An Analysis Of Vendor Selection

Systems And Decisions

GARY w. DICKSON
University of Minnesota
The problems associated with deciding how one vendor should be
selected from a number of potential alternatives recently has re-
ceived a substantial amount of consideration by people in the pur-
chasing profession. From the purchasing literature, it is fairly easy to
abstract a list of at least 50 distinct factors (characteristics of vendor
perfonnance) that are presented by various authors as being mean-
ingful to consider in a vendor selection decision.' Each authority sug-
gests about five or ten items, and close analysis shows considerable
variation in the factors that are considered appropriate for the evalua-
tion of potential suppliers.
Not only is there little agreement upon what factors should be
considered when selecting a vendor, there has been little attention
focused upon the way in which the nature of the purchase affects the
decision. It seems very reasonable to assume that the factors consid-
ered when selecting a vendor for nuts and bolts are not the factors that
are appropriate when selecting a supplier for a computer. Further-
more, no system has been developed to show how, in any particular
instance, the pertinent factors should be weighted relative to one an-
other." Should price, for example, be considered more important than
the vendor's perceived ability to meet quality standards? Does the
same relationship between price, quality, and all other pertinent fac-
tors hold for all purchases, or are the importance relationships between
tne factors that are considered in the vendor evaluation and selection
also a function of the item to be purchased?
Since the effectiveness of a purchasing decision is a direct function
of selecting the proper vendor, the above questions are important. Re-
gardless of whether a purchasing department has a formal vendor

1 The following sources provide good examples of the disparity in the factors
suggested for the evaluation of potential suppliers: Evaluation of Supplier Per-
formance (New York: National Association of Purchasing Agents, 1963), pp. 11-
18; Department of Defense, Armed Services Procurement Regulations (Revised
March, 1965), Section 1-903, p. 165; and Moving Ahead With Chrysler, A Sup-
plier's Guide (New York: The Chrysler Corporation, 1964), p. 29.
• Evaluation of Supplier Performance, op. cit., p. 8, recognizes the importance
of factor weightings but presents no system for determining the weightings.
5
6 JOURNAL OF PURCHASING February

analysis system or an informal system resting only upon the buyers'

experience and judgment, it is important to know what factors on
which to evaluate vendors and how to weight these factors relative to
one another.
Before work can progress on the problem of relative weighting of
factors, some preliminary information descriptive of the factors them-
selves must be obtained. In an attempt to obtain a list of factors in
current use for vendor evaluation, a survey was made of both finn and
individual vendor selection practices. Although this survey was pri-
marily of a descriptive nature (how vendors are selected), many im-
plications of a normative nature (how vendors ought to be selected)
can be drawn from these data. The research reported here provides a
foundation for further research on the relative weighting of appropri-
ate factors and should be of interest to buyers, purchasing agents, and
purchasing management for a number of other reasons.
The survey provides a great deal of information about the vendor
selection practices of others, since both firm practices and individual
opinions are reported. Also, a specific and detailed list of factors for
vendor evaluation is presented and evaluated. Using this list, the
reader can compare his values concerning factor importance with the
consensus' of the survey respondents in four specific cases. Finally,
some generalizations both descriptive of current practice and helpful
in developing suggested vendor selection systems are presented.
QUESTIONNAIRE RESEARCH
To gather the information desired concerning the selection of ven-
dors, data were obtained from purchasing agents throughout the
United States and Canada by means of a mail questionnaire. Since
there was no available list of the whole population of purchasing
agents, the membership list of the National Association of Purchasing
Agents was used in the selection of a random sample to which to send
the questionnaire. From this list, the names and business- addresses of
approximately 300 potential respondents were obtained.P After several
pre-tests, a four-page questionnaire consisting of three parts evolved.
Parts I and II were concerned primarily with information descriptive
of the respondents' businesses and the vendor selection practices of
these firms. The third part of the questionnaire examined the decision
behavior of the individual purchasing agents in the selection of a ven-
dor. The return from the initial request letter sent to the 273 purchas-
ing agents was 113 questionnaires (41.4%). Fifty-seven persons re-
turned a second questionnaire sent to all non-respondents, bringing the
total response up to 170 (62.3%),
• The sample size was based upon economic considerations, trading off cost
versus the volume ot information to be obtained. The original request to the
National Association of Purchasing Agents was for approximately 300 names, of
which 273 were provided. .
1966 An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions 7

