Industrial Marketing Relationships_Donaldson B_1996

8/2/2019 Industrial Marketing Relationships_Donaldson B_1996

1/12

Industrialmarketing

relationships

23

Industrial marketingrelationships and

open-to-tender contracts

Co-operation or competition?

Bill Donaldson

IntroductionAcademics and practitioners have given increased att ention to the nature ofbuyer-seller relationships in industrial marketing exchange. This attention hasbeen characterized by a movement away from seller-initiated effort, focused onmanipulating the elements of the marketing mix in a prescribed fashion, to oneof increased understanding of exchange processes where the buyer is moreproactive and exchange is based on the joint efforts of different part ies in thesupply chain. The reasons for this new perspective are varied, but must includethe adoption of total quality management (TQM), the need for cost reduction infinished goods to remain price competitive in world markets and the increasedrate of innovation not only in products but processes and systems. Theseinnovations include just-in-time manufacturing (JIT), computer-aided design

(CAD) and information technology (IT). More complex supply chains, therelative increased costs of labour and the global market economy contributepositively to the need for more efficient exchange systems between firms.

Evidence of these changes are most apparent in the motor industry, inelectronics, and in other industries where there is a complex end-product ofdifferent raw materials, many components and a number of players in thesupply chain. These industries are characterized by collaboration rather thanconfrontation, by joint involvement of par ticipants rather than unilateral action,by interdependence rather than independence. In some cases, the positiveresults achieved have been persuasive in companies adopting this newrelationship-based approach. Mercedes Benz, for example, claim to have saved$588 million by closer par tnering agreements with suppliers (Waller, 1994). Sun

Microsystems claims to spend 55 per cent of every revenue dollar on suppliesand attributes its g rowth and above average-performance to its closer ties withsuppliers, including vendor appraisal (Wheatley, 1994).

This current study examines the nature of relationships between buyers andsuppliers in the electronics industry. This industry is one which has embracedinnovation, adopted TQM, has complex supp ly-chain management, yet,because of the global nature of the competition, faces constant pressure on costs

Journal of Marketing Practice:Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 2

No. 2, 1996, pp. 23-34. MCBUniversity Press, 1355-2538

The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Eric Wilson in conducting interviews forthis project.


2/12

JMP:AMS2,2

24

and margins. There is thus a paradox where, on the one hand fewer suppliers,joint involvement and relationship development is advocated to increasepurchasing efficiency (Macbeth and Ferguson, 1994), yet on the other hand theuse of the tender/bidding approach is still widely practised. The purpose of thisstudy is to examine the nature of buyer-seller relationships in the electronicsindustry and the effects of tendering contracts on such relationships.

The nature of buyer-supplier relationshipsSeveral writers have testified to the importance of relationships inorganizational marketing exchange (Dwyer et al., 1987; Hakansson, 1982;Jackson, 1985). The prediction that within t en years a ll manufacturers of

discrete products will be buying with long-term contracts and closerelationships with proven vendors has proved over-optimistic (Purchasing,1983). Nevertheless, the movement has been continuing over this period and ithas come true in some rather than all cases. There is widespread recognitionthat trust, openness and fairness in partnerships has been increasing (Bhote,1989). This movement has been mirrored in the marketing literature with theclaim that the way to build superior market positions is to build relationshipswith customers based on trust, responsiveness and quality (McKenna, 1991).The importance to suppliers of retaining existing customers has proved moreprofitable than winning new customers (Muller, 1991).

Greater openness and freer communications between buyer and supplierhave been enhanced by the JIT concept (Frazier et al., 1988). This creates an

atmosphere which a llows s uppliers to have a g reater underst anding ofcustomer plans, minimizes surprises and permits them to be more responsive tocustomer needs. Differences between transaction-based products andrelationship-based products will be important in the extent to whichrelationships are developed and sustained (Jackson, 1985). Also, firms attemptto move into speciality business with higher-value-added products rather thandowngrade into commodity-type trading situations. This has proved profitablefor many companies (Wallis, 1987). Among the characteristics of a specialitybusiness which promote closer relationships are the need for productspecification, technological orientation and interdependence, requiring frequentcommunication between the parties.

