Printer Friendly

The use of organizational design features in purchasing and supply management.

Of the myriad ways organizations pursue competitive advantage in their supply management efforts, the most common are outsourcing, supplier development or strategic alliances and partnerships. Rarely mentioned, however, is the more mundane topic of organizational design. Except for cross-functional teaming, organizational design has received limited attention from supply management researchers.

Organizational design is a broad concept referring to the process of assessing and selecting the structure and formal system of communication, division of labor, coordination, control, authority and responsibility required to achieve an organization's goals (Hamel and Pralahad 1994). One way to think about an organization's design is as a complex web reflecting the pattern of interactions and coordination of technology, tasks and human components (Silvestri 1997). Although design is often thought of in terms of organizational structure, an organization's design is much more complex and detailed than the lines and boxes that appear on an organizational chart (Champoux 2000).

The current research examines organizational design features companies use or expect to use when pursuing procurement and supply objectives. Initially, the paper summarizes the literature and concludes that minimal research has focused on the specific design features used in procurement and supply management. The second section describes the research and methodology that support the reported findings. Research questions and findings appear next, and the fourth section presents the conclusions and managerial implications that arise from those findings. The article concludes with an indication of study limitations and future opportunities as they relate to organizational design research.

A REVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN LITERATURE

A comprehensive review of the organizational design literature covers hundreds of citations and studies, which is far beyond the scope of this article. We can, however, suggest that three major streams of research emerge from this literature. The first examines the ongoing debate between strategy and structure and incorporates an extensive discussion of mechanistic versus organic organizational designs. A second research stream examines factors that influence an organization's design or cause an organization to change its design. A third stream examines the broad types of designs or structures organizations put in place, including functional, place, product or multidivisional designs. Obviously, organizational design encompasses much more than purchasing and supply management, but this article focuses on design research specifically relevant to purchasing and supply management.

Fearon (1988), in a study of purchasing organizational relationships, extensively examined the characteristics of the chief purchasing officer, the average size of the professional purchasing staff, the reporting level of purchasing, purchasing responsibilities and other factors related to organizational design. Fearon and Leenders (1996) performed a follow-up to Fearon's 1988 study, which afforded a unique opportunity to trace longitudinal changes involving 118 firms that participated in the 1988 and 1995 research. Johnson, Leenders and Fearon (1998) and Johnson and Leenders (2001) presented further extensions of the 1988 and 1995 studies.

Other organizational research related to purchasing and supply management includes Cavinato (1992), who argued that most procurement organizations are described and analyzed with reference to seven basic organizational models. Germain and Droge (1998) examined whether the internal organizational designs of JIT buying firms differ from non-JIT buying firms in terms of formalization, integration and decentralization. Giunipero and Monczka (1990) examined the organizational structures used by multinational corporations to conduct international purchasing activities; Pooley and Dunn (1994) completed a longitudinal study of purchasing positions from 1960 to 1989. Finally, Pearson, Ellram and Carter (1996), in their study of the electronics industry, examined the organizational standing of purchasing compared to other functional groups, the strategic versus clerical nature of purchasing tasks, and the status and recognition of purchasing within the firm.

Several studies have focused on various trends and changes and their implications for organizational design. Carter and Narasimhan (1996) identified future directions in purchasing and supply management, several of which related to design. They posit that management of the "white space" (i.e., the interfaces between purchasing and other units across the supply chain) will become increasingly important for supply executives. Furthermore, Carter and Narasimhan predicted a flattening of organizational structures through the expanded use of self-managed teams.

In their longitudinal study of trends and changes throughout the 1990s, Monczka and Trent (1998) concluded that the number of purchasing groups organized by commodity will continue to decrease gradually, while the number of purchasing groups organized by end item or hybrid structures will increase. This reflects a growing need for purchasing to integrate with other parts of the organization, particularly technical groups during new product development.

A discussion of specific organizational design features occurs mainly within two areas--in case analyses reported in CAPS focus studies and in practitioner publications. Leenders and Johnson (2000, 2002) provide many case examples that address organizational design issues. Their case studies examine changes in supply chain responsibilities and structural changes in supply organizations. On the practitioner side, Purchasing magazine presents its Medal of Excellence Award annually to a company the editors feel demonstrates leading supply management practices. The article that accompanies the award usually provides insight into the winner's organizational design. Although they provide interesting and practical perspectives, these articles are usually anecdotal and represent best practices at select firms.

Researchers have investigated specific design topics (i.e., JIT or international sourcing structures) and examined broad changes and trends (i.e., flattening of structures or managing the "white space"), but no research has focused on evaluating a comprehensive set of design features or how these features may support supply management effectiveness. This research attempts to fill this void by evaluating specific design features within purchasing and supply management.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE

This research, which is exploratory in nature, collected survey data on the use of specific organizational design features within procurement and supply management. Respondents were supply professionals from manufacturing firms selected randomly from the membership database of the Institute for Supply Management[TM].

The design features included in the survey were selected on the basis of executive focus groups (primarily with manufacturing firms), firsthand experiences, case studies and literature reviews. Qualitative research helped identify a list of features upon which firms rely. A series of a priori research questions, described later, provided guidance during survey design.

Two supply managers and two academicians reviewed a preliminary version of the survey for clarity and completeness before wide-scale distribution. Their comments resulted in minor modifications and several additions to the final survey. Of the approximately 1,000 ISM members in the United States who received surveys, 173 returned responses, yielding just over a 17 percent response rate. During survey distribution, the researcher excluded any mailing label that did not have a company name, reducing the possibility that retired ISM members received a survey, Care was also taken to avoid sending multiple surveys to the same organization.

The 17 percent response rate, while somewhat low, is comparable to other supply chain research that relied on mail surveys. Min and Emam (2003) cite a number of studies, including their own, revealing that response rates of less than 20 percent for mail surveys are not uncommon in the supply chain literature (see Mentzer, Shuster and Roberts 1992; Murphy and Daley 1994; Carter and Narasimhan 1996a, 1996b; Pedersen and Gray 1988; and Sum, Teo and Ng 2001).

Nonresponse bias can be also an issue. A test for non-response bias compared the first 60 and the last 60 surveys received; it revealed no statistically different responses or characteristics between the two groups. Furthermore, these 60 firm subsamples did not differ statistically from the combined sample of 173 firms. A bias regarding surveys returned later rather than earlier over the data collection period is not a concern.

As expected when using the ISM database, responding companies showed a wide variance in terms of size (as measured by annual revenue). This variability provided a hoped-for opportunity to divide the responding firms into segments. (1) The distribution based on sales revealed three groupings: smaller (56), medium (46) and larger (65) firms. These groupings formed the basis for segmenting the sample. These segments result from logical breaks in terms of sales rather than a U.S. government designation of small, medium or large. Segmenting the sample by size allows for meaningful comparisons across the data. Tables I-IV provide insight into the 173 participants in this research. Attempts to compare demographic profiles of respondents against an overall demographic profile of ISM companies in SIC 20-38 (manufacturing firms) were unsuccessful due to the unavailability of such data.

