European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250 www.elsevier.

com/locate/dsw

O.R. Applications

A methodology for strategic sourcing

Srinivas Talluri *, Ram Narasimhan
Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, N370 North Business Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA Received 16 May 2001; accepted 29 July 2002

Abstract Strategic sourcing is critical for rms practicing the principles of supply chain management. It specically deals with managing the supply base in an eective manner by identifying and selecting suppliers for strategic long-term partnerships, involving in supplier development initiatives by eectively allocating resources to enhance supplier performance, providing benchmarks and continuous feedback to suppliers, and in some cases involving in supplier pruning activities. Currently, the methodologies in practice for strategic sourcing have mostly been subjective in nature with few objective decision models focused at supplier evaluation, which are also not devoid of limitations. This paper proposes an objective framework for eective supplier sourcing, which considers multiple strategic and operational factors in the evaluation process. Suppliers are categorized into groups based on performance, which assists managers in identifying candidates for strategic long-term partnerships, supplier development programs, and pruning. In addition, this research investigates the dierences among supplier groups in proposing possible improvement strategies for ineectively performing suppliers. Also, we demonstrate the methodological richness of our framework when compared to some of the traditional methods proposed and utilized for supplier evaluation purposes. The supplier data utilized in the study is obtained from a large multinational corporation in the telecommunications industry. 2002 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nonparametric eciency analysis; Purchasing; Strategic sourcing

1. Introduction Strategic sourcing is a critical challenge faced by many rms involved in the latest innovations of supply chain management. With the recent emphasis on just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing philosophy, strategic sourcing that establishes a long-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-517-3536381; fax: +1-5174321112. E-mail addresses: talluri@pilot.msu.edu (S. Talluri), narasimh@pilot.msu.edu (R. Narasimhan).

term relationship with suppliers has become even more important and vital for enhancing organizational performance. Also, in todays dynamic environment strategic relationship with suppliers is a key ingredient to the success of a supply chain. Strategic sourcing decisions must not be solely based on operational metrics such as cost, quality, and delivery, but also incorporate strategic dimensions and capabilities of suppliers such as emphasis on quality management practices, process capabilities, management practices, design and development capabilities, and cost reduction capabilities into the decision-making process.

0377-2217/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00649-5

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

237

These supplier attributes provide information to a rms managers on the infrastructure and practices employed by the suppliers, which are key elements for long-term strategic relationships (SR). It is well established in the strategic supplier evaluation literature that sourcing decisions signicantly impact various aspects of a product such as cost, design, manufacturability, and quality (Burt, 1984; Burton, 1988). Other research that emphasizes the importance of supplier evaluation includes works by Banker and Khosla (1995) and Dobler et al. (1990). Banker and Khosla (1995) have identied the supplier evaluation and justication problem as an important one in operations management. While several methods have been proposed and utilized for evaluation and selection of suppliers, they have limitations including: evaluation solely based on operational metrics without the consideration of strategic capabilities, simple weighted scoring methods based on subjective assessments, inappropriate or arbitrary methods utilized to derive factor weights, and lack of relative evaluation across various suppliers. We now expand on each of these limitations. While operational metrics such as price, quality and delivery are important and critical in evaluating suppliers, strategic evaluation of suppliers leading to a long-term relationship requires consideration of supplier capabilities and practices. This is important because as a rms products evolve over time it is critical to form relationships with suppliers that can eectively meet the changing requirements from the perspective of new product development, design, manufacturing processes and manufacturing capability, at lower costs. Such suppliers are more likely in the long run to have the infrastructure and organizational capabilities in place to eectively meet the changing demands of the buying rms. For example, it has been suggested in the literature that quality management practices with strategic implications such as total quality management, zero defects, process improvement, statistical process control, and continuous process improvement lead to tangible improvements in quality and cost reduction (De Ron, 1998; Lederer and Rhee, 1995; Tham, 1988). Similarly, design based practices that encompass initiatives such as design for manufacturability,

modularity, product redesign, concurrent engineering, and standardization have also been associated with cost reduction and better delivery performance (Koulamas, 1992; Tummala et al., 1997; Coughlan and Wood, 1992). Thus, it is important to consider these factors in supplier evaluation decisions. Several techniques utilized for evaluation of suppliers assign importance weights to various supplier evaluation factors in a subjective and/or arbitrary manner. As the complexity of the decision-making process increases in terms of factors and alternatives considered, it is increasingly difcult to assign a consistent set of weights. Finally, relative evaluation methods that compare suppliers and identify potential reasons for dierences in supplier performance have not been fully explored in the literature. The primary advantage associated with relative evaluation methods is that they allow for grouping suppliers based on performance, which provides useful insights to management in identifying benchmarks for ineective suppliers, and assists in decisions relating to supplier development initiatives (SDI) and programs. This paper proposes a methodology for strategic sourcing that addresses the aforementioned issues. The methodology utilizes a combination of traditional and advanced data envelopment analysis (DEA) models in estimating the eciencies of alternative suppliers, and the variability in their eciency scores. Nonparametric statistical techniques are utilized in identifying homogenous groups of suppliers based on their eciency scores, which assist management in selecting suppliers for strategic partnerships, SDI, and supply base rationalization decisions. Inter-group dierences with respect to various factors are identied in order to assist in benchmarking and process improvement eorts. In summary, some of the questions our methodology addresses, which current supplier evaluation techniques do not comprehensively answer, are: Which suppliers to consider for strategic partnerships? Which suppliers must be a part of supplier development initiatives?

