ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Selecting the right supplier for an assignment, as well as evaluating this supplier's performance while the contract is being implemented, plays an important role in ensuring a good project outcome. In this context, this paper presents the results of a systematic literature review of the criteria and the methods used in the phases of selecting and evaluating suppliers in projects, as given in papers published from 1973 to 2015. The papers were classified into categories in accordance with the type of project and the phase of the procurement process, investigating what criteria and methods are the most widely used for selecting suppliers and evaluating the performance of suppliers in projects. The results have revealed that the procurement process may have to consider new perspectives, such as client/supplier relations, due to the importance of having partnerships with suppliers that meet organizational needs.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Project procurement management: A structured
literature review
Maria Creuza Borges de Araújo, Luciana Hazin Alencar, Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Avenida Professor Moraes Rego, 1235 - Cidade Universitária, Recife, Pernambuco CEP: 50670-901, Brazil
Received 5 July 2016; received in revised form 19 December 2016; accepted 12 January 2017
Available online 28 January 2017
Abstract
Selecting the right supplier for an assignment, as well as evaluating this supplier's performance while the contract is being implemented, plays
an important role in ensuring a good project outcome. In this context, this paper presents the results of a systematic literature review of the criteria
and the methods used in the phases of selecting and evaluating suppliers in projects, as given in papers published from 1973 to 2015. The papers
were classied into categories in accordance with the type of project and the phase of the procurement process, investigating what criteria and
methods are the most widely used for selecting suppliers and evaluating the performance of suppliers in projects. The results have revealed that the
procurement process may have to consider new perspectives, such as client/supplier relations, due to the importance of having partnerships with
suppliers that meet organizational needs.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project procurement management; Supplier selection; Supplier evaluation; Criteria
1. Introduction
Due to high competitiveness, outsourcing has become a
popular business strategy (de Almeida, 2007). The influence
that suppliers have on the success or failure of projects is
significant since their performance affects the results of the
entire business effort (Liu et al., 2014; Zolghadri et al.,
2011a). Moreover, selecting an appropriately qualified
supplier improves stakeholders' confidence since this is
more likely to lead to project goals being achieved (Turskis,
2008).
In this context, excellence in the procurement process is
essential in order to achieve good outcomes in any project.
Therefore, selecting the right supplier for an assignment,
as well as evaluating this supplier's performance while
the contract is being implemented, plays an important
role in ensuring a good outcome. Thus, managers should
pay special attention to two phases of the project
procurement process: (1) supplier selection and (2) supplier
evaluation.
In this paper, we call supplier selection the stage during
which a company chooses adequate suppliers to whom they
will contract-out services. Cheng and Li (2004) affirm that this
is one of a company's primary activities since it must select
appropriate suppliers to ensure that projects are completed
successfully. Moreover, according to Zolghadri et al. (2011b),
this choice is critical because it has a direct impact on the
client's financial health and production capability. Evaluating
suppliers is the process in which suppliers who are
Founding sources: This work is part of research funded by the Brazilian Research
Council (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq).
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mariacreuzaborges@yahoo.com.br (M.C.B. de Araújo),
alencarlh@gmail.com (L.H. Alencar), mota.cmm@gmail.com
(C.M. de Miranda Mota).
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.008
0263-7863/00/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353 377
already working with the organization are assessed by
observing their performance while a contract is being carried
out. Ng et al. (2002) affirm that a supplier's performance
should be supervised and controlled on a regular basis so as to
identify problems and make repairs without further losses or
delays.
Choosing criteria is an important issue when selecting and
evaluating suppliers as these influence the entire process
(Safa et al., 2014). However, the criteria may be in agreement
with the clients' needs and may change in line with a
company's or stakeholders' judgments, the industry and the
context. Furthermore, Zolghadrietal.(2011a)assert that the
selection process must be improved by taking into account
high-level selection criteria or long-term possibilities, for
instance.
Moreover, another topic that highly influences these
processes is what methods are used to select and evaluate
suppliers. Lambropoulos (2007) highlights the importance
of choosing an appropriate procurement method. This choice
depends on various aspects, such as the type of criteria
and the quantity of information required. Therefore,
Lambropoulos (2007) asserts that a best overallaward
method does not exist, but the most appropriate
method depends on the specific conditions for each particular
project.
In this context, the project procurement process is an area of
vital importance and interest to organizations responsible for
delivering project outcomes (Alias et al., 2012). Therefore, this
paper aims to investigate procurement processes, considering
the following research questions:
1) What criteria and methods are the most widely used for
selecting suppliers in projects?
2) What criteria and methods are the most widely used for
evaluating the performance of suppliers in projects?
Therefore, we present the results of a systematic literature
review of the criteria and the methods used in the phases of
selecting and evaluating suppliers in projects as given in papers
published from 1973 to 2015. After analyzing these articles, we
also discuss directions for future research.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes
the methodology of the systematic literature review, and
undertakes a descriptive analysis of the papers which
includes dividing them into categories related to the type
of project and the phases of the project procurement
process. Section 3 presents the results of evaluating this
material while Section 4 engages on discussion. Finally,
Section 5 presents the conclusions and indicates future
directions of the study.
2. Research method
The systematic literature review has been used so as to offer a
critical overview of the current understanding of the research
topic under study (Sartor et al., 2014; De Almeida et al., 2016a).
The review builds on the method used by Seuring and
Müller (2008), which has four steps: material collection,
descriptive analysis, category selection and material
evaluation.
The material collection component is described in Section
2.1.Section 2.2 gives a descriptive analysis of the material
selected. A discussion of how the categories were selected is
offered in Section 2.3, while the material is evaluated in
Section 3.
2.1. Material collection
To identify papers related to supplier selection and
evaluation in project environments, a structured, keyword
search was conducted in five databases: Web of Science,
Web of Knowledge, Scopus, SpringerLink and the Wiley
Online Library. The searches sought the following combina-
tions of keywords: Contractor selection AND Project,
Suppl* selection AND Project,Suppl* evaluation AND
Project,Contractor evaluation AND Project,Suppl*
performance AND Project,Contractor performance AND
Project,Vendor selection AND Project,Vendor evalu-
ation AND Project,Vendor performance AND Project,
Partner selection AND Project,Partner evaluation AND
Project,Partner performance AND Project,Contractor
choice AND Project,Suppl* choice AND Project,
Vendor choice AND Projectand Partner choice AND
Project.
Only papers in English that were included in peer-reviewed
journals were considered. Initially, the search resulted in 676
articles, excluding duplicates, which were filtered as set out in
Fig. 1.
As shown in the flow chart, after the structural keyword
search was conducted, the papers went through three filters:
title analysis, abstract analysis, and text analysis, which
resulted in identifying 119 papers that were related to the
theme.
2.2. Descriptive analysis
A descriptive study was undertaken considering the
following characteristics of the articles used: the total number
of papers; their relevance; and how they were distributed
among journals. These data give a general perspective on the
methodology used in the review to highlight the most relevant
journals on the subject, and to show how the importance of the
issue and research methodologies have increased and devel-
oped over time. As a result, we indicate the tendencies of this
field of study over time.
2.2.1. Number and relevance of papers
One hundred nineteen (119) papers related to selecting
and evaluating suppliers in project environments were
chosen. The relevance of these articles was measured
according to how often they have been cited. The most
relevant paper was a literature review written by Holt
354 M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
(1998), which summarizes the primary methodologies for
contractor selection in construction projects and was cited
by 318 authors.
In this context, the five most-cited papers were: a literature
review, proposed by Holt (1998), with 318 citations; three
conceptual works of Hatush and Skitmore (1998), cited by 238
authors, Lu et al. (2007), cited 194 times and Chen and Wang
(2009), with 167 citations and; a case study proposed by Cheng
and Li (2004), cited by 166 authors.
2.2.2. Distribution of articles across journals
The 119 papers were distributed across 60 different journals
in several research fields, as shown in Table 1.
The International Journal of Project Management is in
second position regarding the number of cited articles it has
published (8).
2.2.3. Distribution of papers across time and research
methodology
The distribution of articles and research methods in the study
period (19732015) is shown in Fig. 2. The categorization of
research methods is based on Hesping and Schiele (2015).
According to the authors, these methodologies are classified as
(1) conceptual or theoretical publications; (2) case studies; (3)
literature reviews and (4) surveys.
The first published paper in this field was a conceptual work
by Smith (1973). From 1974 to 1990, no articles in this
research area were published. Publication of such articles
resumed in 1991, and has grown at a faster rate from 2008 to
the present. As shown in Fig. 2, 80.7% (96) of published papers
are conceptual; this number has significantly increased since
2008. To be more precise, the number of conceptual papers
published from 2008 to 2015 is approximately 2.5 times higher
Fig. 1. Filtering process. Adapted from Igarashi et al. (2013).
355M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
than it was from 1973 to 2007. This rate is superior to the
growth in the overall number of papers, which was at a rate of
2.1 from 2008 to 2015, when compared with the period from
1973 to 2007.
Although publications in the area began in 1973, empirical
papers have only emerged since 1994. In the research
period, 13 surveys (10.9%), 8 case studies (6.7%) and 2
literature reviews (1.7%) were identified. Among these
research methodologies, only surveys occur in all of the
time intervals.
These data highlight some tendencies in this area:
1. The high number of conceptual works, 96 out of 119, shows
that the researchers perceive the need to propose new
methods for selecting and evaluating suppliers, which need
to consider different types of industry, decision maker (DM)
preferences and available data.
2. The increase in the number of surveys and case studies
demonstrates that authors seek to adapt their methodologies
to the reality of organizations.
3. There are few literature reviews in this field. However,
research in this area is valuable since this helps researchers
and managers to take advantage of a significant amount of
information which is easily and quickly accessed and which
can serve as a clear guide to research findings already
published.
4. The high increase in the number of papers, from 39 until
2007 to 119 by the end of 2015, shows that the researchers
perceive the increasing importance of this field of study.
2.3. Category selection
As mentioned in the Introduction, the objective of this
paper is to identify what criteria and methods are the most
widely used ones in the procurement process in project
environments. Therefore, the papers are classified into two
categories: the procurement process phases and by type of
project.
2.3.1. Phases of the procurement process
This process has two main phases, which have different
objectives that complement each other: (1) supplier selection,
which sets out to choose adequate suppliers to whom services
will be contracted-out; and (2) supplier evaluation, which
assesses the performance of suppliers who are already
working with the company. Due to these phases having
different objectives, the criteria and methods that each of
them, separately, most uses must be identified.
Thus, this study initially classified the papers according to
these phases. The first was discussed in 101 articles and reports
on those that deal with choosing suppliers to whom services
Table 1
Research fields and papers considered in literature review.
Research field Main journals
Operations management Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (10), Expert Systems with Applications (5), Journal of Management
in Engineering (4), Advances in Engineering Software (2), Industrial Management & Data Systems (2).
Construction management Automation in Construction (7), Construction Management and Economic (5), Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management (5), Journal of Civil Engineering and Management (5), Building Research & Information (5).
Environmental management Building and Environment (6), Built Environmental Journal (1), Energy Conversion and Management (1), International
Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences (1), Journal of Cleaner Production (1) and Journal of Grey System (1).
Decision analysis Decision Science Letters (1), Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making (1), Group Decision and Negotiation (1)
and Journal of Decision Systems (1).
Computer science Informatica (1), International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing (1) and International Journal of
Digital Content Technology and its Applications (1).
Others International Journal of Project Management (8), Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management (2), Industrial
Marketing Management (1) and Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
Fig. 2. Distribution of papers across the time and the research methodology.
356 M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
will be contracted out. The second, which has 19 papers,
considers the assessment of suppliers that are already
working with the organization. One article that presents a
formal model for selecting and evaluating suppliers was
identified. This paper was countedinbothphases.Thehigher
number of articles on supplier selection is related to the fact
that papers on this theme started being published longer ago.
The first article in this category was published in 1973 while
the publication of papers on supplier evaluation in projects
began in 2001.
2.3.2. Type of project
Different types of industries normally have different
objectives and preferences for which criteria must be used
in the procurement process. Thus, this paper seeks to identify
if the criteria vary depending on the type of project being
investigated. Therefore, the second classification of papers is
according to the type of project performed. First, the literature
review showed that fourteen types of project were cited,
which are deemed to be in the following categories: an
aviation project (1), a capital project (1), construction
projects (67), energy projects (4), an engineering project
(1), highway projects (11), hydro projects (4), information
system/information technology projects (IT) (6), mainte-
nance projects (3), product development projects (9), R&D
projects (3), a supply chain (1), refurbishment projects (2)
and general (6).
Most of the papers were related to Construction Projects,
which is explained because the correct choice of supplier
is essential to the success of projects in this sector (Holt,
1997; Yilmaz and Ergönül, 2011). Finally, Fig. 3 shows the
distribution of papers in different phases of the project
procurement process in the type of projects that are cited.
This result reveals a greater interest from academics in the
supplier selection phase and demonstrates the need for more
research on supplier evaluation. Moreover, further studies in
different industries are recommended because there is a large
concentration on the construction industry; however, the
procurement process is essential to most projects in all
industrial sectors.
3. Material evaluation
The results of the Systematic Literature Review are
presented in the following topics: (1) criteria for supplier
selection, (2) criteria for supplier evaluation and (3) methods
used for supplier selection and/or evaluation.
3.1. Criteria for supplier selection in project environments
The supplier selection criteria found in the literature
review are classified into twenty-eight categories and
forty-one subcategories. The categories and their relative
importance (expressed by the equation: relative importance
of class = number of citations of criteria in this category /
total number of citations in the supplier selection criteria)
arelistedintheAppendix. The categories that were most
cited in the literature and their descriptors are shown in
Table 2.
These findings confirm that, in general, projects aim to
achieve good results regarding cost, quality and time (Walraven
and de Vries, 2009; Idrus et al., 2011; Yilmaz and Ergönül,
2011). The factors listed can be used as a basis for managers
setting possible criteria as to selecting suppliers since the
literature shows that criteria are very useful in the project
procurement process in a general way.
However, different types of projects have different needs
and priorities. Therefore, it is important for organizations to
consider the characteristics of projects within the supplier
selection process. Thus, the main categories of criteria for
the selection process in different areas were compiled see
Table 3.
Construction projects is a popular topic in the project
procurement process and most papers (56%) are related to this
area. This importance arises from the fact that, according to
Walraven and de Vries (2009), the construction industry is
competitive and projects face adversity and uncertainty;
contractors that do not adequately meet a company's needs
increase the chance of delays, cost overruns, substandard work,
disputes, or even bankruptcy. In this context, the most-cited
categories of criteria in the supplier selection area are: staff
features (10.0%), quality (9.8%), financial issues (9.6%),
experience (8.3%) and cost/price (7.7%). Besides these, other
categories, such as flexibility/responsiveness, time, technical/
technology, company management (Arslan, 2012), reputation/
image, performance, health and safety, environment and risk
(Nassar and Hosny, 2013), among others, were cited. In
summary, construction was the type of industry with the
greatest diversity of criteria (all categories mentioned were
included in this area).
In the review, it was observed that highway projects are
frequently related to the public sector (Lam and Gale, 2014;
Lambropoulos, 2007), which makes the cost criterion an
Fig. 3. Distribution of papers considering the phases of procurement and type of
projects.
357M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
important one. Additionally, Lambropoulos (2007) affirms
that, in this type of project, the total time required from
inception to commissioning canbeasmuchas10 years,sothat
the time remaining to complete a project becomes critical and
should, therefore, be a competition criterion in order to ensure
that the public client accepts the offer. Finally, due to the long
duration of projects, Lam and Gale (2014) affirm that there are
long-term relationships between clients and their suppliers.
This, in turn, enhances the quality of works and, hence, the
value of money from the council's highway budgets. The
results of the literature reviews confirm these statements, since
the five categories that are most cited for supplier selection in
highway projects are: (1) cost, (2) time, (3) quality, (4) staff
features and (5) financial.
Table 2
Description of categories most cited for supplier selection.
Category
(% of citation)
Description
Quality (9.2%), This is about the ability of a company to provide products and services according to the specifications, to perform quality control and
monitor if the desired quality is being achieved. Some ways to measure quality are: to compare products with their specifications; to
compare the quality actually achieved with that contractually specified, the rejection rate of parts, to check that there are quality assurance
systems and that they are being used, and so on.
Cost/price (8.2%) This is related to the monetary expression of a project product or service in the market and controlling the costs and prices of the company
and its suppliers. This factor can be measured by: the value of the proposed project budget, the value of the tender price, the amount of cost
discount, making a comparison between the proposal and average bid prices, and so on.
Staff features (7.9%) This factor considers the staff of the organization, the suitability and qualifications of personnel for the work, their experience in similar
works and the training conducted by the company. Some ways to measure the staff features factor are: to observe the adequacy of the staff
for the work, to evaluate the qualifications of key personnel, to consider the number of critical persons available for the project, to check if
staff have experience in similar projects, and so on.
Financial (7.9%) This is related to the financial aspects of the company and its suppliers, such as: economic capacity, financial viability, financial stability,
cash flow, cash discount, financial control, adequacy of bank arrangements, financial status of suppliers and credit reference.
Company management
(7.6%)
This evaluates how the company is administered, by considering several issues: the existence and use of management and control systems,
the management and organization of works, the integration between functions, the capability of the company's management and of the
overall organization. This factor is usually measured in a qualitative way, using criteria such as: managerial capability, quality of labor plan,
project organization, the effectiveness of management capabilities, and so on.
Experience (6.5%) This factor considers the experience of suppliers in similar situations, such as similar works, geographical areas and so on. It canbe
measured by: level of experience in similar jobs, work volume in a similar project using a unit-price contract, experience in the geographical
area of the project, the size of projects completed, the level of experience level, and so on.
Time (6.0%) This is related to the time taken to complete a project. This factor can be measured by: the ability to complete projects in a timely way, on time
fabrication, delay in completing the project, the average lateness, time quoted to complete the project, total weight flow time, bidding time, and so on.
Table 3
Categories of criteria most cited for supplier selection in different sectors.
Type of project Categories
Construction projects 1. Staff features, 2. Quality, 3. Financial, 4. Experience, 5. Cost/price
Highway projects 1. Cost, 2. Time, 3. Quality, 4. Staff features, 5. Financial.
New products development projects 1. Relationship with stakeholders, 2. Quality, 3. Cost, 4. Product features, 5. Company management.
Information system/information technology 1. Cost, 2. Quality, 3. Flexibility/responsiveness, 4. Time, 5. Technical/technology.
Hydro projects 1. Quality, 2. Flexibility, 3. Cost, 4. Financial, 5. Time
R&D projects 1. Company management, 2. Technical/technology, 3. Cost/price, 4. Quality, 5. Staff features.
Aviation project 1. Quality, 2. Relationship with stakeholders, 3. Company management, 4. Technical/technology,
5. Site capacity/facilities.
Capital projects 1. Time, 2. Transport, delivery and storage, 3. Cost/price, 4. Resources, 5. Quality.
Energy projects 1. Financial, 2. Quality, 3. Supplier performance, 4. Experience, 5. Technical/technology.
Engineering projects 1. Cost/price.
General 1. Technical/technology, 2. Company management, 3. Cost/price, 4. Supplier performance, 5. Site capacity/facilities.
Maintenance projects 1. Site capacity/facilities, 2. Maintenance, 3. Cost/price, 4. Company management, 5. Staff features.
Refurbishment project 1. Experience, 2. Staff features, 3. Quality, 4. Company management,5. Cost/price.
358 M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
According to Chen et al. (2013), increased competitive-
ness and the shorter life cycles of new products have caused
the owner of a product to collaborate more often with partners
in the design chain when developing a new product.
Humphreys et al. (2005) affirm that organizations are
adopting more collaborative relations with their main
suppliers in product development projects. Moreover, they
state that this competitiveness demands more constant
innovation and a higher quality from firms. This confirms
why the categories of criteria most cited in the literature
review with regard to developing new products include the
relationship with stakeholders (11.8%), quality (9.8%), cost
(9.8%), product features (8.8%) and management of the
company (7.8%).
Additionally, Chen and Wang (2009) assert that advances
in technology have meant that organizations develop their
core competencies by outsourcing strategic information
system/information technology, such that the selection of
suppliers is considered an important strategic decision in this
area. Tsay and Stackhouse (1991) cited some characteristics
of information technology project environments: they need
relevant and timely information to support company
management decision-making, the short life cycles of
systems and the necessity to develop information systems
continuously. The most-cited categories in this area were
cost, quality, flexibility/responsiveness, time, technical/
technology, product features and the market.
In relation to hydro projects, Xu and Yan (2011) explain
that the right vendors provide robust support for production
flexibility and quality; so, while as these authors state,
the right choice of suppliers is a sufficient guarantee for
reducing costs, Adhikary et al. (2015a, 2015b) affirm that
inaccurate design, improper selection of project, or failure to
keep within any other parameter will have a high negative
impact on the overall cost and efficiency since this results in
producing less power at a higher cost per watt. In this context,
the literature review shows that quality, flexibility, cost,
finance and time are the categories most used to select
suppliers in this sector.
It was observed that quality and cost/price, are present in
most of the papers about supplier selection, thus confirming
their importance in the process. Moreover, the criteria most
citedineachsectorarerelateddirectlytothecharacteristics
and priorities of each type of industry.
3.2. Criteria for evaluating suppliers in project environments
In this paper, the supplier evaluation criteria are classified
into twenty categories and thirty-five subcategories. The
Appendix shows the most-cited categories of criteria for
supplier evaluation in general.
It was observed that the defined categories include some of
those cited in supplier selection, but their ordering was quite
different. The quality class, which was the most mentioned in
the selection process, was ranked second in the evaluation
process; cost/price category was ranked eleventh in the
assessment phase but second in the supplier selection phase.
Ebrahimi et al. (2015) assert that issues such as high
competitive pressure, globalization, limited resources and
quick changes in the environment, have caused organizations
to need to reconsider their management methods. Further-
more, using models that consider management criteria is
critical to the supplier evaluation process. According to
Elyamany et al. (2012a), quality tests help the supplier
evaluation phase because they offer a lot of information about
the supplier's performance.
Moreover, Zolghadri et al. (2011a) affirm that the quality
of collaborations with suppliers influences the performance
of the overall project; so that well-coordinated activities
between customer and supplier improve the chances of the
project being successful. Furthermore, it is important that the
client creates a partnership with suppliers that meets their
needs since, as Cheng and Carrillo (2012) affirm, supplier
performance improves when the supplier considers the
partnership does so. Several authors observe the need to
consider the criterion relationship with stakeholderswhen
assessing suppliers, and thus to take into account both good
relations and difficulties in the relationship. These assertions
arise from the most-cited categories of criteria for supplier
evaluation: company management, quality and relationship
with stakeholders.
Supplier evaluation was cited in papers about six project
types. In some sectors, the criteria for selection and
evaluation are different. The main categories of criteria
Table 4
Categories of criteria for supplier evaluation in various types of projects.
Type of project Categories
Construction projects 1. Relationship with stakeholders, 2. Company management, 3. Quality, 4. Staff features, 5. Time
Highway projects 1. Time, 2. Product features, 3. Quality, 4. Cost/price, 5. Health and safety/environment
New products development projects 1. Health and safety/environment, 2. Relationship with stakeholders, 3. Quality.
Energy project 1. Staff features; 2. Health and safety/environment; 3. Technical/technology; 4. Company management; 5. Cost/price
Maintenance projects 1. Quality, 2. Supplier performance, 3. Financial, 4. Other.
Supply chain 1. Cost/price, 2. Time, 3. Financial, 4. Company management.
359M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
Table 5
Methods used for procurement in project environment.
Method Authors
Multiple criteria based
methods
Hierarchy methods Eshtehardian et al. (2013),Alptekİn (2014),Hadidi and Khater (2015),Mahdi et al. (2002),Zolghadri et al. (2011b),Topcu (2004),
Eshtehardian et al. (2013),Cheng and Li (2004),Rashvand et al. (2015).
Multi-attribute value/utility function Holt (1998),Wong et al. (2001),Holt et al. (1994a),Holt et al. (1994b),Holt et al. (1995),Ng et al. (2002),Lambropoulos (2007).
Distance-based methods Zhao and Ren (2012),Zavadskas et al. (2010),Cristóbal (2011),Safa et al. (2014),Adhikary et al. (2015b).
Additive models Hatush and Skitmore (1998),Arslan et al. (2008).
Other multicriteria models. Adhikary et al. (2015a),Cristóbal (2011),Cheng and Kang (2012),Zavadskas et al. (2010),Zavadskas and Vilutiene (2006).
Fuzzy set methods Xu and Yan (2011),Padhi and Mohapatra (2009),Li and Wan (2014),Holt (1998),Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Alhumaidi (2015),
Singh and Tiong (2005),Carrera and Mayorga (2008),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015),Adhikary et al. (2015b),Chen and Wang (2009),
Yawei et al. (2005),Alias et al. (2012),Bashiri et al. (2011),Yang et al. (2012),Ebrahimi et al. (2015),Lu et al. (2007).
Multimethodologies Ben-David et al. (2012),Rodríguez et al. (2013),Cheng et al. (2011),Sarkis et al. (2012),Zolfani et al. (2012),El-Abbasy et al. (2013),
Zavadskas et al. (2009),Nasab and Ghamsarian (2015),Darvish et al. (2009),Juan (2009),Nassar and Hosny (2013),
Walraven and de Vries (2009),Humphreys et al. (2005),Mi et al. (2013),Elyamany et al. (2012b)
Structured framework Micheli (2008),Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2000b),Tsay and Stackhouse (1991),Arslan (2012),Kumaraswamy (1996),
Yasamis et al. (2002),Stegen and Palovic (2014),Kumaraswamy and Matthews (2000),Harvey (1997),Palaneeswaran and
Kumaraswamy (2001),Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011),Masi et al. (2013).
Probability and statistical
methods
Holt (1998),Aziz (2008),Holt (1998),Du et al. (2015),Liu et al. (2014),Turskis (2008),Holt et al. (1994a),Holt et al. (1994b),
Holt et al. (1995),Holt et al. (1993),Maturana et al. (2007),Cheng and Carrillo (2012),Zavadskas et al. (2008).
Best value model Lin et al. (2007),Abdelrahman et al. (2008a),Abdelrahman et al. (2008b),Elyamany and Abdelrahman (2010),Elyamany et al. (2012a),
Wang et al. (2013),Yu and Wang (2012),Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2000a).
Mathematical programming Chen et al. (2013),Bashiri et al. (2011),Ip et al. (2004),Padhi and Mohapatra (2010),Cao and Wang (2007),Eckhause et al. (2009).
Cluster analysis Holt (1998),Chinyio et al. (1998),Holt (1997).
Total cost of ownership Micheli et al. (2009),Masi et al. (2013).
Other Ilie-Zudor and Monostori (2009),Azambuja and O'Brien (2012),Holt (1998),Alarcón and Mourgues (2002),Zhang et al. (2013),
Chen et al. (2008),Cheng et al. (2012),MacKerron et al. (2015),Straub and Mossel (2007),Lesniak et al. (2012),Lam and Gale (2014),
Lee et al. (2009),Micheli et al. (2009),Aretoulis et al. (2010),Zolghadri et al. (2011a),Masi et al. (2013),Soetanto et al. (2001),Safa et al. (2015).
360 M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
for the assessment process in different areas are listed in
Table 4.
Rashvand et al. (2015) affirm that management is a critical
criterioninconstructionprojects. Moreover, as a result of a
survey made by Butcher and Sheehan (2010) in this sector,
they conclude that many of the traditional performance
measures, such as time, quality, cost and health and safety,
are treated as required performance in the current environment
rather than as indicators of excellence. In this study, the
most-cited categories of criteria in the evaluation of suppliers
in construction projects were: (1) relationship with stake-
holders, (2) company management, (3) quality, (4) staff
features and (5) time.
In the evaluation phase of highway projects, the
most-cited categories are (1) time, (2) product features, (3)
quality, (4) cost/price and (5) health and safety. Due to the
high competitiveness and the need for partnerships with
suppliers so as to develop new products, the quality and
relations criteria appear in all procurement phases; in the
evaluation phase, the most cited criteria were: (1) health and
safety/environment, (2) relationship with stakeholders and
(3) Quality.
Finally, it was observed that, even if sustainability is an
important issue, considered by Sarkis et al. (2012) as a
strategic imperative for business, only two authors cited this
dimensionintheirresearch(Ebrahimi et al., 2015; Lu et al.,
2007).
3.3. Methods used in the project procurement process
The use of adequate methods is essential in the acquisition
process. Therefore, this subsection presents the methods
identified in the literature for selecting and evaluating
suppliers in project environments. However, it is important
to observe that, as Lambropoulos (2007) stated, there is no
best overallprocurement method, but an adequate method
depends on the specific conditions at the time and place from
which each project is put out to tender.
Therefore, this study does not objectively compare the
methods listed but shows situations in some of them that can be
used to discuss issues such as: how many criteria to consider,
the existence of uncertainty, the number of DMs, preference
aggregations, and so on. Thus, Table 4 presents the procure-
ment methods identified in the literature review, listed
according to the number of citations.
As shown in Table 5, the most-cited methodologies to
support the acquisition process were: multiple criteria-based
methods, fuzzy methods and the use of multimethodologies.
The models that were cited only once were assigned to the
other category.
Multicriteria analysis can be used when the DM wants to
use several, generally conflicting, criteria in the decision
process. Moreover, this analysis can be used for a different
recommendation, such as ranking (Adhikary et al., 2015a;
Yang et al., 2012), categorization (Nassar and Hosny, 2013;
Humphreys et al., 2005) and so on.
There are several multiple criteria methods (for more
details, please see Figueira et al., 2005) each of them suits
different situations such as those involving uncertainty,
imprecision, group decision, preference aggregation, and so
on. For instance, outranking methods, such as ELECTRE
and PROMETHEE (Adhikary et al., 2015a), should be used
in problems with non-compensatory logic aggregation
(Araújo and Alencar, 2015) in which high performance in
some criteria does not compensate for low performance in
others. Distance-based methods, for example, VIKOR and
TOPSIS, can be used when the DM wants to compare the
alternatives for ideal solutions. According to Adhikary et
al. (2015b), TOPSIS methods are used to choose options
that simultaneously are at the shortest distance from the
positive ideal solution and the farthest distance from the
negative ideal solution. Moreover, the authors affirm that
the VIKOR method is used to solve problems with
conflicting and non-commensurable criteria, assuming that
compromise can be acceptable for conflict resolution when
the DM wants a solution that is the closest to the ideal and
the alternatives can be evaluated against all the criteria
established.
Fuzzymethodsshouldbeusedtosearchforsolutionsto
problems which have elements of human subjectivity (Alias et
al., 2012) and involve uncertainty (Xu and Yan, 2011).
Normally, this type of method is used in situations in which
DMs cannot express their preferences in numerical terms.
Additionally, Singh and Tiong (2005) affirm that these models
make it possible for DMs to express their opinions about the
performances of attributes on decision criteria in qualitative
and linguistic or approximate terms that better correspond to
real-world situations. Thus, these words are transformed into
fuzzy numbers.
The use was also observed of several multimethodologies,
such as TOPSIS and the analytic hierarchy process in a fuzzy
environment (Rodríguez et al., 2013), AHP and ANP (Sarkis
et al., 2012), AHP and COmplex PRoportional ASsessment
of alternatives to Grey relations (Zolfanietal.,2012). Each
method was used in one step of the selection or evaluation
problem. Combining methods is a good strategy by which to
associate the advantages of each methodology or to use in
situations where using more than one recommendation to
achieve an adequate result must be considered. However, it is
important that combinations are in accord with the objectives
of the problem and avoid making the situation much more
complex.
Mathematical programming, probability and statistical
methods are used when it is possible to use quantitative
criteria. According to Hadidi and Khater (2015), quantitative
methods allow alternatives to be objectively evaluated.
Other methods, such as an agent-based approach
(Ilie-Zudor and Monostori, 2009), the aspiration interactive
method (Azambuja and O'Brien, 2012), the gray relevancy
model (Zhang et al., 2013) and the logic scorecard
(MacKerron et al., 2015), were used in the procurement
problems. Choosing an adequate method depends on the type
of criteria, information available, the level of accuracy
361M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
needed, the standard of complexity accepted and so on.
Therefore, the application these models should be in accord
with the situation and needs of the organization.
4. Discussion
This section highlights the most significant findings of this
literature review in the procurement process in project
environments. The following issues were observed:
Usually, authors consider various factors when selecting and
evaluating suppliers.
It was observed that only Micheli (2008) and Eckhause et al.
(2009) consider a single criterion to guide decision-making in
procurement. The former used the criterion of cost to select an
adequate supplier, while the latter considers the readiness of
levels of technology when selecting a supplier for a product
development project. The other 117 papers consider a
minimum of two criteria to aid decision-making.
In this context, it was observed that supplier selection and
evaluation consider multiple factors in the decision-making
process (Singh and Tiong, 2005; Chen and Wang, 2009). These
can be both quantitative and qualitative evaluations (Alptekİn,
2014). Because of this, it is necessary to use adequate methods
to reach a decision on procurement by taking into account the
number and type of factors required. This finding suggests the
relevance of the process of building decision-making models,
which take into account several criteria that aid solutions to be
found for project procurement problems.
The choice of adequate criteria for the procurement process
depends on the type of project.
During the material collection, it was observed that the
papers are related to projects in different sectors, such as
construction (Darvish et al., 2009; Eshtehardian et al., 2013;
Alhumaidi, 2015), highways (Lam and Gale, 2014; El-Abbasy
et al., 2013; Abdelrahman et al., 2008b) and product
development (Du et al., 2015; Dowlatshahi et al., 2015),
among others. Section 2.3 lists and describes fourteen classes of
project.
When evaluating papers, it was observed that different types
of projects have distinct needs and priorities, as the factors
considered for the processes of supplier selection and
evaluation change according to each need. Thus, the results of
this paper can help managers and researchers choose criteria
suitable for different industries.
There is not a general model adequate for all types of
project; each model should be constructed according to the
organization's needs.
It was perceived that consideration must be given to the
types of criteria, the level of information that is required and
available, the kind of information (complete or partial), the type
of recommendation (ranking, selection of one supplier,
selection of a subgroup of suppliers) and so on, in order to
select which methodology to use in the procurement process,
since each model is designed to be adequate for specific
conditions.
This study identified several methods that are suitable for
particular situations of project procurement, such as: problems
that consider only quantitative factors, when managers apply
statistical methods (Cheng and Carrillo, 2012; Du et al., 2015;
Liu et al., 2014), and mathematical programming (Chen et al.,
2013; Bashiri et al., 2011; Padhi and Mohapatra, 2010);
situations in which there are quantitative and qualitative
factors, and multicriteria methods can be used (Hadidi and
Khater, 2015; Lambropoulos, 2007; Adhikary et al., 2015b).
The type of multicriteria method to choose depends in large
part on the aggregation logic, the number of DMs and the
information that is required and available.
In situations with both types of criteria and considering
risks, fuzzy methods (Xu and Yan, 2011; Li and Wan, 2014),
which consider the uncertainties of the procurement process,
can be used. In situations where information about
DM preferences is partial, the flexible and interactive
trade-off method (De Almeida et al., 2016b), which
determines the most preferred alternative according to the
scope of an additive model, may be used. Moreover,
multimethodologies, which combine different methods to
achieve the objectives of a problem, combine the advantages
of each methodology.
Furthermore, various methods should be used in accor-
dance with the type of recommendation sought. For instance,
Safa et al. (2014) used the TOPSIS method and Adhikary et
al. (2015a) used PROMETHEE II and ELECTRE II to rank
suppliers in the selection phase. Bashirietal.(2011)used a
linear programming model to select projects and assign each
project to the most appropriate contractor. Additionally,
Nassar and Hosny (2013) used a multimethodology (AHP
plus Fuzzy Cluster Categorization) to classify suppliers into
five categories in the supplier selection phase. Finally,
Rashvand et al. (2015) used the analytic network project
model to compare multiple contractors in accordance with
management practices in the evaluation phase.
Therefore, the findings of this paper can help managers
and researchers to identify and use appropriate methods for
different situations.
Few papers propose formally integrated models for supplier
selection and evaluation.
MacKerron et al. (2015) propose a formal supplier selection
and evaluation model in a project environment in the
information technology sector. In this case, the authors
proposed a framework with the following stages: problem
detection, important process analysis, process capability
analysis, business case, outsourcing decision, requirement
definition, supplier selection, outsourcing contract, perfor-
mance management considerations and performance
management at an evaluation level. According to MacKerron
et al. (2015), in the selection phase, the potential suppliers are
362 M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
assets which have capability, capacity, cultural fit and price.
After the outsourcing contract had been signed, the logic
scorecard was used to evaluate the suppliers. This evaluation is
used to ensure that the suppliers always updated and obtained
hands-on experience regarding their capability, capacities and
dedication.
Furthermore, some authors consider an evaluation index so
as to monitor a supplier's performance and they use it in the
selection process (Arslan et al., 2008; Kumaraswamy, 1996;
Rashvand et al., 2015). In these cases, this index is used as
feedback on the performance of suppliers which will be used in
future selection processes. According to Rashvand et al.
(2015), these criteria are commonly tailored to select
competent contractors. Thus, an important link is noted
between the phases of a procurement process. However,
most researchers consider only one of these phases in their
studies.
Methods that consider both phases are critical because if
supplier selection is structured, but the performance phase is
not, it is possible that the performance of the supplier who
was contracted will decrease over time and the company will
not perceive this due to the lack of an assessment process. On
the other hand, to choose suppliers who meet the
organization's needs and objectives, a structured selection
process is required; suppliers' performance should be
evaluated after the supplier has been contracted and is
working on the project. Therefore, as claimed by Araújo
and Alencar (2015), integrated models are needed because an
unstructured selection process may result in contracting
unsuitable suppliers, while when the firm does not assess
supplier performance during the contract period, this may
decrease over time. In conclusion, these two phases are
essential if a procurement process in project environments is
to be successful.
Environmental, social and risk criteria are often missing in
research studies.
This study verifies that the factors most cited for supplier
selection in project environments are (1) quality, (2) cost/
price, (3) staff features, (4) finance and (5) company
management. For the evaluation of suppliers, the criteria
most considered were: (1) management of the company, (2)
quality, (3) relationship with stakeholders, (4) staff features
and (5) time.
It was observed that sustainability is an important issue
for an organization's strategy (Sarkis et al., 2012), and that
the procurement process deals with risk and uncertainty
(Turskis, 2008). This process should consider risks in
natural and social factors during the development of a
project (Zhang et al., 2013), yet this factor is cited by few
authors. The study reveals that 1.9% of citations were
related to environmental criteria, 1.0% considered policy,
society and regulations and 0.4% cited risks (The Appendix
gives detailed information). As to the evaluation phase,
2.3% of criteria mentioned were related to environmental
issues, 0.8% considered policy, society and regulations and
there were no citations related with risks. Further studies
should consider these criteria.
Supplier engagement criteria are often misplaced in the
literature.
Finding good partners is a vital issue for the management
of a company. In this study, engagement criteria, such as
collaboration with contractors, cooperative managers,
partnering history, risk sharing with the owner, the level of
risk sharing with the client and the ability to cooperate were
assigned to the subcategory of cooperation relations(the
Appendix gives detailed information).
The literature review revealed that only 2.8% of the 101
papers related to supplier selection cited the cooperation
relations subcategory (Cheng et al., 2011; El-Abbasy et al.,
2013; Zhao and Ren, 2012; Mahdi et al., 2002;
Kumaraswamy and Matthews, 2000; Padhi and Mohapatra,
2010; Walraven and de Vries, 2009; Palaneeswaran and
Kumaraswamy, 2001; Plebankiewicz, 2010; Zavadskas et al.,
2009) and 2.8% of the 19 articles were about supplier
evaluation (Butcher and Sheehan, 2010; Mi et al., 2013; Ng et
al., 2002; Xiao and Proverbs, 2003) cited criteria of this
subclass.
The small number of citations in this area is considered a
significant gap in the literature since the competitiveness of
organizations is closely related to establishing and maintain-
ing collaborative relations with suppliers. Therefore, it is
essential to contemplate this issue in the procurement
process.
5. Conclusions
Since suppliers' performance is critical for the success of
projects, their performance also critically influences the
procurement process. Moreover, in order to select and
evaluate suppliers adequately, it is essential to use criteria
and methods that support the client's needs. Thus, this paper
presents the criteria and methods used to select and evaluate
suppliers in different project environments. In this context, a
systematic review of the literature was undertaken, covering
publications issued between 1973 and 2015. The search for
papers used five databases: Web of Science, Web of
Knowledge, Scopus, SpringerLink and Wiley Online Li-
brary. A growth in the number of studies in this area was
noted.
The papers were classified by the type of project in which
the project occurs and the phase of the procurement process.
In the literature review, it was observed that most papers
consider the phase of supplier selection while supplier
evaluation was considered by only 15% of the studies and
only 1 of 119 articles proposesanintegratedmodelfor
supplier selection and evaluation. Due to the high number of
criteria found in the review, they were classified into
363M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
categories and subcategories and took the phase of the
process into consideration. There were 28 categories for
supplier selection and 20 for supplier evaluation.
The criteria that each phase of the procurement process
most used were examined and after ordering them by the type
of project. It was observed that the main criteria considered
are different for each of these classifications, so this fact must
be taken into account when choosing the most suitable
criteria for each project. Moreover, the methods for the
project procurement process cited in the literature review
were presented. The selection of a method depends on, for
example, the type of criteria used, the existing information
and the desired results. It was also noted that there is no best
method, but rather methods that are suitable for different
decision problems.
This paper has contributed to the literature by integrating
knowledge from studies on criteria and methods with a view
to selecting and evaluating suppliers for projects. Therefore,
as these themes are highly related and commonly used
together for practical applications and to propose models, this
paper helps researchers and managers to find research
material more quickly, and condenses high-quality articles
available on relevant databases that can be drawn on for their
research.
Therefore, this study offers a basis of reference for
managers and researchers, so they can inform themselves
about criteria and methods that they have not considered
hitherto and decide whether or not they should be used in
their organization. Recommending a robust set of criteria or
methods for all companies, even to those in the same sector, is
dangerous because each organization has different character-
istics and preferences.
5.1. Practical implications
The findings of the study may serve to provide some
assistance to managers in using criteria that are suitable for
their type of project and procurement phase so as to improve
the project procurement process.
The factors synthesized in Tables2to4may be used as a
starting point or a reference list when surveying the most
important factors to be considered in selecting and evaluating
a supplier. However, given the specificity of each organiza-
tion, we recommend that an organization should build its own
list of criteria. We have also observed that the type of project
may guide the development of criteria for supplier selection
and evaluation.
Also, this research highlights the need to discuss the
aspiration levels for both agents, contractors and contracting
during project supplier selection and evaluation.
Finally, the outcomes of this paper provide a good source
of information for researchers seeking to conduct future
studies on this theme, as well as a list of publications from
academic journals which could be useful.
5.2. Limitations
Although this paper has contributed to knowledge about the
supplier selection and evaluation process in a project environ-
ment, it has some limitations:
- The taxonomy used in the paper was proposed based on
reviewing the literature, and no primary research was
performed to test this taxonomy.
- This research does not discuss the aspiration levels for
clients and suppliers during the procurement process.
5.3. Direction for future research
The observations from this study provide insights to explore
the issues raised here. These results show some opportunities
for future research studies in this field.
First, quantitative and qualitative studies are needed on the
use of several measures to define the importance rating of
criteria for selecting and evaluating suppliers. Additionally,
these criteria must be used in practical applications in different
sectors.
Moreover, due to the strategic importance of sustainability,
environmental, ecological, social and risk factors, it is
important to consider these criteria and conduct an analysis of
their expected performance in future studies.
The methods cited in the review can be used as a basis for
real world applications. It is critical to choose the adequate
methodology for the problem, and to take into consideration
thetypeofcriteriaused,theinformationavailable,thetypeof
recommendation and the complexity level.
Finally, the results have revealed that the procurement
process may have to consider new perspectives, such as client/
supplier relations, due to the importance of having partnerships
with suppliers that meet organizational needs. Finally, it would
be useful to conduct exploratory studies on the perception of
different stakeholders in contractual partnerships in the supplier
selection phase. Also, models of negotiation that explain in
depth the multiple and conflicting factors in this phase may be
proposed.
Conict of interest statement
The authors declare that there is no potential conflict of
interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by the Brazilian National
Council for Scientific and Technological Development
(CNPq) to whom the authors are grateful.
364 M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
Table A1
Categories for supplier selection.
Quality [9.2%]
Subcategory Some criteria Authors [number of citations of each author]
Quality control [2.5%] Auditors' assessment, audits, QA/QC programs, qualification
assessment, quality assurance measures, quality assurance
system, quality assurance, quality control and assurance plan,
quality certifications, quality control certification, satisfaction
index.
Cheng et al. (2012)[3], Darvish et al. (2009),Holt (1997),
Dowlatshahi et al. (2015)[3], Holt et al. (1993),Holt et al.
(1995),Humphreys et al. (2005)[2], Juan (2009),
Kumaraswamy (1996),Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy
(2000a),Mahdi et al. (2002)[2], Yang et al. (2012),Smith
(1973),Plebankiewicz (2010)[2], Yasamis et al. (2002)[8],
Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011)[3], Zavadskas and Vilutiene
(2006),Zhao and Ren (2012),Zavadskas et al. (2009),
Quality failures [1.0%] Failure to comply with the quality specifications, failures
affecting a client's critical objectives, failures affecting a
client's secondary objectives, rejected items.
Bendaña et al. (2008)[2], Holt (1997),Holt et al. (1993),Holt
et al. (1994a),Holt et al. (1995),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015),
Cheng and Li (2004),Marzouk et al. (2013)[2], Palaneeswaran
and Kumaraswamy (2000a),Shahadat (2003),Wong et al.
(2001),Xu and Yan (2011).
Quality standards [0.6%] Standard of quality, standards and corporate qualifications,
adherence to specifications.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Arslan et al. (2008),Harvey
(1997),Yang et al. (2012),Cheng et al. (2012),Zavadskas and
Vilutiene (2006),Zavadskas et al. (2009)[3].
Quality achieved [0.5%] Actual quality achieved for similar works, actual quality
achieved on contract, actual quality achieved.
Cheng and Li (2004),Eshtehardian et al. (2013),Holt (1997),
Holt et al. (1993),Holt et al. (1994a),Holt et al. (1995),Wong
et al. (2001).
Other quality criteria [4.6%] Completeness, compliance with contract, compliance,
engineering reliability, proposed project quality, Q&A, Q.C.
policy, QA/QC activities, qualification, quality and
airworthiness, quality concerns, ability to guarantee quality,
quality objectives, quality of material used, quality of material,
quality of completed projects, quality of product, quality of
subcontractors, quality of the public space, quality
performance level, reliability, reliable in quality, response to
instructions, staff and equipment quality, customer
satisfaction, quality awareness, quality level, quality risk,
level of client needs satisfied, quality and safety, quality
systems, regularly meets quality specifications.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013)[3], Abdelrahman et al. (2008a),
Adhikary et al. (2015b),Abdelrahman et al. (2008b),Adhikary
et al. (2015a),Alhumaidi (2015),Alias et al. (2012),Arslan
(2012)[4], Azambuja and O'Brien (2012),Bendaña et al.
(2008),Carrera and Mayorga (2008),Chen et al. (2013),Chen
and Wang (2009),Cheng et al. (2012),Chinyio et al. (1998),
Eshtehardian et al. (2013),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015)[2], Holt et
al. (1994a),Arslan et al. (2008)[4], Elyamany and
Abdelrahman (2010),Ilie-Zudor and Monostori (2009),
Kumaraswamy (1996),Li and Wan (2014),Kumaraswamy
and Matthews (2000),Nassar and Hosny (2013),Lesniak et al.
(2012),Mahdi et al. (2002)[2],Marzouk et al. (2013),Nasab
and Ghamsarian (2015)[3], Padhi and Mohapatra (2009),Padhi
and Mohapatra (2010),Smith (1973),Palaneeswaran and
Kumaraswamy (2000a)[2], Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy
(2001)[2], Turskis (2008),Sarkis et al. (2012),Shahadat
(2003)[2], Walraven and de Vries (2009),Wang et al. (2013),
Xia et al. (2015),Yang et al. (2012),Yasamis et al. (2002)[2],
Yawei et al. (2005),Zavadskas and Vilutiene (2006),
Zavadskas et al. (2008),Zavadskas et al. (2009),Zhao and
Ren (2012)[2], Zolfani et al. (2012).
Cost/price [8.2%]
Cost/price control [0.8%] Cost control and reporting systems, cost management,
comparison of client's estimate with tender price.
Bendaña et al. (2008),Wong et al. (2001)[4], Smith (1973)[3],
Nassar and Hosny (2013),Yasamis et al. (2002).
Bid cost/price [1.8%] Proposed project budget, bid price, bid price quoted by a
contractor, bid amount, tender price, the quoted price, number
of lowest bids, the difference from the lowest bid, the ratio of
the bid to the average of all bids, investment cost, item bid
price, project bid price.
Abdelrahman et al. (2008a),Abdelrahman et al. (2008b),
Alhumaidi (2015),Carrera and Mayorga (2008),Cheng and Li
(2004),Cheng et al. (2012),El-Abbasy et al. (2013),Elyamany
et al. (2012a),Hatush and Skitmore (1998),Idrus et al. (2011),
Liu et al. (2014),Mahdi et al. (2002),Marzouk et al. (2013),
Nassar and Hosny (2013)[3], Padhi and Mohapatra (2009),
Topcu (2004),Padhi and Mohapatra (2010),Watt et al. (2010),
Singh and Tiong (2005),Wang et al. (2013)[3], Yang et al.
(2012)[2].
Discounts [0.3%] Cost discount, cost reduction, discount percentage. Aretoulis et al. (2010),Carrera and Mayorga (2008),Cheng
and Kang (2012),Shahadat (2003).
Budget [0.3%] Budget change, completion of job within the budget. Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Cheng et al. (2012),Juan
(2009),Arslan et al. (2008).
Other cost/price [5.0%] Contracts overrun: contract (tender value) cost, cost overruns,
cost performance level, cost performance level in similar
projects, costs and the weighted injury frequency rate, low
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Abdelrahman et al. (2008a),
Arslan (2012),Abdelrahman et al. (2008b),Alarcón and
Mourgues (2002),Aretoulis et al. (2010)[4], Azambuja and
(continued on next page)
Appendix A. Sub-category and number of citations of each category of criteria for selection and performance evaluation
365M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
Table A1 (continued)
Quality [9.2%]
Subcategory Some criteria Authors [number of citations of each author]
maintenance costs, material costs, net cost, overruns: cost,
transportation costs, item price, lump sum items price,
proposal price to homogenizedprice ratio, the price of
main section, total price, guarantees price protection,
conversion, cost of building management, cost of common
property management, cost risk, dollar value of performance
incentives associated with contracted items, lane rental costs,
management cost, procurement cost, total evaluated cost to
destination.
O'Brien (2012)[2], Bendaña et al. (2008),Ben-David et al.
(2012),Cao and Wang (2007),Chen and Wang (2009),Cheng
and Li (2004),Chen et al. (2008)[2], Chen et al. (2013),
Chinyio et al. (1998),Cristóbal (2011),Dowlatshahi et al.
(2015)[4], Du et al. (2015)[2], Elyamany and Abdelrahman
(2010),Arslan et al. (2008),Harvey (1997),Holt (1997),Holt
et al. (1993),Holt et al. (1994a),Ilie-Zudor and Monostori
(2009),Lambropoulos (2007),Holt et al. (1995)[2],
Kumaraswamy and Matthews (2000),Li and Wan (2014),
Lesniak et al. (2012)[2], Mahdi et al. (2002)[2], Lin et al.
(2007)[2],Micheli (2008),Nassar and Hosny (2013),Safa et al.
(2015),Sarkis et al. (2012),Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy
(2000a),Safa et al. (2014),Rodríguez et al. (2013),Zolfani et
al. (2012),Turskis (2008),Wang et al. (2013),Xia et al.
(2015),Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2001),Shahadat
(2003)[2], Tsay and Stackhouse (1991)[2], Xu and Yan (2011),
Yang et al. (2012)[2], Yawei et al. (2005),Yilmaz and Ergönül
(2011),Zavadskas and Vilutiene (2006)[5], MacKerron et al.
(2015).
Staff features [7.9%]
General topics [2.3%] Personnel potential, personnel turnover, other staff assigned to
the contractor, pen portraits of the key staff likely to be
involved in the project, site manager and other key staff,
manpower resources, manpower availability, manpower
schedule, manager personality, project manager, human
resource management.
Abdelrahman et al. (2008a),Alptekİn (2014),Bendaña et al.
(2008)[4], Cheng and Li (2004),Dowlatshahi et al.
(2015),Cheng et al. (2012),Cheng et al. (2011),Harvey
(1997)[2], Hatush and Skitmore (1998),Mahdi et al. (2002)[2],
Holt et al. (1993),Sarkis et al. (2012)[3], Safa et al. (2015),
Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2001),Plebankiewicz
(2010)[2], Shahadat (2003),Singh and Tiong (2006),Smith
(1973),Wong et al. (2001),Walraven and de Vries (2009),
Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011),Yasamis et al. (2002),Zavadskas
and Vilutiene (2006),Zavadskas et al. (2009)[2].
Workload [0.9%] Workload, current and future workload, current workload,
current workload (contract duration), current workload at time
of tendering.
Alhumaidi (2015),Cheng and Li (2004),Harvey (1997),Wong
et al. (2001),Holt et al. (1993),Holt et al. (1994a),Holt et al.
(1994b),Holt et al. (1995),Mahdi et al. (2002),Singh and
Tiong (2006),Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2001),
Topcu (2004).
Adequacy of personnel [0.5%] Adequacy of technical staff, adequacy of labor resources,
adequacy of manpower-facilities.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013)[2], Arslan (2012),Smith (1973),
Arslan et al. (2008)[2].
Qualification of personnel [1.6%] Qualification of key personnel, qualification of QA/QC
personnel, qualification of these key people, quality and
quantity of human resources, qualification and experience of
management staff.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Dowlatshahi et al.
(2015),Arslan et al. (2008),Hadidi and Khater
(2015),Mahdi et al. (2002),Holt (1997)[2], Holt et al.
(1993)[2], Holt et al. (1994a)[3], Holt et al. (1994b),Holt et
al. (1995)[2], Singh and Tiong (2006)[3], Wong et al.
(2001)[2], Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011)[2], Zavadskas and
Vilutiene (2006).
Amount of personnel [1.1%] Number of key personnel for the project, number of qualified
personnel, key persons available for this project, availability of
key personnel, number of employees, number of executives.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Arslan et al. (2008),Holt
(1997),Holt et al. (1993),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015)[2], Holt et
al. (1994a),Holt et al. (1994b),Holt et al. (1995),Nasab and
Ghamsarian (2015),Nassar and Hosny (2013),Plebankiewicz
(2010),Topcu (2004),Zavadskas et al. (2010),Wong et al.
(2001)[2].
Experience of personnel [0.8%] Availability of experienced technical staff for each project,
experience of technical personnel, years that key personnel
have spent with the company, years with co, experience of
executives.
Alias et al. (2012),Bashiri et al. (2011),Darvish et al. (2009),
Hatush and Skitmore (1998),El-Abbasy et al. (2013),Holt
(1997),Holt et al. (1994a),Plebankiewicz (2010),Nasab and
Ghamsarian (2015),Smith (1973),Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011),
Zavadskas et al. (2010).
Training [0.7%] Personnel training, extent of formal training regime, formal
training regime, training or skill level of craftsmen, staff
in-service training.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Arslan et al. (2008),Holt
(1997),Holt et al. (1993),Holt et al. (1994a),Holt et al. (1995),
Nassar and Hosny (2013),Wong et al. (2001),Yasamis et al.
(2002),Zavadskas and Vilutiene (2006).
Financial issues [7.9%]
Financial references [0.9%] Cheng and Li (2004),Cheng et al. (2012),Holt et al. (1993),
Hatush and Skitmore (1998),Holt (1997)[2], Holt et al.
366 M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
Table A1 (continued)
Quality [9.2%]
Subcategory Some criteria Authors [number of citations of each author]
Bank reference, bank referenced rating, AAA grade credit
assessment certificate, bank arrangements and bonding, letter
of credit.
(1994a)[3], Holt et al. (1995)[2], Topcu (2004),Nasab and
Ghamsarian (2015).
Financial capacity/ability [1.4%] Economic capacity, financial soundness, finance capability,
financial ability, financial capacity, financial condition,
financial capability, has favorable financial capacity to do the
work, maximum resource/financial capacity, financial
viability.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Alptekİn (2014),Chen et al.
(2013),Xia et al. (2015),Cheng and Li (2004),Cheng et al.
(2011),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015),El-Abbasy et al. (2013),Liu
et al. (2014),Arslan et al. (2008),Hatush and Skitmore (1998),
Idrus et al. (2011),Lambropoulos (2007),Nasab and
Ghamsarian (2015),Singh and Tiong (2005),Safa et al.
(2015),Shahadat (2003),Wang et al. (2013),Wong et al.
(2001),Zavadskas et al. (2009).
Payments [1.3%] Advance payment, cash credit, credit level, credit rating, credit
standing, extended payment terms, authorized and paid-up
capital, contractor's difficulty in reimbursement, liquidity
ratio.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015),
Arslan et al. (2008),Arslan (2012)[4], Hatush and Skitmore
(1998)[2], Marzouk et al. (2013),Mahdi et al. (2002)[2],
Lambropoulos (2007),Nasab and Ghamsarian (2015)[2],
Shahadat (2003),Singh and Tiong (2006)[2], Topcu (2004).
Financial stability [0.8%] Financial stability, financial stability-controls, financial
strength and stability.
Alhumaidi (2015),Arslan (2012),Bendaña et al. (2008),
Darvish et al. (2009),El-Abbasy et al. (2013),Hatush and
Skitmore (1998),Mahdi et al. (2002),Holt (1998),Nasab and
Ghamsarian (2015),Plebankiewicz (2010),Smith (1973),
Yawei et al. (2005).
Financial measures [1.2%] Balance sheet, cash flow, cash discount, equity capital,
leverage ratio, net present value, profitability, expected total
return.
Bashiri et al. (2011),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015),Holt (1997),
Holt et al. (1993),Holt et al. (1994a),Holt et al. (1995),Mahdi
et al. (2002)[2], Safa et al. (2015),Sarkis et al. (2012)[2],
Shahadat (2003),Topcu (2004)[3].
Other [2.3%] Finance, financial arrangements, financial asset, financial
control, financial liability, financial performance, financial
standing, financial statement, financial status, financial
strength and ownership, owned financial funds, total
operational income, working capital, economics/business,
economics, economic situation.
Adhikary et al. (2015b),Adhikary et al. (2015a),Aretoulis et al.
(2010),Alias et al. (2012)[2], Carrera and Mayorga (2008),
Chen and Wang (2009),Chen et al. (2013),Cheng and Li
(2004),Cristóbal (2011),El-Abbasy et al. (2013),Harvey
(1997),Hatush and Skitmore (1998),Mahdi et al. (2002),
Padhi and Mohapatra (2009),Safa et al. (2015)[3], Padhi and
Mohapatra (2010),Plebankiewicz (2010)[2], Sarkis et al.
(2012)[2], Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2001),Singh
and Tiong (2006),Topcu (2004)[2], Wong et al. (2001),
Zavadskas et al. (2009)[2], Yawei et al. (2005),Zavadskas and
Vilutiene (2006).
Company management [7.6%]
Management systems and
control [0.6%]
Availability of project management software, organization and
management system, project management system.
Harvey (1997),Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy (2001),
Wong et al. (2001)[2], Plebankiewicz (2010),Smith (1973)[2],
Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011),Yasamis et al. (2002).
Work management [0.7%] Management and organization of works, contractor work
strategy, labor plan, work breakdown.
Cheng et al. (2012)[2], Kumaraswamy (1996),Mahdi et al.
(2002),Smith (1973)[2], Zavadskas and Vilutiene (2006)[2],
Zavadskas et al. (2009),Yawei et al. (2005).
Integration [0.6%] Integration management, key management: years with
contractor, engineering co-ordination.
Dowlatshahi et al. (2015),Holt et al. (1995),Mahdi et al.
(2002),Smith (1973),Walraven and de Vries (2009),Wang et
al. (2013),Wong et al. (2001),Yang et al. (2012),Yasamis et
al. (2002).
Management capability/ability [0.8%] Management capability, managerial capability, project
management capabilities, project management expertise,
management capability.
Cheng et al. (2011),Cristóbal (2011),Hatush and
Skitmore (1998),Mahdi et al. (2002)[2], Plebankiewicz
(2010),Singh and Tiong (2005),Smith (1973),Watt et al.
(2009),Watt et al. (2010),Wong et al. (2001),Yawei et al.
(2005).
Management knowledge [0.9%] Management knowledge, organizational expertise related to
each project, organizational expertise, understanding of the
project.
Bashiri et al. (2011),Bendaña et al. (2008),Chen et al. (2013),
Hatush and Skitmore (1998),Li and Wan (2014),
Plebankiewicz (2010),Smith (1973)[3], Topcu (2004),Wong
et al. (2001),Zavadskas and Vilutiene (2006).
Organization [1.0%] Organization, interface management, schedule, overall
organization -management, project management organization,
project organization, work organization.
Bendaña et al. (2008),Hatush and Skitmore (1998),Holt et al.
(1995),Holt et al. (1994a),Smith (1973)[3], Wang et al.
(2013),Zavadskas and Vilutiene (2006),Yang et al. (2012)[2],
Holt et al. (1993),Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011).
Other [3%] Traffic management, high caliber management, management
experience, management resource, project management,
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Arslan (2012),Chen et al.
(2008),Chen et al. (2013),Darvish et al. (2009),Holt et al.
(continued on next page)
367M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377
Table A1 (continued)
Quality [9.2%]
Subcategory Some criteria Authors [number of citations of each author]
project management processes, construction management and
sub-contractor management, management safety accountabil-
ity, procurement management, qualification of key
management.
(1993),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015)[5], Arslan et al. (2008),
Hatush and Skitmore (1998),Holt et al. (1995)[2],
Kumaraswamy (1996),Holt et al. (1994a)[2], Mahdi et al.
(2002)[2], Safa et al. (2015),Sarkis et al. (2012),Shahadat
(2003),Walraven and de Vries (2009),Wang et al. (2013)[3],
Xia et al. (2015),Wong et al. (2001),Yang et al. (2012)[2],
Yasamis et al. (2002)[5], Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011),
Zavadskas and Vilutiene (2006),Zhao and Ren (2012)[3],
Zavadskas et al. (2009),Zavadskas et al. (2010).
Experience [6.5%]
Similar works [1.9%] Experience in similar jobs, experience in similar projects,
experience in similar works, experience in the construction
industry, experience level of project team on similar type of
project, experience of firm in construction, similar projects.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013)[2], Bendaña et al. (2008),Arslan
et al. (2008)[2], Cristóbal (2011),El-Abbasy et al. (2013),Holt
(1997),Holt (1998),Holt et al. (1993),Holt et al. (1994a),Holt
et al. (1994b),Holt et al. (1995),Idrus et al. (2011),
Kumaraswamy and Matthews (2000),Mahdi et al. (2002)[4],
Padhi and Mohapatra (2009),Topcu (2004),Padhi and
Mohapatra (2010),Wong et al. (2001),Singh and Tiong
(2006)[2], Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011),Zavadskas et al. (2008).
Geographic questions [1.1%] Experience geographically, experience in geographic area of
project, experience in the geographical region, experience in
local area.
Cheng and Li (2004),Darvish et al. (2009),Holt (1997),Holt
(1998),Holt et al. (1993),Holt et al. (1994a),Holt et al.
(1994b),Holt et al. (1995),Mahdi et al. (2002)[2], Nasab and
Ghamsarian (2015),Wong et al. (2001)[4], Yilmaz and
Ergönül (2011).
Characteristics of projects [0.9%] Scale of projects completed, size of projects completed, size of
past projects completed.
Cheng and Li (2004)[2], Harvey (1997),Holt (1997)[2], Holt
et al. (1993)[2], Holt et al. (1994a)[2], Holt et al. (1995)[2],
Singh and Tiong (2006).
General [2.6%] Organization experience, past experience, contractor
experiences, experience level, experience modification rate,
industrial experience, organizational experience, work
experience, age of contractor company, number of
constructed houses, number of years in construction, total
number of works performed by contractor, work history.
Alhumaidi (2015),Alptekİn (2014),Chen and Wang (2009),
Cheng and Li (2004),Darvish et al. (2009),Holt (1997),
El-Abbasy et al. (2013),Holt (1998),Hadidi and Khater (2015),
Hatush and Skitmore (1998)[2], Holt et al. (1993)[2], Holt et al.
(1994a)[2],Holt et al. (1995)[2], Juan (2009),Lambropoulos
(2007),Mahdi et al. (2002),Singh and Tiong (2006),Nasab and
Ghamsarian (2015)[2], Plebankiewicz (2010)[2], Palaneeswaran
and Kumaraswamy (2001),Wang et al. (2013),Watt et al. (2009),
Watt et al. (2010),Xia et al. (2015),Yang et al. (2012),Zhao and
Ren (2012),Yawei et al. (2005),Yilmaz and Ergönül (2011)[2],
Zavadskas et al. (2008),Zavadskas et al. (2010).
Time [6.0%]
Timeliness [1.4%] Ability to timely complete projects, ability to complete similar
projects on time, ability to complete on time, completion of
contract on time, completion of job on time, completion of job
within the time.
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Aretoulis et al. (2010),Arslan
(2012)[5], Azambuja and O'Brien (2012)[2], Bashiri et al.
(2011),Chinyio et al. (1998),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015),
El-Abbasy et al. (2013),Eshtehardian et al. (2013),Arslan et
al. (2008),Shahadat (2003),Topcu (2004),Wong et al. (2001),
Zavadskas et al. (2009)[2].
Problems in time [1.2%] Contracts overrun: contract time, overruns: time,
incompetence of suppliers as to delivering materials on time,
delay, delay in completing the project.
Abdelrahman et al. (2008a),Abdelrahman et al. (2008b),Holt
et al. (1995),Cheng and Li (2004),Holt (1997),Holt et al.
(1994a),Marzouk et al. (2013)[2], Nassar and Hosny
(2013)[4], Padhi and Mohapatra (2009),Padhi and
Mohapatra (2010),Xu and Yan (2011),Zavadskas et al.
(2009),Yang et al. (2012).
Proposed time/Schedule [1.1%] Time quoted to complete the project, timeframe, construction
schedule and assurance measures for time limit of project,
due-date, proposed project schedule, proposed time schedule
of project.
Bendaña et al. (2008),Cheng et al. (2012),Juan (2009),
Ilie-Zudor and Monostori (2009),Mahdi et al. (2002)[2],
Nassar and Hosny (2013),Padhi and Mohapatra (2009),Padhi
and Mohapatra (2010),Singh and Tiong (2006),Smith (1973),
Stegen and Palovic (2014),Xia et al. (2015),Yang et al.
(2012),Zavadskas et al. (2008)[2].
Production time [0.5%] Total weighted flow time, fabrication lead time, lead time,
construction duration.
Azambuja and O'Brien (2012),Safa et al. (2014),Wang et al.
(2013),Nassar and Hosny (2013),Dowlatshahi et al. (2015)[2],
Zavadskas et al. (2008).
Other [1.8%] Bidding time, completion time, delivery time, the discounted
total weighted completion time, time control, time
management, transit time, completion/time performance,
Abbasianjahromi et al. (2013),Alhumaidi (2015),Chen et al.
(2013),Arslan (2012),Azambuja and O'Brien (2012),Carrera and
Mayorga (2008),Chen and Wang (2009),Chen et al. (2008),
368 M.C.B. de Araújo et al. / International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017) 353377