Acoustics India Private Limited(2)

8/2/2019 Acoustics India Private Limited(2)

1/42

1 | P a g e

Abstract

In todays competitive business world, it is extremely important for decision makers to have

access to decision support tools in order to make quick, right and accurate decisions. One of these

decision making areas is supplier selection in procurement. Supplier selection is a multi-criteria decision

making problem that deals with the optimization of conflicting objectives such as quality, cost, anddelivery time. In spite of the fact that the term supplier selection is commonly used in the literature, and

many methods and models have been designed to help decision makers, few efforts have been dedicated

to develop a system based on any of these methods.

In this project, a supplier selection system is used based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

method which has been commonly used for multi-criteria decision making problems. Analytic hierarchy

process is a method in which a large system is broken down into its component parts so as to minimize

the complexity. This is the basis of the analytic hierarchy process.


2/42

2 | P a g e

Objective

Objective:

To develop a Supplier Selection system for Acoustics India Private Limited, Trichy.

Supplier Selection System

In today's competitive environment, most companies are trying to reduce their supplier

base. By means of reducing the supplier base, a company can pay more attention on few

suppliers leading to good supplier relationship. By means of properly selecting the suppliers, the

current supplier base is reduced and the company can focus on few suppliers, leading tocompetitive advantage. By means of a rationalized supplier base, most processes between the

customer and the supplier are standardized leading to better efficiency in the purchasing process.

Vendor rating is result of a formal vendor evaluation system. Vendor rating system

provide for measuring those factors that add value to the firm through value addition or

decreased cost.

Benefits of Vendor Rating System:

Helping minimize subjectivity in judgment and make it possible to consider all relevantcriteria in assessing suppliers.

Providing feedback from all areas in one package. Facilitating better communication with vendors. Providing overall control of the vendor base. Establishing continuous review standards for vendors, thus ensuring continuous

improvement of vendor performance.

Developing a performance based culture.


3/42

3 | P a g e

Analytic Hierarchy Process


The AHP is a popular technique often used to model subjective decision-makingprocesses based on multiple attributes, which was developed by Saaty in 1971. Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP), since its invention, has been a tool at the hands of decision makers and

researchers, and it is one of the most widely used multiple criteria decision-making tools.

The first step in the process of supplier selection using analytic hierarchy process is to

define the various supplier selection criteria (Saaty, 1980). These criteria are the order winning

criteria that have to be met by the potential suppliers in order to enter the contract. The context of

supplier selection in this project deals with the selection raw material suppliers of acoustics noisecontrol products manufacturer,Acoustics India Private Limited.

The various supplier selection criteria for this scenario are listed below:a) Quality - Certification, manufacturing/process capability, and quality history.

b) Service - Service network, spares availability, and warranty.

c) Delivery - Rush order, lead-time, and on-time delivery

The AHP divides complex decision problems into a hierarchical system of decision

elements. A pairwise comparison matrix of these elements is constructed, and then the

normalized principal eigenvector is calculated for the priority vector, which provides a measureof relative importance (weight) of each element.

Analytic hierarchy process will yield a good result only if the pair-wise comparisonmatrix is developed properly. For this purpose, sufficient amount of data regarding the various

criteria should be available

The evaluation method of this model is based on relative performance measure for each

supplier for subjective (qualitative) criteria which is obtained by quantifying the ratings

expressed in quantitative terms. The supplier who has the maximum score is selected.


4/42

4 | P a g e

Acoustics India Private Limited PROFILE

Company Name: Acoustics India Private Limited

Established: 1988

Registered office: K.K.Nagar, Trichy

Factory: Mathur, Pudukottai

Type: Manufacturer

Turnover: 25 cr

Accreditations: ISO 9001:2004

NB StampR StampU Stamp

Achievements: Produced world largest stream vent silencers weighing 20000kgs for M/STaichung Power Company, Taiwan

Major Customers: Tata Steel, SAIL, BHEL, TNEB, KSEB, GAIL, ONGC, RIL, Ranbaxylaboratories, Ultra Tech Cements etc.

