Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472

29th
29th International
International Conference
Conference on
on Flexible
Flexible Automation
Automation and
and Intelligent
Intelligent Manufacturing
Manufacturing
(FAIM2019),
(FAIM2019), June 24-28, 2019, Limerick, Ireland.
June 24-28, 2019, Limerick, Ireland.

A
A comprehensive
comprehensive supplier
supplier classification
classification model
model for
for SME
SME outsourcing
outsourcing
a a, a b c a
V.
V. Ferreira
Ferreiraa,, F.
F. J.
J. G.
G. Silva
Silvaa,*,*, R.
R. P.
P. Martinho
Martinhoa,, C.
C. Pimentel
Pimentelb,, R.
R. Godina
Godinac,, B.
B. Pinto
Pintoa
a
aISEP – School of Engineering, Polytechnic of Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 431, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal
ISEP – School
b of Engineering, Polytechnic of Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 431, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal
bGOGCOOP, DEGEIT, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
c GOGCOOP, DEGEIT, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
c UNIDEMI - Faculty of Science and Technology (FCT), Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal
UNIDEMI - Faculty of Science and Technology (FCT), Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

Abstract
Abstract
The creation of knowledge niches and production costs have led to a growing specialization of some companies, particularly in
The creation of knowledge niches and production costs have led to a growing specialization of some companies, particularly in
sectors where the production equipment present quite high prices, the tools are very specific and expensive, and considerable know-
sectors where the production equipment present quite high prices, the tools are very specific and expensive, and considerable know-
how is necessary. This premise assumes even more considerable contours in SMEs. Outsourcing among SMEs is becoming more
how is necessary. This premise assumes even more considerable contours in SMEs. Outsourcing among SMEs is becoming more
frequent. However, the management tools and scientific models already existing are too much complex to help SMEs to make
frequent. However, the management tools and scientific models already existing are too much complex to help SMEs to make
decisions on the selection of its suppliers. This paper intends to present and validate a comprehensive model to help SMEs to
decisions on the selection of its suppliers. This paper intends to present and validate a comprehensive model to help SMEs to
classify and select their suppliers, based on parameters that directly determine the quality with which an SME can be served by
classify and select their suppliers, based on parameters that directly determine the quality with which an SME can be served by
another. The model was later successfully tested through its application to a metalworking company that supplies specialized parts
another. The model was later successfully tested through its application to a metalworking company that supplies specialized parts
for the automotive and aeronautical industry, allowing the validation of the proposed classification method. Moreover, the model
for the automotive and aeronautical industry, allowing the validation of the proposed classification method. Moreover, the model
can be easily integrated with other management tools, allowing to obtain positive results in a short period of time, based on a
can be easily integrated with other management tools, allowing to obtain positive results in a short period of time, based on a
previous history of a given list of suppliers.
previous history of a given list of suppliers.
©
© 2019
2019 The
The Authors.
Authors, Published
Published byby Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
This
© 2019is an open
The accessPublished
Authors, article under the CC BY-NC-ND
by Elsevier B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019
Peer-review
Peer review under
underresponsibility of theof
the responsibility scientific committee
the scientific of the Flexible
committee Automation
of the Flexible and Intelligent
Automation Manufacturing
and Intelligent 2019 (FAIM2019
Manufacturing 2019)
Keywords: Suppliers’ classification, Suppliers’ Sorting, Outsourcing, Machining, SME, Classification model.
Keywords: Suppliers’ classification, Suppliers’ Sorting, Outsourcing, Machining, SME, Classification model.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 228340500; fax: +351 228321159.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 228340500; fax: +351 228321159.
E-mail address: fgs@isep.ipp.pt
E-mail address: fgs@isep.ipp.pt

