MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058260127 · doi:10.1108/13598540510612767

The effect of supplier development initiatives on purchasing performance: a structural model

2005· article· en· W2058260127 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSupply Chain Management An International Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsNipissing UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingSupplier relationship managementStructural equation modelingBusinessSupply chain managementSupply chainSample (material)Supplier evaluationMarketingEmpirical researchProcess managementPurchasing managementIndustrial organizationOperations managementComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Supply chain management is an increasingly important organizational concern, and proper management of supplier relationships constitutes one essential element of supply chain success. However, there is little empirical research that has tested the effect of supplier development on performance. The main objective is to analyze the effect of supplier development practices with different levels of implementation complexity on the firm's purchasing performance. Design/methodology/approach Three supplier development constructs were defined: basic supplier development, moderate supplier development, and advanced supplier development. Three structural models were hypothesized and tested using structural equation modeling through field research on a sample of 306 manufacturing companies in Spain. Findings Identified important interrelationships among the various supplier development practices, basic, moderate, and advanced. Also indicated that the implementation of supplier development practices significantly contributes to the prediction of purchasing performance. Research limitations/implications The use of a single key informant could be seen as a potential limitation of the study. The study was a cross‐sectional and descriptive sample of the manufacturing industry at a given point in time. A more stringent test of the relationships between the different levels of supplier development and performance requires a longitudinal study, or field experiment. Practical implications This study focused on supplier development practices and revealed how involving suppliers in supplier development activities is important and may help buyers to increase their purchasing performance. The findings from the structural analysis should provide practicing managers with insights on how these practices and their benefits are related in terms of purchasing performance, thus affecting their ability to make better sourcing decisions. Originality/value Fills an important gap in the purchasing literature with respect to the area of supplier development. While there is much written about supplier development based on conceptual and case study research, this study is unique in that it is the first attempt to empirically model the relationships between different levels of supplier development and their impact on purchasing performance using a comprehensive set of practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it