Websites:www.acousticsind.com

Established player in the field of industrial noise control with over two decades ofexperience.

Over 3000 installations in a variety of industries which include steel, power, engineering,fertilizers, oil, and chemical industries.

Specialized in wide range of noise control products.

State of the art computerized design facilities for complex noise problem.
http://www.acousticsind.com/http://www.acousticsind.com/http://www.acousticsind.com/http://www.acousticsind.com/


5/42

5 | P a g e

Acoustics India Private Limited PRODUCTS

Acoustic Enclosures

Silencers

Sound Proof Cabins


6/42

6 | P a g e

Acoustics India Private Limited PRODUCTS

Compressor Test Beds

Pressure Vessels

Heat Exchangers


7/42

7 | P a g e

Acoustics India Private Limited ACCREDIATIONS
http://acousticsindia.net/certificate_2.htmlhttp://acousticsindia.net/certificate_1.htmlhttp://acousticsindia.net/certificate_2.htmlhttp://acousticsindia.net/certificate_1.html


8/42

8 | P a g e

Acoustics India Private Limited ACCREDIATIONS
http://acousticsindia.net/case_study_4.htmlhttp://acousticsindia.net/case_study_3.htmlhttp://acousticsindia.net/case_study_4.htmlhttp://acousticsindia.net/case_study_3.html


9/42

9 | P a g e

Acoustics India Private Limited Customer List

Steel & Power EngineeringChemical &

FertilizersOil / Petro

Chemical

Tata Steel IISCO SAIL Visag/Bokaro/Bhilai

Steel

Jindal/Durgapur Steel JSPL BHEL HYD/HWR/BPL NTPC MSEB/KSEB/TNEB Korea Heavy Industries Alstom Projects BSES Deutsche Babcock Thermax Babcock Mitsui Babcock IJT Torrent Power ESSAR Steel Mono Steel METSO Power Belleli Energy Deutz Mazagon Dock

Stewards & Llyods GIPCL Hindalco INOX AIR Products BGR Energy Caterpillar DF Power Systems TD Power Systems

EIL RIL BECHTEL Andrew Yule &

Co

Linde/BOC India L&T/L&T MHI UHDE/UHDE

GMBH

Technimont ICB BHPV SABIC KTI MECON Indian Railways Howden India Siemens Atlas Copco Air Liquide Thyssen Krupp

Industries

Praxair India PvtLtd

Copes-Vulcan Jubail Chemicals

Ansaldo CaldaieBoilers

Tata MotorsLimited

SPX ProcessEquipment

Downer EnergySystems

GALFAREngineering PDO

TOPSTechnologies /

CTCI

FEDO HFCL CFCL SPIC RCFL MFL EID Parry GNFC Indo-Gulf IFFCO GFCL GSFC Ultra TechCements Heidelberg

Cements

MCSC FLSmidth Jubilant

Organosys

RanbaxyLaboratories

Sudha Agro Shree

Cements Saurashtra

Chemicals

GAIL KRL HPCL BPCL BRPL MRPL ONGC RIL IOCL ESSAR Oil Quippo

Infrastructure

Adyard AbuDhabi PetroFac

International

SouthernPetrochemical

HaldiaPetrochemicals

HeurteyPetrochemicals

NumaligarhRefinery


10/42

10 | P a g e

SUPPLIER SELECTION

SYSTEM USINGANALYTICAL

HIERARCHY PROCESS


11/42

11 | P a g e


The Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is a quantitative method for ranking decision

alternatives and selecting the best one when the decision maker has multiple criteria. It answers

the question, which one? . The decision maker will select the alternatives that best meets his

or her criteria. AHP is a process for developing a numerical score to rank each decision

alternative based on how well each alternative meets the decision makers criteria.

In this project, it is demonstrated how AHP can be used to select a companys supplier.