Relationships typically suit both parties, but are not mutual-admirationsocieties and often involve extensive negotiation, conflict and the desire forfavourable outcomes (Clopton, 1984). The trends to outsourcing have beennoticeable in a number of industries and there is evidence that co-makership(Merli, 1991) relationship companies were outperforming those organizationsstill based on a traditional adversarial approach (Masson, 1986). Given theemphasis in the literature, one may be forgiven for seeing relationships as apanacea for inter-organizational exchange. The importance of relationshipbuilding is likely to be a function of customer commitment over time, based ontechnology, risk, st rategic importance of investments and switching costs(Jackson, 1985).


3/12

Industrialmarketing

relationships

25

What then are the rules, norms and operational dimensions of relationshipsbetween buyer and seller? Should they be based on human relationship ideas offriendship, caring, support, loyalty, honesty, trust, openness and self-sacrifice(Duck, 1991)? Should they be based on previous performance or some measureof similarity in managerial att itude or corporate ethos? Morgan and Hunt (1994)have claimed that the key ingredients of relationships should be centred onrelational commitment and trust as key mediating variables. The antecedents ofthese variables might include the anticipated benefits accruing from:

relationships;

shared values;

similarity; open communication;

opportunistic behaviour, and

termination costs.

Many of these constr ucts s eem inadequately defined and have yet to beempirically tested. A review of the literature, and eight interviews conductedwith purchasing executives for this research, suggest that the key dimensionsof relationships may vary between players and are by no means unequivocal ininterpretation. For example, ICI use the concept of the relationship ladder tooperationalize the concept in their business (see Figure 1).

At level one the relationship is personal, usually, although not exclusively,between the salesperson and the purchas ing executive. At level two, therelationship develops a s a result of competence and performance by both

Figure 1 .Building strong buyersupplier relationships

Business (level 3)

Commercial (level 2)

Personal (level 1)


4/12

JMP:AMS2,2

26

par ties, particularly the supplier. This extends the relationship from thepersonal level to a more complex interaction between organizational members.At level three, the relationship is more strategic and involves joint co-operation,for example, between ICI and Unilever to develop the French market fordetergents to their mutual benefit.

Relationships are not confined to buyers and suppliers but can relate to otherrole partners both internally and in some cases even competitors, provided thatanti-trus t laws are not broken. For pur poses of this study we focus on therelationship commitment between buyer and supplier and focus on theindividual level.

TQM and relationship marketingTQM is a strategic integrated process for delivering customer satisfactionbased on continuous improvement and respect for people (Oakland, 1993). Thisprocess, exemplified by the Japanese kaizen(continuous improvement)embodies concepts such as learning, system and process development, andinnovation. Respect for people includes suppliers, customers and interna lemployees (Flood, 1993). TQM, being strategic, must have awareness,commitment and the participation of top management who are dedicated toquality action. Given this, short - and medium-term objectives evolve andbecome established through benchmarking.

TQM only happens through people, and hence a feature of TQM is cross-functional co-operation int ra-firm, with relationship building inter-firm

between suppliers and customers. Partnering and relationship buildingnecessitate changes in culture within organizations (ONeal, 1989). This is partof an identified trend from traditional adversarial relationships to one whichrequires trust and mutual respect (Leenders and Blenkhorn, 1980). TQMtherefore promotes relationship building by bringing vendors closer to theorganizations business activities.

Tendering and biddingIn contrast to the TQM approach, the idea of bidding in secret against(sometimes) unknown competitors undermines relationships. The focus usuallyis on price as the key element, yet the tendering process is expensive in time andmoney for the vendor. In the semi-conductor industry, tendering is normallyperformed for a given set of criteria in a relatively short space of time. This isclearly not relationship-based at all and may encourage mistrust.

MethodologyThe importance of Scottish electronics as a growth industry, its domination ofScottish exports, the existence of leading world players in Scotland (IBM,Compaq, Motorola, Digital, NCR, NEC, OKI, etc.), the existence of partneringstra tegies and the commitment to TQM suggest tha t this is an appropriateindustry in which to study relationships between buyers and suppliers. At thesame time, this is an industry which is highly price competitive, price sensitive


5/12

Industrialmarketing

relationships

27

and which employs tendering and competitive bidding relatively widely. Thegeneral characteristics of the electronics industry, in which TQM and tenderingcoexist, create an interesting environment to test theoretical issues ofrelationship marketing and TQM with the effects of price competition andtender bidding being used. The Scottish industry is a good sector of worldelectronics to choose, but we restricted the investigation to semi-conductormanufacturers and their suppliers.

