Search results

Grounding on resource orchestration theory, this paper aims to study the relationship between the way buying companies use their supplier performance measurement systems and the performance improvements obtained from suppliers, with relationship trust identified as a mediator in the previous link.

The authors design a conceptual model and test it through structural equation modelling on a final sample of 147 buyer-supplier responses, collected by means of a dyadic survey.

Results suggest that the buyer company may achieve the most by balancing a diagnostic and interactive use of the measurement system, as they are both positively related to supplier performance improvement. Furthermore, relationship trust acts as a mediator in case of the interactive use, but not for the diagnostic. This type of use negatively affects relationship trust, due to its mechanistic use in the buyer-supplier relationship.

The authors’ results contribute to the current academic debate about supplier performance measurement system design and use by analyzing the impact of different supplier performance measurement system uses, and highlighting their relative impact on relationship trust and supplier performance improvement. From a methodological perspective, adopting a dyadic data collection process increases the robustness of the findings.

In the wake of the growing popularity of the open innovation approach, leveraging suppliers as external sources of innovation has attracted increasing interest from scholars and practitioners. Successful supplier involvement largely depends on an effective performance measurement process, but both supply chain management and innovation management literature have paid limited attention to this aspect. This paper aims to fill this gap by illustrating how companies measure the performance of the suppliers involved in their innovation projects and what role is played by the purchasing department.

This study interviews project stakeholders from nine different organizations acting as focal companies in the supply chains of various industries. This paper complements this on-field information with a vast amount of data collected from secondary project documents. Structured data coding and analysis allow us to discuss how companies redesign their performance measurement systems to ease the collaboration with suppliers in innovation and what factors underly these decisions.

The findings show that, in many cases, supplier performance measurement systems deviate from their typical characteristics to support collaboration in innovation projects. They integrate quantitative and qualitative measures, include contributions from different project stakeholders and are oriented toward high visibility and transparency with suppliers. A more substantial redesign of these systems is favored when purchasing is assigned to strategic project responsibilities and possesses higher absorptive capacity.

The results complement the knowledge for the supply chain management field, where supplier performance measurement systems have been discussed in the context of traditional buyer-supplier relationships, but not comprehensively in innovation projects and not considering the role of purchasing. Findings also contribute to the innovation management literature, which has mostly focused on what aspects need to be measured for innovation partners, rather than how to manage the performance measurement process in practice.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an innovative buyer-supplier performance measurement system (PMS) (called relationship regulator – RelReg), aimed at stimulating collaboration on mutual performance. The RelReg is described all throughout the phases of its lifecycle: first, design features and visual representation of the new measurement framework are reported; second, guidelines on how to implement, use and review the system are provided, highlighting the role of the buyer and the supplier at each step.

A theory building and testing approach is applied. The RelReg developed features primarily ground on previous scientific contributions matched with empirical evidence collected through case studies, workshops and focus groups. The resulting conceptual model is then validated through a dyadic buyer-supplier case study.

Two conceptual frameworks are provided: the RelReg dashboard – a multidimensional PMS; and the RelReg lifecycle – set of activities to be performed by both the buyer and the supplier all along the adoption process. Moreover, empirical insights on relevant issues to be considered when adopting the RelReg are reported.

The RelReg represents an innovative and smart tool, allowing buyer-supplier dyads to collaborate on relationship performance.

Contrasts generic concepts and roles of intra‐organisational performance measurement with concepts of supplier performance measurement. Presents indications from a study of five vehicle manufacturers in Europe with regards to their practices of supplier evaluation in the area of logistics. Based on a categorisation of functions of intra‐organisational performance measurement develops a conceptual framework describing the roles of supplier performance measurement in this context.

The purpose of this paper is to illuminate how supplier evaluation practices are linked to supplier performance improvements. Specifically, the paper investigates how performance information travelling between the evaluating buyer and the evaluated suppliers is shaped and reshaped in the evaluation process.

The paper relies on a multiple, longitudinal case research methodology. The two cases show two companies' efforts in designing, implementing, and using supplier evaluation in order to improve supplier performance.

The findings show how the dynamics of representing, reducing, amplifying, dampening, and directing shape and reshape supplier evaluation information. In both companies, evaluation practices were defined, redefined, and re‐directed by the involved actors' perception and decision making, as well as organisational structures, IT systems, and available data sources.

The identified factors and dynamics could be empirically tested on larger samples to increase generalisability.

The results provide insights into how an evaluating buyer may analyse and control supplier evaluation processes thereby improving their effects. Managers must know how performance information is altered before reaching key supplier actors in order to optimise supplier performance.

Current studies on supplier evaluation practices are limited in their focus on design, implementation, or use. This paper explores all three phases empirically, and proposes a set of dynamics to better understand and control the often taken for granted link between intentions and outcome of such practices. In relation to future research, the authors propose a more holistic direction, which will take the entire supplier evaluation process as its unit of analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the impact of a mature supplier performance measurement system (SPMS) adoption all along its lifecycle phases (i.e. design, implementation, use and review) on the suppliers’ performance.