The survey included demographic data and other questions of interest but focused primarily on the current and expected use of specific design features in purchasing and supply management, which the Appendix identifies. Tables presented throughout this article abbreviate the descriptions of these items to conserve space. Most of the design features in the Appendix relate to supply management but several relate to supply chain management.

This research did not attempt to assess the overall effect of organizational design on firm performance. Too many factors, including factors that are external to supply management, determine a firm's success. Positive relationships between organizational design features and overall firm performance might result in spurious conclusions. Instead, respondents evaluated the degree to which they perceived their current organizational design supported the attainment of procurement and supply objectives. Although achieving these objectives may enhance firm performance, this research did not focus on that linkage.

Data analysis involved the use of descriptive statistics, correlations and t-tests between groups. Factor analysis involving all the features that respondents evaluated failed to converge on a clear set of clusters or factors. This prohibited data simplification or reduction into a smaller set of factors.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study investigated a number of a priori research questions related to current and future design features within procurement and supply management, and to a lesser degree in supply chain management. This research also investigated the relationship between perceived design effectiveness and (1) the features that firms emphasize, (2) firm size, (3) the reporting level of the highest procurement office and (4) the placement of decision-making authority. This section presents the findings for the research questions.

Research Question 1: What Design Features Do Procurement and Supply Organizations Currently Rely On?

Table V presents the highest-rated organizational design features that firms currently use or rely on, segmented by size. This table reveals that the size of firm affects the design features relied on or emphasized as well as the overall level of reliance. Across the 29 design features evaluated by respondents, smaller firms average 2.59 in total average use, medium firms average 3.48, and larger firms average 3.98 (all averages are on a seven-point scale).

Larger firms differ from smaller firms in terms of scope, complexity and available resources. They are much more likely to have operations that are worldwide rather than local or regional (scope) with more organizational levels covering a wider array of business and product lines (complexity). These firms emphasize certain design features in order to coordinate and integrate a globally complex organization. Larger firms are also more likely to have greater access to the human and financial resources that allow them to put in place certain features.

Table V shows that each segment emphasizes collocation of purchasing and other organizational members, particularly internal customers (such as operations or technical personnel.) Physical collocation of purchasing and marketing is not highly emphasized. Since purchasing resides as a support function within the value chain, collocation offers a way to integrate with internal customers, understand their requirements and respond to their needs (Porter 1985).

Teams are an important element of current organizational design. Each segment, for example, emphasizes product development teams that include procurement and supply representatives. This is consistent with earlier research that revealed three-fourths of companies relied on cross-functional teams to support product development (Griffin 1997). Although only 20 percent of the design features evaluated in this research involved teams, three of the seven most widely used features at larger firms are team related. Two of the seven most widely used features at smaller and medium-size firms are team related. Overall, the use of teams is a popular design option.

A number of other features are common to all three segments. These include specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key supplier relationships, including supply chain alliances; lead buyers or site-based experts designated to manage non-commodity or non-centrally coordinated items or services; and regular strategy/performance presentations by the CPO to the president or CEO. Related to presentations by the CPO is a higher-level CPO who has a procurement and supply-related title, which is rated highly by medium and larger firms.

Several features are unique to each segment. Smaller firms, perhaps in their effort to overcome volume disadvantages, rate membership and participation with a recognized purchase consortium as a top-10 design feature. Larger firms, perhaps in an effort to overcome inefficiencies and duplication, rate highly a shared services model and structure that coordinates common activities or processes across business units or locations.

Research Question 2: What Design Features Will Procurement and Supply Organizations Rely On Over the Next Three to Five Years?

Table VI presents the 10 highest-rated design features that firms expect to put in place over the next three to five years. Shaded items represent features that are part of Table VI but not part of Table V (highest-rated current features). Non-shaded items appear in both tables. Each of the 29 design features shows an increase in expected usage over the next three to five years, which is common when asking respondents to project forward.

New items appearing in Table VI for larger firms include formal strategy coordination and review sessions between functional groups and formal procurement and supply strategy coordination and review sessions between business units or divisions. Medium-size firms expect to continue their emphasis on formal strategy coordination and review sessions between functional groups and between business units or divisions. Smaller firms also expect to stress strategy coordination and review sessions, although at lower usage levels. An emphasis on these features points out the important role that organizational design plays in coordinating procurement and supply activities and supporting integration across functional groups and locations.

Table VI reveals a continued reliance on teams, particularly to support product development. Three of the 10 items for medium and larger firms listed in this table are team related. Both segments expect a higher reliance on project teams that work on specific procurement and supply tasks.

Probably the most significant change between current and expected design features is the anticipated increase in new product and/or process development teams that include suppliers as members or participants. For larger firms, this item moved from a rank order of 19th for current design features to 11th for expected design features, for medium-size firms it moved from 22nd to eighth, and for smaller firms it moved from 13th to eighth. The Conclusions and Managerial Implications section discusses this important trend in more detail.

An additional item of interest for larger firms relates to an expected increase in formal separation of strategic and tactical procurement and supply responsibilities, personnel, positions and structure. Larger firms indicate that the decision-making authority is decentralized, with some controlled procurement (average 4.00/6 where 1 = highly decentralized and 6 = highly centralized). This segment expects a shift toward moderate centralization over the next three to five years (to 4.46/6). This trend is consistent with earlier research revealing a gradual shift toward centrally led purchasing (Monczka and Trent 1998; Carter and Narasimhan 1996a). Separation of responsibilities should become more common as firms develop a centrally coordinated or centrally led supply organization. The Conclusions and Managerial Implications section cites research by Leenders and Johnson (2000) that presents a different perspective on this finding.

Research Question 3: What Design Features Should Show the Greatest Increase in Expected Usage Over the Next Three to Five Years?

This question identifies the areas where growth in design characteristics and features are expected to occur across the total sample. Consensus exists concerning the design features that each segment believes will show expected growth over the next three to five years. In fact, the first seven out of eight items in Table VII are each included as higher-growth items for the smaller, medium and larger segments. The primary difference across segments is the average rating each design feature receives within each segment.

Many of the design characteristics and features that show expected growth support integration across the supply chain. In fact, it is safe to conclude that firms expect to use organizational design features to achieve greater integration, both internally and externally, over the next three to five years. Design features that promote internal and external integration and are expected to show increased usage include:

* Formal value analysis/value engineering groups

* New product teams that include suppliers

* A virtual procurement organizational design featuring individuals, groups and/or departments linked through IT systems

* On-site suppliers to perform inventory management activities

* A formal cross-functional group or team responsible for demand and supply planning

* An organization designed around procurement and supply processes

* A shared services model and structure that coordinates common activities or processes across business units or locations

* Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between functional groups

Other features support an expected shift toward central coordination across the procurement and supply function. This is consistent with the desire of most firms to evolve toward a higher level of central coordination within procurement and supply. Firms indicate that they expect to increase use of the following design features that promote central and cross-locational coordination within procurement and supply.

