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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

some respondents would not provide their company name; instead, they typed in random letters or scant information regarding their line of business. Therefore, such responses were discarded. We used the list wise deletion method which involves selecting those cases that were incompletely filled. The buyer’s primary business was most frequently mentioned as both industrial and consumer markets 49%, then consumer markets 32.3%, and industrial markets only 18.7%. Most buyers in our sample stated an average of 9.72 years of buying experience, out of which 7.36 years were spent as strategic buyers for their current employers. Of our sample, 30.9% worked for upper management meaning senior managers and above, whereas 53.1% worked for mid-management. Approximately one-third (i.e., 35.4%) of the strategic buyers provided service-based market offerings, 23.1% provided goods as market offerings, and the remaining 41.5% offered a mixture of both goods and services as their market offering. Table 2.12 Descriptive Statistics Sample Description Percentage n=164 Type of Market Percentage Industrial and Consumer Markets 49.0 Consumer Markets 32.3 Industrial Markets 18.7 Number of Years of Buying Experience Years Average Buying Experience 9.72 Average Strategic Buying Experience 7.36 Level of Management Percentage Upper Management 30.9 Middle Management 53.1 Type of Market Offering Percentage Service Based Market offering 35.4 Goods Based Market offering 23.1 Goods and Service based market offering 41.5 Response rate 6.0 In order to assess non-response bias, early and late responses were compared (Donney & Cannon, 1997). About 80% of our initial responses came during the first panel request to fill out our questionnaire. The aspects along which early and late responses were compared were by the following descriptive variables: the number of years of purchasing experience, role and level in the organization, and familiarity with the strategic supplier. There were no statistically significant differences between early and late responses. Therefore, non-response bias is not a serious concern for this study. For issues regarding normality of the current data set please refer to appendix B. We had some issues with skewness, but that was rectified by a square root transformation of the data. 2.4.3 Multicollinearity We check for multicollinearity by using the VIF statistic and ran four linear regressions with a new dependent variable each time. The dependent variables in order were supplier responsiveness, IdRR, 56
satisfaction and strategic supplier brand value. As becomes evident from Tables 2.13-2.16, none crossed over the value of VIF=10. Second, none of the tolerance levels is less than .10, which means that multicollinearity is not a serious concern for the current study (Hair et al., 2006, p. 193). Table 2.13 Multicollinearity Statistics Model Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF 1 Supplier Responsiveness .463 2.696 Strategic Supplier Brand Value .491 2.037 Buyer Satisfaction .371 2.161 a. Dependent Variable: IdRR Table 2.14 Multicollinearity Statistics Model Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF 2 Supplier Responsiveness .475 2.107 Strategic Supplier Brand Value .542 1.864 IdRR .439 2.278 a.Dependent Variable: Buyer Satisfaction Table 2.15 Multicollinearity Statistics Model Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF 3 Supplier Responsiveness .429 2.329 IdRR .378 2.648 Buyer Satisfaction .352 2.837 a.Dependent Variable: Strategic Supplier Brand Value Table 2.16 Multicollinearity Statistics Model Collinearity Tolerance Statistics VIF 4 IdRR .400 2.499 Buyer Satisfaction .347 2.884 Strategic Supplier Brand Value .482 2.073 a. Dependent Variable: Supplier Responsiveness 57
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 42 and 43: they ask about intimate supplier in
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: een monitored to make sure they gav
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?