238

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

Which suppliers must be pruned from the supply base? How can ineective suppliers improve their performance? Against whom should they benchmark? How can rms eectively allocate resources to supplier improvement programs? While our paper proposes a new methodology for evaluating suppliers, the primary focus of our study is on managerial implications and usefulness of the results in addressing strategic sourcing issues faced by companies.

and cost in supplier evaluation. It is evident from these studies that multiple factors need to be incorporated into the supplier evaluation process and that it should not be solely based on a single criterion such as cost. However, these works have not developed decision models for supplier evaluation. 2.1. Supplier evaluation techniques In a comprehensive review of supplier selection methods, Weber et al. (1991) reported that 47 of the 74 articles in the review utilized multiple criteria. Some of the traditional multi-criteria approaches have utilized factors such as cost, quality, and delivery, which have become increasingly important with the emphasis on JIT manufacturing philosophy (Chapman, 1989; Chapman and Carter, 1990). However, these measures are primarily at the operational level. Table 1 depicts the supplier evaluation techniques by methodological area. Several of these techniques have utilized multiple supplier criteria in the evaluation process. However, some of the issues with many of these techniques include lack of objective methods for assigning factor weights, lack of relative comparison of alternative suppliers for facilitating benchmarking and SDI, minimal emphasis on strategic level capabilities or practices, and not addressing issues and reasons relating to ineective supplier performance. Application of DEA as a tool for strategic sourcing of suppliers has been limited. To date there have been few works that have applied this tool for supplier evaluation purposes. Kleinsorge et al. (1992) utilized DEA as a tool for performance monitoring of a single supplier over time. However, their work did not address issues relating to strategic supplier selection or benchmarking. Two articles by Weber and Desai (1996) and Weber et al. (1998) have addressed the issue of supplier selection and negotiation using DEA. However, the supplier metrics utilized by them were strictly operational ones. Also, their analysis is based on a traditional DEA model, which has certain limitations as discussed in the next section of the paper. Narasimhan et al. (2001) have applied DEA for strategic evaluation of suppliers by

2. Literature review Supplier evaluation is one of the most widely researched areas in purchasing with methodologies ranging from conceptual to empirical and modeling streams. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all these works in detail. Since our framework is primarily related to the modeling area, we mainly limit our discussion to quantitative models proposed for supplier evaluation. Empirical work in supplier evaluation dates back to 1960s. Dickson (1966) conducted a study that investigated the importance of supplier evaluation criteria for industrial purchasing managers. The study concluded that cost, quality, and delivery performance were the three most important criteria in supplier evaluation. Other relevant works in this area emphasized the strategic importance of supplier evaluation and the relative importance and tradeos among cost, quality, and delivery (Hahn et al., 1983; Jackson, 1983; Kralijic, 1983; Browning et al., 1983; Ansari and Modarress, 1986; Treleven, 1987; Burton, 1988; Bernard, 1989; Benton and Krajeski, 1990, and Ellram, 1990). Other researchers that specically addressed issues relating to the relative importance of various supplier attributes include Monczka et al. (1981), Moriarity (1983), Woodside and Vyas (1987), Chapman and Carter (1990), Tullous and Munson (1991), and Weber et al. (1991). Based on a review of 74 articles on supplier evaluation, Weber et al. (1991) concluded that quality was the most important factor followed by delivery performance

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250 Table 1 Vendor evaluation techniques Evaluation technique Weighted linear models Linear programming Mixed integer programming Grouping methods Analytic hierarchy process Matrix method Multi-objective programming Total cost of ownership Human judgment models Principal component analysis DEA Interpretive structural modeling Statistical analysis Discrete choice analysis experiments Neural networks Authors

239

Lamberson et al. (1976), Timmerman (1986) Pan (1989), Turner (1988) Weber and Current (1993) Hinkle et al. (1969) Barbarosoglu and Yazgac (1997), Hill and Nydick (1992), Narasimhan (1983) Gregory (1986) Weber and Ellram (1993) Ellram (1995) Patton (1996) Petroni and Braglia (2000) Narasimhan et al. (2001), Weber and Desai (1996), Weber et al. (1998) Mandal and Deshmukh (1994) Mummalaneni et al. (1996) Verma and Pullman (1998) Siying et al. (1997)

considering various factors at both strategic and operational levels. While their approach provided some useful insights into supplier evaluation and rationalization, they were also limited by the traditional DEA model evaluations. Also, their work has not investigated the reasons behind the differences in eciency scores of suppliers, and thus did not delve into supplier improvement strategies. In a more recent paper, Talluri and Narasimhan (in press) developed a vendor evaluation model that eectively considers performance variability issues, but their approach only incorporated operational measures into the decision-making process. The robustness of our methodology over existing DEA models is that we utilize a combination of methods that eectively discriminates among suppliers and avoids some of the pitfalls associated with the traditional DEA models. Also, our approach utilizes robust statistical methods for investigating the dierences among suppliers and providing recommendations for improvement. We now provide an introduction to the DEA models utilized in our analysis.

models include the basic Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (CCR) and the aggressive cross-eciency models. For more details on the model development the readers are encouraged to refer to the actual works in this area. 3.1. CCR DEA model It is well known in productivity literature that DEA is a multi-factor analysis tool that measures the relative eciencies of a set of decision-making units. It eectively considers multiple input and output factors in evaluating the eciency scores. In the context of our current study, the input and output factors correspond to supplier capabilities and performance metrics, respectively. Based on the notion of Doyle and Green (1994), the eciency measure utilized in DEA is best dened by Eq. (1): P y Osy vky Eks P 1 x Isx ukx where (Eks ) is the eciency or productivity measure of supplier s, using the weights of test supplier k; (Osy ) is the value of output y for supplier s; (Isx ) is the value for input x of supplier s; (vky ) is the weight assigned to supplier k for output y; and (ukx ) is the weight assigned to supplier k for input x. In the ratio DEA model proposed by Charnes et al. (1978), which is also referred to as the CCR