* Formal procurement and supply strategy coordination and review sessions between units or divisions

* Centrally coordinated commodity teams that develop and implement companywide supply strategies

* A corporate-level steering committee that oversees companywide procurement and supply initiatives

* Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to the president or CEO

The survey showed conclusively that future organizational design changes support cross-functional and cross-organizational integration as well as the coordination of procurement and supply activities across the enterprise.

Research Question 4: What Is the Relationship Between Organizational Designs That Promote the Attainment of Supply Objectives and the Design Features That Firms Emphasize?

This question examines the relationship between two important variables: the activities firms currently emphasize and the respondents' overall perception of the effectiveness of their organizational design. It moves beyond Research Questions 1 and 2, which simply reported on the features that firms have or expect to have in place without considering the effectiveness of an organization's design. For this question participants responded to the statement, "Please indicate the degree to which your current organizational design promotes or impedes the achievement of your procurement and supply objectives." Responses to this question were correlated against the current usage of the 29 design features included in the survey.

Table VIII, which includes only medium-size and larger firms, presents those features that correlate the highest with firms that indicate their current design supports the attainment of supply objectives. Although 17 design features for medium-size firms and 19 design features for larger firms correlate at a non-zero level with design effectiveness, Table VIII reports only the highest 13 correlations. A logical break in the value of the correlations occurred between items 13 and 14 for both segments.

Smaller firms do not rely on or use the features evaluated during this study at levels comparable to the medium-size and larger firms. Therefore, few features correlated at any meaningful level with smaller firms that indicate their current design promotes the attainment of procurement and supply objectives. Smaller firms do indicate that regular strategy/performance review presentations by the chief procurement officer to the president or CEO/board of directors are an important part of design effectiveness. Physical collocation between procurement and marketing personnel is also important to smaller firms that view their current organizational design positively.

The shaded features in Table VIII represent areas of agreement between medium-size and larger firms regarding the features that correlate the highest with design effectiveness. Respondents perceive regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to the president or CEO/board of directors and formal procurement and supply strategy coordination and review sessions between business units or divisions as critical components of an effective design. Both segments also acknowledge the value of a shared-services model and structure that coordinates common activities or processes across business units or locations. The two segments agree that cross-functional or self-managed teams that manage some or all of the procurement and supply process and new product and/or process development teams that include suppliers as members or participants are important design features. Finally, the two segments agree on the importance of lead buyers or site-based experts designated to manage non-commodity or non-centrally coordinated items or services.

The two segments differ in their perception of the features that correlate with design effectiveness. For medium-size firms, physical collocation between procurement personnel and key internal customers/marketing/technical personnel correlates much more closely to perceived design effectiveness than it does for larger firms. Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key supplier relationships, including supply chain alliances; formal procurement and supply strategy coordination and review sessions between units or divisions and cross-functional or self-managed teams that manage some or all of the procurement and supply process also correlate more closely with design effectiveness at medium-size firms than at larger firms.

Larger firms perceive the importance of several features relevant to the broader topic of supply chain management. This segment perceives an executive position responsible for coordinating and integrating key supply chain activities from supplier through customer and an executive buyer-supplier council or committee that coordinates supply chain activities between your firm and your key suppliers as important parts of an effective organizational design. This segment also values features that relate to centrally led purchasing, including centrally coordinated commodity teams that develop and implement companywide supply strategies and a higher-level chief procurement officer who has a procurement and supply-related title. Larger firms also perceive that an organization designed around procurement and supply processes rather than a functional or vertical perspective and project teams that work on specific procurement and supply tasks help define an effective design.

An important point here is that not all of the items in Table V, which highlights the features with highest usage, appear in Table VIII. Higher usage or reliance on a feature does not necessarily equate to the perceived effectiveness of that feature. Another important point is that size influences the features that are perceived as most important to effective design.

Research Question 5: What Is the Relationship Between Organizational Designs That Promote the Attainment of Supply Objectives and (1) the Placement of Decision Authority, (2) the Reporting Level of the Highest Procurement Officer and (3) Company Size?

Results of the survey indicate that a positive (although not strong) relationship exists between firms indicating that their current organizational design promotes the attainment of supply objectives and centrally coordinated decision authority (see Table IX). In other words, centralized firms are more likely to believe their current design promotes the attainment of procurement and supply objectives than are less centralized firms. Recall that respondents expect a continued shift toward central coordination over the next three to five years.

A positive (although not strong) relationship also exists between firms that believe their current design promotes the attainment of supply objectives and the reporting level of the highest procurement or supply officer. Firms whose procurement and supply officers report to levels closer to the highest executive of the business are more likely to believe their current organizational design is effective. As indicated under Research Question 4, the use of regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to the president or CEO correlates most closely with respondents who indicate that their current design supports the realization of supply objectives.

Finally, no statistical relationship exists between a firm's size and the perception of how well a firm's current organizational design promotes the attainment of procurement and supply objectives. Smaller firms are as likely as larger firms to perceive that their current organizational design is effective, even though fewer smaller firms perceive their design as leading-edge or innovative. Responses to a separate question indicate that only 17 percent of smaller firms consider any part of their organizational design as leading-edge or innovative. Nearly 23 percent of medium firms and over 45 percent of larger firms consider some part of their organizational design to be leading-edge or innovative. Innovation in organizational design likely represents a different construct from effectiveness in design.

Research Question 6: What Is the Relationship Between the Reporting Level of the Highest Procurement or Supply Management Officer and Current and Expected Design Features?

The a priori intent of this question was to investigate whether higher reporting levels correlate to a specific set of organizational design features. The correlations between the reporting level of the highest procurement or supply management officer and current and expected organizational design features demonstrate no statistical relationships. This is because the three segments (smaller, medium and larger) indicate a comparable reporting level for the highest procurement officer. In fact, smaller firms are actually more likely to have the highest procurement officer reporting one level from or directly to the highest executive in the firm than are medium-size and larger firms. This is not surprising given the simpler structures maintained by smaller firms. Limited variability across the reporting level of the highest procurement or supply management officer prevents any meaningful comparison against organizational design characteristics and features.

CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

This section extends the findings just presented to draw conclusions and, where appropriate, discusses the managerial implications of those conclusions. Readers should bear in mind that the data presented here relied on responses from industrial firms based in the United States. These implications may not apply across cultures or for non-industrial organizations.