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing 2019 (FAIM 2019)
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.141
1462 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472
2 V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Machining is a subtractive manufacturing process extensively utilized in many types of industry, from the
metalworking industry to prosthesis manufacturing, allowing for obtaining very complex shapes with high accuracy
and very low surface roughness [1,2]. Machining is still one of the most relevant processes and will hardly be replaced
by other technology [3]. Nowadays, there are many investigations on machining. These investigations may include
studies of cutting tools, novel feeding systems for CNC or parameters optimization [4-6].
Sometimes, an inefficient manufacturing process of a single part is enough to compromise the whole product that
the part belongs to [3]. With the increase in production, companies tend to outsource services to their suppliers to be
able to respond to their customers. This requires effective management of suppliers to realize how they are working.
Therefore, high procurement costs induce manufacturing firms to select their suppliers carefully [7], also causing
unexpected delays. Selecting the right supplier can affect procurement costs (i.e. costs of raw materials and component
parts), which constitutes a large percentage of the final product costs [8]. Moreover, supplier development is a long-
term, resource-consuming business activity that requires commitment from both manufacturing firms and suppliers
[9]. Through the research of different models of suppliers' evaluation, it is concluded that there are already several
models for various industries. At the heart of this is the fact that all models use the so-called multi-criteria decision-
making method (MCDM) of Shannon entropy [10]. Several MCDM techniques have been presented to support
decision makers through their decision-making processes, including the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and
Analytical Network Process (ANP), Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Mathematical Programming (MP) and hybrid
models combining the previous and other ranking techniques [11]. This situation leads to several common criteria for
evaluating suppliers, but also specific criteria for each sector.
Increasingly, there is growing competition between companies and, at the same time, the search for the best strategy
to combat competition. A firms’ competitiveness highly depends on its suppliers increasing the strategic role they
play in the supply chain [12]. Therefore, supplier selection and evaluation are pivotal to managing and developing an
effective, and efficient supply chain [13]. A good suppliers’ selection makes a significant difference to an
organization’s future to reduce operational costs and improve the quality of its end products [14]. The origin of many
supply chain risks stems from the supplier selection problem [15]. A large and growing literature of supplier’s
selection appears to combat this problem [16,17]. There is plenty of normative literature on how buyers should select
their suppliers, with a general consensus on a number of factors influencing the individual choice, ranging from price,
perceived quality, delivery to other more industry-specific criteria, as documented by Purchase and Lin [18]. In a
study on the automotive sector [19], the price was the main selection criterion [20], but, gradually, other supplier
selection criteria such as quality and technical capabilities [21, 22] have been considered more consistently [23]. For
the industry supply chain, these results connect to the customer attractiveness literature, and to social exchange theory.
The former argues that buying firms may want to become a preferred customer of their suppliers; hence also buyers
have to build their attractiveness and their reputation in the supply market. The latter states that an actor starts a
“business” relationship if the partner performance is sufficiently attractive, then check if the relationship matches
initial expectations, and then decides to continue or stop a relationship depending on the availability of alternative
partners [24]. Selecting capable suppliers for strategic long-term relationships can lead to a competitive advantage for
the company [25]. The existing models are complex and difficult to apply in SME’s. Therefore, it was necessary to
create a simple and intuitive evaluation model.
Most of the models for suppliers’ classification are extremely complex to be applied in SMEs. Thus, this work aims
to develop a suppliers’ classification model that allows simple and efficient use through a simple spreadsheet. To this
end, the most relevant factors will be chosen and prioritized for effective decision making on which suppliers are most
important for the business of a company integrated into the machining sector for the metalworking industry.

2. Development of a model for supplier evaluation

Suppliers must be classified according to several specific requirements that meet the particular needs of a company.
Even though standard criteria do not exist, this assessment should not depend exclusively on the cost associated with
the product. There are numerous criteria that can be met in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the evaluation of
the partners as previously mentioned, and therefore there are no equal evaluation methodologies for a supplier which
 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472 1463
V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

provides different services and/or products. Each company should choose the criteria, and its indicators, that best
adequate the management policies.
To begin the development of the model the diagram in Fig. 1 was created.