Sample Characteristics
- The respondents represented typical commercial organizations
throughout the country, with the exception that manufacturing per-
haps was overrepresented (67.8% -of the firms represented were en-
gaged principally in this activity.) Both large and small firms were
included in the sample with about equal representation. Roughly 20
per cent of the firms fell in each group and 60 per cent of the sample
was made up of intermediate size organizations. These categories were
determined by measuring both sales volume and number of employees.
About 22 per cent of the respondents stated that they were operating
as a subsidiary of a larger organization and that their answers referred
to local operations. All other respondents' answers were for the main
purchasing department of their organization. Table I shows the median
figures for a few of the characteristics of the firms represented in
the sample.

TABLE I

ATTRIBUTES OF FIRMS REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE'

CHARACTERISTIC MEDIAN
Size of organization 794 Employees
Size' of purchasing department 6 Employees
Number of buyers 4 Employees
Annual sales volume $13,000,000
Annual purchasing volume $4,600,000

VENDOR SELECTION PRACTICES BY FIRMS

The second part of the questionnaire explored how firm practices
and procedures influence the process of selecting a supplier. As might
be expected, it appears that those orders which involve large dollar
volumes are subject to the most attention by purchasing agents. Asking
for the submission of bids from prospective suppliers on some orders
but not on others gives an indication of which orders receive particular
attention. Table II shows that respondents felt that the request for the
submission of bids (and therefore more detailed analysis) is associated
with the economic value of the order. The first category in Table II,
for instance, states that 30 of the respondents estimated that 90% of
the dollar voLume of orders placed by their firms were preceded by bid
requests, whereas the second column shows that only 17 felt that 90%

• Because 32 of the organizations represented in the survey did not sell a

product, a ratio between the median sales and purchases is not appropriate. In
general, the purchases ot the non-selling organizations tended to be somewhat
smaller than those ot firms selling a product. For the organizations for which the
figure is meaningful, purchases represented approximately 50 per cent or 'total
annual sales.
 8 JOURNAL OF PURCHASING February

of the number of all their orders were treated in this manner. Exam-
ination of both the frequency distributions .and their medians reflects
the emphasis on purchases involving large dollar amounts.
TABLE II
PERCENTAGE OF THE PLACEMENT OF ORDERS PRECEDED
BY REQUESTS FOR QUOTATION BY DOLLAR
VOLUME AND BY NUMBER
By Dollar Volume By Number
Class Frequency Frequency
90% and over 30 17
75% under 90% 22 16
50% under 75% 28 26
15% under 50% 36 36
6% under 15% 15 34
under 6% 16 29
Total Responding 147 158
Median 56% 31%
Only 44 (19.6%) of the firms represented had a formal method of
vendor .analysis, i.e., a rating system based upon written procedures.
Table III shows the factors used to rate potential vendors by the exist-
ing systems.

TABLE ill
FACTORS USED IN VENDOR RATING SYSTEMS
Per Cent of Systems
FACTOR Using Factor
Quality of product 96.6 ..
Price 93.9
Delivery, dependability of promises 93.9
Service 81.8
Technical capability 63.6
Financial strength 51.5
Geographical location 42.4
Reputation 42.4
Reciprocal arrangements 15.1
Other factors 12.1

Somewhat surprisingly, over one-third of the responding firms

stated that they kept no formal records of vendor performance for use
in subsequent vendor selections. The information that is retained, how-
ever, consists, in general, of the same factors mentioned in the vendor
1966 An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems lind Decisions 9

rating systems. Table IV depicts the availability of information on

vendor performance. Asin the rating systems, the emphasis on' qual-
ity, delivery, and service is apparent.

TABLE IV
INFORMATION RETAINED ON VENDOR .PERFORMANCE
Type of Information Frequency Per Cent
Delivery experience 77 45.8
Defective material experience 75 44.6
Repair service rendered 38 22.6
Technical service rendered 35 20.8
All service rendered 30 17.8
None of the above 59 35.1

In response to a question about the obligation to place an order

with the low bidder, only 19 persons (11.9%) said they felt such an
obligation. Although this question actually deals with individual rather
than firm practices, it was included in the section on organizations
because its response is related directly to previous data. Those respond-
ents who answered negatively were asked for the factors that they felt
would override a low bid. Table V shows that the factors named rein-
force the previous emphasis upon quality and delivery as factors that
are critical to vendor selection decisions.

