An ANP–TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Framework for Carton Packaging Supplier Selection: A Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56127/jukim.v5i01.2473Keywords:
supplier selection, carton packaging, multi-criteria decision making, ANP, TOPSIS.Abstract
Supplier selection is a strategic decision in supply chain management as it directly affects product quality, operational efficiency, and delivery reliability. In manufacturing industries, carton packaging serves not only as product protection but also as a determinant of perceived quality and customer satisfaction. PT Toa Galva Industries has experienced inconsistencies in carton box quality, leading to disruptions in packaging and distribution processes. This issue highlights the need for a multi-criteria decision-making approach capable of capturing interdependencies among evaluation criteria. This study aims to develop a supplier evaluation and ranking framework for carton packaging using an integrated Analytic Network Process (ANP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach. ANP is employed to determine the priority weights of criteria and subcriteria while considering their interrelationships, whereas TOPSIS is applied to rank suppliers based on their closeness to the ideal solution. Data were collected through questionnaires and interviews with experienced procurement and production personnel. The results indicate that quality is the most influential criterion, followed by service, delivery, and cost, with quality consistency identified as the most critical subcriterion. The supplier ranking reveals that PT CTP achieves the highest preference value among the evaluated alternatives. These findings emphasize that quality stability outweighs cost considerations in carton packaging supplier selection. This study contributes practically by providing a structured and objective decision-making framework and academically by extending the application of ANP–TOPSIS in packaging supplier evaluation within manufacturing contexts.
References
[1]Buede, D. M., & Maxwell, D. T. (1995). Rank disagreement: A comparison of multi‐criteria methodologies. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 4(1), 1-21.
[2]Chakraborty, S., Raut, R. D., Rofin, T. M., & Chakraborty, S. (2025). Supplier selection using multi-criteria decision making methods: a comprehensive review. OPSEARCH. doi:10.1007/s12597-025-01009-6
[3]Chamid, A. A. (2016). Penerapan Metode Topsis Untuk Menentukan Prioritas Kondisi Rumah. Jurnal Simetris, 7(2), 537-544.
[4]Cristea, C., & Cristea, M. (2017). A multi-criteria decision making approach for supplier selection in the flexible packaging industry. MATEC Web of Conferences, 94, 06002. doi:10.1051/matecconf/20179406002
[5]Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey (pp. 58-191): Springer.
[6]Jyoti, S. N., & Akter, M. (2022). Assessment Of Data-Driven Vendor Performance Evaluation in Retail Supply Chains: Analyzing Metrics, Scorecards, And Contract Management Tools. American Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(02), 36-61.
[7]Magableh, G. M., & Mistarihi, M. Z. (2022). Applications of MCDM approach (ANP-TOPSIS) to evaluate supply chain solutions in the context of COVID-19. Heliyon, 8(3), e09062. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09062
[8]Masudin, I., Habibah, I. Z., Wardana, R. W., Restuputri, D. P., & Shariff, S. S. R. (2024). Enhancing Supplier Selection for Sustainable Raw Materials: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Analytical Network Process (ANP) and TOPSIS Methods. Logistics, 8(3), 74. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/8/3/74
[9]Piercy, N. F. (2009). Strategic relationships between boundary-spanning functions: Aligning customer relationship management with supplier relationship management. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(8), 857-864.
[10]Prajogo, D., Chowdhury, M., Yeung, A. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2012). The relationship between supplier management and firm's operational performance: A multi-dimensional perspective. International journal of production economics, 136(1), 123-130.
[11]Rusydiana, A. S., & Devi, A. (2018). Elaborating cash waqf development in Indonesia using analytic network process. International Journal of Islamic Business and Economics (IJIBEC), 2(1).
[12]Saaty, T. L. (2001). Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. In The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making (pp. 15-35): Springer.
[13]Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks: RWS publications.
[14]Sheth, J. N., & Sharma, A. (1997). Supplier relationships: emerging issues and challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(2), 91-100.
[15]Tao, J., Aamir, M., Shoaib, M., Yasir, N., & Babar, M. (2025). Bridging the Gap Between Supply Chain Risk and Organizational Performance Conditioning to Demand Uncertainty. Sustainability, 17(6), 2462.
[16]Thakkar, J. J. (2021). Multi-criteria decision making (Vol. 336): Springer.
[17]Tronnebati, I., El Yadari, M., & Jawab, F. (2022). A Review of Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection Issues Using MCDM, MP and AI Models. Sustainability, 14(24), 16714. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16714
[18]Uluskan, M., Joines, J. A., & Godfrey, A. B. (2016). Comprehensive insight into supplier quality and the impact of quality strategies of suppliers on outsourcing decisions. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 21(1), 92-102.
[19]Uzan, Ş. (2025). Facilitating Decision-Making Processes in Packaging and Graphic Media: A Review of MCDM Methods from 2008 to 2024. Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 8, 286-300. doi:10.35377/saucis...1596931
[20]Yeung, A. C. (2008). Strategic supply management, quality initiatives, and organizational performance. Journal of operations management, 26(4), 490-502.
