The future of purchasing and supply management research :about relevance and rigorCitation for published version (APA):Weele, van, A. J., & Raaij, van, E. M. (2014). The future of purchasing and supply management research : aboutrelevance and rigor. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(1), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12042

DOI:10.1111/jscm.12042

Document status and date:Published: 01/01/2014

Document Version:Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers)

Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can beimportant differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. Peopleinterested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit theDOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and pagenumbers.Link to publication

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, pleasefollow below link for the End User Agreement:www.tue.nl/taverne

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:openaccess@tue.nlproviding details and we will investigate your claim.

Download date: 21. Mar. 2022

THE FUTURE OF PURCHASING AND SUPPLYMANAGEMENT RESEARCH: ABOUT RELEVANCE AND

RIGOR

ARJAN J. VAN WEELEEindhoven University of Technology

ERIK M. VAN RAAIJErasmus University

The Journal of Supply Chain Management (JSCM) is a hallmark in the aca-demic field of operations and supply chain management. During the past50 years, it has contributed substantially to the recognition and adoptionof purchasing and supply management (PSM) as an academic and strate-gic business domain. Having been invited by the JSCM editors to providesome ideas on the future directions of PSM research, the authors discusswhat can be done to further increase both its relevance and rigor. Rigorand relevance in academic research are interconnected. To improve itsrelevance, the authors argue that future PSM research should better reflectthe strategic priorities raised in the contemporary strategic managementliterature. Next, future PSM research should be much better embedded ina limited number of management theories. Here, stakeholder theory, net-work theory, the resource-based view of the firm, dynamic capabilitiestheory, and the relational view could be considered as interesting candi-dates. Rigor is connected with robustness of academic research designsand projects. To foster its rigor, future PSM research should allow for anincrease in the number of replication studies, longitudinal studies, andmeta-analytical studies. Future PSM research designs should reflect a care-ful distinction between informants and respondents and a careful sampleselection. When discussing the results of quantitative studies, future PSMresearch should report on effect sizes and confidence intervals, rather thanp-values. Adoption of these ideas would have some important implicationsfor both the academic PSM community and academic journal editors.

Keywords: purchasing; supply management

INTRODUCTIONThis article addresses the relevance and rigor of aca-

demic research in purchasing and supply management(PSM). We discuss relevance in light of the strategicrole of purchasing. First, we provide a demarcation ofthe PSM domain. Next, we present several findingsrelated to the role and importance of this domain in

mainstream strategic management literature. Then, wepresent an overview of contemporary academicresearch in purchasing. We demonstrate that PSM hasmade considerable progress in terms of academic con-tributions. However, these contributions do not neces-sarily reflect strategic business issues and concepts. Weexplore why this situation exists and whether this situ-ation should be changed—and if so, what routes forfuture research will be available. An important topic,when addressing its relevance, is purchasing andsupply research rigor. Various shortcomings in con-temporary academic PSM research are discussed.Based upon our discussion, we propose some avenuesto improve both PSM research relevance and rigor to

Acknowledgments: The authors want to extend their gratitude to

Mirjam Kibbeling for her permission to use part of her work for

our introductory section and Bj€orn Axelsson, Regien Sumo,

Kristine van Tubergen, and Marijn van Weele for their comments

on earlier versions of this paper.

Volume 50, Number 156

the benefit of business practitioners, researchers, andeditors of academic journals.

PSM: DEMARCATION OF THE FIELD1

PSM is the discipline that is concerned with themanagement of external resources—goods, services,capabilities, and knowledge—that are necessary forrunning, maintaining, and managing the primary andsupport processes of a firm at the most favorable con-ditions (Van Weele, 2010). Early references to thefunction go as far back as 1832, and times of difficultsupply, such as wars and economic recessions, havehelped to establish PSM as a management discipline(Leenders & Fearon, 2008). Accordingly, the economicrecession and supply disruptions of the 1970s put themanagement of external resources high on the agendaof firms (Kraljic, 1983; Monczka, Handfield,Guinipero, Patterson, & Waters, 2010). This was alsothe time that transaction cost economics (TCE)emphasized cost efficiency in decisions about theboundary of the firm and the governance of supplierrelationships (Williamson, 1981, 1991). Influenced bysuch developments, PSM has traditionally had astrong focus on cost reduction, through excellentnegotiating tactics and competitive contracting. Thiscost focus still holds today for many researchers andpractitioners, many of whom argue that PSM’s addedvalue predominantly lies in cost reduction (Anderson,Thomson, & Wynstra, 2000; Chen, Paulraj, & Lado,2004; Gonz�alez-Benito, 2007).Due to the increased outsourcing of business activi-

ties, PSM has developed into a functional domain ofstrategic relevance (Carr & Pearson, 1999; Carter,Monczka, Slaight, & Swan, 2000; Ellram & Carr,1994; Gadde & H�akansson, 1994; Ogden, Petersen,Carter, & Monczka, 2005). As suppliers graduallybecame more important for the competitive posi-tioning of the firm, research in the field examinedtopics such as supplier relationship management(Gelderman, 2003), collaborative networks (Holmen,Pedersen, & Jansen, 2007; Joshi, 2009; Spekman &Carraway, 2006), and early supplier involvement innew product development (Choi, Wu, Ellram, & Koka,2002; Van Echtelt, 2004; Wynstra, 1998). The term“strategic purchasing” emerged in the literature(Ellram & Carr, 1994), but developed into a conceptwith a strong focus on the integration of the PSMfunction with other functional domains within thefirm and the alignment of purchasing and supplyobjectives with corporate objectives (Carr & Pearson,1999; Wolf, 2005). The strategic positioning of thediscipline appears to focus more on the value-added

of the “purchasing function” than the value-added ofsuppliers. The current research and literature remaininconclusive about the nature of the contributionfirms may want to extract from their suppliers. This iswhy the dominant focus of the purchasing and supplydomain still is on purchasing’s “bottom line” impactthrough cost savings, quality improvement, and tech-nology development (Trent & Monczka, 1998). Thequestion of how firms could or should createcustomer and shared value (Porter & Kramer, 2006)using their supplier networks receives far lessattention.Supply chain management (SCM) involves a

broader perspective than PSM. SCM is the part of theoperations management discipline that examinesthree or more organizations involved in the upstreamand downstream flows of products, services, finances,and/or information from a source to a customer.SCM typically focuses on the coordination of busi-ness functions within and across organizations in asupply chain, for the purposes of improving thelong-term performance of the individual organiza-tions and the supply chain as a whole (Giunipero,Hooker, Joseph-Matthews, Yoon, & Brudvig, 2008;Mentzer et al., 2001). SCM research addresses topicssuch as the bullwhip effect (Lee, Padmanabhan, &Whang, 1997), supply chain capacity, sourcing deci-sions, planning, and scheduling (Kouvelis, Chambers,& Wang, 2006). Traditionally, SCM focuses on opti-mizing goods and materials flows, the informationrequired for this, and selecting partners on strategicfit to facilitate an efficient goods flow (Chen &Paulraj, 2004; Mentzer, Min, & Zacharia, 2000). PSM,as a more focused discipline, carries prime responsi-bility for interaction with the upstream supply chain(Schoenherr et al., 2012), but should fulfill thisresponsibility with the needs of internal functions aswell as the downstream customer(s) interests anddemands in mind.Today, SCM research has started to cover a broader

spectrum of research topics and includes, amongothers, product and service development, quality man-agement, logistics, information systems, and humanresources management to reflect the value of a firm’scapabilities in both manufacturing and service supplychains (Ellram, Tate, & Billington, 2004; Giuniperoet al., 2008; Sampson & Spring, 2012). Serviceencounters within and between firms have becomekey for business operations and typically involveknowledge sharing, competencies, and a mutualunderstanding between buyer and supplier to enableoptimal business-to-business service and goodsexchange (Rosenzweig & Roth, 2007; Van der Valk,Wynstra, & Axelsson, 2009). Thus, SCM has movedfrom a dominant focus on flows of goods and infor-mation toward an increasing focus on how to

1Original text by Kibbeling (2010, 17–20) was edited by theauthors with permission.

