Abstract
Reverse logistics has emerged as an important dimension for organizations to build their strategic advantage. Part of this effort relies on potentially outsourcing these activities. With this competitive issue in mind, this paper presents a multistep process to select a third-party reverse logistic provider (3PRLP). Criteria for evaluation are drawn from the literature and practical input from experts and decision makers within a case company. The process requires that an initial screening of criteria is completed through the analytical hierarchy process. The second stage of the process, 3PRLP selection, is completed using the analytic network process. An illustrative example is provided to demonstrate the solutions obtained by the proposed process within an automobile case company. A sensitivity analysis is also provided for a robustness check. The results obtained from the proposed model provide some interesting managerial implications to the case company and others wishing to apply the process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Admi S, Youngsu T, Mitsuo G (2002) Study on multi-stage logistic chain network: a spanning tree based genetic algorithm approach. Comput Ind Eng 43:299–314
Aissaoui N, Haouari M, Hassini E (2007) Supplier selection and order lot sizing modeling: a review. Comput Oper Res 34(12):3516–3540
Andersson D, Norrman A (2002) Procurement of logistics services—a minutes work or a multi-year project. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 8(3):14
Azadi M, Saen RF (2011) Developing an output-oriented super slacks-based measure model with an application to third-party reverse logistics providers. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 18(5–6):267–277
Barker TJ, Zabinsky ZB (2011) A multicriteria decision making model for reverse logistics using analytical hierarchy process. Omega 39(5):558–573
Bensaou M (1993) Interorganizational cooperation: the role of information technology, An empirical comparison of US and Japanese Supplier Relations. In: Proceedings on the 14th International Conference on Information Systems, Orland, FL, pp. 117–127
Borade AB, Kannan G, Bansod SV (2013) Analytical hierarchy process based framework for VMI adoption. Int J Prod Res 51(4):963–978
Bottani E, Rizzi A (2006) A fuzzy TOPSIS methodology to support outsourcing of logistics services. Supply Chain Manag Int J 11(4):294–308
Boyson S, Corsi T, Dresner M, Rabinovich E (1999) Managing third party logistics relationships: what does it take. J Bus Logist 20(1):73–100
Cochran J, Ramanujam B (2006) Carrier-mode logistics optimization of inbound supply chains for electronics manufacturing. Int J Prod Econ 103:826–840
Conlon DE, Murray NM (1996) Customer perceptions of corporate responses to product complaints: the role of explanations. Acad Manag J 39(4):1040–1056
Dantzig GB (1963) Linear programming and extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Davis RA, Gaither N (1985) Optimal ordering policies under conditions of extended payment privileges. Manag Sci 31:499–509
de Boer L, Labro E, Morlacchi P (2001) A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 7(2):75–89
Demir I, Orhan M (2003) Reuse of waste bricks in the production line. Build Environ 38:1451–1455
Diabat A, Govindan K, Vinay VP (2012) Risk management and its mitigation in a food supply chain. Int J Prod Res 50(11):3039–3050
Diabat A, Kannan G (2011) An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(6):659–667
Dowlatshahi S (2000) Developing a theory of reverse logistics. Interfaces 30(3):143–155
Efendigil T, Onut S, Kongar E (2008) A holistic approach for selecting a third-party reverse logistics provider in the presence of vagueness. Comput Ind Eng 54(2):269–287
Fisher ML (1997) What is the right supply chain for your product. Harv Bus Rev 75(2):105–116
Govindan K, Murugesan P, Zhu Q, Devika K (2012) Analysis of third party reverse logistics provider using interpretive structural modeling. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):204–211
Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(1/2):71–87
Gunipero LC (1990) Motivating and monitoring JIT supplier performance. J Purch Mater Manag 26(3):19–24
Gupta YP, Bagchi PK (1987) Inbound freight consolidation under just-in-time procurement: application of clearing models. J Bus Logist 8(2):74–94
Haq AN, Kannan G (2006) Design of integration of supplier selection and multi echelon distribution inventory model in a built-to-order supply chain environment. Int J Prod Res 44(10):1963–1985
Haq AN, Kannan G (2006) Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29:826–835
Hendrik J, Matthias Z, Marco F, Joachim K (2006) Performance evaluation as an influence factor for the determination of profit shares of competence cells in non-hierarchical regional production networks. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 22:526–535
Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24
Holguin-Veras J (2002) Revealed preference analysis of the commercial vehicle choice process. J Transp Eng 128(4):336–346
Hsu CW, Hu AH (2009) Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytical network process. J Clean Prod 17(2):255–264
Hum SH, Hayes A (2000) Wheelwright framework for strategic management of third party logistics services. Integr Manuf Syst 1(2):132–137
Jharkharia S, Shankar R (2007) Selection of logistics service provider: an analytic network process (ANP) approach. Omega 35(3):274–289
Jing AL, Wu Y, Kin KL, Liu K (2006) Optimal ordering policy in a distribution system. Int J Prod Econ 103:527–534
Kaliampakos B, Mavrikos AA (2002) Underground storage warehouses in Attica, Greece: a feasible long-term solution. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, Urban Underground Space: a Resource for Cities, November 14–16, Turin, Italy
Kannan G (2009) Fuzzy approach for the selection of third party reverse logistics provider. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 21(3):397–416
Kannan G, Devika K, Haq AN (2010) Analyzing supplier development criteria for an automobile industry. Ind Manag Data Syst 110(1):43–62
Kannan G, Haq AN (2007) Analysis of interactions of criteria and sub-criteria for the selection of supplier in the built- in-order supply chain environment. Int J Prod Res 45(17):3831–3852
Kannan G, Murugesan P (2011) Selection of third party reverse logistics provider using Fuzzy extent analysis. Bench marking Int J 18(1):149–167
Kannan G, Murugesan P, Zhu Q, Devika K (2012) Analysis of third party reverse logistics provider using interpretive structural modeling. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):204–211
Kannan G, Pokharel S, Sasikumar P (2009) A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:28–36
Kim M, Park M, Jeong D (2004) The effects of customer satisfaction and switching barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services. Telecommun Policy 28:145–159
Kleindorfer PR, Partovi FY (1990) Integrating manufacturing strategy and technology choice. Eur J Oper Res 47:214–224
Kleinsorge IK, Schary PB, Tanner RD (1991) The shipper–carrier partnership: a new tool for performance evaluation. J Bus Logist 12(2):35–58
Krumwiede DW, Sheu C (2002) A model for reverse logistics entry by third-party providers. Omega 30(5):325–333
Kumar SK, Roy Muddada RRM, Pandey MK, Mahanty B, Tiwari MK (2012) Logistics planning and inventory optimization using swarm intelligence: a third party perspective. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 65(9–12):1535–1551
Kwang JK, Jeong IJ, Park JC, Park YJ, Kim CG, Kim TH (2007) The impact of network service performance on customer satisfaction and loyalty: high-speed internet service case in Korea. Expert Syst Appl 32:822–831
Langley CJ Jr, Allen GR, Colombo MJ (2003) Third-party logistics: results and findings of the 2003 eighth annual survey. Georgia Institute of Technology, CapGemini, Ernst and Young and Federal Express Corporation, USA
Langley CJ, Allen OR, Tyndall OR (2002) Third party logistics study 2002: results and findings of the seventh annual study. Council of Logistics Management Publications, Illinois, USA
Li L (2011) Assessing the relational benefits of logistics services perceived by manufacturers in supply chain. Int J Prod Econ 132(1):58–67
Lynch CF (2000) Logistics outsourcing: a management guide. Council of Logistics Management Publications, Illinois, USA
Mahesh SR, Meade LL (2005) Strategic decisions in supply-chain intelligence using knowledge management: an analytic network process framework. Supply Chain Manag 10(2):114–121
Mathiyazhagan K, Kannan G, Haq AN, Geng Y (2013) An ISM approach for the analysis of barriers in implementing green supply chain management. J Clean Prod. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.042
Meade L, Sarkis J (1999) Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes: an analytic network approach. Int J Prod Res 37(2):241–261
Meade L, Sarkis J (2002) A conceptual model for selecting and evaluating third party reverse logistics provider. Int J Supply Chain Manag 7:283–295
Meade L, Sarkis J, Liles D (1996) Justifying strategic alliances: a prerequisite for virtual enterprising. OMEGA, Int J Manag Sci 25(1):29–42
Mohr J, Spekman R (1994) Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strateg Manag J 15(2):135–152
Mohrman SA, Von Glinow MA (1990) High technology organizations: a synthesis. In: Von Glinow MA, Mohrman SA (eds) Managing complexity in high technology organizations. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, pp 278–295
Monczka RM, Trent RJ, Callahan TJ (1993) Supply base strategies to maximize supplier performance. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 23(4):42–54
Ordoobadi SM (2009) Outsourcing reverse logistics and remanufacturing functions: a conceptual strategic model. Manag Res News 32(9):831–845
