وضعیت خرید و مدیریت عرضه در فنلاند و روسیه

Previous studies have shown that long-term planning, collaborative supplier relationships and supply management capabilities reflect the strategic role and importance of purchasing and supply management (PSM) in firms, regardless of the nature of the business. This study examines how these elements behave in different business environments, such as in Western countries and emerging economies. Finland and Russia were chosen to represent two extremes in terms of international economic competitiveness and the business environment. A survey was conducted in both countries. Regression analyses were run from both samples to examine the effects of long-term planning, collaborative supplier relationships and supply management capabilities on the status of PSM by using data from 100 Finnish firms and 208 Russian firms. The results showed that these elements positively influence the status of PSM in both countries.

The growing importance and strategic role of purchasing and supply management (PSM) is frequently mentioned in supply management research. First, supply management has recently assumed higher significance due to the strong reliance on outsourcing. Companies have increasingly concentrated on their core capabilities in order to become more specialised, and have thus focused on a limited set of activities (Gadde and Håkansson, 2001). Second, buying firms need to construct and manage strategic supplier portfolios and set up strategic supplier management systems in order to tap the potential and capabilities of the supply base and individual suppliers (Wagner and Johnson, 2004). Third, it has been shown that the buying firm's buyer–supplier relationship management practices support the attainment of the buying firm's competitive strategy through supplier firm improvements (Wagner, 2006). A well-known example of this is the Finnish ICT company Nokia, where suppliers have become an essential part of their technology strategy aimed at improving the competitiveness of the buying company (Virolainen, 1998). Several studies have suggested that long-term planning, collaborative supplier relationships and supply management capabilities are the factors that reflect the importance and strategic status of PSM (Carter and Narasimhan, 1996; Carr and Smeltzer, 1997 and Carr and Smeltzer, 2000; Carr and Pearson, 1999). However, there is not much research on how these factors behave in different business environments, such as in Western countries and emerging economies (Ghauri et al., 2008; Lorentz, 2008). In this study Finland and Russia are chosen to represent two extremes in terms of international economic competitiveness and the business environment. Finland represents a traditional Western business environment, whereas Russia is an example of a fast-growing emerging economy. A survey is conducted in both countries and possible differences concerning strategic PSM are examined. The focus of the study is to find out whether long-term planning, collaborative supplier relationships and supply management capabilities have positive impacts on the status of strategic PSM in these two different samples. In this context a further aim of the study is to identify the most influential elements of strategic PSM. The paper begins with a short review of the main differences between the Finnish and Russian business environments and behaviour. The theoretical underpinnings of the study and the main variables included in the research model are presented next. Hypotheses are formed and the explanatory power of each element is examined by means of regression analysis. Finally, the results and managerial implications of the study are discussed and further research directions proposed.

