Customer-focused rating

system of supplier
quality performance
Chee-Cheng Chen
Tsu-Ming Yeh and
Ching-Chow Yang

The authors
Chee-Cheng Chen is an Assistant Professor based in the
Department of Business Administration, National Pingtung
University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Tsu-Ming Yeh is a Doctoral student and Ching-Chow Yang
is an Associate Professor, both based in the Department of
Industrial Engineering, Chung-Yuan Christian University, Taiwan,
Republic of China.

Keywords
Customer satisfaction, Supplier evaluation,
Quality improvement, Supply chain management

Abstract
This paper establishes an objective-orientation driven supplier
customer satisfaction performance rating system. The purpose is
to provide a methodology for integrating supplier and
manufacturer capabilities and applying different strategies for
quality improvement. This study was undertaken to specify the
interaction and mutual movement among three groups in the
supply chain Supplier-Manufacturer-Customer and integrate
the results from four factors: incoming inspection, line reject
performance, supplier service quality and product reliability.
These factors are transformed into measurable, quantitative,
Just-in-time (JIT) parameters, utilized in planning and
establishing a supplier performance rating system focused on
satisfying both internal and external customers.

Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Volume 15 Number 7 2004 pp. 599606
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/17410380410555844

Introduction
From the total quality (TQ) perspective, every
company is a part of the long chain (actually many
long chains) of customers and suppliers. Each
company is a customer to its suppliers and a
supplier to its customers. Therefore, it does not
make sense to think of a company as only one or
the other. One implication of this concept is that
your customers customers are, in a sense, your
customers as well. A company must focus on both
their immediate customers and those next in the
chain (Evans and Dean, 2000). Creating a win-win
situation is a basic requirement for each supplier
and manufacturer. Creating triple wins produces
expansion for the entire industry. The real results
from supply chain management come from the
integration of processes throughout the entire
supply chain from the suppliers supplier to the
customers customer (Ptak and Schragenheim,
2000).
Poor quality of materials is the most common
reason for the failure of Just-in-time ( JIT) logistics
(Copacino, 1997). In todays international
business environment, quality cannot be
underestimated or overlooked by any firm,
regardless of its size or assets (Russell and Taylor,
2000). Who is the user? Ultimately, it is the
companys customer, but the user is also the next
operation in the process. This is important in
maintaining an uninterrupted flow of material
(Arnold and Chapman, 2001). Is it possible to
change the traditional incoming inspection and
performance-rating program based on the
interaction and mutual movement among the three
in the supply chain? How helpful is this in quality
and customer satisfaction promotions? This is the
main focus of our research.
In the literature of this field, most authors
studied the supplier vs manufacturer or
manufacturer vs customer relations and
focused on incoming inspection and material cost.
Most studies ignored the quality factors at
different stages in the process and its consequential
cost that could cause huge potential loss
(The Ernst & Young Quality Improvement
Consulting Group, 1992). The customer is the
judge of quality. A business can achieve success
only by understanding and fulfilling the needs of its
customers. The object of this research is to specify
the interaction and mutual movement among the
three groups in the supply chain and the meanings
Received: March 2002
Revised: March 2003
Accepted: June 2003
The authors thank the anonymous referees for their
constructive comments and valuable remarks on the
content and structure of this article.

599

Customer-focused rating system of supplier quality performance

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Chee-Cheng Chen, Tsu-Ming Yeh and Ching-Chow Yang

Volume 15 Number 7 2004 599606

of all indicators. This research aims to establish

a rating system for supplier performance from
the customer satisfaction orientation using
objective-oriented factors and prove the suitability
of this system using actual case simulation and
demonstration.

