THE DESIGN OF AN ENHANCED SUPPLIER EVALUATION

SYSTEM FOR THE RUBBER CHEMICALS INDUSTRY

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Volume: 38
Issue 3
Pages: 315-319
Document ID: 2025PEMJ3666
DOI: 10.70838/pemj.380310
Manuscript Accepted: 05-08-2025
 Psych Educ, 2025, 38(3): 315-319, Document ID:2025PEMJ3666, doi:10.70838/pemj.380310, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

The Design of an Enhanced Supplier Evaluation System for the

Rubber Chemicals Industry

Ke Chen, Reynaldo N. Dusaran

For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.
Abstract
This study presents the design and qualitative evaluation of an enhanced supplier evaluation system tailored to the
rubber chemicals industry. In response to the limitations of traditional models that often overemphasize cost and
delivery metrics, the study adopts the ADDIE instructional design framework to develop a context-specific,
multidimensional assessment tool. Drawing from qualitative data collected through focus group discussions and expert
interviews across 35 rubber chemical firms in China, the research identifies key evaluation dimensions including
product quality standards, quality control systems, cost transparency, logistics performance, and on-time delivery. The
findings emphasize the increasing importance of supplier responsiveness, environmental accountability, and strategic
alignment in supplier selection processes. Thematic analysis reveals a strong preference for transparent pricing
structures, collaborative quality management, and digital procurement integration. Compared to previous models, the
proposed system offers a more holistic and adaptive approach to supplier evaluation, aligned with industry-specific
operational demands and sustainability objectives. The study contributes a practical framework for supplier
assessment that supports improved decision-making, long-term collaboration, and enhanced supply chain
performance.
Keywords: supplier evaluation, rubber chemicals industry, ADDIE model, qualitative research, supply chain
management, fuzzy logic, cost transparency, logistics performance

Introduction
In the rubber chemicals industry, supplier evaluation plays a pivotal role in ensuring the consistency, sustainability, and competitiveness
of production processes. The increasing complexity of global supply chains, heightened environmental regulations, and intensifying
market demands underscore the need for robust and adaptive supplier evaluation frameworks (Neely et al., 2002). While conventional
models such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
have been widely utilized (Luo & Peng, 2011; Huang & Wang, 2013), these methods often fall short in capturing the multifaceted and
dynamic criteria necessary in the modern rubber chemicals landscape.
Existing solutions typically emphasize cost, quality, and delivery performance (Weber et al., 2001), yet lack sufficient integration of
sustainability metrics, developmental capabilities, and real-time adaptability. Among these, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
method stands out for its ability to handle uncertainty and imprecise information (Wen & Feng, 2004). However, its implementation
often remains fragmented and not fully aligned with systematic instructional design principles or evolving industrial expectations
(Omurca, 2018).
The main limitation of current models is their limited responsiveness to contextual shifts, such as environmental pressures and the
digitalization of procurement processes (Wiśniewska et al., 2024). They also seldom incorporate stakeholder feedback mechanisms
that support continuous improvement and strategic alignment with industry goals (Bititci et al., 2012).
This study aims to address these gaps by designing and evaluating an enhanced supplier evaluation system for the rubber chemicals
industry using the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) instructional design model. Embedding fuzzy
logic into a systematic design framework, this research aspires to deliver a more holistic, adaptable, and industry-relevant evaluation
tool that enhances supplier assessment, promotes strategic collaboration, and strengthens the sustainability and resilience of supply
chains.

Methodology
Research Design
This study employed a developmental evaluation design guided by the ADDIE model Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation,
and Evaluation. The ADDIE framework, originally designed for instructional systems development, provides a systematic, iterative
process for designing, testing, and refining complex systems (DeBell, 2020). The model was adapted to structure the development of
an enhanced supplier evaluation system tailored to the rubber chemicals industry.
Operationalized through an input-process-output framework, the research commenced with an in-depth analysis of the existing supplier
Chen & Dusaran 315/319
 Psych Educ, 2025, 38(3): 315-319, Document ID:2025PEMJ3666, doi:10.70838/pemj.380310, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

evaluation system (input). This was followed by iterative phases of design, development, and pilot implementation (process),
culminating in the creation and assessment of the enhanced evaluation system (output). The integration of the ADDIE model ensured
systematic progression and adaptability across all research phases.
Respondents
Participants were drawn from 35 leading firms within the Chinese rubber chemicals industry, selected through purposive sampling.
Respondents included procurement officers, quality assurance specialists, and industry experts directly involved in supplier
management and evaluation. The evaluation phase incorporated both process and product assessments. Process data were obtained
through participant feedback during system implementation, while product data were collected via expert reviews and user ratings of
the system's functionality and usability.
Additionally, a focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted with ten volunteer participants to elicit qualitative feedback, refine
evaluation criteria, and identify emergent themes relevant to industry practices. This multi-source engagement ensured both practical
relevance and triangulation of findings.
Instrument
To capture rich, context-specific insights, a semi-structured qualitative instrument was developed based on the core dimensions of
supplier evaluation relevant to the rubber chemicals industry. The interview guide included open-ended prompts exploring supplier
quality management, responsiveness, pricing transparency, logistics performance, and delivery reliability. The guide was validated by
industry experts to ensure content relevance and clarity. Focus was placed on eliciting narratives that reveal underlying practices,
perceptions, and improvement needs related to supplier evaluation.
In addition, a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) protocol was designed to facilitate collective reflection and stakeholder dialogue among
selected participants who experienced the pilot implementation of the enhanced evaluation system. The instrument encouraged
participants to share operational challenges, supplier experiences, and strategic recommendations.
Procedure
Data collection was conducted over a four-month period (January to April 2025) across 35 leading rubber chemical companies in
China. Respondents were purposively selected based on their involvement in procurement, supplier evaluation, or quality assurance
functions. A total of 10 key informants participated in the FGDs, while additional qualitative feedback was gathered through in-depth
interviews with industry stakeholders.
All interviews and discussions were conducted in either Mandarin or English, depending on participant preference, and were audio-
recorded with informed consent. Transcriptions were produced verbatim and translated as needed for analysis. Field notes and reflexive
memos were also maintained to capture contextual nuances and researcher observations throughout the process.
Data Analysis
A thematic analysis approach was employed to interpret the qualitative data, following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase process: (1)
familiarization with the data, (2) generation of initial codes, (3) identification of patterns, (4) development of themes and subthemes,
(5) refinement of themes, and (6) production of a coherent narrative.
Transcripts were coded inductively, with emergent themes representing recurring supplier evaluation concerns and improvement
opportunities. Data were managed and organized using qualitative analysis software, and codes were cross-validated by a second
researcher to ensure credibility and minimize interpretive bias. The themes derived were used to inform the final design and refinement
of the enhanced supplier evaluation system.
Ethical Considerations
The study adhered to ethical research principles, ensuring informed consent, anonymity, and data confidentiality. Ethical clearance was
secured prior to data collection. The selection of evaluation indicators was governed by five guiding principles: comprehensiveness,
independence, universality, feasibility, and relevance to stakeholder interests. These principles were derived from industry-specific
literature and stakeholder consultations to ensure fairness and validity in supplier assessment.

Results and Discussion

Main Category Theme Subtheme
Product Quality Establishment of Quality Standards
Continuous Improvement and Training
Product Continuous Establishment of a Quality Management System
Improvement Supplier Response

Chen & Dusaran 316/319

 Psych Educ, 2025, 38(3): 315-319, Document ID:2025PEMJ3666, doi:10.70838/pemj.380310, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Quality Control System Supplier Quality Management

