The lean and agile purchasing portfolio model

Abstract

Purpose -The aim of this paper is to present a purchasing portfolio model for determining purchasing strategy at the component level of a product to support business strategy, addressing weaknesses in the often cited Kraljic-type models. The work draws on Fisher's model to match supply strategy to product nature. However, Fisher's model was criticised very recently by Lo and Power in this journal because it is unclear how the "leagile" option should fit into it. This paper addresses this issue. Design/methodology/approach -The new portfolio model is based on the literature, particularly Fisher's seminal work. It is then applied to two case studies; an electric boiler manufacturer and an elevator manufacturer, both in South Korea. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to position purchased components in the model. Findings -Different purchasing strategies should be assigned to different components according to their impact on the competitive priorities. As the electric boiler is a functional product, while the elevator is an innovative product, the case studies show how this can vary across the two product-types identified by Fisher.Research limitations/implications -The new model has been tested on only two case studies, which limits the ability to generalise the findings. Future work will use the lean and agile purchasing portfolio model in research and knowledge exchange activities with other industrial partners to further develop and test its efficacy. Originality/value -The new model captures the finding of Fisher and others that products should be classified as functional or innovation to determine their suitability for lean or agile supply respectively. However, this classification is extended here to the component level and with the addition of the leagile and non-strategic supply options, and it depends on the impact a component has on the four competitive priorities; cost, quality, time and flexibility.

Assessing supplier environmental performance: Applying Analytical Hierarchical Process in the United Arab Emirates healthcare chain

“…Pairwise comparisons generate more information and therefore, improve judgment consistency [48]. Therefore, the sample size of 30 experts/respondents is considered to be satisfactory for this research [48,49]. In line with Saaty's [48] suggestion, the geometric mean approach was preferred over the arithmetic mean to combine the individual pair wise comparison judgments to obtain the consensus pair wise comparison judgment matrices for the entire team.…”

Can Lean and Agile organisations within the UK automotive supply chain be distinguished based upon contextual factors?

“…Belekoukias et al's (2014) findings also went on to demonstrate that certain lean TPRCs were associated with small organisations as opposed to large organisations. Although there are mixed findings concerning firm size and lean production (Negrao et al, 2017), as the literature generally associates lean and agile production with large and small organisations respectively, the following two hypotheses were developed: Mason-Jones et al (2000) suggested that SCs, generally speaking, can either be lean, agile or 'leagile' (Drake et al, 2013), as depicted in Figure 1. The latter (leagile) SC, also referred to as the hybrid SC (Huang et al, 2002), is a combination of both paradigms encompassing a total SC strategy which involves a decoupling point.…”

Embedding carbon impact assessment in multi-criteria supplier segmentation using ELECTRE TRI-rC

“…To some extent, their approach addresses one of the weaknesses of portfolio methods, which is their limits in terms of the operationalization of the dimensions and measuring variables. Lee and Drake (2010), and Drake et al (2013) extended Kraljic's purchasing portfolio at the component level of a product to support business strategy. Pagell et al (2010) extended Kraljic's model by expanding the 'profit impact' dimension to 'risk to profits, the environment and/or society'.…”