Res earch iss ues

To gain an in-depth understanding of the effects of open-to-tender contracts onrelationship marketing, information was sought on five areas. These areasincluded:

(1) Strategic issues, incorporating attitudes to suppliers by semi-conductormanufacturers and by the suppliers to their customers. This sectionintroduced the subject to the respondent in context by using some of theBS 5750, ISO 9000 and Baldrige Award criteria (Oakland, 1993; Pearceand Robinson, 1991). In the research, an attempt was made to assesswhether manufacturers had a supplier str ategy, the importance ofsuppliers to the stra tegic aims of the firm, profitability and qua lityperformance. A five-point Likert scale was used to evaluate 13 items.

(2) Organizational issues, covering the extent to which contracts were usedfor different products and services, formality in appraisal and selection

and the use of bidding. Twelve product categories were identified andeach assessed in terms of a relationship-based scale (Jackson, 1985).

(3) Vendor relationship issues, covering features of relationships,comparison of theoretical and practical issues and differences betweenroutine and problem products (Lehman and OShaughnessy, 1982). Therelative importance of reputation, price, quality, delivery, ease of use andlength of relationship were included here.

(4) Quality and cost implications, including managerial perceptions ofquality using six statements as listed below (Deming, 1982; Garvin,1984):

Quality is synonymous with innate excellence.

Quality is a precise and measurable variable which is inherentlypresent in the characteristics of the product/service.

The user decides what quality is and therefore products and serviceshave to have clusters of attributes which groups of people want.

Right first time, conformance and efficiency, design and measuredconformance with no waste meaning lower costs.

Defined in costs and prices: performance at an acceptable price orconformance at an acceptable cost.


6/12

JMP:AMS2,2

28

Quality is surpassing customer needs throughout the life of theproduct.

This assessed the relative importance of quality and company policiestowards T QM.

(5) Attitudes to tendering and bidding such as its prevalence, frequency ofuse, products covered. The effects of tenders on quality, total cost andrelationship effect were investigated.

Research approachFollowing a review of the literatu re, this su rvey was r estricted to semi-

conductor manufacturers and their suppliers which form a major part of theelectronics industry. A semi-str uctured questionnaire was developed whichcovered some 12 pages using a variety of scaled and closed questions. One ortwo questions were left open to elicit further responses. To obtain these data viapostal questionnaires would have been difficult and response rates could beexpected to be low. Therefore personal interviews were chosen which reducedthe sample size, but provided greater depth of information. The key respondentwas a purchasing, engineering or production executive in the firm. Eightpersonal interviews were held with managers in semi-conductor firms who hadpurchasing responsibility, to elicit information on their suppliers and evaluatethe approach taken, the processes used and the relevant dimensions relating toTQM and relationship issues.

Surveying suppliers to the semi-conductor companies was more problematic,as a wide number of suppliers were available to these semi-conductormanufacturers. To evaluate the concept, it was decided to separate suppliersand their products into strategic/non-strategic categories. Part of the reason forthis was that only about 17 per cent of supplies come from within Scotland, buttime and resources did not permit travel outside the area. Also the semi-conductor manufacturers were reluctant to discuss suppliers by name. In theevent, 23 suppliers were interviewed, the sample being taken from namedsuppliers and the Scottish Enterpr ise Electronics and Support CompaniesDatabase, 1991 (Scottish Enterprise, 1991). A similar semi-structuredquestionnaire was used for these interviews and covered the same five areas asthe manufacturers survey.

ResultsSemi-conductor manufacturersStrategic. All semi-conductor manufacturers had a supplier strategy embracingquality, teamwork and continuous improvement. Some were pursuing theMalcolm Baldrige Award, the European Quality award scheme, or alternativemodels of quality performance. Supplier rating schemes, benchmarking andmatrix teams were concepts being used and these companies seemed to beembracing long-term relationships with suppliers. They agreed that supplierswere very important to their strategic aims, long-term profitability and quality


7/12

Industrialmarketing

relationships

29

performance. Only one or two preferred a wider supplier bas e than theycurrently had. There was convincing evidence of awareness, participation andcommitment to TQM. Vendor relationships and performance measurementwere seen to be very importa nt, but there was a gap between promotingpartnerships and realizing them. To assess their quality approach, respondentswere evaluated in terms of the characteristics and behaviour which theirorganizations displayed in relation to TQM issues (Lascelles and Dale, 1991), onsix levels, as follows:

(1) uncommitted;

(2) drifters;

(3) tool pushers;

(4) improvers;

(5) award winners;

(6) world class.

In terms of this quality scale, companies lay between level two (drifters) andlevel four (improvers) with no level one and no levels five or six.

Organizational. Most respondents (six out of eight) claimed to use bothformal and informal assessment methods for suppliers. Inviting vendors to bidfor contracts was used in almost all cases, but not for all products. Some one-offitems, considered unique in character, were subject to individual negotiation.The reason given for this was primarily the higher and proven quality of thesesuppliers. However, if the potential purchase was above a certain monetaryvalue, different criteria operated and a number of vendors would be asked toquote.

The 15 product/service categories identified in this research were assessedon a five-point scale from 1, a purely physical product (tangible), to 5, pureservice (intangible). Further, using the criteria established by Jackson (1985) toseparate transaction- and relationship-type products, the 12 product categorieswere evaluated. Only five of the 12 categories scored above the mean asrelationship-type products. Generally, the results suggest that the foundationsare in place for relationship building but, despite TQM, the dedication topartnerships and long-term strategic alliances is undermined. For certainproducts and services, the use of tendering and bidding for contracts does affect

long-term partnerships and relationships. Dimensions thought to be importantin a mature relationship or partnership were not extensively undertaken. Theseinclude activities such as working with vendors on new products, more effectivesystems or joint cost-reduction programmes; relatively few companies agreedthat they undertake these activities. Part icularly for non-strategic products,despite high switching costs, investment and risk, vendors do not see the needfor working closely with suppliers to the extent advocated in the literature.

Vendor relationship issues. Questions in this section assessed the weightinggiven to supplier selection criteria on factors such as price, quality, delivery and


8/12

JMP:AMS2,2

30

service (reputation, ease of use, length of relationship). Previous studies forcritical products would suggest quality would be the prime factor. This wasalso the case in this survey. For non-strategic products, price was the primefactor which contrasts with other research in routine order products wheredelivery reliability, price and supplier reput ation were rat ed more highly(Wilson, 1994).

Quality and cost implications. The most popular definition of quality (fourrespondents) was Demings TQM philosophy, followed by Garvinsconformance to standard, a user-based definition and value based. The TQMphilosophy is understood and seemed to be permeating organizationalstructures.

Attitudes to tendering and bidding. All the organizations in this surveyconfirmed that the tendering bidding process had been and was currently inuse, although when asked if this was likely to change, the research received amore mixed reception. Some saw that the use of benchmarking would place lessreliance on the tender process. Using tenders was generally company policy andnot left to department or individual discretion. Individuals perception of theeffects of tendering on TQM were interest ing. Competitive bids will alwaysresult in the most attractive price being obtained but care must be taken toensure quality is not affected. Another suggested that tendering is not aseffective as TQM. Tenders were seen by some as a win or lose situation. Onerespondent admitted that tendering was a mercenary attitude, but if youdefine what you want and get it at the best price whats wrong with that? The

managers saw the contradiction between tenders and relationship building, andrealized that it was not the TQM approach or partnering strategy beingrecommended, but they claimed to be constrained by organizational policy.

Suppliers/vendors. While the research issues are the same as in the previoussection, the low number and wide spread of suppliers in this survey (23 innumber) mean that the results should be treated with some caution.

Strategic. First, only 60 per cent of respondents considered semi-conductormanufacturers as very important to their strategic aims. However, all suppliersrated customer relationships as of very high importance to their business. Evenwhere the semi-conductor indus try was not perceived as critical to theirbusiness, they were still pursu ing relationship str ategies. Only 12 of thesuppliers pursued a niche-marketing strategy aimed at the semi-conductormanufacturers. In general, the suppliers seemed to lack a clear market focus

and had inadequate planning to develop their relationships. The companies sawrelationships with everyone as a good thing per se. The results, however, areinconclusive.

