Understanding Supplier Relationship Management Practices in the Context of Supply Chain Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) is a critical aspect of supply chain management, particularly in today's dynamic and interconnected business environment. This qualitative research study explores SRM practices within the context of supply chain dynamics, aiming to understand how organizations manage their supplier relationships to achieve strategic objectives. Through semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and participant observation, key themes emerge, including collaboration, trust, risk management, performance measurement, digital technology integration, sustainability, cultural alignment, supplier development, strategic alignment, emotional intelligence, and marketing perspectives. The findings underscore the importance of collaboration and trust in fostering strategic partnerships with suppliers, mitigating risks, and enhancing supply chain resilience. Effective risk management practices, performance measurement systems, and digital technology integration are essential for improving transparency, efficiency, and responsiveness in SRM. Sustainability considerations highlight the need for aligning SRM practices with corporate social responsibility goals and stakeholder expectations. Cultural alignment, supplier development programs, strategic alignment, emotional intelligence, and marketing perspectives further enrich the understanding of how organizations navigate their supplier relationships. This study contributes to the body of knowledge on SRM by providing empirical insights into the practices, challenges, and opportunities associated with managing supplier relationships in dynamic supply chains. The findings offer valuable guidance for practitioners and policymakers seeking to enhance their SRM practices and achieve competitive advantage in today's complex business landscape.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".