Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya

Justus Kiprotich Mutai; Barrack Okello

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya

Justus Kiprotich Mutai, Barrack Okello

Published in International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences (Volume 4, Issue 3)

Received: 29 March 2016 Accepted: 5 April 2016 Published: 26 April 2016

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study sought to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of Public Universities. The Public Universities campuses in Kericho County were involved in the survey. To achieve the objective of the study, the researcher tested three hypotheses; supplier quality commitment does not have significant effect on performance of procurement functions of public universities campuses in Kericho County, financial stability of supplier does not have effect on the performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County and supplier competence does not have significant effect on performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County. This was a cross sectional survey study where data was collected in public universities campuses in Kericho County at a single point in time. Population of the study was the employees in the public universities’ campuses in Kericho County while the sample was selected employees in finance and procurement and accounts and finance departments. Data was collected through structured questionnaires that were administered through drop and pick technique. The collected data was analyzed through SPSS version 21. Mean and standard deviations were used to describe the variables in the study while regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of the public universities campuses in Kerico County. The findings of the study revealed that suppliers’ quality commitment, suppliers’ financial capacity and suppliers’ competence have significant effect on performance of procurement of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County individually with t=3.144; p=0.003, t=1.101; p=.046 and t=4.335; p=0.000 respectively and collectively with R-square value of 0.661. From the findings, the study recommends that experts who are knowledgeable and have expertise should be consulted in conducting supplier evaluation. Supplier evaluation criteria should focus on suppliers’ quality commitment, financial capacity and competence should be considered when awarding supply contracts to suppliers. The study suggests that a comparative study should be conducted to establish if there is difference in the effects of supplier evaluation on procurement performance between physical product organizations and service organizations. Further studies should be conducted to relate supplier evaluation and procurement performance in private universities in Kenya to establish whether there is any difference. Lastly, further study may also be conducted on the application of seven progressive steps of supplier evaluation.

Published in	International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences (Volume 4, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12
Page(s)	98-106
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2016. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Supplier Evaluation, Procurement Performance, Public Universities

