Investigating critical criteria for supplier quality development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying critical criteria for supplier quality development is vital for improving the performance of suppliers. In this paper, we determine critical criteria for supplier quality development based on review of literature and discussion with supplier quality experts from industry. The criticality of the criteria is determined based on: (a) Kano’s model (must haves, satisfiers, dissatisfiers); (b) Hill’s manufacturing strategy (order winners and order qualifiers); and (c) criteria weights. The results of the study yield the following as the must-be and order winning elements for supplier quality evaluation: price; delivery performance; service; environment; health and safety; ISO 9000; European Foundation for Quality Management; quality management policy; understanding of customer requirements; supplier product quality; process control; quality inspection programs; process for handling complaints; and a system for corrective action. For supplier quality development, the must-haves and order winning elements are: honoring outstanding suppliers; involving suppliers early in product and process development; and sending instructors and technical consultants to the supplier’s site. The proposed results have strong practical applicability and can be used by decision makers for supplier performance evaluation, setting targets for performance improvement, resource allocation for supplier quality development, and designing necessary operations for improving the performance of their suppliers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it