Buyer Supplier Relationships - Essay Example

Study Factors of Buyer Supplier Relationships Introduction: When companies buy material or any other things needed for their organisation, the procedure followed and the way it was executed reflects the organisational culture. Generally the companies follow two methods. First one is detailed drafting of contract, so that the supplier cannot easily cheat the company, and if any cheating happens the buyer will able to sue the supplier in the court. The second thing to follow is developing a close partnership with a supplying company. This makes a company to be benefited from the order of the buyer and will execute orders nicely as both of them were made inter dependable. The way of drafting contracts or developing close partnership depends upon the organisational culture of an organisation. The organisational culture can be defined as the manner in which different managers and heads of the departments of the organisation behave and act. Their actions and decisions will show effect on the outcome. The above mentioned choices were termed as strategic choices and choosing them depends on the company's necessities. The organisational culture decides the way of execution of the strategy. In case of detailed contract drafting detailed roles and responsibilities that are to be performed, the results to be delivered, the way the operations to get out comes to be planned and the ways that are to be followed will be mentioned explicitly. This type of drafting will develop interfirm communication and decides the behaviour of the deal. In case of close partner selection, the team work will play the main role. The priority was given to the close partner in buying any thing required for the company. The difference is that the contract is replaced by team work to execute the deal. This type of team work delivers relational governance with the help of relational norms. They follow principles of right action to continue the relationship. As mentioned earlier organisational culture is the values the heads of various departments at managerial level share with the business practices and supply chain activities. Organisational culture and strategy are interdependent and are parts of a system. One method suggests that the culture and strategy bear same meaning. This is because they are the parts of the patterns of the management. Another conception is that the organisational culture is the key driving force in all the actions of and in the company. In 1979 Mintzberg along with some other experts expressed the above opinion. The second one is more popular because the first one is useful only in emergency strategies that depend on default management. But in the case of second one the method has the effect of sensitizing the managers in the processes that the culture of the organisation effects the decision making. This can decide even the choice between the detailed contract drafting and close partner selection. After choosing between these two the culture shows its effect even on the executing the contract or in the delivering the team work. We take the view that the organisational culture will show its effect on the strategic decisions and based on that the detailed contract drafting and the close partner selection can be studied. There is a need to investigate the three elements which are as follows: Avoiding the uncertainty, collectivism and distance of the power. Abstract In this paper the evaluation of the methods of buyer supplier relationship was done on the basis of the discussing and analysing the methods found in the literature. While discussing the relationships, two choices were taken into consideration; detailed contract drafting and close partner selection. Each method will have its own implications depending on the necessities and the organisational culture of the firm. The organisational culture within same organisation that differs in the branches of different countries was also considered and the way it effects the relationship was discussed. After that the avoiding the opportunism, developing collectivism, developing mutual trust in the place of power, the roll of power and trust in buyer supplier relationships were discussed. The advantages and disadvantages of detailed contract drafting and close partner selection were discussed according to the needs of the companies and the chance of violation of the contract or deal by either party was discussed. Literature review It was widely accepted that the investments which are specific to a relations ship are capable of influencing the selecting the structuring the governance. This governance structure includes the safeguards in contract drafting also. The circumstances that lead to the creation of particular assets were different in different contexts and difficult to understand. The motives of the industrial buyers which put themselves at risk by their investments which are tangible and intangible were explored and the problems of deploying another supplier readily were discussed. This problem arises in the case detailed contract drafting cases. M. Bensaou and Erin Anderson in 1999 in their article Buyer-Supplier Relations in Industrial Markets: When Do Buyers Risk Making Idiosyncratic Investments ; examined the features of the supply task, the supplier and the supply environment. These are considered to be the motives that make buyer to invest supplier specifically. The potential factors like facilitating the posting of specific assets as "commitments" were examined to satisfy suppliers opportunism. It was found by them that the supplier specific investments by buyers will serve as a mechanism for icreasing coordination in a complex manufacturing situation, to make buyer aware about the technological uncertainty, build close relationships with suppliers in the areas where do they lack expertise. In a broader business relationships there are many ways to invest supplier oriented. But in the case of Japan there are very less supplier oriented investments. It was found that