A taxonomic approach to the literature of the 2000‐2009 decade
TABLE 11: DEVELOPMENT OF MODELS (BASED ON SCHIELE (2007))
Primarily deduced from dominant theory, ex ante assembling of stages
Bhote (1989), Freeman and Cavinato (1990), Chadwick and Rajagopal (1995)
Primarily observation based, ex post assembling of stages
Reck and Long (1988), Cammish and Keough (1991), Keough (1993), Burt and Doyle (1994), Barry et al. (1996), Cousins et al. (2006), Paulraj et al. (2006), Michigan State University framework (Axelsson et al. (2005))
4.4.2 THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRY AUDITING TOOL
In the Michigan State University study (Axelsson et al., 2005), 150 (mainly US) multinationals were invited to participate in benchmarking ‘best practices’ for purchasing and supplier management. The resulting framework consists of processes found in strategic purchasing management and in buyer‐supplier relationships, and is focused on the creation of those conditions and resources that are required to professionally carry out these processes. Using the framework it is possible to determine the level of purchasing maturity and, based on this assessment, one can determine which steps should be taken to further professionalize the purchasing function. The topics related to purchasing management that are covered in the existing comprehensive industry auditing tool are: in‐ and outsourcing decisions, product (commodity) group strategies, optimization of the supply base, managing supplier relationships, integrating suppliers into the operational process, integrating suppliers into the value creation process, developing suppliers, strategic costs management, forming and aligning purchasing policies and plans, alignment of the purchasing organization, utilizing market possibilities, using performance indicators, using information technology and, finally, human resource management. A summary of these topics is included in Appendix C.
4.4.3 THE PURCHASING AND SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT MODEL OF VAN WEELE
To determine which of the various purchasing maturity models has an appropriate fit with the existing comprehensive industry auditing tool (see Appendix C), documentation about existing purchasing maturity models has been analysed. During this analysis, the topics handled by the various purchasing maturity models are compared with the existing comprehensive industry auditing tool. This content analysis was first conducted on a general level and then in greater detail. Based on this analysis the ‘purchasing and supply development model’ of Van Weele (2009) had the most appropriate fit with the existing comprehensive industry auditing tool.
As already noted, Van Weele used the evolutionary stage model described by Keough (1993) as a basis for his own model. Keough’s model has five development phases and assumes a
link between the industry in which a company operates and the level of purchasing professionalism. As purchasing professionalism increases, the contribution of the purchasing department to the organization grows in the sense of realizing purchasing savings. The model of Van Weele (2009) is based on the same principles but arrives at six development stages for purchasing maturity by integrating and combining valuable insights from other contributors. The following six stages describe the developments from a transaction‐ orientated organization to an organization focussed on value chain integration (Van Weele, 2009: pp.68‐72).
Stage 1 ‘Transactional orientation’ – In this first stage, the primary task of purchasing is to find appropriate suppliers and ensure that the company’s operational processes do not run out of raw materials and components. There is no explicit purchasing strategy in place. The organizational structure can be characterized as a decentralized sub‐department at the business unit level. The purchasing function is strongly orientated towards operational and administrative activities. The culture is ‘reactive’. Information systems, if in place, are also very much administratively oriented. The purchasing staff usually consists of operational and administrative buyers, with very limited professional education on how to do the job. Stage 2 ‘Commercial orientation’ – At this stage, a proactive purchasing manager is to be found, someone who can negotiate credibly with suppliers for lower prices. The purchasing strategy is characterized by its sharp focus on low prices. Buyers concentrate on negotiating and contracting ‘good deals’. Management monitors low prices and savings. Performance measurement is focused primarily on price (variance), cost savings and the delivery performance of the suppliers.
Stage 3 ‘Purchasing coordination’ – At this stage, some form of strategy formulation first appears, aimed at capturing the benefits of internal coordination, collaboration and synergy among business units. Apart from price and costs, the purchasing function is now seen as having an important influence on the quality of purchased products. Formalization of the purchasing process and procedures is a priority. The focus is on improving communication between the central purchasing unit and the decentralized business units.
Stage 4 ‘Internal integration’ – At this stage, the emphasis turns to cross‐functional problem solving with the objective of reducing total lifecycle costs and not just the unit cost of purchased components. These cross‐functional efforts often involve key suppliers as joint problem solvers, which implies a move from confrontational to a more partnership form of sourcing. Operational buying disappears in the line. The culture is characterized by many cross‐functional buying teams. Improvement actions are aimed at integrating and harmonizing the purchasing processes across the various business units. Information systems are integrated with those of other departments/functions and divisions, but not as
yet with those of the most important suppliers. Skills looked for at this stage are strong team‐building abilities and strong communication skills.
