| Opis: | The Company Plinarna Maribor has its headquarters in Maribor and provides services with her team of experts in the field of gas engineering. By the construction of new pipelines and house connections canal asphalt surfaces are being formed, that’s why the company selects and evaluates suppliers between construction companies for asphalting canals. The aim of this work is to prepare a decision basis to select the best supplier for asphalt canals by constructing a multi-criteria decision-making model and computer-based multi-criteria decision-making.
In the theoretical part we have shown the platforms of supplier selection and evaluation, the steps of asphalting and computer supported multi-criteria decision-making.
Multi-criteria decision making is appropriate for solving our decision problem, because we had a large number of criteria and attributes and the intuitive decision-making is not enough anymore.
Based on the data that we have got, we have done research with programs Web-HIPRE and Expert Choice. By doing this we used methods of multi-criteria decision-making: SMART, SWING, SMARTER, direct weighting, value function and AHP methods. Multi-criteria decision-making took place on the basis of five alternatives (supplier A, supplier B, supplier C, supplier D and supplier E), five criteria (costs, technical, quality, financial criteria and the benefits) and fourteen attributes (price of goods and services, payment of employees, response to increasing capacity, reliability of technology, production capacity, certificates of the ISO family, responsiveness to complaints, the time of the provided services, number of employees, net income from the sale, net income or loss for the period, bank guarantees, payment conditions and previous cooperation). We structured the decision-making tree for both programs. We determined the weights for the criteria importance; the most important is the financial criterion, because the experts attribute to it the greatest importance. We considered the preferences to the alternatives and made synthesis to obtain final values. At the end, we compared the results, obtained with both computer programs and found out, that supplier A is the best alternative. The programs are adequate to deal with our decision problem. |
|---|