Enhance Market Competitiveness
Pricing Structure on the
Cost Transparency
Price Competitiveness Cooperative Relationship
Use of Digital Intelligence
Cost Transparency
Procurement System
Cost Transparency Providing Cost Structure Market Research
Providing Cost Structure Transparency Improvement
Communication of Changes in
Formal Notification Letter
Cost or Pricing Adjustments
Communication of Changes in Telephone Conference or Face-
Cost or Pricing Adjustments to-Face Meeting
Communication of Changes in
Market Announcement
Cost or Pricing Adjustments
Cost Control and Budget
Impact on the Overall Budget
Logistics Cost Optimization
Price Negotiation and Budget
Impact on the Overall Budget
Control
Risk Management and Budget
Impact on the Overall Budget
Stability
Efficiency and Quality of
Impact on Service Satisfaction
Logistics Service
Customized Service and
Impact on Service Satisfaction
Satisfaction Improvement
Long-Term Cooperation and
Impact on Service Satisfaction
Trust Building
Effective Communication of
Impact on Service Satisfaction
Logistics Cost Components
On-Time Delivery Ability to Deliver Products Reduce Supply Chain Disruption
Optimize Inventory
Ability to Deliver Products
Management
Improvement in Delivery Improved Accuracy of Delivery
Performance Time
Improvement in Delivery
Faster Response
Performance
Improvement in Delivery Technological Innovation and
Performance Application
Improvement in Delivery Customer Service and
Performance Satisfaction Improvement
Improvement in Delivery Environmental and Social
Performance Responsibility
Improvement in Delivery Enhanced Risk Management
Performance Capability

The thematic analysis of focus group discussions and expert interviews with procurement professionals from 35 rubber chemical
enterprises in China revealed seven principal categories that characterize the current practices and priorities in supplier evaluation.
These categories reflect the industry's evolving emphasis on strategic alignment, transparency, and operational responsiveness.
Under the domain of Product Quality, two dominant themes emerged. The Establishment of Quality Standards was identified as a
fundamental criterion, wherein participants highlighted the necessity of harmonized specifications, audit procedures, and objective
quality benchmarks. Alongside this, Continuous Improvement and Training was emphasized as essential for long-term supplier
development, with respondents citing training programs, technical collaboration, and iterative quality reviews as mechanisms to build
supplier capability.
In the area of Product Continuous Improvement, the presence of a formal Quality Management System was noted as a strategic
requirement. Such systems typically involved documentation, compliance tracking, and corrective protocols. Furthermore, Supplier
Response the supplier’s capacity to integrate feedback and swiftly adapt to changing technical and market demands was widely
considered a critical determinant of continued supplier engagement.
Chen & Dusaran 317/319
 Psych Educ, 2025, 38(3): 315-319, Document ID:2025PEMJ3666, doi:10.70838/pemj.380310, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

For the Quality Control System, two themes dominated: Supplier Quality Management, which encompassed internal inspection
processes, traceability, and defect prevention measures, and Enhancement of Market Competitiveness, where superior quality
performance was directly linked to the buying firm's product differentiation and customer satisfaction.
Regarding Price Competitiveness, Cost Transparency emerged as a key theme. Subthemes included a well-defined Pricing Structure
based on cooperative relationships, and the Use of Digital Intelligence Procurement Systems to facilitate real-time pricing analysis,
supplier benchmarking, and negotiation efficiency.
The broader category of Cost Transparency revealed a more nuanced view. The theme of Providing Cost Structure incorporated Market
Research and Transparency Improvement, where suppliers disclosed component-level costs and cost drivers. Another theme,
Communication of Changes in Cost or Pricing Adjustments, comprised varying methods such as Formal Notification Letters,
Telephone or Face-to-Face Meetings, and Market Announcements, each reflecting different levels of formality and strategic intent.
Within the Logistics Cost category, two themes were delineated. The Impact on the Overall Budget included subthemes such as Cost
Control and Budget Optimization, Price Negotiation and Budget Control, and Risk Management and Budget Stability, all of which
were considered vital to procurement planning and financial predictability. The second theme, Impact on Service Satisfaction, was
illustrated through subthemes like Efficiency and Quality of Logistics Services, Customized Service and Satisfaction Improvement,
Long-Term Cooperation and Trust Building, and Effective Communication of Logistics Cost Components.
Finally, the category of On-Time Delivery encapsulated concerns related to reliability and performance. The theme Ability to Deliver
Products was articulated through efforts to Reduce Supply Chain Disruption and Optimize Inventory Management. The theme
Improvement in Delivery Performance included six subthemes: Improved Accuracy of Delivery Time, Faster Response, Technological
Innovation and Application, Customer Service and Satisfaction Improvement, Environmental and Social Responsibility, and Enhanced
Risk Management Capability. These findings reflect an industry-wide transition from transactional supplier relationships to strategic
partnerships rooted in performance, innovation, and mutual value creation.

Conclusions
This study advances the field of supplier evaluation by proposing and qualitatively validating an enhanced evaluation framework
tailored to the specific operational, economic, and regulatory context of the rubber chemicals industry. Building upon the limitations
of existing models that overemphasize cost and delivery metrics (Weber et al., 2001; Wang & Xing, 2008), this research integrates
multifaceted dimensions including supplier responsiveness, pricing transparency, environmental accountability, and logistics service
quality within the structure of a developmental ADDIE model.
Unlike prior studies that focused largely on quantitative optimization or rigid performance indicators (Omurca, 2018; Zhu & Sarkis,
2004), this work contributes a contextual, process-oriented approach that centers on continuous improvement, strategic alignment, and
relational value creation. The themes uncovered ranging from quality standardization to digital procurement intelligence reflect a shift
in how supplier value is conceptualized, particularly in sectors where product integrity, regulatory compliance, and long-term trust are
paramount.
By grounding the design and evaluation process in participant experiences and stakeholder feedback, the study introduces a practical
and adaptive framework that can be used not only for supplier assessment but also for supplier development and partnership cultivation.
This framework offers a reference model for supply chain managers seeking to operationalize supplier criteria in alignment with
evolving market demands and sustainability goals.
Future studies should focus on quantifying the weight and impact of each identified dimension using hybrid modeling techniques (e.g.,
fuzzy AHP or DEMATEL) and test the model's applicability across different manufacturing sectors. Furthermore, longitudinal studies
could examine how implementation of the proposed system influences procurement outcomes, supplier innovation, and organizational
resilience over time.
This study does not merely refine supplier evaluation it repositions it as a dynamic, strategic, and participatory process. Its contribution
lies in offering a holistic, empirically grounded, and industry-responsive evaluation system that can support more informed, agile, and
collaborative supply chain decisions.

References
BIN, H., & WANG, Y. (2014). Supplier evaluation and selection based on improved TOPSIS method in green supply chain. Journal
of Hunan University of Technology, 28(2), 81–86.
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V., & Nudurupati, S. (2012). Performance measurement: challenges for tomorrow. International
journal of management reviews, 14(3), 305-327.

Chen & Dusaran 318/319

 Psych Educ, 2025, 38(3): 315-319, Document ID:2025PEMJ3666, doi:10.70838/pemj.380310, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Hatzius, J., Hooper, P., Mishkin, F. S., Schoenholtz, K. L., & Watson, M. W. (2010). Financial conditions indexes: A fresh look after
the financial crisis (No. w16150). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Lichtenstein, S., & Dade, M. (2020). Trust and transparency in procurement relationships: A supplier's perspective. Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 56(4), 58–76.
Luo, X., & Peng, S. (2011). Research on supplier evaluation and selection based on AHP and TOPSIS in green supply chain. Soft
Science, 25(2), 53–56.
Maravilla Jr, V. S., & Flores, G. (2025). Entrepreneurial competency, resilience, and financial literacy: Drivers of sustainable
performance in SMEs for societal welfare. Journal of Sustainability, Society, and Eco-Welfare, 2(2), 159-176.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2002). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263.
Omurca, S. I. (2018). An intelligent supplier evaluation, selection and development system. Applied Soft Computing, 13(1), 690–697.
Wang, H., & Xing, Z. (2008). Research on supplier evaluation index system based on supply chain management. Modern Business,
(3), 8.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational
Research, 50(1), 2–18.
Wen, D., & Feng, Y. (2004). Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of supplier selection. World Standardization and Quality Management,
(1), 17–19.
Wiśniewska, P., Movahedifar, E., Formela, K., Naser, M. Z., Vahabi, H., & Saeb, M. R. (2024). The chemistry, properties and
performance of flame-retardant rubber composites: Collecting, analyzing, categorizing, machine learning modeling, and visualizing.
Composites Science and Technology, 110517.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2004). Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain
management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 265–289.

Affiliations and Corresponding Information

Ke Chen
Central Philippine University

Reynaldo N. Dusaran
Central Philippine University

Chen & Dusaran 319/319