Firms may use these systems without linking the

performance measurements first, to meet top
management strategic demands focused on
satisfying customers, both internal and external.
Instead, many implemented systems concentrate
on the more limited aspects of quality assurance
and control. Breyfogle et al. (2001) noted that a
good performance measurement system addresses
both external and internal views of quality.
Neither internal nor external measures are
inherently bad. From a TQ perspective, all
strategic decisions a company makes are
customer-driven. (Evans and Dean, 2000).
Knowing the customer begins with a detailed
evaluation of what is known about the customer.
Knowing the customer is basically a customer
satisfaction measurement process (Player and
Keys, 1999). In the new management model,
business begins with customer focus and ends with
customer satisfaction; two sides of the same coin.
The customer requirements that you focus your
business on are the same requirements you use to
measure satisfaction. Linking the supplier value
chain to your ultimate customer is a powerful way
of using the collective resources of the supply base
to meet the customers needs. It also helps the
supplier to focus on the customers needs
(Riggs and Robbins, 1998). Successful companies
recognize the importance of reliable and
appropriate data and information in strategic
planning and daily customer-focused decisionmaking (Copacino, 1997; Stahl and Grigsby,
1997; Weele, 2000). Data and information are
the forces that drive quality excellence and
improve operational and competitive performance.
Unfortunately, many companies collect the wrong
data, if they collect data at all. Companies
generally make two fundamental mistakes: (1) not
measuring key characteristics critical to company
performance or customer satisfaction and/or (2)
taking irrelevant or inappropriate measurements,
directing company attention to areas that are not
important to the customers, thus wasting time and
resources (Evans and Lindsay, 1999).
Bhote (1991) noted that, If performance
isnt being measured, it isnt being managed.
Management By Objectives or MBO,
introduced to industry in the early 1950s by the
management guru Peter F. Drucker, has been
used effectively to measure senior management.
In companies where MBO is more than a game,
the goals are carefully drafted, the measurement
system finely tuned and progress against goals
meticulously monitored. The first step is to
establish objective measurements. The objective of
performance measurements is to establish which
road you want to take, where you are currently on
the road and where you ultimately want to end up.

Literature and popular models review

The literature on supplier performance evaluation
models, customer-focused measuring system
concepts and management by objective (MBO)
applications is varied. In this section, literature that
closely relates to the topic of interest is reviewed,
leading to the development of our research focus.
The traditional approach to manage supplier
relationships has been the legal contract, primarily
used as a control mechanism. Supplier rating
models, developed either as off-the-shelf systems
or designed in-house, have traditionally been used
in supplier selection and performance
management (Madu, 1998). A number of
alternative approaches have been suggested that
take the factors associated with late delivery times,
production breaks, poor delivered goods quality,
etc., into account. These are called rating models
that summarize several performance indicators
into one score. The most simple rating model is the
categorical method, ranking different supplier
characteristics as good, satisfactory, neutral
and unsatisfactory (Timmerman, 1986).
A cost-based system provides a justifiable and
rational method for evaluating key supplier
performance factors, identifying supplier
non-performance costs and accurately reflecting
the actual cost of doing business with suppliers
(Monczka and Trecha, 1988). Another technique
is the analytical hierarchy process method in which
the relative positions of suppliers with respect to
a given criterion are determined using pairwise
comparison (Narasimhan, 1983). The most
common approach is the weighted-point plan,
which consists of a stipulating number of criteria,
giving them different weights and selecting the
supplier with the best weighted total score
(Gregory, 1986; Wind and Robinson, 1968).
Companies commonly use one of the three basic
supplier measurement and evaluation techniques
or systems, including the categorical system,
weighted-point system and cost-based system.
These different systems are usually compared
based on their ease of use, level of decision
subjectivity, required resources to use the system
and implementation costs (Dobler and Burt, 1996;
Monczka et al., 1998). Table I compares the
advantages and disadvantages of these three
systems.

600

Customer-focused rating system of supplier quality performance

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Chee-Cheng Chen, Tsu-Ming Yeh and Ching-Chow Yang

Volume 15 Number 7 2004 599606

Table I Supplier measurement and evaluation system comparison

System

Advantages

Disadvantages

Users

Categorical

Easy to implement
Requires minimal data
Different personnel contribute
Good for firms with limited resources
Low-cost system
Flexible system
Allows supplier ranking
Moderate implementation costs
Combines quantitative and qualitative
factors into a single system
Provides a total cost approach
Identifies specific are as of supplier
nonperformance
Allows objective supplier ranking
Greatest potential for long-range
improvement

Least reliable
Less frequent generation of evaluations
Most subjective
Usually manual

