Should an organisation join a purchasing group?

Nollet, Jean; Beaulieu, Marie

doi:10.1108/13598540510578333

Cited by 106 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nollet and Beaulieu (2005) defined a purchasing group as a formal or virtual structure that facilitates the consolidation of purchases for many organizations. Consolidation refers to a procurement practice used to transfer activities such as bidding, supplier evaluation or contract management to a central entity.…”

Section: Intergovernmental Cooperative Sourcing (Public Purchasing Grmentioning

confidence: 99%

Purchasing Organization and Design: A Literature Review

Glock

Hochrein

2011

Bus Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results of a comprehensive literature review of the organization of purchasing covering the period from 1967 to 2009. The review provides a structured overview of prior research topics and findings and identifies gaps in the existing literature that may be addressed in future research. The intention of the review is to a) synthesize prior research, b) provide researchers with a structural framework on which future research on the organization of purchasing may be oriented, and c) suggest promising areas for future research.

show abstract

Section: Intergovernmental Cooperative Sourcing (Public Purchasing Grmentioning

confidence: 99%

Purchasing Organization and Design: A Literature Review

Glock

Hochrein

2011

Bus Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All these factors are usually considered as stimuli to cooperation. For further discussions of cooperation stimuli, see among others Ariño and Torre (1998), Barkema et al (1997), Chung et al (2000), Cruijssen et al (2006), Doucette (1997), Galaskiewicz (1985), Ireland et al (2002), and Nollet and Beaulieu (2005). Since most purchasing groups in the public sector are modelled on a non-profit basis, savings are generated with little cost for the group members and as a result, the majority of the savings flows directly to the members (Kenney, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a typology of organisational forms of cooperative purchasing

Schotanus

Telgen

2007

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a typology for purchasing groups. In the typology, five ideal forms of cooperative purchasing are distinguished based on seven main dimensions. The forms are positioned in a matrix according to two distinguishing dimensions. These two dimensions are the 'influence by all members on the group activities' and the 'number of different group activities'. Underlying the two-dimensional matrix, there are five other dimensions that do not distinguish all forms from each other, but further detail the forms of cooperative purchasing. The typology can serve as a guideline for purchasing groups when a suitable organisational form needs to be chosen. In a suitable form, the dimensions of a group fit the circumstances. For all groups, it is recommended to find this best fit. This is something in which the typology may help. The paper concludes by emphasising the importance of clearly defining and positioning studied forms, because different forms imply different research models and have different advantages, disadvantages, and critical success factors.

show abstract

“…Reasons indicated for this trend are the development of e-procurement (Huber et al, 2004), shifting agendas from a short-term view and internal focus to a long-term view and external relationship focus (Dobler, 1996;Essig, 2000), an increased level of competition and cost pressure (Hendrick, 1997;Johnson, 1999;Nollet and Beaulieu, 2005), an increased awareness and importance of purchasing (Ellram and Carr, 1994), and the wish to counterbalance the power of large suppliers (Nollet and Beaulieu, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unfair allocation of gains under the Equal Price allocation method in purchasing groups

Schotanus

Telgen

Boer

2008

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Certain purchasing groups do not flourish. A supposed reason for this is a creeping dissatisfaction among various members of a group with the allocation of the cooperative gains.In this paper, we analyze unfairness resulting from using the commonly used Equal Price (EP) method for allocating gains under the assumption of continuous quantity discounts. We demonstrate that this unfairness is caused by neglecting a particular component of the added value of individual group members. Next, we develop two fairness ratios and tie these to fairness properties from cooperative game theory. The ratios can be used to assess if EP is an unfair method in specific situations and they show among other things that being too-big a player in a purchasing group can lead to decreasing gains. Finally, we discuss measures a purchasing group could consider in order to attenuate perceived unfairness. Thereby, the group may improve its stability and prosperity.

show abstract

Should an organisation join a purchasing group?

Cited by 106 publications

References 10 publications

Purchasing Organization and Design: A Literature Review

Purchasing Organization and Design: A Literature Review

Developing a typology of organisational forms of cooperative purchasing

Unfair allocation of gains under the Equal Price allocation method in purchasing groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About