3. DEA models In this section we provide a brief description of the DEA models utilized in our study. The DEA

240

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

model, each test supplier k selects optimal weights for capabilities (inputs) and performance metrics (outputs) in achieving the highest possible eciency score subject to the restrictions that these weights prevent the set of suppliers s from achieving an eciency score of greater than 1. The CCR model is presented in expression (2) below: P Oky vky maximize Ekk Py
I u x kx kx

subject to : Eks 6 1 8 Suppliers s ukx ; vky P 0

The conversion of (2) into a linear programming problem is shown below in (3). P maximize Ekk Oky vky
y

subject to : Eks P 6 1 8 Suppliers s Ikx ukx 1

x

ukx ; vky P 0 This conversion is performed by equating the denominator of the eciency ratio in (2) to a value of P 1, represented by the constraint x Ikx ukx 1. The result of problem (3) is an optimal e ciency score (Ekk ), which does not exceed a value of 1. If Ekk 1 and the corresponding slack variables are 0 then supplier k is considered to be ecient. If Ekk < 1, then supplier k does not lie on the ecient frontier and is dominated by at least one other supplier or a linear combination of suppliers. Problem (3) is executed s times in evaluating the eciency scores of all the suppliers. 3.2. Cross-eciency models Cross-eciency models are primarily utilized to overcome the unrestricted weight exibility problem of the CCR model. The CCR model allows DMUs to emphasize relatively few inputs and outputs in achieving a high eciency score while ignoring other important factors. Sexton et al. (1986) introduced the concept of cross-eciencies and the cross-eciency matrix (CEM) in DEA. In the context of the current paper, the CEM provides information on the eciency of a specic supplier with the optimal weighting schemes de-

termined for other suppliers. In the CEM, the element in kth row and the sth column represents the eciency measure of supplier s when evaluated against the optimal weights of supplier kEks . Each of the columns of the CEM is then averaged to get a mean cross-eciency score for each supplier. The suppliers can be ranked based on these mean scores. Thus, the CEM provides a mechanism for eectively dierentiating among the suppliers. One issue that may arise in utilizing the crosseciency scores is the uniqueness of the input and output factor weights obtained from the CCR model used in their evaluation. This makes the cross-eciency analysis arbitrary and limits its applicability. To overcome this potential limitation, a formulation developed by Doyle and Green (1994) may be used for cross-eciency evaluations and development of a CEM. This formulation, shown as (4), generates a unique set of weights. ! P P minimize vky Osy ;
y s6k

subject to : P
x

1; P P Oky vky Ekk Ikx ukx 0 ukx Isx

s6k y x

! 4

Eks 6 1 8 Suppliers s 6 k ukx ; vky P 0 The above formulation has a primary goal of obtaining a maximum CCR eciency score for supplier k (the test unit) and a secondary goal of determining a set of weights that minimize the other suppliers aggregate output, as dened by the objective function. The test unit k is dened as an average unit whose eciency is minimized. This model has been dened as an aggressive formulation. The data required in (4) includes the optimal eciency scores (Ekk ) from the CCR model, as shown by the second constraint set. Thus, a key advantage of the aggressive model utilized in cross-eciency analysis is that units emphasize on their strengths, which are the weaknesses of their competitors. Thus, a unit with high mean crosseciency score can be considered as a superior performer because it is excelling across many

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250 Table 2 Key dierences between the CCR and cross-eciency models CCR model Allows for the selection of weights in an unrestricted manner resulting in some units to achieve a high relative eciency score by emphasizing on relatively few inputs and outputs The model is run one time for each unit in obtaining the relative eciency scores Cross-eciency model

241

Computes the eciency of each unit with respect to the optimal weights of other units for a more comprehensive peer evaluation. This allows in eectively dierentiating between good overall performers and niche performers The model is run one time for each unit for determining the input and output weights that not only maintain its CCR eciency score but also minimize the eciency scores of all other units. These weights are utilized in deriving a mean cross-eciency score
Capabilities (Inputs)

dimensions. The key dierences and the relative advantages of the cross-eciency models over the CCR model are summarized in Table 2. The second reason for utilizing the cross-eciency analysis in our study is to identify variability in the eciency scores of a supplier when evaluated against the optimal weights of its peers. This facilitates identifying homogenous groups of suppliers for strategic relationships, SDI, and pruning decisions for the buying rm. The third reason for utilizing the cross-eciency analysis is associated with the limitations in our sample size. Since small sample size exacerbates the unrestricted weight exibility problem in DEA (Boussoane et al., 1991), we utilize crossevaluations to discriminate better among the suppliers. It is important to note that other methods developed in the literature such as reconstructing virtual input and output combinations from expert consultation proposed by Thanassoulis and Allen (1998), and the bootstrap procedure for replicating inputoutput combinations by Simar and Wilson (1998) can be utilized as alternative approaches for improving the discriminatory power of the DEA models.

Supply Base

Efficiency Evaluation

Identification of Supplier Groups

Performance Metrics (Outputs)

Identification of Group Diff. on Inputs and Outputs

Performance Feedback and Resource Allocation Decisions

Managerial Decisions on SR, SDI, Pruning

Fig. 1. A framework for strategic sourcing.

4. Methodology for strategic sourcing Fig. 1 depicts the framework utilized for strategic sourcing. The rst step involves the identication of the suppliers to be evaluated followed by data collection. Data collection can be performed through questionnaires and/or site visits to candidate suppliers. The eciency evaluations are performed by obtaining data on capabilities (inputs)

and performance metrics (outputs) of suppliers being evaluated. The following section provides details on the data acquisition process. In general, any resource can be utilized as a possible input measure and outputs can encompass activity/performance measures. The next step involves the evaluation of eciency scores and ranking of suppliers based on DEA models. Subsequently, the supplier groups are identied by a nonparametric procedure, which eectively incorporates variability in eciency measures into the evaluation process. This step is performed by utilizing a procedure proposed by Talluri et al. (2000) in categorizing suppliers into groups based on their cross-eciencies. The next part of the framework addresses the managerial decisions associated with supplier evaluation that can be handled through our analysis.

242

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

Here, we stress the identication of suppliers for SR, SDI, and pruning, which assists managers in decisions relating to partnerships and eective allocation of resources to various SDI programs. Also, we identify the dierences among the supplier groups in terms of capabilities and performance metrics, and provide feedback to ineective supplier groups regarding the necessary improvements across various dimensions.

5. Strategic sourcing: An illustrative case Our study was carried out in a large multinational telecommunications company, which we refer to as Company X throughout the paper in order to maintain anonymity. Company X is a global leader in design, production, and marketing of communication systems. It operates production plants, research and development facilities, and distribution systems on a global basis. The critical objectives of the company in procurement and supply management include: improving the quality of purchased products/ services; reducing lead-time and improving on-time delivery; developing long-term relationships with key suppliers; securing global competitive pricing. In order to achieve these objectives, Company X has placed emphasis on supplier rationalization by evaluating and developing suppliers for longterm SR, providing continuous feedback for improving performance, achieving excellence across multiple competitive dimensions, and decreasing supply based by pruning inecient suppliers. As discussed earlier, our framework specically addresses these issues. The factor selection and data acquisition process was initiated by rst dening the relevant input and output dimensions to be utilized in the eciency analysis. This was accomplished in focus group sessions with the management of Company X. Due to the decentralized nature of Company Xs supply management system, these focus group

sessions required had to be carefully planned. A series of meetings were conducted in order to identify the specic product-line to be examined and the input and output dimensions to be used in DEA. It was decided that the data gathering efforts must be performed as objectively as possible while ensuring convenience of data collection. Also, in order to ensure full participation, it was decided early in the study that the time and eort required to collect data from suppliers and buyers, must be kept to an acceptable minimum. After the identication of the input and output dimensions, we developed two separate questionnairesone to assess supplier capabilities (comprising the input dimensions of DEA) and the other to assess supplier performance (comprising the output dimensions of DEA). The questionnaires utilized multiple items to measure the input and output dimensions. The individual items were measured on a binary scale (yes/no responses) to aord maximum objectivity and accuracy of survey responses. The questions were carefully worded so that the responses of the suppliers could be easily veried for accuracy. In addition, the binary scale used obviated the need for suppliers to be making judgments regarding their capability allowing for distortion of input data. The design of the questionnaire and the binary scale were conscious design choices made by us in the data collection phase of the study to ensure a high degree of reliability of input data. It should be noted that the alternative of conducting a detailed audit of suppliers by a team from Company X was rejected as both time consuming and requiring an inordinate amount of eort. The questionnaires were reviewed by Company Xs management and revised to reect their comments and suggestions. The Supplier Capability Questionnaire was sent out to the suppliers and the Supplier Performance Assessment Questionnaire was sent out to the purchasing sta of Company X. The returned questionnaires were sent to the project sta for data coding, entry, and analysis. To test the hypothesis that the questionnaires might have contained dicult or ambiguous questions, an analysis of responses to individual items was carried out by examining the proportion

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

243

of sample with missing data on individual items. The analysis showed that there was no evidence to support the hypothesis, conrming that the questionnaire was acceptable (i.e., not dicult to ll out) as a data collection instrument. The following section describes the questionnaires and subsequent sections discuss the data analysis and managerial implications of the study. 5.1. Supplier capability questionnaire Items on the Supplier Capability Questionnaire were grouped into the following categories, which are utilized as the inputs in the DEA model evaluations: quality management practices and systems (QMP); documentation and self-audit (SA); process/manufacturing capability (PMC); management of the rm (MGT); design and development capabilities (DD); cost reduction capability (CR). These six categories were measured with a composite score between 0 and 1. The score was computed as the proportion of yes answers to individual questionnaire items in the category. Blank and not applicable responses were not considered in the calculation of the proportion of the yes responses. 5.2. Supplier performance assessment questionnaire Items on the Supplier Performance Assessment Questionnaire were grouped into the following categories, constituting the outputs: quality; price; delivery; cost reduction performance (CRP); other.

measure of the variables in the category. Table 3 shows the scaled composite scores for the input and output variables for the 23 suppliers. While we have utilized the actual composite scores in the DEA evaluations, in order to maintain condentiality of the data we have scaled it by dividing each measure by a factor. For the categories in which subjective questions were included, the answers to the questions were normalized to a value between 0 and 1, and then combined with the responses to the objective measures on items belonging to the category. This was performed by taking a weighted average of the subjective and objective measures, with 0.4 and 0.6, respectively, as weights for the two, based on the managerial input from Company X.

6. Data analysis 6.1. DEA results First we determined the CCR eciency scores of the 23 suppliers with respect to the six capabilities (inputs) and ve performance metrics (outputs). The scaled supplier input and output data is shown in Table 3. CCR model identied suppliers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 20, 22, and 23 to be ecient with a score of 1.000, and the other 12 suppliers are inecient with scores of less than 1.000. These results are shown in Table 3 under the heading CCR E. Since rms objectives of linearity in inputs and outputs and the implicit technology assumptions are not justied in the selection of the CCR model, we have tested the sensitivity of the results using the Banker, Charnes, and Cooper (BCC) model (Banker et al., 1984), which works under the assumption of variable returns to scale. While the BCC model identied 12 suppliers to be ecient and the rest inecient, the CCR model identied 11 of those 12 suppliers to be ecient and the remaining suppliers inecient. Also, we utilized the MannWhitney test (nonparametric t-test) to test for the dierences in mean eciency scores between the CCR and BCC model results, and failed to reject the null hypotheses at a p-value 6 0.05 indicating that the dierences are statistically insignicant.

The above categories were also measured with a composite score between 0 and 1. To evaluate the score, the proportion of yes answers were identied in each category to provide an objective

244 S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

Table 3 Scaled supplier data with inputs and outputs and eciency scores Supplier # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 QMP 0.9662 0.7054 0.5611 1.1272 1.1272 0.9877 0.8051 1.1809 1.2346 0.5904 0.8642 0.6441 1.2346 1.0662 1.0100 0.8978 1.1272 1.1809 1.0735 1.0735 1.2346 1.2346 1.0735 SA 0.9742 1.0438 0.8947 1.0438 1.0438 1.0438 0.8351 1.0438 1.0438 1.0438 0.8118 0.8351 1.0438 1.0438 1.0438 0.9742 0.9742 1.0438 1.0438 1.0438 1.0438 1.0438 1.0438 PMC 1.0385 0.7500 0.7789 0.9520 1.1251 0.9376 1.0385 1.1251 1.1251 0.6058 0.8182 1.0227 1.1251 1.1251 0.8654 1.0385 1.0385 1.1251 1.1251 1.1251 1.1251 0.9520 1.0385 MGT 1.0808 0.8782 0.7205 0.9607 1.0808 1.0808 0.9607 1.0208 1.0808 0.7629 0.9536 1.0208 1.0808 1.0808 1.0208 1.0208 1.0208 1.0808 0.9007 1.0808 1.0133 1.0808 1.0172 DD 1.1417 0.0000 0.8372 0.9661 1.2560 1.0466 1.2560 1.0627 1.2560 0.5796 0.9661 0.9661 1.2560 1.1593 0.7322 0.9420 1.2560 1.2560 1.1593 0.6762 1.2560 1.0466 0.8695 CR 0.7839 0.8750 0.7404 1.1402 1.2115 0.9422 1.0768 1.0096 1.1442 0.4038 0.8076 1.0768 1.2115 1.2115 0.6815 0.8076 1.0768 1.2115 0.9422 1.1442 1.2115 1.2115 1.0768 Quality 0.6211 0.6932 1.0205 1.6639 0.9983 1.0426 1.2201 0.8429 0.6433 1.4419 0.4215 1.0205 0.5546 0.8208 1.2423 1.0205 1.0205 1.2201 1.1647 0.8429 0.7764 1.4642 1.2423 Price 0.8922 0.8922 0.4341 1.1333 1.3503 1.3263 1.2056 1.1333 0.8922 0.4341 0.8922 1.3263 1.1092 0.8922 1.5674 0.8922 0.8681 0.2411 0.8922 1.0550 0.8922 1.3263 1.3503 Delivery 0.1284 0.3855 1.5420 1.5420 1.1565 1.7990 0.7710 0.6424 0.3855 1.4135 1.0279 0.7710 1.0279 0.8994 1.4135 0.3855 0.7710 0.0000 1.4135 1.4135 1.0279 1.7990 1.2849 CRP 1.2107 0.0000 0.0000 1.2107 1.2107 2.4214 2.4214 1.2107 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.2107 1.2107 1.2107 2.4214 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.2107 1.2107 0.0000 2.4214 2.4214 Other 0.6359 0.3179 1.2719 1.8019 0.9540 1.2719 1.2719 0.8479 0.5299 1.2719 0.8479 0.7418 1.1660 0.8479 1.2719 0.4240 0.5299 0.4240 1.0599 1.4839 0.9540 1.4839 1.5900 CCR E. 0.602 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.855 1.000 1.000 0.723 0.562 1.000 0.805 1.000 0.773 0.609 1.000 0.764 0.702 0.733 0.904 1.000 0.658 1.000 1.000 X-E. mean 0.427 0.412 0.536 0.752 0.615 0.810 0.821 0.523 0.316 0.578 0.459 0.722 0.518 0.479 0.906 0.392 0.398 0.193 0.596 0.618 0.405 0.817 0.813 Standard deviation 0.129 0.288 0.326 0.243 0.207 0.171 0.207 0.156 0.201 0.369 0.275 0.252 0.175 0.115 0.16 0.255 0.242 0.204 0.159 0.193 0.232 0.186 0.168

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

245

This indicates that our results are not very sensitive to model changes. In order to further test the sensitivity of these results, we have evaluated the supplier eciency scores based on the free disposal hull (FDH) model proposed by Tulkens (1993), but the model did not show eective discrimination among the suppliers. This may be a result of small sample size in the current application. It is also important to note in these comparisons that the ratio eciency measure shown in (1) does not apply to the BCC and FDH models. Since the CCR model has certain limitations as discussed earlier, we utilize the Doyle and Green (1994) aggressive cross-eciency model for a more complete evaluation of the supplier performance. The mean cross-eciency scores of the suppliers identied from the weights obtained from the Doyle and Green formulation are shown in Table 3 under the heading X-E Mean. Based on the mean cross-eciency scores it can be concluded that supplier 15 is the best performer with a score of 0.906, and supplier 18 is the worst performer with a score of 0.193. It is interesting to note that supplier 2, which is ecient based on the CCR model evaluations, is ranked very low based on cross-eciency evaluations with a mean score of only 0.412. In fact some of the CCR inecient suppliers such as 1, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 19 are better performers than supplier 2 based on crosseciency evaluations. Supplier 2 is a typical case of a false- positive or niche performer. Also, supplier 5, with a CCR eciency score of 0.855, achieved a cross-eciency mean score of 0.615, which is higher than the CCR ecient suppliers that include 2, 3, and 10. These types of insights and dierentiation among suppliers are not possible when using the CCR model alone, which demonstrates the strength of cross-eciency evaluations as a more comprehensive technique for eciency evaluation. It is essential for the decision-maker to consider these issues in supplier rationalization in order to avoid making a Type II error in the selection process. 6.2. Identifying homogenous groups of suppliers Since the traditional cross-eciency analysis is primarily based on the mean scores and does not

take into consideration the variability in the eciency scores, the ranking obtained from the analysis may not be the best. In fact it can be concluded from Table 3 that mean scores alone may not be appropriate in ranking suppliers because while certain suppliers, such as 3 and 8, have close to the same mean scores their variability in terms of cross-eciencies are quite dierent. Thus, we utilized the method proposed by Talluri et al. (2000), which eectively incorporates the variability measures in identifying homogenous groups of suppliers. Talluri et al. (2000) performed this step by applying a nonparametric statistical test due to Friedman (Friedman, 1937) on the CEM. They utilized a nonparametric test because the eciency scores do not lend themselves to the assumptions of normality. We conduct the Friedmans test for the following null and alternative hypotheses: Ho : The suppliers have identical cross-eciency scores Ha : At least one of the suppliers tends to yield larger cross-eciency scores than at least one other supplier We treated the rows of the CEM as blocks and the columns as the treatments. The cross-eciency scores within each block are ranked by assigning 1 for the lowest, 2 for the second lowest, and so on. Mean ranks are considered in the event that ties exist. The cross-eciency matrix based on ranks is shown in Table 4. The test resulted in a p-value of 0.000 thereby rejecting the null hypotheses at an a 0:05. Thus, there is sucient evidence to conclude that at least one supplier tends to yield larger cross-eciency scores than at least one other supplier. Using the least signicant dierence tests (Cononver, 1980) on the ranked transformed data, all pair-wise comparisons were performed to identify suppliers that are dierent. For this case, for a pair of suppliers to be signicantly dierent, at a 0:05, the absolute dierence between sums of their ranks must be greater than 54.95. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 5. We identied three groups of suppliers based on the overlaps in the least signicant dierence tests. It is evident

246 S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

Table 4 Ranked cross-evaluation scores Supplier # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 11 6 2 6 6 14 17 4.5 10 8 2 10 5 5 18 5 6 4 2 5 2 10 10 2 8 21.5 6 2 5 4 5 13 9 7 3.5 19 2 2 5 7 4 5 5 22.5 5 3 2 3 3 14 23 21 3 8 5 3 3 20 11 6 12 15 5 15 11 15 21 17 19 9 9 4 14 19 18 22.5 16 17 12.5 16 16 21 17 14 21.5 20 14 21.5 22 23 21 20 22 18 18 5 18 12 12 10 17 12 12.5 19 19 9 16 17 15 14 11 12 15 10 14 7.5 14 14 11 6 19 15 21 16 19.5 22 22 17.5 17.5 14 22 20 18 18 22 16 16 11 18 15 20 21.5 19 7 21 17 11 15 21 22 23 20 21 15 18 21 21.5 22 20.5 21.5 22 22 13 14 13 21.5 22 8 15 9 5 9 12 10 11 15 15 10 9.5 11 10 8 16 10 10 8.5 8 10 8 11 14 9 6 1 3 4 4 2 5 6 4.5 3 3.5 2.5 3 3 5 2 1 3 3 2 3 2 4 10 2 21.5 22 22.5 2 9 5 2 2 23 6 4 8 10 5 21.5 17 20 21 21 16 8 8 11 16 5 13 12 15 7 5 10 14 2 15 15 14 13 5 3 3 1 11 11 10 7 6 12 22.5 21.5 15 7 22.5 18 18 21 22.5 11.5 20 23 17 17 15 19 19 19 12 9 12 17 15 13 13 3 8.5 14 13 11 10 14 13 1 12 9 13 12 11 1 2 2 9 13 11 13 13 14 5 7 10 8 8 13 16 4.5 4.5 5 8 8 7 7 11 6 7 7 7 6 7 12 12 15 22.5 21.5 19 18 22.5 22 21 23 22.5 22 22 22 21.5 22 23 21.5 22 17.5 21 18 22 21.5 22 16 10 13 4 3 7 3 5 8 11 19 5 13 4 4 5 14 13 12.5 4 4 4 4 3 17 9 8 7 5 9 5 5 7 7 11.5 7 5 6 6 5 11 12 12.5 6 3 6 5 5 18 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 5 8 8 16 1 1 1 1 1 19 7 10 16.5 13 11 15 14.5 12 8 18 13 7 11 11 17 13 14 14 17 12 17 16 17 20 12 11 16.5 17 14 15 14.5 11 12 6 14 12 16 16 13 9 9 8.5 15 22.5 15 15 16 21 4 4 8.5 11 10 6 1 9 6 4 9.5 2.5 9 9 5 4 5 6 10 7.5 9 6 7 22 17 16 20 19 19.5 19 19 17.5 17.5 17 22 16 21.5 22 19 18 20 21 21 16 22 21.5 20 23 20 18 14 20 18 20 20 22 20 16 19 18 19 19 20.5 17 18 17.5 16 19 18 19 22

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250 Table 5 Supplier groups based on Friedmans test

247

later in this section by identifying the dierences among the three groups of suppliers in terms of capabilities and performance metrics. Finally, suppliers 9 and 18 are possible candidates for pruning. 6.3. Identifying dierences in performance across supplier groups From process improvement and supplier development perspectives, we further investigated the reasons for dierences in performance across the three supplier groups. We analyzed the dierences in their capabilities (inputs) and performance metrics (outputs). The ANOVA results on inputs and outputs for the three groups are shown in Table 6. It is interesting to note that there is no signicant dierence in terms of inputs or capabilities of the supplier groups, i.e., QMP, SA, PMC, MGT, DD, and CR levels are not statistically dierent. However, the performance metrics Quality, Price, Delivery, CRP, and Other are all signicantly dierent at an a 0:05. In order to investigate which groups dier we performed the Duncans multiple range tests on output measures. These results are summarized in Table 7. Based on results in Table 7, we can conclude that lower supplier eciency groups 2 and 3 are ranked well below group 1 with respect to several output variables. It also shows that group 3 is the lowest ranked with respect to all performance metrics or outputs. It can be seen that group 1 suppliers performance is vastly superior on price and CRP compared to groups 2 and 3. Group 2 suppliers who will be the primary targets of SDI programs could
Table 6 ANOVA results on inputs and outputs for supplier groups Factor QMP SA PMC MGT DD CR Quality Price Delivery CRP Other Type Input Input Input Input Input Input Output Output Output Output Output F -value 1.050 0.440 0.840 1.110 0.820 0.990 5.390 11.320 5.850 17.020 7.050 Signicance 0.369 0.650 0.446 0.348 0.454 0.389 0.013 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.005