References

[1]	Amin, S. H. (2011). Supplier selection and order allocation based on fuzzy SWOT analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (1), 334-342.
[2]	Aspuro, M. (2015). Supplier Financial Analysis: By the Numbers. Institute for Supply Management.
[3]	Chemoiywo, P. (2014). Public Procurement Procedures and Supply Chain Performance in State Corporations in Kenya. Nairobi: University of Nairobi.
[4]	CIPS. (2013). Monitoring the Performance of Suppliers-CIPS Positions on Practice. CIPS.
[5]	Danese, D. (2013)., The determinants of supplier selection and evaluation in Pakistan Telecom industry.
[6]	Dobos, I. (2013). Supplier selection and evaluation decision considering environmental aspects. 1-23.
[7]	Donaldson, T. &. (1995). the Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1); 65-91.
[8]	Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). "The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Managemen, 65-91.
[9]	Gallego, L. (2011). Review of existing methods, models and tools for supplier evaluation. Department of Management and Engineering. Linköpings Universitet.
[10]	Gallego, V. (2011). Review of existing methods, models and tools for supplier evaluation. Department of Management and Engineering. Linköpings Universitet.
[11]	Hogan, E. J. (2001). Toward a Resource-Based Theory of Business Exchange Relationships: The Role of Relational Asset Value. Journal of Business to Business Marketing, 8(4), 3-28.
[12]	Humphreys. (2003). The impact of supplier development on buyer–supplier performance. The International Journal of Management Science, 32, 131-143.
[13]	Humphreys, P. K. (2004). The impact of supplier development on buyer–supplier performance. Omega, 32 (2004) 131–143.
[14]	Ikumu, B. I. (2014). Fcators Influencing Procurement erformance in the Kenyan Public Sector: Case Study of the State law Office. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 9 (4), 1626-1650.
[15]	International Trade Centre. (1999, June 1). Conference on Public Procurement in Africa. Retrieved 29 October, 2015, from International Trade Centre: http://www.tradeforum.org/Conference-on-Public-Procurement-in-Africa/
[16]	International Treansparency. (2010). Corruption and Public Procurement. Nairobi: Treansparency International.
[17]	Jack. (2011, March 21). Financial Analysis of Suppliers. Knowledge to Knowledge.
[18]	Jens, E. &. (2014). Strategic Supplier Evaluation Considering environmental aspects. Department of Management and Engineering Logistics Management, Linköping University.
[19]	Kamotho, K. (2014). E-Procurement and Procurement Performance among State Corporations in Kenya. Nairobi: University of Nairobi.
[20]	Kemunto, D. &. (2014). Influence of Stretegic Buyer Supplier Alliance on Procurement Performance in Private manufacturing Organization: A Case of Glaxo Smithkline. European Journal of Business Management, 2 (1), 336-341.
[21]	Kirande, J. &. (2014). Determinants Affecting Public Procurement Performance in Kenyan Universities: A Case of the Co-operative University College of Kenya. International Academic Journals, 1(1), 104-123.
[22]	Kirande, J. &. (2014). Determinants of public procurement performance in Kenyan Universities, a Case of Cooperative University. International Academic Journals, 1 (1), 104-123.
[23]	Kitheka, S. M. (2013). The Effect of Supplier Quality Management on Organizational Performance: A Survey of Supermarkets in Kakamega Town. International Journal of Business and Commerce, Vol. 3, No.1: Sep 2013 [71-82].
[24]	Krause, D. R. (2002). Supplier Development Practices: Product-and Service Based Industry Comparisons. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38.
[25]	Marks, B. a. (2007). Developing Suppliers in a Lean Environment - Supplier Competency Model. 92nd Annual International Supply Management Conference, May 2007.
[26]	Mungai, P. M. (2014). Influence of Supplier appraisal on Procurement Performance in the Real Estate Industry in Kenya: A Case Study of International House Ltd. International Journal of Operations and Logistics Management, Vo 3 (3) pp. 250-262.
[27]	Mwikali R. and Kavale, K. (2012). Factors Affecting the Selection of Optimal Suppliers in Procurement Management. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(4), 189-193.
[28]	Mwikali, R. K. (2012). Factors Affecting the Selection of Optimal Suppliers in Procurement Management. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 189-193.
[29]	Nulty. (2008). the adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (3) 01–314.
[30]	Nzau, A. &. (2014). Factors affecting procurement performance of public universities in Nairobi County. International Journal of Social Sciences and Project Planning Management, 1(3): 147-156.
[31]	OECD. (2007). Assessment of the Procurement System in Kenya. Nairobi: OECD.
[32]	Pamela, D. (2013). Supplier Integration And Company Performance: A Configurational View. Omega, 41, 1029–1041.
[33]	Pontious, M. (2008). Evaluation of the procurement process in public institutions of Uganda, Unpublished thesis, a case study of Makerere University.
[34]	Power, D. (2005). Determinants of business to business e-commerce implementation and performance: a structural model. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(2).302-309.
[35]	Rodeghier, J. C. (2007). Should Supplier Evaluations be a Strategic Global Supply Management Process? 92nd Annual International Supply Management Conference, May 2007.
[36]	Rorich, G. M. (2015). Relationship between E-Tendering and Procurement Performance among County Governments in Kenya. Science Innovation, 3(5), 46-51.
[37]	SIGMA. (2011). Performance Measurement. SIGMA.
[38]	Stueland, J. V. (2004). Supplier Evaluations: Best Practices and Creating or Improving Your Own Evaluation. 89th Annual International Supply Management Conference, April 2004. Wells Fargo Services Company.
[39]	Tracey, M. V. (2008). The impact of supplier selection criteria and supplier involvement on manufacturing performance. The journal of supply chain management. Global review of purchasing and suppl, 33-39.
[40]	Tsai, C. C. (2003). Applying Grey Relational Analysis to the Vendor Evaluation Model. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 45-53.
[41]	UK Legislation. (2015). Public Procurement; the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. UK: UK Government.
[42]	USAID. (2013). Procurement Performance Indicators: Using Procurement Performance Indicators to Strengthen the Procurement Process for Public Health Commodities. Arlington: John Snow, Inc.
[43]	Van Weele, A. (2005). Purchasing and supply chain management: analysis.
[44]	Weber, C. C. (2008). An optimization approach to determining the number of vendors to employ. Supply chain management: an international Journal, 5, 90-98.
[45]	Xu, Y. G. (2007). A Model of Lean Supplier Management Based on the Lean Production. Research and Praclical Issues of Enlerprise Informalion Syslems, 718-726.
[46]	Zerbini, F. G. (2002). The Competence Supplier: Exploring the Resource-based content of value for customers in business markets. Journal of business research, 533-547.
