Latest revision as of 21:05, 19 January 2026

Abstract

The selection and assessment of suppliers are essential for improving supply chain efficiency and fostering competitiveness. This study investigates the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a proficient method for assessing supplier service quality. AHP, a multi-criteria decision-making tool, provides a systematic and structured framework for evaluating the critical factors influencing supplier performance. The study employed the AHP model to evaluate supplier service quality in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to achieve this objective. The SERVQUAL framework consists of five dimensions—reliability, responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, and empathy accompanied by 20 sub-criteria, developed using the AHP technique. The analysis focused on evaluating the service quality of three distinct vendors, meticulously assessing their overall performance. The findings suggested that providers should emphasize reliability, responsiveness, certainty, and tangibles, while placing relatively less significance on empathy. Among the sub-criteria, delivering accurate services on the first attempt emerged as a significant issue for vendors. The AHP analysis indicates that Supplier A attained the highest performance ranking, followed by Supplier C and Supplier B. This study's findings offer actionable insights for decision-makers to effectively manage and enhance the aviation sector. By focusing on delivering exceptional services, suppliers can significantly improve customer satisfaction, aligning with the fundamental goal of supplier service excellence.

Keywords: Analytical Hierarchy Process, AHP, supplier evaluation, service quality, multi-criteria decision-making, supply chain management, supplier performance assessment.

1. Introduction

Due to the rapid expansion of the global economy and marketplace, firms face significant pressure to innovate in how they create and deliver value to customers through effective supply chain management. Recognizing the importance of building robust customer relationships has become increasingly vital for enhancing profitability, improving serviceability, and reducing supply chain costs [1]. Service quality has consistently been a central focus for both practitioners and researchers. The established correlation between IT and company performance, including cost reduction, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability [2 ]-[5], has driven further exploration into this field. Most research on service quality has examined individual service sectors or specific aspects of them, rather than considering the entire supply chain as a whole. This study aims to understand service quality within the supply chain framework. Figure 1 illustrates the ramifications of inadequate quality of service (QoS) throughout the supply chain. The impact of service quality extends beyond suppliers/distributors, employees, and consumers, significantly influencing overall business and organizational growth. This research emphasizes the significance of Quality of Service (QoS) in the supply chain and proposes a modeling framework for QoS.

Researchers agree that suppliers and supply resources are essential to company survival, making the evaluation and successful selection of suppliers essential to organizational success. The cost of components and raw materials, which constitute the primary cost of a product, is typically considered in supplier evaluations [6]. This underscores the value of strong relationships between businesses and their suppliers, as choosing the right suppliers who can innovate, reduce costs, and improve quality enables businesses to gain a sustainable competitive advantage by accessing high-quality inputs at competitive prices. Therefore, businesses should develop methods to assess and select the best suppliers as supply chain partners [7].

A supply chain is a network of tasks and operations carried out by collaborating entities to produce, deliver, and sell goods or services to end users. Logistics focuses on acquiring, transporting, and storing resources from their origin to their destination to fulfill customer or business needs. Both supply chains and logistics are dynamic, with evolving definitions and practices. They are crucial drivers of modern economies, and as globalization has heightened competition, effective management of supply chains and logistics has become essential. A strong supply chain offers a competitive advantage and supports business success. The efficiency of a supply chain is a vital performance metric that strongly influences overall company performance and financial outcomes. An efficient supply chain meets operational requirements at minimal cost, which is particularly important for goods with short lifespans, though achieving this efficiency can be challenging. The industry has increasingly focused on supply chains, particularly the supplier component. Problematic suppliers, especially during selection, can significantly disrupt ongoing production in manufacturing enterprises. Evaluating the performance of existing suppliers helps address these issues by determining whether to retain or replace them.

Bibliometric research supports the implementation of AHP in the purchasing process, showing that AHP is a practical and effective decision-making method, particularly in procurement systems. This study aims to analyze supplier performance using AHP criterion weights, reflecting a structured approach to problem formulation.

2. Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to gain insights into service quality. The literature has been categorized into six primary areas: (a) an overview of supply chain management, (b) quality in supply chain management, (c) a review of existing literature on service quality, (d) the distribution of articles, (e) identified gaps in the literature, and (f) a review of research methodologies. These main categories were further subdivided, as illustrated in Figure 1.

2.1 Supply Chain Management

The term "supply chain management" emerged in the early 1980s, as evidenced by the work of [8]. The use of these terms gradually increased; however, the concept gained substantial impetus in the mid-1990s, propelled by the dissemination of numerous books and articles. Similar to the emergence of Total Quality Management (TQM) in the 1980s, supply chain management gained widespread recognition as a management concept in the late 1990s. Gradually, operations managers began incorporating this term into their job titles [9], [10]. Currently, the literature describes a supply chain as the movement of goods, information, or financial data [11]–[13]. While the idea of the supply chain is well documented, its management is difficult to define precisely.

The initial research on supply chain management (SCM) as a managerial strategy was conducted by [13] [15]. Various authors in the literature have provided different definitions of "supply chain management" from their respective perspectives. Over the years, Supply Chain Management (SCM) has evolved into a multidisciplinary field of study, investigated by scholars across strategic management, marketing, logistics, and operations management [16]. Although there are multiple definitions, there is no consensus on the precise interpretation of SCM [17]. Supply chain management (SCM) involves various participants in a supply chain, such as customers, suppliers, and end users [18], [19], [20]. It is also considered a vital practice for organizations seeking to gain a competitive advantage, particularly in alliances and networks involving suppliers and customers [21], [22].

