International Journal of Security (IJS), Volume (3): Issue (3)

8/8/2019 International Journal of Security (IJS), Volume (3): Issue (3)

1/16


2/16

Editor in ChiefDr Wei WANG

International Journal of Security (IJS)

Book: 2009 Volume 3, Issue 3

Publishing Date:30-06-2009

Proceedings

ISSN (Online): 1985 -2320

This work is subjected to copyright. All rights are reserved whether the whole or

part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting,

re-use of illusions, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any

other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication of parts

thereof is permitted only under the provision of the copyright law 1965, in its

current version, and permission of use must always be obtained from CSC

Publishers. Violations are liable to prosecution under the copyright law.

IJS Journal is a part of CSC Publishers

http://www.cscjournals.org

IJS Journal

Published in Malaysia

Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversation by CSC Publishing

Services CSC Journals, Malaysia

CSC Publishers


3/16

Table of Contents

Volume 3, Issue 3, May/June 2009.

Pages

35 - 47 Evaluation of Potential Manufacturing Suppliers Using AnalyticalHierarchy Process and Cluster Analysis for Benchmarking

A. Cazan, A.W.M Lung, Adnan, Godfried Williams, M. Safa.

International Journal of Security (IJS), Volume (3): Issue (3)


4/16

A. Adnan, A. Cazan, M. Safa, A.W.M Lung & G. Williams

International Journal of Security, (IJS) Volume (3) : Issue (3) 36

Evaluation of Potential Manufacturing Suppliers Using AnalyticalHierarchy Process and Cluster Analysis for Benchmarking

A. Adnan [email protected]

4 Wanstead Park Road

A. CazanSchool of Computing & Technology,University of East London, UK

M. SafaFaculty of Engineering,Kingston University

A.W.M LungFaculty of Engineering,Kingston University

G. Williams [email protected] of Engineering,Kingston University

___________________________________________________Abstract

This paper proposes an assessment method for the potential outsourcees (suppliers) in agreement with thebenchmark evaluated for a set of surveyed UK based companies. The results of the survey are orderedusing Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Cluster Analysis (CA). The partial and total evaluation score ofeach supplier is compared with the benchmark. The outsourcee that achieves the highest total score couldbe considered as the most suitable match. The result of integrating AHP and CA may be applied as aneffective method for matching and evaluating the right outsourcee in the manufacturing sector.

Keywords: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Cluster Analysis, Decision, Outsourcee, Outsourcing,Outsourcer, Outsourcee Selection