Fig. 1. Model structuring diagram

For the evaluation of machining services, the following criteria were defined:
• Strictness in delivery date (R’pe)

The strictness in the deadline is directly connected to the delay or advance from the supplier when delivery the
product. This indicator assesses the supplier's ability to guarantee the delivery of the final product within the stipulated
deadlines. If the expected date of delivery is exceeded, it is considered a delay, if the supplier delivered earlier than
stipulated date, it is an advance.. It is calculated as the average of the differences, in days, from the expected date (dp)
and the actual date (dr) of product delivery.

∑   

  (1)


After calculating the value Rpe (Equation 1), the suppliers are assessed, between 1 and 5, according to the conditions
in Table 1, reaching the value R'pe.

Table 1. Classification of indicator R'pe.

Classification R’pe Condition
Bad 1 Rpe > 9
Insufficient 2 7 Rpe 9
Sufficient 3 4 Rpe 6
Good 4 1 Rpe 3
Very Good 5 Rpe < 1

• Cost (C’)

Costs are a habitual theme and are negotiated in order to get as most profit as possible. This indicator assesses the
relationship between the budgeted value of the suppliers and the costs of internal production. On that way, it is possible
to realise if, on average, the supplier practices prices accordingly to the value that the company is willing to pay and
how it positions itself against the competitors.
Hence, this indicator is calculated for each budget requested taking into consideration internal production costs
(Cpi) and costs budgeted by the supplier (Cpe).
1464 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472
4 V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

  
 × 100% (2)


After calculating the value C (Equation 2), suppliers are assessed, between 1 and 5, according to the conditions in
Table 2, reaching the value C’.

Table 2. Classification of indicator C'.

Classification C’ Condition
Bad 1 C < -10%
Insufficient 2 -10% C < -4%
Sufficient 3 -4% C < 5%
Good 4 5% C < 10%
Very Good 5 C ≥ 10%

The final value of this indicator results from the average values obtained for each part (Equation 3).

∑ 
  (3)


• Dimensional accuracy

Dimensional rigour is directly related to product quality, which is assessed based on the piece's compliance with
customer requirements. In other words, the dimensional rigour is calculated based on the nonconformities detected by
the quality control on the arrival of the parts from the supplier. The dimensional rigour is expressed as a percentage,
between the number of works with non-conformities (Nnc) and the total number of works of each supplier (Not).


  1   × 100% (4)


After reach the value Rd (Equation 4), the suppliers are assessed, between 1 and 5, as per the conditions in Table
3, reaching the value R'd.

Table 3. Classification of indicator R'd.

Classification R’d Condition
Bad 1 Rd 85%
Insufficient 2 85% Rd < 90%
Sufficient 3 90% Rd < 95%
Good 4 95% Rd < 100%
Very Good 5 Rd = 100%
 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472 1465
V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

• Surface finishing

The finishing state of the mechanical element surface is extremely important and it is directly related to the
importance of the function of this element in any application. Guarantee the dimensional and geometrical accuracy is
not always sufficient to ensure the functionality of a kinematic pair and, therefore, the state of the surfaces of the
mechanical elements must be appropriate to the type of function. In this way, each supplier part must be assessed in
order to evaluate the surface finish taking into account Table 4.

Table 4. Classification of indicator As.

Classification As Condition
Bad 1 Roughness above specified (non-recoverable)
Insufficient 2 Roughness below specified
Sufficient 3 Roughness above specified (max 20%) (recoverable)
Good 4 Roughness below specified (min 20%)
Very Good 5 Roughness within a specified range

The final value of this indicator results from the average values obtained for each batch of the part, within the
control range (Equation 5).
∑ 
  (5)

• Rework (R’)

Rework on outsourced parts can be classified in different ways and must be taken into account in the supplier's
final evaluation (Table 5).

Table 5. Classification of indicator R.

