A Hybrid Cut-Off Point AHP-TOPSIS Framework for Raw Material Supplier Selection in the Digital Printing Industry

Yayan Saputra

doi:10.56211/blendsains.v4i4.1617

Authors

Yayan Saputra Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56211/blendsains.v4i4.1617

Keywords:

Supplier Selection; Cut-Off Point; AHP; TOPSIS; Digital Printing Industry

Abstract

Raw material supplier selection is a strategic decision that influences production continuity, operational efficiency, and product quality, particularly in the digital printing industry, which is inherently time-sensitive. In practice, supplier selection processes are often based primarily on partial considerations of price and quality, which may lead to delivery delays, mismatches in supply quantity, and inconsistencies in material quality. This study aims to develop a hybrid decision-making framework integrating the Cut-Off Point method, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to support systematic and data-driven raw material supplier selection. The initial stage employs the Cut-Off Point method combined with Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to identify relevant evaluation criteria, resulting in five main criteria and twenty subcriteria. The AHP method is applied to determine criteria weights with consistency testing, while TOPSIS is used to rank supplier alternatives based on their relative closeness to the ideal solution. A case study was conducted in a digital printing manufacturing company using real operational data from 2025. The results indicate that delivery is the most influential criterion with a weight of 0.42, where delivery punctuality emerges as the most dominant subcriterion with a weight of 0.50. TOPSIS analysis shows that supplier PT. C achieves the highest preference value of 0.5843 and is therefore prioritized as the best supplier. The proposed hybrid framework enhances the objectivity of supplier selection processes and provides managerial implications for improving raw material supply reliability in the digital printing industry.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Karakoç, Ö., Memiş, S., & Sennaroglu, and B, “A Review of Sustainable Supplier Selection with Decision-Making Methods from 2018 to 2022,” Sustainability, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010125.

[2] Menon, R. R., Ravi, and V., “Using AHP-TOPSIS Methodologies in the Selection of Sustainable Suppliers in Electronics Supply Chain,” Comput. Ind. Eng., 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100130.

[3] Safavi, S., S. Bigham, B., Zahedi-Seresht, and M., “Supplier Selection Utilizing AHP and TOPSIS in a Fuzzy Environment Based on KPIs,” Contemp. Math., 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.37256/cm.6120256152.

[4] Bányai, Á., Bányai, and T., “Comparative Analysis of Supplier Selection Methods in Industry-Specific Contexts,” Adv. Logist. Syst., 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.32971/als.2025.013.

[5] Nguyen, T., Amin, S. H., & Shah, and B., “A Perspective on Supplier Selection and Order Allocation: Literature Review,” Adm. Sci. 14(9), 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090206.

[6] S. Hassanzadeh Amin and Guoqing Zhang, “An integrated model for closed-loop supply chain configuration and supplier selection: Multi-objective approach,” Expert Syst. with Appl. 39(8), 6782-6791, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.12.056.

[7] Pandey, V., Komal, Dincer, and H., “A review on TOPSIS method and its extensions for different applications with recent development,” Soft Comput., 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-09011-0.

[8] Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, and C., “A Review of Fuzzy AHP Methods for Decision-Making with Subjective Judgements,” Expert Syst. with Appl. 161, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738.

[9] Zulqarnain et al., “TOPSIS Method Based on Correlation Coefficient under Pythagorean Fuzzy Soft Environment and Its Application towards Green Supply Chain Management,” Sustain. 13(4), 1642, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041642.

[10] A. A. Muataz Hazza Al Hazza Mohammad Yeakub Ali,Atiah Bt. Abdullah Sidek, “An Integrated Approach for Supplier Evaluation and Selection using the Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): A New Framework,” Int. J. Technol., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 291–319, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v13i1.4700.

[11] C.-N. Wang, Y.-F. Huang, I.-F. Cheng, and V. T. Nguyen, “A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Approach Using Hybrid SCOR Metrics, AHP, and TOPSIS for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in the Gas and Oil Industry,” 2018. doi: 10.3390/pr6120252.

[12] Saaty and T. L., “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1(1), 83–98, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.

[13] M. Behzadian, S. Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, M. Yazdani, and J. Ignatius, “A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 17, pp. 13051–13069, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056.

[14] R. Jaya, E. Fitria, Yusriana, and R. Ardiansyah, “MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING (MCDM) IMPLEMENTATION ON AGROINDUSTRIAL: A LITERATURE REVIEW,” J. Teknol. Ind. Pertan., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 167–186, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.24961/j.tek.ind.pert.2020.30.2.234.

[15] C. S. (review tersitasi), “Application of the TOPSIS Method for Electronic Supplier Selection Based on Multi-Criteria,” EMJU / Multidiscip. J., 2025.

[16] S. Wibawa, A. D. Ekawati, B. Maryadi, and N. Fitriyani, “Jurnal Manajemen Industri dan Logistik Komparasi Fuzzy AHP , TOPSIS dan SMART untuk pemilihan supplier Comparison Fuzzy AHP , TOPSIS and SMART methods for suppliers selection,” J. Manaj. Ind. dan Logistik, vol. 05, no. 02, pp. 121–129, 2021.