Halldórsson et al. [23] attribute the complexity of supply chain management (SCM) to its interdisciplinary, interpretive, and integrative nature, which poses challenges for both scholars and practitioners. They argue that SCM cannot be confined to a single theoretical framework, and that its extensive scope impedes the establishment of a distinct scientific identity [19] (Klaus, 2009). Additionally, Halldórsson et al. [23] (2015) highlight the presence of "conceptual slack" in SCM, a term first introduced by Schulman [24] (1993) to describe the lack of consensus among researchers on analytical perspectives and methodological approaches. This results in blurred boundaries between related disciplines such as logistics, operations management, procurement, quality management, and industrial networks.

According to Stevens [25] (2016), the evolution of Supply Chain Management (SCM) began in the 1970s in response to the need for better inventory management and production planning. The early 1980s saw a shift toward the systematic organization of materials, production, and transportation. In the mid-to-late 1980s, businesses began adopting Japanese methodologies such as Total Quality Management (TQM) and Lean. In the following phase, additional process improvement methodologies, such as Six Sigma, were implemented, resulting in significant progress in IT systems.

2.2 Quality in Supply Chain Management

Quality is a multifaceted concept, interpreted differently by various individuals. Service quality, in particular, is an abstract idea that is challenging to define and measure. A product or service holds no value until it reaches the consumer. Typically, consumers purchase products and assess them based on their usage experiences. If their experience is positive, they are likely to repurchase the products and share their opinions about the product's qualities with others. Consequently, the product's image is shaped by consumer use, evaluation, and word of mouth. This makes service quality a complex and indistinct concept [26]. In the service sector, quality is more superficial and subjective, making it difficult to evaluate precisely or control.

One widely accepted concept of service quality is that it is an attitude, related to but distinct from satisfaction, arising from the comparison of expectations with actual performance [27]- [28]. More specifically, expectations are viewed as beliefs about the future performance of a product or service, based on customers' perceived probabilities of that performance and reflecting their desires and wants. Therefore, service quality can be defined as the gap between customer expectations and their perceptions of the actual service. If expectations exceed performance, perceived quality falls below satisfactory levels, leading to customer dissatisfaction.

2.3 Service quality

Grönroos (1982) [29] defines service quality as the discrepancy between a customer's expectations and their perception of the service received. [30] highlight that service quality is determined by how well service providers can align expected service with perceived service to ensure customer satisfaction. Similarly, Grönroos [29] (1982), Lehtinen & Lehtinen [31] (1982), and Parasuraman et al. [26] (1985) define service quality as the gap between the service customers anticipate from a business and the service actually delivered.

The SERVQUAL scale, as described by Khan & Fasih [32] (2014), measures service quality across five dimensions: tangibility (physical aspects like buildings and tools), responsiveness (promptness in addressing customer inquiries), reliability (consistency and dependability of service), empathy (personalized attention to customer needs), and assurance (service provider’s competence and ability to inspire trust).

In response to increasing global competition, businesses have raised customer expectations and expanded their market reach through technological advancements and globalization[33] (Lin, Lai, & Yeh, 2007). Consequently, companies must focus more on customer needs[34]- [36] (Khan & Fasih, 2014; Naidoo, 2011). Kaura et al. (2012) [36] highlight that service quality positively influences customer satisfaction, making it essential for achieving high levels of customer satisfaction.

Kenneth & Douglas[37] (1993) argue that quality enhances customer loyalty, creates a competitive advantage, and improves long-term profitability for service providers. According to Grönroos [29] (1982), services are ongoing interactions between customers and providers that require physical resources and tools to effectively address customer issues. Zeithaml [38] (1988) adds that service quality involves customers evaluating services on a comparative basis.

Sureshchandar, Rajendran, and Anantharaman [5] (2002) assert that high service quality can provide a competitive edge. Additionally, effective management, well-trained staff, and impactful customer programs contribute to service quality [35] (Naidoo, 2011). Top management believes that maintaining a customer-focused and responsive staff requires significant time, effort, training, and resources [34], [35]. (Khan & Fasih, 2014; Naidoo, 2011).

3. Research design

When assessing and choosing suppliers based on service quality, it's crucial to consider key dimensions such as reliability, responsiveness, empathy, assurance, and tangibles. These dimensions provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating how effectively and efficiently suppliers meet customer needs and expectations.

Reliability:

Reliability is consistently highlighted as a key element of service quality, influencing numerous service domains, including logistics, public services, and healthcare. It entails the ability to deliver the promised service dependably and accurately. Research underscores the importance of reliability in achieving customer satisfaction and loyalty across industries such as the beverage sector and banking [42]-[44]. (Mathong et al., 2020; Shetty et al., 2022; Yasin et al., 2023).

Responsiveness:

Responsiveness, which entails the readiness to assist customers and deliver prompt service, is frequently emphasized as the paramount factor in customer perception of service quality. This aspect is particularly critical in industries such as healthcare, logistics, and education, where timely and efficient responses are essential to ensuring customer satisfaction [45]-[47]. (Ng et al., 2019; Rangaraju et al., 2020; Ulkhaq et al., 2018).

Empathy:

Empathy, or the ability to understand and share the feelings of another, is essential for personalized service and has been shown to significantly influence customer satisfaction in various contexts, including healthcare, banking, and education. It involves providing caring, individualized attention to customers[48]- [50]. (Adebisi & Lawal, 2017), (Alhazmi, 2020), (Awoke, 2015).

Assurance:

Assurance encompasses employees' expertise and politeness, as well as their ability to instill trust and confidence. This aspect is particularly crucial in sectors such as education and banking, where trust and confidence in service providers significantly impact customer satisfaction [51], [52] (Ng et al., 2019; Shetty et al., 2022).

