Appendix II

(1)

Appendix I

Definitions

Angostura bark – an aromatic bitter bark from South America used as flavouring for example in angostura bitter, which in turn can be used to flavour cocktails

Axiom - an accepted statement or proposition regarded as being self-evidently true Batch - a quantity of products produced that is the result of a single equipment setup

Batch production - batches are routed through different parts of a department for processing steps.

Contingency - the absence of certainty in events. A future event or circumstance, which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty or a provision for such an event or circumstance.

Contingent - dependent, reliant

Catastrophe - an event causing great damage or suffering

Cybernetics - from the Greek kybernetike, "helmsman's-art" in general the methodology of principles of steering, control, regulation, and programming of processes of all kind; especially the theory of self- regulating natural processes and machines. Transfer of information.

Department - here defined as part of a factory; a production facility, which is separated (physically) from other departments

Disaster - a sudden accident or a natural catastrophe that causes great damage or loss of life, an event or fact leading to ruin or failure

Emergency - a serious, unexpected and potentially dangerous situation requiring immediate action Factory - here used to define the group of departments that produce similar products.

Flavour - the distinctive taste of a food or a drink

Flavour ingredients - Products, produced in the FLI factory, that are ingredients for the production of flavours

Flavourist - a flavour creator. Flavourists are trained specialists often having a more than average developed sense for taste and smell.

Genetically modified organisms - an organism whose genetic material has been deliberately altered.

Examples are diverse, and include commercial strains of wheat that have been modified by irradiation since the 1950s, transgenic experimental animals such mice, or various microscopic organisms altered for the purposes of genetic research.

Infrastructure- used here to define (alternate) production equipment.

(2)

Appendix I

Hallal - a food product is considered hallal when it is: Free from any component prohibited according to Islamic law, has been processed or stored using equipment that has been cleansed according to Islamic law and when free from contamination with anything considered filthy.

HiFi - High impact Flavour ingredients. Highly concentrated flavour ingredients that are in minimal quantities in flavours/finished products.

Kosher - ceremonially clean, according to Jewish law. For food to be officially kosher, it must be certified fit to eat by a Rabbi.

Lactone - organic compound containing an ester group -oco- as part of a ring

Lead-time - is the nominal time between when an order for an item is released (sent out or initiated) and when it is received (completed).

Pareto principle - The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule and the law of the vital few) states that for many phenomena 80% of consequences stem from 20% of the causes. Management thinker Joseph Juran suggested the principle. It was named after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed that 80% of property in Italy was owned by 20% of the Italian population.

Products - here used to designate flavour ingredients

Safety stock - Safety stock is a buffer of stock above and beyond that needed to satisfy the gross requirements

Slack - The remaining time until due date minus the sum of setup and processing times

Systems approach - The study of phenomena as systems and subsystems, allowing the isolation of various parts or portions of the world so as to focus on those aspects that interact with one another more closely than others.

Terpene - a volatile unsaturated hydrocarbon with cyclic molecules found in essential oils

(3)

Appendix II

Proof of validity ABC results

The ABC analysis for all the flavour ingredients was done by showing a cumulative distribution of sales starting with those products with the highest sales. The validity of the using cumulative sales depends on whether double counts, that occur when calculating these sales, have an effect on the distribution table. Removing these double counts from the flavour ingredients is a rather onerous process. This had however already been done for the HiFi products, which are a part of the flavour ingredients range. The HiFi products can be seen as a sample, this raises the question whether results in from the sample can be extrapolated to the whole group of FLI products.

Sampling theory

The question rises when taking the sample is whether the sample statistics can be used to estimate population parameters. The central limit theorem (Carter and Williamson, 1996, p237) states that if random samples of the same size are repeatedly drawn from a population, the means of those samples will be normally distributed. This theorem can be used to estimate population parameters from sample statistics. The first question raised is whether the HiFi products can be seen as a random sample. This is a questionable assumption. However Carter and Williamson state that ‘a distribution of sample means can be approximated to a normal distribution when: the sample size is equal to or greater than 30 (Carter and Williamson, 1996, p243).’ The sample of HiFi products is 36 and therefore the distribution of sample means can therefore be approximated to a normal distribution.

The parameter used to estimate the population parameter is the average amount of derived sales per product. Using the data from the sample it is possible to calculate the values the population mean lies in between with a confidence level of 95 per cent. The sample size is 36, the sample mean (X _{) is 2.5}

(million dollars) and the standard deviation (s) is 4.5. The large sample size (n ≥ 30) makes it possible to calculate the standard error of mean (σ^X

) using equation I (Carter and Williamson, 1996, p242), giving the following result:

75 . 0 36

5 .

4 =

=

= n s

σX (Equation 4)

The standard error of mean is the standard deviation of the sample means and is accurately estimated using the equation 1. Using the standard error of mean, the confidence interval for a confidence level of 95 per cent can be calculated using equation II:

X σX

µ = ±1.96 (Equation 5) Calculation gives:

75 . 0 96 . 1 5 .

2 ± ⋅

µ=

The population mean, with a 95 per cent level of confidence, therefore lies in between 1.03 and 3.97 million dollars. Using the data available it is possible to calculate the population mean and it indeed lies in the interval and is 3.7 million dollars.

(4)

Appendix II

The average in the population is significantly higher (1.2 million) due to the fact that the population includes a number of high values that are not contained in the sample. If the geometric mean were to be taken, which is less affected by extreme values, the means are lie much closer together. The geometric means are 0.65 million dollars and 0.6 million for the population and the sample respectively. The two examples above show that the sample information can indeed be used to infer what is happening in the wider population.

ABC-analysis of the sample

The distribution of sales usage for the HiFi products is given in the figure below.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 58 63 68 73 78 83 88 93 98 Percentage of HiFi items

Cumulative volume of sales (percent)

Figure II-I Distribution of sales use value for the HiFi

The distribution is more egalitarian in comparison to the distribution including double counts, and shows a ‘bumpy’ growth, caused by the size of the sample. This result indicates that the ratio in double counts is higher for products with higher sales than with products with lower sales. The general result is upheld however as this distribution shows that a small amount of products is responsible for a large amount of sales. Table II-I shows the exact percentages for the ‘traditional’ cut off percentages for each of the classes A, B and C.

Table II-I - Sales impact distribution

Sales impact category Number of flavour ingredients

Percentage of Flavour

ingredients Percentage of sales impact

A - category 8 20 73.1

B - category 12 30 22.6

C - category 20 50 4.3

Total 40 100 100

The table shows a Pareto result although, the A category is slightly smaller and the B category is slightly larger than expected. The result is less pronounced than in the example in chapter 4 but nonetheless it can be concluded from this table that the general Pareto result is upheld when doubles are removed.

(5)

Appendix III

Replacement options

Table III-I Equipment replacement alternatives

No. Unit Description

No. of Flavou r IPL's

Derived NPS 2003

(millions) Class 1 Alternative

Class 2 Alternative

Using rate

1 220 Filters 15395 117

2 243 Enzymolyse Cauldron 5000L 15934 117 229 38,2

3 606 Distillation 500L 8902 87 228 26,0

4 227 Distillation 5000L 10774 78 228! (size diff.& less options ) 606! 26,7 5 815 1000L CMR 9573 70 813, although 813 is 5x bigger

6 821 Enamel reactor 2800L 9575 66 824/843/841/831 if not a lactose

7 831 Enamel reactor 2800L 9355 65 843/841

8 826 Stainless steel reactor 5500L 8750 64 822

9 605 Nardenisation 7289 64 89,8

10 822 SS reactor 5000L with MIG stirrer 8410 63 826

11 M/V 8 Mixing cauldrons (4x) 8382 61

12 24801 Drum separator 4851 49 33,5

13 24802 Decanter 3653 43 33,5

14 229 Enzymolyse Cauldron, large stirrer 3294 39 243 (takes longer) 43,8

15 50 HIFI storage 2831 39

16 611 HIFI 20L Distillation D-4 2575 39 DL 4 metre Sulzer 18,2 17 607 HIFI Distillation 100L RVS 4m Sulzer 2415 38 DL 2 metre Sulzer 33,3

18 244 15 Bar Autoclave*** 2124 32 66,3

19 604 HIFI 20L glass reactor 1759 31 Lab glass 22,6

20 823 3000L (SS) mixing cauldron 1650 28 826/822

21 602 HiFi 80L reaction cauldron enamel 2323 27 801 of lab 12,5

22 300 Stainless steel mixing unit 3866 24

23 246 Reaction cauldron with air supply* 1983 23 Oil based products! 4/10 need air 33,5 24 811 400L Distillation (SS) 4m Sulzer 1521 22 812/188

25 816 Distillation 4000L (SS) CMR No. 2 1355 21 813

26 247 Milling machine 2335 21 Buy pre-milled/outsource 5,2

27 725 KC 1720 19 33,9

28 211 Extraction cauldron (warm) 2614 18 215 External

option

51,5 29 215 Extraction – steam dist. cauldron 2637 17 External

option

89,6

30 203 500L container 1651 17

31 824 Reaction unit 2800L enamel 1968 15 821/841/843/831 32 245 Receiving vessel, actually

#246.04***

1447 15 244,229!! 17,0

33 24803 Saucer separator 2744 14 33,5

34 813 5000L Distillation RVS CMR 593 14 Maybe 816

35 645 AA 50 L UHDE (36.019) 938 11

36 228 Dist. cauldron(less functions than 227)

2245 10 606 17,8

37 817 Continuous SS quick distillation 771 10

38 212 Extraction cauldron (cold) 1211 8 211,215 External option

13,2 39 44 HIFI/DL micro Sulzer 0,4 m 833 6 Micro Sulzer lab NR

40 51 FIR&D/DL continuous quick dist. 682 4,5

41 725HF FIR&D34D 3L. KC-unit 161 4,1 725

42 222 Press, out of use 572 4,0 3,8

43 49 HIFI Distillation glass 155 2,5 Lab

44 40 HIFI reaction glass 208 2,4 Lab

45 801 NR-KP 200L (SS) reactor 183 2,1 602

46 24804 Koturbex## 202 1,1 33,5

47 30 FLI-KP droogstoof 33 0,35 Hire

48 46 HIFI filter 54 0,27

49 42 FLI-HIFI storage solvent 13 0,05

(6)

Appendix IV

The calculations of the analytical hierarchy process

In this appendix the equations that form the basis of the AHP method shall be presented. The AHP method is based upon paired comparisons and a problem hierarchy. Using the paired comparisons and the problem hierarchy composite priorities for the elements under consideration can be calculated. There are three steps in the calculation of the composite priorities. The first step is the calculation of the right eigenvector for each of the matrices of paired comparisons. The second step is the calculation of the consistency ratio (CR) of each of the matrices. The second step of the calculation of the consistency ratio is followed by a test. This test is whether the CR is 0.1 or smaller.

If the CR is greater than 0.1 a decision whether or not to allow the results from the matrix must be made. In the event the CR is only slightly above 0.1 the matrix may be allowed. The third step is the calculation of the composite priorities using the problem hierarchy. The figure below shows the process of calculating the composite priorities.

1 calculation of right eigenv ector

consistency ratio satisf actory ?

(CR<0.1) Judgement of

paired comparison

2 calculation of CR

No

Y es

3 calculation of composite priorities

Figure IV-I The three steps to calculate priorities Step 1

The calculation of the right eigenvector can be performed once the decision makers or respondents have established the matrices of paired comparison. The matrix, to be called matrix A, is established (Omasa 2003):

A= [aij], aij= wi/wj, aji = 1/aij, aii = 1 (Equation 6)

This is reciprocal matrices where wi is the weight of criterion I and the main diagonal equals unity.