5/16



Ou t s o rc e e S e l e c t io n

for Manufac tur ing

Technology &

Manufacturing Ability

M a n a g e m e n t &

Business Profes s ionalism

Financial Operation

Ability

Reputation

OrganisationalEnviornm ent & Laws

R e s p o ns iv ene s s to c ha ng e

F lex ibi li ty to a djust c ha ng e s

L ink with a number of low tier suppliers

L inked supp liers comply qua lity s tandar ds

Se cur e c o mmunic a t io n s y s tem

Infor mation declaration a bout l inked su ppliers

L inked suppliers part ic ipate in improvements

G ood re lationsh ips with l inked su ppliers

Un derstand ing the customer's requ irement

T rained s taff for re lationsh ip develop ment

N o t s u bje cte d to r e c e iv er s h ip o r ba nkr uptc y

T ime (D ur a t io n) in bus ine s s by o u ts o ur c e e

Cost E ffectiveness

On Time Delivery

Quality

C o m pe t i ti v e C o s tSus ta ina b le C o s t

C o s t C o ns i s te nc y

D e l iv e ry L e a d T ime

Delivery Cons is tency

D e l iv e ry D o c u me nta t io n

Pr o duc t S ta nda r d

D e s ig n S ta nda r d

M a te r ia l Sta nda r d

Ha r dw a r e

Pe rsonnel capab ili ty

Pr ocess capabil ity

G o a l Criteria Sub - Criteria Alternatives

O

U

T

S

O

U

R

C

E

E

O

U

T

S

O

U

R

C

E

E

O

U

T

S

O

U

R

C

E

E

0 . 0 5 6 0

Inte l lectua l property prote ction law

O uts our c e e unde r s ta nds bus ines s r u le s

0 . 0 7 2 6

0 . 0 7 0 8

0 . 0 9 2 7

0 . 1 1 8 2

0 . 1 4 0 5

0.1897

0 . 2 5 9 5

0 . 5 8 3 4

0 . 4 1 6 6

0 . 5 5 9 3

0 . 1 7 4 0

0 . 2 6 6 7

0 . 5 1 6 7

0 . 4 8 3 3

0 . 0 5 0 0

0 . 1 6 7 2

0 . 0 8 1 2

0 . 0 9 6 9

0 . 1 6 7 2

0 . 1 6 7 2

0 . 1 2 2 4

0 . 1 4 6 0

0 . 7 0 8 4

0 . 2 9 1 6

0 . 4 8 0 6 0 . 2 2 3 2

0 . 2 9 6 2

0 . 2 7 0 2

0 . 4 4 3 0

0 . 2 8 6 8

0 . 5 0 6 6

0 . 2 7 3 4

0 . 2 2 0 0

FIGURE 1: The weighted hierarchy structure for outsourcee selection

Figure 1 is a result of survey of around twenty British manufacturing companies practicing outsourcing. Theorder and weightings of the criteria are the result of the application of AHP & CA to the survey results.

Therefore, the order and the values listed in Figure 1 are the benchmark representative for the companiessurveyed.

1. Introduction

The main objective of the outsourcing is to compliment participants manufacturing ability by maximising theutility of available resources. Due to differences between outsourcer (company) and outsourcee (supplier)regarding their locations, management methods, legal and taxation system, there are difficulties in practicingoutsourcing effectively. The communications (applications) are also vulnerable to attack by maliciousapplications [11]. The need to protect communications from prying eyes is greater than before [10]. Thesuccess of the outsourcing depends upon the ability of the outsourcee in delivering good quality products ontime at a competitive cost.

Since over the last decade researchers have increased their attention for improving outsourcing byimplementing improvement models and algorithms to survive in dynamic Global market. In this regard animprovement model was proposed that was formulated by integrating Theory of Constraints withoutsourcing in order to exploit the existing resources [1]. The outcome of the outsourcing is the acquisition ofthe quality products at competitive sustainable cost and short lead time [7]. The initial problem of theoutsourcing arises when the desires or the goals of the outsourcer and the outsourcee conflicts or theirpreferences are different. Therefore, improvement in outsourcing is not guaranteed without the participationof right outsourcee. The outsourcees must be evaluated according to the criteria that are in line with theoutsourcer organisations outsourcing strategies.


6/16



A wrong decision choice makes the outsourcing fail to achieve reduction in manufacturing lead time, costand enhance quality [5]. The analytical hierarchy process was developed by Thomas Saaty in 1971 [6].Bhutta and Huq applied total cost of ownership and AHP for supplier selection [2]. The supplier selectionshave been carried out by applying AHP [2], [3]. Ting and Cho suggested that the suppliers be selectedaccording to their global performances [8]. Outsourcing participant evaluation is one of the most importantfactors. This study encompasses the application of the AHP-CA method on one of the EuropeanManufacturing Company EMC for suitable outsourcee evaluation. The information used in this case study is

line with real data but the names of the companies have been changed for business security.

2. Outsourcee Evaluation

The objective of EMC is to become a reputable player in its local market and expand its business globally aspart of strategic planning. Having achieved a great share of its local market business, EMC is offering aftersales service and maintenance to other organisations as an outsourcee. Due to dynamic nature of themarkets, it is always desirable searching new outsourcee for successful and sustainable outsourcingoperations. In order to expand its activities EMC decided outsourcing in 2004. There were uncertainties dueto a number of cases of outsourcing failures because of hidden problems. It was essential to search for anoutsourcee that understands EMCs market requirements and participates in development and manufactureof the products according to European standards.

In the initial search approximately more than 6000 suppliers were identified and anyone could be a potentialoutsourcee candidate. In order to refine the search an evaluation method is developed that is based oncomparing the outsourcers requirement criteria with suppliers (candidate outsourcee) capability criteria.According to the suppliers database, there are thousands of suppliers willing to be outsourcee candidateand everyday their number is increasing. It is very important to choose a supplier that is most appropriate forthe company, as soon as possible and at the expense of minimum cost. The problem of evaluating anoutsourcee becomes difficult when constraints such as minimum cost, short search time and accuracy areapplicable. Due to Globalisation, companies all around the World are competing to supply despite theirspecifications are in different formats due to difference in language and standards.

