1996
DOI: 10.1016/0019-8501(95)00070-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chinese purchasing managers' preferences and trade-offs in supplier selection and performance evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
80
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 113 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
80
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result can be motivated by global competitive pressures; with non-Chinese companies holding most of the Chinese software market (Chinalabs, 2006) and motives of consumers of software products in China and the West being very similar (Mummalaneni, 1996).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This result can be motivated by global competitive pressures; with non-Chinese companies holding most of the Chinese software market (Chinalabs, 2006) and motives of consumers of software products in China and the West being very similar (Mummalaneni, 1996).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research has also shown the purchasing motives for Chinese and Western buyers are substantially similar (Mummalaneni, 1996). Whether Chinese companies are developing products for a market in China or elsewhere in the world, Product value will be compared to all the other possible solutions.…”
Section: The Similarities Between the Groups Are Stronger Than Differmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the literature review and the findings of this paper, 183 decision attributes are identified for general industries. They are categorized into eight different aspects while evaluating the favourability of candidate SC alliances: (1) finance [6,7,[9][10][11]17] (2) human resource management [9,10,14,17] (3) industrial characteristics [7,9] (4) knowledge/technology acquiring and management [3,6-9,14,17] (5) marketing [6,[9][10][11]14,17] (6) organizational competitiveness [7,9,10,17] (7) product development, production, and logistics management [6][7][8][9]14,17,18] and (8) relationship building and coordination [3,4,[6][7][8][9][10]14,17,18]. Over 50% of the evaluation attributes are focused on two categories: ''relationship building and coordination'' and ''product development, production, and logistics management'', as shown in Table 3.…”
Section: Compilation Of Evaluation Attributesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, Shahanagi and Yazdian [14] insisted that these criteria and sub-criteria are indeed meaningful and the most important measures in MCDM. The criteria and sub-criteria have been indicated in many application papers such as in vendor selection [15], and supplier selection [16], [17]. Moreover, the existing method that used subjective weight has a weakness .…”
Section: One Of the Well Known Methods In Multi Criteria Decision Makmentioning
confidence: 99%