Stage 5 ‘External integration’ – Having reached this stage, suppliers are actively involved in new product development, process improvement and preproduction planning, and often have a base within the company. Users themselves order goods, against corporate contracts, through advanced, web‐enabled catalogue systems. Companies invest heavily to truly involve supply partners in a range of business processes, rather than simply buying goods and services from them as efficiently and as effectively as possible. Responsibility for initial purchasing resides with cross‐functional teams. An important skill is seen as the ability to build detailed cost models. Information systems are integrated not only internally, but also with those of the partner suppliers.
Stage 6 ‘Value chain integration’ – In this stage, to satisfy the needs of the end‐customer markets, subcontractors seek support from among their suppliers. Suppliers are consistently challenged to support the company’s product/market strategies and to actively participate in product development. The goal is to design the most efficient and effective value chain possible so as to serve the end‐customer. The orientation is both upstream and downstream. The culture is entrepreneurial. Information systems are integrated as much as possible.
4.5 D
EVELOP/B
UILDFollowing the research framework presented in Figure 7, in this section the foundations of the knowledge base are used to develop a new quick scan purchasing maturity tool. As input for the develop phase, the ‘purchasing and supply development model’ of Van Weele (2009) and the existing comprehensive industry auditing tool are used. The purpose of the new tool is to determine purchasing maturity in a less comprehensive way as with the existing industry auditing tool. In describing the level of purchasing maturity in the new tool, we use the six stages of development in Van Weele’s (2009) ‘purchasing and supply development model’ (from here on referred to as the PSD model).
In the first design step, for each of the six stages of the PSD model, the key topics are identified. In the following step, the key topics found in the existing comprehensive industry auditing tool, as described in Appendix C, are compared with these key topics of the PSD model. This comparison results in the definition of 20 characteristics (see Appendix D) that form the basis of the new concise purchasing maturity tool. These characteristics are linked to at least one of the developmental stages of the new tool and the underlying connections between the characteristics are identified (see Figure 8). Some of the characteristics overlap
stages while others do not. Characteristics that share an underlying connection are displayed at the same vertical position. The vertical displacements are used only to make a graphical presentation possible. In the next step, for each of the characteristics, a set of requirements is defined. These requirements (demands that have to be met and can be assessed) originate in both the PSD model and the existing comprehensive industry auditing tool. The more of these requirements a company meets, the more mature its purchasing function is. In the final step, the defined characteristics are compared with both the PSD model and the existing comprehensive industry auditing tool in order to assure that all the essential aspects of both models are included in the new quick scan purchasing maturity tool.
In the graphical presentation of the output of the new quick scan purchasing maturity tool, as shown in Figure 8, the percentage of the requirements met for each characteristic is shown. This overview provides a convenient indication of the level of purchasing maturity achieved. The detailed results are available to the company in the form of a list of all the requirements (per characteristic) that are and are not satisfied. This list indicates to the company what actions need to be taken to improve the level of purchasing maturity. The company has to satisfy all the requirements of a certain stage (and of the ‘lower’ stages) to have reached that specific maturity level. As a further benefit, the concise purchasing maturity tool shows the percentages of requirements for higher maturity levels already met. The detailed results give the company a clear indication of what requirements they need to work on if they are to evolve to the next level of purchasing maturity. If this concise tool is re‐applied after some time has elapsed, the detailed results will show progress over time for each requirement.
Gain and risk sharing (.. %) Internal col‐ laboration (.. %) External col‐ laboration (.. %) Multidisciplinary (.. %) Formalization (.. %) Performance indicators (.. %) Purchasing plans (.. %) Reactive actions (.. %) Proactive actions (.. %) Coordination (.. %) Transactional orientation Commercial orientation Purchasing coordination Internal integration External integration Value chain integration Integrated IS/IT (.. %) Supplier base optimization (.. %) Strategic purchasing (.. %) Integrated strategy (.. %) Decentralization (.. %) Centralization (.. %) Developed purchasing workforce (.. %) Operational purchasing (.. %) Tactical purchasing (.. %) Segmentation (.. %) Purchasing maturity
FIGURE 8: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE END RESULT OF THE DEVELOPED CONCISE PURCHASING MATURITY