Purchasing performance management systems: an empirical investigation

Abstract

This article aims at further developing the purchasing performance management systems (PPMSs) body of knowledge, assuming the wider perspective of the adoption process rather than key performance indicators (KPIs) only. In particular, the research questions are focused on understanding what are the most adopted indicators, what are the key elements characterising the implementation process and what are the differences among different organisational levels and different purchasing categories. The literature provides a framework for classifying purchasing KPIs, identifying the implementation process and the PPMS architecture, thus supporting the empirical research protocol. Nine case studies of large multinationals belonging to different industries are conducted. Empirical evidence shows that companies are still adopting mainly an external perspective, by focusing on performance measurement efforts on suppliers. Widely adopted indicators mainly measure cost, time and quality. However, the purchasing department has acquired an important role within the organisation and new performance indicators have been created; flexibility, innovation and sustainability are becoming increasingly important

Measuring Purchasing Groups Performance in the Health Care sector

“…Caniato, Luzzini, and Ronchi (2014) and McCampbell and Slaich (1995) respectively mention that there are many dozens and even 200 such potential indicators, but it seems impossible to determine which indicators are more useful than others, and under which circumstances. Caniato, Luzzini, and Ronchi (2014) and McCampbell and Slaich (1995) respectively mention that there are many dozens and even 200 such potential indicators, but it seems impossible to determine which indicators are more useful than others, and under which circumstances.…”

“…This could be explained by the fact that, in the field of purchasing, performance often simply meant additional savings (Caniato et al, 2014;Nollet, Calvi, Audet, & Côté, 2008;Saranga & Moser, 2010;Schiele, 2005). In addition, when new measures were developed, the intent was mostly to measure supplier performance (Caniato et al, 2014), and/or they were associated to strategy rather than to operations (Balfaqih, Nopiah, Saibani, & Al-Nory, 2016). In addition, when new measures were developed, the intent was mostly to measure supplier performance (Caniato et al, 2014), and/or they were associated to strategy rather than to operations (Balfaqih, Nopiah, Saibani, & Al-Nory, 2016).…”

“…In order to get a more global picture of performance, many authors separate efficiency and effectiveness measures (Caniato et al, 2014). According to Kumar, Ozdamar, and Ng (2005), efficiency measures how successfully the inputs have been transformed into outputs, while effectiveness measures how successfully the system achieves its desired output.…”

Tactics at the category level of purchasing and supply management: sourcing levers, contingencies and performance

“…Third, the presented hierarchy of strategy development also indicates a hierarchy of performance, i.e., firm performance, functional performance of purchasing, category performance and relationship performance. As one of the few useful sources in this context, Caniato et al (2014) clearly distinguished among different levels of purchasing performance measurement. Future studies might aim to identify performance indices that are applicable to a sourcing category and at the functional level of purchasing, respectively.…”

“…Firms frequently buy different by sourcing category (Ateş, 2014;Caniato et al, 2014). At the sourcing category level of analysis, purchasing agents differentiate between a multitude of sourcing tactics to achieve their goals (Hesping and Schiele, 2015;Luzzini et al, 2012).…”