Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

they ask about intimate supplier information of which a customer would not be aware. Although some colleagues argued that, in a close supplier and buyer relationship, the buyer would know about the quality of the suppliers’ processes, but our colleagues agreed that the exact inner workings of the supplier’s organizations may not be that transparent. Questions 12 and 13 on the MARKOR scale are about interdepartmental meetings. These questions are meant for the supplier firm rather than the customer so, therefore, we excluded them. Questions 16, 17, and 18 on the MARKOR scale relate to the dissemination of information within the supplier’s firm. We concluded that the customer is not in a position to be able to reliably respond to information about supplier information dissemination as the supplier internal information dissemination process does not involve any interaction with the customer. Question 20 on the MARKOR scale was that the principles of market segmentation guided the new product development, but it is a question meant for the supplier firm rather than the customer firm because only a supplier employee would be able to reasonably answer this question. Question 24 on the MARKOR scale is about the frequency of supplier cross-functional department meetings, a process of which the customer would not be aware. Likewise, question 27 again addresses internal supplier coordination and we do not believe that the customer will have knowledge of such a process. Finally, question 30 was considered to be similar to question 26 on the MARKOR scale, so we omitted it in order to avoid redundancy. Table 2.2 provides the questions that were revised on the original MARKOR scales. The revised questions include 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 32. The questions were reworded to measure the customer’s assessment of the supplier’s responsiveness. In order to reword these questions, we placed the focus on the supplier, whereas the original MARKOR scale was a self-assessment measure for the customer. For example, question 3 of the MARKOR scale states that “In this business unit we do a lot of in house market research.” We modified question 3 to focus on the customers’ assessment as follows, “The supplier seems to have good internal market intelligence capabilities.” Similarly, question 15 stated that, ”When something important happens to a major market customer, the whole business unit knows about it within a short period.” We modified question 15 to focus on the customer’s assessment as follows, ”We just need to communicate our needs to one of the various functional departments (e.g., marketing, manufacturing, operations, finance) and everyone concerned (cross functionally) within the supplier’s firm will immediately updated on our new situation. 42
Table 2.2 Modified Items of the MARKOR Scale Original Item Need and Reason for change of item Revised Item 1.In this business unit, we meet with customers at least once a year to find out what products or services they will need in the future. The question needed to be reworded to include the customer’s perspective about the supplier. The supplier meets with us at least once a year to find out what products and services we will need in the future. 2. Individuals from our manufacturing department interact directly with customers to learn how to better serve them. 3. In this business unit, we do a lot of in house market research. The question needed to be reworded to include the customer’s perspective about the supplier. The question needed to be reworded to include the customer’s perspective about the supplier. Individuals from the suppliers’ manufacturing department interact directly with us to inquire as to how they can improve their services or products. The supplier seems to have good internal market intelligence generation capabilities. 4. We are slow to detect changes in our customers’ product preferences. 5. We poll end users at least The question needed to be once a year to assess the reworded to include the quality of our products and customer’s perspective services. about the supplier. The supplier regularly contacts us to assess the quality of their products and services. 6. We often talk with or survey those who can influence our end users’ purchases (e.g., retailers and distributors). 7. We collect industry information through an informal means. 8. In our business unit, intelligence on our competitors is independently generated by several departments. 9. We are slow to detect changes in our industry.(R) 10. We periodically review changes in business environment. The question needed to be reworded to include the customer’s perspective about the supplier. The question needed to be reworded to include the customer’s perspective about the supplier. The question needed to be reworded to include the customer’s perspective about the supplier. This supplier has high quality information regarding their channel partners (e.g., retailers, distributors and us). The supplier often interacts with us in informal meetings (e.g., lunch with our managers) to collect information about our business. The supplier is slow to detect fundamental shifts in our industry (e.g., competition, technology, regulation). 43
