). Analyzing the Process of Supplier Selection Criteria and Methods. Procedia Manufacturing, 32, 1024–1034.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.3 17
Tirkolaee, E. B., Mardani, A., Dashtian, Z., Soltani, M., & Weber, G. W. (2020). A novel hybrid method using fuzzy decision making and multi-objective programming for sustainable-reliable supplier selection in two-echelon supply chain design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119517.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.1195 17
Wulandari, E., Deliana, Y., & Fatimah, S. (2017).
Kerupuk Kulit Mangga Sebagai Upaya Diversifikasi Produk Pangan. Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, 1(1), 10–
13.
Yuliandono, T. Y., Chumaidiyah, E., &
Aurachman, R. (2015). Evaluasi Kinerja Pemasok Gasket Dengan Menggunakan Metode FAHP Dan TOPSIS Di PT JM.
EProceedings of Engineering, 2(3).
http://libraryeproceeding.telkomuniversity.
ac.id/index.php/engineering/article/view/7 00