Toward a Typology of Buyer-Supplier Relationships: A Study of the Computer Industry

Buyer–supplier relationship typologies are useful analytical tools for purchasing managers in managing exchange relationships with suppliers and monitoring their purchasing portfolios. Existing buyer–supplier relationship typologies are mainly focused on either relational contents or power-dependence and have limited empirical support for their performance implications. In this study, we developed an alternative buyer–supplier relationship typology that integrates both relational content and power-dependence dimensions, resulting in four generic relationship types: market, power, autonomous-link, and constrained-link relationships. We then performed a longitudinal exploratory investigation of eight leading firms in the U.S. computer industry to explore the performance implications of the typology, using a combinatorial qualitative approach that leverages the strengths of case study research, content analysis, and quasi-experimental design. The results suggest three theoretical propositions. First, the association between the type of buyer–supplier relationships and buyer firm performance varies such that constrained-link relationships are superior in terms of operational efficiency while autonomous-link relationships are superior in terms of product innovation. Second, the positive association between buyer–supplier relational contents (i.e., relationalism) and buyer firm operational efficiency is strengthened as the suppliers' dependence on the buyer firm increases. And finally, the positive association between buyer–supplier relationalism and buyer firm product innovation is weakened as the suppliers' dependence on the buyer firm increases.

[1]  R. Narasimhan,et al.  Causal Linkages in Supply Chain Management: An Exploratory Study of North American Manufacturing Firms , 1998 .

[2]  John R. Nevin,et al.  Performance Outcomes of Purchasing Arrangements in Industrial Buyer-Vendor Relationships , 1990 .

[3]  Jan B. Heide,et al.  Do Norms Matter in Marketing Relationships? , 1992 .

[4]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  Strategic Supplier Segmentation: The Next “Best Practice” in Supply Chain Management , 1998 .

[5]  Eric T. G. Wang,et al.  Interorganizational Governance Value Creation: Coordinating for Information Visibility and Flexibility in Supply Chains , 2007, Decis. Sci..

[6]  Kentaro Nobeoka,et al.  The Influence of Customer Scope on Supplier Learning and Performance in the Japanese Automobile Industry , 2002 .

[7]  A. H. Ashton,et al.  The descriptive validity of normative decision theory in auditing contexts , 1982 .

[8]  J. Peters,et al.  Buyer Market Power and Innovative Activities , 2000 .

[9]  K. Provan,et al.  Interorganizational Dependence and Control as Predictors of Opportunism in Dealer-Supplier Relations , 1989 .

[10]  Gary L. Frazier.  On the Measurement of Interfirm Power in Channels of Distribution , 1983 .

[11]  M. Bensaou.  Portfolios of Buyer-Supplier Relationships , 1999 .

[12]  Nirmalya Kumar,et al.  Interdependence, Punitive Capability, and the Reciprocation of Punitive Actions in Channel Relationships , 1998 .

[13]  M. Cantamessa,et al.  Innovation paths in product development: An empirical research , 1997 .

[14]  Mari Sako,et al.  Supplier Relations in Japan and the United States , 1995 .

[15]  R. Narasimhan,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of the Contribution of Strategic Sourcing to Manufacturing Flexibilities and Performance , 1999 .

[16]  John T. Mentzer,et al.  EXPLORING THE DRIVERS OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP MAGNITUDE , 2005 .

[17]  Daniel C. Bello,et al.  The antecedents and performance consequences of relationalism in export distribution channels , 2003 .

[18]  Thomas O. Toole,et al.  Classifying relationship structures: relationship strength in industrial markets , 2000 .

[19]  A. Cox.  Understanding Buyer and Supplier Power: A Framework for Procurement and Supply Competence , 2001 .

[20]  J. B. Smith.  Buyer–Seller relationships: Similarity, relationship management, and quality , 1998 .

[21]  J. B. Quinn,et al.  STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING: LEVERAGING KNOWLEDGE CAPABILITIES , 1999 .

[22]  F. Webster.  The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation , 1992 .

[23]  P. C. Lian,et al.  Inter‐organisational relationships in professional services: towards a typology of service relationships , 2005 .

[24]  F. Dwyer,et al.  Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships: , 1987 .

[25]  K. Cook.  Exchange and Power in Networks of Interorganizational Relations , 1976 .

[26]  F. Robert Dwyer,et al.  Influence Strategies in Marketing Channels: Measures and Use in Different Relationship Structures , 1992 .

[27]  David A. Johnston,et al.  Effects of supplier trust on performance of cooperative supplier relationships , 2004 .

[28]  Jeffrey H. Dyer,et al.  The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage , 1998 .

[29]  O. Williamson.  The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  K. Clark.  Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development , 1989 .

[31]  Sandy D. Jap,et al.  Safeguarding Interorganizational Performance and Continuity Under Ex Post Opportunism , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[32]  Sally Davenport,et al.  Circuits of Power in Practice: Strategic Ambiguity as Delegation of Authority , 2005 .

[33]  Joe Sanderson,et al.  Business Relationships for Competitive Advantage , 2004 .

[34]  Susan Helper,et al.  The `close but adversarial' model of supplier relations in the U.S. auto industry , 1998 .

[35]  Varun Grover,et al.  Examining the Impact of Interorganizational Systems on Process Efficiency and Sourcing Leverage in Buyer-Supplier Dyads , 2005, Decis. Sci..

[36]  J. H. Dyer.  Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value , 1997 .

[37]  Jan B. Heide.  Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Channels , 1994 .