from this analysis that suppliers 15, 22, 7, 23, 4, 6, and 12 are the best (in the sense of the highest ranked group of) performers. These are the suppliers that management must consider as potential candidates for SR. These suppliers are the stars that are excelling with respect to several input and output dimensions, i.e., capabilities and performance metrics. From a resource allocation standpoint, management must primarily invest in improving integration with these suppliers in terms of implementing systems such as electronic data interchange (EDI) and web-based procurement for eective and rapid transactional ability with the suppliers. Also, as we discuss later, these suppliers can serve as potential benchmarks for ineectively performing suppliers. In essence, management must nd possible ways of transferring their best practices to other suppliers. Suppliers 5, 20, 19, 10, 3, 8, 13, 11, 14, 16, 1, 2, 17, and 21 are in the second category. These are the suppliers that management should consider as potential candidates for supplier development programs and initiatives. While these suppliers have demonstrated potential, they have scope for further improvement. The exact supplier development programs to implement will depend on the areas in which they are weak, which we address

248

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250

Table 7 Duncans multiple comparison results on supplier group differences Factor/ subsets 1 2 3 Level of signicance 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.250 (G3) 0.1

Quality Price Delivery CRP Other

0.764 (G1) 0.730 (G1) 0.490 (G2) 0.695 (G1) 0.572 (G1) 0.706 (G1)

0.525 (G2) 0.560 (G3) 0.499 (G2) 0.100 (G3) 0.000 (G3) 0.167 (G2) 0.472 (G2)

0.313 (G3)

learn from group 1 suppliers on how to reduce their costs by eectively implementing cost reduction programs. It is conceivable that group 1 suppliers might refuse to divulge their best practices to group 2 rms for fear of intensied competition from them in the future. This can be mitigated by entering into strategic partnering agreements with group 1 rms that essentially make them the principal beneciaries of the buying rms competitive performance. In summary, the managerial implications are that group 2 suppliers must improve with respect to Quality, Price, CRP, and Other. However, they are categorized as being in the same subset with group 1 suppliers with respect to Delivery. This is the type of feedback that management should provide to group 2 suppliers. Since there are no signicant dierences in the inputs across the three groups, it implies that groups 2 and 3 have all capabilities in place, but are poor in executing these capabilities and transforming them into high level of performance. Thus, these groups must benchmark themselves against group 1 suppliers and identify ways to execute their capabilities better. The buying rms SDI programs can be targeted at group 2 suppliers and specic areas of performance improvement. The knowledge transfer from group 1 suppliers to group 2 suppliers can be ltered through the buying rm and can be kept at a level acceptable to the group 1 suppliers. 7. Conclusions In this paper, we have proposed a framework and methodology for strategic sourcing. We uti-

lized a combination of DEA models for eectively discriminating supplier performance. We utilized both strategic capabilities and performance metrics in evaluating suppliers. Our analysis yielded a number of managerial insights that could not have been possible with traditional supplier evaluation methods. These include the identication of suppliers for strategic partnerships, deployment of resources for SDI, identifying the factors on which ineective suppliers need to improve on, and selecting targets for improvement. The principal advantages of our methodology are that: it simultaneously considers supplier capabilities and performance metrics in evaluating the eciency of alternative suppliers; it does not require the decision-maker to select a priori weights or preferences for the supplier factors; it overcomes some of the problems associated with the traditional DEA models, which include unrestricted weight exibility in selection of input and output weights in supplier evaluation decisions; it eectively incorporates eciency variability measures into the analysis in determining homogenous groups of suppliers; and identies the key dierences across the supplier groups in terms of performance. While we have considered the input side of the DEA model somewhat comprehensively, the output measures might need further examination. In addition, it should be pointed that although the input and output dimensions considered in this paper are generally useful, they are context specic. Also, in a specic application of this methodology, if in fact the set of ineective suppliers is deemed an unacceptable result by management, the output dimensions of DEA model must be reexamined for relevant but missing dimensions, which might cause them to be ineective. A reevaluation of the proposed methodology along these lines would yield additional insights and lead to a better approach for strategic sourcing.

References
Ansari, A., Modarress, B., 1986. Just-in-time purchasing: Problems and solutions. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 22 (2), 1926.

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250 Banker, R.D., Khosla, I.S., 1995. Economics of operations management: A research perspective. Journal of Operations Management 12, 423425. Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., 1984. Some models for estimation of technical and scale eciencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30 (9), 1078 1092. Barbarosoglu, G., Yazgac, T., 1997. An application of the analytic hierarchy process to the supplier selection problem. Production and Inventory Management Journal 38 (1), 14 21. Benton, W.C., Krajeski, L., 1990. Vendor performance and alternative manufacturing environments. Decision Sciences 21, 403415. Bernard, P., 1989. Managing vendor performance. Production and Inventory Management Journal 30, 17. Boussoane, A., Dyson, R.G., Thanassoulis, E., 1991. Applied data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 52 (1), 115. Browning, J.M., Zabriskie, N.B., Huellmantle, A.B., 1983. Strategic purchasing planning. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 19 (1), 1924. Burt, D.N., 1984. Proactive Procurement. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ. Burton, T.T., 1988. JIT/Repetitive sourcing strategies: Tying the knot with your suppliers. Production and Inventory Management Journal (4th Quarter), 3841. Chapman, S.N., 1989. Just-in-time supplier inventory: An empirical implementation model. International Journal of Production Research 27 (12), 19932007. Chapman, S.N., Carter, P.L., 1990. Supplier/customer inventory relationships under just-in-time. Decision Sciences 21, 3551. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the eciency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 (6), 429444. Cononver, W.J., 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Wiley, New York. Coughlan, P.D., Wood, A.R., 1992. Getting product designs right. Business Quarterly 56 (4), 6367. De Ron, A.J., 1998. Sustainable production: The ultimate result of a continuous improvement. International Journal of Production Economics 5657 (13), 99110. Dickson, G., 1966. An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. Journal of Purchasing 2, 2841. Dobler, D.W., Burt, D.N., Lee, L., 1990. Purchasing and Materials Management. McGraw-Hill, New York. Doyle, J., Green, R., 1994. Eciency and cross-eciency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. Journal of Operational Research Society 45 (5), 567578. Ellram, L.M., 1990. The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 26 (4), 814. Ellram, L.M., 1995. Total cost of ownership: An analysis approach for purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 25 (8), 4 23.

