The Impact of Supply Chain Partnerships on Supplier Performance - Assignment Example

Title: The Impact of Supply Chain Partnerships on Supplier Performance Student’s Name: Institutional Affiliation: Date Assignment is due: The Impact of Supply Chain Partnerships on Supplier Performance Introduction The article “The Impact of supply chain partnerships on supplier performance: an empirical study of the UK fresh produce industry” was originally written by Andrew Fearne and Rachel Duffy, members of Imperial College, in the University of London. Rachael is a student at the imperial college with a major focus on researches detailing issues in the food supply. Her effort for the research topic is her pursuit to successfully complete her PHD program course and graduate at that level. On the other hand, Andrew Fearne is a lecture at Wye College where Rachael is pursuing her PHD program. He is a senior lecture with a principal in Food industry Management, in the University of London. Additionally, Andrew graduated from Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Kingston Universities with main research interests being in supply chain management, market research and consumer behavior one of the broad reasons that he worked with Rachael in completing her research in the same field. He has further qualifications, which grant him the honors of producing an outstanding research in this field with his qualifications as an editor of an international journal addressing both research and practice issues related to food-supply chain issues, namely, Supply chain management Journal. It is worth noting particularly that this article has documented less of evidence in the correlation between buyer-supplier relationships gauging from the prospects of other works in the same field. In general, the article less attempts to enumerate the outcomes of ideal moves to massive collaboration among retailers and their successive suppliers. These paucities in this article imply that an a deductive investigation ideally of the nature of relationships between buyer and supplier, as well as their repercussions for performance, would perfectly be of use as a contribution, to both inter-organizational theory, and the full knowledge of partnerships between retailer and supplier particularly in the UK-food industry. The Body This paper presents a framework of relationships between buyer and supplier ideally used in an empirical study in investigating how the development of collaborative relationships between fresh produce suppliers and retailers in UK as well affects the financial performance that of suppliers in these relationships. However, it does not detail direct relationships between performance and central partnership characteristics as espoused in the works of Kalwani & Narayandas (1995, p.1-16). They are no ideal test or an empirical study in this paper to give an overview of the whole concept over the topic. Additionally, the article highlights weak multivariate analysis, which is particularly used in identifying the dimensions of relationships, which does not make the greatest input in explaining of the performance construct. The paper develops the ideals of supply chain management by first giving an overview of the situation as it was traditionally. However, the comparison of the traditional situations and the present does not give explanations as to how inter-organizational linkages between firms had been arm’s-length often adversarial with specific firms seeking to attain profit improvements or reduce costs at the expense of their respective buyers and/or suppliers. Cannon & Homburg (2001) works highlights arguments contrary to this article. This is by claiming the opposite of the article in the traditional and modern comparison that successful organizations acknowledge that the transferring of total costs in the chain of supply does not make established organizations any more competitive as eventually all the organizations costs, make their way back to the ideal final marketplace. It displays that, the article does not validate its research meaning that, it requires a more authentic approach. On the contrary, to what the article discusses, as an alternative, firms are encouraged to participate in cooperative long-term company partnerships helping to improve the supply chain effectiveness and efficiency as a whole for the benefit of all parties involved in various other research papers. The article is however, positive and in line with other arguments from researches in the same field. Having develop understanding of the past and what features in the current supply chain, the research details the importance of the research being inadequate research on the topic of supply chain partnerships particularly on supplier performance. The paper acknowledges that this lack of adequate studies particularly has been highlighted by scholars for instance Stuart (1993, p.22-28) who states generally that “empirical evidence of the ideal benefits of partnerships is primarily limited and scant to the automotive industry” (Christopher 1998; Lamming 1993). Additionally, it recognizes the efforts of Heide and Stump (1995, p.57-66) who stated in their works “empirical evidence, which regards to performance, is practically nonexistent and although evidence in the recent times suggests that cooperative forms ideally of buyer-supplier relationships are soon becoming more and more common. It ascertains that no study up to now has formally made examinations into their implications (Fearne & Hughes 1999, p. 120-128; Christopher 1998). Generally, it is in the pursuit of more research in this field to give a broader understanding of the same. The article is also of value and correlates with the works of others by acknowledging that more recently, other scholars also commented on the inadequate studies regarding the ideal performance of these partnerships (Kalwani & Narayandas 1995, p. 1-16; Cannon & Homburg 2001; Sheth & Sharma 1997, p. 91-100). Out of this, it is what the paper bases on in justifying the need to have a research after having the knowledge that there seems to be a lack of UK studies attempting to calculate the outcomes practically of moves to partnerships particularly between retailers and any of their food suppliers. It goes in hand and agrees with many other works justifying the concept that the established deficiencies in research are veritable ideas as to why an empirical study particularly of the nature of relationships between buyer and supplier, as well as their implications for performance, remains indispensable. This is because it would make a useful contribution, ideally to both theory of inter-organization and the general knowledge of partnerships between retailer and supplier present in the UK-food industry. The article however is too general in studying and analyzing how partnerships between UK-food retailers and subsequent food suppliers affect the general performance in the financial industry of present suppliers. It does not clearly espouse the views of suppliers as particularly of immense attention as most food suppliers develop their relationships responding to their customer’s demands. Kalwani & Narayandas (1995, p.1-16) ideas, provide a broader understanding of the concept, while avoiding so many assumptions that this article makes. The article does not fully acknowledge that partnerships require food suppliers making substantial business investments in terms of resources and time. It also does not note that there are costs of engaging in these closer associations, for instance those supported by the general ECR initiative as per the works of Heide & Stump (1995, p.57-66) who argue that this could particularly outweigh the broad benefits of doing so. The article is however, positive as compared to the works of Heide & Stump (1995, p.57-66) because it draws on the Partnership Definitions and Characteristics in helping understand the concepts as applied in this study. It draws from previous definitions in the literature to define the concept of partnerships. This is ideally essential to help the availed definition become consistent with other literature descriptions defining partnerships and generate a thorough understanding of the same. These descriptions tend to be of use interchangeably to enable researchers in distinguishing between different buyer-supplier relationships types. It rhymes with a previous study by Mohr, and Spekman (1994, p.135-152) espousing that particularly, buyer-supplier relationships conceptualization is usually an existing on a continuum, that ranges from primarily transactional ties to exceedingly collaborative arrangements and many researchers suggest characteristics, which distinguish between the extremes. What is even better as an authentic research to this paper is the use of tables and figures majorly to present Key characteristics of transactional relationships and partnerships. Heide & Stump (1995, p.57-66) clearly states that authenticating a research in supply chain management is apparent to use tables and figures from presenting data. This article follows suit by using these tables and figures that generally provide a summary of each partnership characteristic to help better understand the topic under study. Some of the key Traditional Arms-length Relationships Characteristics as presented in the tables and discussed in the paper include Short-term individual transactions focus, buying decision made on price (Heide & Stump 1995, p.57-66), Many food suppliers, Low interdependence, food supply scheduling and haphazard food production, and Limited exchange of ideas mainly confidential between purchasing and sales. Among others are little harmonization particularly of work processes, Relationship specific investments ideally avoided, Information is proprietary (Kalwani & Narayandas 1995, p.1-16). Among others are Clear delineation of boundaries of business, Use of threats in resolving existing disputes, Unilateral improvement inventiveness’s, Separate actions, Dictation of terms by authoritative firm, Adversarial point of view, Conflicting goals, Act opportunistically, Act only in own curiosity and Win-lose orientation. The article however fails to have a clear comparison and detailing of Characteristics of Partnerships Commitment to long-term relationships to develop a basis for the study. It does not have evident highlights as the previous works of Heide & Stump (1995, p.57-66) as including buying decision made on value, fewer selected suppliers, high interdependence, order driven food supply and production, open exchange of ideas through multilevel relationships, increases in relationship explicit business investments, information is shared, and Creation of inter-organizational groups. It however notes some for instance joint problem tactic to solving existing conflicts, continuous joint recuperation; engage in joint activities, joint decision-making, Co-operative attitudes supported by the works of Kalwani & Narayandas (1995, p.1-16). The article is of essence supporting previous researches by Heide & Stump (1995, p.57-66) and Kalwani & Narayandas (1995, p.1-16) by generating a Conceptual Framework for the research study. It provides a theoretical framework that would enable the key partnership characteristics as established in the research to be examined thoroughly. It discusses the framework as of use in investigating buyer-supplier relationships as developed from the literature on behavior and from the literature, which has utilized the political economy framework in studying, inter-organizational relationships. The article is similar and provides similar analysis as the previous studies by detailing a theoretical Framework for looking into Buyer-Supplier Relationship (Kalwani & Narayandas 1995, p.1-16) with leading illustrations in Conceptualization of the Economy Structure, Conceptualization of the Internal Polity Structure, Conceptualization of the Climate, and Conceptualization of Performance. The paper outlines how the partnerships collaborate through the above conceptualization to give the topic an advanced understanding. The article is however does not provide Hypothesized Relationships as Gattorna and Walters (1996) in the supply chain partnerships on supplier performance. This would have been ideal in the research to illustrate some of the elaborate and key relations in the supply chain management to evaluate its operations. The paper does not singularly look into each of the key dimensions of buyer-supplier relationships therefore fails to develop a clear hypothesis between them as being of key influence on performance. It however provides a brief review of the literature to support the hypothesized relationships mainly between each of the constructs in the performance and model. It also cuts down and supports Gattorna and Walters (1996) by looking into the Relationship between performance and Internal Polity in general, focusing on scholars suggesting that the higher level of interdependence in such a association the better the accomplishment implications. It looks into the works of Gattorna and Walters (1996), and Mohr, and Spekman (1994, p.135-152) that suggest that the essence of partnerships is the extent of the ideal interdependence between the respective partners supporting their concept with a furthered study. It however does not note clearly on The Relationship between performance and Internal Economy as cited on numerous articles as routinely exhorting both supplier firms and customer to seek collaborative relationships mainly with each other as a means of improving performance. In this context it would be ideal if the article quotes the works of Spekman (1988), Mohr and Spekman (1994), Narus and Anderson (1987) and Kalwani and Narayandas (1995, p. 1-16) all with different suggestions on suppliers and customer relations. More positively, the article espouses on The Relationship between Performance and Climate. It supports Gattorna and Walters (1996) by highlighting the importance of organizational variables for instance commitment generally are highlighted in the industry emphasizing majorly on the benefit of joint working mainly between food manufacturers and retailers as realizable only if there was a move ideally away from confrontational relationships to other ideal relationships based on cooperation, trust and openness. The article is however positive about the methodologies used for researches in determining the impact of supply chain partnerships on supplier performance and other related subjects as it uses similar methodologies as the works of Spekman (1988), Mohr and Spekman (1994), Narus and Anderson (1987) and Kalwani and Narayandas (1995, p. 1-16). The Methodology of the study to complete the research on supply chain management is authentic since data collection was through a questionnaire sent to the selected managing directors of 337 fresh produce suppliers ideally who supplied their goods directly to food retailers or food service companies. The article notes that the survey was administered in March 2001 with 173 questionnaires returned and 155 of them deemed usable. It also derives information on Measures Used for research. It also have its roots as the previous works on the same by detailing that all theoretical constructs were ideally measured using multiple-item scales that are listed in the appendix. It clears that the structure of the economy was generally measured using a 22-item scale with a design to capture the task-related flows of resources, activities, and information in a relationship similar o other works including Spekman (1988), Mohr, and Spekman (1994). Conclusion This discussion generally gives an overview of the research paper by Andrew Fearne and Rachel Duffy, members of Imperial College in a study they conducted on supply chain management. It is worth noting particularly that this article has documented less of evidence in the correlation between buyer-supplier relationships gauging from the prospects of other works in the same field. In general, the article less attempts to enumerate the outcomes of ideal moves to enormous associations among retailers and their subsequent food suppliers. These deficiencies in this piece of writing suggest that an empirical enquiry ideally of the nature of relationships between buyer and supplier, as well as their performance impacts, would perfectly be of use in contributing, to both theories generally, and the full perceptive of partnerships between retailer and supplier particularly in the UK-food industry. The article is ideal but has major weaknesses in contributing to inter-organizational theory because it does not provide empirical evidence particularly of the accomplishment implications of partnerships that have been inadequate severally in the scholarly works. In this way, the paper has not precisely answered the calls of many researchers who have been under scrutiny stressing the need for empirical studies, which examines the partnerships outcomes, practically on the supplier firm’s performance. However, the article advances research, which has previously used mainly the political-economy framework ideally as in previous empirical studies the general structure of the internal economy, as well as internal polity, have been, jointly measured. The article also provides a framework with a breath particularly now as this research has measured the polity and economy as separate constructs meaning that the political-economy framework generally provides an powerful alternative to other theoretical frameworks, which researchers have drawn on in investigating the performance implications of an ideal movement towards partnerships. For instance, several researchers in the same field have used transaction cost economics (TCE) in investigating the performance implications of closer yet more coordinated relationships. However, despite the paper’s extensions to the original TCE theory that have challenged the sharp distinction mainly between markets and hierarchies providing a theoretical foundation for using TCE in investigating inter-organizational relationships, the espoused theory in the paper theory remains restricted in scope. This is because it mainly centers on examining the relationships efficiency under conditions of specific assets and uncertainty. Even with abject critics, it is important to note that this article is a great contribution in the field of supply chain management. Because of this article, transaction cost analysis has been under criticism for having a narrow focus and addressing just a limited set of factors, which affect channel relationships. Particularly, researchers have drawn significant attention to the fact that such an examination of key behavioral variables, for instance power, trust, dependence, and commitment lie outside the scope of the general efficiency-orientated cost framework. Transaction costs analysis also has been under criticism as its exclusive focus of espoused transaction cost minimization generally ignores other key aspects of performance, for instance the revenue that enhances potential of closer relationships. As such and in light of the espoused criticisms, it appears generally that the political-economy framework in this paper purposefully provides researchers with a less restricted framework of investigating buyer-supplier relationships. The paper also by clearly conceptualizing the economy as well as a polity as separate constructs provides a model for researchers who wish to use the political-economy framework, precisely with a tool for examining the separate influence of the interdependence structure. This is generally in terms of both its subsequent magnitude and asymmetry on other inter-organizational constructs as well as on performance. It is, therefore, of value because this was not possible especially using previous empirical models developed by previous researchers and presented on the same topic because they were not explicit or clear on the same. Its well-elaborated political economy framework provides many researchers with a useful tool to investigate buyer-supplier relationships, as an important strength of the political-economy framework ideally is its ability to integrate a number of different concerns in inter-organizational research in a typical framework. In practical implications, the study findings as espoused in this works that the sentiments and opinions existing in the food buyer-supplier, generally have the influence precisely on performance conversely highlights the relevance of the legally code of practice, which has been introduced ideally by the UK Competition Commission in leading relationships between food suppliers and retailers. However, this article challenges future researchers to attempt to develop investigations on the outcomes of different types of relationships between buyer and supplier particularly in the fresh food produce industry. It only provides a platform especially for further studies in the same area. From a through evaluation of this article, more study is needed to help gain a more absolute understanding majorly of the dynamics of flourishing customer relationships as well as the realities of forming partnerships mainly in a low-margin sector. It is, however, a impressive start, which will oversee many other researches done in forms of research for instance case studies that would explore the inter-organizational variables more and elaborately. References Anderson, J. and Narus, J 1990, “A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 (January 1990). Cannon, J. and Homburg, C 2001, “Buyer-Supplier Relationships and Customer Firm Costs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 1 (2001). Christopher, M 1998, Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies For Reducing Cost and Improving Service, Second Edition, London, Financial Times, Pitman Publishing, 1998. Fearne, A. and Hughes, D 1999, “Success Factors In the Fresh Produce Supply Chain: Insights from the UK”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1999), pp. 120-128. Gattorna, J.L. and Walters, D 1996, Managing the Supply Chain: A Strategic Perspective, Macmillan Business, 1996. Heide, J. and Stump, R 1995, “Performance Implications of Buyer-Supplier Relationships in Industrial Markets: A Transaction Cost Explanation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32, (1995), pp.57-66. Kalwani, M.U. and Narayandas, N 1995, “Long-Term Manufacturer-Supplier Relationships: Do They Pay off for Supplier Firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 1 (1995), pp. 1-16 Lamming, R 1993, Beyond Partnership: Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply, Prentice Hall, 1993. Mohr, J. and Spekman, R 1994, “Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior and Conflict Resolution Techniques”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, (1994), pp.135-152. Sheth, J. and Sharma, A 1997, “Supplier Relationships: Emerging Issues and Challenges”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26, (1997), pp. 91-100. Spekman, R 1988, “Strategic Supplier Selection: Understanding Long-Term Buyer Relationships”, Business Horizons, Vol.31, (July/August 1988). Stuart, F 1993, “Supplier Partnerships: Influencing Factors and Strategic Benefits”, International Journal of Purchasing and Material Management, (1993), pp.22-28 Read More