Tangible:

Tangible aspects refer to the physical facilities, equipment, and the appearance of personnel. This dimension is especially significant in environments where the physical setting shapes perceptions of service quality. Research across sectors, such as healthcare and education, underscores the need to uphold high standards for physical facilities to boost customer satisfaction [53]-[55] (Raza et al., 2012; Hoque et al., 2023; Zakaria et al., 2011).

4. Methodology

4.1 Preliminary Steps

The study determined the criteria for evaluating supplier service quality by conducting prior research, consulting with expert focus groups, and conducting preliminary interviews with key stakeholders. The supplier management teams convened for an initial meeting with six industry specialists, each with more than a decade of experience in supplier quality management. After three weeks, a collaborative session was held to develop a comprehensive inventory of suppliers' superior attributes, based on an examination of existing literature on the subject. Prior to this session, unsystematic face-to-face interviews were conducted with domestic suppliers randomly selected from a major industrial center to gather their viewpoints and incorporate them into the assessment criteria. These interviews, devoid of rigid questionnaires, facilitated an organic conversation about supplier concerns and perspectives. The knowledge gained from these interviews helped improve and expand the initial set of criteria. The evaluation framework incorporated dimensions of supplier service quality and characteristics derived from supplier interviews, ensuring that the criteria were comprehensive, relevant, and reflected the viewpoints of both experts and suppliers.

Nevertheless, SERVQUAL was originally developed as a core instrument for evaluating service quality. Although it is widely used across different sectors, it is acknowledged that no two service providers are the same. The focus group determined that although SERVQUAL should serve as the foundation for assessing the quality of supplier services, it requires improvements. The instrument is regarded as a core framework that requires modification and improvement, with components customized to the particular context of supplier evaluation.

The SERVQUAL model is based on five dimensions of service quality: tangibility, dependability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The focus group developed definitions for these dimensions specifically for the context of supplier selection, drawing on traditional uses. The following are the precise definitions of these five dimensions, as they are employed in the process of selecting suppliers:

 Tangibility: The visible indicators of the supplier’s ability, such as the quality of facilities, equipment, and the professional appearance of staff.

 Reliability: The supplier’s proficiency in delivering services as promised with consistency and precision.

 Responsiveness: The supplier’s eagerness to assist customers and deliver timely services.

 Assurance: The supplier's employees' knowledge and courteous demeanor, which foster a sense of trust and confidence in clients.

 Empathy: The supplier’s dedication to offering caring, individualized attention tailored to the specific needs of each client.

Figure 1 Selection of the Best quality of supplier's services

Ultimately, the focus group assembled a roster of 21 criteria. The qualities were classified into five service quality dimensions using operational definitions and a trial-and-error clustering approach. Table 1 displays these dimensions alongside the items specifically designed for supply chain services. The conclusive roster of service quality characteristics demonstrated face validity, and the conceptual meanings were congruent with the attribute descriptions. In addition, three unbiased supply chain specialists assessed the characteristics against the service quality criteria in a brief preliminary test. All of the experts successfully linked characteristics to service aspects, confirming the face validity without difficulty. An analysis is conducted on the five dimensions of supply chain service quality, including their respective sub-criteria. Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of these five dimensions and clearly outlines the sub-criteria for each.

Table 1. Supply chain service quality evaluation criteria and sub-criteria.

Criteria	Sub-Code	Sub-factors
Reliability	RL1	refers to the ability to deliver the same level of quality, reliability, and efficiency over time, ensuring uniform results and meeting expectations in every instance
	RL2	refers to consistently providing reliable, timely, and effective support to customers, ensuring their issues and requests are handled efficiently and professionally. It emphasizes trustworthiness and responsibility in addressing customer needs.
	RL3	refers to providing services promptly and within the expected or promised time frame, ensuring that customers receive what they need without delays.
	RL4	refers to ensuring that all financial transactions, charges, and documentation are accurate, detailed, and error-free, providing clear, reliable records for future reference and audits.
Responsiveness	RS1	refers to quickly addressing customer inquiries, requests, or issues without unnecessary delays, ensuring timely communication and resolution of concerns.
	RS2	refers to staff's readiness and eagerness to provide support, address concerns, and offer solutions, demonstrating a positive, proactive attitude towards helping customers.
	RS3	refers to the readiness and availability of a service to meet customer demands at any given time, ensuring support or assistance is provided when required without unnecessary delays.
	RS4	refers to the ability to adjust services, solutions, or approaches to accommodate customers' specific preferences, demands, or changing circumstances, ensuring satisfaction through customization and versatility.
Empathy	EM1	refers to providing individualized care and service, catering to each customer's unique needs and preferences, ensuring they feel valued and well-attended.
	EM2	refers to recognizing and comprehending the specific desires, expectations, and concerns of customers, allowing a business or service to tailor its offerings and support to meet those requirements effectively.
	EM3	refers to offering personalized or specialized solutions designed to meet the unique preferences, needs, or requests of individual customers, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach
	EM4	refers to the ability for customers to quickly and effortlessly get in touch with a service or support team, ensuring open communication channels and availability when needed.
Assurance	AS1	refers to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of employees to effectively perform their tasks, provide quality service, and handle customer needs efficiently and professionally.
	AS2	refers to employees who treat customers with kindness, professionalism, and consideration, maintaining a positive and respectful demeanor in all interactions.
	AS3	refers to consistently delivering on promises and being dependable, ensuring that customers can count on the service or individual to act with integrity and fulfil commitments.
	AS4	refers to ensuring that all financial and personal interactions are protected from fraud, breaches, or unauthorized access, providing customers with confidence in the security of their information and payments.
Tangible	TN1	refers to spaces that are well-maintained, hygienic, and visually appealing, creating a welcoming and professional environment for customers or visitors.
	TN2	refers to tools and machinery that are up-to-date with the latest technology and are regularly maintained to ensure proper functionality, efficiency, and safety.
	TN3	refers to employees who maintain a neat, professional appearance, presenting themselves in a tidy and polished manner that reflects positively on the organization.
	TN4	refers to the availability of tangible materials, such as brochures, pamphlets, forms, or equipment, that customers or employees can easily obtain and use to support their needs or enhance their experience.

Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Saaty technique, a methodology for decision-making involving multiple criteria, is commonly used in a variety of decision-making situations and applications [56], [57] (Saaty, 1980; Saaty & Vargas, 2012). This approach is beneficial because it is user-friendly and allows for the integration of various viewpoints from experts and decision-makers[58], [59] (Saaty, 1994; Saaty, 2008). In theory, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can reduce bias in the agreement among evaluation experts by providing a quantifiable measure [60] (Ishizaka & Labib, 2011). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is renowned for its ability to evaluate solutions using a wide array of criteria, encompassing both statistical and qualitative aspects. Its symmetry is also acknowledged for its ability to effectively tackle specific challenges, such as project screening, by systematically breaking down intricate problems into hierarchical structures. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is utilized in multiple phases [61], [62] (Vaidya & Kumar, 2006; Subramanian & Ramanathan, 2012), which include creating a hierarchical model, constructing a pairwise comparison matrix, determining priorities and eigenvalues, and verifying the consistency of the pairwise comparisons.

Development of the Hierarchy Model

Before gathering information to address a decision problem, a conceptual model must be established. Entities are categorized into discrete groups within hierarchical systems, with each group affecting the others. When assessing the caliber of supply chain services, a hierarchical structure is necessary to show how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied in practice. Figure 2 illustrates how the primary qualitative component of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) affects the global objective requirements.

The initial and paramount step is to identify the elements of service quality that will serve as decision-making criteria. The elements are enumerated in Table 2. The process commences by defining the primary objective, subsequently discerning the decision criteria, sub-criteria, and available alternatives. This process of structuring takes place once the decision criteria and alternatives have been established. The hierarchy lacks systematic organization but is shaped by the decision problem's complexity and the decision-maker's preferences. Nevertheless, elements at the same hierarchical level must have similar sizes and be connected to one or more components at the level immediately above them. Figure 2 illustrates the AHP framework for the benchmarking issue.

Figure 2 AHP hierarchy model for the supply chain problem

Table 1 outlines the five primary criteria and their corresponding sub-criteria that impact the quality of service within the supply chain. Figure 1 depicts the structure of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), encompassing 5 primary criteria, 21 sub-criteria, and 3 potential options. This process is organized into four hierarchical levels. The task's goal is positioned at the first level. The second level consists of the main criteria: tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. At the fourth level, the three options available are Supplier A, Supplier B, and Supplier C.

4.3 Pairwise Comparison Matrix and Priority Weights in the Hierarchy

When constructing a pairwise comparison matrix utilizing a relative importance scale, the values on the main diagonal are invariably assigned a value of 1, as any attribute compared to itself is inherently considered to have a value of 1. The values 2, 4, 6, and 8 are employed as intermediate approximations to balance between the values 3, 5, 7, and 9, which denote varying levels of importance, from moderate to highly significant, respectively [56], [64] (Saaty, 1980; Chen & Wang, 2010).

Hence, it is crucial to establish a standardized pairwise comparison matrix. This is accomplished by dividing each entry by the sum of entries in its corresponding column, thereby standardizing the criteria across columns. The arithmetic mean of each row is computed sequentially to assess the relative significance of the different criteria. This measure is calculated by dividing the sum of the entries in each row by the total number of entries in that row.

Ultimately, the relative importance of the criteria is multiplied by the assigned weights of the options. The results are then arranged in ascending order, prioritizing the options with the highest importance [65] (Nasiri et al., 2020).

4.4 Consistency Index and Consistency Ratio

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) assesses the logical consistency of comparisons using the Consistency Index (CI), the Random Consistency Index (RI), and the Consistency Ratio (CR). Below are the relevant equations and their details: ${\textstyle CI=}$ ${\frac {{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}}$

where: CI is the Consistency Index, ${\textstyle {\lambda }_{max}\,}$ is the maximum eigenvalue, and ${\textstyle n}$ is the size of the measured matrix. A CI value indicates the degree of consistency in the pairwise comparison matrix. Perfect consistency is achieved when CI equals zero (CI = 0).

CR= CI / RI

where: CR is the Consistency Ratio, CI is the Consistency Index, and RI is the Random Consistency Index.

The CR value measures the consistency of subjective judgments relative to a randomly generated matrix. The accepted consistency ratio is less than 10% (CR < 0.1), which means the subjective judgments are acceptable and reliable.

If the consistency ratio exceeds 0.1, it suggests that the judgments may be inconsistent and that pairwise comparisons may need to be revised to improve consistency.

This method, as detailed by [66], [67] Aminbakhsh et al. (2013) and Petruni et al. (2019), ensures that the comparisons made in the AHP process are reliable and valid, leading to more accurate decision-making outcomes.

4.5 Data Collection

This study used two types of surveys: a general survey and an Analytical Hierarchy Process survey. Initially, a thorough survey was conducted to identify the primary selection criteria and to select specialists who meet the qualifications and experience requirements for the AHP survey. Before conducting the overall survey, a preliminary investigation was conducted to assess the significance of the criteria used in previous studies and to ensure the questionnaire's clarity.

The AHP survey improved the general survey results by assigning significant weightings to the identified criteria. Data analysis and result interpretation are limited in studies with small sample sizes. Nonetheless, the AHP method has a significant advantage over other Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques in that it can produce statistically reliable results even with a small sample size [68] (Darko et al., 2019). The study included 110 participants.

