The competitive approach to purchasing in the metallurgical industry in the autonomous region of Asturias (Spain)

*Corresponding author. Tel.: #34-85-18-12-47; fax: #34-85-18-20-10.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. GarcmHa), david@

etsiig.uniovi.es (D. de la Fuente)

European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 5 (1999) 175}183

The competitive approach to purchasing in the metallurgical industryin the autonomous region of Asturias (Spain)

Nazario GarcmHa, David de la Fuente*Escuela Te&cnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales e Informa& ticos, Campus de Viesques, Universidad de Oviedo, 33204 Gijon, Spain

Received 6 January 1999; received in revised form 9 July 1999; accepted 18 August 1999

Abstract

A general analysis of the literature on purchasing highlights a series of management changes that have occurred which constitutewhat we consider to be a competitive approach to the whole business of Purchasing. We have selected what seem to us to be the mostsigni"cant basic tendencies from within this general approach to carry out research to measure the extent to which this new approachis being implemented in the metallurgical industry in the Autonomous Region of Asturias (Spain). The hypotheses that de"ne thecompetitive approach to purchasing are "rst de"ned, and are then con"rmed or rejected, depending on the preponderant behaviour ofcompanies in the industrial sector. Results lead to the conclusion that the industrial sector in question is not completely following thetendencies de"ned in the research. ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Purchasing; Spain; Metals industry

1. Introduction

After analysing the available literature on how thecompetitive approach is evolving, the hallmarks of thisapproach are identi"ed, analysed and synthesised, andconsideration is then given to the extent to which thisapproach is being implemented in the metallurgical in-dustry in the autonomous region of Asturias (Spain).

The results that are obtained lead to the conclusionthat* at least as far as basic points like paying greaterattention to the service o!ered rather than price, thereduction in the number of suppliers, centralisation ofpurchases, increase in international purchasing transac-tions or new relationships based on total integration withthe supplier, are concerned* the industry does not followthe general tendencies that are the hallmarks of the com-petitive approach model, as de"ned in the literature.

2. The competitive approach to purchasing

Much has been written in business literature on di!er-ent facets of the general situation and the way they

in#uence how businesses react, and on the di!erent or-ganisational change within businesses designed to re-spond to an increasingly competitive environment.Similarly, there are numerous studies aimed at identify-ing the changes occurring in companies' purchasing de-partments as they attempt to respond competitively tothe new situation. Our synthesis of the main aspects ofchanges in the "eld of purchasing occurring as a result ofbusinesses' attempts to compete in the present environ-ment includes the following points:

f The role of purchasing is becoming increasingly im-portant. This can be seen both in the fact that com-panies' purchasing costs (levels of expenditure) areincreasing (Balakrishnan and Werherfelt, 1986;Soukoup, 1987; Ballou, 1985; Leenders and Fearon,1993) and in the greater consideration given to it, as itevolves from being seen as a merely administrative roleto being one of strategic importance (Reck and Long,1988; Watts et al., 1992).

f There is a move away from bulk buying * whichprovides the supplier with more business, therebyallowing him to implement economies of scale, andwhich also means the buyer can negotiate wholesalediscounts, get lower prices, make less urgent pro-visions for production requirements and carry outfewer transactions * towards purchasing smaller

0969-7012/99/$ - see front matter ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 7 0 1 2 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 4 - 6

quantities more frequently, which is a hallmark ofJ.I.T. purchasing, and which leads to greater availabil-ity without unnecessary stockpiling.

f There is a move away from viewing the role ofpurchasing as a protective barrier for the company'sproduction system in the face of suppliers' actions,towards seeing it as a joint operation with thesuppliers (Stevens, 1989; Merli, 1991) that facilitatesoptimisation of materials #ow through the supplychain.

f In contrast to a traditional and evident preference forusing local supply sources (Wilson, 1985; O'Neal,1985), modern market globalisation, the search for costsavings and quality of purchasing that have been per-fectly planned out for the medium and long-term fu-ture mean that distant supply sources are competingwith local sources, even in J.I.T. systems (Vickery,1989) and International Purchasing is increasing.(Carter and Narasimham, 1990; Giunipero andMonczka, 1990; Min and Galle, 1991; Monczka andTrent, 1991; Birou and Fawcett, 1993)

f A preference for the long term is supplanting anemphasis on the short term (Lamming, 1986;Wagner, 1991). Underlying this trend is a change in theway orders are placed; there is a move away froma single order model associated with a complete ad-ministrative control process, towards òpena ordersthat make the whole purchasing operation more #ex-ible and save on order costs. This approach also makesit easier for the supplier to be aware of* and plan for* the customer's requirements; he can adjust his pro-cesses to those requirements, reduce costs and haveproducts available on the day the customer requiresthem.

f The typical traditional way of awarding a purchaseorder, based almost exclusively on tendering and pricecompetition, with little importance given to the articlebeing purchased, is being superseded in the competi-tive environment by an assessment of the kind ofarticle being purchased according to the supply riskinvolved and the value of the product for the buyer.There is a dual tendency to apply policies of continuityto high-risk product suppliers, and policies of oppor-tunism to suppliers of low risk, low value products inparticular.

f As purchasing comes to be considered a "eld wheremanagement improvements can play a major role inimproving a company's pro"tability, so special atten-tion is paid to the costs it entails. Transport costmanagement becomes increasingly important for thebuyer (Leenders and Fearon, 1993).

f In our view, the most important change occurring inpurchasing is at the level of relationships. There isa move away from distant, antagonistic buyer}sup-plier relationships based on mistrust towards smoothrelationships based on collaboration, common interest

and the search for integration. This change is the basisof other changes, all of which add up a new kind ofbusiness conduct (Stevens, 1989; Ellram, 1991; Chris-topher, 1992; Giunipero and Brand, 1996; Hickman,1997).

f There is a move away from seeing purchasing as aone-o! business transaction towards an appreci-ation of how important the relationship with the sup-plier is and a realisation of how he can play a part inoptimising the supply chain (Giunipero and Brand,1996).

f Mutual collaboration seeks to eliminate the supplier'sunreliability and guarantee quality, quantity and de-livery deadlines at the right price; it seeks to make thesupplier an important part of the buying company, tostrengthen the buyer}seller link, and to bring aboutjoint management for continuous improvement. Thecompetitive approach is founded on a `win-wina strat-egy, viewing the supplier as an extension of the pur-chasing company and setting up `partnershipa and`co-makershipa agreements (Merli, 1991).

This move towards closer ties encourages longer termagreements (Lamming, 1986; Wagner, 1991; Leendersand Fearon, 1993; Christopher, 1992) and mixed teams(buying and selling companies) who work together andshare common goals, and who work from the standpointof encouraging whatever unites and eliminating anythingthat divides.

This co-operation goes hand in hand with com-plementary facets, such as a reduction in the number ofsuppliers (Treleven, 1987; Newman, 1988a,b, 1989;Presutti, 1992; Christopher, 1992), a willingness to ex-change information between purchaser and vendor,a preventive approach towards quality guarantee, fastertwo-way communication (Giunipero and Keiser, 1987),the sharing of technology and know-how, the promotionof joint research with the supplier, and a major import-ance of service-level in price as criterion in awardingpurchases (Scott and Westbrook, 1991; Kau!man, 1994;Owens Swift, 1995).

Table 1 provides an overview of the general changesthat have occurred in Purchasing, and distinguishes be-tween traditional and competitive approaches.

3. The extent to which the competitive approach is appliedin the metallurgical industry in the autonomous region ofAsturias

The multi-faceted nature of the competitive approachto purchasing means that time is needed for it to beimplemented. The extent to which this approach is ap-plied in companies is in#uenced by geographic location,the business sector the company is in, and the kindof company. Our research tried to assess the overall

176 N. Garcn&a, D. de la Fuente / European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 5 (1999) 175}183

Table 1The traditional and competitive approach to purchasing

Traditional approach Competitive approach

1. General tendency In-house supplying Outsourcing (sub-contracting)2. Attitude towards suppliers Many suppliers Few suppliers, or a single supplier

Price-based choice Greater evaluation of the service as a method forselecting the supplier

Little or no selection, assessment and homologationprocesses applied to suppliers

Selection, assessment and homologation of supplierstakes on extreme importance

Minimum information is provided Real information is openly shared3. Attitude towards stocks A tendency to stockpile A tendency towards stock reduction, guaranteeing

availabilityLarge-scale buying Small quantities are bought more frequently

4. Orientation of the conceptof optimisation

Individual optimisation (functional) Global optimisation

5. Source of purchases Nearby Mixed (because of market globalisation)Disperse Grouped

6. Planning and time scales Little planning Requirements planningShort-term actions Long-term negotiation

7. Level of considerationgiven to purchasing

Primarily an administrative task Greater degrees of responsibility Purchases seen ashaving a strategic function