1. A Higher-Level Procurement Officer Is Critical to Organizational Design Effectiveness.

The importance of a higher-level chief procurement officer who has access to the highest executive levels is evident throughout this research, particularly for medium and larger firms. Furthermore, regular strategy and performance review presentations by the chief procurement officer (CPO) to the president, CEO or board of directors is also an essential component of effective designs. For larger firms, five of the top 10 features that correlate with an effective design (Table VIII) relate to executive positions and higher reporting levels.

It is not the formal supply position that makes this design feature important. Rather, the visibility and resources associated with such a position in the corporate hierarchy, on a par with other functional executives, are critical. Of course, every functional group within a firm can make this same point regarding its need for an executive reporting to the highest organizational levels. Purchasing executives must make the business case why they should have a senior executive who is on a par with other functional executives.

It is not likely that many of the design features presented here (or other progressive supply strategies) will become a reality without an executive champion who has the authority and resources to make necessary changes. The research evidence presented here is quite clear--companies that seek advantages from their organizational design must consider the importance of a higher-level procurement officer as well the reporting level of that position.

2. Firm Size Affects the Type and Intensity of the Design Features Put in Place.

Firms that differ widely in terms of size also tend to differ in terms of scope, complexity and available resources. As a result, each segment viewed the need to put in place certain design features differently. The partitioning of the total sample based on size allowed meaningful comparisons and contrasts between the segments. Supply managers should review those activities that correspond to their particular segment rather than thinking in terms of a combined sample or what firms in a different segment plan to do. Some features that larger firms plan to emphasize, for example, simply are not applicable to smaller firms.

Although the segments have a number of design features in common, they also emphasize features that support their unique requirements. For medium-size and larger firms, this means relying on features that support coordination and integration across the supply chain. On the other hand, some features are common to both smaller and larger firms. In particular, an expected emphasis on including suppliers on product development teams is a common design feature for all three segments.

3. A Gradual Shift Toward Centrally Coordinated or Centrally Led Purchasing Should Continue.

Throughout purchasing history, purchasing authority has shifted between centralization and decentralization. The data from this study reveal that many supply managers, but certainly not all, will witness a shift toward centrally led purchasing control or coordination, at least for some decisions and activities. What distinguishes this period from others is the intense cost pressure brought about by global competition. An inability to raise prices promotes the coordination of worldwide purchasing activities and the consolidation of purchase volumes in an effort to minimize total supply costs.

Progressive supply managers should think about organizational design as a way to coordinate purchasing activities without necessarily having to group purchasing personnel in a central location or to sacrifice responsiveness to individual locations or sites. In fact, some purchasing activities should remain at a decentralized level, particularly those involved with day-to-day materials and supplier management. Some researchers refer to this as a hybrid approach to decision-making authority (Leenders and Johnson 2000).

Centrally led does not necessarily mean central control at the corporate level. Centrally led initiatives and leadership can also take place at the business unit level. Furthermore, some researchers are not convinced that a shift toward central control will necessarily occur. Leenders and Johnson (2000, 2002) document organizational moves in both directions. They observe that for many purchasers the decentralized state is the stable one, and the hybrid and centralized modes are counter to their personal preference.

Firms that expect to move toward centrally led or centrally coordinated purchasing should consider features that support this type of model. These include:

* Centrally coordinated commodity teams

* Formal positions that separate strategic and tactical supply responsibilities

* Lead buyers to manage non-centrally coordinated items

* Strategy review and coordination sessions between functional groups and locations

* Higher-level chief procurement officers

These features should enable organizations to capture the benefits of central coordination while avoiding the negative perception that internal users or sites often associate with central control.

Other design features that should become more widely used focus on providing a centrally coordinated view of supply chain management. These include an executive buyer-supplier council to coordinate supply chain activities with suppliers and an executive position responsible for coordinating supply chain activities. These features correlate closely with larger firms that say their current design promotes the attainment of procurement and supply objectives.

4. The Use of Teams Will Remain a Popular and Even Growing Design Option.

A continued reliance on teams supports Carter and Narasimhan's (1996a) proposition that a flattening of organizations will continue through the increased use of self-managed teams. While the use of teams as a design feature will remain popular, few studies have established a clear connection between teaming and higher performance, and even fewer have assessed the impact of teaming on corporate performance (Wisner and Feist 2001). Although groups (i.e., teams) can yield the kinds of benefits envisioned by their builders, they also potentially have a less desirable side. They can waste the time and energy of members, enforce lower rather than higher performance norms, create patterns of destructive conflict within and between groups and make notoriously bad decisions. Groups can also exploit, stress and frustrate members--sometimes all at the same time (Hackman 1987). Supply managers should plan for and use teams selectively, remembering the barriers to their effective use as well as the factors affecting team success (Trent 2004). For a discussion specific to the use of purchasing teams and the role they play in enhancing overall firm competitiveness, see Johnson, Klassen, Leenders and Fearon (2002).

5. If Coordination and Integration Across the Supply Chain Remains a Challenge, Then Organizational Design May Be Part of the Answer.

The objectives a firm hopes to achieve will certainly influence its organizational design. If supply managers wish to achieve increased coordination and integration within and across the supply chain, they may select design features that support this goal. In fact, a review of Table VII suggests that many of the design features that show expected growth and usage over the next several years appear to relate to coordination and integration. Organizational design supports three kinds of integration--cross-functional, cross-locational and cross-organizational (Monczka 1997).

Coordination across functions and organizations is becoming increasingly important to supply managers. Carter and Narasimhan (1996a) noted this trend when they said the focus in purchasing and supply management will shift from functional coordination to managing the interfaces of purchasing and supply management with other functional units, thus leading to "management of the white space." Purchasing and supply managers will increasingly rely on organizational design features to help them manage the strategic connections with other functional groups as well as connections across organizational boundaries.

6. Collocation of Procurement Personnel Will Become an Important Part of the Organizational Design Model.

This conclusion supports an observation made by Pearson, Ellram and Carter (1996), who noted that a closer working relationship with research and development, marketing and engineering would clearly enhance the purchasing function's reputation. Smaller, medium-size and larger firms all rate the physical collocation of purchasing personnel with other organizational groups as an important design feature. Collocation with operations, an important internal customer, can provide insight into supplier performance; awareness of supply requirements in terms of cost, quality, delivery and cycle time; and an understanding of external capacity, material and service needs. Collocation with technical personnel yields insight into material specifications, product and process technology requirements and new product requirements.

While collocation has not evolved as highly with the demand side of the supply chain, some firms will likely conclude that collocation with marketing supports the integration of demand and supply planning. Collocation with marketing may also offer early insight into new product ideas as well as planned demand shifts due to product promotions or price changes.