The relative importance of elements (the weight vector) is given by the principal right eigenvector of the matrix of judgments and can be determined by solving the following equation where n is the natural number.

AW = nW, W = (wi, wj, …,wn)^T (Equation 7) From this equation n is determined as eigenvalue (λmax) of the matrix that is,

A’W’ = λmaxW’ (Equation 8)

The components of this eigenvector sum up to unity and wi therefore satisfies the following equation:

=1

∑

i

wi (Equation 9)

Step 2

(7)

Appendix IV

The AHP does not require the judgements provided by decision makers to be consistent. The consistency of the judgements can be evaluated at the end. A measure for this consistency is the consistency ratio. The consistency measures the extent of the deviation, of a paired comparison matrix, from consistency. If the deviation exceeds a specified limit, there is a need for the providers of the judgements in the matrix to re-examine their inputs. The generally accepted level of consistency is a consistency ratio in the order of 0.10 or less (Saaty 1990a). The consistency of the judgements can be calculated by determining the consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) of the eigenvalue λmax using the equations (5) and (6):

CI= ( )

1

max

−

− n

λ n (Equation 10)

CR =

RI

CI (Equation 11)

Where RI is the random average consistency index and is given by table IV-I Table IV-I Averages of resulting consistency indices

n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

R.I. 0.00 0.52 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41

Source: Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (1990)

If the CR is smaller than, or equivalent to 0.10, the decision makers’ answers are relatively consistent.

If the ratio is greater than 0.1, λmax is not satisfied and the decision maker should seriously consider re-evaluating his or her responses that were used to obtain the original matrix of pair wise comparisons. In this case the judgements of the respondents might be altered and the right eigenvector and CR must be calculated again. This process can be iterative although the merit of continuously requiring the changing of judgements is questionable.

Step 3

The steps 1 and 2 are performed for all the matrices. The composite relative weights (priorities) of the alternatives with respect to all the criteria can now be calculated. Multiplying the priorities of the alternatives under each criterion (Bn) by the priority of the criterion (wn) and adding across criteria obtains these weights. Equation 7 gives the decision vector:

[

^B^,^B ^,..^B

]

^W^'

D= ₁ ₂ _n (Equation 12)

This operation gives the composite priorities for each of the four panellists. These four prioritisations can be combined to reach a single prioritisation by taking an average. The assumption here is that the four selected panellists are experts and that their judgement thus has equal value. The composite priorities of each of the panellists and the average are given below.

(8)

Appendix V

Calculating of the control chart limits

The control limits for the moving range chart are found using equations from (13-15) Montgomery (Montgomery, 1985).

3 4

D R LCL

R CL

D R UCL

=

(Equations 13-15)

Where R is the range, R the range average and D3 and D4 are tabulated constants. To set up the moving range chart n=2 and therefore D3 and D4 are found to be 0 and 3.267 respectively (Montgomery, 1985).

The control limits for the individuals chart are found using equations (16-18):

2 2

3 3

d x R LCL

x CL

d x R UCL

−

=

= +

=

(Equations 16-18)

Where x is the average of the CI’s, and d2 is a tabulated constant and as a moving range of n=2 observations is used d2=1.128.

The Xbar chart is the plot of means from the CI’s for the 6 matrices under consideration. The control limits of the Xbar chart are given by equations (19-21).

x n LCL

x CL

x n UCL

σ σ

3 3

−

=

= +

=

(Equations 19-21)

Where x is the average of the averages of CI’s indices for the matrices for each of the panellists and σ is the average standard deviation of the CI’s of the matrices. There are 3 panellists, therefore n=3.