The possible criteria that Acoustics India Private Limited considers when selecting a supplier are

quality, price and delivery.

The mathematical process used in AHP is to first establish preferences for each supplier

for each criterion. Next is to determine the preferences for the criteria - that is, which of the

criteria is the most important, which is the next most important and so on.

In AHP, preferences between alternatives are determined by making pair-wise

comparisons. In a pair-wise comparison the decision maker examines two alternatives according

to one criterion and indicates a preference.

These comparisons are made using a preference scale, which assigns numerical value to

different levels of preference. The standard preference scale used for AHP is given briefly. This

scale has been determined by experienced researchers in AHP to be a reasonable basis for

comparing two alternatives.

Once AIPLs pair-wise comparisons ratings for each supplier for each of the three

criterions for material are summarized, the next step is to prioritize the suppliers within each

criterion. This means the company wants to determine which is the most preferred supplier, the

second most preferred supplier and the third most preferred suppliers within each of the three

criteria. This step referred to as systhesization is mathematically complex but we can employ an

approximation method that provides a reasonably good estimate of preference scores.

The first step is to sum the value in each column of the pair-wise comparison matrix.

Next the values in each column are divided by the corresponding column sums. (Notice that the

values in each column sum to 1). Next the in each row are averaged. These row averages

provides the AIPL with their preferences for each criterion.

The next step is to rank criteria in order of importance. This is accomplished in the same

way the suppliers were ranked within each criterion previously, by using pair-wise comparison.

The values in each column in the matrix are summed; the column values are divided by their

corresponding column sums and the rows are averaged, resulting in a matrix. The preference

vector for the criteria consists of the row averages.


12/42

12 | P a g e

Finally an overall score for each supplier is computed by multiplying the matrix

summarizing the companys preference for each supplier for each criterion by the preference

vector for the three criteria.

The suppliers and their corresponding scores are summarized. Based on their scores,

supplier with the highest score should be selected for supply.

Analytic hierarchy process will yield a good result only if the pair-wise comparison

matrix is developed properly. For this purpose, sufficient amount of data regarding the various

criteria should be available.


13/42

13 | P a g e

Standard Preference Table

PREFERENCE LEVEL NUMERICAL VALUE Equally Preferred

Equally To Moderately Preferred 2

Moderately Preferred

Moderately To Strongly Preferred 4

Strongly Preferred 5

Strongly To Very Strongly Preferred 6

Very Strongly Preferred 7

Very Strongly To Extremely Preferred 8

Extremely Preferred


14/42

14 | P a g e

AHP process

SUPPLIER LIST

Flow Care Industries Ltd. Chennai. - A R.D Forge Industries Ltd. Ghaziabad. - B C.D. Industries Ltd.Ghaziabad.- C

CRITERIA

Quality Price Delivery

MATERIALS

1. Studs Nuts2. Flanges3. SS Plates4. Angle & Flat5. Seamless ERW Pipes6. Valves7. Wire Mesh8. Wool


15/42

15 | P a g e

MATERIAL: STUD&NUT

THE PAIR-WISE COMPARISON MATRICES FOR EACH OF THE THREE CRITERIA ARE

SUMMARIZED BELOW:

THE PRIORITIZED DECISION CRITERIA ACCORDING TO THE COMPARISONS IS

SUMMARIZED BELOW

CRITERIA Quality Price Delivery

Quality 1 5 3Price 1/5 1 1/5

Delivery 1/3 5 1

Quality

SUPPLIERS A B CA 1 1 5

B 1 1 5

C 1/5 1/5 1

PRICE

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1

B 4 1 1

C 4 1 1

DELIVERYSUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1 1/5

B 1 1 1/5

C 5 5 1


16/42

16 | P a g e

DEVELOPING MATRICES AND PERFERENCE VECTORS FOR ALL THE PAIR-WISE

COMPARISON MATRICES FOR CRITERIA

THE PERFERENCE VECTOR ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING MATRIX