Page 2 and 3: ISBN 978-90-8980-055-8 © M. Abrahi
Page 4 and 5: Examination Committee Supervisor: P
Page 6 and 7: 2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTUAL M
Page 8 and 9: 5.1 RESEARCH FINDINGS 114 5.2 OVERA
Page 10 and 11: List of Tables Table 2.1 Representa
Page 12 and 13: PREFACE Oscar Wilde once said, “I
Page 14 and 15: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Thesi
Page 16 and 17: Figure 1.1 Mckinsey Survey Results
Page 18 and 19: 1.4 Scope PhD thesis This thesis fo
Page 20 and 21: Netherlands. We used the maximum li
Page 22 and 23: 2.1 Introduction A central tenant o
Page 24 and 25: only provide an assessment of the s
Page 26 and 27: Table 2.1 highlights several promin
Page 28 and 29: other hand, they later argue that m
Page 30 and 31: Therefore, there is a convergence i
Page 32 and 33: usiness performance, firms need to
Page 34 and 35: means is that the more better a str
Page 36 and 37: Supplier responsiveness or market o
Page 38 and 39: Naryandas, 1995). Further, idiosync
Page 40 and 41: They might also include the ease wi
Page 44 and 45: Table 2.2 Modified Items of the MAR
Page 46: Table 2.2 Modified Items of the MAR
Page 49 and 50: market intelligence, offering flexi
Page 51 and 52: We considered several scales before
Page 53 and 54: Table 2.7 Component Matrix Buyer Sa
Page 55 and 56: een monitored to make sure they gav
Page 57 and 58: satisfaction and strategic supplier
Page 59 and 60: 2.5 Measurement Model For creating
Page 61 and 62: In the third step, we used maximum
Page 63 and 64: incremental fit index (IFI) is one
Page 65 and 66: ange of 100-150 (Hair et al., 2006,
Page 67 and 68: indicator that has a link to custom
Page 69 and 70: and strengths and their stock marke
Page 71 and 72: accompanies any innovation, accordi
Page 73 and 74: important finding because it provid
Page 75 and 76: 3.1 Introduction The Netherlands, d
Page 77 and 78: possibility that firm size may infl
Page 79 and 80: Figure 3.1 The Netherlands and Unit
Page 81 and 82: comprehensive agreement on each oth
Page 83 and 84: Why do we pay more for an orange wi
Page 85 and 86: constructs, for cross-cultural fact
Page 87 and 88: will discuss the SEM analysis of th
Page 89 and 90: BFV Hypothesis 4 IdRR->SBV Hypothes
Page 91 and 92: products. Overall, the effects of s
Page 93 and 94:
more diverse comparison. China is a
Page 95 and 96:
Chapter 4 The Quest for Performance
Page 97 and 98:
insurance premiums. Hence, perceptu
Page 99 and 100:
theoretical contribution regarding
Page 101 and 102:
should reinforce objective measures
Page 103 and 104:
Table 4.2 Standardized Regression W
Page 105 and 106:
Table 4.5 SEM Results Construct Dir
Page 107 and 108:
4.7 Discussion We start this discus
Page 109 and 110:
Jaowrski and Kohli (1993) provided
Page 111 and 112:
Using the findings of our current s
Page 113 and 114:
iii) iv) Indeed, there may not be m
Page 115 and 116:
uyer firm performance through a ser
Page 117 and 118:
specifically highlighted the import
Page 119 and 120:
5.5 Practical Implications From a m
Page 121 and 122:
Summary in English This dissertatio
Page 123 and 124:
is that, when developing marketing
Page 125 and 126:
isk by 0.98 standard deviations. Su
Page 127 and 128:
collectivist culture and a Confucia
Page 129 and 130:
Overwegende dat Verhoef en Leeflang
Page 131 and 132:
van de waarde te communiceren dat d
Page 133 and 134:
erkennen dat dit niet altijd een mo
Page 135 and 136:
ij de vraag of cultureel risico voo
Page 137 and 138:
Businessweek. (2012). S&P/BusinessW
Page 139 and 140:
-industry-09012011.html Grewal, R.,
Page 141 and 142:
Langerak, F. (2001). Effects of mar
Page 143 and 144:
Quelch, J. (2007). How to brand an
Page 145 and 146:
Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H
Page 147 and 148:
1. The name of the company where yo
Page 149 and 150:
9.The supplier seems to have good i
Page 151 and 152:
17. The supplier takes a very long
Page 153 and 154:
25. If the supplier were to find ou
Page 155 and 156:
33.Does your strategic supplier als
Page 157 and 158:
41.To what degree do those specific
Page 159 and 160:
Supplier Brand Value 51.How likely
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix B Scatter Plot Diagrams fo
Page 163 and 164:
163
show all

Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?