buyers will make supplier investments on lesser known, low share component makers. This may be due to the thought of capitalizing on the unique feature that lies in supplier's capability. But Luranne Buchanan in 1992 writing the article Vertical Trade Relationships: The Role of Dependence and Symmetry in Attaining Organizational Goals, opined that the avoidance of depending on vertical trade partners was countered by the view of advantages of strong ties between the firms. In this context Luranne Buchanan offered a frame work for assessing the potential costs and mutual benefits of trade by trade partners. The relationships were examined and the impact of trade relationships on the firm's ability to realise the performance goals was empirically investigated. The above mentioned facts were sort out while examining the automobile buyers and suppliers relationships. According to Millington, Andrew1;Eberhardt, Markus2;Wilkinson, Barry3 who wrote in 2005 in their journal; Gift Giving, Guanxi and Illicit Payments in Buyer-Supplier Relations in China: Analysing the Experience of UK Companies, the relationship between gift giving and corruption in the relationships between UK companies and the companies in china was examined. The source material for the analysis were the interviews on the china based operations of 49 UK companies. Intervies of senior managers and expatriate staff and local line managers were taken. These people are responsible for everyday puchaisng decisions and for managing relationships with suppliers. UK based companies in China perceive the gift giving as a serious problem in their operations. This gift giving was considered and in fact was a part of illegal payments, corruption and for the purpose of the self interest of the persons involved. By resorting to these methods the purpose of the company and the firms were treated as secondary. The buyer firms seek to decrease the illegal transactions by bringing change in staff roles and instituting joint responsibilities for staff of both buyer and supplier. The different concepts of purchaisng, involvement of senior managers in the procedure, education of employees were part of the actions taken to reduce the illegal payments. According to David L. Jones, Ken W. McCleary in his research paper; A Model for Assessing Cultural Impacts on International Buyer Seller Relationships for key Accounts of Hotel Companies, Journal of Hospitality and tourism research, the marketing and selling approach relationship was an effective way to construct long term buyer seller relationships. There is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the usage of the relationship selling process for building long term buyer seller relationships in international market segments. Adding to this the techniques a marketing person and a manager need were to be identified. Then those factors can be accommodated in the modification of existing relationship between buyer and supplier. The rationale for traditional transaction processes also can be modified by the results of the above mentioned study. There will great complexity in international selling and buying operations. The important of them are organizational culture and social values. Here we consider only organizational culture. The multinational UK companies can have staff with; the ezpatriate sales person working for a subsidiary, the modern cosmopolitan sales manager who was also an expatriate worked in number of foreign countries. This situation brings a number of differences in organizational cultures. While addressing the buyer seller relationships between UK and Asia it is better to distinguish UK concept of relationship or collaborative selling from the approach followed in Asia. In UK the business relations ship comes first, but whereas in Asia the personal relation ship dominates the business relationship. UK is highly transactional which opposes the relationship basis selling approach. The collectivist cultures of Asia have tendency to avoid uncertainty. This makes more stable relationships between companies. In case of UK system the avoidance of uncertainty is low. A theoretical model can be derived based on the literature in this field. The importance of cultural characteristics and other constructs of relationships influence the type of dynamics of deal were recognized. The final point is that to view the relationship from the prospect of buyer's expectation. To make this possible different ideas from different organizations of different cultures were considered and analysed. The method is useful in managing global accounts because those are the accounts that are the most profitable and must get much marketing effort. To examine the difference between the cultures, the national culture of the company must be observed. The cross cultural differences between individuals of the organizations due to their nationality were studied. Next the organizational character was defined which was connected to the national culture and the buyer firm can construct relationship accordingly. Coming to the next point the relevant studies to international selling and buying were considered. Examining the differences between countries is necessary to estimate the differences in the national cultures. The dimensions in the national cultures which results in differences in organizational cultures were discussed. The culture according to Hofstede is defined as "the collective programming in mind that differentiates people of one human group from another". It was an human collectivity. It can be compared to the what personality is for the individual. It will give an identity to the group. The organizational culture not only differs from company to company, the difference exists between the subsidiaries of the same company in different countries. The cultures were again divided into two types. The long time oriented and short time oriented cultures. The patience, perseverance and respect for elders were the characteristics of long time oriented cultures. The obedience in the duty is