Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer-Buyer Relationships

Helen Walker is chair of operations and

supply management at Cardiff Business

School, University of Cardiff. Her research

interests include collaborative procurement,

public procurement, strategic outsourcing,

supply strategy, e-procurement, learning

in supply networks, commissioning, and

investigating sustainable procurement and

sustainable supply chain management in

the public and private sectors.

E-mail: [email protected]

Fredo Schotanus is a part-time assist-

ant professor of purchasing management

and management science at the University

of Twente in the Netherlands. In addition to

his academic activities, he works as a con-

sultant at Signifi cant. He has published a

book and several articles and book chapters

on subjects in purchasing management. His

research interests include public manage-

ment, group purchasing, purchasing and

supply management, allocation problems,

and supplier selection.


Elmer Bakker is principal consultant

with iESE Ltd. in the United Kingdom.

He also acted as iESE’s procurement

transformation manager in a previous

role as research offi cer at the Centre

for Research in Strategic Purchasing

and Supply, University of Bath School of

Management. His research interests include

public procurement, procurement strategy,

collaboration, supplier relationship manage-

ment, and the professionalization of the

purchasing and supply profession.


Christine Harland is professor of supply

strategy at the University of Bath School of

Management. Her research interests include

health sector supply management, strategic

supply chain management, supply policy,

international comparative studies of public

procurement, and evidence-based supply.

A cofounder of the International Research

Study of Public Procurement, now in its

sixth phase of research, her latest publica-

tion is the Sage Handbook of Strategic

Supply Management (2013).


588 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 73, Iss. 4, pp. 588–598. © 2013 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12048.

Helen WalkerCardiff University, United Kingdom

Fredo SchotanusUniversity of Twente, The Netherlands

Elmer BakkeriESE Ltd., United Kingdom

Christine HarlandUniversity of Bath, United Kingdom

Collaborative procurement is increasingly on the policy agenda in many countries, yet problems with collabo-ration occur. Th is article adopts a relational theory perspective to explore the enablers of and barriers to collaboration in purchasing, helping identify success factors. Th e authors adopted a mixed qualitative/quan-titative methodology and interviewed 51 senior staff ers in the United Kingdom. Th ey found that collaborative public procurement is hindered by local politics and dif-fering priorities, supplier resist-ance, reliance on suppliers for data, and a lack of common cod-ing systems. Enabling factors for collaborating with local govern-ments include dealing with local issues and buying from small and medium-sized enterprises. For health care providers, important themes are product innovation and ensuring supply. Th e authors develop a list of enabling factors and show their eff ect on collaboration success. Th is may assist policy makers in identifying areas of guidance and help practitioners prevent problems in collaboration.

Many governments worldwide are being required, because of the most recent eco-nomic crisis, to cut government spending

and reduce system ineffi ciencies. One of the ways in which governments try to reduce system ineffi cien-cies is by stimulating and/or enforcing more collab-orative public procurement. Th is means that many public organizations are increasingly encouraged to pool or share purchasing volumes, information, and/or resources (Schotanus et al. 2011, 265). However, while there is a policy imperative for collaborative procurement, public organizations often experience diffi culties in forging and sustaining interorganiza-tional relationships in the form of purchasing collabo-rations (Schotanus et al. 2011). Unfortunately, the literature off ers insuffi cient guidance in fi nding factors that enable public organizations to overcome these diffi culties (Dyer and Singh 1998). Although several

studies have been carried out on one or a few enabling and impeding factors, they do not provide a broad investigation of such factors. Also, these studies are not comprehensive. In this article, we identify several enablers and barriers that have not yet been identifi ed in the literature.

We aim to improve our understanding of what constrains public organizations in collaborating on

procurement and how collabo-rative procurement can become more advantageous for public organizations. Specifi cally, our research adopts a relational perspective to investigate in more detail the most common barriers to and enablers of col-laborative procurement in the public sector.

Th e contribution of this article is twofold: First, the research seeks to make a contribution to the lit-erature by addressing Dyer and Singh’s observation that “given the poor track record of many alliances, researchers might examine, in detail, the factors that impede the realization of relational [advantages]” (1998, 676). Using relational theory, we explore known and newly found enablers and barriers that exist in cooperative relations between organizations. Learning more about why collaborations succeed or fail is important for managerial practice, and this article provides detailed insights for practition-ers who are considering buying cooperatively with other organizations and for policy makers who are implementing a collaborative procurement policy. In addition, the lessons that we learn from this article may be transferable to diff erent public sector contexts.

Second, this article makes a contribution by apply-ing relational theory in a new context. Th e relational view has previously been applied to an exploration of buyer–supplier relationships, in which buyers

Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer–Buyer Relationships

Our research adopts a relational perspective to investigate in

more detail the most common barriers to and enablers of col-laborative procurement in the

public sector.

Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer–Buyer Relationships 589

and can be created only through the joint idiosyncratic contribu-tions of the specifi c collaborating organizations (cf. Dyer and Singh 1998, 662).

Th us, organizations may benefi t more by collaboration than by acting alone because of economies of scale, process, and/or informa-

tion. Collaboration may reduce waste in the procurement system, achieve better outcomes for taxpayers, and, hence, improve the overall socioeconomic position.

Several previous studies of public sector col-laboration in networks have referred to the relational perspective (although it is not the central underlying concept in these studies) in the following contexts:

• Strategic alliances in social service delivery networks (Graddy and Chen 2006)

• Using collaboration as a strategy for enhancing network gov-ernance in watershed management programs (Imperial 2005)

• Th e economic aspects of interorganizational relationships in the context of strategy formation and strategic governance in public agencies (Johanson 2009)

• Th e role of public business centers in fi rms’ networking capa-bilities and performance (Spithoven and Knockaert 2011)

To our knowledge, this is the fi rst study to make relational theory central to a public sector investigation of collaborative procure-ment. In the next section, we expand on the details of relational theory and view the collaborative procurement literature through a relational lens.

Collaborative Procurement: Enablers and BarriersIn the relational view, there are four potential enablers of relational rents (Dyer and Singh 1998). In the list that follows, we briefl y describe the potential enablers and illustrate them with examples from our research context to help translate the concepts to a non-profi t context.

1. Investments in relation-specifi c assets. For example, English local governments coappoint new procurement staff to work in newly created positions within a collaboration that the organizations have all invested in.

2. Substantial knowledge exchange, including exchange that results in joint learning. For example, Welsh local govern-ment collaborators exchange information about suppliers and their performance, about calls for proposals and expres-sions of interest, and about invitations to tender and con-tracts in order to negotiate with suppliers more eff ectively.

3. Combining complementary but scarce resources or capabili-ties, which results in the joint creation of unique new products, services, and/or technologies. For example, because of econo-mies of process, Welsh local government collaborations free procurement staff to work innovatively with local com-missioners in the commissioning of complex services, such as providing new regional services to support adults with learning diffi culties or combining local needs to provide more preventative services for vulnerable teenagers.

collaborate with suppliers to improve the performance of their supply chains (Paulraj, Lado, and Chen 2008). Both parties benefi t from cooperation, although they have competing self-interests. Relational theory has also been applied in the context of a supplier collaborating with another supplier in order to provide goods and services to a buyer (Wu and Choi 2005). Th e supplier–supplier rela-tionship has been framed as “co-opetition”—one in which competing suppliers work together to meet the buyer’s requirements (Wu, Choi, and Rungtusanatham 2010).

When buyers from diff erent organiza-tions collaborate in order to achieve greater effi ciency and better negotiating power with suppliers, we refer to this as a “buyer–buyer relationship.” It may be that because public sector organizations have similar goals and objectives, collaboration is easier in buyer–buyer relationships than in buyer–supplier or supplier–supplier relationships. To date, col-laborative buyer–buyer relationships have not benefi ted from being explored through a relational theory lens. Using interview data from 51 senior procurement staff members across the public sector in the United Kingdom, we show that the relational theory lens provides us with new insights into collaborative procurement. Th ese insights might help in managing public purchasing collaborations more eff ectively.

Th e article is structured as follows: First, the literature review sets out the theoretical foundations for the study. Previous studies of col-laborative procurement are then reviewed, taking a relational view of the enablers of and barriers to collaborative procurement. Th e meth-odology and the fi ndings of the study are subsequently presented and discussed in light of the literature. Finally, conclusions of the study are presented, along with the implications for policy, practice, and future research.

Literature ReviewTheoretical Foundations: The Relational ViewTh e theoretical perspective that we adopt is the relational view proposed by Dyer and Singh (1998). Th e relational view assumes that the sources of competitive advantage may span fi rm bounda-ries, just as interdisciplinary and cross-functional strengths lead to a competitive advantage within the fi rm. In line with this, it is also assumed that interfi rm networks may be more effi cient arrangements for achieving a resource-based advantage than single fi rms (Dyer and Nobeoka 2000). Th e relational view provides a good fi t with the collaborative arrangements studied, as the organizations are trying to establish an ongoing relationship that can create value that otherwise could not be created by any of the organizations independently. As the relational view has been used successfully to explore buyer–supplier relations (Chen and Paulraj 2004), the theory has the potential to shed light on buyer–buyer relationships.

In the public sector context of our study, if we substitute the concept of competitive advantage with that of “relational rent,” the relational view has signifi cance. We defi ne the concept of relational rent as an advantage generated collaboratively in an exchange rela-tionship that cannot be generated by either organization in isolation

When buyers from diff er-ent organizations collaborate

in order to achieve greater effi ciency and better negotiat-ing power with suppliers, we

refer to this as a “buyer–buyer relationship.”


Table 1 Relational Enablers of Collaborative Procurement Identifi ed in the Literature

Enablers Themes Authors

Relation-specifi c assets Member commitment Doucette 1997; Jost, Dawson, and Shaw 2005; Schotanus, Telgen, and Boer 2010Trust between members Hoffmann and Schlosser 2001

Knowledge-sharing routines

Cooperation and communication Erridge and Greer 2002; Essig 2000; Ritchie and Chadwick 2001; Schotanus, Telgen, and Boer 2010; Tella and Virolainen 2005

Better understanding through collective learning Cicimil and Marshall 2005; Schroeder, Bates, and Junttila 2002Complementary

resources/ capabilitiesAppropriate resources (training, IT, etc.) Erridge and Greer 2002; Hughes, Ralf, and Michels 1998; Rozemeijer 2000

Complementary expertise, skills, and resources Dyer, Kale, and Singh 2004; Erridge and Greer 2002; Jost, Dawson, and Shaw 2005; Kanter 1994

Standardized procedures and processes Erridge and Greer 2002; Essig 2000Joint selection of goods and services Hughes, Ralf, and Michels 1998; Rozemeijer 2000

Effective governance Top management support Erridge and Greer 2002; Hughes, Ralf, and Michels 1998; Rozemeijer 2000; Schotanus, Telgen, and Boer 2010

Agreed goals and performance measures Cicimil and Marshall 2005; Essig 2000; Hughes, Ralf, and Michels 1998; Schotanus 2007; Schotanus, Telgen, and Boer 2010

Implementation of appropriate structures Essig 2000; Nollet and Beaulieu 2003; Rozemeijer 2000; Schotanus, Telgen, and Boer 2010

Table 2 Relational Barriers to Collaborative Procurement Identifi ed in the Literature

Barriers Themes Authors

Asset interconnectedness

Diffi culties dealing with interdependence while competing over resources

Galaskiewicz 1985

Partner scarcity None found in literatureResource indivisibility Inequity of pain and gain

sharingErridge and Greer 2002;

Ritchie and Chadwick 2001; Rokkan and Buvik 2003; Schotanus, Telgen, and Boer 2008

Resistance to change Schotanus 2007Tension between au-

tonomy and collectiveJost, Dawson, and Shaw

2005Institutional

environmentDifferences in the way of

workingJost, Dawson, and Shaw

2005; Polychronakis and Syntetos 2007

Geographic distance Exworthy and Peckham 1998

Table 3 Lack of Enablers to Collaborative Procurement Identifi ed in the Literature

Lack of Enablers Themes Authors

Lack of relation-specifi c assets

Lack of member com-mitment

Ritchie and Chadwick 2001; Schotanus, Telgen, and Boer 2010

Lack of knowledge-sharing routines

Lack of cooperation and communication

Schotanus 2007

Lack of com-plementary resources/capa-bilities

Lack of resources Jost, Dawson, and Shaw 2005; Laing and Cotton 1997

Lack of standardized pro-cedures and processes

Laing and Cotton 1997

Lack of procurement skills

Aylesworth 2003; Erridge and Greer 2002

Lack of timing (contracts end at different dates)

Ritchie and Chadwick 2001

Lack of data Erridge and Greer 2002Lack of effective

governanceLack of procurement

credibility, loss of statusErridge and Greer 2002;

Ritchie and Chadwick 2001Lack of attention to sup-

plier resistanceSchotanus 2007

Lack of top management support

Schotanus 2007

4. Eff ective governance mechanisms resulting in lower transac-tion costs. For example, National Health Service (NHS) collaborations have a governing board made up of repre-sentatives from each organization, allowing more effi cient coordination. By having improved governance and greater economies of scope and scale, transaction costs are lowered by lessening the costs associated with searching for suppli-ers, lessening negotiation costs, and lessening the costs of monitoring contracts.

Tables 1–3 provide an analysis of the collaborative procurement literature, grouped thematically according to the relational view’s enablers of and barriers to collaboration. Table 1 presents the four enablers of interfi rm relations. With relation-specifi c assets, the pre-vious literature suggests that member commitment is important to collaboration, which relates to “human-asset specifi city,” the know-how generated through long-standing relationships (Williamson 1985). Evidence of knowledge-sharing routines is apparent, with cooperation, communication, and collective learning among group members emphasized. Some studies emphasize the importance of complementary resources and capabilities, including sharing appropriate resources and jointly selecting goods and services to buy together. Finally, choosing a governance structure that minimizes transaction costs, thereby enhancing effi ciency, is also important (Williamson 1985). In this context, the previous literature empha-sizes the need for top management support, appropriate structures, and compatible purchasing philosophies.

Dyer and Singh (1998) present four barriers to collaboration for those seeking to imitate successful collaborations. In the list the follows, we briefl y describe these barriers, again illustrating with examples from our research:

1. Interorganizational asset interconnectedness is based on the accumulation of shared resources. For example, concern within English local governments over investing in a col-laboration and neglecting the needs of one’s own organiza-tion, with some local governments willing to contribute more than other members to collaborations in terms of time, resources, knowledge, skills, and abilities.

2. Partner scarcity suggests that there are likely to be few partners with complementary resources and relational capacities. Th is is

not much of an issue in our study, as local governments and NHS trusts have many potential collaborators.

3. Resource indivisibility because of coevolution of resources. For example, once local governments have invested in a


(6), regional (6), and local (8) organizations, ranging from small to large organizations, that all had adopted collaborative procurement to some extent. All of the interviewees buy similar products and services, such as transportation services, agency staff , and energy; the NHS also buys medical products.

Our study employed purposeful sampling (Strauss and Corbin 1990), selecting interviewees who were senior procurement staff with detailed knowledge and experience of collaborative procurement for at least two years. Interviewees were identifi ed through our spon-sors, who provided public sector contacts. Interviewee titles included director, chief executive, category manager, and senior buyer.

More than 50 interviews is a reasonable sample size for a qualitative study (Morse 1994), allowing us to have some confi dence in the gen-eralizability of our observations. As an estimation of how representa-tive our sample is of public buyers, the total spending of the sample organizations is approximately £16.8 billion, which represents about 8 percent of the estimated spending of £220 billion in the public sec-tor (National Audit Offi ce and Audit Commission 2010).

Semistructured Interviews and AnalysisAn interview tool—with open-ended questions related to the job situation of the interviewee, experiences of collaborative procure-ment, constraints, problems, enablers, and so on—was developed. Interview summaries were sent to interviewees and verifi ed.

Th e interview fi ndings were compared across the NHS and English and Welsh local governments. Transcripts and summaries of the interviews were coded initially by one researcher. Th e coding was

conducted according to the themes in the rela-tional framework (Berg 1995). Each subsequent transcript was analyzed in the same way until there was a “saturation of themes” (Miles and Huberman 1994). A second researcher inde-pendently coded 10 interview transcripts and summaries. Th e two researchers had 87 percent inter-rater agreement regarding the consistency and frequency of allocation of interview quotes

to themes, which can be regarded as an acceptable level of agreement (Carey, Morgan, and Oxtoby 1996).

Finally, we presented the fi ndings of the study at a workshop. In total, 36 interviewees attended, as well as 10 attendees from other public sector organizations. Feedback from the workshop was posi-tive, and practitioners affi rmed the identifi ed barriers and enablers.

Findings and DiscussionWe found broad evidence for adopting a relational view in the con-text of the study but modifi ed the framework by making new addi-tions to the themes and by distinguishing between barriers and “lack of enablers.” Th e fi ndings are summarized in tables 4–6, with each table followed by a discussion of general fi ndings, sector-specifi c fi ndings, and new themes. In the appendix, the three tables are inte-grated into one to provide an overview of all of the themes found and their eff ects on the performance of a buyer–buyer collaboration.

Note that each table indicates how many interviewees commented on a theme. If a theme emerged repeatedly across the diff erent

collaboration, there is concern about what happens to shared staff , resources, and so on, if one of the local govern-ment organizations wants to leave.

4. Institutional environment may not lend itself to cooperation. For example, English local governments have diff ering local political agendas, which may make collaboration diffi cult.

Table 2 summarizes themes from the collaborative procurement lit-erature, grouped according to the four barriers. Several authors have identifi ed interdependence among organizations as a potential con-straint. No previous studies of collaborative procurement that we identifi ed cite scarcity of partners as a barrier. Th e equal sharing of benefi ts between collaborating organizations is an important aspect of interorganizational relationships (Lejeune and Yakova 2005). Several studies refer to barriers to collaborative procurement, such as resource indivisibility and inequity of sharing “pains and gains,” that is, sharing the (dis)advantages of collaboration. Two studies identify diff erences in the way of working as a potential hindrance in terms of the institutional environment.

Studies of collaborative procurement reveal that a lack of certain enablers (e.g., lack of member commitment, lack of standard rou-tines, etc.) could also hinder collaboration. We classify these as “lack of enablers,” as distinct from barriers, and put them in a separate table (see table 3). Th e lack of enablers seems to correspond to the list of enablers in table 1, although no evidence was found in the lit-erature specifi cally relating to “lack of knowledge-sharing routines.”

From our review of previous studies of collaborative procurement, we can see that the relational view can help conceptualize and clas-sify barriers to and enablers of collaborative buying. We also found it helpful to distin-guish between barriers and “lack of enablers” in evaluating the literature from a relational perspective. In this article, we provide an empirical investigation of these relational concepts by interviewing senior practition-ers engaged in collaborative procurement activities. We seek to evaluate whether the relational view can explain what happens when public sector organi-zations collaborate in their procurement activities. Th e next section outlines the methodology for the study.

MethodologyWe adopted a “sequential exploratory” mixed-methods design (Hanson et al. 2005), in which qualitative interview data are col-lected and analyzed fi rst, along with secondary data by using Web sites, reports, and documentation provided by the public sector organizations. Next, themes from the qualitative data were trans-formed into counts to see which collaborative procurement themes were most frequently mentioned by interviewees. Feedback on the fi ndings was then sought at a workshop.

Interview SampleTh e sponsors of the research were the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, the South East Centre of Excellence, and Value Wales. Th is shaped our sample to focus on the NHS (24 interviews), English local government (16 interviews), and Welsh local government (11 interviews). Th e interviewees came from a balance of national

We provide an empirical inves-tigation of these relational

concepts by interviewing senior practitioners engaged in collab-orative procurement activities.


Table 4 Enablers of Collaborative Procurement (� means that a theme has not been identifi ed in previous collaborative procurement literature)

Enablers Themes Lit. Local NHS Total

Relation-specifi c assets

Member commitment 10 8 16%

Knowledge-sharing routines

Cooperation and communication 7 2 8%Benefi ts calculated and

communicated� 4 3 6%

Better understanding through collective learning

0 0 0%

Complementary resources/ capabilities

Standardized procedures and processes

11 4 13%

Joint selection of goods and services

7 4 10%

Appropriate resources (training, IT, etc.)

4 4 7%

Complementary expertise, skills, and resources

1 2 3%

Effective gov-ernance

Top management support 5 7 11%Agreed goals and performance

measures6 5 10%

Supplier involvement and capacity

� 7 2 8%

SME support � 6 0 5%Implementation of appropriate

structures1 2 3%

69 43 100%

Table 5 Barriers to Collaborative Procurement (� means that a theme has not been identifi ed in previous collaborative procurement literature)

Barriers Themes Lit. Local NHS Total

Asset interconnectedness

Interdependence diffi culties while competing over resources

3 2 7%

Neglect interests of own organization

� 2 2 6%

Neglect needs of local community

� 2 1 4%

Partner scarcity None found in the data 0 0 0%Resource indivisibility Tension between autonomy

and collective7 3 15%

Inequity of pain and gain sharing

6 1 10%

Institutional environment

Confl icting local politics and differing priorities

� 6 9 21%

Resistance to change 7 4 16%Geographic distance 4 2 9%Diffi culties in stakeholder

management� 2 3 7%

Differences in way of working

2 2 6%

41 29 100%

Table 6 Lack of Enablers of Collaborative Procurement (� means that a theme has not been identifi ed in previous collaborative procurement literature)

Lack of enablers Themes Lit. Local NHS Total

Lack of relation-specifi c assets

Lack of member commitment

14 12 14%

Lack of attention to setting realistic expectations

� 1 1 1%

Lack of knowledge-sharing routines

Lack of common coding systems

� 7 15 12%

Lack of cooperation and communication

2 2 2%

Lack of complementary resources/ capabilities

Lack of data 7 12 10%Lack of standardized

procedures and processes12 5 9%

Lack of attention to ( potential) confl icts between local and collaborative staff

� 10 2 7%

Lack of resources 6 4 5%Lack of procurement skills 8 2 5%Lack of timing (contracts

end at different dates)6 2 4%

Because of a lack of data having to rely on suppliers for data

� 2 5 4%

Lack of strategic buying, better for commodities

� 3 2 3%

Lack of effective governance

Lack of procurement credibility, loss of status

9 5 8%

Lack of top management support

7 3 5%

Lack of attention to supplier resistance

7 3 5%

Lack of consideration of the supply market

� 8 2 5%

109 77 100%

public sector settings (i.e., having a higher percentage than other themes), this may indicate that it is a relatively common theme in collaborative public procurement. For ease of comparison, we also provide a column summarizing themes that emerged from the data but have not been identifi ed previously (the mark � in the “Literature” column means that a theme has not been identifi ed in previous collaborative procurement literature and is a novel fi nding from our data).

EnablersEnablers identifi ed in the study are presented in table 4. Th ese empirically derived enablers show a reasonable degree of congruence with those identifi ed in the literature in table 1.

Discussion of general fi ndings and comparing sectors. In the study, several enablers of collaborative procurement emerged strongly. Participants felt that collaboration was particularly aided by “member commitment and standardized routines and procedures.”

Eff ective governance, including “top management support and implementation of appropriate structures,” was mentioned as an enabler, particularly by NHS interviewees. Some NHS collabora-tions gave indications of such governance and cultural change issues on their Web sites. For example, one collaboration stated that its aim is “to bring about a new way of working in purchasing and transformational change in relation to procurement” (PRO-CURE 2010).

It is not shown in the table, but “standardizing procedures and proc-esses” was particularly emphasized by Welsh purchasers, who also saw “a lack of standardized procedures and processes” as hindering collaboration (see table 6). Th is can be explained by the fact that reducing bureaucracy and standardizing procedures and processes have been given strong national attention in Wales (Value Wales Procurement 2009).

In terms of knowledge-sharing routines, interviewees discussed collaboration being enabled by “cooperation, communication, and sharing.” However, they did not specifi cally discuss “collec-tive learning,” which has been identifi ed as an enabler in previous


authority, procurement manager). Buying from SMEs needs to be balanced; if local SME preference leads to cooperative purchases that cost more or are less effi cient, this could become a barrier to eff ective cooperative purchasing.

Th e fi nal new enabling theme identifi ed was the need to “calculate and communicate benefi ts among members,” which might also be related to “a lack of attention to setting realistic expectations” (see

table 6). Th is also means that it is important to persuade members to be committed to their collaborative contracts, as illustrated in the following comment: “Collaborations can show [members] the eff ect that a lack of com-pliance has on savings” (NHS Collaborative Procurement Hub, senior buyer).

Given this fi nding, we suggest that the devel-opment and application of clear calculation methods for indicating collaborative value

will enable more successful and committed public procurement collaborations.

BarriersBarriers identifi ed in the study are summarized in table 5 and, again, are contrasted with the barriers identifi ed in the literature in table 2.

Discussion of general fi ndings and comparing sectors. The political infl uence on collaboration is an interesting and unique aspect of public sector procurement. It also speaks to some of the differences observed between the local entities and the national ones. Both local governments and NHS interviewees mentioned “confl icting local politics and differing priorities.” However, concerns for “local community needs and buying from (local) SMEs” (see table 4 for the latter) emerged as more important for local governments than for the NHS. From table 4, the possibility of “supporting SMEs” through collaboration was seen as important to the local government participants interviewed (5 percent) but was not identifi ed by the NHS participants. Local government participants (see table 5) (9 percent) commented more than NHS interviewees (4 percent) on the tensions between “local autonomy and the collective” and on the “inequity of pain and gain sharing,” where the collaborating organizations do not share risks and rewards equally (9 percent among local government participants compared to 1 percent among NHS participants). By contrast, the NHS participants did not put such an emphasis on local issues, and they commented on the relational rents gained by, for example, sharing costs on testing innovative products and assuring supply. This broader view may be attributable to the fact that buyers in the NHS are concerned not just with their own local agendas but also with national strategic supply policy issues, such as product innovation, which are common across all trusts. It would be interesting to conduct further research to understand collaborative procurement from the perspective of different levels (local, regional, and national) in the public sector. We expand on this point in the conclusion.

Discussion of new themes that have not yet been identifi ed in the literature. Before we discuss the new themes found, we note that, unlike the relational literature, our study did not fi nd any concerns about partner scarcity among any of the participants, which seems

collaborative procurement research (see table 1). Welsh partici-pants particularly emphasized the importance of “cooperation and communication,” and one participant made the following observa-tion regarding knowledge-sharing routines: “Value Wales needs to provide knowledge transfer points . . . to share information between local authorities or provide networking events in which people can be familiarized with a contract, and experiences can be shared” (Welsh local government, chief executive).

Policy makers and practitioners could inves-tigate ways to develop knowledge-sharing routines and collective learning in order to support collaboration.

Discussion of new themes that have not yet been identifi ed in the literature. The fi rst new theme has to do with the perception among participants that collaboration was aided by ensuring “supplier involvement and capacity” for larger collective contracts. This theme can also be observed in the list of lacking enablers in table 6, where a lack of supplier involvement was evident in comments concerning “a lack of attention to supplier resistance” (to larger collaborative contracts), “a lack of consideration of the supply market” (a lack of suppliers in the supply market may leave buyers with little choice), and “relying on suppliers for data about which organizations buy which products.” Supplier involvement under different conditions could be interpreted as either an enabler or a barrier. For example, suppliers can inform staff about products to help purchasing decision making, but also, suppliers may provide biased information and favor certain product lines over others, thereby hindering effective cooperative purchasing. One interviewee commented, “Suppliers have direct relationships with clinicians and want to keep it that way . . . industry has built up confusion about products when they are essentially the same” (NHS Confederation, senior buyer). Hence, compared to collaboration on nonprocurement issues, collaborative procurement seems to be specifi cally hindered by a lack of consideration of suppliers.

Another new enabler concerns small- and medium-sized enter-prise (SME) support. Collaborative buying, while still enabling local SMEs to participate in the tenders (e.g., by collaborative tendering in small lots), was seen as an important enabler by local government participants and is part of the broader agenda for local government. Councils are asked to encourage diverse and competi-tive market supply, including small fi rms (U.K. Department for Communities and Local Government 2008). Th e Small Business Friendly Concordat states, “Th e Government is committed to help-ing small fi rms because they represent such a powerful engine for economic growth. . . . SMEs are often local businesses and members of the local community; therefore any assistance given to them can also bring benefi ts to the local community” (Local Government Association 2005).

Buying from local SMEs to bring benefi ts to the local community is illustrated in the following comment by a participant: “One of the things that is always with me is if I put a pound into [a local SME] then it is probably going round [the local economy] fi ve to seven times. Th at is terribly important for a local authority” (English local

We suggest that the develop-ment and application of clear calculation methods for indi-cating collaborative value will

enable more successful and committed public procurement

collaborations.


In addition, if collaboration on a contract is unsuccessful, members may revert to taking care of local needs: “We are all paid by our individual authorities and we have to succumb to the pressure of those, so if somebody tried a [collaborative] contract and all of a sudden the — hits the fan, the authority priority will have to take fi rst place” (English local government, senior buyer).

It is apparent that the themes of political infl uence and local priorities emerged strongly across local governments. It is under-standable and expected that diff erent local governments may have diff erent priorities, but it seems from the aforementioned com-ments that these diff erences could have a negative impact on the nature and extent of the collaboration. Some of these less tangible barriers may be overcome by establishing closer ties with col-laborating buying organizations. For example, it may be helpful for procurement practitioners and locally elected offi cials in the early stages of a collaboration to discuss and align agendas with the collaborators so as to prevent potential confl ict. If it can be demonstrated that there are greater benefi ts to the collaboration—that is, greater relational rents occur—then the diff ering priorities may not deter collaboration. Additionally, procurement offi cers can use certain procurement techniques that enable governments to still express certain local priorities in joint tenders and enable local businesses to participate in these tenders. Examples of such techniques are tendering in lots (each lot represents one member of a collaboration, and suppliers can bid on one or more lots) and using fl exible functional specifi cations instead of more rigid technical specifi cations.

Lack of EnablersRegarding collaboration being constrained by a “lack of enablers” (see also table 3), the analysis benefi ted from the diff erentiation between the categories “lack of enablers” and “barriers,” as more comments concerned “lack of enablers” (50 percent of all quotes) shown in table 6 compared to the comments concerning enablers and barriers (see also tables 4 and 5).

Discussion of general fi ndings and comparing sectors. Common hindrances perceived across all public sector settings included “a lack of member commitment and resources, top management support, common coding systems and data, and procurement credibility” preventing successful collaboration.

English local governments had a particular concern about a lack of top management support hindering collaboration, which may indicate concerns about the political infl uence of senior local government offi cials. Th e NHS stood out as concerned about a lack of common coding systems. Th is may be of less concern within local governments, as they often conduct collaborative procurement through standardized Web portals (IESE 2010).

Discussion of new themes that have not yet been identifi ed in the literature. In all, six new themes were identifi ed relating to “lack of enablers.” Some of the new themes have already been discussed in the previous sections in related discussions (we addressed earlier “lack of attention to setting realistic expectations,” “lack of attention to [potential] confl icts between local and collaborative staff,” and “lack of consideration of the supply market”). In this section, we discuss the three new themes that have not been addressed.

to be less relevant in the NHS and local government context. Such organizations are unlikely to suffer from a lack of collaborators. In England and Wales, there are 410 local authorities and more than 450 NHS Hospital Trusts and Primary Care Trusts that can collaborate on purchasing in a variety of forms at the local, regional, and national levels (Bakker et al. 2008). Despite many potential partners, different partners may be appropriate for collaborative purchasing of different products or services, depending on geographic proximity, the size of the population, and factors such as employment rates, population age profi les, and whether the community served is urban or rural. For some products or services, there may be fewer potential partners, such as specialist hospitals and clinics, which may need to work together beyond the usual regional boundaries (e.g., Roehampton Amputee Rehabilitation Clinic collaborates with the Prosthetic Rehabilitation Unit at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital and with other clinics as part of the Prosthetic Strategic Supply Group). Partner scarcity may be a concern for other parts of the public sector that have fewer potential collaborators, such as in defense sector procurement.

Our research suggested four barriers to collaboration that have not been previously identifi ed in the literature that give a more fi ne-grained detail to understanding the tensions between collabo-ration and the needs of local organizations. Collaborations may present obstacles to “managing local stakeholders,” as attention may be focused on collaborating at the expense of local interests. Participants were concerned that collaborations might cause mem-bers to “neglect the interests of their own organization and the needs of the local community” that they represent.

It is also notable that many interviewees face “confl icting local politics and diff ering priorities,” especially if they are geographi-cally distant from one another. A previous study found that elected offi cials’ interests may not be compatible with interlocal cooperation (Zeemering 2008). In our study, local political infl uence was seen as having the potential to hold back a shared agenda. Th e political infl uence of local government is illustrated in the following com-ments, in which collaborative procurement staff referred to the views of politicians secondhand: “Related to the political infl uence that local authorities exert on procurement is the diversity of issues and priorities. Th ere are diff erent priorities in Blackpool, where there are a high number of drug users and related crimes, compared to Portsmouth where there are a higher number of road accidents . . . Th is means that budgets will be allocated to diff erent areas of interest, not necessarily purchasing. Th is will make collaboration on some things diffi cult” (English central government, director of procurement).

Buyers expressed concern that collaborative procurement might lead to the local economy, local suppliers, and their own interests losing out: “Th e elected council members have responsibility for local economic and social well-being. So why would they collabo-rate with another council, take part in a tender and invest in this, if that meant the selected supplier would be from another region, benefi ting someone else’s local economy? Th ere is no incentive to do so” (Welsh local government, director of procurement). Another participant expressed, “Procurement staff fear job losses that may result from any collaborative purchasing arrangements” (Welsh local authority, senior buyer).


Collaboration may also assist in adherence to policy guidance. Public sector procurement needs to observe European Union pro-curement policies and rules. It should also demonstrate accountabil-ity, fairness, equity, and transparency; maximize competition; and maintain a level playing fi eld for suppliers (European Commission 2012). Th ese procurement principles might be met more effi ciently by collaborative procurement than by individual organizations, as acceptable procurement processes can be followed more eff ectively and expertise can be consolidated.

Another useful direction for future policy may be to develop guidance and promote the more strategic aspects of collaboration rather than use collaborative procurement as a vehicle for exploiting economies of scope and scale. Collaborative purchasing clearly benefi ts standard

routine items, where one can achieve savings by aggregating demand among several organiza-tions and by driving down prices with suppli-ers, for example, buying electricity or paper in bulk. Strategic purchasing concerns analyzing the product or service portfolio of the collec-tive organizations (Kraljic 1983). Decisions can be made about which items are most costly (e.g., the building of new hospitals), present the greatest supply risk (e.g., the health service needs to ensure supply of fl u vaccinations from specialist suppliers, whereas saline or bandages

might be available from a wide variety of suppliers), and are of greatest strategic importance (e.g., commissioning complex health and social care services, such as mental health services, may have the biggest impact on community well-being).

Important categories can be managed by specifi c teams, and key supplier relationship management can be developed. By working more closely with suppliers, one is more likely to have product

innovations and quality improvements. Strategic purchasing is more easily pursued with collaborative procurement, where there are economies of scope and scale and dedi-cated staff , and where mainly large and/or (quasi)monopolistic suppliers are involved. Collaborative procurement, therefore, enhances effi ciency concepts (Gershon 2004) by providing savings and introduces dynamic effi ciencies such as innovation and product or service quality.

In terms of practitioner implications, the research suggests some common factors that signal successful collaborations, as well as other factors that may answer some of Dyer

and Singh’s (1998) concerns about why many collaborations fail. Practitioners need to put eff ort into standardizing procurement pro-cedures and processes, agreeing on goals and performance measures, and ensuring the commitment of members and the joint selection of goods and services, which all have been identifi ed as important to the success of collaborations. Rather than achieving a collaborative advantage, “collaborative inertia” is sometimes a more apt descrip-tion of the collaborative process (McGuire 2006). Practitioners need to fi nd some way of reconciling tensions between individual and

In terms of knowledge-sharing routines, a new theme among NHS interviewees was that hospital trust procurement departments have “no common procurement coding system” for coding and categoriz-ing products and services. Th is leads to “a lack of [comparable] data” on which products and services are being bought by which hospitals. Collaborations may have “to rely on possibly less reliable data from sup-pliers” to calculate compliance with collaborative contracts and to iden-tify new possibilities for joint tenders. Collaborating organizations can benefi t from improving relational information technology and e-collabo-ration for relational rent (Johnson et al. 2007; Rosenzweig 2009).

Some interviewees commented that collaborative procurement was more suited to standard items and commodities, whereas more strategic purchasing to meet longer-term aims was better left to the organizational level. “Our focus is away from strategic purchasing in our collaborations, as a lot of managerial eff ort is required” (NHS Collaborative Procurement Hub, senior buyer).

Some interviewees believed that collaborative purchasing of commodities would, over time, become routine and release staff to focus on more strategic purchasing. Th e possibility of col-laborating on strategic items was discussed at the fi nal workshop conducted as part of this study. During the workshop, it was suggested that there must be “greater exploration of the more strategic aspects of collabora-tion,” rather than a focus on standard items that were deemed “easy.” Th is echoes calls for purchasing to have a more strategic focus (Chen, Paulraj, and Lado 2004; Ellram and Carr 1994), which has been found to be benefi cial to integration in buyer–supplier relationships (Paulraj, Chen, and Flynn 2006) and may also benefi t buyer–buyer relationships.

Managerial ImplicationsTh e fi ndings discussed in the previous sections have several lessons for policy and practice. For policy makers, the research highlights some of the specifi c common barriers to and enablers of collaborative procurement, which may assist policy makers in identifying areas of support and guidance that can be off ered regionally and nationally. Th e new themes that we identifi ed from our data may indicate that policy makers could (1) develop tools for calculating the benefi ts of collaboration, (2) off er facilitation to collaborating organizations to aid discussion their diff ering local needs, and (3) off er advice on involving suppliers and SMEs in the early stages of collaboration.

Looking at the lessons for policy makers from the perspective of relational theory, knowledge-sharing routines benefi t interfi rm rela-tions (Dyer and Singh 1998) and public sector knowledge networks (Dawes, Cresswell, and Pardo 2009) but were not widely in evidence in our study. In the Netherlands, the PIANOo Web site (2007)—funded by the Dutch government—provides online discussion forums for procurement practitioners, which may be an effi cient way for communities of practice to establish knowledge-sharing routines and exchange knowledge to support collaborative procurement.

Th e new themes that we identi-fi ed from our data may indicate

that policy makers could (1) develop tools for calculating the

benefi ts of collaboration, (2) off er facilitation to collaborating organizations to aid discussion their diff ering local needs, and (3) off er advice on involving

suppliers and SMEs in the early stages of collaboration.

Some interviewees commented that collaborative procurement

was more suited to standard items and commodities, whereas

more strategic purchasing to meet longer-term aims was

better left to the organizational level.


Furthermore, we found noticeable diff erences between collaborating local governments and collaborating health care providers that have not yet been identifi ed in the literature. For local governments pur-chasing collaboratively, dealing with concerns about local issues and buying from SMEs seem to be specifi c success factors. For health care providers, concerns about product innovation and ensuring security of supply seem to be strong collaborative procurement themes.

Implications for Further ResearchTh ere are several opportunities for future research. Th e existing literature on collaborative procurement has often lacked theoretical underpinnings and has not had a comprehensive overview of barri-ers and enablers. In this article, we address these gaps by adopting a relational lens and extending existing knowledge of what helps and hinders collaboration. We would like to continue our contribution to theory testing and develop a more fi nely grained understanding of how the conditions for collaboration might be made more condu-cive from a relational perspective and what the implications are for collaborating organizations. Th is could include survey research to sys-tematically scrutinize the antecedents and moderating factors aff ecting collaborative procurement and how collaboration aff ects fi nancial and operational performance. We feel that the relational approach may prove fruitful in future studies of collaborative procurement.

Furthermore, other theories may shine more light on buyer–buyer relations and the broader fi eld of collaborative public procurement

collective interests, overcoming resistance to change, and accommo-dating diff erent priorities and organizational agendas. Putting eff ort into building relational capital and commitment between collabora-tion members may provide a way to overcome such barriers. Our fi ndings affi rm the observation that public managers need to budget the time necessary to negotiate with collaboration members about how to govern, paying attention to the tension between self-interest and collective interest and building reciprocal and trusting relation-ships (Th omson and Perry 2006).

ConclusionTh is study adopted a relational lens to explore collaborative pro-curement. Applying this perspective to collaborative procurement not only provides us with an extensive overview of (newly found) impeding and enabling factors in collaborative procurement (see appendix) but also with new insights.

Among other things, we found that, compared to collaboration on nonprocurement issues, collaborative procurement is hindered specifi cally by a lack of common coding systems, a lack of considera-tion of the supply market, supplier resistance, reliance on suppliers for data, and a lack of strategic buying. We also found that, com-pared to collaborative procurement in the private sector, collaborative procurement in the public sector is hindered by local politics and dif-fering priorities. On the other hand, partner scarcity does not present an obstacle to collaborative procurement in the public sector.

Table A.1 Overview of All Factors That Impede (–) or Enable (+) Collaborative Procurement (� means that a theme has not been identifi ed in previous collaborative procurement literature)

Factor Categories Themes Effect Lit. Total

(Lack of) relation-specifi c assets and asset interconnectedness

(Lack of) member commitment +/– 13%Lack of attention to setting realistic expectations – � 1%Interdependence diffi culties while competing over resources – 0%Neglect interests of own organization – � 0%Neglect needs of local community – � 0%

(Lack of) knowledge-sharing routines and partner scarcity

Lack of common coding systems – � 6%(Lack of) cooperation and communication +/– 4%Benefi ts calculated and communicated + � 2%Better understanding through collective learning + 0%

(Lack of) complementary resources/ capa-bilities and resource indivisibility

(Lack of standardized) procedures and processes +/– 9%Lack of data – 5%Lack of attention to (potential) confl icts between local and collaborative staff – � 3%Joint selection of goods and services + 3%Lack of resources – 3%Lack of procurement skills – 3%Tension between autonomy and collective – 0%Lack of timing (contracts end at different dates) – 2%Appropriate resources (training, IT, etc.) + 2%Inequity of pain and gain sharing – 2%Because of a lack of data having to rely on suppliers for data – � 2%Lack of strategic buying, better for commodities – � 1%Complementary expertise, skills, and resources + 1%

(Lack of) effective governance and institutional environment

(Lack of) top management support +/– 6%Confl icting local politics and differing priorities – � 4%Lack of procurement credibility, loss of status – 4%Agreed goals and performance measures + 3%Resistance to change – 3%Lack of attention to supplier resistance – 3%Lack of consideration of the supply market – � 3%Supplier involvement and capacity + � 3%SME support + � 2%Geographic distance – 2%Diffi culties in stakeholder management – 1%Differences in way of working – 1%Implementation of appropriate structures + 1%

100%


ReferencesAylesworth, Mary. 2003. Purchasing Consortia in the Public Sector: Models and

Methods for Success. Paper presented at the International Supply Management Conference, Nashville, TN, May 18–21.

Bakker, Elmer, Helen Walker, Fredo Schotanus, and Christine Harland. 2008. Choosing an Organizational Form: Th e Case of Collaborative Procurement Initiatives. International Journal of Procurement Management 1(3): 297–317.

Barney, Jay. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.

Berg, Bruce L. 1995. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, and Rosemary O’Leary. 2006. Conclusion: Parallel Play, Not Collaboration: Missing Questions, Missing Connections. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 161–67.

Carey, James W., Mark Morgan, and Margaret J. Oxtoby. 1996. Intercoder Agreement in Analysis of Responses to Open-Ended Interview Questions: Examples from Tuberculosis Research. Cultural Anthropology Methods 8(3): 1–5.

Chen, Injazz J., and Antony Paulraj. 2004. Towards a Th eory of Supply Chain Management: Th e Constructs and Measurements. Journal of Operations Management 22(2): 119–50.

Chen, Injazz J., Antony Paulraj, and Augustine Lado. A. 2004. Strategic Purchasing, Supply Management, and Firm Performance. Journal of Operations Management 22(5): 505–23.

Cicmil, Svetlana, and David Marshall. 2005. Insights into Collaboration at the Project Level: Complexity, Social Interaction and Procurement Mechanisms. Building Research and Information 33(6): 523–35.

Dawes, Sharon S., Anthony M. Cresswell, and Th eresa A. Pardo. 2009. From “Need to Know” to “Need to Share”: Tangled Problems, Information Boundaries, and the Building of Public Sector Knowledge Networks. Public Administration Review 69(3): 392–402.

Doucette, William R. 1997. Infl uences on Member Commitment to Group Purchasing Organizations. Journal of Business Research 40(3): 183–89.

Dyer, Jeff ery H., Prashant Kale, and Harbir Singh. 2004. When to Ally and When to Acquire. Harvard Business Review 82(7): 108–15.

Dyer, Jeff ery H., and Kentaro Nobeoka. 2000. Creating and Managing a High-Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network: Th e Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal 21(3): 345–67.

Dyer, Jeff ery H., and Harbir Singh. 1998. Th e Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(4): 660–79.

Ellram, Lisa M., and Amelia S. Carr. 1994. Strategic Purchasing: A History and Review of the Literature. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 30(2): 9–19.

Erridge, Andrew, and Jonathan Greer. 2002. Partnerships and Public Procurement: Building Social Capital through Supply Relations. Public Administration 80(3): 503–22.

Essig, Michael. 2000. Purchasing Consortia as Symbiotic Relationships: Developing the Concept of Consortium Sourcing. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 6(1): 13–22.

European Commission. 2012. Public Procurement. Brussels: European Commission.Exworthy, Mark, and Stephen Peckham. 1998. Th e Contribution of Coterminosity

to Joint Purchasing in Health and Social Care. Health and Place 4(3): 233–43.Galaskiewicz, Joseph. 1985. Interorganizational Relations. Annual Review of Sociology

11(1): 281–304.Gershon, Peter. 2004. Releasing Resources to the Front Line: Independent Review of

Public Sector Effi ciency. London: Her Majesty’s Treasury.Graddy, Elizabeth A., and Bin Chen. 2006. Infl uences on the Size and Scope of

Networks for Social Service Delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 16(4): 533–52.

(Bingham and O’Leary 2006), such as the resource-based view (Barney 1991), the collaborative paradigm (Huxham 1993), or social capital theory (Granovetter 1985; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). Th ese theo-ries have been previously applied to investigations of supply networks and may have salience in public sector buyer–buyer contexts.

Our study sample involved the NHS and English and Welsh local governments. We would like to extend the sample to include more public sector collaboration settings, such as collaborations within defense or education. In addition, procurement collaborations across diff erent public organizations are emerging, such as between local governments and the police (SouthWest One 2010), and it would be interesting to include these collaborations in future research. Our fi ndings from a relational perspective may also have signifi cance for collaborative procurement in other countries, and it would be useful to assess the generalizability of our identifi ed themes through inter-national comparative studies, such as comparing NHS procurement hubs with group purchasing organizations in the U.S. health sector or comparing collaborative purchasing between local authorities in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Th e people in our study who provided information on collaborative procurement are also participants in the collaboration, and they may have reasons for providing a biased view that is systematically too positive or negative (King, Keohane, and Verba 1994). Th e inter-viewees were all senior procurement managers from organizations adopting a collaborative approach, and there is a risk of homoge-neity of respondents. Th is may have biased the fi ndings, and thus casting a wider net for participants in subsequent studies would be benefi cial. Future research could include interviewing procurement staff from organizations that do not adopt collaborative procure-ment and extending the research to include local politicians, chief executives, and fi nance offi cers who are in a position to infl uence the extent of collaboration. Th is would provide a richer view of purchasing collaborations and allow more exploration of political barriers to collaboration.

Participants found it hard to quantify the “added value” that Dyer and Singh suggest collaborations can bring, and further research that scrutinizes perceptions of “added value” would be benefi cial. It would also be useful to investigate the strategic aspects of collabora-tive procurement in more detail, potentially adopting a portfolio model approach to help organizations decide which products and services are most strategically important to their service delivery and then focus on collaboratively purchasing strategic items.

A potentially interesting future research extension could draw out the diff erences between collaborations in the public and private sectors to understand sector diff erences and commonalities and the implications for those doing business across sectors.

Finally we note that collaborative procurement policy is on the public sector agenda in many countries, yet many organizations still experience diffi culties in implementing this policy eff ectively. Th is research provides insights into the benefi ts and pitfalls of collabora-tion from a relational theory perspective. It seems that there may be relational rents, where the collaboration is greater than the sum of its parts. Th is article takes preliminary steps in identifying the fac-tors that ensure that such collaborations succeed.


PIANOo. 2007. Cooperative Purchasing. http://www.pianoo.nl/Aanbestedingspraktijk/Inkoopsamenwerking [accessed February 2, 2013].

Polychronakis, Yiannis E., and Aris A. Syntetos. 2007. “Soft” Supplier Management Related Issues: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Production Economics 106(2): 431–49.

PRO-CURE. 2010. http://www.pro-cure.nhs.uk/ [accessed February 2, 2013].Ritchie, John, and Tom Chadwick. 2001. A Quart from a Pint Pot? Developing

the Eff ective Use of Purchasing Consortia. In Best Practice Procurement: Public and Private Sector Perspectives, edited by Andrew Erridge, Ruth Fee, and John McIlroy, 136–42. Aldershot, UK: Gower.

Rokkan, Aksel I., and Arnt Buvik. 2003. Inter-Firm Cooperation and the Problem of Free-Riding Behavior: An Empirical Study of Voluntary Retail Chains. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 9(5–6): 247–56.

Rosenzweig, Eve D. 2009. A Contingent View of E-Collaboration and Performance in Manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management 27(6): 462–78.

Rozemeijer, Frank. 2000. How to Manage Corporate Purchasing Synergy in a Decentralized Company? Towards Design Rules for Managing and Organising Purchasing Synergy in Decentralized Companies. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 6(1): 5–12.

Schotanus, Fredo. 2007. Horizontal Cooperative Purchasing. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.

Schotanus, Fredo, Elmer Bakker, Helen Walker, and Michael Essig. 2011. Development of Purchasing Groups during Th eir Life Cycle: From Infancy to Maturity. Public Administration Review 71(2): 265–75.

Schotanus, Fredo, Jan Telgen, and Luitzen de Boer. 2008. Unfair Allocation of Gains under the Equal Price Allocation Method in Purchasing Groups. European Journal of Operational Research 187(1): 162–76.

———. 2010. Critical Success Factors for Managing Purchasing Groups. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 16(1): 51–60.

Schroeder, Roger, Kimberly Bates, and Mikko Junttila. 2002. A Resource-Based View of Manufacturing Strategy and the Relationship to Manufacturing Performance. Strategic Management Journal 23(1): 105–17.

SouthWest One. 2010. http://www.southwestone.co.uk/ [accessed February 2, 2013].

Spithoven, Andre, and Mirjam Knockaert. 2011. Th e Role of Business Centres in Firms’ Networking Capabilities and Performance. Science and Public Policy 38(7): 569–80.

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Th eory, Procedures, and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Tella, Eija, and Veli-Matti Virolainen. 2005. Motives behind Purchasing Consortia. International Journal of Production Economics 93–94(1): 161–68.

Th omson, Ann Marie, and James L. Perry. 2006. Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 20–32.

U.K. Department for Communities and Local Government. 2008. Th e National Procurement Strategy for Local Government—Final Report. London: U.K. Department for Communities and Local Government.

Value Wales Procurement. 2009. Added Value: Annual Report, Value Wales Procurement. Cardiff : Welsh Assembly Government.

Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. Th e Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.

Wu, Zhaohui, and Th omas Y. Choi. 2005. Supplier–Supplier Relationships in the Buyer–Supplier Triad: Building Th eories from Eight Case Studies. Journal of Operations Management 24(1): 27–52.

Wu, Zhaohui, Th omas Y. Choi, and Manus J. Rungtusanatham. 2010. Supplier–Supplier Relationships in Buyer–Supplier–Supplier Triads: Implications for Supplier Performance. Journal of Operations Management 28(2): 115–23.

Zeemering, Eric S. 2008. Governing Interlocal Cooperation: City Council Interests and the Implications for Public Management. Public Administration Review 68(4): 731–41.

Granovetter, Mark. 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: Th e Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.

Hanson, William E., John W. Creswell, Vicki L. Plano Clark, Kelly S. Petska, and J. David Creswell. 2005. Mixed Methods Research Designs in Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52(2): 224–35.

Hoff mann, Werner H., and Roman Schlosser. 2001. Success Factors of Strategic Alliances in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: An Empirical Survey. Long Range Planning 34(3): 357–81.

Hughes, Jon, Mark Ralf, and Bill Michels. 1998. Transform Your Supply Chain. London: International Th omson Business Press.

Huxham, Chris. 1993. Pursuing Collaborative Advantage. Journal of the Operational Research Society 44(6): 599–611.

Imperial, Mark T. 2005. Using Collaboration as a Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs. Administration & Society 37(3): 281–320.

Improvement and Effi ciency South East (IESE). 2010. Collaborative Sourcing Intelligence. Procurement. Oxted, UK: IESE.

Johanson, Jan E. 2009. Strategy Formation in Public Agencies. Public Administration 87(4): 872–91.

Johnson, P. Fraser, Robert D. Klassen, Michael R. Leenders, and Amrou Awaysheh. 2007. Utilizing E-BusinessTechnologies in Supply Chains: Th e Impact of Firm Characteristics and Teams. Journal of Operations Management 25(6): 1255–74.

Jost, Gregor, Mark Dawson, and David Shaw. 2005. Private Sector Consortia Working for a Public Sector Client—Factors Th at Build Successful Relationships: Lessons from the UK. European Management Journal 23(3): 336–50.

Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1994. Collaborative Advantage: Successful Partnerships Manage the Relationships, Not Just the Deal. Harvard Business Review 72(4): 96–108.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientifi c Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kraljic, Peter. 1983. Purchasing Must Become Supply Management. Harvard Business Review 61(5): 109–17.

Laing, Angus, and Seonaidh Cotton. 1997. Patterns of Inter-Organizational Purchasing: Evolution of Consortia-Based Purchasing amongst GP Fundholders. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 3(2): 83–91.

Lejeune, Miguel A., and Nevena Yakova. 2005. On Characterizing the 4 C’s in Supply Chain Management. Journal of Operations Management 23(1): 81–100.

Local Government Association. 2005. Small Business (SME) Friendly Concordat: Good Practice Guidance: 7. London: U.K. Department of Trade and Industry.

McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 33–43.

Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Morse, Janice M. 1994. Designing Funded Qualitative Research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 220–35. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nahapiet, Janine, and Sumantra Ghoshal. 1998. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242–66.

National Audit Offi ce and Audit Commission. 2010. A Review of Collaborative Procurement across the Public Sector. http://www.nao.org.uk/report/a-review-of-collaborative-procurement-across-the-public-sector-2/ [accessed April 1, 2013].

Nollet, Jean, and Martin Beaulieu. 2003. Th e Development of Group Purchasing: An Empirical Study in the Healthcare Sector. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 9(1): 3–10.

Paulraj, Antony, Injazz J. Chen, and James Flynn. 2006. Levels of Strategic Purchasing: Impact on Supply Integration and Performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 12(3): 107–22.

Paulraj, Antony, Augustine Lado, and Injazz J. Chen. 2008. Inter-Organizational Communication as a Relational Competency: Antecedents and Performance Outcomes in Collaborative Buyer–Supplier Relationships. Journal of Operations Management 26(1): 45–64.

Documents

Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer-Buyer Relationships