A STUDY ON VENDOR RATING AND VENDOR EVATUATION AT

BIG BAZAAR, COIMBATORE

ABHARNA S
MBA in Operation, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore, India
DR.R. VINAYAGASUNDARAM
Associate professor, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore, India

Abstract:
Vendors performance impacts the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation directly and indirectly. The
study aims to identify the best practices of supply in logistics department at Big Bazaar, Coimbatore. The main
objective of the research is to evaluate vendors and to ensure a portfolio of best in class vendors are available for the
supply. After review of related literature, Weighted Average method for rating vendors for different product categories
is selected. The performance of vendors is evaluated using five main criteria namely: Quality, Price, Delivery, Service
and Credit Period and 11 sub criteria under these five criteria. Coefficient of variation is calculated for the vendors to
ensure their quality of supply. Based on the idealised score, appropriate vendor for each product category is found.
Ranking is given based on the mean scores obtained by vendors during the period of six months. Vendors are classified
into three classes based on their mean ratings. The comparison between the sales performance of Vendors and
Warehouse products is interpreted using Gap Analysis to know the preference of products towards customers at Big
Bazaar.

Keywords: Criteria for Rating, Weighted Average Method, Coefficient of Variation, Vendor Evaluation

Supplier evaluation is also a process applied to current

I. INTRODUCTION suppliers in order to measure and monitor their performance for
Currently, innovations in the retail industry have brought the purposes of reducing costs, mitigating risk and driving
about a transformation in the shopping patterns of the customers continuous improvement. To identify the right supplier from the
with the majority of the shopping activities happening through pool of suppliers, the study identifies the appropriate strategy
online channels. With the prominent retail stores shifting toward based on weighted average method considering the factors such
an omnichannel strategy, businesses have started streamlining as quality, delivery, cost, etc.
their efforts to increase store activity, improve retailer It is important that this study examine important relevant
profitability, and boost online sales. To improve profitability criteria in selecting a best supplier. Similarly, performance-
and achieve greater business efficiency, supplier selection related criteria such as delivery reliability, availability and
becomes a major concern for retail stores. Supplier selection serviceability must also be assessed to meet the service levels
involves choosing the right suppliers from a pool of suppliers as set in service specifications and increase customer
by considering factors such as the value for money, quality, and satisfaction.
reliability. In this competitive supplier landscape, targeting the
right suppliers involves building an understanding the business II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
requirements and flaws in the supplier selection process to curb The supplier will supply the product as per the purchasing
instances of poor supplier performance, supply disruption, and order given to them. It is observed that the purchase order
inefficiencies. Moreover, an efficient supplier selection process sometimes expires when the supplier arrives to deliver at the
can help retail stores reduce the cost and time-to-market of the store and hence the store cannot purchase the products from the
products offered and promise better quality products to the supplier. The communication gap between the buyer and the
customers. supplier results in rejection of certain products and delay in
Supplier evaluation is a term used in business and refers to delivery. This non transparency creates a huge gap between the
the process of evaluating and approving potential suppliers by retailer and the supplier which leads to weakening of
quantitative assessment based on independent variables: relationship. The company does not review the performance of
quality, environment, organizational culture, employee vendors frequently. The problem arises when the payment for
competence, financial ability, production capacity and cost the supply is not made to the supplier and products will not be
factors. The purpose of supplier evaluation is to ensure a supplied correctly. The problems in supply or vendor
portfolio of best in class suppliers is available for use. management directly impact the effectiveness of the supply