249

Friedman, M., 1937. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of American Statistical Association 32, 675701. Gregory, R.E., 1986. Source selection: A matrix approach. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management (Summer), 2429. Hahn, C.K., Pinto, P.A., Bragg, D.J., 1983. Just-in-time production and planning. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 19 (3), 210. Hill, R.P., Nydick, R.J., 1992. Using the analytic hierarchy process to structure the supplier selection procedure. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 28 (2), 3136. Hinkle, C.L., Robinson, P.J., Green, P.E., 1969. Vendor evaluation using cluster analysis. Journal of Purchasing, 4958. Jackson, G.C., 1983. Just-in-time production: Implications for logistics managers. Journal of Business Logistics 4, 119. Kleinsorge, I.K., Schary, P.B., Tanner, R.D., 1992. Data envelopment analysis for monitoring customer supplier relationships. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 11, 357372. Koulamas, C., 1992. Quality improvement through product redesign and the learning curve. OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Science 20 (2), 161168. Kralijic, P., 1983. Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review 61, 109117. Lamberson, L.R., Diederich, D., Wuori, J., 1976. Quantitative vendor evaluation. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management (Spring), 1928. Lederer, P.J., Rhee, S.K., 1995. Economics of total quality management. Journal of Operations Mangement 12 (3/4), 353367. Mandal, A., Deshmukh, S.G., 1994. Vendor selection using interpretative structural modeling (ISM). International Journal of Operations and Production Management 14 (6), 5259. Mummalaneni, V., Dubas, K.M., Chao, C., 1996. Chinese purchasing mangers preferences and trade-os in supplier selection and performance evaluation. Industrial Marketing Management 25 (2), 115124. Monczka, R.M., Giunipero, L.C., Reck, R.F., 1981. Perceived importance of supplier information. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 17, 2129. Moriarity, R.T., 1983. Industrial Buying Behavior. Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts. Narasimhan, R., 1983. An analytical approach to supplier selection. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 19 (1), 2732. Narasimhan, R., Talluri, S., Mendez, D., 2001. Supplier evaluation and rationalization via data envelopment analysis: An empirical examination, working paper, Michigan State University. Pan, A.C., 1989. Allocation of order quantity among suppliers. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 3639. Patton, W.W., 1996. Use of human judgment models in industrial buyers vendor selection decisions. Industrial Marketing Management 25, 135149.

250

S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan / European Journal of Operational Research 154 (2004) 236250 Treleven, M., 1987. Single sourcing: A management tool for the quality supplier. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 23 (1), 1924. Tullous, R., Munson, J.M., 1991. Trade-os under uncertainty: Implications for industrial purchasers. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 27, 2431. Tummala, R.V.M., Chin, K.S., Ho, S.H., 1997. Assessing success factors for implementing CE: A case study in Hong Kong electronics industry. International Journal of Production Economics 49 (3), 265283. Turner, I., 1988. An independent system for the evaluation of contract tenders. Journal of Operational Research Society 39 (6), 551561. Verma, R., Pullman, M.E., 1998. An analysis of the supplier selection process. Omega 26 (6), 739750. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., 1993. A multiobjective approach to vendor selection. European Journal of Operational Research 68, 173184. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, W.C., 1991. Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational Research 50, 218. Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Desai, A., 1998. Non-cooperative negotiation strategies for vendor selection. European Journal of Operational Research 108, 208223. Weber, C.A., Desai, A., 1996. Determination of paths to vendor market eciency using parallel coordinates representation: A negotiation tool for buyers. European Journal of Operational Research 90, 142155. Weber, C.A., Ellram, L.M., 1993. Supplier selection using multi objective programming: A decision support systems approach. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 23 (2), 314. Woodside, A.G., Vyas, N., 1987. Industrial purchasing strategies. Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts.

Petroni, A., Braglia, M., 2000. Vendor selection using principal component analysis. Journal of Supply Chain Management (Spring), 6369. Sexton, T.R., Silkman, R.H., Hogan, A., 1986. Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions, In: Richard H., Silkman (Eds.), Measuring Eciency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis, Publication no. 32 in the series New Directions of Program Evaluation, Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Simar, L., Wilson, P., 1998. Sensitivity analysis of eciency scores: How to bootstrap in non-parametric frontier models. Management Science 44, 4961. Siying, W., Jinlong, Z., Zhicheng, L., 1997. A supplier-selecting system using a neural network 1997 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Processing Systems, IEEE, New York, NY, pp. 468471. Tulkens, H., 1993. On FDH eciency analysis: Some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit. Journal of Productivity Analysis 4, 183 210. Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R., in press. Vendor evaluation with performance variability: A maxmin approach. European Journal of Operational Research. Talluri, S., Whiteside, M.M., Seipel, S.J., 2000. A nonparametric stochastic procedure for FMS evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research 124 (3), 529538. Tham, W.S., 1988. Transactions of the American Association of Cost Engineers R.1.1. Thanassoulis, E., Allen, R., 1998. Simulating weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 44, 586 594. Timmerman, E., 1986. An approach to vendor performance evaluation. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management (Winter), 28.