4.6 Prioritization of Dimensions and Sub-Criteria

An exhaustive evaluation of the quality of supply chain services was conducted, meticulously comparing all five service quality dimensions. Pairwise comparisons were used to assess the relative importance of each dimension in meeting the model's objectives. Several paired comparisons were conducted, and the resulting matrices were assessed by calculating the consistency ratio (CR), consistency index (CI), and the maximum eigenvalue. All matrices passed the consistency check.

The local weight of each component was calculated by adding up the overall preferences for the five service quality dimensions: tangibility, dependability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. For tangibility, the five sub-criteria included modern and well-maintained facilities (MW), efficient inventory management (EI), advanced technology use (AT), clear communication channels (CC), and clean, organized warehouses (CW). For responsiveness, the sub-criteria were quick response to orders (QR), flexibility in service delivery (FD), prompt issue resolution (PR), timely updates and notifications (TN), and proactive customer support (PC). Reliability was evaluated using accurate and consistent order fulfillment (AF), on-time delivery (OT), low defect rates (LD), and effective problem resolution (EP). Assurance was assessed through knowledgeable staff (KS), secure transactions (ST), robust risk management practices (RM), and compliance with regulations (CR). Empathy was evaluated with personalized service (PS), understanding customer needs (UN), providing tailored solutions (TS), and maintaining customer relationships (MR).

The local weights of all sub-criteria were calculated using the same method as the regional dimension weights. The total weight was calculated by multiplying each dimension's weight by its respective sub-criterion. Tables 2 and 3-7 show the pairwise comparison matrices for the five dimensions and sub-criteria, respectively. Table 8 presents a comparative assessment of improving the security criteria/dimensions.

Furthermore, a comparison was made between three suppliers, Supplier A (SA), Supplier B (SB), and Supplier C (SC), in terms of each of the five service quality dimensions. Their services were evaluated based on the results of these calculations. The total weight for each supplier was determined by multiplying each alternative's weight by the sub-criterion's global weight. The sum of these global weights determined whether a choice was optimal or suboptimal, with the highest value indicating the most favorable option and the lowest indicating the least favorable. Table 8 shows the synthesized comparison matrix.

Table 2. Pairwise comparison of service quality dimensions.

Dimensions	RL	RS	EM	AS	TN	E-Vector
RL	1	2	3	0.5	2	0.249443
RS	0.5	1	2	0.333333	2	0.166889
EM	0.333333	0.5	1	0.5	0.333333	0.089992
AS	2	3	2	1	2	0.343124
TN	0.5	0.5	3	0.5	1	0.150553
	λmax	CR	CI
	5.315288	0.070092	0.078822

Table 1. Pairwise comparison of three sub-criteria/factors for reliability criteria/dimensions

Reliability	RL1	RL2	RL3	RL4	E-Vector
RL1	1	0.25	0.5	0.2	0.08089
RL2	4	1	2	0.5	0.287953
RL3	2	0.5	1	0.333333	0.153867
RL4	5	2	3	1	0.47729
		λmax	CR	CI
		4.021131	0.007745	0.007044

Table 2. Pairwise comparison of three sub-criteria/factors for responsiveness criteria/dimensions.

Responsiveness	RS1	RS2	RS3	RS4	E-Vector
RS1	1	0.333333	0.5	2	0.164427
RS2	3	1	2	4	0.471664
RS3	2	0.5	1	2	0.256153
RS4	0.5	0.25	0.5	1	0.107755
	λmax	CR	CI
	4.045822	0.016795	0.015274

Table 3. Pairwise comparison of four sub-criteria/factors for empathy criteria/dimensions.

Empathy	EM1	EM2	EM3	EM4	E-Vector
EM1	1	0.5	2	0.333333	0.164427
EM2	2	1	2	0.5	0.256153
EM3	0.5	0.5	1	0.25	0.107755
EM4	3	2	4	1	0.471664
	λmax	CR	CI
	4.045822	0.016795	0.015274

Table 4. Pairwise comparison of four sub-criteria/factors for assurance criteria/dimensions.

Assurance	AS1	AS2	AS3	AS4	E-Vector
AS1	1	4	3	2	0.464243
AS2	0.25	1	0.333333	0.5	0.097483
AS3	0.333333	3	1	0.5	0.183859
AS4	0.5	2	2	1	0.254415
	λmax	CR	CI
	4.1241	0.045486	0.041367

Table 5. Pairwise comparison of four sub-criteria/factors for tangible criteria/dimensions.

Tangible	TN1	TN2	TN3	TN4	E-Vector
TN1	1	0.333333	0.5	2	0.164427
TN2	3	1	2	4	0.471664
TN3	2	0.5	1	2	0.256153
TN4	0.5	0.25	0.5	1	0.107755
	λmax	CR	CI
	4.045822	0.016795	0.015274

The three alternatives, Supplier A, Supplier B, and Supplier C, were evaluated against each sub-criterion within the five aspects of service quality. Their findings were subsequently analyzed to assess the overall service quality inside the supply chain. The overall weight of each alternative was calculated by multiplying the global weight of each sub-criterion by the local weight of the three alternatives. The cumulative global weights for all three choices were calculated. The option with the highest total is deemed the most favorable, whilst the one with the lowest is viewed as the least favorable. The compiled comparison matrix is displayed in Table 8.

Table 8. Composite priority weights for criteria and sub-criteria to establish the best supplier.