January 2014

The Future of PSM Research

57

mobilize and manage capabilities in supply chainrelationships.The focal point in SCM is how to generate value for

a specific customer market or firm (Mentzer et al.,2001). Most supply chain research seems to focus onhow to plan and manage internal activities and howto coordinate relationships with other supply chainpartners (Frankel, Bolumole, Eltantawy, Paulraj, &Gundlach, 2008). Research in the field seems mainlyconcerned with running supply chain operationsefficiently—doing things right—rather than effectively—doing the right things.Our conclusion that creating value in supply chains

is related to supply chain effectiveness calls for anexamination of the literature on strategic manage-ment. The fundamental question in the field of strate-gic management is how firms achieve competitiveadvantage to be effective (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen,1997). Strategic management focuses on drafting,implementing, and evaluating cross-functional deci-sions that will enable an organization to achieve itsobjectives (Hoskisson, Hitt, Wan, & Yiu, 1999). Tradi-tionally, these objectives are related to firm perfor-mance and to how to create value for the firm’scustomers and shareholders (Sirmon, Hitt, & Ireland,2007).During the past decades, several research streams in

strategic management have attempted to explain themechanisms through which firms create value. Weexplore in this article which of these research streamsdiscuss how PSM and suppliers contribute to the pro-cess of creating and delivering value. PSM’s relevanceis tied to its capacity to create value. Next, we exploreto what extent strategic management concepts arereflected in contemporary academic research in PSM.Both discussions will help us to provide answers tohow relevant academic PSM research is and what canbe carried out to improve its strategic relevance. In thelast sections of this article, we discuss how to improvethe rigor of purchasing and supply research. Researchon strategically relevant topics has no value if it hasnot been executed with the highest possible rigor.

ABOUT THE RELEVANCE OF PSMRESEARCH: PSM’S ROLE IN STRATEGIC

MANAGEMENT THEORYThis section describes a number of important devel-

opments in the strategic management literatureregarding the sources of firm performance. Given thescope of this article, our discussion, also on the impli-cations for PSM, can only be brief. We describe someimportant contributions in the area of strategic man-agement, which have been categorized into four dif-ferent eras: (1) strategic planning and marketingtheory, (2) competitive strategy, (3) innovation and

competence management, and (4) internal and exter-nal resource management (see Figure 1).

Strategic Planning and Marketing TheoriesAfter World War II, American and European industry

went through a period of restructuring, recovery, andeconomic growth. The postwar era was characterizedby strong technology development and a growing needfor products by consumers. In that period of time, themajor concern of entrepreneurs and companies wasnot so much in how to sell and market products toconsumers, because there was a large demand forproducts. Their major concern was how to secure sup-ply for production in terms of raw materials, compo-nents, and parts. Backward integration was a strategyfollowed to secure basic materials needs (Chandler,1992). Companies manufactured many parts and com-ponents internally. Their intent was to be asself-supporting as they could be. Philips, the Dutch-based manufacturer of consumer lifestyle products,healthcare, and lighting, may serve as an example here.In the early 1960s, this company had its own glass-manufacturing plants and packaging plants. The com-pany even produced its own toilet seats. Car manufac-turers were also highly integrated. General Motors andFord produced the majority of their parts in-house.A first sign of strategic change was presented by

Ansoff, who introduced his strategic growth matrix(Ansoff, 1957). When pursuing growth, Ansoff pre-sented four different routes: (1) market penetration,(2) product development, (3) market development,and (4) diversification. As a result of this typology,many large American companies embarked particu-larly on diversification strategies. These strategies werelater supported by the PIMS studies,2 which were con-ducted by researchers of Harvard Business School (seefor example Schoeffler, Buzzell, & Heany, 1974).Using both qualitative and quantitative data fromover 3,000 business units, a strong correlationbetween market share and profitability was found.The PIMS studies resulted in more than one hundredpublications with a repeated message to entrepreneursand managers: Build market share so that you canprofit from economies of scale (Buzzell, Gale, &Sultan, 1975). To be profitable, one predominantlyshould have a number one, two, or three market posi-tion. Only these companies would be profitable.Other, smaller companies would suffer. This advicewas followed, and as a result, companies started tobuy competitors and smaller players to strengthentheir market position. Although the research is some-what outdated, and its results controversial, these mar-ket share strategies are still being followed. Heineken,the international beer brewer, and Saint Gobain, the

2PIMS stands for profit impact of marketing strategies.

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

58

French conglomerate in construction materials, mayserve as examples here. These companies strive fordominant market shares in all of their markets withinthree to four years. If they cannot reach that position,they withdraw.Going for market share was supported by the Boston

Consulting Group (BCG),3 who introduced theirfamous market growth–market share matrix. The ideaunderlying this matrix was to spread financial risksand be selective when investing in new products andmarkets. Products were categorized into four catego-ries, that is, stars, cash cows, dogs, and questionmarks. Companies needed to pursue a balancedspread among each of these segments. The stars andcash cows would generate the cash needed to financethe question marks and dogs. The latter should bekilled as soon as the situation would allow.4

Building market share would allow companies tobenefit from the experience curve, which reflected the

practice that, when production volumes would dou-ble, the cost per unit would decrease with a certainpercentage (Henderson, 1984). BCG demonstrated theexperience curve effect for a wide range of productsincluding cars, semiconductors, chemical products, airtransport, synthetic fibers, and even insurance. Thefaster a product enters the market, the sooner a com-pany can benefit from this experience curve effect,capture the financial benefits from it, and invest thesein new products and markets. Hence, strategic man-agement theory focused on how to search for growthopportunities and how to select growth markets. Topmanagers came to see their company as a portfolio ofindividual business units. Their major challenge wasto invest in the most promising product marketcombinations.In all of these important contributions to marketing

and strategic management ideas, the issue of how tofoster or professionalize PSM was absent.

Competitive StrategyDuring the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s,

economic growth both in Europe and the U.S. came

FIGURE 1Business Strategy Concepts Over Time

00020991089107910691edaced/emiTStrategic planning and Compe ve strategy Innova on strategy Resource based strategy Stakeholder strategy

Author Concepts por olio management

Ansoff (1957) Strategic planning, product market matrix, SWOT Matrix

Financial orienta on/ Share-holder orienta on/ Firm orienta on

Harvard Business School, PIMS studies (1974-1980)

Market share leads to profitability, marke ng focus

Boston Consul ng Group (1980)

Por olio manage-ment, Market Growth/Market share matrix

McKinsey, Peters and Waterman (1982)

7S-model: Superordinate goals, Strategy, Structure, Systems, Style, Skills, Staff

Porter, M.E. (1980, 1985)

Compe ve strategy and value chain management: three generic strategies, five forces model

Boston Consul ng Innova on models:Boston Consul ng Group/McKinsey (1990)

Innova on models: focus on innova on and ' me-to-market'

Barney (1991), Rumelt (1991), Wernerfelt (1984)

Competence management: managing a bundle of competences in parallel

Prahalad & Hamel (1990), Quinn (1992)

Competence models: focus on core competences, outsource non core competences

Donaldson & Preston (1995), Freeman et al. (2007)

Stakeholder theory: collab. models, managing int'l and ext'l resources in parallel

Value orienta on/ Stakeholder orien-ta on/ Value Chain & Network Orienta on

3See, for example, www.bcgperspectives.com/content/classics/strategy_the_product_portfolio/4Empirical research (Hambrick, MacMillan, & Day, 1982)showed that dogs may in fact also produce positive cash flows.

January 2014

The Future of PSM Research

59

to a halt. Strongly diversified conglomerates appearedto be strategically vulnerable. Strategic managementtheory had to change. This change was made whenMichael Porter entered the strategic managementscene. Based upon extensive research in differentbranches of industry, he took a broader perspective byintroducing the value chain concept to explore thecompetitive position of a company. In exploring acompany’s value chain, he differentiated between pri-mary activities such as inbound and outbound logis-tics, operations management, marketing, and aftersales services. Next, he identified support activitiessuch as technology development, human resourcesmanagement, procurement, and infrastructure. Inter-estingly, he preferred the term procurement over pur-chasing by arguing that “purchasing, in general, has atoo narrow connotation” (Porter, 1985, p.41). Porterwas one of the first management theorists who gaveexplicit attention to PSM and the role of suppliers. Inhis five forces model, suppliers are one of the fiveforces, next to direct competitors, new entrants, substi-tute products, and customers, that determine theattractiveness of an industry.The importance of Porter’s contribution lies primar-

ily in his implicit critique on the former PIMS studies.He demonstrated that excellent profitability was notonly related to size. Smaller, specialized and focusedcompanies were also able to generate substantialfinancial results due to economies of focus. In hisview, to be sustainably profitable, companies neededto choose among three generic strategies, that is, costleadership, product differentiation, and focus. If youdid not choose among these three strategies, yourprofitability would suffer, because you would be“stuck in the middle” (Porter, 1980, p.41).During the 1980s, product technologies became

more complex. One reason was the widespread appli-cation of computer technology (IBM’s PC was intro-duced in 1982). For large corporations, it wasimpossible to finance all growth strategies internally.New competitors, particularly from Japan, entered thefield. Later, competitors from these so-called AsianTigers (including South Korea, Singapore, and HongKong) exacerbated the competitive field. These chang-ing competitive circumstances required a change instrategic response. McKinsey introduced its 7S model(Peters & Waterman, 1982), which argued that apartfrom hard factors such as superordinate goals, strat-egy, structure, and systems, companies also needed topay attention to soft factors such as staff, style, andskills. Most of their discussions were limited to pro-cesses within the boundaries of the firm. Very littlewas said about strategies and competences to manageexternal resources.Porter introduced procurement as an important dri-

ver of competitive performance. However, the

discussion on how to position and leverage procure-ment in business strategy remained very limited inother mainstream (strategic) management literature.

