ارزیابی تامین کننده: استراتژی های ارتباطی به منظور بهبود عملکرد تامین کننده
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|21274||2004||24 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||11640 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Operations Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 39–62
As firms increasingly emphasize cooperative relationships with critical suppliers, executives of buyer firms are using supplier evaluations to ensure that their performance objectives are met. Supplier evaluations, one type of supplier development program (SDP), are an attempt to meet current and future business needs by improving supplier performance and capabilities. The purpose of this study was to determine how suppliers perceive the buying firm’s supplier evaluation communication process and its impact on suppliers’ performance. Three communication strategies (indirect influence strategy, formality and feedback) were tested separately and one in unison (collaborative). Using structural equation modeling (SEM) and data collected from 139 first-tier North American automotive suppliers, the results of this research have shown that, contrary to the SDP literature from the buying firm’s perspective, the supplier’s perceptions of the buying firm’s communication does not directly influence suppliers’ performance. Specifically, the supplier evaluation communication process does not ensure improved supplier performance unless the supplier is committed to the buying firm. Buying firms can influence the supplier’s commitment through increased efforts of cooperation and commitment. The results also indicate that when a buying firm utilizes collaborative communication, the supplier perceives a positive influence on the buyer–supplier relationship.
In today’s business environment, there is an emphasis on developing long-term cooperative relationships with critical suppliers. Business managers are reducing their supply base and thereby increasing the buying volume with the remaining suppliers. Many executives are hesitant to rely on an untested supplier without first taking the time to build an effective relationship to ensure specific performance objectives. When a supplier is unable to conform to the buying firm’s expectations, the buying firm manager must determine the most appropriate action to resolve the issue. To maintain the working relationship, the manager must find a way to communicate the problem and motivate the supplier to change its results. The research framework herein will focus on the suppliers’ perceptions of a buying firm’s attempts to motivate suppliers through supplier development programs, and in particular, supplier evaluations. The buying firm develops the supplier evaluation, or report card, and communicates the results to its suppliers with the hope and expectation that the supplier will address noted shortcomings (Morgan, 2001 and Purdy et al., 1994). Many supplier development programs (SDPs), however, are not successful (Krause et al., 2000, Monczka et al., 1993, Porter, 1991, Purdy et al., 1994 and Watts and Hahn, 1993). A number of studies have emphasized the need to determine the contributing factors of SDP success or failure (Krause et al., 2000 and Purdy et al., 1994). To our knowledge, a study by Krause et al. (2000) was the only study that considered the importance of SDPs on supply chain performance. Two studies have addressed the buying firm’s perspective of the impact of supplier evaluations on the buyer–supplier relationship (Krause, 1999 and Carr and Pearson, 1999). To date, there has been little investigation of the suppliers’ reactions to SDPs and the impact of supplier evaluation communication on the suppliers’ performance. It is not known whether SDPs are effective in improving the supplier’s performance. The purpose of this research is to assess the supplier’s perceptions of four buying firm’s supplier evaluation communication strategies (indirect influence strategy, formality, feedback and collaborative communication) and determine how specific communication strategies influence suppliers’ performance. The supplier’s perceptions of the buyer–supplier relationship and the supplier’s commitment to the buying firm are tested as possible mediators. This study is important because a buying firm’s performance increasingly hinges on the capabilities of its supply base. The following research questions are investigated from the supplying firm perspective: (1) is the impact of the buying firm’s strategy for communicating supplier performance evaluations mediated by the buyer–supplier relationship and supplier’s commitment? (2) Do suppliers perceive that the buying firm’s communication of the evaluation affects their performance? In the following section, the relevant literature is reviewed. The conceptual model and research hypotheses are then developed. Subsequently, the research methodology is described. The analysis and results are presented in section five. The paper concludes with a comprehensive discussion and conclusions.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
When the buying firm uses collaborative communication for the supplier development programs, it is perceived by the supplier as an effective mechanism to improve the buyer–supplier relationship. Collaborative communication includes indirect influence strategy, formality and feedback. However, this study shows that the implementation of several supplier evaluation communication strategies by itself is not enough to influence the supplier’s performance. Although the buying firm currently considers their commitment and the importance of the supplier’s product and/or service to the supplier when initiating their targeted supplier development programs (Krause et al., 1998), the buying firm may want to also consider the supplier’s perspective of the relationship prior to initiating supplier development programs. Supplier development programs will be successful in terms of operational performance measures if the supplier is committed to the buying firm. As noted by a buying firm manager in Porter (1991), “Are we the customer of choice with our suppliers?” The supplier evaluation communication process could be the catalyst that strengthens the buyer–supplier relationship and supplier’s commitment. There appears to be an explanation for why some suppliers have not adequately improved their performance to meet the buying organization’s SDP initiatives. The supplier must feel a strong sense of commitment, loyalty, and longevity in the relationship with the buying firm. The buying firm can influence the supplier’s commitment through enhanced communication and relationship development. Relationship development includes enhancing cooperation, problem solving, and expressing their commitment, loyalty and desire to continue the relationship for many years into the future. Several implications for business managers can be drawn from this research. For the buying firm manager, specific communication strategies should be designed into their SDP efforts. The program should be formalized with routine communication; incorporate supplier training, education and site visits to aid in the learning process; and provide opportunities for feedback to clarify program objectives and improvement suggestions. The result of the SDP collaborative communication effort should enhance supplier’s perceptions of the business relationship and their commitment to the buying firm. Buying firm managers should focus their SDP implementation efforts on suppliers that exhibit commitment to the buying firm. Although the buying firm’s perceptions of the supplier’s commitment are inherently biased, it represents the best proxy for the supplier’s commitment. As the recipient of their customer’s SDP efforts, the supply firm manager has the opportunity to improve the relationship with the customer. Improved relationships can result in increased market share, growth opportunities and other benefits. In addition, when SDPs are implemented, the supply firm can take advantage of the learning opportunities and improve its overall performance with the buying firm and with their other customers. This research has explored a relatively new area of supply chain communication and supplier development programs. Insights from this study have implications in the marketing area for specific channel conditions, such as structure, climate and power. Further theoretical work could expand the model by including other dimensions of communication strategy. This research incorporated indirect influence strategy, formality and feedback, as well as an encompassing construct, collaborative communication. Other communication dimension strategies include: direct influence strategy, informality (such as word-of-mouth communication) and measures of frequency and media richness.