ارزش درک شده تامین کننده: تفاوت بین روابط بنگاه به بنگاه با بنگاه به دولت
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|23756||2009||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Volume 15, Issue 1, March 2009, Pages 3–11
This research investigates suppliers’ perceptions of value and compares business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-government (B2G) relationships. This paper highlights that suppliers perceive greater value benefits from their business customers than their government customers. The volume of sales in both B2B and B2G relationships impacts perceived value. In B2G relationships, information exchange on how to do business had the largest significant influence on perceived value. The implication for suppliers is that they need to consider which relationships offer them better value and then allocate resources towards those relationships, which in this case are their business customers. The implication for government procurement managers is that their methods of dealing with suppliers is putting them at a disadvantage when compared with businesses which may be competing for supply.
There is a plethora of purchasing literature outlining strategies and best practice for companies within the private sector with little attention focusing on government or public sector purchasing (Wang and Bunn, 2004; Schiele and McCue, 2006). Therefore, a knowledge gap exists in our understanding of government procurement strategies (Bryntse, 1996; Murray, 1999 and Murray, 2001; Wang and Bunn, 2004). It is recognized that the strategic goals of government are often quite different from those in the private sector and consequently purchasing goals in the public sector can be fundamentally different from those in the private sector (Knott, 1993; Murray, 2001; Furneaux et al., 2008; Van Der Wal et al., 2008). Strategic goals in the private sector are generally centered on profit maximization, while government goals include fairness, equality, democracy, public accountability, efficiency, competitiveness, balancing interests and political advocacy. The differences in goals develop from the obligation and hence necessity for government organizations to serve the public interest, while private enterprise is more focused on creating wealth for their stakeholders (Van Der Wal et al., 2008). These differences result in procurement approaches/processes and evaluation methods followed in the private sector often being quite different to those in the public sector (Murray, 1999 and Murray, 2001; Wang and Bunn, 2004; Åström and Bröchner, 2007). Research tends to focus on the difficulties in dealing with government (see Williams and Smellie, 1985; Martin et al., 1999) or the policy issues of improving the value obtained by using the public procurement function (see Åström and Bröchner, 2007; Loader, 2007; Murray, 2007). The difficulties in obtaining government contracts are often due to the requirement for transparency and accountability to ensure the process is conducted in an ethical and equitable manner (Erridge and Greer, 2002; Loader, 2007). Rainey and Bozeman (2000) highlight that government procurement processes have a greater degree of formalization and are therefore perceived to involve much more red tape. Consequently, there is a fundamental perception of complexity and tediousness related to conducting business with the government (Bryntse, 1996; Erridge and Greer, 2002). Yet, many businesses actively pursue government supply contracts claiming to understand government processes and receive ‘value’ from these contracts. This raises an interesting question: ‘Are the value propositions they claim to receive from government contracts different and are they better or worse than those received from their private customers?’ Research into value is an increasing area of study that is seen as a priority by the marketing research institute (Lindgreen and Wynstra, 2005). This paper focuses on investigating the value of relationships, a research avenue proposed by Lindgreen and Wynstra (2005). Current research on value tends to focus on business-to-consumer (B2C) rather than business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-government (B2G) relationships and almost exclusively considers the customers perspective even though the requirement of suppliers to understand relationship value is a ‘matter of survival’ (Lindgreen and Wynstra, 2005, p. 739; Sweeney and Webb, 2007). There is still a lack of understanding about what value entails (Woodall, 2003; Mandjak and Simon, 2007), which is not surprising given the complexity surrounding the construct (Ismail and Khatibi, 2004). For this research, value is considered the benefits obtained from the relationship less the costs of maintaining the relationship (Lapierre, 2000). Even though supplier and customer value propositions are going to be different (Sweeney and Webb, 2002; Lindgreen and Wynstra, 2005), there is little research on how suppliers receive value (Walter et al., 2001). Lamming et al. (1996) report that suppliers receive fewer benefits from their business relationships than customers, but a detailed analysis of the benefits received is lacking. This research considers value from the perspective of the supplier and focuses on how relationships offer value to suppliers, similar to the research of Walter et al. (2001) and Möller and Törrönen (2003). Overall, suppliers’ perception of value is an under-researched area, when compared with customer value, and requires much more attention if the development of purchasing strategies are to benefit suppliers. The paper begins with an examination of the differences between government and private sector purchasing strategies and a discussion on how value is conceptualized. Following this is the methodology and then outcomes of the data analysis. The paper concludes with an outline of the results and then implications for suppliers and government procurement departments.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The results of this study imply that suppliers perceive private enterprise customers offer greater value benefits in all areas. Results also show that the volume of sales received significantly influences value for both B2B and B2G relationships. Unexpectedly, in B2B relationships the innovation function is perceived as a sacrifice rather than a benefit by suppliers. Suppliers perceived the ability to exchange information on how to conduct government business had a positive influence on value. A limitation of this research is the sample size. However, given that this is the first phase of the research it is expected that further efforts on increasing the sample size will overcome this. Furthermore, this research did not incorporate all levels of government procurement and different results may be obtained from respondents at state and federal levels. Another limitation is that the research concentrates on only one side of value perception. The sacrifices aspect of value is not included. Given that different perceptions exist between suppliers and buyers, future research needs to consider the effect of sacrifice on overall value. It could be that suppliers need greater sacrifices for their business customers thus offsetting the higher benefits. This research has raised more questions and possibilities for future study. The results were inconsistent, in some areas, with those of Walter et al. (2001), which could be due to a number of issues. Firstly, future research should consider the product type more closely. This research focused on suppliers of consumable items, while Walter et al. (2001) focused on supplies to manufacturing. Also, different levels of government have different types of relationships with their suppliers. Future research needs to consider these different relationship types to see whether they offer different types of value benefits. This research has indicated that some suppliers perceive the innovation function of value in B2B relationships as a sacrifice rather than a benefit. However, the most important implication of this research is that government customers need to consider how they can differentiate their supplier perceived value position when compared with their private enterprise counterparts. Furthermore, business customers need to consider how changing processes and/or products will affect their suppliers’ perceptions of value.