[47]	Zou, H. a. (2008). Supplier Selection Model Based on the Grey System Theory. Risk Management & Engineering Management, 2008. ICRMEM '08. International Conference on (pp. 100 - 104). Beijing: IEEE.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Justus Kiprotich Mutai, Barrack Okello. (2016). Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 4(3), 98-106. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Justus Kiprotich Mutai; Barrack Okello. Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya. Int. J. Econ. Finance Manag. Sci. 2016, 4(3), 98-106. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Justus Kiprotich Mutai, Barrack Okello. Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya. Int J Econ Finance Manag Sci. 2016;4(3):98-106. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12,
  author = {Justus Kiprotich Mutai and Barrack Okello},
  title = {Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya},
  journal = {International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences},
  volume = {4},
  number = {3},
  pages = {98-106},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijefm.20160403.12},
  abstract = {This study sought to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of Public Universities. The Public Universities campuses in Kericho County were involved in the survey. To achieve the objective of the study, the researcher tested three hypotheses; supplier quality commitment does not have significant effect on performance of procurement functions of public universities campuses in Kericho County, financial stability of supplier does not have effect on the performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County and supplier competence does not have significant effect on performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County. This was a cross sectional survey study where data was collected in public universities campuses in Kericho County at a single point in time. Population of the study was the employees in the public universities’ campuses in Kericho County while the sample was selected employees in finance and procurement and accounts and finance departments. Data was collected through structured questionnaires that were administered through drop and pick technique. The collected data was analyzed through SPSS version 21. Mean and standard deviations were used to describe the variables in the study while regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of the public universities campuses in Kerico County. The findings of the study revealed that suppliers’ quality commitment, suppliers’ financial capacity and suppliers’ competence have significant effect on performance of procurement of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County individually with t=3.144; p=0.003, t=1.101; p=.046 and t=4.335; p=0.000 respectively and collectively with R-square value of 0.661. From the findings, the study recommends that experts who are knowledgeable and have expertise should be consulted in conducting supplier evaluation. Supplier evaluation criteria should focus on suppliers’ quality commitment, financial capacity and competence should be considered when awarding supply contracts to suppliers. The study suggests that a comparative study should be conducted to establish if there is difference in the effects of supplier evaluation on procurement performance between physical product organizations and service organizations. Further studies should be conducted to relate supplier evaluation and procurement performance in private universities in Kenya to establish whether there is any difference. Lastly, further study may also be conducted on the application of seven progressive steps of supplier evaluation.},
 year = {2016}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya
AU  - Justus Kiprotich Mutai
AU  - Barrack Okello
Y1  - 2016/04/26
PY  - 2016
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12
T2  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JF  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JO  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
SP  - 98
EP  - 106
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-9561
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12
AB  - This study sought to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of Public Universities. The Public Universities campuses in Kericho County were involved in the survey. To achieve the objective of the study, the researcher tested three hypotheses; supplier quality commitment does not have significant effect on performance of procurement functions of public universities campuses in Kericho County, financial stability of supplier does not have effect on the performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County and supplier competence does not have significant effect on performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County. This was a cross sectional survey study where data was collected in public universities campuses in Kericho County at a single point in time. Population of the study was the employees in the public universities’ campuses in Kericho County while the sample was selected employees in finance and procurement and accounts and finance departments. Data was collected through structured questionnaires that were administered through drop and pick technique. The collected data was analyzed through SPSS version 21. Mean and standard deviations were used to describe the variables in the study while regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of the public universities campuses in Kerico County. The findings of the study revealed that suppliers’ quality commitment, suppliers’ financial capacity and suppliers’ competence have significant effect on performance of procurement of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County individually with t=3.144; p=0.003, t=1.101; p=.046 and t=4.335; p=0.000 respectively and collectively with R-square value of 0.661. From the findings, the study recommends that experts who are knowledgeable and have expertise should be consulted in conducting supplier evaluation. Supplier evaluation criteria should focus on suppliers’ quality commitment, financial capacity and competence should be considered when awarding supply contracts to suppliers. The study suggests that a comparative study should be conducted to establish if there is difference in the effects of supplier evaluation on procurement performance between physical product organizations and service organizations. Further studies should be conducted to relate supplier evaluation and procurement performance in private universities in Kenya to establish whether there is any difference. Lastly, further study may also be conducted on the application of seven progressive steps of supplier evaluation.
VL  - 4
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Justus Kiprotich Mutai