					Alternatives supply chains services			Final weightages supply chains services
Dimension	local Weight.	Sub-Criteria	Local Wt.	Global Weight	supplier A	Supplier B	Supplier C	supplier A	Supplier B	Supplier C
Reliability	0.249443	Consistency of performance	0.0809	0.0202	0.5936	0.1571	0.2493	0.0120	0.0032	0.0050
		Dependability in handling customer service issues	0.2880	0.0718	0.5396	0.1634	0.2970	0.0388	0.0117	0.0213
		Timeliness in service delivery	0.1539	0.0384	0.6250	0.1365	0.2385	0.0240	0.0052	0.0092
		Accuracy in billing and record keeping	0.4773	0.1191	0.2385	0.1365	0.6250	0.0284	0.0163	0.0744
Responsiveness	0.166889	Promptness in responding to customer requests	0.1644	0.0274	0.3108	0.1958	0.4934	0.0085	0.0054	0.0135
		Willingness to assist customers	0.4717	0.0787	0.3108	0.1958	0.4934	0.0245	0.0154	0.0388
		Availability of service when needed	0.2562	0.0427	0.6608	0.1311	0.2081	0.0282	0.0056	0.0089
		Flexibility in adapting to customer needs	0.1078	0.0180	0.3108	0.1958	0.4934	0.0056	0.0035	0.0089
Empathy	0.089992	Individualized attention to customers	0.1644	0.0148	0.4934	0.1958	0.3108	0.0073	0.0029	0.0046
		Understanding customer needs and concerns	0.2562	0.0231	0.3108	0.1958	0.4934	0.0072	0.0045	0.0114
		Providing personalized services	0.1078	0.0097	0.5396	0.2970	0.1634	0.0052	0.0029	0.0016
		Accessibility and ease of contact	0.4717	0.0424	0.5714	0.1429	0.2857	0.0243	0.0061	0.0121
Assurance	0.343124	Competence of staff	0.4642	0.1593	0.6548	0.0953	0.2499	0.1043	0.0152	0.0398
		Courtesy and respectfulness of staff	0.0975	0.0334	0.6250	0.1365	0.2385	0.0209	0.0046	0.0080
		Credibility and trustworthiness	0.1839	0.0631	0.2970	0.5396	0.1634	0.0187	0.0340	0.0103
		Security (assurance that transactions and interactions are safe)	0.2544	0.0873	0.5278	0.1396	0.3325	0.0461	0.0122	0.0290
Tangible	0.150553	Cleanliness and appearance of facilities	0.1644	0.0248	0.6483	0.1220	0.2297	0.0160	0.0030	0.0057
		Modern and well-maintained equipment	0.4717	0.0710	0.5278	0.1396	0.3325	0.0375	0.0099	0.0236
		Professional appearance of staff	0.2562	0.0386	0.3325	0.1396	0.5278	0.0128	0.0054	0.0204
		Availability of physical resources like pamphlets, statements, etc.	0.1078	0.0162	0.4434	0.1692	0.3874	0.0072	0.0027	0.0063
Total								0.4775	0.1697	0.3528
Rank								1	3	2

Findings and Discussion

Table 2 presents a concise overview of the research results. The display shows the prioritized rankings of the main criteria (level 2), the sub-criteria (level 3), and the decision alternatives (suppliers) for each sub-criterion. The study examined participants' assessments of the main and sub-criteria and their preferences for three suppliers for each sub-criterion. This analysis aimed to identify the ranking of service quality attributes that customers consider important. The analysis provided valuable insights into the service quality attributes that customers prioritize and the comparative performance of various suppliers in these areas.

According to the results, customers prioritize "Reliability" the most when evaluating service quality and selecting suppliers. This factor has a weight of 36%, as indicated in Table 2. The reliability service dimension also encompasses on-time delivery, which means delivering the order on time. Punctual delivery, secure packaging, and meticulous handling are the primary service dimensions. The findings indicate that among the three sub-criteria (level 3), customers have given the highest importance to timely delivery (time) from supplier to customer (RL1), assigning it a weight of 44 percent. This is followed by damaged-package compensation (RL3) at 38% and Sincere, customer-focused employees (RL2) at 16.9%. Therefore, suppliers must prioritize on-time, precise delivery.

Customers have rated the responsiveness dimension as the second most important, assigning it a weight of 25%, as shown in Table 2. Regarding the responsiveness criteria, emphasis is placed on suppliers' ability to address problems, adjust to changes in order quantities, and accommodate changes in delivery times. For the flexibility criteria, factors include meeting requests for changes in order quantities, accommodating changes in delivery times, and handling rejections, repairs, and replacements due to damage.

Customers ranked the assurance dimension third most important, assigning it a weight of 15 percent, as shown in Table 2. Within the quality criteria, critical factors include the accuracy of material orders, color precision, and specifications such as size, weight, and raw materials. For the price criterion, significant considerations include material costs, payment flexibility, and shipping expenses. Concerning delivery criteria, the emphasis is on the exact number of shipments, timely delivery, and speed to the destination.

According to Table 2, customers have rated the tangible service dimension as the fourth most significant, with a weight of 11 percent. When it comes to tangible aspects, the majority of customers anticipate convenient payment options that can cater to everyone, and the actual service rendered is highly impressive. In contrast, customers have low expectations for individualized attention or customized promotions, as these are rated lowest in terms of perceived service.

Empathy received the lowest rating among the service quality dimensions, with a weight of 10 percent, as indicated in Table 2. Among the two sub-criteria (level3), customers have given the highest rating weight of 66 percent to Personalized customer promotions (PCP), while Customer-friendly delivery times (CFD) received a rating weight of 33 percent. Therefore, suppliers should prioritize enhancing individual attention and personalized promotions for customers.