Supply managers must consider a number of issues relating to collocation. First, collocation is not about simply working in the physical presence of other groups. Rather, it is about embedding the purchasing professional into the planning systems of the other group. Second, supply managers must determine the amount of time to allocate to collocation. Will purchasing professionals collocate full-time or part-time? Finally, what reporting relationships best support collocation? In a typical collocation model, the purchasing professional maintains a dotted-line reporting relationship to the collocation group with a solid-line reporting relationship to purchasing.

7. Supply Organizations Will Shift Gradually From a Vertical to a Horizontal Perspective.

A process-orientated organization is designed around supply chain processes, such as supplier evaluation and selection, new product development, demand and supply planning or customer order fulfillment. The extensive use of cross-functional teams, particularly teams that feature full-time members, is one indication of a shift toward a process orientation. An expected growth in organizations designed around procurement and supply processes (see Table VII) is another indication of this shift. When organizing around processes, cross-functional team participants work concurrently in an environment that features the horizontal (i.e., cross-functional) flow of information across the supply chain.

An expected movement toward horizontal or process design features supports Carter and Narasimhan's (1996a) proposition that companies would increasingly structure themselves along "key business processes" that extend from suppliers, across functional boundaries and into a firm's customer base. Evidence from this research reveals that this change is underway, particularly for medium-size and larger firms.

In the shift from a functional to a process orientation, the process rather than the functional group becomes the focal point of an organization's design. It is unlikely that firms will ever move totally away from functional groupings. The distribution of functional resources into full-time process units or teams would dilute the functional expertise and knowledge required to manage a business effectively. The need to maintain a critical mass of functional knowledge ensures that some functional structure, albeit a diminished one, will remain. Moreover, the dramatic changes surrounding a shift from a functional to a process orientation ensure that any changes will be gradual.

8. New Product Development Teams Will Increasingly Include Purchasing and Supplier Representatives.

An expected shift toward a process orientation as well as collocation of purchasing with technical personnel promotes increased purchasing involvement with new product development teams. Many companies are discovering that, when it comes to product design and development, linkages between engineering, purchasing, manufacturing and key suppliers strengthen the design and development process (Milligan 2000). In the best scenarios, development teams can rely on purchasing to identify suppliers for early design involvement or for production needs, monitor supply markets and trends, question specifications and help the producer meet its target costs.

A step beyond purchasing involvement in new product development is supplier involvement. North American firms have traditionally lagged Asian and some European counterparts in their involvement of suppliers during new product development (Womack, Jones and Roos 1990; Monczka et al. 2000). Although supplier involvement sounds easy, widespread implementation can be quite a different matter. Earlier research revealed that confidentiality of information is a major concern to most purchasers (Monczka and Trent 1998). Other barriers include not knowing how to pursue early involvement, maintaining too many suppliers for a given commodity and relationships that are adversarial rather than cooperative. Given the expected importance of new product teams that include suppliers, overcoming these barriers must become a managerial priority.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Like most research projects, this one has its share of limitations. One limitation that affects the generalizability of the research results relates to the use of U.S. respondents from the industrial sector. Some countries practice very different supply management techniques compared to their U.S. counterparts, which could affect the kinds of organizational design features they put in place. Furthermore, non-industrial firms, a large segment of the economy excluded from this research, may perceive organizational design issues differently than manufacturing firms.

A second limitation involves the use of cross-sectional data, which prevents the identification of changes that preceded data collection or changes that will occur after data collection. The use of cross-sectional data makes it difficult to validate the expected organizational design changes reported here or to speculate on the causes that drive an organization to select a certain design feature.

A third limitation is one that affects most survey research. Since individuals rather than groups typically complete surveys, can one individual speak for an entire organization? Does that individual have the insight to evaluate the survey questions accurately? Ideally, individuals who are not comfortable with the questions asked would self-select out of the sample by not responding, collaborate with others who have the necessary insight or forward the survey to someone who is capable of responding correctly.

A final limitation concerns the database that provided respondent names. While the Institute for Supply Management[TM] membership roster provides a comprehensive directory of U.S. supply professionals, by no means does it include all members of the profession or all organizations that have purchasing and supply groups. This research was limited to members of a specific professional organization, many of whom work for companies that are likely quite sophisticated in purchasing and supply management.

This research topic also offers opportunities for a future stream of work related to organizational design. First, organizational design is not a topic limited to U.S. firms. Similar research involving non-U.S. firms could provide interesting insights and comparisons. Design research involving non-industrial organizations would allow for meaningful comparisons against industrial organizations.

Research opportunities also exist to explore the impact that organizational design has on supply effectiveness. It is important to broaden the scope of future research to identify the effect of various predictors on supply effectiveness, including the effect of organizational design. Future research could also study a narrower list of design features in an attempt to identify those features that relate most strongly to supply effectiveness.

Case studies can also play an important role in future research. This study evaluated 29 design features as line items in a survey. Qualitative studies involving a cross-section of firms can provide detail about those features that will be the most relevant over the next three to five years. For example, if the separation of strategic and tactical responsibilities increases, what tasks do supply managers consider strategic? If supplier councils become more important, how do leading companies structure and manage them?

Next, a longitudinal approach to data collection could validate trends and changes affecting organizational design. Because respondents may be overly optimistic or uninformed when projecting from a point in time, the projections they make are of dubious accuracy (Monczka and Trent 1995).

This research did not consider the impact of procurement outsourcing as it relates to organizational design. Future research should consider the emerging trend of procurement outsourcing and its design implications. Finally, this research did not develop procurement organizational models and the guidelines for selecting a model or structure based on firm strategy, size, industry, production methods or technology. Research opportunities exist to develop robust models of organizational design that consider a variety of factors beyond those included in this research.

CONCLUSION

In 2001, the Corporate Executive Board published a report that said purchasing executives, to be successful, must consider how their organizational structure can enable substantial improvements in performance and operational excellence. Additionally, a research study has proposed that firms must excel within four enabling areas before they can pursue complex and progressive supply strategies (Monczka 1997). These areas include measurement and evaluation, information technology, human resource management and organizational design. An effective design helps provide the foundation upon which firms can pursue progressive supply strategies.

While other supply management topics may generate more excitement than does organizational design, managers should not overlook the role that an effective design can play in enhancing supply management performance. In today's globally competitive environment, managers cannot afford to overlook any area that has the potential to improve performance.

Appendix

ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN FEATURES EVALUATED BY RESPONDENTS

* Cross-functional or self-managed teams that manage some or all of the procurement and supply process

* Physical collocation between procurement and marketing personnel

* A corporate-level steering committee that oversees companywide procurement and supply initiatives

* Formal procurement and supply strategy coordination and review sessions between business units or divisions

* Centrally coordinated commodity teams that develop and implement companywide supply strategies

* An executive buyer-supplier council or committee that coordinates supply chain activities between your firm and your key suppliers

* International procurement offices (IPOs) that perform or support various international duties

* Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key supplier relationships, including supply chain alliances

* Lead buyers or site-based experts designated to manage non-commodity or non-centrally coordinated items or services

* Physical collocation between procurement and technical personnel

* Physical collocation between procurement personnel and key internal customers (such as operations)

* Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the chief procurement officer to the president or CEO

* Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the chief procurement officer to the board of directors

* A formal cross-functional group or team responsible for demand and supply planning

* An executive position responsible for coordinating and integrating key supply chain activities from supplier through customer

* A shared-services model and structure that coordinates common activities or processes across business units or locations

* On-site suppliers to perform inventory management activities such as ordering, replenishment and inventory control

* A formal business advisory board that includes your company, your key customers and your key suppliers

* Formal separation of strategic and tactical procurement and supply responsibilities, personnel, positions and structure

* A higher-level chief procurement officer who has a procurement and supply-related title

* A matrix reporting structure that features procurement and supply professionals reporting to more than one business, region or manager

* An organization designed around procurement and supply processes (such as supplier development) rather than a functional or vertical perspective

* Formal value analysis/value engineering groups

* New product and/or process development teams that formally include procurement and supply representatives

* Membership and participation with a recognized purchase consortium

* Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between functional groups

* New product and/or process development teams that include suppliers as members or participants

* A virtual procurement organizational design featuring individuals, groups and/or departments linked through IT systems

* Project teams that work on specific procurement and supply tasks (rather than teams with continuous assignments)
Table I SIZE OF PARTICIPATING FIRMS BASED ON SALES

 Total Sample Smaller Firms Medium Firms

Number of Firms 167 56 46
Average Sales $6,008,800,000 $56,122,400 $813,711,100
Standard Deviation $14,641,370,000 $42,883,500 $416,968,500
Median Sales $850,000,000 $46,000,000 $800,000,000
Range $500,000- $500,000- $200,000,000-
 $126,000,000,000 $160,000,000 $1,700,000,000

 Larger Firms

Number of Firms 65
Average Sales $14,734,070,000
Standard Deviation $20,621,570,000
Median Sales $6,500,000,000
Range $2,000,000,000-
 $126,000,000,000

Note: Total sample size is 173 firms. Six firms are not included in this
table because they did not provide sales data due to confidentiality
reasons.

Table II PROFESSIONAL LEVEL OF RESPONDENT

 Total Sample Smaller Firms Medium Firms

Buyer or Operational Level 26.2% 32.1% 22.2%
Manager 40.7% 48.2% 37.8%
Director 26.7% 16.1% 35.6%
Vice President 6.4% 3.6% 4.4%
Executive Vice President 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
President or CEO 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

 Larger Firms

Buyer or Operational Level 21.5%
Manager 38.5%
Director 29.2%
Vice President 10.8%
Executive Vice President 0.0%
President or CEO 0.0%

Table III TYPE OF INDUSTRY WHERE RESPONDING COMPANIES COMPETE

 Total Sample Smaller Firms Medium
 Firms

Consumer Durable Goods Mfg. 17.0% 21.4% 22.2%
Consumer Non-Durable Goods Mfg. 15.0% 8.9% 11.2%
Distribution or Wholesaling 1.2% 1.8% 2.2%
Gas or Oil Production/Distribution 1.2% 1.8% 2.2%
Healthcare Provider or Services 1.2% 1.8% 0.0%
Industrial Capital Goods Mfg. 21.1% 21.4% 22.3%
Industrial Non-Capital Goods Mfg. 22.2% 21.4% 24.4%
Industrial or Contract Services 4.1% 5.4% 2.2%
Raw Material Production/Mining 4.1% 5.4% 2.2%
Telecommunications 6.4% 7.1% 2.2%
Tourism and Related Services 0.6% 1.8% 0.0%
Transportation and Related Services 4.1% 1.8% 6.7%
Utility or Energy Provider 1.8% 0.0% 2.2%

 Larger Firms

Consumer Durable Goods Mfg. 9.2%
Consumer Non-Durable Goods Mfg. 23.2%
Distribution or Wholesaling 0.0%
Gas or Oil Production/Distribution 0.0%
Healthcare Provider or Services 1.5%
Industrial Capital Goods Mfg. 18.5%
Industrial Non-Capital Goods Mfg. 21.5%
Industrial or Contract Services 4.6%
Raw Material Production/Mining 4.6%
Telecommunications 9.2%
Tourism and Related Services 0.0%
Transportation and Related Services 4.6%
Utility or Energy Provider 3.1%

Table IV TOTAL PURCHASES AS A PERCENT OF SALES REVENUE

 Total Sample Smaller Firms Medium Firms Larger Firms

 1- 20% 14.2% 20.0% 13.6% 7.7%
21- 40% 26.1% 25.5% 25.0% 25.0%
41- 60% 36.7% 40.0% 36.3% 36.0%
61- 80% 21.3% 12.7% 18.2% 29.7%
81-100% 1.7% 1.8% 6.9% 1.6%
Average 41-50% 41-50% 41-50% 51-60%

Table V RESEARCH QUESTION 1: CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN FEATURES

Smaller Firms Avg

Physical collocation between procurement personnel and key 4.36
internal customers
Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key 3.87
supplier relationships
Physical collocation between procurement and technical personnel 3.86
Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between 3.45
functional groups
New product and/or process development teams that formally 3.36
include procurement and supply representatives
Lead buyers or site-based experts designated to manage 3.29
non-commodity or non-centrally coordinated items or services
Cross-functional or self-managed teamsthat manage some or all of 3.14
the procurement and supply process
On-site suppliers to perform inventory management activities 2.91
Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 2.84
the president or CEO
Membership and participation with a recognized purchase 2.82
consortium
Average across 29 design features 2.59
N = 56

Medium-Size Firms Avg

Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key 4.77
supplier relationships
Physical collocation between procurement personnel and key 4.30
internal customers
Centrally coordinated commodity teams that develop and implement 4.22
companywide supply strategies
Lead buyers or site-based experts tomanage non-commodity or 4.18
non-centrally coordinated items or services
Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 4.18
the president or CEO
Physical collocation between procurement and technical personnel 4.05
New product and/or process development teams that formally 4.02
include procurement and supply representatives
A higher-level chief procurement officer who has a procurement 4.02
and supply-related title
A corporate level steering committee that oversees companywide 3.89
supply initiatives
Formal strategy coordination and reviewsessions between 3.71
functional groups
Average across 29 design features 3.48
N = 46

Larger Firms Avg

Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key 5.09
supplier relationships
Centrally coordinated commodity teams that develop and implement 4.89
companywide supply strategies
Cross-functional or self-managed teams that manage some or all 4.75
of the procurement and supply process
Lead buyers or site-based experts to manage non-commodity or 4.68
non-centrally coordinated items or services
A higher-level chief procurement officer who has a procurement 4.56
and supply-related title
Physical collocation between procurement personnel and key 4.55
internal customers
New product and/or process development teams that formally 4.47
include procurement and supply representatives
Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 4.45
the president or CEO
A shared-services model and structure that coordinates common 4.38
activities or processes across business units or locations
Physical collocation between procurement and technical personnel 4.35
Average across 29 design features 3.98
N = 65

1 = Do not use, rely on or feature; 4 = Somewhat use, rely on or
feature; 7 = Extensively use, rely on or feature.

Table VI RESEARCH QUESTION 2: EXPECTED ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN FEATURES

Smaller Firms Avg

Physical collocation between rocurement personnel and key 4.67
internal customers
Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key 4.35
key supplier relationships
Physical collocation between procurement and technical personnel 4.22
Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between 4.06
functional groups
New product and/or process development teams that formally 3.85
include procurement and supply representatives
New product and/or process development teams that include 3.85
suppliers as members or participants
Lead buyers or site-based experts to manage non-commodity or 3.67
non-centrally coordinated items or services
On-site suppliers to perform inventory management activities 3.65
Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 3.58
the president or CEO
Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between units 3.45
or divisions
Average across 29 design features 3.28
N = 56

Medium-Size Firms Avg

Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key 5.27
supplier relationships
Centrally coordinated commodity teams that develop and implement 5.16
companywide supply strategies
Lead buyers or site-based experts to manage non-commodity or 5.11
non-centrally coordinated items or services
Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between 4.86
functional groups
Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 4.75
the president or CEO
Project teams that work on specific procurement and supply tasks 4.70
Physical collocation between procurement personnel and key 4.70
internal customers
Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between 4.68
functional groups
New product and/or process development teams that include 4.68
suppliers as members or participants
A higher-level chief procurement officer who has a procurement 4.68
and supply-related title
Average across 29 design features 4.27
N = 46

Larger Firms Avg

Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key 5.38
supplier relationships
Centrally coordinated commodity teams that develop and implement 5.35
companywide supply strategies
New product and/or process development teams that formally 5.17
include procurement and supply representatives
A higher-level chief procurement officer who has a procurement 5.16
and supply-related title
Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 5.09
the president or CEO
Formal procurement and supply strategy coordination and review 4.98
sessions between units or divisions
Formal separation of strategic and tactical procurement and 4.98
supply responsibilities, personnel, positions and structure
A shared-services model and structure that coordinates common 4.97
activities or processes across business units or locations
Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between 4.95
functional groups
Project teams that work on specific procurement and supply tasks 4.89
Average across 29 design features 4.63
N = 65

1 = Do not expect to use, rely on or feature; 4 = Expect to somewhat
use, rely on or feature; 7 = Expect to extensively use, rely on or
feature.

Table VII RESEARCH QUESTION 3: ANTICIPATED ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN FEATURE
GROWTH

 Current Expected
 Design Characteristic or Feature Use Use Growth

Formal value analysis/value engineering 2.95 4.10 +39%
groups
New product and/or process development teams 3.29 4.49 +37%
that include suppliers as members or
participants
A virtual procurement organizational design 2.91 3.94 +35%
featuring individuals, groups and/or
departments linked through IT systems
On-site suppliers to perform inventory 3.25 4.29 +32%
management activities
Project teams that work on specific 3.39 4.33 +28%
procurement and supply tasks
A formal cross-functional group or team 3.27 4.04 +27%
responsible for demand and supply planning
An organization designed around procurement 3.23 4.07 +26%
and supply processes rather than a functional
or vertical perspective
Formal procurement and supply strategy 3.55 4.43 +25%
coordination and review sessions between
business units or divisions
A shared-services model and structure that 3.39 4.16 +23%
coordinates common activities or processes
across business units or locations
Formal separation of strategic and tactical 3.40 4.10 +21%
procurement and supply responsibilities,
personnel, positions and structure
An executive position responsible for 3.25 3.89 +20%
coordinating and integrating key supply chain
activities
Formal strategy coordination and review 3.87 4.62 +19%
sessions between functional groups
Centrally coordinated commodity teams that 3.89 4.62 +19%
develop and implement companywide supply
strategies
A corporate-level steering committee that 3.38 3.98 +18%
oversees companywide procurement and supply
initiatives
Regular strategy/performance review 3.86 4.51 +17%
presentations by the CPO to the president or
CEO
N = 173

Scale: 1 = Do not (expect to) use, rely on or feature; 4 = (Expect to)
somewhat use, rely on or feature; 7 = (Expect to) extensively use, rely
on or feature.

Table VIII RESEARCH QUESTION 4: CORRELATION BETWEEN DESIGN FEATURES AND
DESIGN EFFECTIVENESS

 Medium Firms

Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 0.661
the president or CEO
Physical collocation between procurement personnel and key 0.604
internal customers
Cross-functional or self-managed teams that manage some or all of 0.515
the procurement and supply process
Lead buyers or site-based experts to manage non-commodity or 0.485
non-centrally coordinated items or services
Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 0.483
the board of directors
Formal procurement and supply strategy coordination and review 0.479
sessions between business units or divisions
Formal strategy coordination and review sessions between 0.469
functional groups
New product and/or process development teams that formally 0.458
include procurement and supply representatives
A formal cross-functional group or team responsible for demand 0.432
and supply planning
A shared-services model and structure that coordinates common 0.427
activities or processes across business units or locations
Specific individuals assigned responsibility for managing key 0.426
supplier relationships
Physical collocation between procurement and marketing personnel 0.424
Physical collocation between procurement and technical personnel 0.402
N = 46

 Larger Firms

Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 0.561
the president or CEO
Centrally coordinated commodity teams that develop and implement 0.498
companywide supply strategies
An executive position responsible for coordinating supply chain 0.493
activities
Cross-functional or self-managed teams that manage some or all of 0.491
the procurement and supply process
Formal procurement and supply strategy coordination and review 0.481
sessions between business units or divisions
An executive buyer-supplier council or committee that coordinates 0.418
supply chain activities between your firm and your key suppliers
Regular strategy/performance review presentations by the CPO to 0.405
the board of directors
A higher-level chief procurement officer who has a procurement 0.401
and supply-related title
Project teams that work on specific procurement and supply tasks 0.382
A shared-services model and structure that coordinates common 0.367
activities or processes across business units or locations
An organization designed around procurement and supply processes 0.364
rather than a functional or vertical perspective
New product and/or process development teams that formally 0.349
include procurement and supply representatives
Lead buyers or site-based experts to manage non-commodity or 0.342
non-centrally coordinated items or services
N = 65

All correlations presented in this table are significant at the 0.05
level or lower.
Shaded areas represent common items between the medium-size and larger
segment.

Table IX RESEARCH QUESTION 5: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFECTIVE DESIGNS AND
PLACEMENT OF AUTHORITY, REPORTING LEVELS AND SIZE

 Current design promotes
 the achievement of supply
 objectives

Current placement of Correlation: 0.235
decision-making authority Sig. (2-tailed): 0.002
 N: 171
Current reporting level of Correlation: 0.229
highest procurement or Sig. (2-tailed): 0.003
supply officer N: 171
Firms size based on sales Correlation: 0.053
 Sig. (2-tailed): 0.497
 N: 165


(1) For this article, the firms were segmented according to annual sales revenue. For a white paper detailing the complete findings for the study, a presentation that details many of the design features included in the survey, or a copy of the survey instrument, please send a request to rjt2@lehigh.edu.

REFERENCES

Carter, J.R. and R. Narasimhan. "Purchasing and Supply Management: Future Directions and Trends," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (32:4), Fall 1996a, pp. 2-12.

Carter, J.R. and R. Narasimhan. "Is Purchasing Really Strategic?" International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (32:1), Winter 1996b, pp. 20-28.

Cavinato, J.L. "Evolving Procurement Organizations: Logistics Implications," Journal of Business Logistics, (13:1), 1992, pp. 27-35.

Champoux, J.E. Organization Behavior--Essential Tenets for a New Millennium, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, 2000, p. 325.

Corporate Executive Board (Procurement Strategy Council), "Innovative Purchasing Structures," white paper, Washington, DC, November 2001.

Fearon, H.E. Purchasing Organizational Relationships, Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies, Tempe, AZ, 1988.

Fearon, H.E. and M.R. Leenders. Purchasing's Organizational Roles and Responsibilities, Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies, Tempe, AZ, 1996.

Germain, R. and C. Droge. "The Context, Organizational Design, and Performance of JIT Buying Versus Non-JIT Buying Firms," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (34:2), Spring 1998, pp. 12-18.

Giunipero, L.C. and R.M. Monczka. "Organizational Approaches to Managing International Sourcing," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, (20:4), 1990, pp. 3-12.

Griffin, A. "The Effect of Project and Process Characteristics and Teams on Product Development Cycle Time," Journal of Marketing Research, (34), February 1997, pp. 24-35.

Hackman, J.R. "The Design of Work Teams." In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1987, pp. 315-342.

Hamel, G. and C.K. Pralahad, Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994, as referenced in D. Hellriegel, J.W. Slocum and R.W. Woodman, Organizational Behavior, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, 2001, p. 474.

Johnson, P.F., R.D. Klassen, M.R. Leenders and H.E. Fearon. "Determinants of Purchasing Team Usage in the Supply Chain," Journal of Operations Management, (20:1), February 2002, p. 77.

Johnson, P.F. and M.R. Leenders. "The Supply Organizational Structure Dilemma," The Journal of Supply Chain Management, (37:3), Summer 2001, pp. 4-11.

Johnson, P.F., M.R. Leenders and H.E. Fearon. "The Influence of Organizational Factors on Purchasing Activities," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (34:3), Summer 1998, pp. 10-19.

Johnson, P.F., M.R. Leenders and H.E. Fearon. "Evolving Roles and Responsibilities of Purchasing Organizations," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (34:1), Winter 1998, pp. 2-9.

Leenders, M.R. and P.F. Johnson. Major Structural Changes in Supply Organizations, Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies, Tempe, AZ, 2000.

Leenders, M.R. and P.F. Johnson. Major Changes in Supply Chain Responsibilities, Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies, Tempe, AZ, 2002.

Mentzer, J.T., C.P. Schuster and D.J. Roberts. "Microcomputer Versus Mainframe Usage in Logistics," Logistics and Transportation Review, (26:2), 1992, pp. 115-131.

Milligan, B. "What Purchasing Brings to the Table," Purchasing, (128:3), March 9, 2000, pp. 54-60.

Min, H. and A. Emam. "Developing the Profiles of Truck Drivers for Their Successful Recruitment and Retention," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, (33:2), 2003, pp. 149-162.

Monczka, R.M. Global Electronic Benchmarking Network Supply Excellence Model and Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 1997.

Monczka, R.M., R. Handfield, T.V. Scannell, G. Ragatz and D.J. Frayer. New Product Development: Strategies for Supplier Integration, Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, 2000.

Monczka, R.M. and R.J. Trent. Purchasing and Sourcing Strategy: Trends and Implications, Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies, Tempe, AZ, 1995.

Monczka, R.M. and R.J. Trent. "Purchasing and Supply Management: Trends and Changes Throughout the 1990s," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (34:4), Fall 1998, pp. 2-11.

Murphy, P.R. and J.M. Daley. "A Comparative Analysis of Port Selection Factors," Transportation Journal, (34:1), 1994, pp. 15-21.

Pearson, J.N., L.M. Ellram and C.R. Carter. "Status and Recognition of the Purchasing Function in the Electronic Industry," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, (32:2), Spring 1996, pp. 30-36.

Pedersen, E.L. and R. Gray. "The Transport Selection Criteria of Norwegian Exporters," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, (28:2), 1988, pp. 108-120.

Pooley, J. and S.C. Dunn. "A Longitudinal Study of Purchasing Position: 1960-1989," Journal of Business Logistics, (15:1), 1994, pp. 193-214.

Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1985.

Silvestri, G.T. "Occupational Employment Projections to 2006," Monthly Labor Review, (120), 1997, pp. 39-57.

Sum, C., C. Teo and K. Ng. "Strategic Logistics Management in Singapore," International Journal of Operations and Production Management, (21:9), 2001, pp. 1239-1260.

Trent, R J. "Becoming an Effective Teaming Organization," Business Horizons, (47:2), March-April 2004, pp. 33-40.

Wisner, P.S. and H.A. Feist. "Does Teaming Pay Off?" Strategic Finance, (82), February 2001, pp. 58-64.

Womack, J.P, D.T. Jones and D. Roos. The Machine That Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York, NY, 1990.

AUTHOR

Robert J. Trent is the Eugene Mercy associate professor of management and the supply chain management program director at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
COPYRIGHT 2004 National Association of Purchasing Management, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Trent, Robert J.
Publication:Journal of Supply Chain Management
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2004
Words:10543
Previous Article:One on one: an interview with Robert G. Talbott.
Next Article:Supplier assistance within supplier development initiatives.
Topics:


Related Articles
Managerial perceptions of supply risk.
International purchasing and global sourcing--what are the differences?
Toward the development of a supply chain management paradigm: a conceptual framework.
A holistic approach to new product development: new insights.
The ailing healthcare supply chain: a prescription for change.
Taming the aerospace supply chain--a case study in organizational integration.
Managing supply risk with early supplier involvement: a case study and research propositions.
Supply's growing status and influence: a sixteen-year perspective.
Environmental uncertainty and strategic supply management: a resource dependence perspective and performance implications.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters