Procurement Best-Practices in Managing Innovative Suppliers

Dear reader,

The analytics of this blog constistenly show approximately 50 readers per month, which is stimulating. Thank you all for your feedback & valuable contributions. 

I need more insights via one last small survey: Practices When Managing Innovative Suppliers.

The first survey and two roundtable discussions give industry insights from over 120 NZ organisations.  It identified a number of procurement best practices. This is helpful for the industry and researchers alike. I am still working on analysing the results, see the previous blogs for some of the results.

You might also check a recent posting onthe BravoSolution blog on supplier enabled innovations in larger US corporations. Although my first survey showed that smaller organisations behave differently from larger organisations, readers could use some of the findings from the US blog.  

I now want to validate when the industry uses a particular best practice. 

Hence please complete this brief survey (4 main questions). Practices When Managing Innovative Suppliers.

Again two people will receive a copy of the Business Model Generation handbook. 
All respondents receive a copy of the survey results.

(BTW: I have finally changed the title of my blog. Entrepreneurial companies and green-tech innovations are still an important part of my research, but for a long time the research focus has been broader.) 

Best regards, 
astaal@aut.ac.nz
Anne Staal

Involving innovative suppliers helps in obtaining good company results - 4th UPDATE on SURVEY

From the 120 completed surveys, some interesting findings have appeared. The picture below suggests that smaller companies (less than 100 employees) in the built environment benefit from their interactions with innovative suppliers. The small company respondents WITH supplier interaction (n=64) indicated more often that their innovations yield better company results and better results for the natural environment. The (control) group of larger organisations (n=35; more than 250 staff) reported similar benefits from their supplier interaction. This was confirmed when analysing the intensity of the supplier relations (Question 8). Smaller and larger organisations report similar medium-high intensities in their supplier relations, both mostly with innovative companies providing services. Managing external partners takes resources and poses risks. 

Resources in smaller companies are smaller and risks are often bigger. Small company respondents in the survey consider managing their supplier risks equally important (Question 7) as large organisations. When taking size into consideration, small companies hence take a relatively greater effort, and according to the survey can be equally successful. But then the small companies also score higher on entrepreneurship than larger organisations (again Question 8). [The relationship of entrepreneurship and success still needs to be analysed].
Put simply: also for small companies, it seems a good thing to involve suppliers in construction innovations. To some this may seem logical though others would prefer to develop innovations more 'in house'. The overall academic debate is still out, but at least the survey respondents suggest to successfully cooperate with innovative suppliers. 
The question of course then is what to do in a particular situation. 

A recent roundtable discussion with representatives of larger organisations suggests what best procurement practices these professionals would use when managing their innovative suppliers. 
A set of seven contrasting situations had been selected from the survey. The participants could chose from 2 sets of 5 procurement best practices (also from the survey). The discussions confirmed that best practices are context-related, and are not always applied. The Figure below shows some partial results. (Guess copy-pasting the entire spreadsheet would be a bit too boring ...).
The practices were discussed in 2 groups of 4 participants. Participants could individually select 1 or max 2 practices. All practices which were selected (in 2 rounds) at least 5 times, have been indicated below with YES. When all participants did not choose a particular practice, that has been indicated with NO. In some instances participants would like to use two best practices (two YES on one row), or only less than 4 participants agreed on a particular practice, which has been indicated with a ??. 

As the NO is inherently stronger (none of the participants chose to use this practice) than the YES, the Figure gives the NO in bold. Likewise the practices the participants would mostly use, are also shown in bold. 
[As more often in research, this TOP 2 of practices from these 8 participants does not totally align with the TOP 3 as suggested earlier in the survey (see an earlier blog). In part this is because the discussion wanted a max of 2 best practices in a certain situation. It part it may be due the small number of participants. Nevertheless the discussion has given a deeper insight in the applicability of the best practices]. 
And finally: when to use what procurement practice? For example, when dealing with incremental supplier innovations, the participants suggested they would more often use contracts (TOP 1 in survey). When dealing with radical supplier innovations, the participants suggested they would manage relations based on trust and mutual goals (TOP 3 in survey). They did not suggest using suppliers early in the innovation process (TOP 2 in survey). Likewise, in the case of radical innovations only the TOP 2 from the survey (managing risks) was partly found applicable. Rewarding innovative suppliers in case of incremental innovations ranked low in the survey.  
The complete set of practices will be discussed in one more round table discussion later this week. Please complete the survey if you want to contribute to this meaningful New Zealand research! We've made seven people happy with the draw on the Business Model Generation book. Stay tuned for more updates. 

