IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v26y1998i6p739-750.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An analysis of the supplier selection process

Author

Listed:
  • Verma, Rohit
  • Pullman, Madeleine E.

Abstract

Customers select suppliers based on the relative importance of different attributes such as quality, price, flexibility, and delivery performance. This study examines the difference between managers' rating of the perceived importance of different supplier attributes and their actual choice of suppliers in an experimental setting. We use two methods: a Likert scale set of questions, to determine the importance of supplier attributes; and a discrete choice analysis (DCA) experiment, to examine the choice of suppliers. The results indicate that although managers say that quality is the most important attribute for a supplier, they actually choose suppliers based largely on cost and delivery performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Verma, Rohit & Pullman, Madeleine E., 1998. "An analysis of the supplier selection process," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 739-750, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:26:y:1998:i:6:p:739-750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(98)00023-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weber, Charles A. & Current, John R. & Benton, W. C., 1991. "Vendor selection criteria and methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 2-18, January.
    2. anonymous, 1986. "Comment period extended on proposed amendments," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), issue Sep, pages 644-644.
    3. Betson, David M & Greenberg, David, 1986. "Labor Supply and Tax Rates: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 551-556, June.
    4. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    5. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    6. Michael R. Hagerty, 1986. "The Cost of Simplifying Preference Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 298-319.
    7. Michael R. Hagerty, 1986. "Reply—Reflections on the Cost of Simplifying Preference Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 323-324.
    8. Weber, Charles A. & Current, John R., 1993. "A multiobjective approach to vendor selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 173-184, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit & Plaschka, Gerhard, 2009. "Understanding trade-offs in the supplier selection process: The role of flexibility, delivery, and value-added services/support," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 30-41, July.
    2. Baidu-Forson, Jojo & Ntare, Bonny R. & Waliyar, Farid, 1997. "Utilizing conjoint analysis to design modern crop varieties: Empirical example for groundnut in Niger," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 219-226, August.
    3. Chakraborty, Goutam & Ball, Dwayne & Gaeth, Gary J. & Jun, Sunkyu, 2002. "The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: a Monte Carlo simulation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 237-249, March.
    4. Park, Chan Su, 2004. "The robustness of hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis under alternative measurement scales," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1092-1097, October.
    5. Cakravastia, Andi & Toha, Isa S. & Nakamura, Nobuto, 2002. "A two-stage model for the design of supply chain networks," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 231-248, December.
    6. Preetam Basu & Soumita Ghosh & Milan Kumar, 2019. "Supplier ratings and dynamic sourcing strategies to mitigate supply disruption risks," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 46(1), pages 41-57, March.
    7. Yahya, Salleh & Kingsman, Brian, 2002. "Modelling a multi-objective allocation problem in a government sponsored entrepreneur development programme," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 430-448, January.
    8. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    9. Lin, Rong-Ho, 2012. "An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 55-61.
    10. Hayk Manucharyan, 2020. "Supplier selection in emerging market economies: a discrete choice analysis," Working Papers 2020-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Crama, Y. & Pascual J., R. & Torres, A., 2004. "Optimal procurement decisions in the presence of total quantity discounts and alternative product recipes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(2), pages 364-378, December.
    12. Degraeve, Zeger & Labro, Eva & Roodhooft, Filip, 2000. "An evaluation of vendor selection models from a total cost of ownership perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 34-58, August.
    13. Degraeve, Zeger & Roodhooft, Filip, 1999. "Improving the efficiency of the purchasing process using total cost of ownership information: The case of heating electrodes at Cockerill Sambre S.A," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 42-53, January.
    14. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    15. Talluri, Srinivas & Narasimhan, Ram, 2003. "Vendor evaluation with performance variability: A max-min approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 543-552, May.
    16. Liao, Zhiying & Rittscher, Jens, 2007. "Integration of supplier selection, procurement lot sizing and carrier selection under dynamic demand conditions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 502-510, June.
    17. Xiangshuo He & Jian Zhang, 2018. "Supplier Selection Study under the Respective of Low-Carbon Supply Chain: A Hybrid Evaluation Model Based on FA-DEA-AHP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    19. Talluri, Srinivas, 2002. "A buyer-seller game model for selection and negotiation of purchasing bids," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 171-180, November.
    20. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:26:y:1998:i:6:p:739-750. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.