(9)

Appendix VI

The AHP calculations

For the purpose of calculating the weights and consistency ratios, various software packages were used. The programme ‘PC Saaty’, Criterion Decision Plus 3.04 student version and Web HIPRE were considered for the calculations. PC Saaty was developed at Groningen University by P. Kolthof.

Criterion Decision Plus 3.04 student version is a scaled down version of the software package Criterion Decision Plus 3.0. WebHIPRE is a web based version of HIPRE 3+. The fact that WebHIPRE is web based makes it an attractive option because it can be used form any location connected to the internet. Its limitations lay in the number of options available, and the uncertainty over whether (remotely) saved files will be available at a later time. PC Saaty is a basic programme intended for running on old MS Dos software. The programme’s small size and simplicity proved to be its assets. The Criterion Decision Plus package used is a scaled down version, but was perhaps the most superior of the 3 packages in terms of the number of options available. PC Saaty and Criterion decision plus were found to reach the same results, both on the weights as on the consistency ratio.

WebHIPRE reaches the same weights but calculates a different consistency ratio. Uncertainty over the calculation method resulted in the use of the other 2 previously mentioned methods.

The matrices, the calculated priorities of each matrix, the consistency ratio of each matrix and the composite priorities for each scenario are given below, starting with scenario 1.

Scenario 1

Table VI-I Level 2 comparisons of criteria

Panellist 1 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Panellist 2 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Cost 1 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 0.021 Cost 1 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 0.043 Quality 9 1 1/4 1/9 6 0.125 Quality 5 1 5 1 3 0.332 IP 9 4 1 1/4 9 0.255 IP 5 1/5 1 1/5 1/3 0.090

RI 9 9 4 1 9 0.543 RI 5 1 5 1 5 0.386

Lead time 9 1/6 1/9 1/9 1 0.057 Lead time 5 1/3 3 1/5 1 0.149 Consistency Ratio 0.274 Consistency Ratio 0.113

Panellist 3 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Group Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Cost 1 1/3 4 3 1/3 0.161 Cost 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/3 0.053 Quality 3 1 5 4 2 0.400 Quality 5 1 3 3 3 0.417 IP 1/4 1/5 1 1 1/5 0.060 IP 5 1/3 1 3 1/3 0.040 RI 1/3 1/4 1 1 1/5 0.066 RI 3 1/3 1/3 1 1/3 0.177 Lead time 3 1/2 5 5 1 0.314 Lead time 3 1/3 3 3 1 0.099 Consistency Ratio 0.040 Consistency Ratio 0.10

(10)

Appendix VI

Table VI-II Level 3 comparison of alternatives with regard to criteria

Panellist 1 Panellist 2 Panellist 3 Group

Alternatives vs. cost

RRD RRN RRQ Buy Toll RRD RRN RRQ Buy Toll RRD RRN RRQ Buy Toll RRD RRN RRQ Buy Toll

RRD 1 1/9 9 9 9 1 3 3 5 5 1 3 6 1/3 6 1 3 4 3 6 RRN 9 1 9 9 9 1/3 1 5 5 5 1/3 1 3 1/5 3 1/3 1 5 2 4 RRQ 1/9 1/9 1 1/2 9 1/3 1/5 1 3 3 1/6 1/3 1 1/7 2 1/4 1/5 1 1 2 Buy 1/9 1/9 2 1 9 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 1 3 5 7 1 5 1/3 1/2 1 1 2 Toll 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 1 1/6 1/3 1/2 1/5 1 1/6 1/4 1/2 1/2 1

Priorities

0.241 0.617 0.055 0.068 0.019 0.440 0.315 0.128 0.058 0.058 0.277 0.121 0.060 0.492 0.050 0.456 0.267 0.097 0.120 0.060 Consistency Ratio 0.354 Consistency Ratio 0.076 Consistency Ratio 0.065 Consistency Ratio 0.042

