Gaining and Losing Pieces of the Supply Chain

Abstract

SUMMARY This research focused on changes in supply chain responsibilities. The primary research question was: What are the reasons (drivers) for major changes in supply chain responsibilities? Over 200 such changes, comprising 158 additions and 44 deletions, were documented in the research. The findings are based on 10 case studies in large multi‐business unit companies, seven head quartered in the United States and three in Europe, representing a variety of industries. Findings indicated three drivers of change for supply chain responsibilities. The chief purchasing officer and his or her staff members had a great deal of influence, particularly in additions to category 1 (acquisition of specific organizational needs) and category 2 (activities within the total supply chain).

Building a Corporate Supply Function

“…Additionally, previous research (Johnson and Leenders, 2003a, b) has identified the existence of six CPO‐ER teams, which were particularly effective in changing supply's role and contribution within their companies. All were involved in a major corporate turnaround.…”

“…Specifically, Johnson and Leenders (2001) found that changes in supply organizational structure were a direct result of changes in the overall corporate structure as companies reacted to external environmental factors, such as competitive pressures, global influences and new technology. Johnson and Leenders (2003b) extended this framework to explain changes in supply chain responsibilities and introduced three drivers that resulted in changes to supply chain responsibilities.…”

“…The research frameworks from Johnson and Leenders (2001) and Johnson and Leenders (2003a, b) have been adopted for use in this research. The framework that emerges is presented in Figures 1–3.…”

Barriers of purchasing departments' involvement in marketing service procurement

“…As Schiele (2005) notes, the definition of "meaningful involvement" by Johnson and Leenders (2003) refers to an ideal level of involvement on the part of the purchasing department. Our concept of purchasing departments' involvement does not per se contain an element of being "meaningful" or "not meaningful", but rather is meant to serve as a structure with which the level of involvement can be assessed.…”

Contributions of public purchasing departments to competitive acquisition processes for consulting services

“…The term meaningful involvement was originally defined by Stuart (1991, p. 30) as "The timely and useful collaboration of purchasing knowledge and expertise… in all aspects of the acquisition process, including the decision making process, leading to the best buy decision with the objective of satisfying the immediate needs of the specifier and the long term needs and strategic objectives of the [organization] as a whole." Johnson and Leenders (2003) revisited the concept by discussing meaningful involvement in terms of levels.…”