3rd UPDATE survey results on Managing Innovative Suppliers

Meanwhile 120 people completed the survey, which is good! TXS all! (But then I could need a few more survey respondents…). This post discusses some survey results in more detail. 

COMPANY PROFILES

The survey has focused on companies and professionals in the built environment here in New Zealand.

SIZE DOES MATTER

Approximately 50% of surveyed companies have less than 100 employees; and 30% have more than 250 employees. Debating when a company should be considered small or large is quite a different story, which I will not discuss now. I do not follow a EU (< 250 staff) definition nor an NZ (< 20 staff) definition, but something in between. 

Based on literature I assume companies with less than 100 staff (65 respondents) will behave differently from companies with more than 250 staff (35 respondents), with in-between companies showing a sort of mixed behaviour. But then size does not explain everything and other variables will have an impact on the firm's behaviour. Anyway, for contrasting large and small firm procurement behaviour in this post, I skipped the middle segment (10 respondents). Later-on I will use more advanced statistics for analysing the effects of multiple variables.

DIFFERENT FROM OTHER NZ FIRMS. 

Most surveyed small-companies seem service-oriented, have an entrepreneurial approach and focus on excellent products. 

The surveyed small-companies claim that supplier interaction helps them in realizing successful green innovations and in achieving better company results. The intensity of such interactions with suppliers seem to vary, but small-companies seem to indicate more often that they have medium or high intense relations than large companies.

At the same time, small-company respondents indicated that their general management and strategy experience is markedly higher than their innovation or procurement experience. In general large company respondents suggest they have higher experience levels. 

Please note that we purposely (also) selected survey respondents from small entrepreneurial and ‘green’ companies. Hence our survey outcomes may differ from the wider building environment in New Zealand and at the same time could give some learning to other companies.  

SOME MORE SURVEY FINDINGS

Briefly some findings as they seem to appear.

When it comes to defining what specifications companies need from innovative suppliers (1st picture), both small and large companies seem to have fairly similar requirements. They both focus either on the technology or on the economic value, and want innovative suppliers to contribute to the specifications (light blue arrows). They did not consider that they had to manage adversial relationships (dark blue arrows).  

Both the survey and the roundtable discussion showed that managing relationship (2nd picture) with innovative suppliers is very important with small companies. These relations also seem more focused on mutual goals and learning for future opportunities. Although some recent procurement research (Wynstra, 2016?) could suggest that early supplier involvement is not always beneficial, this is still seen as fairly important with both small and large companies.

In case of  finding or selecting (3rd picture) innovative suppliers, small companies seem to appreciate flexible and cooperative suppliers, whereas large companies appreciate that their suppliers know the profiles and demands of end customers.  Large companies seem to use a wider set of selection criteria than small companies. Scanning overseas supplier markets is not high on the priority list of both types of companies. 

Overall, negotiating and contracting (picture to the right) was seen as a low-priority activity within small companies. This could partly be explained by their low negoiation power.

Moreover, negotiations of small companies seem to focus more on opportunities. Larger companies seem to focus more on total costs or managing risks. In line with that, they also seem to focus more on formal contracts than small-companies do.

ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSIONS

Last Friday (24 June) 15 professionals from the built environment discussed first survey results at AUT City Campus. They had lively and industry relevant discussions and appreciated the interaction. “Must do this more often”. “Thanks for these insights, it was most informative”. We will have a second discussion round at NZGBC on the 7^th of July.

Please complete the survey & contact me if you want to participate. We've already confirmations from several people. The discussion again promises to be a good learning moment for all of us.

Enjoy the week - stay tuned for more research. Best regards, Anne

2nd UPDATE SURVEY: Managing innovative suppliers in New Zealand

First preliminary insights from 50 respondents. 
!Only need 50 extra respondents!

HUNTING FOR NEW SUPPLIER IDEAS 

Finding a good innovative supplier seems more important than having a good contract or managing such a supplier.

CO-DEVELOPMENT WITH INNOVATIVE SUPPLIERS
Most important: Make very clear what you demand from your innovative supplier. Still least important: a good contract.

MORE ON MANAGING INNOVATIVE SUPPLIERS
- Innovative suppliers contribute to functionality.
- Focus on both the economic value & the technology that innovative suppliers provide.

- We use a wide range of criteria to select such suppliers
- Suppliers must be flexible and cooperative
- Supplier negotiations focus on cost, risks and opportunities.
- Relations are based on mutual goals, future opportunities, and early involvement.

WHO SAYS THAT SUPPLIER INVOLVEMENT IS BENEFICIAL?
- 37% of respondents are business owners. Respondents are experienced in management & strategy and somewhat less experienced in procurement or innovation.
- Respondents seem most satisfied with procurement activities with their innovative suppliers, and least satisfied with M&S activities with their innovative customers.
- Innovations with suppliers clearly seem more beneficial than innovations without suppliers. To a certain extent supplier involvement could (!) also result in more succesful green innovations.

SOME PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
(Based on only 50 respondents). Innovation procurement could be different from our ‘normal’ procurement practices which in the NZ built environment often focuses on lowest price and delivery and a lower level of trust. The type of innovation and the entrepreneurial orientation could also influence procurement.

Want to know more …

Complete the survey now and you will get a full report.
Your response will improve the quality of the survey!

First survey results - managing innovative suppliers

SURVEY: Managing Innovative Suppliers in the Built Environment

Dear all,

The number of respondents on via SurveyMonkey is gradually growing, but I need more respondents.

In this survey I am both interested in large and small companies, whether they consider themselves innovative or not, and whether they have intensive relations with innovative suppliers or not.

We will discuss findings from the survey, focussing on procurement practices of SMEs within the built environment when they manage their innovative suppliers. (AUT, 24 June).

All participants get a copy of the survey results, and have a change to win a hands-on book on improving business models. (See preview).

SMEs: New Zealand firms with less than 250 employees.
Built environment: construction, real estate, architects & design, engineers, builders, developers, building product suppliers, construction professionals, consultants, facilities management, etc.

Some wee first procurement practises from the survey. As yet without (!) ANY (!) statistical validity ....

• SPECIFICATION: respondents seem to focus on the economic value suppliers can provide; key suppliers seem to contribute to functional specifications.
• SELECTING SUPPLIERS: respondents seem to use a wide range of selection criteria, but also price and availability. Suppliers need to know the profiles of end customers.
• NEGOTIATING & CONTRACTING: respondents seem to focus on managing risks, and somewhat more on managing opportunities.  
• SUPPLIER RELATIONS: seem to focus on mutual learning for future opportunities.
• Trust with innovative suppliers and customers could both be seen as important. Respondents could have medium-to-high intense relations with several types of innovative suppliers. 
• It could be that innovations developed with suppliers could be somewhat be less incremental, than those developed for customers. 
• Turnover from supplier innovation could range from 0% to 90%. Innovations with supplier interaction could tend to be somewhat more positive for the firm and the natural environment, than without supplier interaction. 
• Respondents seem aware of the need to innovate with suppliers, but could be more satisfied with their internal innovation activities, Furthermore, they could be more satisfied with their innovation activities with their customers, than with their suppliers. 

In part these findings could align with results form our earlier interviews, in part these findings could differ from what literature learns us on small firm procurement. (But as in the current US elections, nothing is certain yet). 

Approx. 55% of current respondent firms have less than 100 employees.
Also, I like the fact that the respondents' background varies.
Of course I need much more data and deeper statistical analysis on to what extent (smaller) firms exhibit a specific procurement behaviour. And what the impact of the innovation type and entrepreneurial orientation is on this behaviour.

This will be the topic of the round-table discussion 24 June at the City Campus of AUT.
We need at least 25 participants from the small business community. So contact me if you are interested! (Click on my email address).
Exciting times for this small-firm procurement & innovation researcher.

You can help me by completing the survey now:
SURVEY: Managing Innovative Suppliers in the Built Environment

SURVEY: SME procurement practices with innovative suppliers

SURVEY & ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION 

Please forward this blog to your business relations interested in the research.