Paramasivam V, Senthil V, Rajam Ramasamy N (2011) Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with digraph and matrix approach, AHP and ANP. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 54(9–12):1233–1244
Poh KL, Ang BW (1999) Transportation fuels and policy for Singapore: an AHP planning approach. Comput Ind Eng 37:507–525
Prahinski C, Kocabasoglu C (2006) Empirical research opportunities in reverse supply chains. Omega 34(6):519–532
Rogers DS, Tibben-Lembke RS (1999) Going backwards: reverse logistics trends and practices. Reverse Logistics Executive Council, Reno, NV
Rogers D, Tibben-Lembke R (2001) An examination of reverse logistics practices. J Bus Logist 22(2):129–148
Saaty TL (1996) The analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
Saen RF (2010) A new model for selecting third-party reverse logistics providers in the presence of multiple dual-role factors. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46(1–4):405–410
Saen RF (2011) A decision model for selecting third-party reverse logistics providers in the presence of both dual-role factors and imprecise data. Asia Pac J Oper Res 28(2):239–254
Sahay BS, Mohan R (2006) Third-party logistics practices: an Indian perspective. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 36(9):666–689
Sakawa M, Nishizaki I, Uemura Y (2001) Fuzzy programming and profit and cost allocation for a production and transportation problem. Eur J Oper Res 131:1–15
Sarkis J (1999) A methodological framework for evaluating environmentally conscious manufacturing programs. Comput Ind Eng 36(4):793–810
Sarkis J, Sundarraj R (2002) Hub location at digital equipment corporation: a comprehensive analysis of qualitative and quantitative factors. Eur J Oper Res 137(2):336–347
Sarkis J, Talluri S (2002) A model for strategic supplier selection. J Supply Chain Manag 38(1):18–28
Sasikumar P, Kannan G (2009) Issues in reverse supply chain, part III: Classification and simple analysis. Int J Sustain Eng 2(1):2–27
Scalle CX, Cotteleer MJ (1999) Enterprise resources planning (ERP). Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA
Schwartz B (2000) Reverse logistics strengthens supply chain. Transp Distrib 41(5):95–100
Serrato M, Ryan SM Gaytan J (2003) Characterization of reverse logistics networks for outsourcing decisions. White paper, Iowa State University
Sipahi S, Timor M (2010) The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Manag Decis 48(5):775–808
Stank TP, Daugherty PJ (1997) The impact of operating environment on the formation of cooperative logistics relationships. Transp Res (Logist Transp Rev) 33(1):53–65
Steven M (2004) Networks in reverse logistics. In: Dyckhoff H, Lackes R, Reese J (eds) Supply chain management and reverse logistics. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–180
Stock JR (1990) Managing computer, communication, and information technology strategically: opportunities and challenges for warehousing. Logist Transp Rev 26(2):133–148
Stock ON, Oreis NP, Kasarda JD (1998) Logistics strategy and structure a conceptual framework. Int J Oper Prod Manag 18(1):37–52
Thompson TJ (1996) An analysis of third party logistics and implications for USAF logistics. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology
Toffel MW (2004) Strategic management of product recovery. Calif Manag Rev 46(2):120–141
Triantaphyllou E, Shu B, Sanchez N, Ray T (1998) “Multi-criteria decision making: an operations research approach”. Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Wiley, New York, NY, pp 175–186
Vaida OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29
Van Dijck JJJ (1990) Transitional management in an evolving European context. Eur Manag J 8(4):474–479
Van JP, Zijm WHM (1999) Models for warehouse management: classification and examples. Int J Prod Econ 59:519–528
Wolf C, Seuring S (2010) Environmental impacts as buying criteria for third party logistical services. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 40(1):84–102
Yuan L, Xiuwu L (2007) Decision support for risk analysis on dynamic alliance. Decis Support Syst 42:2043–2059
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A
Appendix A
Greetings!
This is a research about “An analytic network process (ANP) based multicriteria decision making model for a reverse supply chain”. The purpose of this questionnaire is to explore the opinion about 3PRLP selection. This questionnaire uses ANP to model the 3PRLP selection. As an expert, your support will be very crucial to the successful completion of this research. We sincerely hope that you would spend some time to express your opinions to be taken as reference for this research.
1.1 Instructions for filling out the questionnaire
In order to express your opinion, the pairwise comparison scale proposed by Saaty (refer below table) can be utilized.