8. Importance of the articlepurchased

Little importance when being bought Great importance

9. Considerations as to thequality of the purchase

The buyer adapts to standard quality levels o!eredby the supplier

Standards of quality are laid down by the buyer, whoalso demands guarantees

Quality control of purchases Agreed quality pacts, co-manufacturingSmooth buyer}supplier relationships

10. Strategic orientation Vertical integration and price Competition Subcontracting, specialisation and quality of service11. Communication Slow Increasingly faster12. Innovation Left almost exclusively in the hands of the client Shared

General in nature Specialised13. Main aim of negotiations Price The right product at the right time in the right place at

a fair price14. Transport of purchases Left to the supplier More and more in the hands of the purchaser15. Design The purchaser designs without consulting the

supplierThe purchaser designs in collaboration with the supplier

16. Buyer}supplier relations Non-existent (distancing and mistrust) Smooth, collaborative, based on common interestFocused on integration

performance in purchasing of companies in the metallur-gical industry in the autonomous region of Asturias. Theresearch was carried out via a survey mailed to 170industrial SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) inthe metallurgy industry. Fifty-one valid replies were re-ceived. The characteristics of the companies who sent thevalid replies used in the study are given in Appendix A.

We attempted to de"ne the general performance of theabove-mentioned industry by analysing the replies to thefollowing questions:

1. Is the level of purchasing in your company increas-ing?

2. Is purchasing increasingly important in the com-pany's strategic decision-making?

3. Do companies in the industry maintain smooth rela-tionships (trust and collaboration) with their mainsuppliers?

4. What importance is given to the level of service: moreor less than price?

5. Is the number of suppliers going down?6. Is purchasing management centralised?7. Is the quality of the main suppliers ever assessed?8. Is the performance of the main suppliers monitored?9. In international purchasing increasing?

10. Is proximity to the supplier a decisive factor whendeciding who to purchase from?

11. Does the buyer organise transport of the purchase?12. Are the companies in this industry in favour of total

integration with the suppliers?

The questionnaire that was "rst drawn up was subjectto a pre-test. Questions were "ne-tuned, and new oneswere added so as to get fuller information and de"ne theareas that each question referred to more clearly. Appen-dix B is included as an example of the questionnaire, and

N. Garcn&a, D. de la Fuente / European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 5 (1999) 175}183 177

gives the questions used to research whether `purchasingis increasingly important in the company's strategicdecision-makinga, whether `the level of service is moreimportant than the pricea, and whether `the number ofsuppliers is going downa.

The study was carried out between March 1st andMay 20th 1998, and the hypotheses that were studiedre#ected the characteristics that de"ne the competitiveapproach to purchasing and the questions that appearabove.

The results either con"rming or contradicting theabove hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (There is an increase in the amount ofcompany purchasing). This hypothesis is con"rmed by an80.4% a$rmative reply by the companies polled; more-over, 89.7% of these companies expected this growth tocontinue over the next three years.

The main reasons given for this increase, in order ofimportance, are:

1. Economic growth and the subsequent increase incompany requirements mean that they are obliged tosub-contract when the company's own capacity isexceeded.

2. Company growth, leading to more requirements hav-ing to be met by purchasing and sub-contracting.

3. Costs reduction achieved by buying or subcontract-ing.

4. Added #exibility achieved by buying and subcontract-ing.

Hypothesis 2 (Purchasing is increasingly important ina company's strategic decision-making). This hypothesisis also con"rmed by the results, with an 94.1% a$rm-ative reply. The reasons for this heightened importance,in order of importance, are the following:

1. Opportunities for reducing costs through purchasing.2. The importance of purchasing costs in the "nal cost of

a product.3. The importance of materials, pieces or components

bought in producing the "nal product.4. Opportunities for quality improvement through pur-

chasing.

Hypothesis 3 (Existence of smooth relations (i.e. trustand collaboration) with the main suppliers). This hypoth-esis is rati"ed, as is con"rmed by 92.2% of replies.

Hypothesis 4 (The quality of the service in awardingpurchases is more important than price). This hypothesisis rejected, since the factors selected as the most impor-tant ones, when awarding purchases, in order of import-ance were:

1. Price.2. The quality of the service.3. Product quality.

The polled companies also selected the following, inorder of importance, as being important factors contribu-ting to the quality of the service:

1. Quality reliability (no rejects).2. Reliable delivery dates (deadlines regularly met).3. Short response time (from the moment a requirement

arises to when it is met).4. Product availability.

Hypothesis 5 (The number of suppliers is going down).The stance of the majority of companies (54.9%) dis-proves this hypothesis, and the trend towards a reductionin the number of suppliers is also disproved.

Furthermore, companies who at some point hada single supplier mainly gave the explanation that thiswas because `the product purchased is an exclusive prod-uct of that particular supplier, or is only made by onemanufacturera rather than there having been a consciousdecision made by the purchasing company itself.

When companies were requested to indicate what fac-tors they would most take into account if they had to setup relations with a single supplier, the following points,in order of importance, were given:

1. Guarantee of product quality (no rejects)2. Delivery reliability.3. Price.4. Delivery times.

Hypothesis 6 (All purchasing is centralised). The validresponses obtained show that 51% of those polled admitthat purchases are made in their companies without thePurchasing Manager's intervention. This contracts with49% who indicate that all purchasing is centred aroundone particular member of sta! (Leenders and Fearon,1993). This hypothesis cannot therefore be con"rmed.

Moreover, companies who said that they did not havea centralised purchasing system generally stated thatpurchases were made without the purchasing manager"rstly, in emergencies, and secondly for machinery re-pairs.

Hypothesis 7 (The quality of the main supplier is as-sessed). This hypothesis is con"rmed, as 84.3% of replieswere a$rmative.

Moreover, the majority of companies that answeredthis question a$rmatively (69.8%) state that their qualitycontrol system is based on the ISO 9000 norms.

Most of the companies polled (80%) stated that theyfavoured an assessment of the supplying company's eco-nomic and "nancial status as an initial assessment tool.


Hypothesis 8 (The main suppliers' performance ismonitored). A 74.5% a$rmative reply con"rms this hy-pothesis.

Moreover, the factors which were considered to be ofmost importance for monitoring a supplier's perfor-mance were, in order of importance: an acceptable deliv-ery date rate and the rejects per units supplied ratio.

Hypothesis 9 (International purchasing is on the in-crease). This hypothesis is rejected, since 60.8% of thecompanies polled do not think that this increase is takingplace. However, those companies that do report an in-crease in international purchasing give the search forbetter prices from foreign suppliers and the e!ect ofgeneral globalisation as the most important reasons.

Hypothesis 10 (Proximity to the supplier is not a deci-sive factor when making purchases). This hypothesis iscon"rmed, as 76.5% of those polled think that supplierproximity is not a decisive factor when adjudicatingpurchase orders.

Hypothesis 11 (Buying companies are accepting theresponsibility for transporting purchases). As a generalstatement this hypothesis is not corroborated, since thepercentage of companies that never or do not usuallyarrange transport (72.5%) is higher than those that al-ways or usually organise it (27.5%). However, it shouldbe pointed out that 23.5% of replies stated that theynever dealt with this question, whilst 49% stated thatthey did not always but did occasionally arrange trans-port.

Hypothesis 12 (Companies are in favour of integrationwith main suppliers). Although this research leads us toconclude that there is no trend towards total integration,`partnershipa or `co-makershipa strategies, or `Just-in-Timea purchases, there is nevertheless an observabletendency towards buyer}supplier co-operation and theestablishment of long-term agreements.

These conclusions are based on the following data:

f 70.6% have taken measures to improve two-way com-munication.

f 62.7% share important information with the mainsuppliers.

f 51% of the polled companies sign `Quality Agree-mentsa with their suppliers.

f 56.9% work in a team with their main suppliers toachieve joint improvements.

But,

f 76.5% of the companies do not have `Co-manufactur-ing agreementsa.

f 92.25% of replies stated that they did not implement`partnershipa or `co-makershipa strategies.

f 60.8% of replies con"rm the same as above as regardsJIT purchasing.

Complementary research results obtained from the ques-tions that were added after the above-mentioned pre-testto increase the depth of the study and complete the tableof results are as follows.

f Research on the extent to which computer systems areused by companies in this industry for purchasesshowed that 88.2% of them use computers for pur-chase administration. However, it cannot be claimedthat electronic communication is massively used withsuppliers, as is pointed out by 68.6% of the poll. Incontrast, 72.5% of companies state that they do notuse computer systems to help in the taking of decisionsas regards purchasing, and admit the need to set upthese systems to help in the following purchase-relatedactivities:

(a) For evaluating new suppliers (88.2% agreements).(b) For monitoring supplier performance (96% agree-

ment).(c) For assessment of the bids submitted (92.2%

agreement).(d) For the overall assessment of each supplier (92.2%

agreements).

The companies in the poll consider the most importantpurchasing activities to be product and supplier marketresearch and analysis and comparison of tenders, andthey consider the most important changes over the last15 years in the function of purchasing to be:

f Suppliers' evaluation and endorsement (72.9%).f Greater importance of the role of purchasing in the

company (66.7%).f Facets of service such as a cutting down on delivery

times and meeting delivery deadlines are more andmore highly valued (62.5%).

Furthermore, 56.9% of the companies who took partin the poll did not consider the size of the supplyingcompany to be an important factor when deciding toaward purchases.

f Companies who did mark a preference for large sup-pliers gave the following as the main reasons for this:because they had a greater capacity (95%), becausethey o!ered greater guarantees (66.8%), or becausethey had more resources (62.5%).

f In contrast, the main reasons for preferring a small-sized supplying company were greater #exibility(93.3%), a better response in urgent cases (80%),a greater rapidity in supplying (80%) and a greatertendency to collaborate (60%).

f As regards the importance of purchasing cost in rela-tion to sales "gures, the results obtained indicate that78.7% of those polled place it between 31 and 50% of


sales; this divided into 35.7% of those who placed itbetween 31 and 40%; and 42.9% who place it between41 and 50% of sales value.

4. Conclusions

Our research shows that the metallurgical industry ofAsturias (Spain) deviates from some of the behaviour thatde"nes the competitive approach to purchasing. In thissense, there is no majority tendency towards such facetsof this approach such as `the greater importance ofservice over price when deciding a purchase,a a reductionin the number of suppliers, `centralisation of purchasesa,ìncrease in international purchasesa, or `transport ar-rangements made by the buyera. `Total integration withthe suppliersa is not the norm in these companies either.

Neither the refusal of the majority of the companies inthe poll to establish co-operative relations based on in-tegration with the supplier nor the lack of partnershipagreements are, in our opinion, the most signi"cantpoints of the study. This kind of relations is not thegeneral norm at present, but we cannot rule out it notbecoming the norm in the future. Such a claim is basedon the following argument: bearing in mind that thehypothesis about smooth, friendly relations (trust andcollaboration) with main suppliers was validated, and yet`total integrationa, `partnershipsa and `comakershipsawere rejected, we might conclude that the industry ismoving away from the traditional distant relations typi-cal of the seventies (Karras, 1970, 1974) towards im-proved buyer}supplier relations, accepting greatercollaboration, and moving towards èxternal integra-tiona without going so far as partnerships and comakerdeals.

To sum up, companies in the metallurgical industry inthe autonomous region of Asturias do not comply totallywith general tendencies in purchase management as de-"ned in the literature. In our opinion, underlying thisbehaviour there is a tendency towards a local market,which is still very strong, is dominated by Stare-runcompanies, shuns opening up to the wider market and isstill very much tradition-oriented. This would also ex-plain the lack of a trend towards internationalisation,which also came out of the results. The globalisation ofthe economy, nevertheless, does seem to be pushing com-panies towards an intermediate position between thetraditional and competitive approaches.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the referees and editor ofthe Journal for their valuable comments and suggestionson an earlier version of this paper.

Appendix A. Characteristics of the companies analysed

Age

Replies received Quantity 51

Valid replies Quantity 49Under 10 years Quantity 15

Percentage 30.6%Between 10 and 20 years Quantity 9




Percentage 6.1%More than 50 years Quantity 2

Percentage 4.1%

Turnover

Valid replies Quantity 51Less than 100 million Quantity 4

Percentage 8.5%Between 101 and 500 million Quantity 20

Percentage 42.6%Between 501 and 1,000 million Quantity 7

Percentage 14.9%Between 1,001 and 2,000 Million Quantity 5

Percentage 10.6%Between 2,001 y 3,000 millions Quantity 3

Percentage 6.4%More than 3,000 Million Quantity 8

Percentage 17%

Size

Valid replies Quantity 51Less than 25 sta! Quantity 20

Percentage 39.2%Between 26 and 100 sta! Quantity 18



Percentage 3.9%More than 250 sta! Quantity 7

Percentage 13.7%


Appendix B. Example of questionnaire(It was done in spanish)

Questions on the hypothesis that there is anincrease in purchasing

3. Do you consider that the role of purchasing isbecoming more and more important in the com-pany's strategic decision taking?

Yes.No. Go on to Question 6.

4. Which of the following reasons best explains whypurchasing is more and more in#uential in strategicdecision taking?

Totally AgreeTotally Disagree

REASONS 1 2 3 4 51. A realisation that the company

is purchasing more and morematerials, products andcomponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. The importance of materials, partsand components that arepurchased in our company inmaking an ideal product . . . . . . . . . .

3. The opportunity to reduce costs . .4. The opportunity purchasing

a!ords to improve quality . . . . . . . .5. Opportunities provided by

purchasing as a "nancial tool todefer payment, make advancepayments or pay by instalments . .

6. The importance of purchasingcosts in the "nal cost of theproduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. It is the "rst logistic step, startingthe company's logistic process, soany initial error will a!ect thewhole process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. The opportunity purchasingprovides to "nd new products tosubstitute or improve those beingused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. The opportunity purchasinga!ords for bigger companypro"ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Other reason

Questions on the hypothesis: the number of suppliersis going down

12. Is the number of suppliers you are buying fromgoing down?


13. Have there been any cases of deciding on a singlesupplier for a product of speci"c products?


14. Which of the following circumstances led to yourcompany deciding to purchase from a singlesupplier?

When the supplier has decided to maintaina certaing stock level.When the product purchased is exclusive toa supplier or single manufacturer.When you purchase a specilised product, withfew suppliers in the market and this product isquite important in your company's "nalproduct.When you are looking for a supplier and mayeven integrate with that supplier.When agreements are made to developtechnologically advanced products.When a main interest is to guarantee a speci"cquality of product and supply.When you wish to accumulate as manyproducts as possible with a single supplier toenhance your company's pro"le with thesupplier.When you are "rmly convinced that theadvantages of open collaboration with a singlesupplier outweigh the drawbacks.Others (please specify)


Questions on the hypothesis: the quality of servicewhen deciding a purchasing tender is more important

than price

6. When deciding a purchase tender from yoursuppliers what does your company value most?Choose the most important factors and arrangethem in order or importance.

YES NO ORDER1. The price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. Quality of service de"ned

by the factors assessed inthe previous question . . . . . .

3. The quality of product . . . .4. A predisposition to

collaborate openly with thecustomer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Delivery dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. Others aspects

Please give details: . . . . . . . .

7. The list below shows a number of services thatcompanies need from their suppliers and that areconsidered relevant to the quality of service. Addany that you might wish, and evaluate themaccording to their importance for your company

Very importantNo importance

STATEMENTS 1 2 3 4 51. Short time between detecting a

requirement and satisfying it . . . . . . . . . .2. Product availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Small product quantities for each

order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Greater delivery frequency . . . . . . . . . . . .5. Reliable quality (no rejects) . . . . . . . . . . .6. Reliability of delivery deadlines

(deadlines regularly met)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. Quality of the purchasing

documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. Complaints are dealt with . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. The whole order is delivered . . . . . . . . . .

10. Technical and training aid providedwhen the client deems this necessary .

11. Information on the state of orders . . .12. Predisposition to negotiate payment

conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13. Precision in quantities delivered . . . . . .14. Predisposition to be a `Just in Timea

supplier (delivery when required) . . . . .15. Others (please specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References

Balakrishnan, S., Werherfelt, B., 1986. Technical change, competitionand vertical integration. Strategic Management Journal 7.

Ballou, R.H., 1985. Business Logistics Management. In: Planning andControl. Prentice-Hall, Inc. USA.

Birou, L., Fawcett, S.E., 1993. International Purchasing: bene"ts, re-quirements and challenges. International Journal of Purchasing andMaterials Management (Spring), 28}37.

Carter, J., Narasimham, R., 1990. Purchasing in the international mar-ketplace: implications for operations. International Journal of Pur-chasing and Materials Management (Summer), 2}11.

Christopher, M., 1992. Logistic and Supply Management. Pitman Pub-lishing, London.

Ellram, L., 1991. A managerial guideline for the development andimplementation of purchasing partnerships. International Journalof Purchasing and Materials Management (Summer) 27 (2), 2}8.

Giunipero, L.C., Brand, R., 1996. Purchasing's role in supply chainmanagement. International Journal of Logistics Management 7 (1),29}37.

Giunipero, L.C., Keiser, E.F., 1987. JIT purchasing in a non manufac-turing environment: a case study. Journal of Purchasing and Mater-ials Management (Winter), 19}25.

Giunipero, L.C., Monzcka, R.M., 1990. Organizational approaches tomanaging international sourcing. International Journal of PhysicalDistribution and Logistics Management 20 (4), 3}12.

Hickman, D., 1997. The partnership formulae. European Purchasingand Materials Management (8), 119}134.

Karras, Ch.L., 1970. The negotiating game. Thomas Y. Crowell, NewYork.

Karras, Ch.L., 1974. Give and Take: the Complete Guide to Negotiat-ing Strategies and Tactics. Tomas Y. Crowell, New York.

Kau!man, R.G., 1994. In#uences on industrial buyers' choice of prod-ucts: e!ects of product application, product type, and buying envi-ronment. International Journal of Purchasing and MaterialsManagement 30 (2), 29}38.

Lamming, R., 1986. For better or for worse: technical change andbuyer-supplier relationships. International Journal of OperationsProduction Management 6 (5), 20}29.

Leenders, M.R., Fearon, H.E., 1993. Purchasing and Materials Man-agement, 10th Edition. Richard D. Irwing, Inc., USA.

Merli, G., 1991. Comakership. Productivity Press.Min, H., y Galle, W.P., 1991. International purchasing strategies of

multinational U.S. "rms.. International Journal of Purchasing andMaterials Management (Summer) 27 (3), 9}18.

Monczka, R.M., Trent, R.J., 1991. Global Sourcing: a developmentapproach. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Man-agement (Spring),, 2}7.

Newman, R.G., 1988a. The buyer-supplier relationship under just intime. Production and Inventory Management 29 (3), 45}49.

Newman, R.G., 1988b. Single source quali"cation. International Jour-nal of Purchasing and Materials Management (Summer) 24 (2),10}17.

Newman, R.G., 1989. Single sourcing: short-term savings versus long-term problems. International Journal of Purchasing and MaterialsManagement 25 (2), 20}25.

O'Neal, Ch., 1985. Customer-supplier relationships for just in time.CIV-Review 2 (3), 000.

Owens Swift, C., 1995. Preferences for single sourcing and supplierselection criteria. Journal of Business Research 32, 105}111.

Presutti, W., 1992. The single source issue: U.S. and Japanese sourcingstrategies. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Man-agement 28 (1), 2}9.

Reck, R.F., Long, B.G., 1988. Purchasing: a competitive weapon. Inter-national Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 24 (3),2}8.


Scott, Ch., Westbrook, R., 1991. New strategic tools for supply chainmanagement. International Journal of Physical Distribution andLogistics Management 21 (1), 23}33.

Soukoup, W.R., 1987. Supplier selection strategies. InternationalJournal of Purchasing and Materials Management (Summer),7}12.

Stevens, G., 1989. Integrating the supply chain. International Journal ofPhysical Distribution and Materials Management 19 (8), 3}8.

Treleven, M., 1987. Single sourcing a management tool for the qualitysupplier. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Man-agement 23 (1), 19}24.

Vickery, Sh.K., 1989. International sourcing: implications for JITmanufacturing. Production and Inventory Management Journal 30(3), 66}71.

Wagner, W.B., 1991. Changing role and relevance of purchasing: im-pact on organizational e!ectiveness. International Journal of Phys-ical Distribution and Logistics Management 23 (9), 12}21.

Watts, Ch.A., Kim, Kee Young, Hahn, Ch.K., 1992. Linking purchasingto corporate competitive strategy. International Journal of Pur-chasing and Materials Management 28 (1), 2}8.

Wilson, T.G., 1985. Kanban scheduling -Boon or Bore-. Productionand Inventory Management 26 (3).


Documents

The competitive approach to purchasing in the metallurgical industry in the autonomous region of Asturias (Spain)