The research hypotheses have been tested on a final sample of 147 pairs of buyer-supplier responses, collected by means of a dyadic survey involving manufacturing firms and one key supplier of their choice. The research framework has been tested through a structural model using PLS regression.

Considering the joint effect of all the four SPMS phases on supplier performance, the findings show that the system use and review play a prominent effect: the former have a positive impact on supplier quality, delivery and sustainability performance; the latter positively affects supplier delivery, innovation and sustainability. A mature design displays a positive effect on supplier sustainability performance, while a mature implementation results to negatively affect supplier innovation performance. Finally, cost performance is not impacted by any of the four phases.

This study contributes to the open debate regarding the relationship between SPMSs and actual supplier performance improvement. In particular, the lifecycle perspective is introduced to clearly distinguish among each phase of adoption and assess their relative impact on supplier performance. Besides, the dyadic nature of the study allows to investigate different subcomponents of supplier performance jointly considering the buyer company and supplier company perspective, thus achieving a more insightful and robust information.

The purpose of this study is to identify, characterize and assess supplier flexibility measurement practices in the order-to-delivery process.

The study involved a survey; participants were 224 purchasing managers at Swedish manufacturing companies that had more than 20 employees.

Scrutiny of the details of measurement practices revealed that most respondents actually do not specifically measure supplier flexibility. Instead they measure other measures like delivery reliability, conduct qualitative follow-ups, or cannot specify how supplier flexibility is measured. It was acknowledged that they measure different supplier flexibility aspects, and the applied measures were characterized, e.g. in terms of which flexibility dimension they represent.

Conceptual clarifications and adaptations to measuring supplier flexibility in the order-to-delivery process are provided. The identified measures can be a contribution in further developing literature on flexibility performance measurement.

Purchasing, logistics and supply chain managers in search of supplier flexibility performance measurement can find ways to measure and an extended flexibility vocabulary. This has the potential to improve flexibility in the supply chain.

Even though flexibility is claimed as being an important competitive advantage, few empirical studies and operationalized measures exist, particularly in the order-to-delivery process.

This paper establishes an objective‐orientation driven supplier customer satisfaction performance rating system. The purpose is to provide a methodology for “integrating supplier and manufacturer capabilities and applying different strategies for quality improvement”. This study was undertaken to specify the interaction and mutual movement among three groups in the supply chain “Supplier‐Manufacturer‐Customer” and integrate the results from four factors: incoming inspection, line reject performance, supplier service quality and product reliability. These factors are transformed into measurable, quantitative, Just‐in‐time (JIT) parameters, utilized in planning and establishing a supplier performance rating system focused on satisfying both internal and external customers.

Close links between buyers and suppliers are increasingly cited as a critical differentiator of high and low performers in global supply chains. While the application of performance measures to manage supplier relationships has been well‐identified and encouraged in the literature, comparatively little research exists on the inter‐organizational socialization mechanisms that underlie the flow of learning and information within supply chains. The authors aim to develop a model positing that socialization mechanisms play an important role in mediating the relationship between supplier performance measures and performance outcomes.

A structural equation model, using a sample of 142 manufacturing and service firms based in the UK, tests this hypothesised model.

The theoretical framework was supported, with results indicating that socialization mechanisms fully mediate the effects of supplier performance measures (communication and operational‐based) on firm performance.

This study provides additional insights for purchasing managers seeking to improve the management of their strategic supplier relationships. The authors find that monitoring supplier performance is not of itself sufficient, rather, it is the process of socializing the buyer and supplier that is critical to success.

As far as the authors are aware, no previous supply chain research has examined how supplier performance measurement systems, socialization mechanisms, and firm performance are related. The paper makes a significant contribution to this literature embedding an established theoretical construct (socialization) into the supply chain literature.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and the selection of ERP vendors on supply management performance for Fortune 500.

The paper adopts the supply chain maturity model adopted by Gupta and Handfield (2011) and used publicly available information such as articles, research report, newspapers to develop objective maturity ratings for four key indicators – strategic sourcing, category management, and supplier relationship management.

The analysis results suggest ERP users are more mature than non-ERP users in three key indicators: strategic sourcing, category management, and supplier relationship management. Moreover, SAP ERP users are more mature than non-ERP users in strategic sourcing, category management, and supplier relationship management.

This study does not account for the longitudinal performance of ERP systems, nor does it account for differences between organizational scope of ERP deployment, global reach, or implementation duration. The authors also did not include other measures of supply chain performance outside of the procurement area. These factors could provide further insights to supply chain performance, and will be an interesting topic for future research.

This study provides an extensive analysis of how the deployment of ERP systems and the selection of ERP vendors can benefit a company’s supply chain performance. This information is valuable for companies that are considering adapting an ERP system.

This paper uses innovative an maturity assessment rating approach with publicly available resources to measure supply management performance across different companies. This method is novel and provides valuable insights to how ERP systems and their vendors’ impact supply chain management performance.