Interested in doing the survey first: click here
Interested in the AUT round-table discussion (24 JUNE):  click for more info

Procurement in innovative or entrepreneurial (SME) companies is different in two ways. It is certainly different from large-firm procurement (purchasing) but it also seems different from procurement in traditional SMEs. Large-firm procurement often focuses on cost-cutting and business continuity with specialised procurement professionals and formalized processes. There are heaps of good procurement guidelines (text books, blogs and best practices) to help us there.

SME PROCUREMENT

BUT: an SME (1-250 employees) is not a dwarfed-down version of a large organization (Welsh & White, 1981). This seems obvious from the Figure below (Nicolas, 2011), but is not so obvious when we need specific guidelines on SME procurement practices.    

Our Dutch research at Hanze University on mainstream (more traditional; Reboud, 2011) SMEs suggests that SMEs exhibit a sales-driven approach when they procure their key goods or services, Despite the huge variety of SMEs (e.g. Meijaard, 2005) our research confirms that SME procurement processes are often more informal and centred round the owner's attitude and experience (e.g. James, 2012). We have identified a number of critical practices which have been discussed at procurement and entrepreneurship conferences in Australia and Europe. We are currently developing procurement tools together with a number of Dutch SMEs.

My NZ PhD research would suggest that innovative construction SMEs go one step further. These SMEs have an entrepreneurial approach to procurement and seem to treat key suppliers similar to their customers. They manage supplier risks, and pursue supplier opportunities as they would pursue opportunities with new customers. These innovative SMEs seem to neutralize their famous "liability of smallness". They scan their supplier markets and interact with large overseas companies to introduce radical innovations into the industry. Again, this all may seem obvious. But there is no website or textbook discussing such entrepreneurial procurement practices. We must know more, so that companies can benefit.

SURVEY ...

That is why AUT will survey entrepreneurial (or innovative) firms interacting with innovative suppliers on green-tech construction innovations. Via the survey we need 100 responses from for example members of PrefabNZ  or NZGBC, or other companies & professionals who work with innovative suppliers. My focus is on companies with less than 250 employees that are active in the construction industry (either new-build, facilities management, or retrofit).

The survey runs from 18 April. Please on this link if you want to participate. We will draw 5 respondents who receive a hard-copy of the Business Model Generation handbook. Check the preview if you’re interested!  
Survey results are confidential and cannot be related to you or your company. 
Participation is voluntarily. All participants can receive anonymised survey results. 

... ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION
To learn more on this topic, we organise an industry round-table discussion on Friday morning, the 24th of June. If you are interested, please give name & email. We will again draw 5 participants for the famous Business Model Generation handbook. We will use the world-cafe method as advocated by Schiele e.a (2011) and Hoffmann (2012). This method stimulates discussion and brings good results for participants. 

HOW FIRMS WILL BENEFIT

Last week I attended a PrefabNZ conference here at AUT. New Zealand has clever and innovative construction companies. 

A large part of the value created for customers can be procured from suppliers (e.g. Van Weele, 2010; Staal & Walhof, 2014). Construction innovations are expensive and risky and companies can benefit from best-practices with innovative suppliers. The survey and round-table discussion are excellent means of developing and sharing procurement practices with the industry. 

Last year, I published a 4-page article on the role of green suppliers: Get your Green Suppliers on Board. It described findings from a workshop with 20-odd Facilities Management professionals, and has so far resulted in 100+ downloads. Likewise, I will publish on this PhD research via New Zealand blogs, websites and newsletters. Keep following this blog for updates.

As usual, you are welcome to email your suggestions & questions. They really help. 

TXS in advance, Anne

Interested in doing the survey: click here

Interested in the AUT round-table discussion (24 JUNE):  click for more info

PhD journey on procuring innovations - moving into 2016

In 2015 I succeeded in getting my research design and my ethical application approved. I combined this with lecturing a procurement paper and sustainability paper here at the Auckland University of Technology and continuing with teaching FMANZ master classes and a paper in Built Asset & Facilities Management. Lecturing again was great fun. I appreciated the student interactions and was lucky to read some really good reports. But then of course, when one does a PhD the learning & reading never seems to stop.

My PhD topic on how construction SMEs (small and medium enterprises) procure their green-tech innovation keeps fascinating me.  As does our Dutch research on how SMEs conduct their procurement(purchasing) activities. This research will enter its 3^rd year, now focusing on developing procurement tools. Meanwhile Melissa de Rijk from Hanze University has almost successfully finished her master research on how Dutch construction firms (main contractors) procure innovations.

