Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 1

Developing a Purchasing Strategy Taxonomy Based on Competitive Priorities

ekabetçi Önceliklere Dayalı Satınalma Stratejisi Taksonomisinin Geliştirilmesi

Pages
33–49
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This finding empirically validates our argument that existing portfolio models alone do not provide sufficient guidance for defining appropriate strategies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This exploratory study aims to develop a taxonomy of purchasing strategies at the purchase category level.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We define strategies based on competitive priorities, an approach that is common in operations management literature, but very novel in purchasing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This finding empirically validates our argument that existing portfolio models alone do not provide sufficient guidance for defining appropriate strategies.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This exploratory study aims to develop a taxonomy of purchasing strategies at the purchase category level. We define strategies based on competitive priorities, an approach that is common in operations management literature, but very novel in purchasing. Analysing data collected from 318 manufacturing firms in ten countries through the use of cluster analysis, we identify five purchase category strategies: “Emphasise All, Cost Management, Product Innovation, Delivery Reliability, and Emphasise Nothing”. We subsequently investigate how this purchase category strategy taxonomy is related to the Kraljic matrix, a purchasing portfolio model utilised frequently in practice. We find that some strategies are more likely to be implemented in certain quadrants of the matrix but that within each quadrant, it is possible to implement various purchase category strategies in an effective way. This finding empirically validates our argument that existing portfolio models alone do not provide sufficient guidance for defining appropriate strategies.

Özet

Bu araştırma, satınalma kategorisi düzeyinde satınalma stratejileri taksonomisi geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Stratejiler, üretim yönetimi literatüründe yaygın ancak satınalmada çok yeni olan bir yaklaşım olan rekabetçi öncelikler bazında tanımlanmaktadır. On ülkedeki 318 imalat firmasından toplanan veriler kümeleme analizi ile incelenerek beş satınalma kategorisi stratejisi belirlenmiştir: “Tümünü Vurgula, Maliyet Yönetimi, Ürün Yenilikçiliği, Teslimat Güvenilirliği ve Hiçbir Şey Vurgulama”. Daha sonra bu satınalma stratejisi taksonomisinin organizasyonlarda sıklıkla kullanılan bir satınalma portföy modeli olan Kraljic matrisi ile ilişkisi incelenmiştir Bulgular göstermektedir ki bazı stratejilerin matrisin belirli bir bölümünde uygulanması daha olasıdır, ancak her bölümün içinde çeşitli satınalma kategorisi stratejilerini etkili bir şekilde uygulamak da mümkündür. Bu bulgu, sadece mevcut portföy modellerinin kullanımının satınalma stratejilerini tanımlamak için yeterli rehberlik sağlamadığı iddiasını ampirik olarak doğrulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATEŞ, M. A., WYNSTRA, F., RAAİJ, E. V. (2022). Developing a Purchasing Strategy Taxonomy Based on Competitive Priorities. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 1, 33–49. https://ajindex.com/articles/532906

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Armstrong, J. S., T. S. Overton (1977), “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396-402.
  2. Arora, A., A. S. Arora, K. Sivakumar, G. Burke (2020), “Strategic Sustainable Purchasing, Environmental Collaboration, and Organizational Sustainability Performance: The Moderating Role of Supply Base Size”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(6), 709-728.
  3. Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Yi, L. W. Phillips (1991), “Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421-458.
  4. Baier, C., E. Hartmann, R. Moser (2008), “Strategic Alignment and Purchasing Efficacy: an Exploratory Analysis of Their Impact on Financial Performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(4), 36–52.
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990), “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models”, Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
  6. Bollen, K. A., J. S. Long (1993), “Introduction”, in: Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1-9.
  7. Boyer, K. K., M. Pagell (2000), “Measurement Issues in Empirical Research: Improving Measures of Operations Strategy and Advanced Manufacturing Strategy”, Journal of Operations Management, 18(3), 361-374.
  8. Brandon-Jones, A., D. Knoppen (2018), "The Role of Strategic Purchasing in Dynamic Capability Development and Deployment: A Contingency Perspective", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(2), 446-473. Caniëls, M., C. Gelderman (2007), “Power and Interdependence in Buyer Supplier Relationships: A Purchasing Portfolio Approach”, Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 219-229.
  9. Christiansen, T., W.L. Berry, P. Bruun, P. Ward (2003), “A Mapping of Competitive Priorities, Manufacturing Practices, and Operational Performance in Groups of Danish Manufacturing Companies”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(10), 1163-1183.
  10. Dabhilkar, M., L. Bengtsson, N. Lakemond (2016), “Sustainable Supply Management as a Purchasing Capability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36(1), 2-22.
  11. Fiss, P. C. (2007), “A Set-theoretic Approach to Organizational Configurations”, Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180-1198.
  12. Fornell, C., D. F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  13. Frohlich, M. T., J. R. Dixon (2001), “A Taxonomy of Manufacturing Strategies revisited”, Journal of Ope