Classification R Condition
Bad 1 Type IV Intervention - Requires dimensional corrections or correction of
surface finish
Insufficient 2 Type III intervention - Requires tapping, reaming or equivalent services
Sufficient 3 Type II intervention - Simple finishing services (removing burrs and
improving the visual appearance of the product)
Good 4 Type I intervention - Improved visual appearance of the product
Very Good 5 No intervention needed

The final value of this indicator results from the average values obtained for each batch of the part, within the
control range (Equation 6).
∑ 
  (6)

• Location (L’fe)

The location, as its name implies, is related to the distance (dfe) between the suppliers and the company. This
indicator is displayed in kilometres (km) and can be amortized according to the percentage (nfe) of times the products
are delivered directly to the company, without therefore having to involve transport costs associated with the
contracting company.

Lfe = dfe -(dfe ×nfe ) (7)

1466 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472
6 V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

After calculating the Lfe value (Equation 7), the suppliers are assessed, between 1 and 5, according to the conditions
in Table 6, reaching the value L'fe.

Table 6. Classification of indicator L'fe.

Classification L’fe Condition
Bad 1 Lfe 29
Insufficient 2 20 Lfe 29
Sufficient 3 10 Lfe 19
Good 4 1 Lfe 9
Very Good 5 Lfe =0

• Services provided (S’p)

The services provided reveal the different types of machining that the supplier can offer, from internal operations
(Sif) to subcontracting (Sef). This aspect is calculated by summing the value(s) represented in Table 7, referring to each
type of operation that the supplier can provide. Being able to provide this service, ads 1 or 0.5, depending on whether
or not it is subcontracted

Table 7. Values of Sif and Sef.

Operations Supplier internal service (Sif) Supplier Subcontracting (Sef)
Turning 1 0.5
Milling 1 0.5
Flat grinding 1 0.5
Cylindrical griding 1 0.5
Penetration electric-erosion 1 0.5
Cutting by wire 1 0.5

 
    +   (8)
 

After calculating the value Sp (Equation 8), the suppliers are assessed, between 1 and 5, according to the conditions
described in Table 8, reaching the value S'p.

Table 8. Classification of indicator S'p.

Classification S’p Condition
Bad 1 Sp 1.5
Insufficient 2 2 Sp 2.5
Sufficient 3 3 Sp 3.5
Good 4 4 Sp 4.5
Very Good 5 5 Sp
 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472 1467
V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 7

• Certifications (Ce’)

The requirements of the customer may lead the company to feel the need to use certified suppliers to meet the
requirements. Even if this is not the case, certifications offer a higher degree of confidence in quality. This indicator
is not quantified and comes in response to the question "Does the supplier have any type of certification that is
convenient to the type of service that the company subcontracts?" Thus, according to the answer, "Yes" or "No",
suppliers are evaluated with 3 or 5, according to the conditions in Table 9, reaching the Ce' value.

Table 9. Classification of indicator Ce'.

Classification Ce’ Condition
No 3 Ce = No
Yes 5 Ce = Yes

• Emergency response (R’urg)

The urgency response represents the supplier's willingness to perform a service deemed to be urgent. In this way,
suppliers are evaluated based on the number of times they accept to perform an emergency service (Nad) in relation to
the number of times they were contacted (Nct), arriving at the R'urg value, through equation 9


  × 100% (9)


After calculating the Rurg value (Equation 9), the suppliers are assessed, between 1 and 5, according to the
conditions in Table 10, reaching the value R'urg.

Table 10. Classification of indicator R'urg.