The synergy between these two streams of research and my PhD may seem obvious. However this synergy is limited by the variety of SMEs and the exact research questions. There is much we have yet to learn about SME procurement, let alone how SMEs procure innovations, let alone how (SME) construction firms procure green-tech innovations. I see green-tech innovations quite broadly, for example product innovations used in New Zealand Prefab construction, or innovations from companies who are member of the NZ Green Building Council.

Writing conference papers related to my research has been prolific during 2015. In October I presented my research design at the conference Understanding Small Enterprises (USE 2015) which was hosted by my Dutch Hanze University of Applied Sciences. In February 2016 I will present a paper at the conference Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research Exchange (ACERE 2016) in Brisbane on how to design procurement management tools for SMEs. The ACERE again promises to be a relevant and an interesting conference.  (Both papers will also be published via the AUT researchgateway.ac.nz in FEB 2016).

For my PhD I am currently conducting interviews with experts & professionals here in Auckland. These interviews so far reveal some interesting procurement practices one would not always expect in relatively small companies. But then these companies are perhaps front-runners in how they manager their suppliers for successful innovations. Such topics will be discussed with more experts and professionals during a round-table discussion at the AUT. This discussion will be done in a specific setting, also called world(research) café. The planning is to organize this in the 4^th week of February 2016.  

But for now: A Merry X-mas and a Happy New Year. Cheers, Anne Staal

Purchasing within SMEs - IPSERA 2014 Abstract

 A Conceptual Model & Analytical Framework for Studying

                                          Purchasing & Supply Management within SMEs

The central objective of this conceptual paper is to gain a better understanding under what circumstances purchasing and supply activities within Small & Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are managed.

Purchasing & Supply Management (PSM) within SMEs differs from that in large enterprises. SMEs have different organisational settings and are not small versions of large enterprises. Whilst there is abundant literature on SMEs as well as on PSM, there is only little literature on PSM within SMEs. PSM research within SMEs must consider specific characteristics such as informal organisation, less specialization in business functions and less available resources. SME management focuses more on the overall operations and less on specific business functions. Their approach to inward-bound purchasing and supply activities is often holistic; their approach to outward-bound purchasing and supply activities is characterized by a relative dependent position in supply chains.
This paper proposes a conceptual model to explain the relationship between the governance of purchasing and supply activities and their purchasing and supply performance. The paper adopts the Transaction Cost Theory (TCT) with levels of integration to describe five governance types. To explain the relation between these governance types and performance, the paper includes the TCT-related moderating variables general uncertainty (macro and meso environment) and asset specificity (meso environment). It also introduces the moderating variables SME characteristics and management characteristics and business model. From this conceptual model the paper then develops an analytical framework which describes the five governance types and the circumstances under which they are ideal-typically sustained.  This framework can be used as a segmentation tool.
The conceptual model and analytical framework combine different domains of literature to enhance the understanding of the different forms of purchasing and supply activities within an SME context. Combining these different domains gives beneficial insights that cannot be found in the separate literature domains. In the empirical research the applying model and framework will enable the design of management instruments. Hence this paper forms a starting point for our purchasing and supply management research within SMEs aimed at supporting SMEs in their performance. (Back to posting).

This competitive paper was presented at the IPSERA 2014 conference in South Africa. 
Authors:  Dr. Geoffrey Hagelaar, Professor in Purchasing and Supply Management at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle (NL), email j.hagelaar@windesheim.nl. Mr. Anne Staal BEng MA DMS MBA, PhD researcher at Auckland University of Technology in Auckland (NZ) and senior lecturer at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, (NLD), email astaal@aut.ac.nz. Mobile phone: 0064 22 38 944 62. (AUT City Campus; WD209; 55-57 Wellesley Street Auckland 1010 New Zealand), corresponding author. Mr. Richard Holman, Assistant Professor in Purchasing & Supply Management at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, (NL), email rdp.holman@windesheim.nl. Mr. Gert Walhof MBA, Professor in Purchasing Management at Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen (NL), email g.h.walhof@pl.hanze.nl. The research is supported by theDutch  NEVI Research Foundation.

Kiwi XMAs and our PhD journey

Time really flies when we are having fun. Our second KIWI Xmas is now approaching fast. The family and the PhD have both been on a fast-lane lately. Sibren reached the finals with his Belmont Intermediate water-polo team; Edsard survived a set of daunting rugby matches & Aletta is busy working in Devonport Pharmacy. Guess they are all having great fun although Edsard decided to switch from rugby to sailing or to football. Which I can quite understand.

We are busily planning our first KIWI walkabout in the holiday season – Tauranga, Gisborne, Napier, Rotorua and Hobbiton with our Honda Honnepon. The boys and I have been sailing in the Hauraki Gulf in our Hokie-Pokie, our 40+ year trailer sailor. She’s a fair-weather Magnum 20 and the crew is a fair-weather crew. (So not exactly as on the famous picture). We will sail around Waihiki island during the first part of our Xmas break. To me the Hauraki seems like the best sailing water in the world. Beautiful islands all over, a blazing sun and water with the distinct colour of old Roman glass. Good water for swimming, snorkeling and fishing.

Teaching-wise has been quite busy as well. I lectured Asset & Facilities Management for 30-odd AUT postgrad students from the Master in Construction Management or Master in Engineering Project Management. Students said they very much enjoyed the classes and the interaction with Facilities Management practitioners. More or less in parallel I ran FMANZ master classes. Both the Built Asset & Facilities paper and the FMANZ master classes will continue to run in 2015. I really love the interaction and discussions in the class room – and always learn some new things myself. Moreover I met quite some nice people! (We feel less like a tourist now-a-days, but more like a Dutch Kiwi).

Our Dutch research on procurement within SMEs makes steady progress. Our IPSERA paper was ranked TOP 10 (see abstract) at the IPSERA 2014 conference. Unfortunately the paper was not accepted for publication in the Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. The up-side is that we gained some valuable feedback which we use for the next phase of our Dutch case study research and the upcoming Delphi study, which have both been planned in 2015.

 My own PhD research has of course taken most of my time & efforts. In November I submitted my doctoral research proposal (PGR9 in good AUT jargon) to my supervisors which both signed the beast off. Hence I will present and defend my proposal on 28 January 2015. I guess I am on schedule but condensing an 80 page text back to 20 pages was quite some work. Nevertheless writing a shorter text sharpened the structure, and also sharpened my thoughts on research design and topic. The research title now is: Procurement of non-incremental sustainable technology innovations - the case of entrepreneurial firms supplying the New Zealand construction industry.

I will present this research proposal as a conceptual paper at the upcoming entrepreneurship ACERE conference (Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research Exchange) in Adelaide Australia.
For any European blog-readers: this is a 5-hour flight to a totally different country. Again palm trees, but then also roos and bears.

I hope to learn as much at the upcoming ACERE as I did at the past IPSERA conference, and meet lots of nice and interesting people. As I will return the 8^th of February, I will also bring some birthday gifts home for both Aletta and Edsard. They both have their birthday on that same day.

But first we will have our second KIWI Xmas. Without snow, slate, cold rain, slippery roads, and dark wet-windy evenings. To a certain extent we will miss that good old Dutch feeling. However, we hope to compensate that with a traditional KIWI XMAS beach pick-nick.

The Staal-family-downunder wishes you a good 2015!

Abstract for ACERE 2015 conference

Traditionally construction industries in New Zealand and abroad have a low track record for successful sustainable innovations. This has a negative impact on private and government spending, and on quality, society and the environment.

This conceptual paper posits that the construction industry needs non-incremental (i.e. architectural, system, radical, modular) sustainable technology innovations to make drastic improvements. Such innovations often come from entrepreneurial (small) firms from other industries or at the beginning of supply chains and must be procured and adopted further into such chains. However, after an extensive literature review it remains unclear how entrepreneurial firms procure non-incremental sustainable technology innovations for the construction industry. The paper focuses on procurement activities of entrepreneurial firms in the New Zealand context. These activities interact with (internal and external) innovation activities for an optimal firm performance. They are affected by clusters of internal and external variables.

The ACERE paper discusses extant literature, a conceptual framework, main propositions, research aims and the choice for a focus group method.  The picture below shows the current conceptual framework with dominant variables as found in literature. These will be tested in alternating rounds of focus group studies and case studies. The research is part of a doctoral project. (Back to XMAS post).

After the IPSERA Conference - back in New Zillan

After the IPSERA conference my family and I enjoyed a nice holiday at the KariKari peninsula.  Our Honnipon, our old 4WD Honda had some long rides over white and very empty beaches which were covered with sea shells and other things two boys will enjoy. We probably enlarged or sea shell collection by at least 2 kilos. (What to do with them…). The boys also caught two snappers which we fried battered. For me it went down well with a local beer; the boys had their Australian Bunderberg. 

 We visited the Northern-most point of New Zealand, Cape Reinga. Although it rained and was foggy we did not feel the mysterious Maori souls going up to heaven. But then the boys loved sand surfing from the high dune tops. A good family holiday.

Getting back into the normal rhythm of AUT campus life proved somewhat more difficult. The IPSERA was a past highlight and then one has to focus on new goals. In part these were hidden in the literature: (1) on quality: how to ensure academic rigour and managerial relevance, and (2) on the content: how to further delineate the topic and improve the conceptual model. This took re-reading and additional lit review and (I hope) will strengthen my research proposal.

In parallel with much re-reading our joint Dutch research on purchasing within SMEs went into the empirical phase with cross-case studies conducted by a number of graduating bachelor students. At the same time we designed a Dephi study. These activities are all closely related to my own PhD research and help me on research content and on research methodology.

What also greatly helps is the fact that our IPSERA competitive paper has been shortlisted as an article for the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.
Asterix & Obelix would have said Hurray! 
Being shortlisted gives us some proof on the relevance and quality of our paper. In parallel Gert Walhof and I have been working on a paper discussing four purchasing case studies in Dutch SMEs in 2013. This all means writing, reflecting and re-writing.

Quite another strand of work has been preparing four sets of Master Classes for the Facilities Management association in New Zealand, the FMANZ. This builts on work of Hanze FM-graduate Herma Schutte. Developing these classes was done with some highly-motivated FMANZ & AUT people and some colleagues from my Hanze university. The Master Classes will run from September – December 2014. Moreover, we will try to get some Hanze graduates to NZ for an FM traineeships within NZ companies.

My research proposal now focusses on entrepreneurial construction firms and how they I purchase (procure / acquire) non-incremental 'green' innovations. I plan to defend my proposal in September, after having obtained some valuable feedback from people in Holland and in New Zealand. My empirical phase will then start with interviewing a number of experts and innovative entrepreneurs in the NZ construction industry. This promises to be a dynamic and interactive phase of my research.

Some work – Master classes and the IPSERA Purchasing Conference in South Africa

Preparing the post-grad supply management master-classes at the University of Pretoria was some hard work. Amazing that while lecturing this course for the 3rd time it still needed modifications on course contents and process. In the previous two years my colleague Marius van der Woude and I flew together from Amsterdam. This year my procurement professor Gert Walhof flew in from the Netherlands, and I flew all the way from Auckland. A horrible 24 hours flight. At least I can tell that saw the huge ice-masses of the Antarctic.

For me it was the third time to visit South Africa, a country with all the contrasts of a rainbow. On the streets one sees poverty and richness in one wink of the eye: beggars and BMWs. During the master-class we had a good discussion on ethics and fraudulent behavior. (See also PWC reports).  In fact at the IPSERA one week later, some presentations covered the same topic.  The highlight of the course was a tri-party negotiation game on trying to divide money between three football associations.

Gert and I were very happy with the hospitality of Mr. Wesley Niemann and his colleagues. We tasted some excellent wines over two excellent diners.

Rewarding work over the last months for meeting IPSERA deadlines for both my PhD proposal for a doctoral workshop and for our competitive paper. At the IPSERA conference it was nice & inspiring also to meet my research colleagues of Windesheim University: Geoffrey Hagelaar and Richard Holman. And of course lots of other nice people.
One of my areas of interest: innovation and procurement  is on the rise compared to a few years ago. The conference had some interesting presentations. Last year Spina et al. (2013) did a literature review and found that innovation is still in the second position, and costs are still leading. Let’s hope that in future our profession will not only the famous cost-cutter but can also bring new stuff to the table via e.g. supplier innovation. And increase top and bottom line relevance.

Modestly I must admit that my IPSERA presentations went smoothly but at the same time feedback from IPSERA attendants yielded in extra months of work. The informal networking over a glass of wine or a cup of coffee proved almost as valuable as the ‘formal’ feedback during the two presentations. Moreover, I feel that participating in other people’s presentations is very useful for an early-career researcher like me. The setting in the African wilderness was ‘awesome’ and for me IPSERA was a great success.

Wet and cold work. Our two boys Edsard and Sibren also experienced some hard work when they went surfing at the west coast near Auckland. (Tip top beaches in Bethels, Muriwai, and Piha). It was late in the season and the see was already quite cold. But the higher the surf, the more our boys enjoy their encounter with nature. It's good then that Aletta and I can enjoy the stunning & empty views with warm cups of coffee and sandwiches (with sand). Amazing that one can see this nature only a 30 minutes drive away from Auckland. New Zealand (to be pronounced ‘New Zillan’) is an amazing country. (Please click on the specific NZ dialect and the use of the hyperbolic word awesome).

Kia Ora!

The X-mas (summer) break was good. We visited almost all the beaches at the Hauraki Gulf and had some nice BBQs (in NZ: barbies) with newfound friends and colleagues. Our two kids had a three-day sailing course in small sailing boats called Optimists (in NZ: opties). Our English is improving and every day we hear Kiwi slang with a pronunciation far removed from the Queen’s English we learnt at school.

My research proposal for the PhD workshop at IPSERA in South Africa got accepted. (Hurray!) At the same time I need to further define the exact research subject and the related research design. Luckily I have a bunch of bright people around me (in the Netherlands and here in New Zealand) to help me with that. And Google Scholar can provide me with loads and loads of literature on all aspects of construction management, purchasing, disruptive innovations and sustainability. Sometimes I feel like a kid lost in a candy store. My subject circles around:

The role of purchasing in small construction firms when they want to introduce discontinuous waste-reducing (green) innovations. This focuses on the New Zealand situation but I will use international material for a better assessment.

Some say that the building industry is conservative and resists innovations. That however depends how you look at it (Sexton, 2004, 2006). In most countries the building industry is project-based and works in a complex setting. On a daily basis one sees incremental and day-to-day improvements on construction building sites. My current research proposal states that the construction industry could need discontinuous (or disruptive, or radical) innovations for drastic improvements. (For innovation info, please see the book of Christensen, 1997). I will focus on innovations with a technical nature and that can e.g. be protected by patents. These innovations relatively uncommon but when successful will make a big impact.

These discontinuous innovations I want to investigate complement the more incremental improvements. Definitions differ somewhat, but I see these as new or existent technologies not earlier applied in construction and new to the market or customers. Often the success lies not in the technologies per-se. Rather the success lies in new business models: how companies use these innovations in the market. I hope my research helps to give a better understanding on successfully introducing (absorbing / adopting) green technology. After all we all want good quality houses and buildings which are reasonably priced and can be built with little impact on our environment. Currently however building and living in houses has a huge negative impact on the environment as we use heaps of water and energy and material, and produce too much waste.

Disruptive innovations often come from small firms (Baumol, 2004; Manley 2008; Hardie 2011; Lambert 2010) from outside the industry or at the beginning of supply chains. These innovations must be purchased and adopted into such chains. For instance: innovative building materials that would work in a country without any earth quakes will not be immediately suitable in New Zealand. Just the other week there was a major (6.2) earth quake in Wellington but most buildings have only minor damage. The biggest thing that came down was the Hobbit eagle at display on Wellington airport.

When a small construction firm buys a new technology or product it has to be clever and purposeful and convince several stakeholders before this technology is successfully adopted by his customers, partners and building codes. I think that purchasing has a big role in this. At least that is the case in bigger companies (see e.g. research of Picaud and Johson). Smaller companies purchase their products and services differently (see e.g. research of Ramsey, Morrissey, or Paik). We know from e.g. Manley (2006) that manufacturers do sell technical innovations into construction supply chains. We know from Sexton that small construction firms focus on incremental improvements. Currently I do not know adequately how these small construction firms would successfully purchase and implement disruptive technologies. Let alone green technology. In the next few weeks I hope to find out more about this. Stay tuned on this blog!

BTW: Want to live in a grand mansion on the Dutch countryside? Just follow this link.

BTW: for some fresh family pictures, please visit our Staaltjesdownunder blog.

BTW: Please pose your questions and write down your remarks on this blog!