PurposeTo examine the nature and extent of commitment to supply chain collaboration. Also, to explore the state of supply chain governance structures.Design/methodology/approachA multi‐method survey and in‐depth interview methodology was employed to gather data. Content analysis was then used to identify the types and extent of managerial support for supply chain initiatives.FindingsFour types of managerial support are needed to achieve the highest levels of supply chain success: top management support, broad‐based functional support, channel support, and infrastructural/governance support. None of the interview companies have put all four types of support in place. Leading‐edge governance relies on cross‐functional/inter‐organizational teams, executive governance councils, customer advisory boards, supplier advisory councils and a modified reporting structure that overseas all value‐added activities from product conceptualization to customer relationship management. Again, none of the interview companies have established all aspects of an effective supply chain governance structure.Originality/valueMuch has been written on the need to focus on supply chains and create more cooperative and integrative relationships with key organizations in the supply chain; however, little has been written concerning the commitment levels among those involved in the supply chain or the types of governance structures that should be utilized within a given organization or along the supply chain. This paper bridges this gap, providing a benchmark for managerial commitment and presenting a composite governance structure based on observed best practices. Both academics and practitioners can use the insights provided to work toward a better understanding of supply chain commitment and governance.

SUMMARY This research addresses a gap in the current literature by examining the differences between the process of purchasing services and the process of purchasing materials. Four hypotheses concerning the possible differences were developed based on a review of the relevant literature. These hypotheses were then tested using qualitative focus studies and a quantitative survey involving 82 purchasing managers with an average of 9.8 years' purchasing experience. Also, 14 interviews were conducted with purchasing executives to gain a better understanding of perceived differences. The results indicate that perceived differences exist between the processes of purchasing services and purchasing materials, especially in terms of the complexity of these processes. These perceived differences vary by the number of years of purchasing experience and the type of purchasing experience (services versus materials). Fifteen individual process steps were examined to determine the exact nature of the differences between these two processes. Managerial and research implications are discussed throughout the article.

SUMMARY One important factor in the design of an organization's supply chain is the number of suppliers used for a given product or service. Supply base reduction is one option useful in managing the supply base. The current paper reports the results of case studies in 10 organizations that recently implemented supply base reduction activities. Specifically, the paper identifies the key success factors in supply base reduction efforts and prescribes processes to capture the benefits of supply base reduction.

No abstract

As firms have placed more emphasis on their core competencies and outsourced production and services to suppliers, effective cost management of purchases has become a critical factor in achieving corporate success. The Purchasing and Supply Management (PSM) function is generally responsible for obtaining goods and services from outside suppliers. Techniques such as total cost of ownership, supplier cost structure analysis, and target costing have become important tools for PSM to manage inbound supply costs. Results of a survey indicate that the perceptions of PSM by peer functions and top management, in terms of PSM's importance and accountability, are related to implementing the strategic cost management activities of total cost of ownership, supplier cost structure analysis, and target costing.