CRITERION

SUPPLIERS QUALITY PRICE DELIVERY

A 0.4545 0.1111 0.1429

B 0.4545 0.4444 0.1429

C 0.0909 0.4444 0.7142

RANKING THE CRITERIA

CRITERIA Quality Price Delivery Row Total Row AverageQuality 0.6522 0.4545 0.7143 1.8210 0.6070

Price 0.1304 0.0909 0.0476 0.2689 0.0897

Delivery 0.2174 0.4545 0.2381 0.9100 0.3033

1.0000

Quality

Suppliers A B C Row Total Row Average

A 0.4545 0.4545 0.4545 1.3635 0.4545B 0.4545 0.4545 0.4545 1.3635 0.4545

C 0.0909 0.0909 0.0909 0.2727 0.0909

1.0000

Price


A 0.1111 0.1111 0.1111 0.3333 0.1111

B 0.4444 0.4444 0.4444 1.3332 0.4444

C 0.4444 0.4444 0.4444 1.3332 0.4444

1.0000

Delivery


A 0.1429 0.1429 0.1429 0.4287 0.1429

B 0.1429 0.1429 0.1429 0.4287 0.1429

C 0.7142 0.7142 0.7142 2.1426 0.7142

1.0000


17/42

17 | P a g e

THE PERFERENCE VECTOR FOR THE CRITERIA IS

CRITERIA SCORE

QUAILTY 0.6070

PRICE 0.0897

DELIVERY 0.3033

DEVELOPING AN OVERALL RANKING

MATRIX MULTIPLICATION

QUAILTY PRICE DELIVERY

QUAILTY 0.6070 A 0.4545 0.1111 0.1429

PRICE 0.0897 X B 0.4545 0.4444 0.1429

DELIVERY 0.3033 C 0.0909 0.4444 0.7142

SUPPLIERS CRITERIA SCORE


A 0.2759 0.0099 0.0433 0.3292

B 0.2759 0.0399 0.0433 0.3591

C 0.0552 0.0399 0.2166 0.3117

0.6070 0.0897 0..3033 1.0000

Supplier B-R.D Forge Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply ofstud & nut.


18/42

18 | P a g e

MATERIAL: FLANGE


SUMMARIZED BELOW:


SUMMARIZED BELOW


Quality 1 5 3Price 1/5 1 1/5

Delivery 1/3 5 1

Quality


B 1 1

C 1 1

PRICE

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1/5 1/3

B 5 1 3

C 3 1/3 1

DELIVERYSUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1/6

B 6 1 3

C 4 1/3 1


19/42

19 | P a g e




CRITERION


A 0.5000 0.1061 0.0869

B 0.2500 0.6334 0.6394

C 0.2500 0.2605 0.2737


CRITERIA Quality Price Delivery Row Total Row AverageQuality 0.6522 0.4545 0.7143 1.8210 0.6070

Price 0.1304 0.0909 0.0476 0.2689 0.0897

Delivery 0.2174 0.4545 0.2381 0.9100 0.3033

1.0000

Quality


A 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 1.5000 0.5000B 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.7500 0.2500

C 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.7500 0.2500

1.0000

Price


A 0.1111 0.1304 0.0769 0.3184 0.1061

B 0.5556 0.6522 0.6923 1.9001 0.6334

C 0.3333 0.2174 0.2308 0.7815 0.2605

1.0000

Delivery


A 0.0909 0.1111 0.0588 0.2608 0.0869

B 0.5455 0.6667 0.7059 1.9181 0.6394

C 0.3636 0.2222 0.2353 0.8211 0.2737

1.0000


20/42

20 | P a g e


CRITERIA SCORE

QUAILTY 0.6070

PRICE 0.0897

DELIVERY 0.3033



QUAILTY 0.6070 A 0.5000 0.1061 0.0869

PRICE 0.0897 X B 0.2500 0.6334 0.6394

DELIVERY 0.3033 C 0.2500 0.2605 0.2737



A 0.3034 0.0095 0.0265 0.3394

B 0.1518 0.0568 0.1938 0.4024

C 0.1518 0.0234 0.0830 0.2582

0.6070 0.0897 0..3033 1.0000

Supplier B-R.D.Forge Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply of Flange.