Organizational.There was a degree of similarity with the manufacturers, inthat clear distinctions between strategic and non-strategic purchases could beidentified. Suppliers rated themselves highly on their understanding ofcustomer needs and on the qualitative aspects of relationships a view notshared by their customers the semi-conductor manufacturers. This contrastswith the buyers view and suggests a lack of understanding of their position


9/12

Industrialmarketing

relationships

31

relative to their customers a marketing deficiency. What kind of relationshipthey think they are carr ying out well, is obscure. Despite their str ategicorientation, working with customers to develop new products, reducing costsand developing more effective systems all scored moderate to low. The answerwould seem to lie in aspects not covered or tested in this survey, or, more likely,they ar e paying lip serv ice to relationships wit hout real involvement orcommitment. Alternatively, suppliers perceptions may be correct and the pricecommodity evaluation is a more accurate description of how manufacturersreally select suppliers. Overall, the results were similar to the manufacturers.

Vendor relationship issues. There was a variety of responses here, and eventhe strategic suppliers, who should have focused on quality as stated by the

semi-conductor manufacturers, claimed customers bought for a variety ofreasons. For example, a production machinery supplier rated quality, but acomputer-systems supplier cited reputation, as the main buying factor. Severalof the suppliers, in line with the manufacturers responses, saw price as the keyfactor.

The results indicate that there is a general lack of appreciation of theircustomers true needs, which points to a lack of understanding or inadequatecommunication and certainly questions the form of the relationship claimed tobe operating between the part ies. It was apparent to the interviewer that mostof the vendors were technology- and s ales-driven rat her than cust omer-oriented, which may account for the discrepancy. Most suppliers had marketingand sales in the same depar tment and the salesforce had the bulk of the contact

with their customers. Relationships seemed to be vested in one person ratherthan in organizational interaction.Quality and cost implications. The results here were different from the

manufacturers, 65 per cent chose conformance to standard, the manufacturer-supplier-based approach as their perception of quality and 25 per cent theDeming approach. Those with a higher degree of intangibility tended to choosethe Deming approach, whereas the more tangible raw materials for example chose the conformance approach.

Att itudes to tendering and bidding. The results indicate that suppliers sawthe tender-bidding approach as a win/lose situation, and this is reflected in theirdifferent perception of quality. To achieve the lowest price was the priority withquality, specification and delivery being given and non-negotiable.

ConclusionsThis research has shown that, despite TQM and supply-chain managementpractices being widely used, relationships are undermined by the tender-bidding process. This conflicts with the so-called rules of relationships such astrust, openness and commitment. TQM and the tender/bidding process clearlyhave different effects on the development of relationships in inter-organizationalexchange. This study shows that they do coexist, but the one undermines theother. There is some evidence that, for strategic purchases, although semi-conductor manufacturers are moving to longer-term, open-ended contracts


10/12

JMP:AMS2,2

32

based more on benchmarking, company policies still require the tenderingprocess be used. There is a fundamental conflict, at least in specified timeperiods, between using tender contracts and relationship building. Both in theirperceptions of quality and in their view of products as relationship-based, therewere discrepancies between buyers and customers, and basic misapprehension.The tendering process does conflict with the ethos and operation ofrelationships. As yet, we appear unable to express tangible ways for these twoideas to coexist.

Lascelles and Dale (1991) discussed the various stages that organizationsmay follow in their quest for total quality management, and it may be thatsuppliers have yet to catch up in this quest. This research also indicates that,although the opportunity for following a relationship-marketing approach wasthere, in general those vendors who were in a position to do so were notgrasping the opportunity in full.

Of those suppliers interviewed, 40 per cent did not have a formal marketingdepartment and appeared to be more sales- than customer-driven. Relationshipsdid not rise above level one on the relationship ladder. In some cases, the relativepower of the parties may account for this with a fear that outsourcing couldmove back in-house. Suppliers, in general, accepted the tendering position andtherefore attempted to build the relationship after the contract was won. Short-term and long-term relationships mean tha t quite different approaches aretaken by different firms, depending on contingent conditions. Tendering does

affect relationships, but it is inappropriate from this research to conclude that itis a bad thing. Indeed, companies were, in general, satisfied with the outcome ofthe bidding process.

TQM is widely used, but there is a difference in approach between strategicand non-strategic purchases for most firms. While the main motive in strategicpurchases is price, with quality and delivery given, the use of tenders conflictswith the relationship-based approach. What is required is a move from adependency culture, based on short-term measures, to a development culture,but in a relationship which still has safeguards for price and innovation.

The use of tendering for contracts suggests dependent suppliers, a short-runfocus and long-term anonymity. The opposite approach is joint supplierinvolvement and partnership, suggesting a development strategy which is more

innovative but may be more expensive for the buyer, or perceived as such, in theshort run.These findings suggest tha t further research is required in a number of

areas:

Clearer definitions of the rules and norms of business relationships arerequired, particularly taking account of issues of power, commitmentand the bargaining position of both parties. Qualitative research usingin-depth case studies is likely to be the most productive vehicle in pursuitof this objective.


11/12

Industrialmarketing

relationships

33

Longitudinal research, both within firms and across firms in a givensector, will help in understanding the triggers to more complexrelationship building and to evaluate how successful communicationtakes place between the part ies.

Quantitative studies will be helpful in categorizing relational forms.These may be, for example, supplier or buyer dominant, relativelydiscrete or opportunistic, or close, committed and bilateral. Such studiesmay require multiple respondents within both buyer and supplierorganizations.

Quantitative studies may also be used to calibrate relationship strength

and intensity between the part icipants in different relationship settings. Finally, follow-up cases could further assist our understanding of the

origins, development and complexity to be found in differentrelationships.

References

Bhote, K.R. (1989), Strategic Supply Management: A Blueprint for Revitalising the Manufacturer-Supplier Partnership, American Management Association, New York, NY.

Clopton, S. (1984), Selling and buying firm factors affecting industrial buyers negotiationbehaviour and outcomes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXI, February, pp. 39-53.

Deming, W.E. (1982), Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, Centre for AdvancedEngineering Study, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Duck, S. (1991), Understanding Relationships, Guildford Press, NewYork, NY.

Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), Developing buyer-seller relationships, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 11-27.

Flood, R.L. (1993), Beyond TQM, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Frazier, G.L., Spekman, R.E. and ONeal, C.R. (1988), Just-in-time exchange relationships inindustrial markets, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 4, October, pp. 52-67.

Garvin, D.A. (1984), What does product quality really mean? Sloan Management Review,Vol. 26 No. 1, Autumn, pp. 25-43.

Hakansson, H. (Ed.) (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industr ial Goods AnInteraction Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Jackson, B.B. (1985), Winning and Keeping Industrial Customers, D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA.

Lascelles, D.M. and Dale, B.G. (1991), Levelling out the future, Total Quality Management,December.

Leenders, M.R. and Blenkhorn, D.L. (1980), Reverse Marketing: T he New Buyer-Suppli er

Relationship, Free Press, New York, NY.Lehman, D.R. and OShaughnessy, J. (1982), Decision criteria used in buying different categories

of products, Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, Spring, pp. 9-14.

Macbeth, D. K. and Ferguson, N. (1994), Partnership Sourcing: An Integrated Supply ChainManagement Approach, Pitman, London.

McKenna, R. (1991), Relationship Marketing, Century Business, London.

Masson, R.J. (1986), User-vendor relationships in the Scottish electronics industry, InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 31-7.

Merli, G. (1991), Co-makership: The New Supply Strategy for Manufacturers, Productivity Press,Cambridge, MA.


12/12

JMP:AMS2,2

34

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trus t theory of relationship marketing,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.

Muller, W. (1991), Gaining competitive advantage through customer satisfaction, EuropeanManagement Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, June, pp. 201-11.

Oakland, J.S. (1993), Total Quality Management: The Management of Change through ProcessImprovement, 2nd ed., Butterworth and Heinemann, Oxford.

ONeal, C.R. (1989), JIT procurement and relationship market ing, Industr ial MarketingManagement, Vol. 18, pp. 55-63.

Pearce, J.A. and Robinson, R.B. (1991), Strategic Management, 4th ed., Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Purchasing(1983), How tomorrows suppliers shape up, January, pp. 80-5.

Scottish Enterprise (1991), Electronics and Support Companies in Scotland Database.

Waller, D. (1994), Mercedes saves DM 1bn throug h s upp lier pr ojects, Financial Times,

24 February, p. 34.Wallis, J.S. (1987), Will a speciality bus iness become a commodity business? Industrial

Marketing Management, Vol. 16, pp. 19-24.

Wheatley, M. (1994), Score card for the suppliers, Financial Times, 2 March, p. 26.

Wilson, E.J. (1994), The relative importance of supplier selection criteria: a review and update,International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Summer, pp. 35-41.

(Bill Donaldson is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Strathclyde and Director of the HonoursProgramme in the Depar tment of Marketing, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.)

Industrial Marketing Relationships_Donaldson B_1996

Documents

Transcript of Industrial Marketing Relationships_Donaldson B_1996