Bart Vos

Ivens

Mark Van De Vijver

Sven Björn

CiteSeerX

Managing and developing key supplier relationships: An introduction to the special
issue, discussion and implications
Björn Sven Ivens a,⁎, Mark van de Vijver b, Bart Vos b
a Otto–Friedrich-University Bamberg, Marketing Department, Feldkirchenstraße 21, 96045 Bamberg, Germany
b Tilburg University, Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Warandelaan 2, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 December 2012
Accepted 16 December 2012
Available online 8 February 2013
Keywords:
Supplier relationships
Supply chain
Key supplier management
Supplier networks
This article provides an introduction to this special issue on managing and developing key supplier relation-
ships. Key suppliers are increasingly seen as strategic assets of buying companies which need careful nurtur-
ing to fully utilize their potential for value creation. The six articles of this special issue, each providing a
distinct contribution to the extant knowledge base on key supplier management, are briefly introduced.
Finally, this introduction concludes by providing our vision on the key supply management concept and
some suggestions for future research directions.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In recent decades, the management of strategic relationships, be it
vertical (e.g. buyer–supplier), horizontal (e.g. strategic alliances), or
lateral (e.g. with NGOs), has received increasing interest. Studies
have focused upon different relationship types, from setting up joint
ventures or other types of alliances with specific suppliers (Houston
& Johnson, 2000) to the development of suppliers across the supply
base (Modi & Mabert, 2007), and from assessing the quality of
buyer–seller relationships (Ivens & Pardo, 2007; Moorman, Zaltman,
& Deshpande, 1992) to meta-analytical studies aiming at developing
generic models of relationship marketing (Geyskens, Steenkamp, &
Kumar, 1999; Palmatier, Dant, Grewl, & Evans, 2006). In general, com-
panies all have a diverse set of supplier relationships. Within such a
supplier portfolio it is common to use some sort of segmentation
and to identify those relationships most important or most “key” to
the buying company (Ivens, Pardo, Salle, & Cova, 2009).
When looking forward in the supply chain, key relationships are
usually considered to be part of a key account management (KAM)
program, a concept which is also well-established in the marketing
literature (e.g. Boles, Johnston, & Gardner, 1999; Boles, Pilling, &
Goodwyn, 1994; Pardo, 1999; Shapiro & Moriarty, 1984). In a series
of empirical studies, authors have tried to identify differences be-
tween KAM and the management of accounts that are not key for
the performance of a company (e.g. Ivens & Pardo, 2007), analyzed
whether different forms of KAM exist (e.g. Homburg, Workman, &
Jensen, 2002), or what performance implications the introduction of
KAM has (Workman, Homburg, & Jensen, 2003).
Key supplier management (e.g. Corsten & Felde, 2005; Pardo,
Missirilian, Portier, & Salle, 2011; Ulaga & Eggert, 2006) is another
concept firms increasingly implement in order to manage important
supplier relationships. We propose that key supplier management
(KSM) can be interpreted as the mirror image of key account manage-
ment. Fundamentally, it deals with the question how to analyze, plan,
manage, and control interactionswith these key suppliers. Within this
research area, Van de Vijver (2009) provided a comprehensive overview
of literature on dealingwith collaboration in buyer–supplier relationships,
whereas there are also several case-based “narratives” showing how close
relationships can develop in a good or bad manner (e.g. Anderson & Jap,
2005; Narayandas & Rangan, 2004).
However, the idea of managing a KSM program is not as strongly
developed (e.g. Pardo et al., 2011). Meanwhile, managing key sup-
pliers is becoming increasingly important for companies as illustrated
by the launch of dedicated key supplier programs and the integration
of supplier relationship management in their organizations. Hence,
the main objective of this special issue is to further explore the KSM
phenomenon: how should it be organized, what are the (organiza-
tional) implications, and which benefits can be realized.
2. Articles of the special issue
In totalwe received 21 papers for this special issue. After two rounds
of a double-blind review process we in the end accepted six articles,
each providing its distinct perspective on and contribution to key sup-
plier management. Table 1 provides an overview of the six articles.
Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 135–138
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bjoern.ivens@uni-bamberg.de (B.S. Ivens), mvdv@uvt.nl
(M. van de Vijver), b.vos@uvt.nl (B. Vos).
0019-8501/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.01.002
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management
In their contribution, Day, Fawcett, Fawcett, and Magnan et al.
(2013) explore the dual role of trust as both enabler and constraint
in building relational capabilities between buyers and suppliers
engaged in long-term, in-depth relationships. The case approach
enables a fine-grained analysis of evolving trust patterns, its anteced-
ents and resulting outcomes. The authors also define and position the
concept of value co-creation in key supplier relationships. Further-
more, they show that the process of trust-building and in particular
the (joint) existence of positive cycles as well as negative ones
remains one of the most complex yet essential areas of interest within
the buyer–supplier literature. Their case findings show that it is too
simplistic to assume that trust by definition has a positive effect on
relationship outcomes. Finally, they stress the need for further
conceptualization of trust patterns and relationship performance.
Trust is also a key construct in the article of Nagati and Rebolledo
(2013) on supplier development efforts from a supplier's perspective.
In view of the trend to increasingly outsource a variety of business
processes, competent suppliers are vital for buying companies to en-
hance their competitiveness. Supplier development (SD) is a supplier
management practice typically associated with managing key or stra-
tegic supplier relationships. Existing research from a buyer's perspec-
tive points at a positive effect of SD efforts on supplier performance,
yet few studies focused on the supplier's perspective. In this article
the conditions favoring suppliers' participation in SD activities are ex-
plored, using survey data from a sample of Canadian companies from