also a character of long time oriented culture. The measure of the culture was a measure of people's values. These values decide the way of execution of the deal between buyer and supplier. A long time oriented buyer and short ime oriented cultured supplier cannot execute a close partnership relationship and viceversa. For a close partnership relation the both buyer and seller organizations must be of same type of culture (either long term or short term). The studies regarding the organizational culture, collective attitude on buyer seller relation ships concentrated on management issues and consumer behaviour. The study resulted that the reliabilities were associated with the individualism and masculinity. The national culture showed effect on managerial behaviour in organisational culture. The corporate culture was affected by national culture. Along with this a good relationship between values observed in work and managerial behaviour was observed. There are number of models that include buyer seller relationships. Organisational buying models were influenced by three conceptual models developed by Robinson, Farris, and Wind. The bonding between buyers and suppliers, cross cultural values and services procurement addressed by studies were also the important factors of buyer supplier relationships. The models of buyer supplier relation ship models between UK and Asia concentrated on principles of balance, clearance, and specific relationship, investment and long term moral obligations. The Asian ancestry living outside Asia negotiate very hard for high returns and emphasise on interpersonal trust. The study on international organisational buying behaviour found that relationship building is an underlying dimension business. The process of selecting the places for conference is similar to the products purchasing process. The complex relationships between UK and Asia were characterised as a mixed organisation that includes the definitions of stages of development of buyer supplier relationships. It was found that the social bonding between two cultures and organisations begins in the international cultural relationships. According to Pittaway, Luke and Morrissey, Bill, in their Buyer-Supplier Relationships in Small Firms: The Use of Social Factors to Manage Relationships; Providing high standard satisfaction for customer can be considered as an essential component of business success. In number of industries demands were the cause for the lowering of prices and development in the quality and/of service. The pressures for quality and cost effectiveness compelled number of companies to revise their methods they follow in executing the deals. In order to be competitive they analysed and examined the management methods that can be made by potential suppliers. The companies concentrated on supply chain management due to developments in the specialisations in the operations and outsourcing. This led many organisations to restrain their operations and compelled them to take the services of external specialists. The buying has taken shape of critical management discipline and the buying procedures that are followed two decades back were overcome by strategic approaches. From the last twenty years the various developments were supported by academic and practising literature. Total quality management, Just in Time; partner and strategic alignments, seller development, international buying and seller chain management, have developed due to research in US and UK. By adopting these techniques, which are developed from the research of bigger companies resulted in varied outcomes. The reliability of those methods in the case of SMEs is doubtful. There is a need to explore the procedures for SMEs in buyer supplier relationships. The relationships of a company with its customers or suppliers will have important implications irrespective of their size. The buyer supplier relationships were adverse in case of western economies in seventies. They are short term relationships and usually based on detailed contract drafting. As a result those relationships were limited to buyer and supplier. They are written by formal contractual paper work and were used as the frequent medium for communication. The negotiations used to be confrontational due to mistrust as a basic in the relationships. The outcome at times used to result in change of supplier. Power available was abused for gains in the organisation due to lack of confidence between trading partners (parties). The changes in literature turned towards a shift in the nature of the buyer supplier relationship from the adverse type to collaborative type. Various models on relationships were developed to support the changing ideas. One of them is purchase port folio model. It was subject for the further developments in this area. The further developments resulted in network sourcing. The encouraging of buying practice to move away from the adverse methods to collaborative methods was the principle underlying in these methods. The research on this matter can be divided into two. First one details about the calculation of power in relationships and next one the humanistic approaches which emphasise the social values and mutual trust. Though there are different results for the methods in different companies and areas, both the methods were followed simultaneously. The literature offered a vast and varied analysis in exploring the perception and influence of power in seller chain relationships. The organisations use power to purchase and benefit in the deal. But this is not in the case of SMEs as they lack power when compared to a large supplier. In this case the power factor favoured the larger suppliers and the seller benefited from the use of power. Though it was accepted that size based power plays a critical role, only this cannot be considered as the sole leading factor. The importance given by the buyer to the supplier regarding the quantity and strategic value also plays a key role in deciding the role of relationship and this can happen regardless of size of the firms. A small company which is having expertise in a niche market can dictate the methods to a larger seller who seeks the firms expertise to increase his sales. This led the companies particularly SMEs to recognise their capabilities and act accordingly. The methods focus on customer expectations that are to be met in order to make suppliers stay in the deal. This normally gives an accomplishment of some degree of operational integration and a well developed strategy. This can be showed in the form of exchanging technical staff to develop the product quality. The power of the competitor also was a concern to SMEs and this can make the company to adjust to the methods of the supplier in order to gain upper hand over the competitors. In the next context the absence of power methods rely on trust. This offers SME an alternative management methods for buyer supplier relationships. Even trust was a complex concept like that of power. The trust will be of the following types; the trust in the institution, the trust developed by calculation, and the trust that arises due to social capital, competence, contract and good will. Generally in purchasing the dependence was observed as the genesis of the power. The dependence of a buyer gives power to supplier and viceversa. But like power the trust cannot be reduced to a single dimension to understand, explain or to follow. Unlike power the trust is developed in a certain duration of time. Generally organisations do not trust each other. The risk was managed by the decisions taken in different cases and contexts. Some experts assert that the trust is synonymous to risk. In case of positive cases the trust is considered and in the negative consequences the risk can be considered. The trust based relationships thrive in choosing the positive contexts. By discarding the power factor, which was not a viable thing, the SMEs can act in a time tested manner to gain the trust of the large suppliers. Similar is the case of SME suppliers. They can act in a trust worthy manner to gain the confidence of big buyers. This trust makes SMEs deal effectively and confidently with larger firms in buyer supplier relationships. Report: Stefan Wuyts & Inge Geyskenswrite in their journal, Formation of Buyer-Supplier Relationships: Detailed Contract Drafting and Close Partner Selection that constructing mixed governance models will give cover to partner's opportunism. This represents a key challenge for any company or industry. While considering this the buyer companies have to face to uncertainties while dealing with new purchase agreements. The dilemma is about the choice between the detailed contract drafting and close partner selection. The above result is an oucome of study of 177 firms active in industrial machinery, spares and individual parts in Europe provide newer views in to: the effect of culture of the company on the detailed contracts and suppliers selected. The that matters is what is curtailing the partner's opportunistic behaviour. The outcomes give an opinion that the culture of the organisation will show different effect on both the choices. The firms which want to avoid uncertainty, show tolerance for power distance in supplies and want collectivism will choose detailed contract drafting. The firms which are more bias towards collectivism also try to select partners from the firms which have a history of collaboration with them. The close partner selection is an ability to control opportunism. But in the course of relationship it is capable of encouraging the opportunism as there is lack of legal measures to curtail it. The control of opportunism in the case of detailed contract drafting depends on the drafting. The issues that are included in the agreement decides the course of action of the deal and the behaviour of the supplier. The detailed contract drafting is able to curtail the opportunism of the supplier if the relations are based on mutual contacts, necessities and trust. In the context of presence of mutual contracts, the violation of contract by the supplier will spread through the network of the buyer and his repetition will be in danger. So the seller firm will be compelled to follow the contract fearing the loss of credibility. In case of close partner case the chance of avoiding the opportunism of the partner depends upon the mutual dependence, necessities and needs of the partners on each other. The opportunism will be avoided when the partnership reaches the point of collaboration. Kendall W. Artz opines in his article; Buyer-Supplier Performance: The Role of Asset Specificity, Reciprocal Investments and Relational Exchange that the range and the balance of transactions based assets, the rules and regulations in a buyer seller relationship were critical factors that affect the performance of the partnership. This fact was tested from the data of 393 manufacturing companies. The outcome is that When one party got negative results by investing the other got positive results by disinvesting. The exchanges in the relationship were positively related to the performance of the relationship. In case of detailed contract drafting instances the buyers generally fell the contract was violated when their payment did not meet the requirements and the needs mentioned in the draft. Similarly the supplier will feel the violation when the payments were not done in time and according to the supplies. The action that can be taken by the buyer and supplier will depend on the details mentioned in the agreement. In case of contract both the parties will try for a opportunity to gain without meeting the requirements of the other. So the effective execution of the deal depends on the clauses included in the draft that act as a preventive measures for both the parties. Though the detailed drafting acts as an element to control power in the execution of the deals, the instances of either parties violating the contract are likely to occur. Whenever there is a contract there exist a feeling in both the parties to violate it whenever it was possible. So the in this instance the execution of the deal depends upon the legal cover the draft offers for both the parties. In case of close partner selection, there is a chance of opportunism by either parties when in course of time the relationship fails to reach a point of collaboration. The mutual needs, necessities and dependence dictate the course of relationship. When the needs, necessities and dependence were one sided, there is a chance of dominating the other. So the close partner selection works good for the buyers and suppliers who mutually depend on each other. The organisation which feels the possibility of collaboration in future will try to have a close partner in the buyer supplier relationship. In this the internal issues of both the firms will be liable for exchange. When this exchange is two sided then the partnership thrives. When any of them tries to stop giving the information after taking it from the other the partnership may end soon. The ability of the managers in both the companies in turning the partnership into collaboration decides the future of the relation ship. Conclusion The UK companies that deal with Asian suppliers faced differences in organisational culture in the companies due to the difference in the social and national cultures. This resulted in developing a common platform for both sides to deal with each other effectively. Depending upon the needs and changing times and organisational cultures the detailed contract drafting and close partner selection were chosen to develop the buyer supply relationships. In case of detailed contract drafting the need of developing common legal concepts was recognised and in the case of close partner selection the development of relationship into collaboration was observed. The references were given in the following format. Name of the author, year of publishing, title, name of the publisher or sponsor, edition information, type of media, date retrieved, website address. The above information was provided according to the availability and if not available a gap was given or the non availability was mentioned. References: 1, M. Bensaou, Erin Anderson, 1999, Buyer-Supplier Relations in Industrial Markets: When Do Buyers Risk Making Idiosyncratic Investments, Organization Science, Volume 10, no.4, electronic, 18-10-06, http://links.jstor.org/sicisici=1047-7039%28199907%2F08%2910%3A4%3C460%3ABRIIMW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&size=LARGE 2. Lauranne Buchanan, 1992, Vertical Trade Relationships: The Role of Dependence and Symmetry in Attaining Organizational Goals, JSTOR, Volume 29, no.10, electronic, 18-10-06, http://links.jstor.org/sicisici=0022-2437(199202)29%3A1%3C65%3AVTRTRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X 3. Millington, Andrew1;Eberhardt, Markus2;Wilkinson, Barry3, 2005, Gift Giving, Guanxi and Illicit Payments in Buyer-Supplier Relations in China: Analysing the Experience of UK Companies, ingentaconnect, Volume 57, number 3, electronic, 18-10-06, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/busi/2005/00000057/00000003/00006712 4. Dr. Michael R. Mullen, 2004, International marketing research & Scholarship, Michael R. Mullen, ,electronic, 18-10-06, http://www.drmullen.com/research.html 5. David L. Jones, Ken W. McCleary, 2004, A Model for Assessing Cultural Impacts on International Buyer Seller Relationships for key Accounts of Hotel Companies, Journal of Hospitality and tourism research, Volume 28, no. 4, electronic, 18-10-06, http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/28/4/425.pdf 6. Pittaway, Luke and Morrissey, Bill, 2004, Buyer-Supplier Relationships in Small Firms: The Use of Social Factors to Manage Relationships, Lancaster University Management School, ,electronic, 19-10-06, http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/publications/viewpdf/000292/ 7. Stefan Wuyts & Inge Geyskens, 2006, Formation of Buyer-Supplier Relationships: Detailed Contract Drafting and Close Partner Selection, American Marketing Association, ,electrnic, 19-10-06, http://www.marketingpower.com/content30638.php 8. Kendall W. Artz, 2002, Buyer-Supplier Performance: The Role of Asset Specificity, Reciprocal Investments and Relational Exchange, Black well synergy, ,electronic, 19-10-06, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8551.00114 9. James D. Fullerton, Clifton, 1997, Drafting and Reviewing contracts, FullertonLaw.com, ,electronic, 19-10-06, http://www.fullertonlaw.com/chap9.htm 10.Brian fynes, 2002, The Moderating effects of buyer relationships on quality practices, emeraldinsight.com, ,electronic, 19-10-06, http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/PDF/2.3.3.7.5.1_moderating_effects_IJOPM.pdf Questionnaire: We would like you to complete this questionnaire as part of my MBA curriculum on the formation of buyer-supplier relationships: detailed contract drafting and close partner selection. The Objective of my project is to know the factors affecting detailed contract drafting and close partner selection in the context of buyer-supplier relationships particularly (UK importers from ASIAN countries) Please specify the country in which your supplier is based (One Asian Countries if not applicable any countries): ________China and India ___________ How long have you been doing business with this supplier _10____________Years Reflecting on the original contract as it was specified at the time the purchase agreement was closed, please circle/ highlight a number to indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree In dealing with this supplier, our contract precisely defines the role of each partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In dealing with this supplier, our contract precisely defines the responsibilities of each partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In dealing with this supplier, our contract precisely states how each party is to perform 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In dealing with this supplier, our contract precisely states what will happen in the case of event occurring that were not planned. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This supplier often exaggerates its needs to get what it desires. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This supplier alters the facts to get what it wants. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This supplier often promises to do things, even though it actually had no intention of following though. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 We have reason to believe that this supplier hides important information from us. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Uncertain situations in our supply chain are a threat to our firm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our firm goes to great length to avoid uncertain situations in our supply chain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our firm goes to great length to avoid unclear and ambiguous situations in our supply chain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Firms and our suppliers are always jointly responsible for the successes and failures of their working relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our firm considers it as the most normal thing that firms in the supply chain try to cooperate as much as possible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Close cooperation with other firms in our supply Chain is to be preferred over working independently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Firms and their suppliers are always jointly responsible for the successes and failures of their Working relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Firms in the supply chain that are in a powerful position should have more say in their working relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Firms in the supply chain that are not in a powerful position should generally follow the will of their partners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In a supply chain, it is logical that firms in powerful positions have the last word. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If we ended our relationship with this supplier, we would need to invest a lot of time and effort redeploying those of our people who are presently serving this supplier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If we ended our relationship with this supplier, we would be wasting a lot of knowledge that is tailored to this relationship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If we switch suppliers, the production system that incorporates this component would need to be adapted substantially before we could start working with another supplier. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The statements below refers to the difficulty of your firm to predict volume requirements for the supplier's component Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Volume requirements for this component are subject to unpredictable fluctuations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our forecasts of this component's volume requirements are quite inaccurate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is difficult to reliably estimate the required volumes for the supplier's component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The statement below refer to work and measures to extent in which you're firm cannot accurately assess your supplier's performance by objective, readily available output measures. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Evaluating this supplier's performance is a highly subjective process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This supplier is performing so many different tasks that it is difficult to ascertain whether a good job is being done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It is difficult to determine whether agreed-upon quality standards and specifications are adhered to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The following statement refers to closeness of tie of your firm and your suppliers at the beginning of the specified purchasing agreement Before our firm selected this supplier for this purchasing agreement, Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree A. Our firm worked very intensively with this supplier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B. Our firm had a very close relationship with this supplier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our firm's relationship with this supplier was like an arm's length delivery of the components 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our firm and this supplier had a very collaborative relationship like a real team. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our relations with our partners: Before our firm selected this supplier for this purchasing agreement, Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Our firm worked very intensively with one or more partners of this supplier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our firm had a very close relationship with one or more supplier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our firm's relationship with the partners of this supplier was like an arm's length, purely restricted to executing transactions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Our firm had a very collaborative relationship with one or more partners of this supplier, like a real team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 At the beginning of your relationship with this supplier, how frequently did your firm believe it would need to interact with the supplier firm in a typical month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please tell us a few things about yourself and your company. What industry does your firm operate in _______________________footwear ________ What is your position within your company ______Executive manager_______________________ How long have you been with this company _________10 years_____________________ Read More