21/42

21 | P a g e

MATERIAL: SS PLATES

THE PAIR-WISE COMPARISON MATRICES FOR EACH OF THE THREE CRITERIA ARESUMMARIZED BELOW:


SUMMARIZED BELOW


Quality 1 5 3

Price 1/5 1 1/5Delivery 1/3 5 1

Quality

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1/3B 4 1 2

C 3 1

PRICE

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1/6

B 4 1 1/2

C 6 2 1

DELIVERY


B 1 2

C 1/3 1


22/42

22 | P a g e

DEVELOPING MATRICES AND PERFERENCE VECTORS FOR ALL THE PAIR-WISECOMPARISON MATRICES FOR CRITERIA


CRITERION


A 0.1227 0.0893 0.5390

B 0.5571 0.3237 0.2972

C 0.3202 0.5870 0.1638


CRITERIA Quality Price Delivery Row Total Row Average

Quality 0.6522 0.4545 0.7143 1.8210 0.6070

Price 0.1304 0.0909 0.0476 0.2689 0.0897

Delivery 0.2174 0.4545 0.2381 0.9100 0.3033

1.0000

Quality

Suppliers A B C Row Total Row AverageA 0.1250 0.1429 0.1000 0.3679 0.1227

B 0.5000 0.5714 0.6000 1.6714 0.5571

C 0.3750 0.2857 0.3000 0.9607 0.3202

1.0000

Price


A 0.0909 0.0769 0.1000 0.2678 0.0893

B 0.3636 0.3077 0.3000 0.9713 0.3237

C 0.5455 0.6154 0.6000 1.6714 0.58701.0000

Delivery


A 0.5455 0.5714 0.5000 1.6169 0.5390

B 0.2727 0.2857 0.3333 0.8917 0.2972

C 0.1818 0.1429 0.1667 0.4917 0.1638

1.0000


23/42

23 | P a g e


CRITERIA SCORE

QUAILTY 0.6070

PRICE 0.0897

DELIVERY 0.3033




QUAILTY 0.6070 A 0.1227 0.0893 0.5390

PRICE 0.0897 X B 0.5571 0.3237 0.2972

DELIVERY 0.3033 C 0.3202 0.5870 0.1638



A 0.0745 0.0080 0.1635 0.2460

B 0.3582 0.0290 0.0900 0.4572

C 0.1943 0.0527 0.0498 0.2968

0.6070 0.0897 0..3033 1.0000

Supplier B-R.D Forge Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply of SS Plates.


24/42

24 | P a g e

MATERIAL:ANGLE & FLAT


SUMMARIZED BELOW:


SUMMARIZED BELOW


Quality 1 7 5Price 1/7 1 3

Delivery 1/5 1/3 1

Quality

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1 1

B 1 1 1

C 1 1 1

PRICE

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1/3

B 3 1

C 4 2 1

DELIVERY

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 2 1

B 1/2 1 1/2

C 1 2 1


25/42

25 | P a g e




CRITERION


A 0.3333 0.1226 0.4000

B 0.3333 0.3202 0.2000

C 0.3333 0.5572 0.4000



Quality 0.7447 0.8400 0.5556 2.1403 0.7134

Price 0.1064 0.1200 0.3333 0.5597 0.1866

Delivery 0.1489 0.0400 0.1111 0.3000 0.1000

1.0000

QualitySuppliers A B C Row Total Row Average

A 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 0.3333

B 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 0.3333

C 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 0.3333

1.0000

Price


A 0.1250 0.1000 0.1429 0.3679 0.1226

B 0.3750 0.3000 0.2857 0.9607 0.3202C 0.5000 0.6000 0.5714 1.6714 0.5572

1.0000

Delivery


A 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 1.2000 0.4000

B 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.6000 0.2000

C 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 1.2000 0.4000

1.0000


26/42

26 | P a g e


CRITERIA SCORE

QUAILTY 0.7134

PRICE 0.1866

DELIVERY 0.1000




QUAILTY 0.7134 A 0.3333 0.1226 0.4000

PRICE 0.1866 X B 0.3333 0.3207 0.2000

DELIVERY 0.1000 C 0.3333 0.5572 0.4000



A 0.2378 0.0229 0.0400 0.3007

B 0.2378 0.0597 0.0200 0.3175

C 0.2378 0.1040 0.0400 0.3818

0.7134 0.1866 0.1000 1.0000

Supplier C - C.D. Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply of Angle flat.


27/42

27 | P a g e

MATERIAL: SEAMLESS ERW PIPES


SUMMARIZED BELOW:


SUMMARIZED BELOW


Quality 1 7 5

Price 1/7 1 3

Delivery 1/5 1/3 1

Quality

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1 5

B 1 1 5

C 1/5 1/5 1

PRICE

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 6 3

B 1/6 1 1/6

C 1/3 6 1

DELIVERY

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 5 1/3

B 1/5 1 1/2

C 3 2 1


28/42

28 | P a g e




CRITERION


A 0.4545 0.6161 0.3483

B 0.4545 0.0760 0.1484

C 0.0909 0.3079 0.5033



Quality 0.7447 0.8400 0.5556 2.1403 0.7134

Price 0.1064 0.1200 0.3333 0.5597 0.1866

Delivery 0.1489 0.0400 0.1111 0.3000 0.1000

1.0000

Quality


A 0.4545 0.4545 0.4545 1.3635 0.4545

B 0.4545 0.4545 0.4545 1.3635 0.4545

C 0.0909 0.0909 0.0909 0.2727 0.0909

1.0000

Price


A 0.6667 0.4615 0.7200 1.8482 0.6161B 0.1111 0.0710 0.0400 0.2281 0.0760

C 0.2222 0.4615 0.2400 0.9237 0.3079

1.0000

Delivery


A 0.2351 0.6250 0.1818 1.0449 0.3483

B 0.0476 0.1250 0.2727 0.2281 0.1484

C 0.7143 0.3750 0.5455 1.5098 0.5033

1.0000


29/42

29 | P a g e


CRITERIA SCORE

QUAILTY 0.7134

PRICE 0.1866

DELIVERY 0.1000




QUAILTY 0.7134 A 0.4545 0.6161 0.3483

PRICE 0.1866 X B 0.4545 0.0760 0.1484

DELIVERY 0.1000 C 0.0909 0.3079 0.5033



A 0.3242 0.1150 0.0348 0.4750

B 0.3242 0.0143 0.0148 0.3533

C 0.0648 0.0575 0.0503 0.1727

1.0000

Supplier A - Flow Care Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply of Seamless ERW

Pipes.


30/42

30 | P a g e

MATERIAL: VALVES


SUMMARIZED BELOW:


SUMMARIZED BELOW

CRITERIA Quality Price DeliveryQuality 1 9 7

Price 1/9 1 5

Delivery 1/7 1/5 1

QualitySUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1 1/3

B 1 1 1/3

C 3 3 1

PRICE

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 6

B 1/6 1 1/7

C 2 7 1

DELIVERY

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 3 1/3

B 1/3 1 1/5

C 3 5 1


31/42

31 | P a g e




CRITERION


A 0.2000 0.3486 0.2605

B 0.2000 0.0703 0.1061

C 0.6000 0.5801 0.6334



Quality 0.7975 0.8824 0.5385 2.2184 0.7395

Price 0.0886 0.0980 0.3846 0.5712 0.1904

Delivery 0.1139 0.0196 0.0769 0.2104 0.0701

1.0000

Quality


A 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.6000 0.2000

B 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.6000 0.2000

C 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 1.8000 0.6000

1.0000

Price


A 0.3158 0.4286 0.3043 1.0487 0.3486B 0.0526 0.0714 0.0870 0.2110 0.0703

C 0.6316 0.5000 0.6087 1.7403 0.5801

1.0000

Delivery


A 0.2308 0.3333 0.2174 0.7815 0.2605

B 0.0769 0.1111 0.1304 0.3184 0.1061

C 0.6923 0.5556 0.6522 1.9001 0.6334

1.0000


32/42

32 | P a g e


CRITERIA SCORE

QUAILTY 0.7395

PRICE 0.1904

DELIVERY 0.0701




QUAILTY 0.7395 A 0.2000 0.3496 0.2605

PRICE 0.1904 X B 0.2000 0.1061 0.1061

DELIVERY 0.0701 C 0.6000 0.6334 0.6334



A 0.1479 0.0666 0.0183 0.2328

B 0.1479 0.0134 0.0074 0.1687

C 0.4437 0.1104 0.0444 0.5985

1.0000

Supplier C - C.D. Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply ofValves.


33/42

33 | P a g e

MATERIAL: WIREMESH

THE PAIR-WISE COMPARISON MATRICES FOR EACH OF THE THREE CRITERIA ARESUMMARIZED BELOW:


SUMMARIZED BELOW

CRITERIA Quality Price DeliveryQuality 1 9 7

Price 1/9 1 5

Delivery 1/7 1/5 1

QualitySUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1 2

B 1 1 2

C 1

PRICE

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1/6

B 2 1 1/5

C 6 5 1

DELIVERY

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 4 1/5

B 1 1/7

C 5 7 1


34/42

34 | P a g e




CRITERION


A 0.4000 0.1034 0.2141

B 0.4000 0.1741 0.0766

C 0.2000 0.7225 0.7093



Quality 0.7975 0.8824 0.5385 2.2184 0.7395

Price 0.0886 0.0980 0.3846 0.5712 0.1904

Delivery 0.1139 0.0196 0.0769 0.2104 0.0701

1.0000

Quality


A 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 1.2000 0.4000

B 0.4000 0.4000 0.4000 1.2000 0.4000

C 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.6000 0.2000

1.0000

Price


A 0.1111 0.0769 0.1210 0.3100 0.1034B 0.2222 0.1538 0.1464 0.5224 0.1741

C 0.6667 0.7692 0.7317 2.1676 0.7225

1.0000

Delivery


A 0.1600 0.3333 0.1489 0.6422 0.2141

B 0.0400 0.0833 0.1069 0.2297 0.0766

C 0.8400 0.5833 0.7447 2.1280 0.7093

1.0000


35/42

35 | P a g e


CRITERIA SCORE

QUAILTY 0.7395

PRICE 0.1904

DELIVERY 0.0701




QUAILTY 0.7395 A 0.4000 0.1034 0.2141

PRICE 0.1904 X B 0.4000 0.1741 0.0766

DELIVERY 0.0701 C 0.2000 0.7225 0.7093



A 0.2958 0.0197 0.0150 0.3305

B 0.2958 0.0331 0.0054 0.3343

C 0.1479 0.1376 0.0497 0.3352

1.0000

Supplier C - C.D. Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply of Wire Mesh.