Classification R’urg Condition
Bad 1 Rurg 80%
Insufficient 2 80% < Rurg < 85%
Sufficient 3 85% Rurg < 90%
Good 4 90% Rurg < 95%
Very Good 5 95% Rurg 100%

• Final evaluation (Af)

The final evaluation (Af) compiles all the previously mentioned indicators, with weight assignment (%), in order
to differentiate the most important aspects from the less important ones.
In subcontracting, the prime aspects are the strictness of delivery (R'pe), cost (C'), dimensional rigour (R'd) and
surface finish (Af) that the supplier has to offer. These four indicators represent 75% of the supplier's final evaluation
(Table 11). Within these 75%, the dimensional variable (R'd) and the surface finish (A's) stand out, since they have the
greatest relative weight. Therefore, in subcontracting suppliers, it will be essential to take these variables into account,
taking into account that there is no margin for error. The strict deadline represents 15% of the total value. Normally,
there is a defined delivery date for the product by a supplier that must be met. That is, in extraordinary cases, an
adjustment can be negotiated regarding to the deadline of delivery of the outsourced parts. In the same way, the
acceptance of the maximum cost, with a relative weight of 10%, is the indicator that best represents the economic part
of the subcontracted services. This indicator has a relative weight lower than previously mentioned since it can be
adjusted in order to obtain greater dimensional rigour, better surface finish, or more assertive delivery time.
Finally, the five final indicators total of 25% of the supplier's assessment. The rework (R') implies costs for the
company for which they should be mentioned. Since, as a general rule, suppliers do not include transport services,
1468 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472
8 V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

and if these costs are not taken into account in the amount to be paid, the location must be accounted for in their
assessment (L’fe). The quantity of services that the supplier is able to provide, internally or subcontracting, is recorded
in the services provided (S'p). It is advantageous for the company that a supplier be able to perform as many operations
as possible to reduce the number of people involved and, in turn, facilitate the decision of subcontracting a new
supplier for a given operation. The quality system, when used correctly, not only obliges us but also allows us to
assign partners of excellence. Working with certified suppliers (Ce’) will allow the company greater self-reliance and
also reduce possible failures. In this way, the certified partners will benefit from the evaluation. Last but not least, the
supplier's ability to respond quickly in exceptional cases of urgency (R’urg) reveals a strong and trustworthy link with
the company. Thus, with a relative weight of 5%, the evaluation of the supplier ends.
With the analysis of relative weights, dimensional rigour and surface finish guarantee 50% of the partner's final
appreciation. This sum of values also reveals that these indicators cannot be compromised or adjusted in order to
benefit another indicator.

Table 11. Weight of the indicators in the final evaluation of the supplier.
Strictness in delivery date (R’pe) 15%
Cost (C’) 10%
Dimensional accuracy (R’d) 25%
Surface finishing (A’s) 25%
Rework (R’) 5%
Location (L’fe) 5%
Services provided (S’p) 5%
Certifications (Ce’) 5%
Emergency response (R’urg) 5%
Final Evaluation (Af) 100%

The final evaluation is then calculated from equation 10.

Af =0.15×R'pe +0.1×C' +0.25×R' d +0.25×A' s +0.05×R'+0.05×L'fe +0.05×S'p +0.05×Ce'+0.05×R'urg (10)

Taking into account that the evaluation of each supplier by indicator can vary between 0 and 5, with the exception
of certifications (Ce'), which only vary between 3 and 5, the final evaluation (Af) can then vary between:
• Af min = 0.15
• Af max = 5.00

Therefore, the mean value between Af min and Af max is 2.58. Accordingly, with Table 12, which synthesis the model,
the supplier that obtains a final evaluation - Af 2.58 is considered inadequate to provide the types of machining
services it performs. For suppliers with the final evaluation (Af) between 2.58 and 3.50, they are considered adequate
to carry out the services provided up to now. Finally, anyone who gets a final assessment (Af) of greater or equal to
3.50 is appreciated as a preferred supplier.
 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472 1469
V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 9

Table 12. Synthesis of supplier's classification model

Strictness
Dimensiona Surface Services Emergency
in Cost Rework Location Certifications
Ind.

l accuracy finishing provided response

delivery (C’) (R’) (L’fe) (Ce’)
(R’d) (A’s) (S’p) (R’urg)
date (R’pe)
Wei.

15% 10% 25% 25% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

Eval.

Af = 0.15×R'pe+0.1×C' +0.25×R' d +0.25×A' s +0.05×R'+0.05×L'fe +0.05×S'p +0.05×Ce'+0.05×R'urg

Class.