Reliability Analysis

Cronbach's alpha is commonly used to assess internal consistency and reliability. Cronbach's alpha is a statistical metric that measures the internal consistency of a scale or test. The scale ranges from 0 (low internal reliability) to 1 (exceptional internal reliability). According to [69] Murphy (1989), a value of 0.73 or higher is generally considered acceptable. We used Cronbach's alpha to assess the reliability of each component. The assurance value was 0.82, responsiveness 0.84, and reliability 0.80. The tangibles received a score of 0.84, while customer satisfaction was rated at 0.83. The empathy score was 0.814. The results show that the scale has strong internal consistency and minimal measurement error, as evidenced by Cronbach's alpha values that exceed 0.80 for these constructs.

Conclusion and future work

This study proposes using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a flexible methodology for supplier evaluation and selection. The decision criteria considered include reliability, responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, and empathy. AHP is used to assess each supplier’s performance against these criteria, providing a structured framework to address conflicting selection factors across supplier options. This evaluation system supports the procurement process by enabling the subjective assessment and monitoring of suppliers' actual performance. Additionally, it clearly and effectively communicates purchasing priorities to suppliers. The findings indicate that companies should prioritize reliability, responsiveness, and assurance, with empathy being the least important. Among the sub-criteria, timeliness in service delivery is identified as the highest priority, while cleanliness and appearance of facilities are considered the least significant. Based on an analysis of dimensions and their sub-criteria, Supplier A ranks highest, followed by Supplier C and Supplier B. The results provide management with valuable insights into factors influencing customer satisfaction with service standards. By addressing specific shortcomings, suppliers can improve service quality and further enhance customer satisfaction. While AHP was used to assess the model, other methods could be used to evaluate supply chain service quality in future research, enabling comparative analysis of different approaches.

To enhance supply chain competitiveness, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) offers a powerful tool for evaluating supplier service quality, especially in complex decision-making scenarios. AHP is particularly useful when the goal is to improve decision-making processes rather than simply justify outcomes. Its primary advantage is that it enables structured discussions among stakeholders, promoting effective information sharing and collaboration.

In the context of supply chain management, AHP provides a systematic approach to prioritize key factors such as delivery reliability, cost efficiency, flexibility, and innovation. By creating a hierarchical structure of these criteria, organizations can assign appropriate weights to each factor, allowing for a more comprehensive evaluation of supplier service quality. This process ensures that decision-making aligns with the supply chain's strategic goals, ultimately improving competitiveness.

Although AHP has traditionally been applied in management decision-making, its application to supplier evaluation holds great potential. Further research can explore how AHP can be integrated with existing supplier evaluation frameworks and how it compares to traditional methods. As more studies are conducted, AHP may prove to be an essential tool for optimizing supplier performance and strengthening supply chain competitiveness.

References

1. Niraj, R., Gupta, M., and Narasimhan, C., "Customer profitability in a supply chain," Journal of Marketing, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1–16, 2001.

2. Cronin, J. J., and Taylor, S. A., "Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension," Journal of Marketing, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 55–68, 1992.

3. Chang, T. Z., and Chen, S. J., "Market orientation, service quality, and business profitability: A conceptual model and empirical evidence," Journal of Business Research, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 55–62, 1998.

4. Newman, K., "Interrogating SERVQUAL: A critical assessment of service quality measurement in a high street retail bank," International Journal of Bank Marketing, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 126–139, 2001.

5. Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C., and Anantharaman, R. N., "The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction – A factor-specific approach," Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 363–379, 2002.

6. Asamoah, D., Annan, J., and Nyarko, S., "AHP Approach for Supplier Evaluation and Selection in a Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Firm in Ghana," International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 49–62, 2012.

7. Koufteros, X., "Supply Chain Integration: A Competitive Advantage," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 345–360, 2012.

8. R. K. Oliver and M. D. Webber, "Supply-chain management: Logistics catches up with strategy," in Logistics: The Strategic Issues, M. Christopher, Ed. London, UK: Chapman Hall, 1982, pp. 63–75.

9. Blanchard, D., Supply Chain Management Best Practices. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

10. Feller, A., Shunk, D., and Callarman, T., "Value chains versus supply chains," BPTrends, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1–7, 2006.

11. Christopher, M., Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Costs and Improving Services. London, U.K.: Financial Times/Pitman Publishing, 1998.

12. Mason-Jones, R., and Towill, D. R., "Time compression in the supply chain: Information management is the vital ingredient," Logistics Information Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 93–104, 1998.

13. Singh, H., The pursuit of competitive advantage: Supply chain management approaches for value creation. New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1996.

14. Novack, R. A., and Simco, S. W., "The industrial procurement process: A supply chain perspective," Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 145–167, 1991.

15. Jones, T. C., and Riley, D. W., "Using inventory for competitive advantage through supply chain management," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 16–26, 1985.

16. D. J. Ketchen Jr. and L. C. Giunipero, "The intersection of strategic management and supply chain management," Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 51–56, 2004.

17. Sweeney, E., Grant, D. B., and Mangan, J., Theory and Practice of Supply Chain Management. London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

18. Grimm, C., Hofstetter, J., and Sarkis, J., "Inter-organizational relationships and the supply chain," Decision Sciences, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 537–552, 2015.

19. Klaus, P., "The state of logistics: Defining the domain," Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2009.

20. Larson, P. D., and Halldórsson, Á., "Logistics versus supply chain management: An international survey," International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2004.

21. Janvier-James, A. M., "A new introduction to supply chains and supply chain management: Definitions and theories perspective," International Business Research, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 194–207, 2012.

22. Rungtusanatham, M., Salvador, F., Forza, C., and Choi, T. Y., "Supply-chain linkages and operational performance: A resource-based-view perspective," International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1084–1099, 2003.

23. Halldórsson, Á., Kotzab, H., Mikkola, J. H., and Skjøtt-Larsen, T., "Complementary theories to supply chain management," Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 419–432, 2015.