1
chain. The study aims to evaluate the vendors at Big Bazaar and chain performance. The study tries to develop a tailored
review their performance for 6 months. platform with empirical approach to the suppliers. The key
concepts of the study are supplier performance management,
III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY supplier performance evaluation, key performance indicators
Primary Objective: and supplier scorecard. The evaluation of suppliers is based on
To conduct a study on Vendor performance and Delivery, Quality, Price, logistics, Customer Relationship and
Vendor evaluation at Big Bazaar, Coimbatore. Continuous improvement with their Tier I and Tier II sub
criteria. The performance of supplier is classified into four
Secondary Objective: groups based on the evaluated score. The study is limited to
• To develop vendor rating and evaluation system at Big supplier performance in textile and garment industry.
Bazaar, Coimbatore.
• To evaluate vendors using quantitative approach and Nathavat Sivapornpunlerd and Siri-on Setamanit (2014).
to classify vendors into classes. The author aims to develop performance evaluation system for
• To study the vendor’s performance and understand the the company with four criteria namely Quality, Price, Service
supplier strength and weakness. and Flexibility with eighteen sub criteria. The evaluation of
• To compare the performance of the supply between suppliers is calculated using AHP model. The data is obtained
vendor and warehouse. by questionnaire and pair wise judgements are made for criteria
and sub criteria. The results of this study proved that the most
IV. REVIEW OF LITERATURE important criteria for evaluating supplier performance is
delivery, service and flexibility.
Kurian John, Vinod Yeldho Baby, Georgekutty S. V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Mangalathu (2013). The author develops the supplier
Method of Data Collection:
evaluation and rating system through this study that
The data collected for this study is secondary type of
incorporates the organisations purchasing strategy and supplier
data. The data sources are obtained from the Big Bazaar supplier
selection criterions. In this study, the researcher used Analytical
list, Purchase Order and inward report from the Logistics in
Hierarchy Process methodology to evaluate and rate the
terms of Quantity supplied, Delivery time, Price of the products
suppliers which involves multiple criteria decisions. The study
supplied, Supplier Service and Payment terms of suppliers for a
focuses on the criteria factors like Quality, cost and delivery.
span of 6 months.
The paired comparison among the factors interprets how each
factor is related with one another. The ranking of the suppliers
Tools and Techniques Used:
based on the criteria and sub criteria are formulated using AHP
technique and an ideal score shows the performance of all the • Weighted Average
suppliers with respect to the organisation. • Coefficient of Variations
• Gap Analysis
Mr. Smrutiranjan Mohanty and Dr.Balaji.M. Dabade Weightage for evaluating vendors:
(2015). The author tries to investigate the supplier evaluation Main
Weightage Sub Criteria Weightage
approach in Indian Telecom Service Provider using AHP Criteria
technique. In this study three strategic factors defining criteria Defect Rate 50%
and sub criteria are identified and then the structured model for Packaging 30%
selection of vendors for telecommunication firm is proposed. QUALITY 30%
The model enables the managers and decision makers to easily Flexibility 20%
identify the strength and weakness of vendor systems by Price Level 40%
comparing with different criteria and sub criteria. The further
study can be extended by increasing the number of evaluators Discount 35%
PRICE 25%
and different possible criteria subject to the industry. Tax 25%
On time
Thayala Guru (2014). The researcher seeks to identify the 40%
Delivery
performance of vendor in service sector – Hotel industry. The
evaluation of vendors is calculated using weighted average DELIVERY 20% Accuracy 50%
method. The factors such as quality, ontime delivery, price Replacement 10%
terms and creditability are considered to evaluate the
Information
performance of suppliers at Vivanta. The results indicate that 60%
Sharing
Dhal Toor are supplied high in number and Alagar has obtained
SERVICE 10% Problem
the highest score for his performance. 40%
Resolve
Huong Nguyen (2013). The researcher concentrates on CREDIT
15%
measuring the performance of suppliers based on the supply PERIOD

2
 74.5 and is comparatively higher than the other vendors of Dairy
Classification of Vendors: products. Active Agencies stands second in Vendor evaluation
and it also shown constant growth after April.
Rating Obtained Class of Vendor
Vendor Avera
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Name ge
>75 A
Oven 70.6 74.4 71.9 77.5 70. 74.339
80.9
Fresh 8 75 3 1 54 17
65-75 B
Choco 75.1 74.5 71.8 75.5 76. 74.641
74.4
Garden 5 5 5 5 35 67
<65 C
Nilgiris 62.0 57.6 62.4 65.4 65.4 60. 62.310
Table 2. Vendor Classification Pvt.Ltd 5 5 37 25 5 85 33
Arumug
VI. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION am 66.1 72.8 73.1 70.9 73. 70.938
69.4
Weighted Average calculation for vendors for each product Distribut 5 5 75 75 08 33
ers
category
SKM
Univers
61.1 69.4 67.8 73.2 65. 66.654
Vendor al 63
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Average 9 9 4 25 18 17
Name Marketi
ng
Nilgiris 66.87 70.87 64.2 66.6041 R.R 75.9 65.5 73.2 72.6 70.7 64.
62.52 65.075 70.07 70.45
Dairy 5 5 1 7 stores 5 4 4 7 5 55
Amman
Yakult 58.81 64.202 72.50 75.7 68.2055 73.7 70.8 66.3 69.2 68.8 71. 70.141
Danone 5
71.17
5 6
66.8
4 8
Agencie
25 25 9 1 5 85 67
s
Epigamia 69.82 62.2 Table 4. Rating of Vendors in Bakery
75.11 71.2 73.21 70.15 70.2875
Ltd. 5 3
Performance of Vendors in Bakery
Dhaanya 71.3 74.5016
75.14 72.04 77.34 76.54 74.64
Creasion 1 7 100
74.4 75.15 74.55 71.85 75.55 76.35
80
Tirumala 56.0 55.1933
54.25 53.3 53.4 54.5 59.7 60
milk 1 3
40
Active 77.07 79.77 78.6
70.15 64.975 73.79 74.0625 20
Agencies 5 5 1
0
Table 3. Rating of Vendors in Dairy Products Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Performance of Vendors in Dairy Products Oven Fresh

Choco Garden
100
75.14 77.34 76.54 74.64 Nilgiris Pvt.Ltd
80 72.04 71.31
Arumugam Distributers
60
SKM Universal Marketing Company India Pvt. Ltd.
40
20 Fig 2. Vendor Performance in Bakery
0
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
It is interpreted that Choco garden has shown the consistent
performance over a period of 6 months with the average rating
Nilgiris Dairy Farm Pvt.Ltd Yakult Danone India Pvt.Ltd of 74.64 who is the appropriate vendor for the category Bakery
Epigamia Ltd. Dhaanya Creasion Products Pvt. Ltd
products. It is evident that all other vendors are competent to
each other and strives to show their growth gradually in every
Tirumala milk products Pvt. Ltd Active Agencies month.
Fig 1. Vendor performance in Dairy Products

It is interpreted that Dhaanya Creasion Products Pvt. Ltd is the

appropriate vendor for the Dairy Category. Dhaanya Creasion
has shown consecutive growth for the 6 months (Feb – June).
The average performance of Dhaanya for 6 months period is

3
Vendor Ap Avera Fig 4. Vendor Performance in Staple
Feb Mar May Jun Jul
Name r ge
67.4 73. 70.9 69.3 72.324 Performance of Vendors in Staples
Durga 74.9 77.3
5 95 78 7 67
Suriyan 76.0 77.0 62. 75.2 74.8 100 84.39 78.13 76.37 78.08 76.9
78.4 74.075 64.45
Cottage 6 9 8 5 5
50
Salem 69.1 64.0 67. 67.2 70.8 66.0 67.536
Pets 8 5 84 7 7 1 67
0
Sampurn 68.1 68.9 69. 70.8 68.2 68.0 68.924
am 4 6 2 7 84 95 83 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Shri 71.8 60.1 74. 74.0 57.9 61.4 66.679 Sindhu Agencies
Hari 75 84 67 1 15 25 83
Pride 70.4 68.1 60. 71.3 69.5 67.1 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Pvt.Ltd
67.9
Foods 3 2 82 7 3 3 Future Consumer Limited
Raghven 73.3 71.2 68. 61.0 69.3 72.0
69.178 Varadharajan Enterprises
k 1 4 05 98 4 3
Shri 74.4 65.9 74. 74.0 65.8 66.0 70.161 Sheetal Dryfruit Stores
Lakshya 4 4 52 9 9 9 67
Table 5. Rating of Vendors in Processed Food
It is found that Sindhu Agencies has shown little decrease in its
performance in a period of six months but stands first in ranking
Performance of Vendors in Processed Food
among other vendors in staples category. The mean rating of
100 76.06 77.09 62.8
Sindhu Agencies is 76.39. The ratings of Sheetal Dryfruit Stores
75.25 74.85 78.4
have improved consistently from 67.8 to 75.16 within six
50
months.