Innovation Strategy and CompetenceManagementWhen discussing competitive strategy in the 1980s,

innovation emerged as an important driver of compet-itive strategy and profitability. International manage-ment consultancy firm such as McKinsey and BCGdemonstrated through their research a clear relation-ship between innovation and business profitability.They argued that for a firm, it was important to befirst on the market. This would allow the firm to buildmarket share, which was needed to benefit from econ-omies of scale to recoup investments in new productdevelopment and be profitable. Being innovative andfast to market became important competitive priorities(Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988). As a result, man-agement literature on innovation theory and strategybecame abundant.However, when studying the innovative behavior

and performance of companies, a major researchquestion was “How is it possible that within one sec-tor some players consistently perform better than theircompetitors?” The answer came from proponents ofthe so-called resource-based view of the firm. Here,Rumelt (1991), Wernerfelt (1984), and Barney (1991)provided important contributions and insights. Theyargued that differences in performance among compa-nies were not primarily to be attributed to the prod-ucts that they delivered or the market environment inwhich they operated. Rather, these differences in com-petitive performance were to be attributed to theirresources and the way these resources were actuallyused. Successful companies seemed able to utilizetheir resources better and more effectively than theircompetitors. Resources were to be defined in a broadsense, being both tangible and intangible. Resourcesincluded human capital, financial resources, technol-ogy, and knowledge. However, the relationships thatcompanies were able to develop with clients, employ-ees, unions, suppliers, and investors were also consid-ered to be important resources. As Wernerfelt (1984)argued, differences in competitive performanceresulted from how the combination of resources andrelationships was used to solve specific customerproblems and needs. Profit was considered not to bean end in itself. However, this was to be consideredas a measure for how successfully a company was ableto create customer satisfaction. Better solutions andneed fulfillment would lead to more satisfied custom-ers, who then were willing to pay a surplus for prod-ucts and services (Stoelhorst & Van Raaij, 2004). Theadoption of this resource-based view of the firm the-ory took considerable time (Wernerfelt, 1995). Most

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

60

contributions were limited to specialist academic jour-nals, which prevented business practitioners fromgetting acquainted with the insights from this schoolof thought. This situation changed when Prahaladand Hamel (1990) and Quinn (1992) published theirideas on how to shape competitive strategy. Theseauthors argued that companies should differentiatebetween core versus noncore competencies. Theyargued that companies should focus on their corecompetencies, while outsourcing their noncore com-petencies to suppliers who specialize in these noncorecompetencies. Through this strategy, the companywould become more focused and more flexible toadapt to external uncertainties. As a result, businessmanagers brought their diversification strategies to ahalt, investing in core activities and divesting activitiesthat were considered as noncore. Next, internal activi-ties were benchmarked against those of competitorsand specialist suppliers. As a result, companies startedto outsource important parts of their businessprocesses.Our observation is that a strategic focus on innova-

tion and, more particularly, competence-based think-ing has changed the role of PSM. By the end of theTwentieth Century, the purchasing ratio in (manufac-turing) companies had increased to often 60–80percent of their total cost (Dyer & Singh, 1998;Monczka et al., 2010; Van Weele, 2010), making com-panies more dependent on supplier relationships andsupplier performance. The PSM function was deemedto be a driver of key purchasing and supply processesand supplier relationships. However, contributions onhow to leverage purchasing and supply knowledgeand expertise within and across organizations in themainstream literature remained limited.

From Internal to External Resource ManagementIn parallel to the resource-based view of the firm,

other researchers have suggested that rather than inter-nal resources, the way firms deal with their externalresources determines a firm’s competitiveness. Twosuch theories are the relational view of the firm (Dyer& Singh, 1998) and resource dependence theory. Thecentral proposition in resource dependence theory,initially proposed by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), isthat firms change as well as negotiate with their exter-nal environment to secure access to the resources thatthey need to survive. Resource dependence theorythereby typically looks beyond the boundaries of anindividual firm. It advocates that firms are not self-contained in fulfilling demands and therefore estab-lish linkages with suppliers to access resources andcapabilities required to deliver value (Paulraj & Chen,2007). Resource dependence theory implies that sup-pliers are necessary for adapting to and anticipatingthe developments in the supply chain’s environment.

The relational view posits that both complementaryresources controlled by external suppliers and the rela-tionships with such suppliers can be the sources ofcompetitive advantage. Both theories propose thatdeveloping effective relationships with the most quali-fied suppliers is a prerequisite to secure the externalresources that are required to create customer valueand, hence, foster the firm’s competitiveness.Thus, resource dependence theory and the relational

view of the firm complement the resource-based viewwith external (supplier) resources, competences, andcapabilities. Unfortunately, resource dependencetheory has not received as much research attention as,for instance, the resource-based view. It is very con-ceptual in nature and has received scant empiricalsupport (Stock, 2006).Whereas the resource-based view and resource

dependence theory are rather abstract concerning whatkind of value needs to be created, stakeholder theorytakes account of different value perspectives. Stake-holder theory suggests that each stakeholder repre-sents different values that the focal firm should try torealize (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984;Freeman, Harrison, & Wicks, 2007). Stakeholdertheory criticizes the traditional, primarily financiallydriven company strategies that were particularly aimedat satisfying shareholder needs and interests. The aimof stakeholder theory is to satisfy a broad array ofstakeholder groups based on their specific demands(Harrison, Bosse, & Phillips, 2010). Creating value fordifferent stakeholders has an effect on the way firmsallocate their resources (Freeman et al., 2007).Through stakeholder orientations, firms may createthe proper attitudes and behaviors for satisfying theirstakeholders and achieving superior firm performancesimultaneously (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997; Narver &Slater, 1990). Stakeholder orientations result in firmcompetitiveness because a focus on stakeholder satis-faction allows a firm to develop trusting relationshipswith their stakeholders, giving these firms the oppor-tunity to deal better with changes in the environmentand consequently spur innovation (Freeman et al.,2007; Harrison et al., 2010). Stakeholders give direc-tion to the external orientations suggested in theresource-based view and resource dependence theory.When we adopt this perspective, suppliers should notonly create value for the firm’s markets (customers),but also help the buying firm in creating value forsociety (all stakeholders representing social and envi-ronmental concerns) and for those who investedfinancial resources in the firm (shareholders andinvestors).In conclusion, the resource-based view of the firm,

resource dependence theory, and stakeholder theoryeach emphasize a different element of how firmsmay create value through supply chain orchestration.

January 2014

The Future of PSM Research

61

The resource-based view of the firm is more con-cerned with the management of a firm’s internalresources and capabilities that may satisfy externalstakeholders of the firm. With resource dependencetheory, the firm’s dependence on other external par-ties, such as suppliers, takes central stage. Finally,stakeholder theory focuses on the diverse stakeholderperspectives a firm needs to balance, weigh, andrespond to.Figure 1 provides a schematic overview of how stra-

tegic thinking has evolved over time.5 We concludethat, over time, strategic management thinking haschanged quite dramatically. During the 1960s, creat-ing market share was considered to be the prime con-cern of management. To increase its profitability, alarge market share would enable a company to benefitfrom economies of scale, and hence cost efficiencies.This idea was challenged by Porter, who demonstratedthat specialization could also lead to higher profitabil-ity. He introduced the idea of creating a sustainablecompetitive position through one of three genericstrategies, that is, cost leadership, differentiation, orfocus. Next, he introduced the concept of the valuechain in which procurement was considered to be animportant support activity. The relationship with sup-pliers, in his view, was to be considered as one of thepositioning elements. Apart from strategic positioning,innovation became a key issue, as it was demon-strated that companies who are first to market with anew product generate most profits. As a result, the dis-cussion became how to create innovative climate andinnovative competencies.Differences in financial performance among compa-

nies were explained by the way in which companieswere able to utilize their resources, both internallyand externally. Resource management requires thatcompanies focus on what they can do best (i.e., theircore competencies) and outsource their noncore activ-ities to specialist suppliers. As a result, the firm canbenefit from both focus and supplier specialization.When doing so, relationships with external parties,including suppliers, seem to develop into an impor-tant resource, that is, asset. Most discussions in strate-gic management theory seem to relate to how theseresources, that is, assets, can be linked to market andcustomer strategies and how such effective linkageswith outside parties can be created. Strategic manage-ment theory reflects an increasingly important role forsupply management and supplier resource issues.However, for strategic management scholars, PSMseems not to be considered as a specialist research

domain that is able to provide insights into howsuppliers can be managed as external resources. In thenext section, we will describe how PSM research hasevolved over time, and we will discuss differences andsimilarities of both fields.

TOPICS AND TRENDS IN PAST ANDCONTEMPORARY PSM RESEARCH

What topics have been addressed in PSM researchover the past decades? To what extent has PSMresearch reflected past and contemporary strategicmanagement thinking? For an answer to these ques-tions, we draw on a number of thorough literature sur-veys. An initial paper providing an overview of PSMdoctoral research is the one published by Das andHandfield (1997). Next, Carter and Ellram (2003) pro-vided a critical review of 35 years of 774 papers pub-lished in the Journal of Supply Chain Management(JSCM). A third source of information is Wynstra’spaper on papers published in the Journal of Purchas-ing and Supply Management (JPSM) from 1994 to2009, covering 351 articles (Wynstra, 2010). We alsoconsulted Rozemeijer, Quintens, Wetzels, and Gelder-man (2012) for their analysis of the papers submittedto the IPSERA Conference at Maastricht, March 2011.IPSERA represents a large part of the global PSM aca-demic community. Finally, we consulted Spina, Cania-to, Luzzini, and Ronchi (2013), who analyzed 1055articles on PSM published during 2002–2010 in 20different journals, ranging from (1) PSM-related jour-nals (328 articles) and (2) Marketing and OperationsManagement journals (526 articles) to (3) GeneralManagement and Economics journals (201 articles).As these latter authors integrated the other literaturesurveys in their analysis, we have taken their researchas our point of departure. Another reason is that thescope of their analysis matches our definition of PSM.The study by Spina et al. (2013) shows that PSM,

which for a long time was considered as a subdisciplineof manufacturing and operations management, increas-ingly gained recognition as a separate discipline overthe years, both in research and in practice. As maincauses for the latter, the following are mentioned: (1)outsourcing, (2) globalization, and (3) e-business. Withregard to the former, the authors argue that PSM hasgained a growing recognition among business schools,where the subject, thanks to the growing number oftextbooks, is taught both in open enrollment programsand corporate training courses.For their extensive research of the 1,055 articles, an

extended classification framework was used, whichenabled the researchers to analyze the database fromdifferent angles. Here, we limit our discussion to: unitof analysis, theoretical perspectives, competitive

5Please note that the boxes in Figure 1 indicate at roughly whattime the respective strategy concepts started to have significantimpact on strategic thinking. The concepts generally continue tohave impact after that.

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

62

priorities, processes, and practices. From 2002 to 2010the number of papers increased by 163 percent (i.e.,from 68 to 179 papers in the journals concerned).Also, the percentage of specific PSM papers relative tothe total number of papers increased from 4.7 to 9.6percent. Papers focusing on the buyer’s perspective rep-resented the largest group (421 papers), followed bythose focusing on supply networks (347) and dyadicrelationships (233). Papers focusing on the supplierperspective represented only a minority (54). In 2010,the topic of supply networks came out as most popu-lar, representing 53.6 percent of the total output.Looking at the theoretical background of the papers,

only 14 percent (146) was grounded in a specific the-ory (but this percentage rises over the years). The vastmajority did not make reference to any theoreticalbackground that was used to inform and structure theresearch. Of the ones that did, TCE theory was mostoften used (59), followed by the resource-based viewof the firm (27). Resource dependence theory wasmentioned 6 times, and stakeholder theory is notamong the theories listed by Spina et al. The remain-ing studies (54) were published using 14 othertheoretical perspectives.Competitive priorities were classified by Spina et al.

into cost, innovation, quality, time, sustainability, andflexibility. Of the total of 1,055 papers, 461 addressedsuch competitive priorities, with the majority (269)focusing on cost; 113 papers were focused on innova-tion, whereas 110 covered quality as the mainresearch object.When discussing processes, the following topics

were identified: reverse marketing, contract manage-ment, supply network configuration, negotiation,vendor rating, supplier management, execution, port-folio management, and requirements definition.Papers appeared to be scattered around these topics,with reverse marketing attracting most papers (137).Only 74 papers were related to contract management,whereas 67 papers had supply network configurationas their primary research focus.Finally, practices were categorized into the following

topics: outsourcing, e-purchasing, local/global, riskmanagement, efficiency, supplier involvement, lean,centralization, cooperative purchasing, and supplybase reduction. Here, the focus of most papers was onoutsourcing (171) and e-purchasing (127), while thelatter 3 topics hardly received any interest.As stated before, the other authors provided litera-

ture reviews based upon a more narrow basis. Most ofthese were limited to specific PSM journals (or wereeven limited to one journal such as Carter and Ellram(2003) and Wynstra (2010)). This makes a directcomparison with the findings of Spina et al. (2013)difficult. A direct comparison is also hampered by thedifferent classification frameworks that were used.

Wynstra (2010) found most papers to be related tosupply base management/sourcing strategy (45 per-cent) and supplier relations (25 percent), whereasCarter and Ellram (2003) found most papers to berelated to “inventory and production management”and “purchasing organization, teams, and internalrelationships.” However, these authors observe thatsince the 1990s, almost all articles reflected a morestrategic focus and a broadening and integration ofpurchasing into supply management and SCM (p.36). Similar observations are made by Das andHandfield (1997) and Rozemeijer et al. (2012).What can we conclude based upon this discussion?

To what extent are trends and developments in strate-gic management theory reflected in past and contem-porary PSM research? Based upon our discussion,which necessarily can only be brief here, we wouldconclude that PSM research represents a scattered fieldthat has only limited overlap with strategic manage-ment trends and management thinking. Most PSMresearch seems to lack a clear theoretical underpin-ning. This hurts, in our view, its identification andrecognition outside the PSM community. Of theresearch that has a theoretical underpinning, most useTCE as main terms of reference, reflecting an eco-nomic, cost-oriented view of the firm. PSM researchseems only limitedly grounded in the resource-basedview of the firm, resource dependence theory, orstakeholder theory.The interest in foundational theories for supply

(chain) management seems to be growing, a process towhich the JSCM has been very instrumental. The rele-vance of the resource-based view for PSM and SCMresearch has been discussed in a number of recent con-tributions (Barney, 2012; Hunt & Davis, 2012; Priem &Swink, 2012), building in part on contributions madeten years earlier (Mol, 2003; Ramsay, 2001a,b). Theseimportant discussions notwithstanding, we observethat little empirical research covers the topics suggestedby Ramsay (2001a,b) and Barney (2012). Little PSMresearch seems to investigate how to develop superiorskills, capabilities, and experience of PSM professionals,how to develop and sustain superior codified knowl-edge of markets and supply chains, how to developsuperior power resources over suppliers, how to secureand protect superior procurement competence, andhow to build PSM processes within firms that createvalue, are rare among competitors, are costly to imitate,and have no close substitutes. The interest in founda-tional theories is growing, and now empirical researchneeds to follow.Spina et al.’s (2013) observation that most PSM

research seems to be buyer centric and/or dyadicappears to be in contrast with the fact that companiesincreasingly operate in an interconnected world. Toalign with the supply chain and network orientation

January 2014

The Future of PSM Research

63

(see Figure 1), which is gaining more popularity, sup-ply network centric research seems needed (Gadde,H�akansson, & Persson, 2010). It is encouraging thatthis type of research seems to have gained popularity.Competitive priorities seem covered most of the timeby research on cost issues. Although we certainly con-sider this type of research valid, we would argue formore future PSM research on innovation, time, flexi-bility, and sustainability in supply chain relationships.We observe that PSM research on the last issue isgrowing rapidly, which may lead to an increasedadoption of stakeholder theory in PSM research(Hoejmose & Adrien-Kirby, 2012).We argue that grounding future PSM theory in a

limited number of established, dominant theorieswould certainly contribute to a higher visibility andrecognition, both academically and in the practitionerfield. Such dominant theories preferably should reflectcontemporary strategic thinking and current businesspractices. Network theory, dynamic capabilities theory,stakeholder theory, and the relational view of the firmwould most certainly qualify here. Designing futurePSM research agendas that align with strategic priori-ties in the strategic management and business arenawould certainly contribute to a broader recognition ofthe field (Hitt, 2011; Mol, 2003). This would help toimprove PSM research relevance. However, this willnot prove to be sufficient. To improve PSM researchrelevance, we also need to address the rigor of con-temporary PSM research. We do so in the next sectionof our paper.