Department of Procurement and Logistics Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Juja, Kenya
Barrack Okello

Department of Procurement and Logistics Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Juja, Kenya

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Justus Kiprotich Mutai, Barrack Okello. (2016). Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 4(3), 98-106. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Justus Kiprotich Mutai; Barrack Okello. Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya. Int. J. Econ. Finance Manag. Sci. 2016, 4(3), 98-106. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Justus Kiprotich Mutai, Barrack Okello. Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya. Int J Econ Finance Manag Sci. 2016;4(3):98-106. doi: 10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12,
  author = {Justus Kiprotich Mutai and Barrack Okello},
  title = {Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya},
  journal = {International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences},
  volume = {4},
  number = {3},
  pages = {98-106},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijefm.20160403.12},
  abstract = {This study sought to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of Public Universities. The Public Universities campuses in Kericho County were involved in the survey. To achieve the objective of the study, the researcher tested three hypotheses; supplier quality commitment does not have significant effect on performance of procurement functions of public universities campuses in Kericho County, financial stability of supplier does not have effect on the performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County and supplier competence does not have significant effect on performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County. This was a cross sectional survey study where data was collected in public universities campuses in Kericho County at a single point in time. Population of the study was the employees in the public universities’ campuses in Kericho County while the sample was selected employees in finance and procurement and accounts and finance departments. Data was collected through structured questionnaires that were administered through drop and pick technique. The collected data was analyzed through SPSS version 21. Mean and standard deviations were used to describe the variables in the study while regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of the public universities campuses in Kerico County. The findings of the study revealed that suppliers’ quality commitment, suppliers’ financial capacity and suppliers’ competence have significant effect on performance of procurement of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County individually with t=3.144; p=0.003, t=1.101; p=.046 and t=4.335; p=0.000 respectively and collectively with R-square value of 0.661. From the findings, the study recommends that experts who are knowledgeable and have expertise should be consulted in conducting supplier evaluation. Supplier evaluation criteria should focus on suppliers’ quality commitment, financial capacity and competence should be considered when awarding supply contracts to suppliers. The study suggests that a comparative study should be conducted to establish if there is difference in the effects of supplier evaluation on procurement performance between physical product organizations and service organizations. Further studies should be conducted to relate supplier evaluation and procurement performance in private universities in Kenya to establish whether there is any difference. Lastly, further study may also be conducted on the application of seven progressive steps of supplier evaluation.},
 year = {2016}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effects of Supplier Evaluation on Procurement Performance of Public Universities in Kenya
AU  - Justus Kiprotich Mutai
AU  - Barrack Okello
Y1  - 2016/04/26
PY  - 2016
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12
T2  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JF  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
JO  - International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences
SP  - 98
EP  - 106
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-9561
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijefm.20160403.12
AB  - This study sought to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of Public Universities. The Public Universities campuses in Kericho County were involved in the survey. To achieve the objective of the study, the researcher tested three hypotheses; supplier quality commitment does not have significant effect on performance of procurement functions of public universities campuses in Kericho County, financial stability of supplier does not have effect on the performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County and supplier competence does not have significant effect on performance of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County. This was a cross sectional survey study where data was collected in public universities campuses in Kericho County at a single point in time. Population of the study was the employees in the public universities’ campuses in Kericho County while the sample was selected employees in finance and procurement and accounts and finance departments. Data was collected through structured questionnaires that were administered through drop and pick technique. The collected data was analyzed through SPSS version 21. Mean and standard deviations were used to describe the variables in the study while regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of supplier evaluation on performance of procurement function of the public universities campuses in Kerico County. The findings of the study revealed that suppliers’ quality commitment, suppliers’ financial capacity and suppliers’ competence have significant effect on performance of procurement of procurement function of public universities campuses in Kericho County individually with t=3.144; p=0.003, t=1.101; p=.046 and t=4.335; p=0.000 respectively and collectively with R-square value of 0.661. From the findings, the study recommends that experts who are knowledgeable and have expertise should be consulted in conducting supplier evaluation. Supplier evaluation criteria should focus on suppliers’ quality commitment, financial capacity and competence should be considered when awarding supply contracts to suppliers. The study suggests that a comparative study should be conducted to establish if there is difference in the effects of supplier evaluation on procurement performance between physical product organizations and service organizations. Further studies should be conducted to relate supplier evaluation and procurement performance in private universities in Kenya to establish whether there is any difference. Lastly, further study may also be conducted on the application of seven progressive steps of supplier evaluation.
VL  - 4
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download