Vendor
0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Average
Name
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Samsonite
Durga Enterprises Salem Pets South 79.37 79.5 78.3 75.55 79.47 70.36 77.09167
Asia
Sampurnam Enterprises Shri Hari Enterprises
Pride Foods Raghvenk Industries Safari 79.97 81.4 83.1 78.64 81.74 80.7 80.925

Shri Lakshya Enterprises VIP

Industries 78.5 73.6 80.27 69.1 71.83 76.4 74.95
Fig 3. Vendor Performance in Processed Foods Ltd
It is interpreted that Suriyan Cottage Industries is the best Table 7. Ratings of Vendors in Luggage
vendor for the Processed Food products and it has shown the
consistent growth from 76.06 to 78.4 in a span of 6 months. The Performance of Vendors in Luggage
average rating of Suriyan Cottage Industries is 74.07 which is
higher than other vendors of this particular category. 100 79.97 81.4 83.1 78.64 81.74 80.7
Sampurnam Enterprises maintained the same level of rating
throughout the six months, the organisation shall take certain 50
measures to improve their performance in upcoming supplies.
0
Vendor Ma Ma Avera
Feb Apr Jun Jul Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Name r y ge
Sindhu 84.3 78.1 76.3 64.4 78.0
76.9 76.39 Samsonite South Asia Pvt.Ltd Safari Industries (India) Ltd.
Agencies 9 3 7 5 8
Sresta 79.3 74.0 70.4 75.0 79.1 79.4 VIP Industries Ltd
76.27
Natural 8 2 6 6 9 9
Future 66.6 56.5 67.7 60.5 51.4 46.9 Fig 5. Vendor Performance in Luggage
58.29 It is found that Safari Industries is the appropriate
Consumer 2 3 3 1 3 3
Varadhara 75.2 71.7 65.4 72.7 vendor for Luggage and it has shown the consistent growth over
67.3 71.1 70.59
jan 2 2 5 7 a period of 6 months from 79.9 to 80.7 with the average rating
Sheetal 67.8 73.8 74.8 71.0 66.1 75.1 of 80.9. Samsonite South Asia Pvt Ltd has drop of rating from
71.47
Dryfruit 6 2 2 2 2 6 February to July with minor decrease levels, the organisation
can provide better opportunity to sustain and improve its
performance in future supplies.

4
 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Average
Acme 80.8 81.1
73.9 73.9 80.9
78.0 78.1283 Performance of Vendors in Home Fashion
Distributor 5 4 8 3
TTK 100
78.3 65.2 74.9383 81.1 76.45 79.2 76.35 73.89
Prestige 80.3 61.9 81.9 81.9 80 67.75
8 5 3
Ltd
Stylo 60
71.4 68.5 74.9 71.6 67.1 71.4466
Tableware 74.9 40
4 7 3 7 7 7
s
Jagadamb 74.9 75.8 81.6 79.2 79.1383 20
81.5 81.5
a Cutlery. 8 9 9 7 3 0
Stove 79.6 76.9 77.0 77.4433
Kraft Ltd 4
75.5 77.8 77.8
1 1 3
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
3M India 75.7 80.1 80.1 78.2 78.7 78.5583
78.2 Funskool Lakshmigraha Worldwide Inc.
Ltd. 2 9 9 9 6 3
72.7 68.2 68.2 81.7 71.8 Welspun Global Brands Limited Concept Home Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
Butterfly 75.3 73.03
3 6 6 9 4
Table 8. Ratings of Vendors in General Merchandise Fig 7. Vendor Performance in Home Fashion

Lakshmigraha WorldWide Inc. has the highest mean

Vendor Performance in General Merchandise rating of 75.79 and outstands in the performance among the
100 three vendors in Home Fashion products. Welspun Global
81.5 81.5 81.69 79.27 Brands Limited has shown the tremendous increase in ratings
74.98 75.89
80 from 58.3 to 78.6 and withstands its second position in overall
60 rating.
40
Classification of Vendors based on Ratings:
20
Category Vendor Name Mean Class
0 Nilgiris Dairy Farm Pvt.Ltd 66.6 B
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Yakult Danone India Pvt.Ltd 68.21 B
Epigamia Ltd. 70.29 B
DAIRY
Dhaanya Creasion Products Pvt. Ltd 74.5 B
Acme Distributors Pvt. Ltd TTK Prestige Ltd Tirumala milk products Pvt. Ltd 55.19 C
Active Agencies 74.06 B
Stylo Tablewares Stove Kraft Ltd Oven Fresh 74.34 B
Choco Garden 74.64 B
Fig 6. Vendor Performance in General Merchandise Nilgiris Pvt.Ltd 62.31 C
BAKERY Arumugam Distributers 70.94 B
SKM Universal Marketing Company India Pvt. Ltd. 66.65 B
It is inferred that Jagadamba Cutlery Ltd. is the appropriate R.R stores 70.45 B
vendor for daily need products. It has shown consistent growth Amman Agencies 70.14 B
Durga Enterprises 72.32 B
from 74.98 to 80 for 6 months with the mean rating 79.13. Acme Suriyan Cottage Industries 74.08 B
Distributors and 3M India Pvt.Ltd has shown good performance Salem Pets 67.54 B
PROCESSED Sampurnam Enterprises 68.92 B
of supplies with the mean rating of 78. FOOD Shri Hari Enterprises 66.68 B
Pride Foods 67.9 B
Raghvenk Industries 69.18 B
Vendor Ma Ma Avera Shri Lakshya Enterprises 70.16 B
Feb Apr Jun Jul
Name r y ge Sindhu Agencies 76.39 A
Sresta Natural Bioproducts Pvt.Ltd 76.27 A
72.6 77.5 66.8 79.0 78.8 STAPLES Future Consumer Limited 58.29 C
Funskool 78.7 75.605 Varadharajan Enterprises 70.59 B
5 5 5 5 3
Sheetal Dryfruit Stores 71.47 B
Lakshmigr Samsonite South Asia Pvt.Ltd 77.09 A
LUGGAGE Safari Industries (India) Ltd. 80.93 A
aha 67.7 76.4 76.3 73.8
81.1 79.2 75.79 VIP Industries Ltd 74.95 B
Worldwide 5 5 5 9 Acme Distributors Pvt. Ltd 78.13 A
. TTK Prestige Ltd 74.94 B
Welspun Stylo Tablewares 71.45 B
75.8 73.0 71.0 68.8 78.6 GM Jagadamba Cutlery Ltd. 79.14 A
Global 58.3 70.965
5 5 5 5 9 Stove Kraft Ltd 77.44 A
Brands 3M India Ltd. 78.56 A
Concept Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances 73.03 B
76.3 55.7 76.1 67.7 75.7 65.5 69.548 Funskool 75.61 A
Home
5 8 2 8 4 2 33 HOME Lakshmigraha Worldwide Inc. 75.79 A
Textiles FASHION Welspun Global Brands Limited 70.97 B
Concept Home Textiles Pvt. Ltd. 69.55 B

Table 11. Classification of vendors

5
 The vendors with above 75 mean rating are categorised VII. FINDINGS, SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION
under A class, as they are highly preferred by the organisation
and showed their consistent growth in supply. Vendors who Findings:
secured the mean rating between 65 to 75 are classified into B • It is found that Dhaanya Creasion Products Pvt. Ltd is
class category and organisation’s second preference who grow the appropriate vendor for the Dairy Category. The
with the company and provide huge support in their supply. The mean rating of Dhaanya for 6 months period is 74.5
mean ratings below 65 are categorised into C class vendors as and is comparatively higher than the other vendors of
they are not consistent in their performance but striving to Dairy products.
provide good quality products to the organisation.
Gap Analysis between Vendor and Warehouse Products: • Choco garden has shown the consistent performance
over a period of 6 months with the average rating of
74.64 who is the appropriate vendor for the category
Sales of Vendor Products Bakery products.
20.00 15.50 • Suriyan Cottage Industries is the best vendor for the
15.00 Processed Food products and it has shown the
9.21 8.91
10.00 5.78 5.01 5.63 consistent growth from 76.06 to 78.4 in a span of 6
5.00 months.
0.00 • Sindhu Agencies is the appropriate vendor for the
feb mar apr may jun jul Staples category and it has the highest mean rating of
Dairy Bakery Proc.Food Staples 76.39.
Luggage GM Home Fashion • Safari Industries is the appropriate vendor for Luggage
and it has shown the consistent growth over a period of
Sales of Warehouse Products 6 months from 79.9 to 80.7 with the mean rating of
80.9.
15.00 13.00

10.00 8.10 7.90 • It is found that Jagadamba Cutlery Ltd. is the

5.00 4.54 4.60 appropriate vendor for daily need products. It has
5.00 shown consistent growth from 74.98 to 80 for 6 months
0.00 with the mean rating 79.13.
feb mar apr may jun jul
• Lakshmigraha WorldWide Inc. has the highest mean
Dairy Bakery Proc.Food Staples rating of 75.79 and outstands in the performance
among the three vendors in Home Fashion products.
Luggage GM Home Fashion
• Sampurnam Enterprises,Safari Industries and Stove
Fig 8. Comparison between the vendor and warehouse
Kraft Ltd. have minimum variation of 1% from the
products
mean rating and they are consistent in their supply.
The sales of all product categories increased to other extent in • The Processed Foods are sold high in number than all
the month of July. The mean sales of the product categories other product categories and showed consistent
purchased from vendors improved to 79% and Warehouse increase from 37% to 63%.
products improved to 66%. Processed Food products supplied
by vendors are highly sold with an increase of 57%. The sales • The mean sales of the product categories purchased
of staples inflated with 31% and Luggage increased to 80%. The from vendors improved to 79% and Warehouse
products from Warehouse elevated its level and tried to compete products improved to 66% in July 2019.
with vendor’s sales. The Bakery products from Warehouse are
sold more than the vendor. The performance of vendors shown Suggestions:
a consistent improvement from February to July, the mean sales • Vendor evaluation should be done on weekly basis so
have improved to 40% when compared with February. When that the performance of vendor can be improved that
comparing the movement of products purchased from vendors will benefit the organisation by. selling products of
and warehouse, it is found that products supplied by vendors are high quality with less damaged goods.
sold high in number than the own brand products.
• The organisation can keep only A Class vendors as
their high priority for their supply and B Class vendors
as their second priority list to meet huge demands and
to supplement the problems in supply.

