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

tasviji@xlri.ac.in b06123@astra.xlri.ac.in 09431113508 09934316783

 

POMS 20th Annual Conference

Orlando, Florida U.S.A.

May 1 to May 4, 2009

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.

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

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)

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

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

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

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.

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)

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

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:

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

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

• 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.

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 

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 

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 

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

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

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”,

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

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

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