Smaller firms
Firms in the process of developing an
evaluation system

Tends to focus on unit price

Requires some computer support

Most firma can use

Cost-accounting system required

Most complex implementation
costs high
Computer resources required

Larger firms
Firms with a large supply base

Weighted-point

Cost-based

The best measures are customer-focused and

goal-oriented (George and Weimerskirch, 1998).
Both buyers and suppliers must realize that they
are expected to meet certain standards of
performance and should be made aware of the
unpleasant consequences of missing their targets.
Goals should also reflect current realities.
Measurements are a starting point. They help
people to learn how to improve performance by
pointing out where they are deficient and by
establishing achievable timetables to reach desired
levels. In this way, they can be used as a basis for
improved performance (Schorr, 1998).
An example is a typical weighted-point supplier
performance rating system utilized in many
industries that can give us a better understanding
of the possible concerns in application as follows.
Feigenbaum (1985) defined a supplier
performance rating through integrating quality,
price and delivery. The Corporate Synergy
Development (CSD) Center, Taiwan, extends this
model based on the same concepts; the suppliers
performance (Y) is measured by:
Y W qQ W cC W dD

number of rejected lots

; 2
number of received lots

Wq the weight of quality, C the score of price

given by
P
actual price 2 lowest price
P
;
score of price
lowest price
3
Wc the weight of price, D the score of delivery
given by

number of delayed lots

;
number of received lots
4

Wd the weight of delivery and,

W q W c W d 100:
From the rating system defined by the Corporate
Synergy Development Center, we find that the
same 3 factors, (1) quality (Q quality of
product), (2) cost (C price of product) and
(3) delivery (D product delivery time), are
considered when the manufacturer adopts the
grading formula to measure the suppliers
performance. The weight of each factor might be
adjusted when the grading calculations are
applied, depending on the manufacturers needs.
Some specific manufacturers consider just quality,
while others consider quality and cost. Some
consider all three, quality, service and delivery.
Two example equations are provided for the
vendor grading calculations (Chiu, 1994):
Vendor rating score 40Q 35C 25D

where Q, is the score of quality given by

score of quality

score of delivery

or 40Q 40C 20D

In practice, a popular quality performance rating
system model, formula (2) is unable to meet the
customer orientation and objective orientation
requirements. It cannot fulfill the highlighting
material quality concerns requirement in a JIT
manner that will promote the effectiveness of
improvements as well. The advantages of
establishing a new model becomes obvious after
analyzing the concerns listed below.
(1) Rework/sorting. This model does not reflect the
rework and sorting that could occur on the
production line due to incoming material
quality problems.

601

Customer-focused rating system of supplier quality performance

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Chee-Cheng Chen, Tsu-Ming Yeh and Ching-Chow Yang

Volume 15 Number 7 2004 599606

(2) Customer voice. This model does not help

highlight complaints from customers
regarding material quality problems.
(3) Corrective action. The efficiency and
effectiveness of the suppliers corrective
actions are not expressed properly in this
model.
(4) Batch number. The batch number makes a
big difference between imported and local
materials, which significantly affects the score.
(5) Quality level. The percentage of defects inside
rejected lots are sometimes extremely
different. This model treats all rejected lots
with the same quality level.
(6) Ship-to-stock. This model does not
distinguish improved supplier efficiency
when ship-to-stock programs are applied.
(7) Customer orientation. This model has not
involved the satisfaction level of actual users
for incoming materials, such as the production
line or the end customer.
(8) Objective orientation. If we just apply a single
indicator to the supplier production
performance measure with different
characteristics, arguments will always exist.
To set a target for each performance
measurement using Achievement Level
or AL will be one of the solutions.

scrap generated during material use, customer

complaints, acceptable material without deviation
and warranty costs resulting from failures.
Customer complaints are valuable data that can
help an organization to identify the source or
process errors (Breyfogle et al., 2001).
Monczka et al. (1998) illustrated that central to all
measurement systems is the decision about what to
measure and how to weigh the performance
categories. This decision is probably the most
important decision made during the supplier
performance measurement system design. A firm
must decide which performance criteria are
objective (quantitative) measures and which
criteria are subjective (qualitative). However, most
of the objective, quantitative variables in quality
performance refer to some previously specified
aspects. Buyers could also use a number of
qualitative factors including: problem resolution
ability, technical ability, corrective action response
and new product development support to assess
supplier performance. Although these factors are
usually subjective in nature, a buyer can still assign
each factor a score or rating.

This study attempts to highlight suitable factors

that if applied to day-to-day industry quality
systems could help transform these factors into
measurable, quantitative, JIT parameters.
These parameters could be utilized in planning
and establishing a supplier performance rating
system based on our work with an electronics
firm. The relevance of the system to incoming
inspection, purchasing, production line
(internal customer) and external customers is
presented. The system logic is then detailed.
In addition to describing the system, applications
and conclusions are drawn.

Indicator of satisfaction in quality

Five indicators were established in this study:
Lc (line complaint), Cc (customer complaint),
Lr (line reject), Dv (defective value) and
Cs (complaint service), where Lc and Lr are
suitable for production line (internal customer),
Cc is applicable to external customers and the
customers customers. Dv and Cs can be measured
by the department that handles incoming
inspection. The definitions of each indicator are as
follows.
Lc line complaint
A line complaint is defined as released material
supplied from the vendor that causes a high reject
rate measured in percentage (the percentage is set
by the manufacturer) or any rework, sorting or
shut-down in the production line due to incorrect
or mixed parts. The line complaint is issued by the
production line and confirmed together with the
Incoming Quality Assurance (IQA) department.

The new customer-focused model

Based on the above-mentioned concerns, our
research studied a new Quality performance
rating model. This research aims to establish
a rating system for supplier quality performance
from the customer satisfaction orientation using
objective orientation. The aspects that are tracked
by some companies to measure supplier quality
performance were reported in a survey by Pooler
and Pooler (1997). These aspects include
(the sequence of events is followed by percent rank
from high to low): rejects, production stoppages
due to poor quality, rework in dollars or hours,

Cc customer complaint
A customer complaint is defined as a quality or
reliability issue occurring at the external customer
end and confirmed as being caused by material
failure. Normally, a formal notification from the
customer and a formal corrective action report
(CAR) from manufacturer are required and can
be tracked.
Lr line reject
A line reject is defined as incoming materials that
passed incoming inspection or are ship-to-stock.

602

Customer-focused rating system of supplier quality performance

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Chee-Cheng Chen, Tsu-Ming Yeh and Ching-Chow Yang

Volume 15 Number 7 2004 599606

However, there are rejects inside that are identified

by the production line. The line reject ratio is given
by Lr (number of rejects/number assembled).
The Lr ratio is usually very low and parts per
million (ppm) is adopted as the unit of calculation.

New model of performance measurement

Our study establishes a new model through the
integration of five indicators: Lc, Cc, Lr, Dv and
Cs, with appropriate weights r1, r2, r3, r4 and r5,
respectively. Performance, P was obtained by
matching Achievement level, AL, a range of
percentages from actual value and target value
comparisons for each indicator. This system is
explained precisely based on the definitions in
this study,

Dv defective value
Defective value is defined as the incoming material
quality status inspected and tested by the IQA
department. The defective value is obtained using:
ABC
3
where A is the number of rejected lots/number of
received lots, B the number of rejected pieces/
number of received pieces and C the number of
rejects/number of inspection pieces.
Dv

Actual Dv ! compare with target Dv ! get

an AL ! obtain a PDv; Dv Performance
value through matching:
The Lr, Cc, Lc and Cs (PLr, PCc, PLc and PCs)
performance is measured in the same way.
The details of this approach are expressed
below.

Cs complaint service
Complaint service is defined as the efficiency and
effectiveness in handling the manufacturers
complaint (the complaint is made by the
manufacturer when Dv, Lr, Lc or Cc does not
reach the yearly target or one lot of incoming
material is rejected).
The target value of material quality
performance
At the year-end, the manufacturer measures the
materials supplied performance of each supplier
and sets a suitable performance indicator target
value (for example, Dv or Lr, or Dv+Lr). A case
study on a manufacturer is given in Table II.
The target metal material Dv suppliers in 2002
and target glass vendor Lr suppliers in 2002 are
shown in Table III.
Table II Target Dv metal material suppliers, 2002
No

Group

Vendor

Dv (2001)
(per cent)

Target (2002)
(per cent)

1
2
3

Mask

VM1
VM2
VM3

0.16
0.60
2.32

0.2
0.2
0.2

4
5
..
.
..
.