6
 • Tirumala Milk Products Pvt. Ltd, Stylo Tablewares Conclusion:
and Shri Hari Enterprises are not consistent in their The vendor evaluation and performance system at Big
performance and obtained least mean rating during Bazaar, Coimbatore is performed using Weighted Average
February to July 2019. The organisation can decide to method and Coefficient of variation. The performance level of
eliminate these vendors which will reduce the vendors is found using an idealised score obtained in six months
purchasing cost and look for better alternatives in the period and appropriate vendor for each product category is
market. found. The ranking is done based on the mean ratings during
February to July 2019 for each product category. Vendors are
• The company should reduce the number of vendors in classified into three classes based on their mean rating obtained
Processed Food and General Merchandise category by during the period of six months. According to the results, the
keeping only the consistent supplies of Big Bazaar. In products purchased from vendors has shown consistent growth
Luggage and Home Fashion product category, the from February to July 2019.The gap analysis between the sales
company should look for better alternatives and of vendor and warehouse is made and found that products
increase best suited vendors of the appropriate product purchased from vendors are sold high in number in the study
category to supplement in case of any emergency. period. Through this study, it is observed that weighted average
score is appropriate method for evaluating vendors at Big
• The products supplied from local vendors are sold high Bazaar and it has great impact on the vendors performance.
in number than the products purchased from the
Warehouse, thus the organisation shall increase the
number of vendors for better quality of supply with VIII. FUTURE SCOPE
less damage.
The study covers only certain factors like Quality,
• The organisation shall reduce the quantity of products
Price, Delivery, Service and Credit Period and other factors can
while placing orders to Warehouse which will reduce
be included in future. The study limited to one method for
the amount of damages and expired products. The
evaluation of vendors. One can use statistical tools, other
management can try to improve the sales of products
adoptive methods or conceptual framework to evaluate vendors
brought from the Warehouse by availing discounts and
if further research needed. The study covers only the
customer loyalty programs in future.
quantitative aspects of the company, wherein the study can be
extended to cover the qualitative aspects also. The points given
to each criterion is researcher’s perspective and it can be altered
in future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT),

Volume 2, Issue 3
1. Rajesh Kumar Jain and Yatharth Krishna Rastogi (2012) 7. Hanna Hedin and Jessica Bjork (2015) (Thesis) “The
“Suppliers Evaluation: A Futuristic Approach” in Journal of management of supplier relationships for medium sized retail
Management Studies, Vol 2 companies: a three-dimensional segmentation model” in
2. KM Makhitha (2017) “Supplier selection criteria used by International Journal of Industrial Management Vol 8 Issue 3
independent retailers in Johannesburg, South Africa” in Journal 8. Dr. N. Nithya (2018) “Vendor Evaluation an Empirical Study
of Business and Retail Management Research (JBRMR), Vol. with Special Reference to A Valve Industry in Tamilnadu” in
11 Issue 3 International Journal of Management Studies, Vol 5 Issue 5
3. Mandave, H. A. and Khodke, P. M. (2010), “Vendor Rating: 9. Mr. Smrutiranjan Mohanty and Dr.Balaji.M. Dabade (2015)
A Tool for Quality in Supply Chain Management” in IUP “Vendor Selection for Service Sector Industry: A Case Study on
Journal of Supply Chain Management. Sep2010, Vol. 7 Issue 3 Supplier Selection to Indian Telecom Service Provider using
4. Aamer and Ammar Mohamed (2005), "Suppliers Evaluation AHP Technique” in IOSR Journal of Business and Management
and Selection: A Comprehensive Model to Minimize the Risk (IOSR-JBM)
Associated with Quality and Delivery. " PhD diss., University 10.Thayala Guru (2014) “Study on vendor evaluation and
of Tennessee, 2005. vendor rating at Vivanta, Taj Surya, Coimbatore” in Journal of
5. Narendra Agarwal, Stephen A. Smith and Andy A. Tsay Management Studies.
(2002) “Multi-vendor sourcing in retail supply chain” in 11.Huong Nguyen (2013). “Supplier performance evaluation
Production and Operations Management of USA, Volume 11 documentation and process in the textile and garment
Issue 2 manufacturing industry”, University of Applied Sciences.
6. Kurian John, Vinod Yeldho Baby, Georgekutty S. 12. Nathavat Sivapornpunlerd and Siri-on Setamanit (2014).
Mangalathu (2013), “Vendor Evaluation and Rating Using “Supplier Performance Evaluation: A Case Study of Thai
Analytical Hierarchy Process” in International Journal of Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration and Production Company”,
ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas, Vol 21 Issue 1