Buyer supplier perspectives on supply chain relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The paper aims to employ transaction cost theory and social exchange theory to compare how buyers and suppliers perceive relationship mechanisms. The paper also explains the antecedents and dynamics of relationship performance by comparing buyer and supplier perceptions of the same relationships. The paper specifically focuses on the issue of relationship success and test the hypothesis that the antecedents of perceived relationship success for buyers differ from those of suppliers within supply chain relationships. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a study of the supply chain relationships of a major ICT company where matched pairs of buyers and suppliers were surveyed on the nature of their relationships. The survey instrument drew from previously published constructs on key relationship dimensions such as trust, commitment, power, communication, uncertainty and performance. A series of nested measurement models were then developed and tested for the two groups – buyers and suppliers. Findings The study found that buyers and suppliers have significantly different perceptions of their relationships across a range of dimensions. In addition, the antecedents of relationship success for both groups bear little similarity, thus supporting our hypotheses. Originality/value The paper directly compares transaction cost theory and social exchange theory and finds that both are useful in explaining success in buyer‐supplier relationships. Methodologically, the paper is unique due to the combination of over 100 matched buyer‐supplier dyads with a comprehensive survey of relationship constructs. Given the use of both transaction cost and social exchange theory, the breadth of the dimensions studied, the unique access to practitioners gained and the nature of the matched‐pair data, this paper is an important contribution to the literature on relationship management. Furthermore, the findings indicate a rich seam of potential future research topics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it