You are on page 1of 36

Vendor Evaluation

Triburg///

Megha Shree DFMP11462

TRIBURG///

MR. TARUN BAKSHI CHAIRMAN

COMPANY OVERVIEW

Established in 1980

Providing technical and sourcing services for textile apparel, leather apparel, leather outerwear, accessories and home products Vendor base of 85 factories 2012 - Sourced 42.5 million garments and 5 million units of accessories, leather and home products Shipping turnover USD 440 Million

OPERATIONS

BRANDS
WOMENS WEAR: Ann Taylor Izod Ladies J Crew Nordstrom American Eagle New York & Company DKNY
MENS WEAR

Polo Ralph Lauren


Izod Knits Calvin Klein Timberland J Crew

American Eagle

TJX Group CHILDRENS WEAR


TJ Maxx TK Maxx

J Crew
AEO 77 Kids American Living Chaps

TJ MAXX GROUP
The largest international apparel and home fashions off-price

department store chain in the TJ MAXX United States


TK Maxx in Europe and Canada Off-price mission

- Deliver a rapidly changing assortment of fashionable,

quality, brand name, merchandise


- at prices that are 20-60% less than department and specialty store regular prices

BRIEF OF THE PROBLEM

Most of the Organizations are aiming at:


Reducing the cost Providing the product at competitive price With best of the quality to their customer

Organization to achieve their goals :


Vendors supply the Raw Material at competitive price and of good quality

Achieving the Objectives of Organization:


Vendor Evaluation is found to be very crucial

Vendor Evaluation will enable:


To choose the most appropriate vendor for a specific requirement Continuous monitoring of existing supply relationships

Important factor to the success of the companys quality control function


The high quality of vendors product On time Deliverys

To achieve the companys goals


Quality Time commitment of vendors is essential

To issue instructions and procedures for the evaluation, approval and auditing of incoming-material from Vendor or manufacturers

Buying House-Vendors Relationship


The evaluation of quality and time program is joint vendor-buying house activity, and when properly accomplished, is mutually beneficial for all parties concerned. The vendor evaluates his quality program to be sure that program is accomplishing its intended functions effectively and economically

Buyers and vendors work closely with each other

The vendor can be better informed about what the actual preferences of the ultimate customer are

WHY VENDOR EVALUATION?

Customers all over the world


More aware and choosy. More selective in terms of price and quality. Necessary to provide products of best quality at required time and at competitive price

The buying house evaluates his vendors quality program


Vendor is capable of producing the desired quality product. By establish a ranking system and providing a numerical value.

Vendors are selected on the basis of their performance


Meeting the deadlines Rapport in the market, Lead time, No. Of machines The man power The buyer The financial position The credit period

Buyer

Buying Office

Vendor

Triburg is a mediator - ensures there is no weak link in the supply chain By auditing their vendor through year around continual process which includes Appraisals of various aspects of business including capacity Financials Quality assurance Organizational structure Processes and performance of all vendors. After Auditing vendor is either approved or not approved as one from whom to procure materials or services. The process of auditing performance can motivate vendors to improve their performance.

Approved Vendors
Triburg ensures that approved vendor is: Technically sound Managerially competent Adequately resourced Financially stable Competitive (often in terms of price and availability Reliable Provides goods of suitable quality Environmentally/Ethically sound

VENDOR EVALUATION IS NOT DONE IN

TRIBURGS TEAM TJX GROUP

RESEARCH GRID
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES RESEARCH DESIGN DATA COLLECION METHODS SAMPLE SIZE SAMPLE FRAME SAMPLING UNIT

To understand the process of Exploratory evaluating the Vendors in buying office

Primary (Interview) (QA & Sr. Merchants)

Triburg

2 QA & 4 Senior Merchants

Theme Gupta Exim To evaluate the performance of different Vendor using Vendors Rating methods. Primary (Inspection Report & Questionnaire) 5 RR Trends Shri Laxmi Dassan Secondary (Internet, Articles, Journals) Delhi & Gurgaon

Descriptive

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
RO1# To understand the process of auditing the Vendors in Triburg

The parameters used by Triburg to audits their Vendors

TRIBURG AUDIT

Process Inspection

Requirement

Factory Observation

Triburg Observation

Comments

TRIBURG AUDIT
Process Inspection
Pre-production
Preparation Pattern Marker Fabric inspection Spreading Cutting

Sewing
Finishing/Final Trimming Re-Screen/Repair Measurement Visual/ construction Final Audit

SCORING BY TRIBURG
Overal lAssessment Summay Production Process Max. Scoring Metric Applicable Individua Points l Score 1. Fabric and Trims 70 Outstanding 93% - 100% Control 27.5 2. Sample / Marker Room 50 21 Excellent 82% - 92% 3. Pre-production Meeting 50 15 Satisfactory 70% - 81% 4. Cutting Control 50 9 Fair 60% - 69% 5. Fusing Control 10 0 Poor 0% - 59% 6. Sewing Control 60 15 7. In-Process Inspection 20 Overall meet AT Rate - 10 pts 6 expectation 8. Washed Gmt Control 20 Satisfactory, but need Rate - 7 pts 0 improvement 9. Pressing Control 20 Not acceptable, Rate - 3 pts 6 improvement needed 10. Finishing Control 50 No such concept Rate - 0 pt 15 implementation 11. House-Keeping 50 Not Applicable N/A Condition 3 Total Score 450 117.5 Score Percent

Triburg Inspection

26%

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
RO2#
To evaluate the performance of different Vendors using

Vendor Rating method

TJX- GROUP-VENDORS
5 Different Vendors are named as:
V1Theme (Okhla)
V5- RR Trends (Gurgaon) V2Dassan (Gurgaon)

V4- Gupta Exim( Gurgaon)

V3- Shri Laxmi( Noida)

For evaluating the 5 vendors on the below selected parameters of a specific buyer (TK &TJ MAXX) These vendors are ranked on following parameters Facilities Quality Control Systems Incoming Material Inspection In Process Quality Control Baby wear product Specific Communication, Document Control and Work Movement

WEIGHTING
Communication, Document Control and Work Movement Baby wear product Specific
1

In Process Quality Control Incoming Material Inspection Quality Control Systems

Weighting
2

Facilities

(Sahay, 1999)

)Weighting

10

Average score

Vendors

Facilities

Quality Control Systems

Incoming Material Inspection

In Process Quality Control

Baby wear product Specific

Communication , Document Control and Work Movement

Score

Score/Weighing

V1

42 x 2 84

44 x 2 88

64 x 2 128

54 x 2 108

51 x 1 51

46 x 1 46 505

505/10 50.5

V2

32 x 2
64

45 x 2
90 42 x 2 84 39 x 2 78 40 x 2

66 x 2
132 63 x 2 126 56 x 2 112 58 x 2

47 x 2
94 51 x 2 102 51 x 2 102 49 x 2

55 x 1
55 54 x 1 54 47 x 1 47 51 x 1

39 x 1
39 43 x 1 43 40 x 1 40 40 x 1 441 487 474

474/10
47.4 487/10 48.7 441/10 44.1 457/10 457

V3

39 x 2 78

V4

31 x 2 62

V5

36 x 2

72

80

116

98

51

40

45.7

Triburg inspection

(Sahay, 1999)

Weighted Average Score 50.5

Factory Inspection

48.7 47.4 45.7

44.1

V1 Vendor (v) Theme (V1) Dassan (V2) Shri Laxmi (V3) Gupta Exim (V4) RR Trends (V5)

V2

V3

V4

V5

Weighted average Rank score 50.5 1 47.4 3 48.7 2 44.1 5 45.7 4 Triburg Vendor Inspection observati

Shipment Status
On TIME LATE

Shipment Status

10% 40% 90% 60%

20%

30%

50%

80%

70%

50% RR Trends Rank 1 4 2 3 5

Theme Vendors Theme Dassan Shri Laxmi Gupta Exim RR Trends

Dassan

Shri Laxmi

Gupta Exim Late 10% 40% 20% 30% 50%

On-time shipment 90% 60% 80% 70% 50%

TMS(Triburg Merchandising System) entri

Parameters (Weighting 1)

Theme

Dassan

Shri laxmi

Gupta Exim

RR Trends

Infrastructure

(0.1)

23 x 0.1 2.3

20 x 0.1 2 21x 0.05 1.05 19x 0.05 0.95 22x 0.2 4.4

21 x 0.1 2.1 20x 0.05 1 20x 0.05 1 21x 0.2 4.2

19 x 0.1 1.9 23x 0.05 1.15 21x 0.05 1.05 22x 0.2 4.4

22 x 0.1 2.2 22x 0.05 1.1 21x 0.05 1.05 19x 0.2 3.8

Questionnaire -QA &Sr. Merchandiser

Design and Product Development(0.05)

20 x 0.05 1

Expertise of staff

(0.05)

22x 0.05 1.1

Price

(0.2)

23 x 0.2 4.6

Quality

(0.3)

22 x 0.3
6.6

21x 0.3
6.3 22x 0.3 6.6 21 x 0.1 2.1 23.4

20x 0.3
6 23x 0.3 6.9 24 x 0.1 2.4 23.6

20x 0.3
6 22x 0.3 6.6 21 x 0.1 2.1 23.2

19x 0.3
5.7 21x 0.3 6.3 20 x 0.1 2 22.15

On-Time Delivery

(0.3)

24 x 0.3 7.2

Social and Envionmental

(0.1)

22 x 0.1 2.2

Weighted Average Score

25

(Sahay, 1999)

Questionnaire filled by 4 senior merchants and 2

Weighted Average Score 25

-QA &Sr. Merchandiser

Questionnaire

23.4

23.6 23.2 22.15

Theme Vendors Theme Dassan Shri Laxmi Gupta Exim RR Trends

Dassan

Shri laxmi

Gupta Exim

RR Trends Rating 1 3 2 4 5

Weighted Average Score 25 23.4 23.6 23.2 22.15

FINAL SCORES:
Vendor (v)
Theme (V1) Shri Laxmi (V3) Dassan (V2) RR Trends (V5) Gupta Exim (V4)

Weighted average score


50.5 48.7 47.4 45.7 44.1

Rank
1 2 3 4 5

Vendors
Theme Shri Laxmi Gupta Exim Dassan RR Trends

On-time shipment
90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

Late
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Rank
1 2 3 4 5

Vendors
Theme Shri Laxmi Dassan Gupta Exim RR Trends

Weighted Average Score


25 23.6 23.4 23.2 22.15

Rating
1 2 3 4 5

THEME

Factory Inspection

CONCLUSION

GUPTA EXIM

THEME

Shipment Status
RR Trends

Questionnaire
QA & Sr. Merchandiser

THEME

RR Trends

TJX Group- 1ST Preference- Deliveries and Quality-Theme

RECOMMENDATION
Vendor evaluation is important as it can reduce supply chain costs and improve the quality and timeliness of the delivery of items to the company Vendor performance has to be measured occasionally for the following reasons To increase performance visibility To uncover and remove hidden waste and cost drivers in the supply chain To leverage the supply base To align customer and supplier business practices To mitigate risk To improve supplier performance

BENEFITS

Reducing the size of vendor matrix for better and long term business relations Provides more transparency in supply chain, from customer to supplier or vice versa. Reduce workload for Merchant/ QA/ Vendor/ management Efficient working, less manpower required in Triburg More business more profits with less no of hands. Less Rejections/Wastage, more Margins for factory More Margins , gives an hand to Vendor to offer better price to customer( in-turn more business)

BENEFITS

Depending on the facility capability, styles can be allocated to vendor. No unnecessary costing/TNA with each and every Vendor Depending on facility capacity , no of units can be allocated to a vendor per product category

Depending on facility quality systems, more complicated style can be offered

Overbooking/incorrect allocation only leads to late deliveries and

quality rejection and in-turn affect business

REFERENCES
Ainamo, D. a. (1999). The Coevolution of New Organizational forms in

the Fashion Industry. Retrieved April 2, 2013, from academia.edu: http://www.academia.edu.


Alberto De Toni and Guido Nassimbeni (2001), 'A method for the

evaluation of suppliers co-design effort', International Journal of Production Economics, 72, 169-180
An Investigation on the relationship for supplier performance metrics

and supply chain strategies". Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology. Retrieved 2011-03-21.
Bohlinger, M. S. (2001). Merchandise Buying. Fairchild Publication, inc. Debra L. Stubbings. (1999). Supplier Evaluation Matrix. Retrieved April

4, 2013, from Institute For Supply Management: www.instituteforsupplymanagement.com


Doyle, Moore, & Morgan. (2006). Fashion Marketing and Management.

Fast Fashion .
Enrick, N. L. (1992). Quality Control For Profit. Marcel Dekker

Incorporated.

Gordon, S. R. (2008). Supplier Evaluation & Performance Excellence. J.

Ross Publishing.
kothari, c. (1985). research methodology, method & techniques (second

edition ed.). new age international pvt ltd


Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry

Giunipero (2008). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Cengage Learning. p. 810. ISBN 978-0-324-38134-4.
Sahay, B. S. (1999). Supply Chain Management. New Delhi: Rajiv Beri

for Macmillan India Ltd.


Stanley, L.L. (1994). An Empirical Study of the Link Between Buyer-

Supplier Relationships and Purchasing Performance. Tempe: Arizona State University


Summit. (2001). The Supply Chain Yearbook. McGraw-Hill. Triburg. (n.d.). Apparel Buying Agents. Retrieved March 29, 2013, from

http://www.triburg.com/
Weber. (1966). The Impact of selected Cultural Dimensions on

International Services Venor. United States: UMI Microform.


Wheelwright, & Clark. (1992). Managing Buyer- Supplier Relations. In

R. Nellore, Managing Buyer- Supplier Relations. Routledge Taylor and

You might also like