The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of long-term planning, collaborative supplier relationships and supply management capabilities on the status of PSM, and to test them on two samples—Finnish and Russian companies. Firm age and size were set as control variables in order to eliminate firm-specific factors from the model. The control variables did not have a significant influence in the Finnish sample, but when the model was tested on the Russian sample firm's age had a significant impact (t-value 3.610) on status of PSM. This may have been due the fact that a remarkable number of new firms were established in Russia after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and the data may be biased accordingly. It is therefore possible that the impact of the firm's age decreases when the business matures and the boom of new firms recedes. Furthermore, the explanatory power of the control variables in the Russian data was rather low (7.7%). Estimation of the explanatory power of the whole model revealed that it was stronger in the Finnish sample (R2=0.478, adjusted R2=0.441, p<0.001) than in the Russian sample (R2=0.319, adjusted R2=0.300, p<0.001). Hypothesis 1 posits that long-term planning has a positive impact on the status of PSM. This was supported in both samples (β-values: Finland 0.324, Russia 0.142). The lower impact of long-term planning in the Russian data could be indicative of the fact that the Russian business environment, as part of an emerging economy, is still uncertain. It is therefore difficult for business managers to make long-term plans. Our finding also supports earlier studies on cultural differences in Russia with regard to collectivism and a low long-term orientation, for example Bollinger (1994) and Hofstede (2001). However, long-term planning indicates a firm's ability to predict and manage market challenges by integrating the market signals into its own resources and the resources of its partners in the value chain. This results support the notion that high levels of transaction costs, uncertainty and asset specificity guide firms towards the hierarchical model (Williamson, 1981). In the case of the Russian firms, uncertainty and a short-term view were obvious, implying a preference for hierarchical governance. In Finland efficiency demands drive companies to cut costs and concentrate on their core business. This increases the motivation to collaborate and drives Finnish firms towards market change. According to Hypothesis 2 collaborative supplier relationships have a positive impact on the status of PSM (β-values: Finland 0.288, Russia 0.012). The impact was positive in both samples, but it was not significant (p<0.05) in the Russian sample and supplier relationships had a minor effect. Thus, H2 was supported only in the Finnish sample. This result is in accordance with those reported in previous studies on Russian supplier relationships: firms in Russia prefer to optimise single transactions than to build long-term connections, and do not see suppliers as collaborators (Tretyak and Sheresheva, 2005; Lorentz, 2007). The result may also be limited by the fact that the selected factors represent a model that has a better fit to the developed structure of partner interaction, as in the case of the Finnish economy. Hypothesis 3 posits that supply management capabilities have a positive impact on the status of PSM. This hypothesis was supported, in both the Finnish and Russian samples: capabilities had the greatest impact on status of PSM (β-values: Finland 0.359, Russia 0.314). This result supports earlier findings suggesting a positive relationship between PSM skills and strategic supply management (Carr and Smeltzer, 2000). The impact of supply management capability was slightly stronger in the Finnish sample. This may indicate that supply management professionals in Finnish firms are better able to coordinate information flows and to align the activities according to the firm's goals. Management practices in Russia are more hierarchical than in Finland, although in both countries there is a need for more sophisticated practices in terms of exploiting internal and external resources in order to achieve better performance. It could thus be concluded that improving supply management capabilities in firms will enhance the status of PSM in both Finland and Russia. The overall explanatory power of the model was clearly lower in the Russian sample. This result suggests there may be some other reasons that could explain the status of PSM in Russian companies. Thus, further investigation is needed. The results also indicate that it is necessary to come back to the nature of economic interactions in Russia and the possible differences in understanding the status of PSM. It could be understood as a purely economic factor, based on acknowledgement of the importance of PSM and its alignment with the overall business strategy, but it could also be seen as a social construct. These insights require consideration of historical factors and the planned economy in Russia, where differences in top management were due their status in the company rather than to economic performance. It thus seems that these two aspects (the social and the economic) cannot be fully differentiated in Russian business. 5.1. Managerial implications Overall the results from the two national samples offer some contribution in terms of explaining the nature of strategic PSM. It could be assumed that these three factors – long-term planning, supplier relationships and capabilities – provide a basis for further analysis of the influence on interaction development from the buyer's perspective. The strength of this influence may mould the internal culture of the company, and instil a readiness to trust and rely on the strategy and strategic decisions proposed by partners in the supply chain. It is important to remember that most Russian companies do not have a long history or long-term operations on the global level, as evidenced in the very limited operations in international markets of the Russian companies in this sample. Even those with a long history operated according to different market principles and in another economic reality. It was assumed that, under the conditions of a planned economy, long-term planning was based more on the external support of the integrated planning system than on the firm's internal capabilities and resources (or rather, its effectiveness). 5.2. Limitations and further research There are some limitations in this study. The first of these concerns the assessing of the generalisability of the theories between the two countries. Cultural aspects may have had a strong impact on the responses and thus skewed the results of the study. Similarly, the different ways of collecting the data and the different response styles may have influenced the results (Weijters et al., 2008). Valid comparisons can only be made if the characteristics of the concepts under scrutiny are the same in every sample. Because of the lack of measurement equivalency, direct comparisons between the samples in this study could not be made, and therefore, the model was tested separately in both samples. Thus, the next step is to focus on the measurement equivalency (Singh, 1995; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; Douglas and Nijssen, 2003) between the two samples and to the possibility to compare the status of PSM further. The second limitation concerns the quality and amount of collected empirical data. A sample size of one hundred Finnish firms is rather low. In order to increase the validity and generalise the results more strongly it would be a good idea to carry out a new study with a larger sample. Third, single respondents were used in both samples, which may have led to common respondent bias. Finally, in future research it would be interesting from the global-management perspective to investigate cultural effects on supply management in a comparative study involving different countries. It would also be useful to assess the influence of strategic supply management on firm competitiveness in different countries in quantitative terms.