Alternatives vs. quality

RRD 1 9 9 9 9 1 5 5 3 5 1 3 5 3 2 1 3 5 3 3

RRN 1/9 1 9 9 9 1/5 1 3 3 5 1/3 1 3 2 2 1/3 1 3 3 3 RRQ 1/9 1/9 1 9 9 1/5 1/3 1 3 3 1/5 1/3 1 2 1 1/5 1/3 1 3 2 Buy 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 9 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 3 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1 Toll 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 1/2 1/2 1 3 1 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 1

Priorities

Alternatives vs. IP

RRD 1 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 5 3

RRN 1/9 1 9 9 9 1 1 3 3 5 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 5 4

RRQ 1/9 1/9 1 9 9 1 1/3 1 3 5 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 5 4 Buy 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 9 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1 1/2 Toll 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/5 1 1/3 1/4 1/4 2 1

Priorities

Alternatives vs. RI

RRD 1 9 1 1 9 1 5 5 5 5 1 3 5 2 5 1 4 5 2 5

RRN 1/9 1 1 1 1 1/5 1 5 5 5 1/3 1 4 2 5 1/4 1 3 2 3 RRQ 1 1 1 1 1 1/5 1/5 1 3 3 1/5 1/4 1 2 3 1/5 1/3 1 2 2 Buy 1 1 1 1 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 3 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1 2 Toll 1/9 1 1 1 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/2 1 1/5 1/3 1/2 1/2 1

Priorities

Alternatives vs. lead time

RRD 1 1/2 9 1/9 9 1 5 5 5 5 1 3 6 1 6 1 3 5 5 6 RRN 2 1 9 1/9 9 1/5 1 5 3 3 1/3 1 3 1/2 4 1/3 1 5 3 3 RRQ 1/9 1/9 1 9 3 1/5 1/5 1 3 3 1/6 1/3 1 1/4 2 1/5 1/5 1 1 2 Buy 9 9 1/9 1 9 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 5 1 2 4 1 7 1/5 1/3 1 1 1 Toll 1/9 1/9 1/3 1/9 1 1/5 1/3 1/3 1/5 1 1/6 1/4 1/2 1/7 1 1/6 1/3 1/2 1 1

Priorities

(11)

Appendix VI

Table VI-III Composite priorities

Panellist 1 Cost Quality IP RI LT Panellist 2 Cost Quality IP RI LT

0.021 0.125 0.255 0.543 0.057 0.043 0.332 0.090 0.386 0.149

Priorities Priorities

RRD 0.592 0.452 0.592 0.452 0.200 0.487 RRD 0.269 0.516 0.269 0.516 0.507 0.485 RRN 0.246 0.102 0.246 0.102 0.223 0.174 RRN 0.356 0.260 0.356 0.260 0.231 0.255 RRQ 0.102 0.171 0.102 0.171 0.243 0.147 RRQ 0.224 0.107 0.224 0.107 0.119 0.129 Buy 0.042 0.171 0.042 0.171 0.322 0.129 Buy 0.102 0.070 0.102 0.070 0.095 0.084 Toll 0.018 0.102 0.018 0.102 0.013 0.063 Toll 0.049 0.046 0.049 0.046 0.049 0.080

Panellist 3 Cost Quality IP RI LT Group Cost Quality IP RI LT

0.161 0.400 0.060 0.066 0.314 0.053 0.417 0.040 0.177 0.099

RRD 0.281 0.438 0.281 0.438 0.382 0.378 RRD 0.276 0.471 0.276 0.471 0.496 0.431 RRN 0.281 0.263 0.281 0.263 0.171 0.197 RRN 0.293 0.215 0.293 0.215 0.256 0.256 RRQ 0.281 0.126 0.281 0.126 0.073 0.109 RRQ 0.293 0.125 0.293 0.125 0.090 0.149 Buy 0.117 0.119 0.117 0.119 0.329 0.231 Buy 0.053 0.123 0.053 0.123 0.083 0.084 Toll 0.040 0.055 0.040 0.055 0.047 0.092 Toll 0.086 0.066 0.086 0.066 0.071 0.080

Scenario 2

Table VI-IV Level 2 comparisons of criteria

Panellist 1 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Panellist 2 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Cost 1 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 0.021 Cost 1 1/7 1/3 1/7 1/7 0.036

Quality 9 1 1/2 1/9 3 0.106 Quality 7 1 5 1 3 0.375

IP 9 2 1 1/7 9 0.203 IP 3 1/5 1 1/5 1/5 0.068

RI 9 9 7 1 9 0.608 RI 7 1 5 1 1 0.285

Lead time 9 1/3 1/9 1/9 1 0.062 Lead time 7 1/3 5 1 1 0.237 Consistency Ratio 0.253 Consistency Ratio 0.049

Panellist 3 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Group Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Cost 1 1/3 4 3 1/3 0.161 Cost 1 1/5 1/5 1/2 1/5 0.050

Quality 3 1 5 4 2 0.400 Quality 5 1 3 4 1 0.362

IP 1/4 1/5 1 1 1/5 0.060 IP 5 1/3 1 3 1/5 0.153

RI 1/3 1/4 1 1 1/5 0.066 RI 2 1/4 1/3 1 1/5 0.073

Lead time 3 1/2 5 5 1 0.314 Lead time 5 1 1/5 1/5 1 0.398 Consistency Ratio 0.040 Consistency Ratio 0.062

(12)

Appendix VI

Table VI-V Level 3 comparison of alternatives with regard to criteria

Panellist 1 Panellist 2 Panellist 3 Group

Alternatives vs. cost

RRN RRQ Buy Toll RRN RRQ Buy Toll RRN RRQ Buy Toll RRN RRQ Buy Toll

RRN 1 9 9 9 1 5 3 5 1 3 1/5 3 1 5 2 4

RRQ 1/9 1 2 9 1/5 1 1 5 1/3 1 1/7 2 1/5 1 1 2 Buy 1/9 1/2 1 9 1/3 1 1 3 5 7 1 5 1/2 1 1 2 Toll 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 1/5 1/5 1/3 1 1/3 1/2 1/5 1 1/4 1/2 1/2 1

Priorities

0.708 617

0.152

5 0.112 0.029 0.564 0.192 0.179 0.065 0.198 0.095 0.632 0.075 0.529 0.165 0.204 0.102 Consistency Ratio 0.266 Consistency Ratio 0.083 Consistency Ratio 0.079 Consistency Ratio 0.040

Alternatives vs. quality

RRN 1 9 1/2 9 1 5 5 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 3

RRQ 1/9 1 1/2 9 1/5 1 1 1 1/3 1 2 1 1/3 1 3 2 Buy 2 2 1 9 1/5 1 1 1 1/2 1/2 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1 Toll 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 1/3 1 1 1 1/2 1 3 1 1/3 1/2 1 1

Priorities

0.450 0.136 0.385 0.029 0.585 0.132 0.132 0.151 0.425 0.201 0.125 0.248 0.49 0.255 0.122 0.132 Consistency Ratio 0.266

1 Consistency Ratio 0.012 Consistency Ratio 0.065 Consistency Ratio 0.044

Alternatives vs. IP

RRN 1 9 9 9 1 5 5 5 1 1 3 6 1 1 5 4

RRQ 1/9 1 9 9 1/5 1 3 3 1 1 3 6 1 1 5 4

Buy 1/9 1/9 1 9 1/5 1/3 1 3 1/3 1/3 1 5 1/5 1/5 1 1/2 Toll 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 1/6 1/6 1/5 1 1/4 1/4 2 1

Priorities

0.675 0.225 0.075 0.025 0.602 0.208 0.120 0.069 0.390 0.390 0.168 0.053 0.406 0.406 0.073 0.115 Consistency Ratio 0.494 Consistency Ratio 0.115 Consistency Ratio 0.040 Consistency Ratio 0.010