Frame

VF1
VF2
..
.
..
.

1.62
2.56
..
.
..
.

1.0
1.0
..
.
..
.

Dv

Table III Target Lr glass suppliers, 2002

Lr (2001)
(ppm)

Target (2002)
(ppm)

No

Group

Vendor

1
2
3

Screen

VS1
VS2
VS3

15
21
76

10
10
10

4
5
..
.

Bulb

VB1
VB. 2
..

2,102
1,932
..
.

1,500
1,500
..
.

Lr

PDv performance of Dv
Operating
.
The calculation is based on the IQA inspection
results
.
On a monthly basis
.
The performance depends on the target Dv
achievement level.
Formula
PDv achievement level of target Dv, ALn
1:00 AL1 : Dv lower than target above
60 per cent
0:95 AL2 : Dv lower than target
41-60 per cent.
..
.
0:80
AL5 : Dv equivalent to target ^5 per cent
..
.
0:65 AL8 : Dv higher than target
41-60 per cent
0:60 AL9 : Dv higher than target above
60 per cent

PCs performance of PCs

Operating
.
On a monthly basis
.
The target Cs is 0
.
Each case is judged by the IQA department
.
The performance depends on the efficiency
and effectiveness of the vendors corrective
actions
Formula

A0 S 4 B0 S 3 C0 S 2 D0 S 1
;
number of corrective action request 4

when Cs $ 1
PCs 1; when Cs 0

603

Customer-focused rating system of supplier quality performance

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Chee-Cheng Chen, Tsu-Ming Yeh and Ching-Chow Yang

Volume 15 Number 7 2004 599606

A0 S, Vendors response/action is
excellent times. Return handling is very quick.
The improvement with detail analysis is effective.
B0 S, Vendors response/action is
acceptable times. Having improvement actions,
but the response is delayed.
C0 S, Vendors response/action is poor times.
Only return complaint sheet, no improvement
action.
D0 S, Vendors response/action is not
acceptable times. No response.

Vendor performance measurement formula

(1) If a vendor supplies just one part, the vendor
quality performance value (Pv) will be the
same as the material quality performance
value (Pm). This value is given by

PLc Lc performance
Operating
.
Based on the number of cases verified by IQA
and the production line
.
The target Lc is 0
.
On a monthly basis

r i $ 0; 1 # i # 5

Pv Pm 100r 1 PDv r 2 PCs

5
r 3 PLc r 4 PLr r 5 PCc

where
r 1 r 2 r 3 r 4 r 5 1;

(2) If a vendor supplies several kinds of parts

(more than one item), the Pv is obtained using
PV

Pm1 Pm2 Pmn

;
n

where n . 1
Formula
PLc 1; when Lc1 Lc2 0
PLc 0; when Lc1 Lc2 $ 1

(3) The parameters in this formula are applied

flexibly to cover all kinds of vendors with
different characteristics. For instance,
.
if a group of vendors is not suitable for Lr,
the parameter weights can be

Lc1, Line complaint due to released material line

reject rate higher than 1 per cent and rework,
sorting occurring in production times
Lc2, Line complaint due to production shutdown caused by mixing or incorrectly released
material times.

r1 r2 r3 r5 1
.