Af 2.58 2.58 < Af < 3.50 3.50 Af

Inappropriate Adequate Preferred

Ind. -Indicators; Wei.-Weight; Eval. -Evaluation; Class. - Classification

3. Application of the supplier’s classification model: a case study

Given a large number of machining suppliers, it was felt the need to carry out an analysis and, in this way, to
understand how the allocation of the works by the 133 partners is distributed. For this purpose, a Pareto analysis was
performed (Fig. 2), which consisted in listing in descending order the suppliers with the greatest number of services
provided to the company, and thus concluded that 80% of subcontracted machining services were delivered to 20%
of suppliers. Of the 133 partners, the 27 most influential were then selected.

Fig. 2. Pareto analysis.

In order to involve all the indicators mentioned above, as well as to present the results, by the supplier, of the
application of equation 10 it was created Table 13.
The evaluation calculated above allows then to categorize each one of the suppliers according to Table 14 – Final
classification of the supplier. Thus, in Table 13 the individual classification of each supplier can be verified.
10 V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
1470 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472

Table 13. Results of the evaluation of the indicators.

Strictness in Dimensional Surface Services Emergency Final

Rework Location Certifications
delivery date Cost (C’) Accuracy Finishing provided response evaluation
(R’) (L’fe) (Ce’)
(R’pe) (R’d) (A’s) (S’p) (R’urg) (Af )
15% 10% 25% 25% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 100%
F0772 2,00 1,00 3,00 3,10 3,30 4,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 2,54

F0108 2,00 3,00 2,00 4,70 4,30 4,00 2,00 5,00 1,00 3,09

F0084 4,00 3,00 2,00 4,10 3,90 4,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 3,17

F0443 2,00 5,00 3,00 3,60 4,70 4,00 1,00 5,00 1,00 3,24

F0786 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,20 4,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 3,81

F0518 3,00 3,00 3,00 4,40 3,10 1,00 5,00 3,00 4,00 3,41

F0115 4,00 3,00 1,00 2,50 3,40 3,00 1,00 3,00 2,00 2,40

F0425 4,00 5,00 2,00 4,50 3,20 4,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 3,54

F0949 3,00 5,00 1,00 4,90 3,70 1,00 2,00 5,00 2,00 3,11

F0811 2,00 3,00 4,00 4,40 4,70 2,00 5,00 3,00 2,00 3,54

F0585 2,00 2,00 3,00 3,90 3,70 1,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 2,81

F0095 3,00 4,00 2,00 4,10 3,90 4,00 1,00 3,00 4,00 3,17

F0525 5,00 4,00 4,00 4,90 3,10 4,00 1,00 5,00 3,00 4,18

F0063 3,00 3,00 2,00 4,90 3,10 3,00 2,00 3,00 1,00 3,08

F0721 4,00 2,00 4,00 4,60 3,10 2,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 3,56

F0085 4,00 3,00 4,00 3,40 4,80 4,00 4,00 3,00 1,00
3,59

F0096 4,00 3,00 1,00 3,50 4,60 4,00 4,00 5,00 5,00 3,16

F0314 3,00 5,00 2,00 4,40 4,50 4,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 3,38

F0974 3,00 2,00 2,00 4,20 4,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 5,00 2,95

F0106 2,00 3,00 3,00 4,20 4,20 4,00 2,00 5,00 1,00 3,21

F0620 3,00 3,00 4,00 4,80 4,50 3,00 1,00 3,00 3,00 3,68

F0087 3,00 5,00 1,00 3,20 3,80 3,00 4,00 5,00 2,00 2,89

F0088 2,00 2,00 4,00 4,30 3,20 4,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 3,19

F0103 2,00 3,00 1,00 3,00 4,40 3,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 2,47

F0065 3,00 3,00 2,00 4,90 3,40 1,00 5,00 3,00 1,00 3,15

F0750 3,00 4,00 3,00 3,90 3,80 2,00 5,00 5,00 3,00
3,52

F0015 4,00 5,00 4,00 4,40 4,30 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 3,92
 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472 1471
V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 11

Table 14. Final classification of the supplier.

