A holistic framework of supplier selection and performance evaluation for an XYZ automobile company

A HOLISTIC FRAMEWORK
OF SUPPLIER SELECTION &
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION OF XYZ
AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
Purchasing and Procurement
MAY 24, 2015
SACHIN MATHEWS

1
A HOLISTIC FRAMEWORK OFSUPPLIER SELECTIO N & PERFORMANCEEVALUATION OFXYZ AUTOMO BILE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Table of Contents
Sl No. Title Page No
Executive Summary 2
1. Introduction 3
2. Need for Holistic Supplier Evaluation Framework 4
3. Supply Chain of XYZ Company 6
4. Phase-Wise Approach to Supplier Evaluation Process 9
4.1 Phase1 - Identifying Procurement Needs 10
4.2 Phase2 - Identification of Potential Suppliers 11
4.3 Phase3 - Selection of Suppliers for 1st Period Planning Horizon 12
4.3.1 Weighted Point System and Fuzzy Logic Decision Making system 14
4.4 Phase4 - Continuous Evaluation of Supplier Network 16
4.4.1 Continuous Evaluation of Selected Suppliers 16
4.4.2 Collaborative Evaluation - Self & Supplier Evaluating Us 17
4.5 Phase5- Periodic Re-evaluation of Suppliers (For Retaining or Changing) 19
5. Conclusion 20
6. References 21

2
Executive Summary
The main objective of this paper is to propose a holistic framework for supplier selection and
performance measurement for the procurement function of XYZ Company. For the literature
review we firstly look at the importance of performance measurement in supply chain
management especially in context with the purchasing function and the supplier network. The
factors that needs to be considered in a holistic supplier evaluation framework are discussed.
We also look into what firms are currently doing and then enlighten the finer aspects of
evaluation which are often overlooked or neglected that leads to lower performance levels.
The paper then briefly describes the case company considered, the kind of business, strategic
goals along with the overview of the supply chain. The current issues in the supplier network
and the deficiencies in the supplier selection and evaluation process of the firm are brought to
light. The CPO has asked us to develop a more holistic framework for supplier selection and
evaluation. For this our team formulates phase-wise methodological and holistic framework
that is more comprehensive and effective than the existing selection and evaluation process.
We start out with the identification and classification of the procurement needs based on the
Kraljic portfolio model. Then we use Carter 10'c for the identification process of the supppiers.
Considering our organizational goals and the complexity in supplier network it terms of the
number of suppliers as well as type of qualitative and quantitative factors we propose the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) together with the fuzzy logic method to arrive at final
ratings suppliers. Further we discuss the concept of continuous improvement though constant
evaluation and feedback among stakeholders. This involves a mechanism of the supplier
evaluating us in addition to self-evaluation process. Finally we arrive at the concluding re-
evaluation that could be conducted quarterly or yearly depending on the situation for the scope
of terminating or renewing contracts with our suppliers.

3
1. Introduction
“Measurement is the first step that leads to control and eventually to improvement.
If you can’t measure something, you can’t understand it.
If you can’t understand it, you can’t control it.
If you can’t control it, you can’t improve it” - H. James Harrington
&
"If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it" - (Garvin 1993)
As pointed out by Harrington and (Garvin 1993), performance measurement is one of the most
crucial aspects of any kind of management and has become a competitive necessity for
globalized supply chains. For any supply chain the cost, quality (both at a services level and
the supplies), along with the responsiveness of your suppliers make a huge difference in the
overall performance of the company. The qualification, selection and evaluation of the
suppliers is one of the key tasks performed by the purchasing and procurement function in an
organization and the need for a robust and comprehensive mechanism has become increasingly
critical.
In this paper we establish a methodological framework for the holistic performance evaluation
of XYZ Company which is OEM in the automobile sector based in Chonburi, Thailand. The
company is currently facing scrutiny from the board who are not happy with current state of
affairs of the supplier network. The board feels that immediate changes need to be made in
supplier evaluation framework as our company continues to grow globally. It has become
imperative to adopt a holistic framework that integrates cross-enterprise frameworks for
supplier relationship management (SRM) or supplier performance management (SPM) in order
achieve higher "triple bottom-line" performance. The Chief Procurement Officer has asked our
team to come up with a holistic plan for supplier selection and performance evaluation. We
approach this task in methodological manner by separating the core activities involved in the
evaluation processes into five phases, starting by identifying our core procurement needs. The
various steps involved and their importance in each phase is discussed. Finally we look into
the continuous improvement and supplier development before arriving at the decision of
retaining and removal of suppliers.

4
2. Performance Measurement& the Need for Holistic Supplier Evaluation
Framework
(Gunasekaran 2007) defines performance measurement as the means of quantifying "efficiency
and effectiveness" by a set of metrics. Each industry has its own set of "rules of the game" and
there are dimensions which are more critical and contribute more to success or failure of the
business. The important aspect is to identify the right metrics and the right criteria while
viewing it holistically. The supplier qualification, selection and evaluation is one of the most
critical tasks of the purchasing process and the metrics under performance evaluation carried
out needs to be carefully defined considering all relevant factors.
Figure1 - Commonly Tracked Metrics for a Manufacturing Firm, Source- (Gordon 2008)
As pointed out by (Gordon 2008) most companies (approx. 50-75 percent) have a framework
for measuring supplier performance. However the number of these companies that are satisfied

5
with their current approaches are quite few in number. The supplier evaluation process is quite
complicated and challenging. (Gordon 2008) says that the biggest challenge is to come up with
the "right metrics" and even if some firms are successful in doing this, they don't necessarily
translate to achieving desired results. Why? The answer to that is, most metrics that are used
by firms are based on a standard norm which are usually borrowed from other firms involved
in the same type of business. Figure1 illustrates some of the common metrics used by a typical
manufacturing firm. Some of these metrics lack the required customization with relevance to
the firm's particular business objective. Also the ERP systems that are in place are usually
bought "of the shelf" and are configured to read specific type of information such as supplier
quality, on time deliver, inventory levels etc which do not really capture business processes
and practice quality (Gordon 2008).
In addition most firms try to single out individual procurement functions for improvement
without looking at it holistically. As pointed out by (Latham 2015), while the savings made by
the purchasing department is an essential component of evaluation, it must relate to saving
made from the entire production process, from raw materials to services while considering the
business growth. If the firms is buying material at the same price when it produces $10 million
revenue, as to when it started with an investment of $1 million then the purchasing department
may not be doing their job well enough. He argues that "buying cheaper" is not a useful
performance measure if you consider the true or overall costs arising due to lower raw material
quality or the below par services rendered. For example costs arising due to returns, liability
claims or increased transportation costs. Analysing all these parameters and including them in
the evaluation methods will give a more accurate view of the purchasing performance.
While farming the performance evaluation framework it is also essential to that the capabilities
of the suppliers are carefully considered it should not just be based on a competitive process.
These capabilities must be judged in relation to the firms specific requirements. Supplier
relationships is another important area along with supplier development processes which is
often neglected by firms while forming the evaluation metrics. Some aspects under the supplier
relationship criteria could be the negotiating capability of the firm with respect to pricing,
discounts and other benefits as well as the ability to empower suppliers to manage themselves
against the shared performance metrics. There are various other areas where the evaluation of

6
the supplier relationship must be taken into consideration such as with respect to design,
planning, forecasting and how well the data and ideas are shared both internally and externally
that achieves overall objective of the enterprise. Lastly but by no way the least, the evaluators
often fail to evaluate themselves or their performance level with respect to the supplier as well
as their contribution to the overall organizational performance. The evaluation framework must
be part of the overall supply management program and must be aligned to achieve the overall
objectives of the firms "mission and vision" statement.
3. Supply Chain of XYZ Company
In this section a general backdrop of the case company considered is discussed. Figure2 shows
the typical supply chain of the case company considered. The company is an OEM in the
automobile sector and is headquartered in Chonburi, Thailand, 100kms south east of Bangkok.
Figure2: XYZ Company's Supply Chain
Over the past decade Thailand has seen tremendous growth in production and exports of
automobiles and auto-parts. Our company's business revolves around the same strategic
objective and are concentrating on business from overseas markets. However we face stiff
completion from Japanese firms such as Toyota, Mitsubishi and Honda who were earlier
entrants into this market. Though our firm has achieved substantial market share in the pick-

7
up trucks and the "eco-friendly" small car segment, the firm is still lacking in terms quality and
responsiveness of service provided to our valued customers. On carrying out the root cause
analysis, major reason is attributed to the quality of our supplier network.
Due to government regulations as well as for reasons of cost benefits, most of the parts and
assemblies are sourced from local suppliers. The final assembly is done in the company factory.
The manufacturing processes follows a "lean and agile” principle that emphasis on reduction
of wasteful process while being robust with agile methods to deliver quality products in a fast
and effective manner. As part of this strategy, the use of a distributor network is minimised
especially for local and nearby regions where we directly provide the finished product to the
dealers and end customers. The logistics activities are handled by a third party which uses
sophisticated and far reaching transportation and distribution network to deliver our vehicles
within the region.
Figure3: KRA's for Performance Measurement Framework, Source - (Karjalainen 2012)
Our procurement team's main focus is to get the best out of our supplier in terms of quality and
responsiveness and hence the main metrics under which we evaluate our suppliers were focused
in these two areas as shown in green in figure3. However as mentioned earlier our company's
performance is under scrutiny especially with regard to the supplier evaluation framework as
well as the performance of purchasing and procurement function under main categories of
Time, Cost, Quality and Supplier Management. There is a lack of holistic approach and our

8
team has been given the task to develop an effective evaluation framework to get the best out
of our suppliers as well as our procurement team. For this we first need to analyse our core
procurement needs and decide "what" to measure. We then link it to "why" we need to measure
and focus on the key aspects that is currently missing in our evaluation framework both in
terms of the suppliers and ourselves, the procurement team. Then we decide on "how" to
measure by developing appropriate methods that suit our requirement. The supplier
management and evaluation cycle that we intend to implement is shown in figure and the phase
wise approach of implementing it is discussed next.
Figure 4 : Proposed Supplier Management and Evaluation Cycle of XYZ Company

9
4. Phase-WiseApproachto Supplier EvaluationProcess
Figure 5 : Proposed Phase-Wise Performance Evaluation Framework, Source - (Keramydas 2012)
The figure 5 illustrates our suggested framework for the evaluation process. The first three
phases deals with initial assessment of the problem and framing the right criteria for selection
of the suppliers based on our firms objective. These phases are crucial as developing the right
performance metrics at the start will ensure a greater firmness in evaluation process and
minimize the risks of alteration or re-work by changing the requirement mid-way. The Phases
4 and 5 deals with the continuous improvement and supplier development process where
periodic re-evaluation of suppliers along with our firm is collectively analysed and evaluated.
The actually achieved results in phase 4 & 5 are compared to the set standards in Phase 1,2 &
3 that enables better decision making with regard to the necessary steps that need to be taken
for supplier development or for their removal.

10
4.1 Phase1 - Identifying Procurement Needs
The first phase is to identify the procurement needs after which the required procurement
strategy must be developed. The first part in this stage is to classify the procurement activity
based on the kind of supplies, whether its critical for production or not. Our "direct
procurement" involves acquiring raw materials that are needed for production. These supplies
directly affect the ability of the firm to manufacture the vehicle and any disruption can severely
affect the revenue. They are usually got from a pool of suppliers, ordered in larger quantities
with best possible cost, quality and reliability. The other type is the "indirect procurement"
which involves purchasing supplies for the day to day activities of the business which have a
lesser impact on the firms bottom-line but is important none the less for effective operations.
Once this is done we further classify supplies based on "portfolio purchasing model" developed
by (Kraljic 1983), shown in figure 6, where items are classified based on the level of criticality.
The strategic items are those items that are critical to production process, impact profit greatly
and has a high supply risk. These items require the most attention from our purchasing team
and the supplier of these items must be cautiously selected.
Figure 6 - Classification Matrix for Identifying Procurement needs, Source - (Kraljic 1983)

11
Leverage items are those supplies that have an impact on profit but do not have a high supply
risk. For these items we use our full purchasing power in order to get the best costs and quality.
Then we have the bottle-neck items. These items do not impact profit directly but create bottle-
necks or situations where the firm have not many options. These are usually products where
we have to depend on one supplier. Lastly we have the non-critical items which can be got by
any supplier and have low impact on profit.
Once these procurement needs are identified make-or-buy decision can be made and other
sourcing strategies such VMI, strategic alliance with suppliers, umbrella agreements etc can
formulated. This phase is more crucial in terms of the performance of our procurement team as
any error in judgement made with the identification or classification of supplies would have
ramifications on the overall performance. We would have started on the wrong foot by sourcing
a critical supply to the wrong supplier.
4.2 Phase2 Identification of Potential Suppliers
In this phase we identify our potential suppliers based on our specific requirement and their
capabilities in terms of the competency levels. Like phase1, this phase too affects the
procurement team’s performance or KRA's (Key Result Area) as wrongly identifying suppliers
would severely impact the quality and responsiveness of our supply chain.
Firstly we look at the supplier company's financial report to get a picture of the company we
are going to deal with. This is important with respect to matching the suppliers with our long
term or short terms goals. We then formulate a checklist based on the 10c's of supplier
evaluation developed by (Carter 1995) for the initial screening process (figure 7). We conduct
brain-storming sessions for the thorough examination of suppliers and the supplier's supplier
(tier2 & tier3 suppliers) based on these parameters. In order, to select the best supplier
sometimes there may be a need to trade-off between these parameters based on the core
capabilities of the supplier and how they relate to meeting our requirement. As pointed out by
(Fuh-Hwa 2005) these trade-offs need to be made at every stage of the supply chain while
integrating the performance metrics for different suppliers.
In addition, many aspects that were not adequately captured before such as "Clean" or "Culture
and Relationships" have been included. "Clean" refers to adherence to environmental and

12
safety standards along with adherence to the law of the land. This is important as we seen in
the past many suppliers, though they were good in their core competencies, they had to be
removed mid-way due corruption or other legal factors. Equally important is the "Culture &
Relationships" category which may include past history in negotiation (qualitative), legal cases
against previous buyers (quantitative) or general work atmosphere (culturally complex or
different from ours etc) that would affect the performance of the supplier network.
Figure 7 : Carter's 10C's Supplier Selection, Source - (Carter 1995)

13
4.3 Phase3 - Selection of Suppliers for 1st Period Planning Horizon
As pointed out by (Monczka 2011) there is no "one best way" for the selection and evaluation
of suppliers. Though the overall objective is to minimize risk and maximize value the
evaluation must be based on the right criteria that is line with firm’s objective. (Sagar 2012)
emphasises the importance of determining the right criteria for selecting the supplier in the
automobile sector during the 1st period of the planning horizon. This is a stage where the
annual, quarterly plans based on forecasts are being studied and formulated. Most of the
existing literature broadly classifies the methods used in the selection process based on the
“Quantitative" and "Qualitative" factors. The quantitative approaches includes both
optimization and non-optimization techniques. (Partovi 1989), (Narasimhan 1983) and
(Nydick 1992) illustrates how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to for the
supplier selection process because of its intrinsic capability to handle both the qualitative and
quantitative factors that conceptualizes the issues within the supplier selection process. In
addition (Gnanasekaran 2006) research has shown that the AHP improves the decision making
process and reduces time taken to select supplier. As illustrated in figure 8, it helps the
evaluation team to understand the problem with respect to main objective and systematically
evaluate performance under each relevant criteria and sub-criteria.
Figure 8: Analytic Hierarchy Process for Supplier Selection, Source- (Prusak 2013)

14
Further, it is carried out in a "level based" approach where both, the qualitative and quantitative
metrics are evaluated under each category and sub-category. For example under the "delivery"
category one of the sub category includes the "compliance with due date" which is further
classified into "percentage late delivery" and "delivery lead time". Figure 9 illustrates this but
not all parameters that are captured under each category and sub-category are shown.
Figure 9: AHP - Level Based Metrics for XYZ Company
Now once these parameter is evaluated and rated by the decision makers at various levels there
will be a degree of vagueness in their subjective perception and it needs to be integrated with
the general framework. For this we propose to use the fuzzy-hierarchy-multi criteria decision
making process or FHMCD that integrate the multiple weightages of the decision makers into
a single rank.

15
4.3.1 Weighted Point System and Fuzzy Logic Decision Making system
The weighted point system is typically designed for quantitative measurement where the
weight or score given by the decision maker for each category and sub-category is multiplied
by the performance score that is assigned and then totalled to arrive at final rating. But the
problem arises when qualitative criteria needs to be considered (Kahraman 2003). Hence we
propose to use is the fuzzy logic method. (Sreekumar 2009) shows how the fuzzy approach can
be used for supplier selection and evaluation where there exists qualitative factors and multiple
criteria with more than one decision maker. Figure 10 shows an example where there are of
four main categories (C1,C2,C3,C4), four suppliers (S1,S2,S3,S4) and three decision makers
(D1,D2,D3D4).
Figure 10 : Rating of Decision Makers & Formulae for FHMCD Process, Source - (Sreekumar 2009)
Once the evaluation is done by the decision makers under various criteria, the aggregate
weights of each criteria must be calculated as shown in the figure 9 (step4). Next the aggregate

16
fuzzy rating of the suppliers is arrived at using the formulae shown in figure 10 ( below step4).
The linguistic evaluation say using subjective variables such as P (poor), F (Fair), M (Medium),
G ( Good) and VG ( Very Good) by the decision maker can be expressed as positive triangular
fuzzy number which is then used to construct the fuzzy decision matrix. This is then normalized
based on the importance of each criteria. Next the positive ideal solution (FPIS) and negative
ideal solution (FNIS) is found. The vertex method is applied to determine the distance between
two. Finally the closeness co-efficient, which is the relative closeness of FNIS to FIPS, for each
supplier is calculated which is used to rank the supplier based on the predefined decision rule.
The fuzzy approach is especially useful when there are multiple decision makers or where the
ranking of one can be challenged by another. As suggested by (Herrera 2000) it helps in easier
resolutions of the conflicts arising in the evaluation process.
4.4 Phase4 - Continuous Evaluation of Supplier Network (Buyer and Supplier)
One of the main categories depicted in figure 3 is the Supplier Management category has a lot
to do with the effort put by both parties in the continuous improvement process. Earlier the two
sub-categories that captured this were the flexibility and commitment ratio. But these need to
be further defined based on supplier development level through the continuous process of
evaluation.
4.4.1 Continuous Evaluation of Selected Suppliers
As pointed out by (Gordon 2008) supplier evaluation is not an event but a process. There must
be continuous evaluation of the supplier along with our purchasing function on the defined
parameters of time, cost, quality & supplier management. (Morris 2010) elucidates the
importance of a closed loop performance improvement model for continuous evaluation of the
supplier network as shown in figure 11. The steps discussed in phases1 to 3 are repeated with
the only difference being the supplier is "on board" and data collected is shared and jointly
analysed to determine the areas that are lacking. The new set of improvement plans are jointly
formulated. This way a continuous collaborative effort is made by both stakeholders.

17
Figure 11 : Continuous Improvement Cycle of SPS, Source - (Beijer 2012)
4.4.2 Collaborative Evaluation - Self and Supplier Evaluating Us
Self-evaluation is as important as the supplier evaluation. How well we as firm or the
department are doing with respect to improving the performance of the supplier is critical to
efficiency of our supply chain. In addition the parameters on which we are going to judge
ourselves must be well communicated to the supplier. It is also imperative for the supplier to
evaluate us (procurement department and the organization as whole) and timely communicate
the result to us. This is often neglected by most firms but is critical to supplier management
parameter and needed for the continuous self-improvement process. Some of the metrics for
the self and supplier evaluating us must include on time payment, level of data sharing,
availability of the procurement team (face to face & virtual meeting held and their outcomes),
level of trust and comfort with the buyer, knowledge transfer which includes both from the
buyer as well supplier and training for specific requirements.

18
Earlier, supplier evaluation constituted of a periodic reviews using static information typically
by using a balanced scorecard after which a review is done and action plans are made. However
times have changed and the availability of advanced technology such as RFID, smart tags,
barcodes, EDI, TMS, WMS, ERP2, MRP2, e-procurement, cloud computing etc. have enabled
most of the qualitative or quantitative criteria to be evaluated on a "any-time" "any-where"
basis. This transparency and visibility available must be fully utilized by our team as well as
the supplier to track the performance of any criteria faster and respond better. Both participant
should jointly work together to sort out issues and formulate corrective measures. Say for
example the on-time delivery parameter is poor for one of the suppliers. The supplier and us
would jointly work on the issue and find out the root cause, such as transportation delays,
component availability, location etc. and see if any change in processes within the
manufacturer, procurement team, supplier or our third party could eliminate the problem. Such
a collaborative framework where both participants are actively involved in the improvement
process have a greater impact on the performance than many other quantifiable criteria.
Figure 12: Level of Buyer - Supplier Relationship, Source - (White 2013)

19
According to (White 2013), collaboration is not just about having common data, EDI or bi-
directional communication, but it is to work together to achieve the mutually agreed goals
resulting in a "win-win" situation for both parties. This does not happen overnight, it takes time
to build these relationships over a continuous development cycle. As supported by (Kannan
2006) and (Ellram 1990) these "softer" or qualitative aspects such supplier-buyer relationship,
the collaborative nature have increasingly become more important than traditional approaches
of measuring the quantitative aspects. This also has an in direct impact on other parameters of
the buyer evaluation. For example the relationships could be leveraged to get useful market
information, meeting emergency order or in other words the supplier meets "beyond the
expectations". Figure 12 shows the various levels of the supplier relationship which according
to us must be included as part of the evaluation process.
4.5 Phase5 - Periodic Re-evaluation of Suppliers for the scope of Retaining or Changing
Based on the output of the phase 4 the suppliers would undergo one primary re-evaluation for
the decision of retaining or changing any of the suppliers. This would be either done quarterly
or half yearly basis based on the nature of the event that causes the change or criticality of the
need. The output or actual performance levels is compared with the set specific targets, and if
they are found to be satisfactory then we continue to monitor them as discussed in phase4. In
case a supplier is not meeting the pre-defined requirement or specific goals they must be
rejected. However it important to compare the performance of these suppliers with the new
potential suppliers, competing to take this spot. So we pool them along with the new potential
supplier and repeat the steps discussed in Phase2 & 3. In case these lower performing suppliers
cannot compete or fail in the new selection process they would be phased out (as shown earlier
in figure 4) along with the reasons and blacklisted from all sites so they do not come up again
in our search engine.

20
5. Conclusion
Performance evaluation is one of the most important aspects in managing and controlling the
supplier network. As we have seen in this case it is a complicated task to have a holistic
framework for an automobile supply chain considering the myriad of suppliers and variety of
parameters that need to be considered. There are various approaches and models that can be
used to tackle this challenge but the framework selected used must be based on what fits best
to the firms strategic objective or the "mission and vision" and by considering the nature or the
complexity in the network and type of qualitative or quantitative factors involved. Each method
researched had its own unique advantages and shortcoming. Our team felt the AHP coupled
with fuzzy logic method would suit best to the "multi-criteria" and "multi-decision makers"
involved in our supply chain and propose this approach to the CPO for the selection and
evaluation of the suppliers. However we still believe in the future, few more additional aspects
need to be considered and further optimization of the model would be required.

21
6. References
Beijer,A.,T.,. Design of a SupplierPerformanceMeasurement&Evaluation SystemforDSM’s
Petrochemical& Energy Group. ResearchProject,Twente University,2012.
Carter,R.,. "The SevenC'sof SupplierEvaluation." TheJournalof Purchasing and Supply
Management,1995: pp.44-46.
Ellram,M.,Lisa."The SupplierSelectionDecisioninStrategicPartnerships." Journalof Purchasing &
MaterialsManagement,1990.
Fuh-Hwa,Liu.,Hai,Fraknklin.,Lin,Hui.,."The votinganalytichierarchyprocessmethodforselecting
supplier."InternationalJournalof Production Economics,Vol.97,2005: pp.308-317.
Garvin,A.,D.,."Buildingalearningorganization." Harvard BusinessReview,Vol.71(4),1993: pp.78-81.
Gnanasekaran,Sasikumar.,Velappan,Selladurai.,Manimaran,P.,."Applicationof Analytical Hierarchy
ProcessinSupplierSelection:AnAutomobileIndustryCase study." South Asian Journalof
Management,Vol.13(4),2006: pp.89-100.
Gordon,R.,Sherry. SuppllierEvaluation and PerformanceExcellance - A guideto meaningfulmetrics
and successfulresults. J.Ross,2008.
Gunasekaran,A.,Kobu,B.,."Performancemeasuresandmetricsinlogisticsandsupplychain
management:A reviewof recentliterature (1995–2004) forresearchand applications." International
Journalof Production Research,Vol.45(2),2007: pp.2819-2840.
Herrera,F.,Herrera-Viedma,E.,."Linguisticdecisionanalysis:Stepsforsolvingdecisionproblems
underlinguisticinformation." Fuzzy Setsand Systems,2000: pp.67-82.
Kahraman,C.,Cebeci,U.,Ulukan,Z.,."Multi-criteriasupplierselectionusingfuzzyAHP,Vol.16."
Logistics Information Management,2003: pp.382-394.
Kannan,R.,Vijay.,Tan,Choon.,Keah."SupplierSelectionandAssessment:TheirImpactonBusiness
Performance."Journalof Supply Chain Management,Vol.38(3),2006: pp.11-21.
Karjalainen,Mikko.,."FrameworkforSupplierPerformance MeasurementSystem."Master'sThesis,
2012.
Keramydas,Ch.,Xanthopoulos,A.,Aidonis,D.,."A Decision-MakingFrameworkforthe Optimal
Selectionof Suppliers." 1stOlympusInternationalConferenceon Supply Chains. KATERINI,GREECE,
2012.
Kraljic,Peter."PurchasingMustBecome SupplyManagement." HarvardBusinessReview,1983.

22
Latham, Andrew.,. Houston Chronicles-SmallBusiness-Improved MethodsforEvaluation of
Purchasing Performance. 2015. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/improved-methods-evaluation-
purchasing-performance-12248.html.
Monczka, M.,Robert.,Handfield,B.,Robert.,Giunipero,C.,Larry.,Patterson,L.,Patterson,. Purchasing
and Supply Chain Mangement,4thEdition. Cengage Learning,2011.
Morris, Wayne.,. Howto LeverageSupplierPerformanceManagementforContinuousSupply Chain
Improvement. 6 30, 2010. http://www.sdcexec.com/article/10269181/how-to-leverage-supplier-
performance-management-for-continuous-supply-chain-improvement.
Narasimhan,R.,."Ananalyticapproachto supplierselection." Journalof Purchasingand Supply
Management,Vol.1,1983: pp.27-32.
Nydick,R.,L.,Hill,R.,P."Usingthe AnalyticHierarchyProcesstostructure the supplierselection
procedure."InternationalJournalof Purchasingand MaterialsManagementVol.28(2),1992: pp.31-
36.
Partovi,F.,J.,B.,Banerjee,A.,."Applicationof analytichierarchyprocessinoperationsmanagement."
InternationalJournalof Operations&Production Management,Vol.10,1989: pp.5-19.
Prusak,A.,Stefanów,P.,Niewczas,M.,Sikora,T.,."Applicationof the AHPinthe evaluationand
selectionof suppliers."57thEOQ Congress:Quality Renaissance - Co-creating a Viable Future.
Tallinn,Estonia,2013. pp.1-9.
Sagar, Kumar.,Manish.,Singh,Deepali.,."SupplierSelectionCriteria:Studyof Automobile Sectorin
India."InternationalJournalof Engineering Research and Development,Vol.4(4),2012: pp.34-39.
Sreekumar,Mahapatra.,S.,S.,."A fuzzymulti-criteriadecisionmakingapproachforsupplierselection
insupplychainmanagement." African Journalof BusinessManagement,Vol.3(4),2009: pp.168-177.
White,Andrew.,."BestPracticesCollaborative AdvancedPlanning&Schedulingpresentation."
Gartner,Inc.,,2013.

A holistic framework of supplier selection and performance evaluation for an XYZ automobile company

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to A holistic framework of supplier selection and performance evaluation for an XYZ automobile company (20)

More from Sachin Mathews (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

A holistic framework of supplier selection and performance evaluation for an XYZ automobile company