Alternatives vs. RI

RRN 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 4 2 5 1 3 2 3

RRQ 1 1 1 1 1/5 1 3 3 1/4 1 2 3 1/3 1 2 2 Buy 1 1 1 1 1/5 1/3 1 3 1/2 1/2 1 2 1/2 1/2 1 2 Toll 1 1 1 1 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 1/5 1/3 1/2 1 1/3 1/2 1/2 1

Priorities

Alternatives vs. lead time

RRN 1 9 1/9 9 1 5 3 3 1 3 1/2 4 1 5 3 3 RRQ 1/9 1 1/9 9 1/5 1 1 1 1/3 1 1/4 2 1/5 1 1 2 Buy 9 9 1 9 1/3 1 1 1 2 4 1 7 1/3 1 1 1 Toll 1/9 1/9 1/9 1 1/3 1 1 1 1/4 1/2 1/7 1 1/3 1/2 1 1

Priorities

(13)

Appendix VI

Table VI-VI Composite priorities

Panellist 1 Cost Quality IP RI LT Panellist 2 Cost Quality IP RI LT

0.021 0.106 0.203 0.608 0.062 0.036 0.375 0.068 0.285 0.237

RRN 0.708 0.450 0.675 0.250 0.225 0.366 RRN 0.564 0.585 0.602 0.602 0.544 0.580 RRQ 0.152 0.136 0.225 0.250 0.075 0.220 RRQ 0.192 0.132 0.208 0.208 0.140 0.163 Buy 0.112 0.385 0.075 0.250 0.675 0.252 Buy 0.179 0.132 0.120 0.120 0.158 0.136 Toll 0.029 0.029 0.025 0.250 0.025 0.162 Toll 0.065 0.151 0.069 0.069 0.158 0.121

Panellist 3 Cost Quality IP RI LT Group Cost Quality IP RI LT

0.161 0.400 0.060 0.066 0.314 0.00 0.362 0.153 0.073 0.398

RRN 0.198 0.425 0.390 0.521 0.296 0.197 RRN 0.529 0.49 0.406 0.458 0.544 0.498 RRQ 0.095 0.201 0.390 0.226 0.121 0.109 RRQ 0.165 0.255 0.406 0.240 0.169 0.238 Buy 0.632 0.125 0.168 0.170 0.515 0.231 Buy 0.204 0.122 0.073 0.185 0.154 0.136 Toll 0.075 0.248 0.053 0.083 0.069 0.092 Toll 0.102 0.132 0.115 0.116 0.134 0.128

Scenario 3

Table VI-VII Level 2 comparisons of criteria

Panellist 1 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Panellist 2 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities

Cost 1 9 1 9 9 0.430 Cost 1 1/5 5 1/5 1/5 0.096

Quality 1/9 1 1/9 1/9 1/9 0.018 Quality 5 1 5 1 5 0.363

IP 1 9 1 9 1 0.322 IP 1/5 1/5 1 1/5 1/5 0.064

RI 1/9 9 1/9 1 6 0.136 RI 5 1 5 1 5 0.331

Lead time 1/9 9 1 1/6 1 0.094 Lead time 5 1/5 5 1/5 1 0.146 Consistency Ratio 0.435 Consistency Ratio 0.251

Panellist 3 Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Group Cost Quality IP RI LT Priorities Cost 1 1/3 4 3 1/3 0.161 Cost 1 1/5 1/3 1/3 1/7 0.044 Quality 3 1 5 4 2 0.400 Quality 5 1 5 5 1/3 0.295 IP 1/4 1/5 1 1 1/5 0.060 IP 3 1/5 1 1 1/5 0.088 RI 1/3 1/4 1 1 1/5 0.066 RI 3 1/5 1 1 1/5 0.088 Lead time 3 1/2 5 5 1 0.314 Lead time 7 3 5 5 1 0.485 Consistency Ratio 0.040 Consistency Ratio 0.060