36/42

36 | P a g e

MATERIAL: WOOL


SUMMARIZED BELOW:


SUMMARIZED BELOW


Quality 1 9 7

Price 1/9 1 5Delivery 1/7 1/5 1

Quality

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 1 3

B 1 1 3

C 1/3 1/3 1

PRICE

SUPPLIERS A B C

A 1 5 5

B 1/5 1 3

C 1/5 1/3 1

DELIVERY


B 1/3 1 3

C 1/5 1/3 1


37/42

37 | P a g e

DEVELOPING MATRICES AND PERFERENCE VECTORS FOR ALL THE PAIR-WISECOMPARISON MATRICES FOR CRITERIA


CRITERION


A 0.4286 0.6874 0.6334

B 0.4286 0.2114 0.2605

C 0.1428 0.1022 0.1061



Quality 0.7975 0.8824 0.5385 2.2184 0.7395

Price 0.0886 0.0980 0.3846 0.5712 0.1904

Delivery 0.1139 0.0196 0.0769 0.2104 0.0701

1.0000

Quality

Suppliers A B C Row Total Row AverageA 0.4286 0.4286 0.4286 1.2858 0.4286

B 0.4286 0.4286 0.4286 1.2858 0.4286

C 0.1428 0.1428 0.1428 0.4284 0.1428

1.0000

Price


A 0.7142 0.7895 0.5556 2.0593 0.6874

B 0.1429 0.1579 0.3333 0.6341 0.2114

C 0.1429 0.0526 0.1111 0.3066 0.10221.0000

Delivery


A 0.6522 0.6923 0.5556 1.9001 0.6334

B 0.2174 0.2308 0.3333 0.7815 0.2605

C 0.1304 0.0769 0.1111 0.3184 0.1061

1.0000


38/42

38 | P a g e


CRITERIA SCORE

QUAILTY 0.7395

PRICE 0.1904

DELIVERY 0.0701




QUAILTY 0.7395 A 0.4286 0.6874 0.6334

PRICE 0.1904 X B 0.4286 0.2114 0.2605

DELIVERY 0.0701 C 0.1428 0.1022 0.1061



A 0..3169 0.1307 0.0444 0.4920

B 0.3169 0.0403 0.0183 0.3755

C 0.1056 0.0195 0.0074 0.1325

1.0000

Supplier A - Flow Care Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply of Wool.


39/42

39 | P a g e

RESULTS

SL.NO. MATERIAL PRESENT SUPPLIER SUGGESTED

SUPPLIER

1. STUD&NUT C.D Industries Ltd R.D Forge Industries Ltd

2. FLANGE R.D Forge Industries Ltd R.D Forge Industries Ltd

3. SS PLATES Flow Care Industries Ltd R.D Forge Industries Ltd

4. ANGLE & FLAT C.D Industries Ltd C.D Industries Ltd

5. SEAMLESS ERWPIPES

C.D Industries Ltd Flow Care Industries Ltd

6. VALVES C.D Industries Ltd C.D Industries Ltd

7. WIREMESH C.D Industries Ltd C.D Industries Ltd

8. WOOL Flow Care Industries Ltd Flow Care Industries Ltd


40/42

40 | P a g e

SUGGESTIONS

Supplier B-R.D Forge Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply ofSTUD & NUT,instead of present Supplier C-C.D. Industries Ltd

Supplier B-R.D Forge Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply ofSS PLATES ,instead of present Supplier A- Flow Care Industries Ltd.

Supplier A- Flow Care Industries Ltd. should be chosen for supply ofSeamless ERWPipes ,instead of present Supplier C-C.D. Industries Ltd

.


41/42

41 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

The analytical hierarchy process provides a useful means for identifying alternatives and

criteria and analyzing the decision-making process.

In order to rely on this result, the AIPL must have confidence in the judgements made in

developing the pair wise comparisons.

However, even if AIPL does not make its selection based on the AHP results, following

this process can help identify and prioritize the criteria and identify the strengths & weakness of

the different suppliers.


42/42

REFERENCE

Russell and Taylor III operational management, Prentice Hall of India; 4th edition(2008).

Panneerselvam R. and Senthilkumar R.project management, PHI Learning India; 3rdedition.

www.acousticsind.com
http://www.acousticsind.com/http://www.acousticsind.com/http://www.acousticsind.com/

Documents

Acoustics India Private Limited(2)