PLr performance of Lr
Operating
.
Based on the line reject rate verified by IQA
and the production line
.
On a monthly basis
.
The performance depends on the Lr target
achievement level

r2 r3 r4 r5 1

Results comparison

Formula
1:0 AL1 ; Lr lower than target above
30 per cent
0:9 AL2 ; Lr lower than target 11-30 per cent
0:8 AL3 ; Lr equivalent to target ^10 per cent
0:7 AL4 ; Lr higher than target 11-30 per cent
0:6 AL5 ; Lr higher than target above
30 per cent
PCc performance of Cc
Operating
.
Based on the number of issues verified by IQA,
Engineering, the production line and Outgoing
Quality Assurance (OQA) department
.
The target Cc is 0
.
On a monthly basis
Formula
PCc 1; when Cc 0
PCc 0; when Cc $ 1
Cc: Customer complaint is caused by released
material quality or reliability problem times.

if another group of vendors has been

adopted for the ship-to-stock program and
is not suitable for Dv, the formula weights
can be expressed using

An example is presented to demonstrate how the

proposed model (Formula (5)) could be applied in
a quality performance rating. It is compared with
the popular model, Formula (2). The basic
manufacturer purchased material data from 3
suppliers (VF1, VF2, VF3) is given in Table IV. The
results from the popular model, Formula (2), and
the proposed model, Formula (5), are shown in
Tables V and VI, respectively. Significant accurate
and effective performance rating results for
different supplier achievement levels were
obtained by applying the proposed model,
Formula (5).

Conclusions
The proposed supplier performance rating model
with customer satisfaction orientation could be
applied by different manufacturers to address all
kinds of vendors in different industries. The
proposed model can assist manufacturers in
selecting the best vendor and integrating vendor
capabilities to develop an appropriate quality

604

Customer-focused rating system of supplier quality performance

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Chee-Cheng Chen, Tsu-Ming Yeh and Ching-Chow Yang

Volume 15 Number 7 2004 599606

Table IV The basic data on manufacturers purchased material from 3 suppliers (VF1, VF2, VF3), part no.: 2000118 Group: Frame (metal),
time: January-February, year 2002
Indicator

Weight

Target

PDV

0.3

1 per cent

PLr

0.3

1,000 ppm

PCs

0.2

PLc

0.1

PCc

0.1

0
0
0

Basic data

January

VF1
February

January

VF2
February

January

VF3
February

Rejected lot
Received lot
Rejected qty
Received qty
Defects qty
Inspected qty
Defects qty
Total used quantity
AS
BS
CS
DS
LC1
LC2
Cc

0
21
0
210,000
4
4,200
3
19,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
22
10,000
220,000
16
4,400
1
230,100
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
18
0
180,000
8
3,600
500
205,000
0
1
0
0
0
1
0

0
19
0
190,000
2
3,800
3
199,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
27
0
270,000
2
5,400
5
257,000
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
27
0
270,000
3
5,400
88
272,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

found in the ISO-9000 and QS-9000 quality

management systems. The main purpose of
these requirements is to generate effective
quality improvement. The system presented
in this study provides an effective method for
measuring quality improvement (i.e. PCs,
PLc) with measurable, JIT aspects.

Table V Rating score results using popular model, Formula (2)

P/N: 2000118, Group: Frame (metal)
Month
January, 2002
February, 2002

VF1

VF2

VF3

100.0
99.9

100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0

Table VI Rating score results using the proposed model,

Formula (5) P/N: 2000118, Group: Frame (metal)
Month

VF1

VF2

VF3

January, 2002
February, 2002

100.0
78.0

73.0
90.0

90.0
100.0

improvement program using customer specific

requirements.
The merits of the proposed model can be found
by comparing it with the so-called system
requirements.
(1) Complete. The customer satisfaction oriented
system integrates 5 performance indicators
and covers 3 vendor-manufacturercustomer supply chain stages. The main IQA
quality activities in industry are horizontally
involved in this system. The system extends
the customer-satisfaction concept from IQA
vertically to the user and customer.
(2) Flexible. This system provides 5 flexible
weights to linearly combine performance
parameters that help manufacturers formulate
the most suitable measurement equation for
several kinds of vendors in different industries.
To attain accuracy effectiveness, different
weight combinations (r1, r2, r3, r4, r5) can be
set in this system.
(3) Effective. The proposed method addresses
same supplier performance requirements

Supplier grading can be developed after the

suppliers performance rating. This supports
manufactures in adopting suitable strategic actions
to promote the vendors performance. Applicable
strategic actions could be considered, including
order share review, ship-to-stock program, second
sourcing, technical support projects, and so on.
This depends on the willingness and capabilities of
the vendors.

References
Arnold, J.R.T. and Chapman, S.N. (2001), Introduction to Material
Management, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ, pp. 404-5.
Bhote, K.R. (1991), Next Operation as Customer (NOAC), AMA
Membership Publication Limited, American Management
Association, New York, NY, pp. 54-60.
Breyfogle, F.W., Cupello, J.M. and Meadows, B. (2001),
Managing Six Sigma: A Practical Guide to Understanding,
Assessing, and Implementing the Strategy that Yields
Bottom-line Success, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 95-135.
Chiu, M-L. (1994), The selection and evaluation of suppliers in
manufacturing industry, Masters thesis, Graduate School
of Industrial Management, National Institute of
Technology, Taiwan, (in Chinese).
Copacino, W.C. (1997), Supply Chain Management, The Basics
and Beyond, St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, p. 60.
Dobler, D.W. and Burt, D.N. (1996), Purchasing and Supply
Management: Text and Cases, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, pp. 430-63.

605

Customer-focused rating system of supplier quality performance

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Chee-Cheng Chen, Tsu-Ming Yeh and Ching-Chow Yang

Volume 15 Number 7 2004 599606

(The) Ernst & Young Quality Improvement Consulting Group,

USA (1992), Total Quality, A Managers Guide the 1990s,
Kogan Page Limited, London, pp. 205-17.
Evans, J.R. and Dean, J.W. (2000), Excellence! Making Quality
Work in Your Company, South-Western College Publishing,
Cincinnati, OH, pp. 14, 122.
Evans, J.R. and Lindsay, W.M. (1999), The Management and
Control of Quality, 4th ed., South-Western College
Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 472-80.
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1985), Total Quality Control, 3rd ed.,
Mei Ya Publications, Inc., Taipei, pp. 285-6, 677-736.
George, S. and Weimerskirch, A. (1998), Total Quality
Management, Strategies and Techniques Proven at
Todays Most Successful Companies, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York, NY, pp. 43, 178.
Gregory, R.E. (1986), Source selection: a matrix approach,
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, pp. 24-9.
Madu, C.N. (1998), Handbook of Total Quality Management,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 284.
Monczka, R. and Trecha, R.J. (1988), Cost based supplier
performance evaluation, Journal of Purchasing and
Material Management, Spring, pp. 2-7.
Monczka, R., Trent, R. and Handfield, R. (1998), Purchasing and
Supply Chain Management, South-Western College
Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 334-48.
Narasimhan, R. (1983), An analytical approach to supplier
selection, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, pp. 27-32.
Player, S. and Keys, D. (1999), Activity-based Management:
Arthur Andersens Lessons from the ABM Battlefield,
2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY, p. 172.
Pooler, H.V. and Pooler, D.J. (1997), Purchasing and Supply
Management: Creating the Vision, Chapman & Hall,
New York, NY, pp. 92-8.

Ptak, C.A. and Schragenheim, E. (2000), ERP: Tools, Techniques,

and Applications for Integrating the Supply Chain,
St Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 109-20.
Riggs, D.A. and Robbins, S.L. (1998), The Executives Guide to
Supply Management Strategies, Building Supply Chain
Thinking into all Business Processes, AMACOM, New York,
NY, p. 83.
Russell, R.S. and Taylor, B.W. (2000), Operations Management,
3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 77.
Schorr, J.E. (1998), Purchasing in the 21st Century, A Guide to
State-of-the-art Techniques and Strategies, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York, NY, pp. 175-6.
Stahl, M.J. and Grigsby, D.W. (1997), Strategic Management:
Total Quality and Global Competition, Blackwell,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 198-205.
Timmerman, E. (1986), An approach to vendor performance
evaluation, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, pp. 2-8.
Weele, A.J. (2000), Purchasing and Supply Chain Management:
Analysis, Planning and Practice, 2nd ed., Business Press,
London, pp. 8-10.
Wind, Y. and Robinson, P.J. (1968), The determinants of
vendor selection: the evaluation function
approach, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, pp. 29-41.

Further reading
Roodhooft, F. and Konings, J. (1996), Vendor selection
and evaluation, an activity based costing
approach, European Journal of Operational Research,
pp. 97-102.

606