ABOUT THE RIGOR OF FUTURE PSMRESEARCH

From the reviews of the PSM literature, a pictureemerges of increasing attention to theory development(theory building and testing) at the expense of explo-ration and description (Spina et al., 2013), a findingthat is also echoed in the wider operations and SCMfield (Singhal & Singhal, 2012). Concomitant with theaim to test theory, the methodology that is most oftenused in PSM research is the survey (Spina et al.,2013), even though the (cross-sectional) survey hassevere limitations for testing a causal relationship(Dul & Hak, 2008). The popularity of research strate-gies may vary between geographies and journals, withthe case study being relatively more popular in Eur-ope (Carter & Ellram, 2003; Wynstra, 2010). Experi-ments, as a research strategy, represent only a trickleof empirical PSM research publications.Consistent with the positioning of the JSCM (Carter

& Ellram, 2009), we focus on empirical researchmethods in this part of our review. Research strategiesand research methods for data collection and data

analysis should support PSM researchers in develop-ing relevant PSM theories, as discussed in the first partof this review. When we speak about relevance, we donot view rigor and relevance as trade-offs, but we pre-fer to view methodological rigor in service of researchrelevance. Management research cannot be truly rele-vant, if it has not been executed rigorously.Hence, as a starting point, we do not only subscribe

to the notion that “nothing is as practical as a goodtheory” (Lewin, 1945), but also to the notion that“nothing is as dangerous as a bad theory” (Ghoshal,2005). Bad theory may lead users of that theoryastray, and it may hurt rather than help firm perfor-mance. So, what theories should we be looking for todevelop the PSM field? We would argue that theory inPSM should be both “relevant” and “robust” (see alsoGoldsby & Autry, 2011). Theory in PSM can bedeemed relevant if it addresses a phenomenon thatdirectly or indirectly explains performance of an indi-vidual, group, organization, or set of organizations intheir contemporary context. Theory in PSM can bedeemed robust if it is developed based on rigorousmethods of research, that is, if it has survived rigoroustesting. We reflect upon the relevance, robustness, andrigor of current PSM research looking at three differ-ent aspects: research objectives, data collection meth-ods, and data analysis methods. Each aspect isdiscussed in more detail. Particular concerns areraised. This discussion will help to design a futureagenda aimed at enhancing relevance, robustness, andrigor in future PSM research.

Research ObjectivesIndividual research projects are generally viewed as

being part of a wider process of knowledge creation.This creation process can be described using theempirical cycle, with its five stages of observation,induction, deduction, testing, and evaluation (VanAken, Berends, & Van Der Bij, 2012). Research pro-jects may have their prime focus on one or more ofthese stages. Ideally, PSM research would cover eachof these knowledge creation stages in sufficient detail.Does concurrent PSM research do so? Or do some ofthese stages get more attention than others? Thesequestions may be answered by referring to previousresearch. Some authors observed a trend in PSMresearch toward less “observation” and “induction,”and more “deduction” and “testing” (Carter & Ellram,2003; Singhal & Singhal, 2012; Spina et al., 2013).Other researchers see this as a sign of PSM becominga mature field of science (Spina et al., 2013). How-ever, such a situation may create a risk that too fewresources are spent on developing new theories. AsCarter and Ellram (2003) signaled a decade ago, aneed for rigorous, inductive studies continues to exist,

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

64

especially because survey-based theory testing studiestend to provide few breakthrough insights (see alsoSinghal & Singhal, 2012).We add two more observations related to the many

theory testing studies that are found in academic PSMjournals today. First, many theoretical claims aretested only in a single study, and repeated testing ofsuch claims in different contexts and different times israre. And second, where there have been multipletests, there is little evaluation across such tests. Ourfirst observation leads to a call for more replicationresearch, and our second observation to a call formore meta-analytical thinking (see also Goldsby &Autry, 2011). We explain our views here in moredetail.Many journals, it seems, are preoccupied with new-

ness (Goldsby & Autry, 2011). Authors are, or at leastappear to feel incentivized, to develop and test newrelationships and new models in their papers. As weobserve, this zest for newness of research findingsleads to a multitude of “one-shot studies” in our field(Dul & Hak, 2008). Practitioners, as well as fellowresearchers, are led to believe that a significant effectfound in a single study proves the general existence ofsuch an effect in business reality. Very few studies areaimed at replication or verification of findings ofprevious research.There seem to be at least three reasons to doubt the

validity of a general claim based on a p-value foundin one single study. First, the significance of a rela-tionship coefficient (in most cases the failure to rejectthe null hypothesis with a p < .05) is dependent onchance (Cumming, 2012). Second, the generalizabilityof the finding may be limited because, unlike in thenatural sciences, many parameters in the science ofmanagement evolve over time and differ from onepopulation of study units to the next (Singhal &Singhal, 2012). Third, a finding in one study is oftenbased on less than perfect research methods, such as anonrandom sampling of study units, a high nonre-sponse rate (Melnyk, Page, Wu, & Burns, 2012), and/or missing data in the data matrix (Tsikriktsis, 2005).Therefore, a theoretical claim based on one singlestudy has to be considered a weak claim (Goldsby &Autry, 2011). Practitioners who act on such a weakclaim are in danger of being led down the wrongpath. If journal editors would follow this reasoning,they would need to put far less emphasis on the inno-vativeness, that is, the newness, of research results asstated in papers that are submitted to them. Rather,they would welcome replication studies or studiesaimed at validation of previous studies.Replication studies would help the PSM field assert

whether or not theoretical claims can be generalizedto other empirical contexts and/or other timeframes.Next, meta-analytical studies can play an important

role in identifying moderating variables, so as toenrich PSM theories. Rigorous testing of PSM theorieswould require multiple contexts, preferably in combi-nation with longitudinal research designs. Thesewould help the PSM domain to develop meaningful,relevant insights. We feel that in this respect, a lot isto be gained.

Data CollectionTo produce relevant research, specific attention

needs to be given to data collection methods. Here wefeel that, particularly related to the often-used (self-administered) questionnaire, it is important to differ-entiate between respondents and informants. ManyPSM phenomena exist at the level of the purchaseditem, the group (department), the organization, the(dyadic) relationship between organizations, or thenetwork. In all such cases, the person filling out thequestionnaire is an “informant,” reporting on a phe-nomenon, external to him or herself. Only in caseswhere the phenomenon of interest concerns a feeling,opinion, or behavior of the individual involved, isthis person to be considered as a true “respondent”(Seidler, 1974). Very often in PSM research, however,this distinction is ignored, and all individuals com-pleting a questionnaire are called “respondents” andare treated as if they are “respondents.” We feel thatviewing informants as respondents raises particularconcerns related to at least three aspects of surveyresearch: sampling, data sources, and measurement.First of all, there is an implication for sampling,

which appears to be often overlooked. There is a logi-cal relation between theoretical domain, population,and sample. Each theory relates to a theoreticaldomain within which the theoretical claims of thattheory are valid. Although the domain is not alwaysexplicitly mentioned, one theory may be deemed validfor “purchasing managers in multinational firms,”while another theory may be considered valid for“strategic supplier relationships.” A theoretical domainis a set of entities to which the theory pertains. Theo-ries are usually meant to be valid for very wide, andhence heterogeneous, domains.From this domain, the researcher who wishes to test

one or more theoretical claims selects a particularpopulation of entities. For example, a researcher mayselect the Institute for Supply Management (ISM)membership as a population for testing a claim aboutsupply managers. The researcher then takes either acensus or a sample from that population (Bonett &Wright, 2009). The relationships between domain,population, sample, and data set are illustrated inFigure 2. The large solid rectangle represents the theo-retical domain. The theory is claimed to be valid forall instances within the domain. The four smaller rect-angles with dotted lines represent populations, each

January 2014

The Future of PSM Research

65

consisting of a subset of instances from the domain(e.g., ISM members being a population within thedomain of purchasing and supply managers). Thesmall solid rectangle represents the (probability ornonprobability) sample, chosen by the researcher. Theletter “c” denotes a member of the sample whoresponded and has therefore become one case (orobservation) in the data set. The letter “s” denotes anonresponder from the sample. A one-shot studywithout replication makes a claim about the wholedomain based only on tests among the instancesmarked as “c”.If a study in PSM is a study of anything other than

traits of individuals, then it is not individuals thatshould be sampled. In a study of interorganizationalrelationships, the researcher needs to sample relation-ships. In sum, the researcher should first assess towhat theoretical domain the theory or theoreticalclaim that is to be tested pertains. Examples of suchdomains are “purchasing managers,” “strategic items,”“captive IT outsourcing centers,” and “cross-bordersourcing relationships.” Only for the first theoreticaldomain (that of “purchasing managers”) could themembership of a purchasing association be chosen asa population to sample respondents from. For the

other four examples, the population needs to bedefined as, respectively, a population of purchaseditems, a population of firms, or a population of inter-firm relationships. The researcher should sampleitems, firms, or relationships from the definedpopulation.Second, the researcher needs to reflect upon the best

(combination of) sources to collect valid and reliabledata about the entities (units of analysis) that arestudied. If the theory operates at the level of the indi-vidual, data may well be collected from respondents.Yet, real-life observations, databases, or expert opin-ions may be even better sources for some researchquestions. If the theory operates at the level of pur-chased items, groups, organizations, relationships, ornetworks, informants may be one among a variety ofdata sources. Calantone and Vickery (2010) providevarious examples of how secondary data can be put toeffective and efficient use in PSM and SCM research.Moreover, single informants can only provide verylimited insight, when the unit of analysis is a group, adyadic relationship, or a network. Researchers need tomake conscious decisions about what entities are tobe sampled and what are the best sources to collectdata about those entities, given the theoretical domain

FIGURE 2Domain, Population, Sample, and Data Set*

x xxx x x x x x x xxx x xxx x x xxx xxx xxx xx x x x x x xx x xx xxx x x x x x x xxx xx x x x x x xxxx xx x xx x cccsc ccc cc sscc ccc xxx x x x xxxx xx x x xx xx x x x xxx x x x x xxx c s cc c c s sss c css x x xxx xxx xxx xx x x x x x xx x xx xxx x x x x s ccc ss s c c cc s s xxx xx x x x x xxxxx xxx xx xxxx xxx x x x xxxx xx x x xx xx x x x xxx x x x x xxx x x x x x x xxx x xxx x x x x xxx xxx xx x x x x x xx x xx xxx x x x x x x xxx xx x x x x x xxx xx x x x x xxxxx xxx xx xxxx x x x x xxxx xx x x xx xx x x x xxx x x x x xxx x x x x x x xxx x xxx x x xxx xxx xx x x x x x xx x xx xxx x x x x x x xxx xx x x x x x xx x x x x xxxxx xxx xx x x xxx x x x xxxx x xx xx x x x xxx x x x x xxx x x x x x x xxx x xxx x x xxx xxx xxx xx x x x x x xx x xx xxx x x x x x x xxx xx x x x x x x xx x x x x xxx x xxx xxxx xxx x x x xxxx xx x x xx xx x x x xxx x x xx x x x x x xxx x xxx x x xxx xxx xxx xx x x x x x xx x xx x xx x x x x x xxx xx xxx xx x x x x x xx x xx xxx x x x x x x xxx xx x x x x x xx xx

*Based on: Dul and Hak (2008), p. 46

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

66

of the theory they are testing. We would like to chal-lenge the widespread practice of surveying individualPSM professionals as the prime source of informationin those cases where the unit of analysis is not theindividual.Third, the ubiquitous approach of surveying individ-

ual “respondents” with the use of self-administeredquestionnaires coincides with a pervasive use ofmulti-item (reflective) constructs. We observe a rou-tine to consider all variables in research models asunobservable “latent constructs.” In discussions withcolleagues as well as reviewers, we often areconfronted with the opinion that only multi-itemconstructs constitute valid measurement. This may bedue to the fact that much of the measurement theorywe use in PSM (and in other OM and SCM research)stems from psychology (from seminal works by forexample Nunnaly, 1978; Churchill, 1979; see Gattiker& Parente, 2007). These theories of measurement arebased on the assumption that the researcher is inter-ested in a “respondent” reporting on his or her ownfeelings, opinions, attitudes, or behaviors, but muchof our research in PSM does not concern such latentconstructs. The multi-item reflective construct shouldtherefore not be considered the holy grail of measure-ment. Each variable deserves its own careful consider-ation of how it is best measured. And the bestmeasure may be a single item (Rossiter, 2002).Each empirical test of theory should be executed as

rigorously as possible, with careful consideration ofwhat entities to sample from which population, whatdata sources to use to obtain the most valid and reli-able data, how to achieve the highest possible responserate if questionnaires are used, and how to measureeach variable. These efforts notwithstanding, eachempirical test will be an imperfect one, revealing onlyto what extent the theory holds in the specific popula-tion chosen for the study. Multiple rigorous tests of atheoretical claim are needed to build robust theory.

Data AnalysisLet us spend a few words on data analysis. The cur-

rent convention in most quantitative, empirical PSMresearch is to perform null-hypothesis significancetesting (NHST). As has been argued by variousauthors (Bonett & Wright, 2009; Cumming, 2012;Kirk, 1996; Schwab, Abrahamson, Starbuck, & Fidler,2011), NHST provides only a very limited, and some-times a misguiding, picture of the test outcomes for atheoretical claim. In various other fields of research,such as medicine and psychology, the reporting ofeffect sizes with confidence intervals, instead of, or inaddition to, null-hypothesis significance tests hasbecome the preferred standard. One major flaw of sig-nificance tests is that, if samples are expanded, anyeffect can be made statistically significant. To make

our research more rigorous and more relevant, wesuggest using effect sizes more prominently whenjudging PSM and SCM research.The reporting and interpretation of effect sizes with

confidence intervals may help in making better judg-ments of the practical significance of research out-comes (Kirk, 1996). An obsession with statisticalsignificance (hunting for “asterisks”) has made us losesight of the practical significance of what we havefound (Bonett & Wright, 2009). Effect sizes (withtheir confidence intervals) should be discussed interms of what change in the independent variable(s)leads to how much of a change in the dependent vari-able and with what level of certainty. Such a discus-sion may reveal that, in spite of statistical significanceof the null-hypothesis test, the effort of changing theindependent variable(s) will not weigh up to the bene-fits obtained. And hence, the practical significance ofthe findings may be limited.We would argue furthermore that the findings of

empirical research should not only be discussed interms of their practical contribution, but also in termsof the limitations and boundary conditions stemmingfrom the choices made by the researcher. Boundaryconditions describe to what extent findings can be gen-eralized to situations other than the one(s) studied.Limitations and boundary conditions should bereported in such a way that readers can understand theconsequences of those limitations for the interpreta-tion of results (Brutus, Aguinis, & Wassmer, 2013).Finally, the findings should be discussed in light ofeffect sizes found in earlier research (in a meta-analyti-cal sense). Inconsistencies with earlier tests of the sameclaim(s) may lead to the identification of possiblemoderating variables to be included in future tests.

REFLECTIONS: HOW TO MAKE FUTUREPSM RESEARCH MORE RELEVANT AND

ROBUSTWe conclude that research in PSM has developed

considerably during the last decades, both in termsof quantity and in terms of quality. Over time, thenumber of articles, both in PSM-specific journals andin marketing and operations management and gen-eral management journals, has grown, covering about10 percent of all articles published. Past and contem-porary PSM research is related to a wide range oftopics, that are addressed by a wide range of method-ologies. Of these, deductive, theory testing, quantita-tive and survey-based methodologies have gainedincreasing popularity, at the cost of inductive, theorybuilding, qualitative, case-based methodologies. Interms of quality, PSM research has made inroadsboth in PSM-specific and other academic journals.During the past years, both JSCM and JPSM gained

January 2014

The Future of PSM Research

67

academic accreditation through their ISI citationratings. We conclude that the PSM academic commu-nity over the past years has been quite active andsuccessful.However, when addressing the effectiveness of future

PSM research, we have articulated some ideas on howto foster its relevance and rigor. As we have argued,PSM has adopted a more strategic role in organiza-tions due to outsourcing, globalization, and informa-tion technology. As a result, companies have becomemuch more interconnected. This is reflected in strate-gic management theory where corporate planning,portfolio management, and competitive strategy,favoring a single, financially driven shareholder view,gradually have made room for value driven, multi-stakeholder resource-based strategies. As a result,value-based management, network theory, stakeholdertheory, and resource and competence managementhave gained more popularity. Whether PSM is strate-gic depends on its ability to develop superior PSMskills, capabilities, and experience of PSM profession-als, to develop and sustain superior codified knowl-edge of markets and supply chains, to developsuperior power resources over suppliers, and to secureand protect superior procurement competence.Contemporary PSM research seems to reflect thesestrategic priorities only to a limited extent. To improveboth its recognition in adjacent academic domainsand its relevance to practitioners, we feel that PSMresearchers should initiate much more research inthese areas, that is, address much more of these topicsin the future. When doing so, future research shouldbe better embedded and grounded in management,economic, and social theories. Here, we would pro-pose stakeholder theory, network theory, the resource-based view of the firm, dynamic capabilities theory,and the relational view as potential candidates. Wewould rather see future research embedded in less,but more prominent, dominant, and relevant theoriesthan to continue with the current PSM research land-scape. Rigor and relevance of academic research areinterconnected.We see many ways in which our research methods

in the field of PSM (as well as SCM) can improve andlead to higher relevance, rigor, and robustness of ourtheoretical claims. To complete this message, wewould like to provide a few recommendations to theeditors of the JSCM and other journals of our field.First, we would support an increase in the number ofreplication studies as a key element in the develop-ment of robust and relevant theories. Next, we wouldsupport the idea of encouraging researchers to publishmeta-analytical studies. Of course, this would requirereviewers to develop expertise in the areas of replica-tion studies and meta-analyses. In line with the fore-going, we would suggest that authors position their

research more explicitly amid earlier studies and dis-cuss their theory tests in a meta-analytical way: Howdoes this new test complement and/or refine earliertests of the same proposition(s)? When discussingresults of quantitative studies, we would further sug-gest that authors report on effect sizes and confidenceintervals, rather than p-values, which would enablethem to better discuss the practitioner relevance andimplications of their research.With these recommendations and ideas, we hope to

contribute to a wider recognition and acceptance offuture PSM research. Of course, with these ideas we notonly address editors and reviewers of academic jour-nals. These ideas represent concomitant implicationsfor all of us in the field: for what we submit as authorsto our journals and what we review as reviewers.We congratulate JSCM, its editors, reviewers, and

authors with the Journal’s 50th anniversary. This isquite a landmark. During its lifetime, JSCM, throughits activities, has contributed greatly to the academicand practitioner world. However, there is no time forcomplacency as our community, with JSCM and otherjournals, consistently and relentlessly needs toimprove on our relevance and rigor. This was, is, andwill be our perpetual challenge and mission!

REFERENCESAnderson, J. C., Thomson, J. B. L., & Wynstra, F.

(2000). Combining value and price to makepurchase decisions in business markets. Interna-tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 17 (4),307–329.

Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Har-vard Business Review, 35 (5), 113–124.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained com-petitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1),99–120.

Barney, J. B. (2012). Purchasing, supply chain man-agement and sustained competitive advantage:The relevance of resource-based theory. Journal ofSupply Chain Management, 48 (2), 3–6.

Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2009). Using confi-dence intervals in supply chain and operationsresearch. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45,26–33.

Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future directions inscholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations.Journal of Management, 39, 48–75.

Buzzell, R. D., Gale, B. T., & Sultan, R. G. M. (1975).Market share: A key to profitability. Harvard Busi-ness Review, 53 (1), 97–106.

Calantone, R. J., & Vickery, S. K. (2010). Introductionto the special topic forum: Using archival and sec-ondary data sources in supply chain managementresearch. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(4), 3–11.

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

68

Carr, A. S., & Pearson, J. N. (1999). Strategically man-aged buyer-supplier relationships and perfor-mance outcomes. Journal of OperationsManagement, 17, 497–519.

Carter, P. L., Carter, J. R., Monczka, R. M., Slaight, T. H.,& Swan, A. J. (2000). The future of purchasing andsupply: A ten-year forecast. Journal of Supply ChainManagement, 36, 14–26.

Carter, C. R., & Ellram, L. M. (2003). Thirty-five yearsof the Journal of Supply Chain Management:Where have we been and where are we going?Journal of Supply Chain Management, 39 (2),27–39.

Carter, C. R., & Ellram, L. M. (2009). The 45th anni-versary of the journal of supply chain manage-ment: Progress to date and continued excellencemoving forward. Journal of Supply Chain Manage-ment, 45, 5–7.

Chandler, A. D. (1992). Organizational capabilitiesand the economic history of the industrial enter-prise. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6 (3),79–100.

Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory ofsupply chain management: The constructs andmeasurements. Journal of Operations Management,22, 119–150.

Chen, I. J., Paulraj, A., & Lado, A. A. (2004). Strategicpurchasing, supply management, and firm perfor-mance. Journal of Operations Management, 22,505–523.

Choi, T. Y., Wu, Z., Ellram, L., & Koka, B. R. (2002).Supplier-supplier relationships and their implica-tions for buyer-supplier relationships. EngineeringManagement, IEEE Transactions on, 49, 119–130.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developingbetter measures of marketing constructs. Journal ofMarketing Research, 16, 64–73.

Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics:Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis.New York: Routledge.

Das, A., & Handfield, R. B. (1997). A meta-analysis ofdoctoral dissertations in purchasing. Journal ofOperations Management, 15 (2), 101–121.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stake-holder theory of the corporation: Concepts,evidence, and implications. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 20 (1), 65–91.

Dul, J., & Hak, T. (2008). Case study methodology inbusiness research. New York: Routledge.

Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganiza-tional competitive advantage. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 23 (4), 660–679.

Ellram, L. M., & Carr, A. (1994). Strategic purchasing:A history and review of the literature. InternationalJournal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 30(2), 10–18.

Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., & Billington, C. (2004).Understanding and managing the services supplychain. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40 (4),17–32.

Frankel, R., Bolumole, Y. A., Eltantawy, R. A., Paulraj,A., & Gundlach, G. (2008). The domain andscope of SCM’s foundational disciplines–Insightsand issues to advance research. Journal of BusinessLogistics, 29, 1–30.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stake-holder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007).Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, andsuccess. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gadde, L. E., & H�akansson, H. (1994). The changingrole of purchasing: Reconsidering three strategicissues. European Journal of Purchasing & SupplyManagement, 1, 27–35.

Gadde, L. E., H�akansson, H., & Persson, G. (2010).Supply network strategies. (2nd ed.) New York:Wiley.

Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J. M. (1997). Strategic orien-tation of the firm new product performance.Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 77–90.

Gattiker, T. F., & Parente, D. H. (2007). Introductionto the special issue on innovative data sources forempirically building and validating theories inoperations management. Journal of OperationsManagement, 25 (5), 957–961.

Gelderman, C. J. (2003). A portfolio approach to thedevelopment of differentiated purchasing strate-gies. PhD thesis, Eindhoven, the Netherlands:Eindhoven University of Technology.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories aredestroying good management practices. Academyof Management Learning & Education, 4, 75–91.

Giunipero, L. C., Hooker, R. E., Joseph-Matthews, S.,Yoon, T. E., & Brudvig, S. (2008). A decade ofSCM literature: Past, present and future implica-tions. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44 (4),66–86.

Goldsby, T. J., & Autry, C. W. (2011). Toward greatervalidation of supply chain management theoryand concepts: The roles of research replicationand meta-analysis. Journal of Business Logistics, 32,324–331.

Gonz�alez-Benito, J. (2007). A theory of purchasing’scontribution to business performance. Journal ofOperations Management, 25 (4), 901–917.

Hambrick, D. C., MacMillan, I. C., & Day, D. L.(1982). Strategic attributes and performance inthe BCG matrix–A PIMS-based analysis of indus-trial product businesses. Academy of ManagementJournal, 25 (3), 510–531.

Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010).Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utilityfunctions, and competitive advantage. StrategicManagement Journal, 31, 58–74.

Henderson, B. D. (1984). The application andmisapplication of the experience curve. Journal ofBusiness Strategy, 4 (3), 3–9.

Hitt, M. A. (2011). Relevance of strategic managementtheory and research for supply chain manage-ment. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47,9–13.

January 2014

The Future of PSM Research

69

Hoejmose, S. U., & Adrien-Kirby, A. J. (2012). Sociallyand environmentally responsible procurement: Aliterature review and future research agenda of amanagerial issue in the 21st century. Journal ofPurchasing and Supply Management, 18 (4),232–242.

Holmen, E., Pedersen, A. C., & Jansen, N. (2007).Supply network initiatives–a means to reorganisethe supply base? Journal of Business & IndustrialMarketing, 22 (3), 178–186.

Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D.(1999). Theory and research in strategic manage-ment: Swings of a pendulum. Journal ofManagement, 25 (3), 417–456.

Hunt, S. D., & Davis, D. F. (2012). Grounding supplychain management in resource-advantage theory:In defense of a resource-based view of the firm.Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (2),14–20.

Joshi, A. W. (2009). Continuous supplier performanceimprovement: Effects of collaborative communica-tion and control. Journal of Marketing, 73 (1),133–150.

Kibbeling, M. I. (2010). Creating Value in SupplyChains: Supplier’s Impact on Value for Custom-ers, Society and Shareholders. PhD thesis, Eindho-ven, the Netherlands: Eindhoven University ofTechnology.

Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A conceptwhose time has come. Educational and Psychologi-cal Measurement, 56 (5), 746–759.

Kouvelis, P., Chambers, C., & Wang, H. (2006).Supply chain management research and produc-tion and operations management: Review, trends,and opportunities. Production and OperationsManagement, 15 (3), 449–469.

Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supplymanagement. Harvard Business Review, 61 (5),109–117.

Lee, H. L., Padmanabhan, V., & Whang, S. (1997).Information distortion in a supply chain: Thebullwhip effect. Management Science, 43 (4),546–558.

Leenders, M. R., & Fearon, H. E. (2008). DevelopingPurchasing’s Foundation. Journal of Supply ChainManagement, 44 (2), 17–27.

Lewin, K. (1945). The research center for groupdynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy. Sociometry, 8, 126–136.

Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1), 41–58.

Melnyk, S. A., Page, T. J., Wu, S. J., & Burns, L. A.(2012). Would you mind completing this survey:Assessing the state of survey research in supplychain management. Journal of Purchasing and Sup-ply Management, 18, 35–45.

Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S.,Nix, N. W., & Smith, C. D. (2001). Defining sup-ply chain management. Journal of Business Logis-tics, 22 (2), 1–25.

Mentzer, J. T., Min, S., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2000). Thenature of interfirm partnering in supply chainmanagement. Journal of Retailing, 76 (4),549–568.

Mol, M. (2003). Purchasing’s strategic relevance.Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 9,43–50.

Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Guinipero, L. C.,Patterson, J. L., & Waters, D. (2010) Purchasing &supply chain management. London: CengageLearning.

Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of amarket orientation on business profitability. Jour-nal of Marketing, 54 (4), 20–35.

Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. (2nd ed.)New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ogden, J. A., Petersen, K. J., Carter, J. R., & Monczka,R. M. (2005). Supply management strategies forthe future: A delphi study. Journal of Supply ChainManagement, 41 (3), 29–48.

Paulraj, A., & Chen, I. J. (2007). Environmental uncer-tainty and strategic supply management: Aresource dependence perspective and performanceimplications. Journal of Supply Chain Management,43 (3), 29–42.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search ofexcellence. New York: The Free Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external controlof organizations: A resource dependence perspective.New York: Harper and Row.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York:The Free Press.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York:The Free Press.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & soci-ety: The link between competitive advantage andcorporate social responsibility. Harvard BusinessReview, 84 (12), 78–92.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core compe-tence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,68 (4), 79–91.

Priem, R. L., & Swink, M. (2012). A demand-side per-spective on supply chain management. Journal ofSupply Chain Management, 48 (2), 7–13.

Quinn, J. B. (1992), Intelligent enterprise (p. 473). NewYork: The Free Press.

Ramsay, J. (2001a). Purchasing’s strategic irrelevance.European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Manage-ment, 7 (4), 257–263.

Ramsay, J. (2001b). The resource based perspective,rents, and purchasing’s contribution to sustain-able competitive advantage. Journal of SupplyChain Management, 37 (3), 38–47.

Rosenzweig, E. D., & Roth, A. V. (2007). B2B sellercompetence: Construct development and mea-surement using a supply chain strategy lens.Journal of Operations Management, 25 (6),1311–1331.

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure forscale development in marketing. International jour-nal of research in marketing, 19, 305–335.

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

70

Rozemeijer, F., Quintens, L., Wetzels, M., & Gelder-man, C. (2012). Vision 20/20: Preparing todayfor tomorrow’s challenges. Journal of Purchasingand Supply Management, 18 (2), 63–67.

Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry mat-ter? Strategic Management Journal, 12 (3),167–185.

Sampson, S. E., & Spring, M. (2012). Service supplychains: Introducing the special topic forum. Jour-nal of Supply Chain Management, 48 (4), 3–7.

Schoeffler, S., Buzzell, R., & Heany, D. (1974). Impactof strategic planning on profit performance.Harvard Business Review, 52, 137–145.

Schoenherr, T., Modi, S. B., Benton, W. C., Carter, C.R., Choi, T. Y., Larson, P. D., Wagner, S. M.(2012). Research opportunities in purchasing andsupply management. International Journal of Pro-duction Research, 50 (16), 4556–4579.

Schwab, A., Abrahamson, E., Starbuck, W. H., &Fidler, F. (2011). Perspective—Researchers shouldmake thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis significance tests. Organization Science,22 (4), 1105–1120.

Seidler, J. (1974). On using informants: A techniquefor collecting quantitative data and controllingmeasurement error in organization analysis. Amer-ican Sociological Review, 39 (6), 816–831.

Singhal, K., & Singhal, J. (2012). Opportunities fordeveloping the science of operations and supply-chain management. Journal of Operations Manage-ment, 30, 245–252.

Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007).Managing firm resources in dynamic environ-ments to create value: Looking inside the blackbox. Academy of Management Review, 32 (1),273–292.

Spekman, R. E., & Carraway, R. (2006). Making thetransition to collaborative buyer-seller relation-ships: An emerging framework. Industrial Market-ing Management, 35, 10–19.

Spina, G., Caniato, F., Luzzini, D., & Ronchi, S. (2013).Past, present and future trends of purchasing andsupply management: An extensive literature review.Industrial Marketing Management, in press. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.04.001

Stock, R. M. (2006). Interorganizational teams asboundary spanners between supplier andcustomer companies. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 34 (4), 588–599.

Stoelhorst, J. W., & Van Raaij, E. M. (2004). Onexplaining performance differentials: Marketingand the managerial theory of the firm. Journal ofBusiness Research, 57, 462–477.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamiccapabilities and strategic management. StrategicManagement Journal, 18 (7), 509–533.

Trent, R. J., & Monczka, R. M. (1998). Purchasing andsupply management: Trends and changesthroughout the 1990s. Journal of Supply ChainManagement, 34 (4), 2–11.

Tsikriktsis, N. (2005). A review of techniques for treat-ing missing data in OM survey research. Journal ofOperations Management, 24, 53–62.

Van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van Der Bij, H. (2012).Problem solving in organizations: A methodologicalhandbook for business and management students.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Van der Valk, W., Wynstra, F., & Axelsson, B. (2009).Effective buyer-supplier interaction patterns inongoing service exchange. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, 29, 807–833.

Van Echtelt, F. (2004). New product development:Shifting suppliers into gear. PhD thesis, Eindhoven,the Netherlands: Eindhoven University ofTechnology.

Van Weele, A. J. (2010). Purchasing and supply chainmanagement: Analysis, strategy, planning and prac-tice. (5th ed.) London: Cengage Learning.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of thefirm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of thefirm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal,16 (3), 171–174.

Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organiza-tion: The transaction cost approach. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 87 (3), 548–577.

Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economicorganization: The analysis of discrete. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296.

Wolf, H. H. (2005). Making the transition to strategicpurchasing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46 (4),17–20.

Wynstra, F. (1998). Purchasing involvement in productdevelopment. PhD thesis, Eindhoven, the Nether-lands: Eindhoven University of Technology.

Wynstra, F. (2010). What did we do, who did it anddid it matter? A review of fifteen volumes of the(European) Journal of Purchasing and SupplyManagement. Journal of Purchasing and SupplyManagement, 16 (4), 279–292.

Arjan J. van Weele (Ph.D., Eindhoven University ofTechnology) holds the NEVI Chair in Purchasing andSupply Management at the School of Industrial Engi-neering at Eindhoven University of Technology, theNetherlands. Dr. Van Weele’s research interests lie inmanaging upstream global value chains, where com-panies have to rely on interorganizational networksand have to deal with interorganizational conflict ofinterests. In this respect, international contracting andcontract management are subjects of ongoing research.Dr. Van Weele is the author of several leading text-books in the field including “Purchasing and SupplyChain Management,” which has been published inseveral languages. His articles have been published in

January 2014

The Future of PSM Research

71

among others the Journal of Supply Chain Management(JSCM), Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of ProductInnovation Management and European Management Jour-nal. Dr. Van Weele has been a consultant to manylarge European companies, including Skanska, Heine-ken, Philips and Shell, and serves on the supervisoryboard of a few midsize companies. He is a member ofthe Advisory Board of the JSCM and the Journal ofPurchasing and Supply Management.

Erik M. van Raaij (Ph.D., University of Twente) isan associate professor of purchasing and supply man-agement in the Rotterdam School of Management at

Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Hisresearch interests include healthcare procurement,buyer–supplier relationships, socially responsible pur-chasing, research methods, and research ethics.Dr. Van Raaij has published in journals such as Orga-nization Science, Journal of Management Studies, Journalof Business Ethics, California Management Review, andthe International Journal of Production Research, and heis an associate editor for the Journal of Purchasing andSupply Management.

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

72