The evaluation method is applied to rank the suppliers enabling equality of access as a free trade market.During outsourcee (supplier) evaluation, the attributes are matched and Decision Makers assign relativepriority / importance weight. Each outsourcee (supplier) is assessed by employing eight criteria and twenty-six sub-criteria. The suppliers are ranked in a logical order according to their total importance weights whichare calculated from their criteria and sub-criteria weights. As an illustration, application of the evaluation

method is shown for comparing four (candidate outsourcee) suppliers.

3. Assigning Ranking Scale (S)

Prioritised the criteria based on their relative importance and used as a filter in short-listing themanufacturers as candidate outsourcee. Quality is the first criteria on the importance list. The outsourceescapability to comply quality is scaled from 1 to 10; 10 for conforming ISO or European standards, 7 forAmerican standards and 5 for Chinese standards. On time delivery criterion is composed of consistentdelivery, flexible delivery within reasonable lead time and complete documentation. The On Time Deliveryability is scaled from 1-10; 1 for worst and 10 for excellent ability. The criterion of cost effectiveness is usedfor consistent, competitive cost that is sustainable. Similarly, cost effectiveness ability of the outsourcee isscaled 1 to 10; 1 for worst and 10 for most acceptable price quotations. The fourth selection criterion isOrganisational environment & laws that scales the organisations ability from the intellectual property

protection law and business law. It is also scaled from 1 to 10; 1 having worst and 10 for the best ability.Technology & manufacturing ability encompasses the hardware, personnel capability and process capability.For selecting an outsourcee Technology & manufacturing ability is scaled from 1 to 10; 1 having worst and10 for the best ability. Management & business professionalism criterion evaluates the training programmeand the professional behaviour of an organisation. Like other criteria, it is also scaled from 1 to 10; 1 havingworst and 10 for the best ability. Financial operation ability is ranked seventh according to importance indecision making. This criterion evaluates an outsourcees financial stability and professional accreditation ofits accounting staff. Similar to other criterion, it is also scaled from 1 to 10; 1 for least ability and 10 for theexcellence. Reputation is the eighth criterion that identifies an outsourcees ability for implementing acontract and its acknowledgement in the community it operates. Like other criterion, it is also scaled from 1to 10; 1 for least ability and 10 for the excellence.


7/16



4. Application of the AHP-CA Method

The evaluation method is developed to facilitate small and medium size manufacturing organisations inassessing candidate outsourcee. As a test case method is applied on EMC that specialises in designing,manufacturing and assembling motorcycles, mopeds and their parts to select an outsourcee based in China.The process of outsourcee selection is based on multi-criteria such as cost, delivery, quality and reputationetc. The abbreviations of all the criteria, sub-criteria and their corresponding scores which are used in theformula/ expressions are listed in the appendix Table. Total outsourcee priority weights are evaluated usingequation 1.

(1)Where

= Priority weight of criterion

= Criterions number

= Priority weight of sub-criterion

= Number of sub-criterion

= Outsourcees ranking score= Candidate outsourcees Number

is the total number of sub-criteria for certain criterion. The numbers of sub-criteria range from two to

eight for a particular criterion in the given formulated matching algorithm. is the total numbers ofoutsourcee candidate applicants.

The values of are:

For SUPD , for SUPK , for SUPW and for SUPBThe abbreviations of all the criteria and sub-criteria are tabulated as follows.

TMA OELFAReMBPCEOTDQu

MS

DS

PS

DD D

CDLT

CCn

SC

CmC

UBR

GRLT

IPLT

IDLT

SCom

QSLT

No

LT

FlCh

Res

Ch

TiB

NBcy

PrCp

PlCp

HdWr

UIPL

UBL

SUPD

(S1)

SUPK

(S2)

SUPW

(S3)

SUPB

(S4)

W1W2W3W4W5W6

Outsourcee

Selection

W7W8

W83

W82

W81W73

W72W71

W63

W62

W61 W52W48

W47

W46

W45

W44

W43W42

W41

W32W31 W23

W22

W21

TSCR

W51W12

W11

S183

S283

S383

S483

S411

S412S421

S311

FIGURE 2: Figure showing criteria, sub-criteria for evaluating outsourcing participant (joint)


8/16



The Figure 2 shows the four layers of outsourcee selection hierarchy process. The top layer represents thegoal/ objective. The second and the third hierarchy layers represent outsourcee selection criteria and sub-criteria. The fourth layer shows four short listed candidate outsourcees: SUPD, SUPK, SUPW and SUPB.

The Figure 2 displays 8 criteria and 26 sub-criteria connections corresponding to each outsourcee. For moreclarity, the Figure 2 is split into further four Figures. For each of the detailed four Figures the hierarchy level1, level 2 and level 3 are common. In each of the Figures 3 to 6, the level 4 of the hierarchy displays a single

candidate outsourcee.

SUPDs priority weight evaluation components are shown in Figure 3, SUPKs priority weight evaluationcomponents in Figure 4 and SUPWs priority weight evaluation components in Figure 5 and SUPBs priorityweight evaluation components in Figure 6. In order to perform the calculations, formula 1 is expanded toexpression 2 and the numerical calculation is illustrated in expression 3 for SUPD, expressions 4 & 5 forSUPK, expressions 6 & 7 for SUPW and expressions 8 & 9 for SUPB.

The final total priority weights results are calculated as:SUPD 7.0342, SUPKs 6.5991, SUPWs 6.3464, SUPBs 5.3905.


MS

DS

PS

DD D

CDLT

CCn

SC

Cm

C

UBR

GRLT

IPLT

IDLT

SCom

QSLT

No

LT

FlCh

Res

Ch

TiB

NBcy

PrCp

PlCp

HdWr

UIPL

UBL

SUPD

(S1)

W1W2W3W4W5W6

Outsourcee

Selection

W7W8

W83

W82

W81W73

W72

W71

W63

W62

W61 W52W48

W47

W46

W45

W44

W43

W42W41

W32

W31 W23

W22

W21

TSCR

W51W12

W11

S183 S182 S181 S173 S172S171 S163

S162

S161 S152S151 S148

S147

S146

S145

S144

S143

S142S141 S132 S131 S123S122S121 S112 S111

FIGURE 3: Figure showing criteria, sub-criteria for evaluating outsourcing participant (SUPD)

SUPD (S1) =

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]1838318282181818

1737317272171717163631626216161615252151515

14848147471464614545144441434314242141414

13232131313123231222212121211212111111

SwSwSwW

SwSwSwWSwSwSwWSwSwW

SwSwSwSwSwSwSwSwW

SwSwWSwSwSwWSwSwW

++

++++++++

++++++++

+++++++

(2)

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] 0342.772200.0102734.0105066.02595.0

102868.004430.052702.01897.002962.002232.074806.01405.0102916.0107084.01182.0

01460.001224.0101672.001672.050969.0100812.001672.050500.00927.0

64833.0105167.00708.0102667.0101740.0105593.00726.0104166.0105834.00560.0

=++

++++++++

++++++++

+++++++ (3)

Total Priority Weight of SUPD = 7.0342


9/16




MS

DS

PS

DD D

CDLT

CCn

SC

Cm

C

UBR

GRLT

IPLT

IDLT

SCom

QSLT

No

LT

FlCh

Res

Ch

TiB

NBcy

PrCp

PlCp

HdWr

UIPL

UBL

W1W2W3W4W5W6

Outsourcee

Selection

W7W8

W83

W82

W81W73

W72

W71W63

W62

W61 W52W48

W47

W46

W45

W44

W43

W42W41

W32

W31 W23

W22

W21

TSCR

W51W12

W11

S283 S282 S281 S273 S272S271 S263 S262S261 S252S251 S248

S247

S246

S245

S244

S243

S242S241 S232 S231 S223S222S221 S212 S211

SUPK

(S2)

FIGURE 4: Figure showing criteria, sub-criteria for evaluating outsourcing participant (SUPK)

SUPK (S2) =

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]2838328282281818

2737327272271717263632626226161625252251515

24848247472464624545244442434324242241414

23232231313223232222222121221212211111

SwSwSwW

SwSwSwWSwSwSwWSwSwW

SwSwSwSwSwSwSwSwW

SwSwWSwSwSwWSwSwW

++

++++++++

++++++++

+++++++

(4)

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] 5991.672200.072734.0105066.02595.0

102868.004430.052702.01897.002962.002232.0104806.01405.072916.077084.01182.0

01460.001224.0101672.001672.050969.0100812.001672.000500.00927.0

74833.0105167.00708.0102667.081740.0105593.00726.094166.095834.00560.0

=++

++++++++

++++++++

+++++++ (5)

Total Priority Weight of SUPK = 6.5991


10/16




MS

DS

PS

DD D

CDLT

CCn

SC

Cm

C

UBR

GRLT

IPLT

IDLT

SCom

QSLT

No

LT

FlCh

Res

Ch

TiB

NBcy

PrCp

PlCp

HdWr

UIPL

UBL

W1W2W3W4W5W6

Outsourcee

Selection

W7W8

W83

W82

W81W73

W72

W71W63

W62

W61 W52W48

W47

W46

W45

W44

W43

W42W41

W32

W31 W23

W22

W21

TSCR

W51W12

W11

S383 S382 S381 S373 S372S371 S363 S362S361 S352S351 S348

S347

S346

S345

S344

S343

S342S341 S332 S331 S323S322S321 S312 S311

SUPW

(S3)

FIGURE 5: Figure showing criteria, sub-criteria for evaluating outsourcing participant (SUPW)

SUPW (S3) =

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]3838338282381818

3737337272371717363633626236161635252351515

34848347473464634545344443434334242341414

33232331313323233222232121231212311111

SwSwSwW

SwSwSwWSwSwSwWSwSwW

SwSwSwSwSwSwSwSwW

SwSwWSwSwSwWSwSwW

++

++++++++

++++++++

+++++++

(6)

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] 3464.652200.052734.0105066.02595.0

102868.004430.052702.01897.002962.002232.054806.01405.052916.0107084.01182.0

01460.001224.0101672.001672.050969.0100812.001672.000500.00927.0

104833.0105167.00708.0102667.081740.0105593.00726.0104166.0105834.00560.0

=++

++++++++

++++++++

+++++++ (7)

Total Priority Weight of SUPW= 6.3464


11/16




MS

DS

PS

DD D

CDLT

CCn

SC

Cm

C

UBR

GRLT

IPLT

IDLT

SCom

QSLT

No

LT

FlCh

Res

Ch

TiB

NBcy

PrCp

PlCp

HdWr

UIPL

UBL

W1W2W3W4W5W6

Outsourcee

Selection

W7W8

W83

W82

W81W73

W72

W71W63

W62

W61 W52W48

W47

W46

W45

W44

W43

W42W41

W32

W31 W23

W22

W21

TSCR

W51W12

W11

S483 S482 S481 S473 S472S471 S463 S462S461 S452S451 S448

S447

S446

S445

S444

S443

S442S441 S432 S431 S423S422S421 S412 S411

SUPB

(S4)

FIGURE 6: Figure showing criteria, sub-criteria for evaluating outsourcing participant (SUPB)

SUPB (S4) =

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]4838348282481818

4737347272471717463634626246161645252451515

44848447474464644545444444434344242441414

43232431313423234222242121241212411111

SwSwSwW

SwSwSwWSwSwSwWSwSwW

SwSwSwSwSwSwSwSwW

SwSwWSwSwSwWSwSwW

++

++++++++

++++++++

+++++++

(8)

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ]

[ ] [ ] [ ]

[ ] 3905.552200.052734.055066.02595.0

102868.004430.052702.01897.002962.002232.064806.01405.052916.0107084.01182.0

01460.001224.0101672.001672.050969.0100812.001672.000500.00927.0

34833.0105167.00708.0102667.071740.085593.00726.0104166.095834.00560.0

=++

++++++++

++++++++

+++++++ (9)

Total Priority Weight of SUPB = 5.3905

5. Results and Discussions

The priority weights of selection criteria for SUPB, SUPW, SUPK and SUPD are tabulated in Table 1 andplotted in Figure 7. According to organisational Environment & Laws criteria SUPK achieves the lowestscore, whereas, both SUPW and SUPD achieves the highest score. When assessing companies accordingto Technology & Manufacturing Ability criteria, it is found out that SUPB is the least suitable and SUPD isthe most suitable because it has achieved the highest score. From Financial Operation Ability criteriaSUPW is the most stable and SUPB is the least stable. According to Financial Operation Ability criteriaspriority weight SUPD has low financial stability. It needs investments in order to sustain its activities.

Therefore, for a suitable outsourcee having low Financial Operation Ability is a positive point. SUPDachieves the highest Reputation criteria priority weight. When analysing sub-criteria of Reputation it ishighlighted that a suitable company is flexible, responsive to change and linked with a number of low tiersuppliers. The linked suppliers follow quality standards, labour laws and business rules. According toManagement & Business Professionalism criteria SUPD achieves the highest score and SUPK the lowest.The Cost Effectiveness criteria evaluates an organisations capability to manufacture a product atcompetitive cost that is consistent and sustainable. From Cost effectiveness perspective SUPK is mostsuitable and SUPD is the second best choice. But when comparing companies from Quality point of viewSUPD manufacture better quality than SUPK. On account of overall score SUPD is the first choice andSUPK is the second choice as candidate outsourcee for EMC.


12/16



Criteria SUPB SUPW SUPK SUPD

Organisational Environment & Laws 0.5273 0.5600 0.5040 0.5600

Technology & Manufacturing Ability 0.6069 0.7007 0.7007 0.7260

Financial Operation Ability 0.4685 0.7080 0.6053 0.5711

Reputation 0.2752 0.2752 0.2752 0.2984

Management & BusinessProfessionalism

1.0097 1.0097 0.8274 1.1820

Cost Effectiveness 0.4051 0.3376 0.6752 0.4727

On Time Delivery 0.8003 0.8003 0.8003 0.8003

Quality 1.2975 1.9548 2.2109 2.4237

Total: 5.3905 6.3464 6.5991 7.0342

Table 1: Table listing Supplier (outsourcee) comparison Model

FIGURE 7: Line graph for outsourcee selection criteria weights

6. Conclusions

The AHP-CA method has been applied successfully to evaluate outsourcee for a real manufacturingcompany EMC. The results have satisfied the management of the company and earned their approval.They recommended introducing some modifications according to types of products manufactured, locationsof candidate outsourcees and relationship between outsourcee and the outsourcer. One of the importantrecommendations was to prepare a Performa that includes manufacturing level agreement that could besigned with any company, only by incorporating participant company name. The second recommendationwas to arrange the benchmarks by their priority order. Furthermore, establishing the assessment/ evaluationcriteria and their weighting factors are influenced by the subjective opinions of the experts. The effect of thesubjective opinion is mitigated by applying AHP-CA method. In addition, the accuracy of the evaluation


13/16



method results depend upon assessment criteria, comparison data received from experts and theinterpretation of the decision maker. This research reveals the importance of the AHP-CA method and extentto which decision makers are facilitated in outsourcee evaluation. It also reveals the alternative outsourcingparticipant if their relative capabilities are to be assessed correctly.

7. References

1. Adnan, A., Arunachalam, S., Cazan, A. (2007), Improving Outsourcing of Manufacturing OperationsBy Integrating With Theory of Constraints, 5th International Conference on ManufacturingResearch, De Montfort University.Leicester.UK.pp.191-195.

2. Bhutta, K.S., Huq, F. (2002), Supplier selection problem: a comparison of the total cost of ownershipand analytical hierarchy process approach, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,Vol.7.No.3 2002.pp.126-135.

3. Cebi, F., Bayraktar, D. (2003), An integrated approach for supplier selection, Logistics InformationManagement, Vol.16.No.6 2003.pp.395-400.

4. Choy, K.L., Lee, W.B. (2003), A generic supplier management tool for outsourcing manufacturing,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.8.No.2 2003.pp.140-154.

5. Mei-yuan, W., Yao-bin, L., Jin-long, Z. (2006), Software outsourcing risk management: establishingoutsourcee evaluation item systems, Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A, Vol.7.No.62006.pp.1092-1098.

6. Saaty, T.L.(1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.

7. Seol, I., Sarkis, J. (2005), A multi-attribute model for internal auditor selection, Managerial AuditingJournal, Vol.20.No.8 2005.pp.876-892.

8. Ting, S., Cho, D.I. (2008), Anintegrated approach for supplier selection and purchasing decisions,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.13.No.2 2008.pp.116-127.

9. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, W.C. (1991), Vendor Selection criteria and methods, EuropeanJournal of Operational Research, Vol.50.pp.2-18.

10. Acharya, B., Rath, G.S., Patra, S.K., Panigrahy, S.K. (2007), Novel Methods of Generating Self-Invertible Matrix for Hill Cipher Algorithm, International Journal of Computer Science and Security,Vol.1.Issue.1.pp.14-21.

11. Songra, A., Yadav, R.S., Tripathi, S. (2007), Modified Approach for Securing Real Time Applicationon Clusters, International Journal of Computer Science and Security, Vol.1.Issue.1.pp.32-44.


14/16


15/16


16/16

Documents

International Journal of Security (IJS), Volume (3): Issue (3)