24. Schulman, P. R., "Negotiating corporate cultures: The making of a management elite," Sociological Review, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 732–747, 1993.

25. A. B. Stevens, Title of the Book. Place of publication: Publisher, 2016.

26. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L., "A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research," Journal of Marketing, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 41–50, 1985.

27. R. N. Bolton and J. H. James, "A dynamic model of customers' usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction," Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 17–29, 1991.

28. A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, "SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality," Journal of Retailing, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 12–40, 1988.

29. Grönroos, C., "Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector," Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 43–50, 1982.

30. N. Seth, S. G. Deshmukh, and P. Vrat, "Service quality models: A review," International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 913–949, 2005.

31. U. Lehtinen and J. R. Lehtinen, "Service quality: A study of quality dimensions," Service Management Institute, Helsinki, Finland, 1982.

32. M. M. Khan and M. Fasih, "Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty: Evidence from banking sector," Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 331–354, 2014.

33. C. Lin, T. Lai, and Y. Yeh, "Consumer behavior and its impact on customer satisfaction," International Journal of Market Research, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 183–204, 2007.

34. M. M. Khan and M. Fasih, "Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty: Evidence from banking sector," Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 331–354, 2014.

35. A. Naidoo, "Firm survival through a crisis: The influence of market orientation, marketing innovation, and business strategy," Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 346–355, 2011.

36. V. Kaura, S. Datta, and V. Vyas, "Impact of service quality on satisfaction and loyalty: Case of two public sector banks," Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 11–23, 2012.

37. A. Kenneth and S. Douglas, "Quality and customer loyalty: An empirical study of the U.S. banking sector," Journal of Service Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 44–55, 1993.

38. V. A. Zeithaml, "Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence," Journal of Marketing, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 2–22, 1988.

39. G. S. Sureshchandar, C. Rajendran, and R. N. Anantharaman, "The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction – A factor specific approach," Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 363–379, 2002.

40. A. Naidoo, "Firm survival through a crisis: The influence of market orientation, marketing innovation, and business strategy," Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 346–355, 2011.

41. M. M. Khan and M. Fasih, "Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty: Evidence from banking sector," Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 331–354, 2014.

42. A. Mathong, P. K. Gupta, and N. S. Sharma, "Reliability in service quality and its impact on customer satisfaction in the beverage industry," International Journal of Service Industry Management, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 235–247, 2020.

43. P. Shetty, R. Kumar, and S. Patel, "Assessing reliability in banking services: A study on customer satisfaction and loyalty," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 456–469, 2022.

44. F. Yasin, M. Abdullah, and H. Iqbal, "The role of service quality and reliability in the healthcare sector: Evidence from developing economies," Journal of Healthcare Management, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 112–123, 2023.

45. W. Ng, J. Chen, and M. Zhang, "The role of responsiveness in healthcare service quality," Healthcare Management Review, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 201–210, 2019.

46. V. Rangaraju, S. Patel, and K. Sharma, "Responsiveness in logistics and supply chain management: Key to customer satisfaction," Logistics and Supply Chain Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 145–158, 2020.

47. J. Ulkhaq, P. Sudarto, and L. Rachman, "Responsiveness in education service quality: A customer satisfaction perspective," Journal of Educational Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 89–100, 2018.

48. T. Adebisi and K. Lawal, "Empathy in healthcare service: Its role in patient satisfaction," Journal of Health Management, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 102–115, 2017.

49. M. Alhazmi, "The impact of empathy on customer satisfaction in banking services," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 67–75, 2020.

50. M. Awoke, "Empathy and its influence on customer satisfaction in the education sector," International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 156–165, 2015.

51. W. Ng, J. Chen, and M. Zhang, "The role of assurance in education service quality," Journal of Educational Management, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 210–220, 2019.

52. P. Shetty, R. Kumar, and S. Patel, "Assurance and its impact on customer satisfaction in the banking sector," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 456–469, 2022

53. M. Raza, K. U. Haq, and M. Zia, "The role of tangible assets in service quality: Evidence from healthcare," Journal of Healthcare Management, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 112–125, 2012.

54. M. Hoque, S. Rahman, and A. Karim, "Impact of physical facilities on customer satisfaction in educational institutions," Journal of Educational Management, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 302–315, 2023.

55. Z. Zakaria, S. Abdul, and T. Khalid, "Tangible aspects of service quality in educational institutions," International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 251–261, 2011.

56. T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1980.

57. T. L. Saaty and L. G. Vargas, Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 2012.

58. T. L. Saaty, "Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process," Journal of Operations Research, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 120-132, 1994.

59. T. L. Saaty, "Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process," International Journal of Services Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83–98, 2008.

60. A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, "Review of the main developments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 14336–14345, 2011.

61. O. S. Vaidya and S. Kumar, "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 169, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2006.

62. N. Subramanian and R. Ramanathan, "A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 215–241, 2012.

63. T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1980.

64. S. Chen and C. Wang, "The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for decision making," Journal of Information Systems, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 45–54, 2010.

65. S. Nasiri, A. Author, and M. Author, "Multi-criteria decision-making using AHP: A practical approach," International Journal of Decision Support Systems, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 67–85, 2020.

66. S. Aminbakhsh, F. Gunduz, and M. Sonmez, "Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects," Journal of Safety Research, vol. 45, pp. 99–105, 2013.

67. B. Petruni, A. Kolman, and S. Novoselac, "Application of AHP for decision-making in project management," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 567–578, 2019

68. A. Darko, A. P. Chan, E. E. Ameyaw, D. He, and Y. Yuan, "Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction," International Journal of Construction Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 436–452, 2019.

69. K. R. Murphy, "Psychometric theory," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 1989.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support from the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for funding this research under grant award number RGP.2/437/45.