Page 1
Abstract number: 011-0005
Title: Extending the model of supply management orientation and its effect on supplier buyer performance
Authors:
T.A.S.Vijayaraghavan Priyal Singh Xavier Labour Relations Institute Xavier Labour Relations Institute Circuit House Area (East), Jamshedpur Circuit House Area (East), Jamshedpur
[email protected] [email protected] 09431113508 09934316783
POMS 20th Annual Conference
Orlando, Florida U.S.A.
May 1 to May 4, 2009
Page 2
Introduction:
Supplier management is becoming a strategically important area and its link to firm performance
has been witnessed by lot many firms. Motorola, Marks & Spencer, and Xerox are some
examples of firms that have moved towards closer, collaborative relationships with their
suppliers. In the global auto industry, the big three US auto makers and many of their European
counterparts have joined major Japanese automakers in their attempts toward forming
collaborative relationships with few suppliers. Boeing 787 was the result of collaborative
working with suppliers after the stagnation it faced initially in the development and production
stages. Also strategies like VMI, CPFR are being adopted by many companies to achiever
greater performance.
Long term relationships have positive impact on cost, quality, flexibility & satisfaction of the
parties involved. While close relationships can be advantageous in many ways, they have some
inherent operational risks. Risk might be due to opportunistic behavior, any unfortunate incident
at supplier’s end. It’s important to manage partnership risks in the relationships in the present
context. According to a survey of business executives done by McKinsey (2006), supplier
reliability was rated among the top 3 risks in the supply chain.
In order to find the effect of supplier buyer relationships on their performance & the risks
involved therein, an extended framework is proposed in the paper which includes some
additional dimensions to capture risk in the framework. In addition to the proposed framework,
hypothesis are derived based on the model to study the relationship performance link.
Page 3
The paper has three sections. The first section deals with literature review on the area of supplier
relationships, performance and on the risks within the supplier relationships. In the second
section some existing frameworks are discussed which are extended in the paper. The third
section has the proposed model to capture risk dimensions in the previous models. Finally the
fourth section covers the hypothesis derived and the literature support for it. This model can
help to devise some predictive relationship management strategies based on performance
requirements.
Motivation for the research:
In the supply management context, there is a shift of approach from arm’s length to more close
relationships with the suppliers. Japanese companies have pioneered this philosophy and the
success of their efforts is visible in the performance of the companies. However in India, still the
supply relationships are anecdotal as evidence of close relationships are only evident in
automotive industries and hardly any literature is there that deals with the performance of the
buyers and suppliers in a collaborative relationship. According to the empirical study done by
Dangayach et al, (2003), Indian companies are still emphasizing on quality; however, automobile
sector has set to compete globally with high innovation rate, faster new product development,
and continuous improvement. Also while performance in relationships is widely studied,
measures for reliability are not addressed adequately in the performance measurement.
Thus the paper tries to address this gap by proposing a model that includes both measurement
and reliability measures to map the status of supply relationships and to capture impact on
Page 4
reliability in the relationships. Further the model studies supply management strategies
simultaneously, which has not been addressed in the literature.
Literature Review:
Buyer Supplier relationships:
The strategic importance of supplier management is increasing in majority of companies.
Supplier management represents an investment by the buying firm in the supplier that may
reduce transaction costs and yield a more cooperative relationship (Carr et al, 1999). In the
supplier management there is a continuous shift in the buyer supplier relationship orientation
from transactional to long term relation one like alliances and partnerships. Strategically
managed long-term relationships with key suppliers can have a positive impact on the firm’s
financial performance (Gadde et al, 2001; Carr et al, 1999). Some other benefits sought after
from this transaction are lower costs, better communication, coordination and quality &
satisfaction (Janda et al., 2002).
There was an interesting finding that US firms are more actively involving suppliers in their
integrated product development (IPD) projects, given the adversarial nature of the traditional US
buyer-supplier relationship. The fact that the entire IPD process represents a departure from the
typical model of product development is partially responsible for the success US firms have had
in involving suppliers in product development programs. The trend towards supplier integration
has been further strengthened by the widespread adoption of just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing –
with its emphasis on more tightly coupled buyer-supplier relationships – and the subsequent
extension of JIT principles throughout the supply channel (Birou et al, 1994)
Page 5
Efforts are made to measure the relationship value. The Expected relationship value focuses on
the future benefits to be derived over the life of the relationship. Tangible variables were taken
for ERV calculation. However relationships have intangible benefits too. Face-to-face planning
and communication with key suppliers will benefit the buying firm in the long run. In addition,
purchasing professionals perceive that suppliers are more responsive to their requirements when
a cooperative type of relationship exists. All other things being equal, those firms that pursue
cooperative type relationships with key suppliers can anticipate some improvement in their
firm’s financial performance (Carr et al, 1999).