Saaty relative importance measurement scale [25, 26]
Preference weights/level of importance | Definition | Explanation |
1 | Equally preferred | Two activities contribute equally to the objective |
3 | Moderately | Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over the other |
5 | Strongly | Experience and judgment strongly or essentially favor one activity over the other |
7 | Very strongly | An activity is strongly favored over the other and its dominance demonstrated in practice |
9 | Extremely | The evidence favoring one activity over the other is of the highest degree possibility affirmation |
2,4,6,8 | Intermediate values | Used to represent compromise between the preferences listed above |
Reciprocals | Reciprocals for inverse comparisons | |
1.2 Method for filling out
Please mark (X) or circle the relative importance levels in terms of pairs of the main factors used in the study.
For example, we used the factors [competencies (CMP) and operational performance (OP)] to explain the method for filling out the questionnaire.
If you mark or circle “6” in the following question, means that “CMP” is six times more important than the “OP”
1 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 |
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Operational performance (OP) |
If you mark or circle “1” in the following question, means that “CMP” is equally preferred as “OP”
2 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Operational performance (OP) |
If you mark or circle “4” in the following question, means that “OP” is four times more important than the “CMP”
3 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Operational performance (OP) |
1.3 Sample question related to the main factors
Please mark (X) or circle the relative importance levels in terms of pairs of the main factors used in the study.
1 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Operational Performance (OP) |
2 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Organization Role (OR) |
3 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Technology Innovation (TI) |
4 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Risk Management (RM) |
5 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Financial Performance (FP) |
6 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | User Satisfaction (US) |
7 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Geographical Spread (GS) |
8 | Competencies (CMP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Network Size (N.S) |
9 | Operational performance (OP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Organization Role (OR) |
10 | Operational performance (OP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Technology Innovation (TI) |
11 | Operational performance (OP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Risk Management (RM) |
12 | Operational performance (OP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Financial Performance (FP) |
13 | Operational performance (OP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | User Satisfaction (US) |
14 | Operational performance (OP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Geographical Spread (GS) |
15 | Operational performance (OP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Network Size (N.S) |
16 | Organization role (OR) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Technology Innovation (TI) |
17 | Organization role (OR) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Risk Management (RM) |
18 | Organization role (OR) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Financial Performance (FP) |
19 | Organization role (OR) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | User Satisfaction (US) |
20 | Organization role (OR) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Geographical Spread (GS) |
21 | Organization role (OR) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Network Size (N.S) |
22 | Technology innovation (TI) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Risk Management (RM) |
23 | Technology Innovation (TI) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Financial Performance (FP) |
24 | Technology innovation (TI) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | User Satisfaction (US) |
25 | Technology innovation (TI) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Geographical Spread (GS) |
26 | Technology innovation (TI) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Network Size (N.S) |
27 | Risk management (RM) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Financial Performance (FP) |
28 | Risk management (RM) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | User Satisfaction (US) |
29 | Risk management (RM) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Geographical Spread (GS) |
30 | Risk management (RM) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Network Size (N.S) |
31 | Financial performance (FP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | User Satisfaction (US) |
32 | Financial performance (FP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Geographical Spread (GS) |
33 | Financial performance (FP) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Network Size (N.S) |
34 | User satisfaction (US) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Geographical Spread (GS) |
35 | User satisfaction (US) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Network Size (N.S) |
36 | Geographical spread (GS) | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Network Size (N.S) |
1.4 Sample question related to the alternatives
Please mark (X) or circle the relative importance levels in terms of pairs of the alternatives with respect to sub-factor “Quality management (QM)” under the main factor of “Competencies (CMP)” used in the study.
1 | 3PRLP1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP2 |
2 | 3PRLP1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP3 |
3 | 3PRLP1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP4 |
4 | 3PRLP1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP5 |
5 | 3PRLP1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP6 |
6 | 3PRLP1 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP7 |
7 | 3PRLP2 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP3 |
8 | 3PRLP2 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP4 |
9 | 3PRLP2 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP5 |
10 | 3PRLP2 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP6 |
11 | 3PRLP2 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP7 |
12 | 3PRLP3 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP4 |
13 | 3PRLP3 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP5 |
14 | 3PRLP3 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP6 |
15 | 3PRLP3 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP7 |
16 | 3PRLP4 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP5 |
17 | 3PRLP4 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP6 |
18 | 3PRLP4 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP7 |
19 | 3PRLP5 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP6 |
20 | 3PRLP5 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP7 |
21 | 3PRLP6 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 3PRLP7 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Govindan, K., Sarkis, J. & Palaniappan, M. An analytic network process-based multicriteria decision making model for a reverse supply chain. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68, 863–880 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-4949-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-4949-2