variousmanufacturing sectors. The empirical results suggest that trust
and customer preferred status are key antecedents of supplier partic-
ipation in SD activities. Moreover, the results confirm the positive im-
pact of this participation on the supplier's operational performance.
The results also indicate that a dynamic environment, for example
due to a regular demand for new products and services, motivates
suppliers to participate in SD activities.
Supplier development is also a central theme in Praxmarer-Carus,
Sucky, and Durst et al.'s contribution (2013). They argue that SD
programs require investments by both parties and may produce
higher earnings. However, the associated distribution of costs and
earnings is still a relatively unexplored topic. This article focuses on
the effects of a supplier's perceived share of costs and earnings in
SD programs on supplier satisfaction. Based on a sample of 38 sup-
pliers in German speaking economies (Germany, Austria, and Swit-
zerland), the results indicate that the supplier's perceived share of
earnings affects supplier satisfaction positively and that distributive
fairness mediates this effect. Moreover, using dyadic data from 38
buyers and 38 suppliers, this research indicates that the gap between
the supplier's and buyer's perceptions of their share of costs and earnings
increases when suppliers are less competent. Close contacts and intense
communication with suppliers where competency is at lower levels, is
an important way to improve, and to eventually come to a more aligned
view on the distribution of costs and earnings between buyer and
supplier.
In the following article, Bhalla and Terjesen (2013) focus on
outsourcing practices and competencies in new firms in dynamic,
knowledge-intensive industries. The focus in previous research has
predominantly been on outsourcing efforts of large, established
firms whereas for new, start-up firms outsourcing is also of vital im-
portance since the locus of innovation is likely to be found in net-
works. A central question of this article is how new firms operating
in dynamic environments organize their outsourced activities. Build-
ing on transaction cost theory and the resource based view, case
study data from ten biotechnology start-ups and twenty of their sup-
pliers have been collected and analyzed. The research results reveal
that new firms outsourcing to suppliers with a leading role in the
network (highly-embedded) are likely to secure access to a wider
supplier network. In doing so, start-ups may attain best-in-class oper-
ational knowledge and avoid supplier opportunism, while facing low
levels of relationship-specific investments. New firms outsourcing
to suppliers at the periphery of networks are more likely to realize
cost efficiencies, expose themselves to opportunism, uncertainty,
and higher levels of relationship-specific investments but low levels
of operational knowledge. In terms of managerial implications, Bhalla
& Terjesen propose that new biotechnology firms should possess a
distinct set of five competencies (technical, evaluation, relational, en-
trepreneurial, and integrative operational) to reap the benefits of
outsourcing. Their rich case dataset contains specific examples on
how to develop each of these competencies in dynamic networks.
Networks also play a central role in the article of Holmen, Aune,
and Pedersen et al. (2013). They build on supply network research
suggesting that a buying company must manage its key suppliers in
their structural network context. Network pictures, defined as the
views of the network held by participants in that network, form a
central concept in their research. It is essential to evaluate such
network pictures on a regular basis since the importance and effect
of key supplier relationships are broader than the relationship itself.
The results presented in the article of Bhalla and Terjesen (2013)
indeed reveal that the network of a specific supplier and the position
of that supplier in the network of the buying company partly deter-
mine the value of these relationships.
Holmen et al. execute a single, embedded case study of a buyer and
its four most important suppliers, explicitly aiming to contribute to
theory development. The case findings reveal that a buying company
may benefit from assessing the congruence between the buyer's key
supplier network picture and the key supplier's own network picture.
This congruence can be achieved by paying attention to elements
which are obsolete, incorrect, incomplete, or generic, as well as by
reflecting on the usefulness of the generic categories. Moreover, a
buying firm can acquire new insights and find opportunities in key
supplier networks by using a mix of four strategies: systematic search,
systematic discovery, chance search, and chance discovery. In other
words, by determining current network pictures, identifying gaps,
and considering a “desired” structure, companies can develop strate-
gies to improve their network position and decide on preferred
actions with respect to key relationships.
In the final article of this special issue, Makkonen and Olkkonen
(2013) address the concept as well the functionality of key supplier
Table 1
Overview of articles in special issue on key supplier management.
Authors Title Research design
Day, Fawcett, Fawcett & Magnan Trust and relational embeddedness: Exploring a paradox of trust pattern
development in key supplier relationships
Case studies
Nagati & Rebolledo Supplier development efforts: The suppliers' point of view Survey (Canadian manufacturing sectors)
Praxmarer-Carus, Sucky & Durst The relationship between the perceived share of costs and earnings in
supplier development programs and supplier satisfaction
Dyadic survey (38 supplier–buyer pairs)
Bhalla & Terjesen Cannot make do without you: Outsourcing by knowledge-intensive new
firms in supplier networks
Ten dyadic case studies
Holmen, Aune & Pedersen Network pictures for managing key supplier relationships Embedded case study
Makkonen & Olkkonen The conceptual locus and functionality of key supplier management:
A multi-dyadic qualitative study
Multi-dyadic case study
136 B.S. Ivens et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 42 (2013) 135–138



Managing and developing key supplier relationships: An introduction to the special issue, discussion and implications

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C945B8218A0303380C79AA051E462F1A?doi=10.1.1.1048.1987&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Managing and developing key supplier relationships: An introduction to the special issue, discussion and implications

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX