تاثیر تلاش های توسعه تامین کننده خاص بر روی مزیت رقابتی خریدار: یک مدل تجربی

This paper examines the relationships between supplier development efforts and buyer competitive advantage from the buyer's perspective, and seeks to understand how specific supplier development efforts may impact on a buyer's operational performance. We conducted a survey of 142 electronics manufacturing companies in Hong Kong, and applied structural equation modeling (SEM) to test a structural model that postulates the impacts of various efforts of supplier development on buyer competitive advantage. The results indicate that each effort of supplier development has a different effect on different dimensions of buyer competitive advantage. Specifically, we found that joint actions and trust appear to be the two most critical elements to enhance the operational effectiveness of a buyer, while asset specificity improves the market responsiveness of a buyer slightly. However, supplier development efforts like increasing supplier performance goals and recognizing supplier progress do not appear to be an effective means and thus should be practised with caution. This study provides significant insights into the specific impact of various supplier development efforts for both academics and practitioners.

Supplier development can be defined as any effort a buying firm expends on a supplier to increase the performance and capabilities of the supplier to meet the buying firm's own short-term or long-term supply needs (Krause and Ellram, 1997a). This study investigates the impacts of supplier development efforts on buyer competitive advantage. The primary research objective is to develop a descriptive model that postulates the possible relationships between supplier development efforts and buyer competitive advantage. The model adopts the buying firm's perspective as a basis for understanding the performance implications of supplier development and investigating how different characteristics of supplier development efforts influence buyer competitive performance outcomes. As more and more manufacturing firms have realized the importance of the performance of their suppliers to the establishment and sustaining of their competitive advantage (Goffin et al., 2006; Li et al., 2006), purchasing research has begun to focus on supplier development programs and study how these initiatives impact on buyer and supplier performance (Hahn et al., 1990; Monczka et al., 1993; Hartley and Choi, 1996; Goffin et al., 2006). Of interest to this study are the findings in the purchasing literature that improvement in buyer and supplier performance occurs as a result of implementing effective supplier development programs (Watts and Hahn, 1993; Krause, 1997; Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2005). However, what specific efforts of supplier development will uniquely contribute to buyer competitive advantage? The extant literature has indicated that supplier development activities (Li et al., 2005), among others, include: (i) increasing supplier performance goals (Monczka et al., 1993); (ii) providing suppliers with training (Galt and Dale, 1991); (iii) providing suppliers with equipment, technological support and even investments (Galt and Dale, 1991; Monczka et al., 1993); (iv) exchanging personnel between buyer and supplier organizations (Newman and Rhee, 1990); (v) evaluating supplier performance (Giunipero, 1990; Watts and Hahn, 1993); and (vi) recognizing supplier progress in the form of awards (Galt and Dale, 1991; Curkvoic et al., 2000). The purchasing literature on supplier development has extensively discussed the issues concerning the establishment of supplier development programs, and the characteristics, benefits, and management of such programs (Liker and Choi, 2004). It provides valuable information for managers and practitioners to understand the reasons for becoming involved in supplier development, the process of establishing supplier development programs, and the possible benefits that can be gained from supplier development (Reed and Walsh, 2002; Goffin et al., 2006). However, there is still a limitation in the current research on supplier development. Although the literature has provided extensive research support for the assertion that supplier development is an integrated means of achieving and sustaining competitive advantage (Hahn et al., 1990; Monczka et al., 1993; Hartley and Choi, 1996; Burt et al., 2003), these studies have not identified the specific efforts of supplier development that contribute to buyer competitive advantage (Robinson and Malhotra, 2005). In addition, the literature has not empirically examined the specific impacts of various key supplier development efforts on buyer competitive advantage. The key issues to be addressed in the present study concern the examination of the role played by supplier development efforts in predicting buyer competitive advantage, and the interpretation of the relationships between supplier development efforts and buyer competitive advantage in the context of Hong Kong's electronics industry. We begin with a comprehensive review of the theoretical expositions of supplier development. We then describe how to use SEM to develop and analyze measurement models and structural models that link supplier development efforts to buyer competitive advantage based on the theoretical framework proposed in this study. The results of structural modeling are presented and analyzed, and finally the implications of the findings for future research and practice are discussed.

Through developing a series of competing models for structural analysis, this paper investigated the impacts of specific efforts of supplier development on buyer competitive advantage in detail. The results suggest that each supplier development effort has a different effect on different dimensions of buyer competitive advantage. The findings also suggest that supplier development should be undertaken in consideration of the needs for, and the benefits to be expected benefits from, the development efforts. The findings of this study confirm the general positive impact of supplier development efforts on buyer–supplier performance improvement. Our study indicates that joint actions and trust are the two most critical factors in supplier development to enhance competitive performance of the buyer. Accordingly, organizations pursuing supplier development should work closely with their suppliers on product design and to eliminate non-value added activities. A high level of trust cultivates a long-term beneficial relationship between a buyer and a supplier, and reduces transaction costs between them. In addition, we also found that asset specific investments such as providing training, equipment and supporting personnel help achieve market responsiveness, although such their impact is relatively weaker. However, increasing supplier performance goals and recognizing their efforts does not seem to be an effective way to improve the performance of buyers and should be practised with caution. Given the resource implications associated with developing suppliers, this study provides useful insights and challenges from both an academic and practical perspective. However, the current research, like any other study, has several limitations. First, although focusing on one industry can control extraneous variations and create more accurate, context-specific measures, future research could establish the nature of supplier development activities in other industrial settings, particularly those areas that are important to the economic development of Hong Kong. This will provide a better understanding of how the variables that influence supplier development involvement and buyer–supplier performance are affected in different industry contexts. Second, the current research used the same set of data to develop measures, and test the path models and structural models developed in this study. Although using the same data set to develop measures and test models is a common practice in empirical research, using a new set of data to test the relationships among the factors in the final model would enhance the validity of the final model. In other words, further studies involving the collection of additional data would provide further support to validate the proposed model. Third, theory development would be enhanced by multiple research methods such as surveys, experiments, and qualitative studies. A multi-method approach within a consistent framework could provide a mechanism for knowledge accumulation, research convergence, and better prediction. For example, while surveys are valuable in developing the framework of the links between supplier development and buyer competitive, case studies would be useful for further understanding the intensity, duration, frequency, and effectiveness of the various supplier development strategies and their related benefits.