Classification Quantity
Inappropriate 10
Adequate 14
Preferred 3

Fig. 3 represents a radar chart, which shows the variation of the four main indicators in relation to the suppliers
evaluated, as well as the average of each of the indicators. Each line represents one of the main parameters evaluated
by the model and each “Fxxxx” represent the classification obtained by the different suppliers considered in this study
for those parameters. The best suppliers are the ones able to get the highest classification (most external plotted values)
taking into account the main parameters in the radar graph. Thus, it is possible to realize that the surface finishing
(A’s) obtains an average evaluation of 4.10, superior to the other three indicators. This points out that this is the main
expertise of the suppliers, but it must be accompanied by the others. The case no longer becomes so positive for the
cost (C‘) and for rigour in delivery time (R'pe), presenting average values of 3.37 and 3.07, respectively. With the
lowest mean the dimensional rigour (R'd) with an average of 2.63.
According to the weights assigned by indicator, with the exception of surface finishing (A’s), the trend should be
exactly the opposite. Recalling Table, it would be more positive to suppliers for greater dimensional accuracy and
greater accuracy in the delivery period, since they represent, respectively, 25% and 15% of the final evaluation (Af).
The values of the cost (C’) are well positioned, although they represent only 10% of the final evaluation (Af).

Fig.3. Radar chart of the four main indicators.

4. Conclusion

A supplier evaluation model has been developed through this work, which includes and evaluates the following
indicators: Strictness in delivery date (R'pe), cost (C'), dimensional accuracy (R'd), surface finishing (A’s), rework (R’),
location (L'fe), services provided (S'p), certifications (Ce') and emergency response (R'urg). After evaluating each
indicator, weights were assigned, in order to balance the model, thus arriving at the final evaluation (Af) (Equation
10). The result of the final evaluation (Af) allows obtaining the following classification: inadequate, adequate or
preferential. The model was successfully applied in an SME, through a case study in the machining area. In this way,
it is proved that the model is easily applicable through a spreadsheet (MS Excel®). This model, besides the suppliers’
classification, also allows identifying where they fail, helping in the identification and resolution of existing problems,
through the possibility to send to supplier’s improvement actions instructions.
1472 V. Ferreira et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 38 (2019) 1461–1472
12 V. Ferreira et al./ Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Acknowledgements
Radu Godina would like to acknowledge financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (grant
UID/EMS/00667/2019).

References

[1] R. M. Gouveia, F. J. G. Silva, P. Reis and A. P. M. Baptista, Machining Duplex Stainless Steel: Comparative Study Regarding End Mill
Costed Tools, Coatings 6 (2016) 51-56. DOI: 10.3390/coatings6040051.
[2] R. P. Martinho, F. J. G. Silva and A. P. M. Baptista, Cutting forces and wear analysis of Si3N4 diamond coated tools in high-speed machining,
Vacuum 82 (2008) 1415-1420. DOI: 10.1016/j.vacuum.2008.03.065.
[3] C. Costa, F. J. G. Silva, R. M. Gouveia and R. P. Martinho, Development of hydraulic clamping tools for the machining of complex shape
mechanical components, Procedia Manufacturing 17, (2018) 563-570. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.097.
[4] R. P. Martinho, F. J. G. Silva, C. Martins and H. M. Lopes, Comparative study of PVD and CVD cutting tools performance in machining of
duplex, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, in Press. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-019-03351-8..
[5] G. B. Silva, F. J. G. Silva, R. D. S. G. Campilho and R. M. Gouveia, Designing a Novel Feeding System for CNC Turning Machines,
Procedia Manufacturing 17 (2018) 1144-1153. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.020.
[6] H. C. García and K. Castillo, Simulation-based model for the optimization of machining parameters in a metal-cutting operation, Simulation
Modelling Practice and Theory 84 (2018) 204-221. DOI: 10.1016/j.simpat.2018.02.008.
[7] D. R. Krause, R. B. Handfield, T. V. Scannell, An empirical investigation of supplier development:Reactive and strategic processes, Journal
of Operations Management 17 (1998) 39-58. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-.
[8] C. Araz, P. M. Ozfirat, I. Ozkaraham, An integrated multicriteria decision-making methodology for outsourcing management, Computers &
Operations Research 34 (2007) 3738-3756. DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2006.01.014.
[9] S. Talluri, R. Narasimhan e W. Chung, Manufacturer cooperation in supplier development under risk, European Journal of Operational
Research 207 (2010) 165-173. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.041.
[10] N. A. Costa, L. T. Carvalho, H. G. Menezes, E. L. L. M. Harano e R. G. G. Rezende, Avaliação Parametrizada De Fornecedores De Materiais,
Tecnologiammm 3 (2006) 11-17. DOI: 10.4322/tmm.00302003.
[11] M. Tavana, A. Fallahpour, D. D. Caprio e F. J. S. Arteaga, A hybrid intelligent fuzzy predictive model with simulation for supplier evaluation
and selection, Expert Systems with Applications 61 (2016) 129-144. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.05.027.
[12] R. Narasimhan and S. Talluri, Perspectives on risk management in supply chains, Journal of Operations Management 27 (2009) 114-118.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2009.02.001.
[13] T. Wu and J. Blackhurst, Supplier evaluation and selection: an augmented DEA approach, International Journal of Production Research 47
(2009) 4593-4608. DOI: 10.1080/00207540802054227.
[14] M. Zeydan, C. Çolpan, C. Çobanoğluc, A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation, Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (2011) 2741-2751. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064.
[15] R. Alikhani, S. A. Torabi, N. Altay, Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria, International Journal of Production
Economics 208 (2018) 69-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.018.
[16] K. Govindan, R. Khodaverdi, A. Jafarian, A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on
triple bottom line approach, Journal of Cleaner Production 47 (2013) 345-534. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014.
[17] P. Ghadimi, A. H. Azadnia, C. Heavey, A. Dolgui, B. Can, A review on the buyer–supplier dyad relationships in sustainable procurement
context: past, present and future, International Journal of Production Research 54 (2016) 1443-1462. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2015.1079341.
[18] S. Purchase and X. Lin, , Investigating supplier selection using repertory grid technique, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Service
Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (2006) 432-435. DOI: 10.1109/SOLI.2006.329042.
[19] A. Manello and G. Calabrese, The influence of reputation on supplier selection: An empirical study of the European automotive industry,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.pursup.2018.03.001.
[20] T. Fujimoto, The Japanese automobile parts supplier system: the triplet of effective, Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 1 (2001) 1-34. DOI:
10.1504/IJATM.2001.000024.
[21] D. W. Birchall, G. Tovstiga, J.-J. Chanaron, Capabilities in strategic knowledge sourcing and assimilation: a new look at innovation in the
automotive industry, Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 1 (2001) 78-91. DOI: 10.1504/IJATM.2001.000028.
[22] G. Calabrese, Innovation capabilities in small-medium autocomponents: evidence from Italy, Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 1 (2001)
471-489. DOI: 10.1504/IJATM.2001.000053.
[23] T. Y. Choi, J. L. Hartley, An exploration of supplier selection practices across the supply chain, J. Oper. Manag. 14, (1996) 333-343.DOI:
10.1016/S0272-6963(96)00091-5.
[24] L. Hüttinger, H. Schiele, J. Veldman, The drivers of customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction and preferred customer status: a literature
review, Ind. Mark. Manag. 41 (2012) 1194-1205. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.10.004.
[25] S. Talluri, S. Narasimhan, A methodology for strategic sourcing, European Journal of Operational Research 154(1) (2004) 236-250. DOI:
10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00649-5.