Comparative Analysis of the SMART and MFEP Methods for Selecting Baking Ingredient Suppliers for Bakery MSMEs in East Bekasi District

Elvi  Fetrina; Ikaningrum  Nurazizah; Mohammad Al-Habsie

doi:10.58602/jaiti.v4i3.319

Elvi Fetrina Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
Ikaningrum Nurazizah ^{(Corresponding Author)} Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
Mohammad Al-Habsie Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58602/jaiti.v4i3.319

Keywords: Bakery MSMEs, Decision Support System, MFEP, SMART, Supplier

Abstract

The selection of raw material suppliers is one of the key factors in maintaining product quality and operational efficiency for Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in the bakery industry. Supplier selection processes that are still conducted subjectively have the potential to cause problems such as inconsistent material quality, delayed deliveries, and increased operational costs. This study aims to analyze and compare the performance of the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) and the Multifactor Evaluation Process (MFEP) methods in supporting decision-making for the selection of baking ingredient suppliers for bakery MSMEs in East Bekasi District. The research employed a comparative quantitative approach, with data collected through observations, interviews, and questionnaires administered to five bakery MSME owners. The evaluation was based on five main criteria: base price, material quality, delivery timeliness, service quality, and payment term flexibility. The collected data were then processed using the SMART and MFEP methods to generate preference scores and supplier rankings. The results indicate that both methods consistently identified the best supplier, namely alternative S1, with a SMART score of 0.845 and an MFEP score of 8.25. Differences in ranking were found among the middle alternatives, indicating variations in the sensitivity of the calculations between the two methods. The SMART method produced rankings that were more responsive to changes in criterion weights due to its linear utility approach, whereas the MFEP method tended to provide more stable results through direct weighted factor evaluation. Based on these findings, the SMART method is more suitable for dynamic supply chain environments, while the MFEP method is better applied in relatively stable and standardized evaluation conditions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aditya dkk, “Pemanfaatan Digital marketing Bagi Usaha Mikro, Kecil, Dan Menengah (UMKM).,” J. Pemberdaya. Masy. Madani (JPMM)., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2017.

A. P. W. Dania, K. Xing, and Y. Amer, “The importance of the Van Keulens to Navigation,” MATEC Web Conf. 58 , 02004, vol. 02004, 2016.

H. Taherdoost and A. Brard, “Analyzing the Process of Supplier Selection Criteria and Methods,” Procedia Manuf., vol. 32, pp. 1024–1034, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.317.

G. Alessandria, S. Y. Khan, A. Khederlarian, C. Mix, and K. J. Ruhl, “The aggregate effects of global and local supply chain disruptions: 2020–2022,” J. Int. Econ., vol. 146, p. 103788, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2023.103788.

M. & R. Agrawal, “A Comparative Study Applied Optimization”.

M. N. Amalia and M. Ary, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Supplier Dengan Menggunakan SMART Pada CV. Hamuas Mandiri,” J. Sains dan Inform., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 127–134, 2021, doi: 10.34128/jsi.v7i2.322.

T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Sci. Iran., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 215–229, 2002, doi: 10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590.

W. Ho, X. Xu, and P. K. Dey, “Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 202, no. 1, pp. 16–24, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009.

A. Novitasari et al., “No 主観的健康感を中心とした在宅高齢者における健康関連指標に関する共分散構造分析Title,” J. KesMaDaSka, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 166–172, 2015.

G. W. Dickson, “An Analysis Of Vendor Selection Systems And Decisions,” J. Purch., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 5–17, 1966, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-493x.1966.tb00818.x.

M. Velasquez and P. Hester, “An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods,” Int. J. Oper. Res., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 56–66, 2013.

R. H. Bonczek, C. W. Holsapple, and A. B. Whinston, Foundations of Decision Support Systems. New York, NY, USA: Academic Press, 1981.

A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. M. D. Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, and A. Valipour, “Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications - A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014,” Econ. Res. Istraz. , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 516–571, 2015, doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139.

C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, “Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey,” Lect. Notes Econ. Math. Syst., vol. 186, pp. 58–191, 1981, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9

F. T. S. Chan, “Interactive selection model for supplier selection process: An analytical hierarchy process approach,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 41, no. 15, pp. 3549–3579, 2003, doi: 10.1080/0020754031000138358.

R. J. Kuo, Y. C. Wang, and F. C. Tien, “Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for green supplier selection,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1161–1170, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.03.020.

G. Palareti et al., “Comparison between different D-Dimer cutoff values to assess the individual risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism: Analysis of results obtained in the DULCIS study,” Int. J. Lab. Hematol., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 42–49, 2016, doi: 10.1111/ijlh.12426.

D. Ivanov, A. Dolgui, and B. Sokolov, “The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 829–846, 2019, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1488086.