TABLE'V
FACTORS MENTIONED THAT WOULD OVERRIDE LOW BID
FACTORS Frequency
Quality 84
Delivery 84
Service 38
Past experience 32
Reputation 12
Facilities 11
Technical ability and services 11
Financial responsibility 8
Failure to comply with specifications 6
Multiple sources of supply 3

An examination of these three separate and somewhat inde-

pendent indices of factors pertinent to vendor evaluation and selection
(existing rating systems, retained information, and special circum-
stances that would lead to overriding a low bid) yields a remarkably
consistent list of important factors. The ability of potential vendors to
 10 JOURNAL OF PURCHASING February

meet quality standards and delivery schedules stand out as the two
most critical factors in the vendor selection process. Price, service,
financial position, technical capability, and past experience appear as
factors of secondary importance.
This analysis of firm vendor. selection practices, however, gives
only one view of the way vendor characteristics are evaluated. So far,
the influence of the item to be purchased upon the selection of the
vendor has not been considered. The effect of the individual who
chooses the vendor also has been only touched upon. To further an-
alyze the vendor selection decision and to allow for comparison with
the results indicated from organizational practices, the third part of
the questionnaire examined individual opinions about the selection
of vendors in four specific instances.

VENDOR SELECTION OPINIONS BY INDIVIDUALS

The cases that were selected to be used in the examination of
vendor selection decision-making by individuals (which appear as
Exhibit I) were designed to be widely variable with regard to the
items to be purchased and also with respect to the background of the
purchasing situation. These cases had to be concise enough to present
considerable information to the respondents while at the same time
fulfilling the constraint of limited length. A list of 23 factors that
might possibly be of importance when evaluating potential vendors
was abstracted from the purchasing literature and used in the test of
the evaluative criteria in vendor selection. The factors used are shown
in Exhibi t II.

EXHIBIT I
CASES USED IN THE STUDY OF VENDOR SELECTION
DECISION-MAKING

CASE A: A large company whose principal product is industrial. chemicals has

scheduled the repainting of the interior walls of its manufacturing plant. The
painting is complicated due 10 the fact that all painted surfaces are subject to
severe chemical fumes which tend to make paint deteriorate. Fortunately the
surfaces to be painted are of a common substance, cement. It is estimated that
10 barrels of paint will be sufficient for the project. The necessary labor will
be furnished under contract by a reliable painting firm.
CASE B: The purchasing agent of a large university has received a requisition
for the purchase of 200 desks. The desks are to be used by faculty in their
soon-to-be completed office building. It has been the university's policy to fur-
nish all new office facilities with metal furniture.
CASE C: A very large aerospace manufacturer has received a substantial con-
tract to build an orbital laboratory. This five-man satellite to be used for astro-
'nornieal research, will orbit the earth at a mean distance ~f 500 miles. Once the
satellite is in its orbit, its position will be stabilized under computer control.
The computers will be. subcoIYtracted. The complexity of the computer and
manufacturing tolerances are such that only firms known to be experienced in
 1966 An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions 11

precision micro-electronic manufacturing and use of materials such as phenolics,

platinum. beryllium, and stainless steel are to be considered. Only two com-
puters are 'to be built for the orbital laboratories which are to be launched two
years from the awarding of the prime contract.
CASE 0: A division- of a large aerospace corporation is faced with the problem
of contracting for art, makeup, and printing services for a five-volume, 2500-
page training manual for the company's supervisory and engineering personnel.
The manual will contain 2000 illustrations. Due to the fact that the company is
revising its operating procedures, it is necessary that all manuals be completed
within ten weeks of the date the contract is awarded.

EXHIBIT II

LIST OF FACTORS USED IN THE STUDY OF VENDOR

SELECTION DECISION-MAKING

FACTOR

1. The net price (including discounts and freight charges) offered by each
vendor.
2. The ability of each vendor to meet quality specifications consistently.
3. The repair service likely to be given by each vendor.
4. The ability of each vendor to meet specified delivery schedules.
5. The geographical location of each vendor.
6. The financial position and credit rating of each vendor.
7. The production facilities and capacity of each vendor.
8. The amount of part business that has been done with each vendor.
9. The technical capability (including research and development facilities) of
e~hvendor. .
10. The management and organization of each vendor.
11. The future purchases each vendor .....i ll make from your finn.
12. The communication system (with information on progress data of orders) of
each vendor.
13. The operational controls (including reporting, quality control, and inventory
control systems) of each vendor.
14. The position in the industry (including product leadership and reputation)
of each vendor.
15. The labor relations record of each vendor.
16. The attitude of each vendor toward your organization.
17. The desire for your business shown by each vendor.
18. The warranties and claims policies of each vendor.
19. The ability of each vendor to meet your packaging requirements for his
product.
20. The impression made by each vendor in personal contacts with you.
21. The availability of training aids and educational courses in the use of the
product of each vendor.
22. Compliance or likelihood of compliance with your procedures (both bidding
and operating) by each vendor.
23. The performance hirtory of each vendor.
12 JOURNAL OF PURCHASING FeOruary

Explicit case situations were used for several reasons. In order to

make the factor ratings meaningful, it was necessary to put each re-
spondent in a similar purchasing situation. The four cases accom-
plished this by describing the circumstances under which the pur-
chase was made, the items to be purchased, and the organization
making the purchase. The wide variety of items and purchasing situa-
tions employed (see Exhibit I) made it difficult for respondents to
relate their training and experience to all four cases. Therefore, a
side benefit from setting a common frame of reference for the respond-
ents was to remove as much bias as possible from personal experi-
ence and training. Varied purchasing cases also were necessary to
allow the analysis of the way in which the nature of the purchase
affects the vendor selection decision.
The actual mechanics of completing the decision-making part of
the questionnaire were straightforward. Each respondent was asked
to read 'each case and to put himself in the position of the purchasing
agent responsible for the selection of a vendor to supply the items
described by the case. The respondent then was requested to rate the
importance he would attach to each of the factors (characteristics of
potential vendors) listed, i.e., "evaluate the factors on the basis of
whether the factor is of extreme, considerable, average, slight, or of
no importance relative to other listed factors when considering poten-
tial vendors in this purchasing situation." The importance rating of
each of the 23 factors was scored on a 0-4 basis with the "no impor-
tance" box established at zero and progressing in sequence to the
"extreme importance" box. Thus, for each combination of respondent,
factor, and case, a score was obtained. The analysis of the responses
to the decision-making section of the questionnaire can most clearly
be presented in two parts-the first dealing with aggregate factor im-
portance, and the second treating the influence of the purchased
item.

Factor Importance
Table VI shows the aggregate ratings of the 23 factors over all
four cases. The ratings are almost exactly in accordance with the
findings from the analysis of firm practices. As in the previous sec-
tion, the ability to meet quality standards and delivery schedules are
rated as the most important factors to consider in the selection of a
vendor. A point of interest is that price ranks sixth in importance when
all four cases are evaluated together. One deviation from the pre-
vious findings is that the service factor is given a relatively low rat-
ing. A possible explanation for this positioning is that the four cases
selected were atypical with regard to service requirements. Looking
only at the aggregate ratings, however, tends to mask somewhat a
 1966 An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions 13

number of variations in the factor ratings. A better analysis can be

made by examining the ratings case by case, so that the influence
of the item' being purchased becomes apparent.

TABLE VI
AGGREGATE FACTOR RATINGS
FACTOR MEAN RATING EVAL.UATION

Quality 3.508 Extreme Importance

Delivery 3.417
Performance History 2.998
Warranties & Claims Policies 2.849
Production Facilities and Capacity 2.775 Considerable
Price 2.758 Importance
Technical Capability 2.545
Financial Position 2.514
Procedural Compliance 2:488-
Communication System 2.426
Reputation and Position in Industry 2.412
Desire for Business 2.256
Management and Organization 2.216 Average
Operating Controls 2.211 Importance
Repair Service 2.187
Attitude 2.120
Impression 2.054
Packaging Ability 2.009
Labor Relations Record 2.003
, Geographical Location 1.872
Amount of Past Business 1.597
Training Aids 1.537
Reciprocal Arrangements 0.610 Slight Importance

The Influence of the Type of Purchase

Table VII shows the five factors rated most important in each of
the four purchasing situations used in the questionnaire. Despite the
variations from case to case, the ability of potential vendors to meet

TABLE vn
THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS BY SITUATION
Importance CASE A: CASE B: CASE C: CASE D:
Rank Paint Desks Computer Art Work
1 Quality Price Quality Delivery
2 Warranties Quality Tech. capability Prod. Capacity
3 De1ivery Delivery , Delivery Quality
4 Per!. History Warranties Prod. Capacity Perf. History
5 Price Perf. History Perf. History Communication
System
 14 JOURNAL OF PURCHASING February

quality standards and delivery schedules, and the fact that they have
performed well in the past were considered of major importance in
every instance. Price, it should be noted, does not appear in the top
five factors in either Case C or D. In Case D (Art Work), it just missed
the list, being sixth, but in Case C (Computer), price was rated 19th.
In other words, in the case involving a highly complex product and
presumably a government contract, price was felt to be of minor im-
portance, relative to the other selection factors, in the vendor evalua-
tion process.
Price was not the only factor to show wide swings in importance
between the four cases. Technical capability, repair service, and war-
ranties also were adjudged by the respondents to be very important
for some of the purchases and to be unworthy of much consideration
in other instances. The factors showing the most consistency in their
position in the four cases were: (1) the ability to meet quality stand-
ards, (2) the ability to meet delivery schedule, (3) financial position,
(4) performance history, and (5) reciprocal arrangements.
Analysis of variation in the factor ratings implies that agreement
among individuals on factor importance seemed to be a function of
factor position on the importance continum. In other words, respond-
ents agreed on which factors were important and which were very
unimportant but could not place the intermediate factors in any con-
sistent way. The most significant point is that agreement was shown
where it counts most, i.e., on the factors believed to be critical for
the selection of the proper vendor in each case.

In the four cases presented, the item to be purchased and, there-

fore, the decision to choose a particular vendor varied in complexity.
The aggregate importance ratings reflect this fact. Table VIII shows
the average importance ratings for each case and Table IX presents a
frequency distribution of the factor ratings, case by case. In the latter
table, the frequency in each class represents the number of factors
that had a mean rating within the class limits.

TABLEvm
MEAN FACTOR RATINGS BY CASE
CASE MEAN RATING
A: Paint 2.058
B: Desks 2.025
C: Computer 2.860 .
D: Art Work 2.337
Examination of Tables VIII and IX shows that more factors were
rated as being highly important in the cases involving complex prod-
1966 An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions 15

TABLE IX
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF FACTOR RATINGS BY CASE
NUMBER OF FACTORS WITH MEAN RATING IN EACH
CLASS
CASE A: CASE B: CASE C: CASE D:
CLASS Paint Desks Computer ArtWo ..k
3.5 under 4.0 1 0 3 1
2.5 under 3.5 5 5 13 6
1.5 under 2.5 14 14 6 13
.5 under 1.5 3 4 0 3
under .5 0 0 1 0
TOTAL 23 23 23 23
ucts. In the Computer case (Case C), for example, sixteen factors
were of considerable or extreme importance, whereas in the case in-
volving a relatively simple product, Paint, only six factors were rated
in these categories. The behavior pattern of the respondents indicated
that one or two factors may be used to make a vendor selection de-
cision for a relatively routine purchase but in a more complex situa-
tion, a larger amount of information was believed necessary. Although
more factors were rated as being important in the complex situations,
the question still is unanswered as to whether they all are used in the
actual vendor selection.
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS
The study of firm vendor selection practices and the opinions of
purchasing agents in four vendor selection cases lead to similar con-
clusions about what factors are important in the decision to select
a source of supply. There appear to be three factors that are crucial
in the choice of a vendor: the ability 'to meet quality standards, the
ability to deliver the product on time, and performance history. The
latter is difficult to assess because it presupposes past experience
with the vendor and it also subsumes a number of other factors. There
are a number of other factors that may be critical to a particular
vendor selection decision but, because of the nature of the item being
purchased, these vary from purchase to purchase. Price, financial
strength, technical capability, service ability, warranties, and produc-
tion facilities and capacity are examples of this class of factors. In
some instances, a number of these "second level" factors may be im-
portant in selecting a vendor, while in other cases only one or two
may join the "first level" factors as the basis for the de~ision.
A few generalizations may be made about which factors are
important to consider in any particular vendor selection. The more
complex (technically) the product being purchased, the more factors
are likely to be considered, and, in these cases, price is likely to be
16 JOURNAL OF PURCHASING February

relatively unimportant. Conversely, in purchases of ordinary products

("nuts and bolts" type purchases), price generally is the primary
factor that is considered.
Other than reputation, intangible factors such as attitudes, im-
pressions, and desire for business were given very little weight in
the selection of a ven-dor. Reputation, while not rated of high import-
ance in any instance, became of intermediate importance when the
item to be purchased grew in complexity. This implies that a ven-
dor's reputation in the industry enhances his chances of getting an
order, especially when the product is technically complex. Other
factors, such as the amount of past business, labor relations record,
packaging ability, and geographical location probably are important
only in isolated instances. Reciprocity was completely downgraded
by the respondents as an item to be considered in the selection of
a vendor. Only in unique instances (depending on the industry or
on the individuals involved in the purchase) would reciprocal ar-
rangements be likely to make any difference in the vendor selection
decision.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE SURVEY FINDINGS:

VENDOR SELECTION SYSTEMS
As we have seen, the nature of the item to be purchased has a
major influence on the factors that are considered when selecting
a supplier. Individual disagreement on the relative factor importance
appears to have a much smaller effect on the choice of factors since it
occurs primarily on factors of intermediate importance. These results
have implications that directly affect the development of formal ven-
dor selection systems. Since a number of firms have such systems (or
are developing them), it is useful to relate the findings of this re-
search to the general systems that have been designed to aid in the
vendor selection decision.
Analysis of the results concerning the way in which individuals
influence the vendor selection decision offers particular encourage-
ment to those persons in purchasing who support the development
of formal vendor selection systems. Enough agreement was found
among the respondents on the factor importance ratings to suggest
that the "first" and "second" level factors listed in Table VI (includ-
ing every factor down to and including "Reputation and Position in
the Industry'") could be used as a standard list forming the basis

• There are several reasons that three factors below the "Considerable Im-
portance" level are suggested for inclusion. In the first place, there is a natural
break in importance scores below these factors. More important, however, is
the fact that each of the suggested factors appeared in the ten most important
factors for at least one of the four cases.
1966 An Analysis of Vendor Selection Systems and Decisions 17

for the construction of a general vendor selection system. In other

words, any existing or proposed system (formal or informal) should
include these factors.

The implications of the findings concerning the influence of

the purchased item on the vendor selection decision hold less promise
for the development of a general vendor analysis technique. Using
a descriptive approach, we have evolved a normative list of factors
to serve as the basis for a formal vendor analysis system. Unfortu-
nately, the descriptive approach is not a valid one to determine how
these factors ought to be manipulated, Le., weighted, to make the
optimal vendor selection. The basis for this statement, of course, is
the fact that a majority opinion on a course of action will not neces-
sarily produce the optimal result. There is, however, a very fruit-
ful (and valid) approach to the solution of the problem of how the
factors ought to be weighted. The basis for this approach is an
examination of the cost relationship between various levels of sub-
optimal performance on each factor employed in the system. This
approach to analyzing vendors is known as the "Cost-Ratio" plan."

Thus, in anyone situation, there is some hope of manipulating

the factors in an optimal way. In this study, though, it was found
that the factor importance relationships (in a descriptive sense at
least) were different for each of the four purchase types. This im-
plies a practical problem that must be faced by any universal vendor
analysis system, Le., the weighting system may need to be unique
for each purchase. The difficulties in determining and actually manip-
ulating such a vast number of importance relationships very likely.
would negate the utility of such a complex system. About the only
way this dilemma can be resolved is to test for the existence of
classes of purchases that would have common factor importance re-
lationships. This could be accomplished by studying a number of com-
mon purchasing situations and the associated factor performance cost
structures.

This study, by presenting a common list of factors to be used in

the vendor analysis process, should be useful in adding to the uni-
versality and rationality of vendor selection practices. However, the
implications of the findings cast some serious doubts on the develop-
ment of a universal system for vendor analysis that is appropriate
over the entire range of purchasing situations and whose practical
limitations do not outweigh its advantages for increased profitability
through effective vendor selection.

• Evaluation of Supplier Performance, op, cit., pp. 11-20.