4.3 Article

Evolving Purchasing and Supply Organizations: A contingency model for structural alternatives

Journal

JOURNAL OF PURCHASING AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 41-58

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pursup.2017.10.001

Keywords

Procurement; Purchasing; Supply management; Sourcing; Purchasing and Supply Organization (PSO); Structure; Design; Center of excellence; Staff function; Line function; Centralization; Hybrid; Global; Local; Contingency theory; Case study research

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purchasing and Supply Management (PSM) is under significant pressure to find levers to further increase its contribution to corporate goals. In order to improve performance in line with expectations, Purchasing and Supply Organizations (PSOs) have to evolve continuously. To help address this challenge, a comprehensive contingency framework of PSO structures is presented. The framework is based on existing literature on PSO contingency factors as well as analysis of two case companies. The findings highlight the importance of taking a contingency perspective for understanding the PSO and combining a detailed view of macro-level structural dimensions with micro-level characteristics. These macro-level dimensions comprise category, business unit, geography and activity. The micro-level characteristics comprise centralization, formalization, specialization, participation and standardization. From a theoretical perspective, the contingency framework opens up insights that can be leveraged in future studies in the fields of hybrid PSOs, global sourcing organizations, and International Purchasing Offices (IPOs). From a practical standpoint, an assessment of external and internal contingencies and their relation to specific structural dimensions and characteristics provides the opportunity for more consciously evolving the PSO to continue to improve PSM's contribution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available