Success in buyer supplier relationships is evident from increasing quality level, reducing cost,
decreasing new product development time & increasing cooperation (Kannan et al., 2006). In
addition loyalty to existing suppliers is a risk-reducing strategy (Mitchell, 1995). In addition,
Zsidisin et al. (2000) and Zsidisin et al., (2003) draw attention to such initiatives as partnership
formation, building strategic alliances, supplier development and developing supplier
performance measurement systems, arguing them as risk reducing strategies. In a similar vein,
some authors show how agency theory can be used to develop risk-sharing strategies
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Zsidisin et al, 2003).
There is considerable evidence that failure to manage supply chain risks effectively can have a
significant negative impact on organisations (Mitchell, 1995). Supplier buyer relationship is
considered to be one the most crucial link for risk management in supply chains. Cousins at el.
(2004) proposed the strategic risk means overdependence on a single or limited number of
Page 6
suppliers. Puto et al. (1985) identify supplier relationship development as an important risk-
handling strategy. A key component of managing networks of interactions is the development of
strategies to reduce the risks posed by the inappropriate behavior or performance of particular
network members (Ford, 1980; Gadde et al, 2001).
Risk in buyer supplier relationship:
In context of buyer supplier relationship there are various ways risk has been defined. Zsidisin et
al., (2003) define supply risk as “the potential occurrence of an incident associated with inbound
supply from individual supplier failures or the supply market, in which its outcomes result in the
inability of the purchasing firm to meet customer demand or cause threats to customer life and
safety”. He further stresses that two concepts are involved in the definition of supply risk, i.e.,
the probability and its impact. Risk is perceived to exist when there is a relatively high likelihood
that a detrimental event can occur and that event has a significant associated impact or cost.
Cooper (2006) reflects on two risks in a buyer supplier relation i.e., financial risk & performance
risk. Suppliers and buyers of R&D results perceive two exchange risks: first, the risk to achieve a
lower profitability on the innovation return than the exchange partner, second, the risk of the
partner becoming a competitor by unplanned, one-sided knowledge flows. Both risks motivate
opportunistic behavior (Helm et al, 2004).
Hilmer et al (1994) identify the possibility of a loss of vital know-how in particular with respect
to core competencies as a major risk factor in outsourcing. It is critical to an organization’s
success to understand the supply risk that exists. Failures to address them have resulted in
Page 7
significant losses like in case of Ford, the company posted a loss of $2.1 billion charge against
profits to cover the recall of 13 million tires due to quality issues with supplier.
There has been minimal research conducted on how purchasing organizations assess the risk that
exists with inbound supply (Zsidisin, 2004).
Thus the paper has included some of the variables that reflect risk in supplier buyer context.
Reliability is considered as a measure of risk management in the paper. The terms risk and
reliability might be used to reflect the same context and are used interchangeably in the paper.
Theoretical Framework:
Supply Management Orientation (SMO):
SMO is defined as “The management efforts or philosophy necessary for creating an operating
environment where the buyer and supplier interact in a coordinated fashion” (Shin et al, 2000).
This paper tries to extend the construct proposed by Shin et al (2000) to include the other broad
patterns of behaviors leading to co-operation in supplier buyer relationships. Co-ordination can
be studied at the attitudinal, pattern or activity level (Arshinder et al, 2008). Since the purpose of
this study is to help in predicting the outcomes of supply strategies adopted in partnerships, the
co-ordinating activities undertaken are grouped into patterns level approaches for managing
partnerships.
Supply chain coordination can be described as designing mechanisms with aims at bringing the
correlated organizations into the common action, elimination of gaps and overlaps, resource
allocation mutually acknowledged and establishment of risk/revenue sharing and compensation.
Further the authors argue that making coordination mechanism is to coordinate supply chain
Page 8
network, reduce transaction costs, improve product quality and create a competitive advantage
(Zhao et al, 2007).
The supply management orientation is a key characteristic of strategic partnerships. Buyer spend
a large amount of time with the supplier staff, engaged in coordinating tasks (e.g., exchanging
ideas about future plans and improvements) as opposed to control tasks (e.g., negotiating
contracts and monitoring supplier performance) (Bensaou, 1999). The social climate is very
trusting and collaborative which leads to joint actions of the supplier and buyer. When buyers
engage in co-operative ventures with suppliers requiring risk and benefit sharing, trust and
commitment is inherent in the relationship.
Companies striving to maximize supplier performance using a variety of interrelated tools and
techniques, and the effectiveness of any one of these are enhanced by the complementary use of
others. Many studies in literature consider simultaneously two or three practices to achieve
performance gains. For example, reduced number of suppliers reduces the costs of transaction as
well as product cost savings due to joint working. Further quality is improved when suppliers are
included in new product development and when joint investments are made in process. These
investments are made due to the security of long term contracts with the supplier. Further owing
to better information sharing in joint planning as well as alignment of goals between buyer and
supplier, co-operation would be achieved (Turner et al, 2000). Thus, consideration of one SCM
construct is just.
Table 1. gives broadly the approaches undertaken at the pattern level to implement close
partnerships with the aim of improving performance.
Page 9
Pattern Activities References
Quality focus Statistical process control,
Quality systems adoption,
Quality audits, training
Kannan et al(2004) , Ritchie et al(2007)
Long term orientation Long term agreements Fynes et al (2005), Liu et al (2007)
Dyadic solidarity Quality function
deployment, Target costing,
Lockamy et al (2004), Fynes et al
(2005), Liu et al (2007)
Reduced Suppliers Supply rationalization, dual
sourcing
Kannan et al (2004).
Supplier Involvement Involvement in New
product development,
vendor managed inventory
Cousins et al (2007), Lockamy et al
(2004), Agarwal et al(2002)
Contingency planning
& Risk sharing
Joint forecasting, Joint
production planning
Lockamy et al (2004), Fynes et al
(2005), Agarwal et al(2002)
Yielding Accomodation to buyer
requests in case of
emergencies
Fynes et al (2005), Ritchie et al(2007)
Focused commitment Buyer-supplier investments
in form of technology,
human capital, co-location,
Fynes et al (2005), Silveira et al, 2007,
Agarwal et al(2002)
Page 10
Long term relationships Dedicated supplier for part Fynes et al (2005), Agarwal et al(2002)
Table 1 : Approaches for supply relationships management
Buyer Performance:
Buyer performance has been the focus of most of studies when dealing with supply management.
Authors have used the four categories of cost, quality, flexibility and delivery for measuring the
buyer performance(Chan et al, 2003; Gunasekaran et al, 2001; Fynes et al, 2005; Shepherd et
al,2006). Review of literature on supply chain performance metrics provided the performance
measures namely on-time delivery of customer orders, backorder level, percentage stock-outs,
delivery lead time upon receipt of customer order, manufacturing cycle time, supply chain cycle
time, capacity utilization, time to market (Khan et al, 2008).
In a restaurant context, the most important factors moving the restaurateurs toward using fewer
suppliers were to save time, improve delivery schedules, work with a supplier who better
understands their needs, reduce uncertainty of supplies, and lower procurement costs. They also
identified the drawbacks inherent in reducing these buyers’ supplier base, in order of importance
as: the potential for opportunistic behavior of the part of the supplier, overdependence, potential
conflicts over future prices, and uncertainty over the supplier meeting the respondent’s future
needs (Crotts et al., 2001)
Effective supplier integration can also lead to vast improvements in quality, cost, flexibility and
new product development cycle time through sharing of risk and rewards (Cousins et al, 2007;
Zailani et al, 2005). The attitude of buyers towards their suppliers is a predictor of performance
too. (Kannan et al, 2004). Engagement in co-operative relationships led to improvements in
technological advances and quality standards (Zsidisin et al, 2003 ). Longer-term relationships
Page 11
offer significant benefits like manufacturing flexibility, meet customer service objectives and
that these benefits are enduring (Beekman et al, 2004). Thus having a co-operative relationship
with supplier can lead to buyer performance gains significantly.
Supplier Performance:
Earlier work on supplier selection identified operational criteria for supplier performance
important from a buyer’s perspective. It’s interesting to note that intangible criteria of supplier
performance sometimes have larger effect on buyer performance than the most common criteria
like cost and quality (Vonderembse and Tracey, 1999).
Cost, quality, delivery and co-operation were the identified attributes of supplier performance in
the Chinese retail industry context (Zhengyi et al, 2003). A supplier’s operational performance
refers to the combination of product development efficiency, process improvements, quality
conformity, and short lead time. All else equal, the average absolute performance of suppliers in
longer-established relationships should be higher than that of suppliers that have yet to prove
themselves over time (Kotabe et al, 2003).
Recently however softer evaluation criteria are gaining attention in literature. Supplier quality,
supplier service and supplier management fit were identified from buyer’s perspective while
selecting suppliers (Hsu et al, 2006). Some other criteria include co-operation (Zhengyi et al,
2003), environmental friendly operations (Hervani et al, 2005).
Thus efforts are underway to include strategic as well as intangible criteria in supplier evaluation
in addition to the operational dimensions.
Model:
Page 12
BuyerPerformance
(Quality)
Lead Time
On Time Delivery
Delivery Reliability
Product Quality
Cost
On‐time Delivery
Supplier
Performance
Product Features
Reliability
Conformance
Durability
Delivery
Serviceability
Delivery Reliability
BuyerPerformance (Delivery)
Process Flexibility
Volume Flexibility
Production lead time
Production Costs
Product cost
BuyerPerformance
(Costs)
BuyerPerformance (Flexibility)
λ1 λ2
λ3
λ4
λ5
λ6
λ7
λ8
λ9
λ10
λ11
λ12
λ13
λ14
λ15
λ16
λ17
λ18
Supply Management Orientation
λ 20
λ21
λ 22
γ4
γ2
γ3
γ1
γ5
β1
β2
β3
β4
Environment
Flexibility
Multi Source
Technology
Design upgrade
USP
Lead time New prod
Dev. time
New variables
Management fit
Supplier Reliability
Financial position
Cooperation
Process Improvement
Focused commitment Yielding Contingency planning & risk sharing
Long term
orientation
Dyadic solidarity Supplier Involvement
Reduced Suppliers
Quality Focus
Long Term Relationships
Inventory performance
Responsiveness
Reputation
Reliable supply
Page 13
Reference Model:
The model proposed in the paper “Supply management orientation and supplier buyer
performance”, by Shin et al., (2000) and Vijayaraghavan et al (2008) are taken as reference for
the purpose of the study. The primary objective of this research was to test the impact of a supply
management orientation (SMO) on the suppliers’ operational performance and buyers’
competitive priorities cost, quality, delivery, flexibility. The model by Shin et al (2000) was
extended by Vijayaraghavan et al (2008) by adding some more items and testing it in Indian
automotive industry. Three major research hypotheses associated with SMO, Supplier
Performance (SP), and Buyer Performance (BP) were studied answering the following questions
• Does an improved SMO improve supplier’s performance?
• Does an improved supplier’s performance improve the buyer’s performance?
• Does an improved SMO improve internally the buyer’s performance as well?
The SMO is the driver of the structural equation models developed in the study. By doing so,
they showed how SMO and SP affect the buyer’s performance in each of competitive priorities.
Based on these structural models, they tested the theory that ‘‘if a manufacturer buyer adopts an
improved SMO, then the adoption of SMO improves both SP and BP’’.
Proposed Model:
The model extended by Vijayaraghavan et al (2008) lacked comprehensiveness in capturing
supply orientation. Similarly items representing intangible aspects had to be included to arrive at
the comprehensive model for the Indian scenario. The reference model has been modified by
adding certain items that signify risk in the relationship. These items have been taken from the
literature review. The main focus of the study would be to
Page 14
• Identify the variables that represent Supplier Management Orientation (SMO)
• Identify the variables that represent buyer’s performance
• Identify the variables that represent supplier’s performance
• Identify the variables that represent risk in buyer, supplier performance & in SMO
After doing this the next purpose would be to identify the following relationships
• Does an improved Supply Management Orientation of the Manufacturer/buyer improve
supplier’s performance?
• Does an improved supplier’s performance improve the manufacturer’s/buyer’s
performance?
• Does an improved Supply Management Orientation improve internally the
manufacturer/buyer’s performance as well?
• Do contextual variables like supply, demand uncertainty as well as the product
characteristics alter the relationships in the model
Based on the model as given in the figure 1, following hypothesis are proposed
H1: SMO is positively associated with Buyer Performance
H2: SMO is positively associated with Supplier performance
H3: Supplier performance is positively related to buyer performance
The literature support for the above hypothesis is provided in table 2, 3 & 4. For the first
three hypothesis, strategic sourcing/purchasing/supply management, supplier engagement or
supplier collaboration all signify the close relationships with suppliers through various
strategies reflecting the theme of co-operation as defined in supply management orientation.
Page 15
Res
ults
SSM
C
ust s
atis
fact
ion
BP
LTR
O
Inte
r-or
g
com
mun
icat
ion
BP
SP L
TO F
P
BSE
SB
SR F
P
SC P
I
Dep
ende
nt
vari
able
s
rela
ted
to p
aper
Bus
ines
s per
form
ance
(BP)
Buy
er P
erfo
rman
ce (B
P)
Long
te
rm
orie
ntat
ion
(LTO
)
Fina
ncia
l Per
form
ance
(FP)
Succ
ess o
f buy
er su
pplie
r
rela
tions
hip
(SB
SR)
Perf
orm
ance
Impr
ovem
ent (
PI)
Inde
pend
ent
vari
able
s
rela
ted
to p
aper
Stra
tegi
c Su
pply
M
anag
emen
t
(SSM
)
Long
te
rm
rela
tions
hip
orie
ntat
ion
(LTR
O)
Stra
tegi
c Pu
rcha
sing
(SP)
Buy
er-s
uppl
ier
Enga
gem
ent (
BSE
)
Supp
lier C
olla
bora
tion
(SC
)
Aut
hor
Yeu
ng (2
008)
Che
n et
al(2
007)
Che
n et
al (
2004
)
Kan
nan
et a
l (20
06)
Ver
eeck
e et
al (
2006
)
Table 2: Lite
rature sup
port fo
r Hypothe
sis 1
Page 16
ItIR
esul
ts
SEC
SB
SPSP
SC
Buy
er p
erfo
rman
ce (
prod
uctio
n
impr
ovem
ent)
Su
pplie
r’s
perf
orm
ance
LTR
O
Inte
r-or
g
com
mun
icat
ion
SP
Co-
oper
atio
n
Supp
lier
logi
stic
al p
erfo
rman
ce
IM N
IS S
P
D
epen
dent
var
iabl
es r
elat
ed
to p
aper
Buy
e r-S
uppl
ier
Rel
atio
nshi
p (B
SP)
Sup
plie
r Per
form
ance
(SP)
Supp
lier C
omm
itmen
t (SC
)
Dis
cret
e re
latio
nal c
ontin
uum
Supp
lier’
s Per
form
ance
Supp
lier P
erfo
rman
ce (S
P)
Supp
lier
Logi
stic
al
Perf
orm
ance
Nor
m o
f In
form
atio
n Sh
arin
g
(NIS
), Su
pplie
r Pe
rfor
man
ce
(SP)
Inde
pend
ent
vari
able
s
rela
ted
to p
aper
Supp
lier E
valu
atio
n
Com
mun
icat
ion
Stra
tegy
(SEC
S)
Buy
er
Pe
rfor
man
ce
-
Purc
hase
&
pr
oduc
tion
Impr
ovem
ents
Long
te
rm
rela
tions
hip
orie
ntat
ion
(LTR
O)
Co-
oper
atio
n
Inte
rdep
ende
nce
Mag
nitu
de (I
M)
Aut
hor
Prah
insk
i et a
l (20
04)
Fin k
et a
l (20
07)
Paul
raj e
t al (
2007
)
Mor
ris e
t al (
2005
)
Ryu
et a
l (20
07)
Table 3: Lite
rature sup
port fo
r Hypothe
sis 2
Page 17
Res
ults
SQM
OM
BQ
P
SQM
IMP
SD P
P
SQ B
Q
SDS
& IS
PQ
I B
FP
SP
BF
SS B
F
Dep
ende
nt
vari
able
s
rela
ted
to p
aper
Buy
er’s
Qua
lity
perf
orm
ance
(BQ
P), I
nven
tory
Man
agem
ent P
erfo
rman
ce
(IM
P), P
roce
ss m
anag
emen
t
Purc
hase
Per
form
ance
(PP)
Buy
er Q
ualit
y M
anag
emen
t
(BQ
)
Buy
ers f
inan
cial
perf
orm
ance
(BFP
), Pr
oduc
t
Qua
lity
Impr
ovem
ent (
PQI)
Buy
er’s
Fle
xibi
lity
(BF)
Inde
pend
ent
vari
able
s
rela
ted
to p
aper
Supp
lier Q
ualit
y
Man
agem
ent (
SQM
)
Supp
lier D
evel
opm
ent (
SD)
Supp
lier Q
ualit
y
Man
agem
ent (
SQ)
Supp
lier D
evel
opm
ent
Supp
ort (
SDS)
, Inf
orm
atio
n
shar
ing
(IS)
Supp
lier p
erfo
rman
ce (S
P)
& c
o-op
erat
ive
Supp
ly
stra
tegy
(SS)
Aut
hor
Kay
nak
et a
l (20
08)
Rod
rıgue
z et
al(2
005)
Lo e
t al(2
006)
Car
r e ta
l(200
7)
Ndu
bisi
et a
l (20
05)
Table 4: Lite
rature sup
port fo
r Hypothe
sis 3
Page 18
However just understanding the relationship between constructs wont provide a complete
understanding of the phenomenon. Contextual variables should be studied which might alter the
relationships between the constructs in the model.
Product complexity requires different performance for different products and need for more
relational approaches. Hence based on the product complexity, the performance might vary in
supplier buyer co-ordinated relations (Laios et al, 2001). It has been argued that when product
complexity increases firms adopt a more co-operative approach to take benefit of supplier’s
technical capabilities too. Bensaou (1999) identified partnerships are required for components
requiring high level of customization, technically complex which requires strong engineering
expertise.
If a relationship represents only a small share of a supplier’s total sales, then a supplier may not
expend as much effort on relationship communication. Thus supplier dependence would vary the
amount of supplier commitment towards buyer’s co-operative efforts and hence would moderate
the relationship between SMO and buyer/supplier performance (Claycomb et al, 2004; Bensaou,
1999; Takeishi, 2001).
The nature of the processes, level of decomposability and predictability of productive tasks, and
technological features vary from plant to plant and industry to industry, making the various
forms of interaction with supplier’s diversely critical (Toni et al, 1999). Environmental
uncertainty might affect the degree of co-operation in supplier buyer relationships (Cai et al,
2008). With the level of co-operation, the performance benefits might also be affected due to the
varying levels of information exchange and hence benefit/risk sharing.
Page 19
H4: Product complexity moderates the relationships between SMO and supplier/buyer
performance.
H5: Supplier dependence moderates the relationship between supply management orientation
and supplier/buyer performance
H6: Market characteristic (volume, new product and process dynamism) moderates the
relationship between supply management orientation and buyer performance
H7: Market characteristic (volume, new product and process dynamism) moderates the
relationship between supplier performance and buyer performance
Contribution:
The study would benefit the supply management literature by providing constructs for measuring
co-operative supply orientation which can help in advancement of literature by building theories.
Further there is a gap in the existing performance constructs, which don’t consider intangible as
well as strategic measures. There’s a need to develop a construct that can consider operational,
risk as well as intangible dimensions that reflect the effectiveness of a relationship which is
important if supplier buyer relationships are to be promoted as an effective strategy. The
empirical evidence for the contextual conditions under which such relationships are effective is
an added contribution that would help in aligning the strategy with performance requirements.
Testing all strategies simultaneously would provide with the interactive effect on performance as
this has been a major gap in literature. Further in Indian context, where relationships are still
picking up as the supplier management strategy, it would provide a case for companies looking
to adopt a strategic supply management approach.
Page 20
Limitations & Future Research:
The paper provides a conceptual model for supplier buyer relationships. However there are
certain limitations and avenues for future research. First, the model proposed in the paper has to
be verified by empirical evidence. Second, the model for performance proposed here has to be
expanded further to include the various relationships amongst variables that have not been
modeled here. Third, the model can even be extended to more tiers of suppliers to represent the
supply chain network and the linkages therein between performance effects on various members
on the chain. Lastly a look into successful and failed companies who have adopted relationship
approach would help in identifying the contextual factors that are still not considered and
together this might help in complete understanding of relationship strategy- performance link.
This is quite relevant from an implementation point of view.
Page 21
References:
Agarwal, A., and Shankar, R. (2002), “Analyzing alternatives for improvement in supply chain
performance”, Work Study , Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 32 – 37
Arshinder, Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S. G. (2008) “Supply Chain Coordination: Perspectives,
Empirical Studies and Research Directions”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 115 No.2, pp. 316-335
Beekman, A.V. and Robinson, R.B. (2004), “Supplier Partnerships and the Small, High-Growth
Firm: Selecting for Success”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 59-77
Bensaou, M. (1999), "Portfolios of buyer-supplier relationships", Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 40 No.4, pp.35-44
Birou, L.M., and Fawcett, S.E. (1994) “Supplier Involvement in Integrated Product
Development: A Comparison of U.S. and European Practices” International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 4-14
Cai, S. and Yang, Z. (2008), “Development of cooperative norms in the buyer-supplier
relationship: The Chinese experience”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No.1, pp.
55-70
Carr, A.S and Pearson, J.N. (1999) “Strategically managed buyer–supplier relationships and
performance outcomes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.17, pp. 497–519
Carr, A.S. and Kaynak, H. (2007), “Communication methods, information sharing, supplier
development and performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 346-370
Chan, F.T.S., Qi, H.J., Chan, H.K., Lau, H.C.W. and Ip, R.W.L. (2003), “A conceptual model of
performance measurement for supply chains”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 635-
642
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2007), “Strategic Buyer-Supplier Relationships, Information
Technology and External Logistics Integration”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 43,
Page 22
No. 2, pp. 2 – 14
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A. and Lado, A.A. (2004), “Strategic purchasing, supply management, and
firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 505-523
Claycomb, C. and Frankwick, G.L. (2004), “A Contingency Perspective of Communication,
Conflict Resolution and Buyer Search Effort in Buyer- Supplier Relationships”, The Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 18-34
Cooper, M. J., Wakefield, K. L. and Tanner, J. F. (2006), “Industrial Buyers' Risk Aversion and
Channel Selection,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 653-661
Cousins, P., Lamming, R.C. and Bowen, F. (2004), “The role of risk in environment-related
initiatives”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp.
554-65
Cousins, P.D. and Lawson, B. (2007), “The Effect of Socialization Mechanisms and
Performance Measurement on Supplier Integration in New Product Development”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 311–326
Crotts, J.C., Coppage, C.M.A. and Andibo, A. (2001), “Trust-Commitment Model of Buyer-
Supplier Relationships”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 25, pp. 195-208
Da Silveira, G.J.C., Arkader, R. (2007), “The direct and mediated relationships between supply
chain coordination investments and delivery performance”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 140-158
Dangayach, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2003) “Evidence of manufacturing strategies in Indian
industry: a survey”, International Journal of Production Economics Vol. No. 3, pp. 279-298
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Agency theory: an assessment and review”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-74
Fink, R.C., Edelman, L.F. and Hatten, K.J. (2007), “Supplier performance improvements in
Page 23
relational exchanges”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29–40
Ford, D. (1980), “The development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 339-53
Fynes, B., Voss, C., de Burca and S., (2005), “The impact of supply chain relationship dynamics
on manufacturing performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp.6-19
Gadde, L-E. and Ha°kansson, H. (2001), Supply Network Strategies, Wiley, Chichester
Gunasekaran, A. Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001), “Performance measure and metrics in a
supply chain environment”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.
21 No.1/2, pp. 71-87
Helm, R. and Kloye, M. (2004) “Controlling contractual exchange risks in R&D interfirm
cooperation: an empirical study”, Research Policy, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp.1103–1122
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M. and Sarkis, J. (2005), “Performance measurement for green supply
chain management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 330-353
Hilmer, F. G. and Quinn, J.B. (1994), “Strategic outsourcing”, Sloan Management Review, Vol.
35 No. 4, pp. 43-55
Hsu, C., Kannan, V., Leong G.K., and Tan, K. (2006), “Supplier selection construct: instrument
development and validation”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 213-239
Janda, S., Murray, J., Burton, S. (2002), "Manufacturer-supplier relationships: an empirical test
of a model of buyer outcomes", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31, pp.411-20
Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2006) “Buyer-supplier relationships: The impact of supplier
selection and buyer-supplier engagement on relationship and firm performance”, International
Page 24
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 755-775
Kannan, V.R., and Tan, K.C. (2004), Supplier Alliances: Differences in Attitudes to Supplier and
Quality Management of Adopters and Non-Adopters, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 279-286
Kaynak, H. and Hartley, J.L. (2008), “A replication and extension of quality management into
the supply chain”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 468-489
Khan, A.K. and Pillania, R.K (2008), “Strategic sourcing for supply chain agility and firms’
performance: A study of Indian manufacturing sector”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 10,
pp. 1508-1530
Kotabe, M., Martin, X., Domoto, H. (2003), "Gaining from vertical partnership: knowledge
transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese
automotive industries", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No.4, pp.293-316
Laios, L.G. and Moschuris, S.J. (2001), “The influence of enterprise type on the purchasing
decision process”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 351-372
Liu, Y., Li, Y., Tao, L., and Wang, Y. (2007), “Relationship stability, trust and relational risk in
marketing channels: Evidence from China”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 432-446
Lo, V.H.Y., Sculli, D. and Yeung, A.H.W. (2006), “Supplier quality management in the Pearl
River Delta”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp.
513-530
Lockamy, A. and McCormack, K. (2004), “Linking SCOR planning practices to supply chain
performance: An exploratory study”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1192 – 1218
Mitchell, V-W. (1995), “Organisational risk perception and reduction: a literature review”,
Page 25
British Journal of Management, Vol. 6, pp. 115-33
Morris, M. and Carter, C.R. (2005), “Relationship Marketing and Supplier Logistics
Performance: An Extension of the Key Mediating Variables Model”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 32 – 43
Ndubisi, N.O., Jantan, M., Hing, L.C. and Ayub, M.S. (2005), “Supplier selection and
management strategies and manufacturing flexibility”, The Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 330-349
Paulraj, A. and Chen, I.J. (2007), “Environmental Uncertainty and Strategic Supply
Management: A Resource Dependence Perspective and Performance Implications”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 29 – 42
Prahinski, C., Benton, W.C. (2004), "Supplier evaluations: communication strategies to improve
supplier performance", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, pp.39-62
Puto, C.P., Patton, W.E. and King, R.H. (1985), “Risk handling strategies in industrial vendor
selection decisions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 89-98
Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2007) “Supply chain risk management and performance. A guiding
framework for future development”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 27 No.3, pp. 303-322
Rodriguez, C.S., Hemsworth, D. and Lorente, A.R.M. (2005), “The effect of supplier
development initiatives on purchasing performance: a structural model”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10. No. 4, pp. 289-301
Ryu, S., and Eyuboglu, N. (2007), “The environment and its impact on satisfaction with supplier
performance: An investigation of the mediating effects of control mechanisms from the
perspective of the manufacturer in the U.S.A”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No.
4, pp. 458-469
Shepherd, C. and Günter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and
Page 26
future directions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55
No. 3/4, pp. 242-258
Shin, H., Collier, D.A., Wilson, D.D. (2000), "Supply management orientation and
supplier/buyer performance", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 317-333.
Takeishi, A. (2001), “Bridging Inter- and Intra-firm Boundaries: Management of Supplier
Involvement in Automobile Product Development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No.
5, pp. 403 – 433
Toni, A.D. and Nassimbeni, G. (1999), Buyer-supplier operational practices, sourcing policies
and plant performances: results of an empirical research. International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 597-619
Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S. (1999), "Manufacturing technology and strategy
formulation: keys to enhancing competitiveness and improving performance", Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 17, pp.411-28
Turner, G.B., LeMay, S.A., Hartley, M., Wood, C.M. (2000), "Interdependence and cooperation
in industrial buyer-supplier relationships", Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 8
No.1, pp.16-24.
Vereecke, A. and Muylle, S. (2006), “Performance improvement through supply chain
collaboration in Europe”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.
26 No. 11, pp. 1176-1198
Vijayaraghavan, T.A.S. and Raju, S. B. (2008), “Supply Management Orientation and its Effect
on Buyer / Supplier Performance: Some Insights from Automobile Industry in India”, Great
Lakes Herald, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 20-35
Yeung, A.C.L. (2008), “Strategic supply management, quality initiatives, and organizational
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 490-502
Zailani, S., and Rajagopal, P. (2005), “Supply chain integration and performance: US versus East
Page 27
Asian companies”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 379-
393
Zhao, D., He, L. and Wang, Y. (2007) “The Framework of Supply Chain Coordination
Mechanism Choice: A View of Transaction Costs”, Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International
Conference on Automation and Logistics, pp. 2544-2549
Zhengyi, C., Ying, H. and Brenda, S. (2003), “Buyer Supplier Relationships in China”, China
Business Review, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. p34-37
Zsidisin, G.A. and Ellram, L.M. (2003), “An agency theory investigation of supply risk
management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 15-27.
Zsidisin, G.A., Panelli, A. and Upton, R. (2000), “Purchasing organisation involvement in risk
assessments, contingency plans and risk management: an exploratory study”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 187-97.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L.M., Carter, J.R., Cavinato, J.L. (2004), "An analysis of supply risk
assessment techniques", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 34 No.5, pp.397-413