DECLARATION

This research project is my original work and has not been submitted to any other institution or

examination body and no part of this research should be reproduced without my consent or that

of Dedan Kimathi University of Technology.

Signature…………………….. Date…………………………

Kirui Nicholas Kiprotich

B011-003-0001/2014

This research proposal has been submitted for examination with my approval as the Dedan

Kimathi University of Technology supervisor.

Signature………………....... Date………………………..

Njoroge Zakary
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my loving parents MR. & Mrs. Cheruiyot and my brother Willy for their

support and encouragement throughout this academic journey. May God always shower you with

his blessings.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost I would like to thank the God almighty for his guidance, strength and

provision of peace and grace throughout my study period.

My sincere gratitude is extended to my supervisor Zakary Njoroge for his tremendous guidance

and critique, which added substance to the work. Also, I extend my appreciation to Mr. Joshua

Kimutai of Kenya Institute of Special Education.

Finally, I thank all those who in one way or the other, have contributed to the successful

completion of this research proposal, I say may God bless Amen.

 ABSTRACT

The study focused on the effects buyer-supplier relationships on procurement performance in

Government Tertiary Training Institutions and was carried out within Nairobi County, a case

study of Kenya Institute of Special Education, Kasarani. A lot of studies have been conducted on

buyer-supplier relationship based on four variables (trust, commitment, communication and

cooperation). However, these studies did not look at the effect of these relationships on

procurement performance. The specific objectives were: to establish the effect of trust on

procurement performance in government tertiary training institution; to find out the effect of

communication to suppliers on procurement performance; To analyse the effect of supplier`s

commitment on procurement performance and to determine the effect of cooperation on

procurement performance. The research questions were to find out how trust affects procurement

performance in government tertiary training institution? What are the effects of communication

to suppliers on procurement performance? How does commitment by suppliers affect

procurement performance? and what are the effects of cooperation on procurement performance

in government tertiary training institution?. The study will benefit KISE by encouraging them to

adopt buyer-supplier relationships. Literature reviewed showed that that formal communication

of supplier evaluations positively influenced BSR. The descriptive design was employed in the
study. This study used purposive sampling and the data collection instrument used was a

Questionnaire. The data was analyzed using quantitative and qualitative techniques, and findings

presented in the form of frequency distribution tables and pie charts. The findings showed that all

variables on the study have positive effect on procurement performance. The study concluded

that commitment, trust, cooperation and communication are important in buyer-supplier

relationship. Finally the study recommended that this study be replicated in different business

sectors within the Nairobi region

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sample Size and sampling Frame .............................................................................. 26

Table 2: Response Rate ............................................................................................................ 29
Table 3: Work experience of the respondents.......................................................................... 30
Table 4: Position in the Organization ...................................................................................... 31
Table 5: Effects of trust on procurement performance ............................................................ 32
Table 6: Effect of communication on procurement performance ............................................ 33
Table 7: Effect of cooperation on Procurement Performance ................................................. 35
Table 8: Effects of commitment on Procurement Performance.............................................. 36
Table 9: Effects of buyer-supplier on procurement performance……………………………36
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 19

Figure 2: Gender of the Respondents....................................................................................... 32
 LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

SCM: Supply Chain Management

BSR: Buyer - Supplier Relationships

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

KISE: Kenya Institute of Special Education

 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

Market Exchange: neither of the parties has developed specialized assets to work

with the other; they may work together using general purpose

assets (Prenkert and Hallen, 2006).

Captive Buyer: the buyer is held hostage by a supplier free to switch to another

customer (Blakenburg and Johanson, 1992).

Captive Supplier: the supplier enters the trap of unilaterally making idiosyncratic

investments to win and keep the business with the customer

(Blakenburg and Johanson, 1992).

Communication: Communication is one of the essential components in the buyer

supplier relationship. Communication may be related to product

price, contractual agreements, technical specifications,

organizational strategy and may be market related know-how

(Mohr and Nevin, 1990).

Trust: Trust indicates “a person’s reputation for trustworthiness on

both a professional and personal level as well as credibility in a

business situation”. Trust is a factor which should flow from

both the sides. Based on the trust both the parties can manage

the down time of business, conflicting situations, profitability

issues, market management and in reality all the aspects of the

business (Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande, 1992).

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

• Background of the Study

The strategic alliance between buyers and suppliers therefore has become perhaps the most

important aspect in the procurement performance. As a result, maintaining credible suppliers has

become a priority for the buyer. The improvement of the relation and subsequent improved
procurement performance are critical in Kenya Institute of Special Education. At the

organization, it is crucial as it ensures efficient and timely delivery. The choice of Kenya

Institute of Special Education is important as it has invested huge capital in the provision of

special education; hence buyer supplier alliance is critical to achieving its mission. Various

studies in the field of procurement performance have been undertaken. These studies appreciate

the strategic roles played by suppliers in organizations, as indicated in Vonderembse (1999) and

Hsu (2006), who affirm that suppliers play a vital role in creating a competitive advantage and

their actions have a significant impact on the performance of the organization.

Supplier-buyer relationships have today become the backbones of economic activities in the

modern world (Nagurney, 2010) and a focal point of organizational competitiveness,

performance and long-term business success (Veludo et al. 2006). According to Gadde and

Hakansson (2001), the competitiveness and profit-generating capacity of the individual firm is

highly dependent on its ability to handle the supply side. Similarly, Griffith and Myers (2005)

position the management of supplier-buyer relationships as a primary driver of both customer

and shareholder value. This is particularly true due to the increased adoption of globalization and

outsourcing strategies (Tang and Musa, 2011) leveraged by company specialization and focus on

their core competencies in order to withstand today‘s competitive market pressures (Blome and

Schoenherr, 2011).

According to Burt et al. (2003), the three main buyer – supplier relationship are transactional,

collaborative and alliances. Transactional relationships are the most common and the most basic

type of buyer/supplier relationship. This relationship is referred to as an arm‘s- length

relationship where neither party is concerned about the other parties well-being. There is very

little trust involved in this relationship and it could be a onetime transaction between the buyer
and supplier. There are rarely any big savings made in this kind of relationship and it usually

takes very little time and effort by either party to go through with an agreement.

Collaborative relationships must be supported from the entire organization. A buyer must have

the authority to negotiate with a supplier and come to an agreement that carries mutual trust and

benefit. This is not possible if executives push only for cost savings or if the labour force is

unwilling to give up some responsibility to the supplier. Benefits to collaborative relationships

are: lower overall costs, higher quality products, less time to market due to open communication

and improved technology and innovation. Supply disruptions are also less likely as the

relationship is similar to friendship and suppliers and buyers look out for one another rather than

opportunities to take advantage of one another. Drawbacks are the amount of time and effort

involved. Buyers’ time must be spent nurturing the relationship opposed to other value adding

activities. There must also be time spent to begin the relationship and earn the trust of the

supplier. Also there are higher switching costs if problems were to arise with the supplier. Lastly

there is a sharing of proprietary information, strategy, planning, and goals, and most firms do not

feel comfortable exposing such elements to other firms, fearing a loss of control Benton et al.,

(2005). Collaborative relationships might not be desirable when a company has a certain amount

of leverage over its suppliers, or if the suppliers have all the power then the buyer might not be

willing to enter into a relationship.

The third type of buyer-supplier relationship is the alliance relationship. An alliance is formed

for a systematic approach to enhance communication between the two firms. Unlike

collaborative relationships, an alliance is built to have a trust where both firms can be on the

same level and help each other out when there is a time of need or uncertainty. If there is no

motive to have trust or manage it then the alliance will most likely fail. Having an alliance can be
very beneficial as there is asset specialization and human specialization as well. With human

specialization, certain people in companies have experience working together and they have

information that allows them to communicate with others effectively. Because of this, companies

are less likely to have breakdowns between them that will result in errors (Burt et al., 2003).

• Procurement Performance

According to Dobler and Burt (1996) “purchasing” and “procurement” is often used

interchangeably. Van Weele (2000) added that sometimes the term “supply management” or

“logistics management” is also used. The definitions of purchasing are different, but they have

something in common (Scheuing, 1989; Fearon et al., 1992; Lysons, 1996). For example,

“obtaining external products or services” are something that they all have in common, as is the

fact that “procurement should help the organization to reach its objectives” (Knudsen, 1999). As

can be seen from the definitions of performance measurement, in order for an organization to

achieve its goals to satisfy its customer, the two most fundamental dimensions of performance

are efficiency and effectiveness (Kotter, 1978; Neely, 1999).

Cavinato and Kauffman (1999) have discussed ten different purchasing performance

measurement areas in their handbook. Van Weele (2000) and Knudsen (1999) recommended

measurement areas that are derived from purchasing effectiveness and purchasing efficiency.

Purchasing effectiveness is defined as the extent to which, by choosing a certain course of action,

a previously established goal or standard is being met. Further, purchasing efficiency is defined

as the relationship between planned and actual sacrifices made in order to be able to realise a

goal previously agreed upon.

According to (Knudsen, 1999), Procurement involves numerous activities, consisting of many

material and information flows. It is not as simple as to just convey a need from an internal

customer to a supplier and then deliver the item to the internal customer. Instead, this process

consists of activities that are continuously changing in intensity, duration and quality, thus

producing variations in performance, efficiency and effectiveness of the purchasing department's

work.

• Company Profile

Establishment Kenya Institute of Special Education (KISE) is a semi autonomous government

agency of the Ministry of Education, Kenya. It was established through a Legal Notice No. 17 of

14th February 1986. The Institute is currently run by a council appointed by the Minister for

Education. The Head of the Institute is the Director who is also the Secretary to the Council

(www.kise.co.ke, 2016).

The institute perform several functions such as to conduct teacher training courses for teachers of

children with special needs and disabilities, conduct in-service courses for personnel working in

all fields of special needs education, prepare and conduct correspondence courses for personnel

in the field of special needs education - run an educational and psychological assessment centre

for the training of teachers of children with special needs and disabilities, Run an orientation and

mobility centre for training and demonstration purposes - run a model training unit for the

integration and inclusion of children with special needs and disabilities into the regular school

schools and run a pre-school department where training and the stimulation of young children

with special needs and disabilities can be carried out for the purpose of teacher training.
• Statement of the Problem

“Buyer - supplier relationships” is an increasingly important area of interest in the academic and

the business world. Companies focus strongly on the development of closer ties with other

organizations in search of competitive advantage and improved market positioning. So far, little

is known about the mechanisms determining the evolution of collaborative relationships, nor

about the existence and interplay of buyer – supplier relationships at various levels within

business relationships (Bart et al 2009).

Kenya is the most industrially developed country in East Africa, but it has not yet produced

results to match its potential. The government tertiary training institutions has to put in more

effort to ensure that it performs better and contributes more to the academic growth in the

country. For every procurement unit/department, suppliers play a major role on the performance

of that unit. Therefore a study on the level at which this sector has embraced the concept of

buyer – supplier relationships and how these relationships affect procurement performance is

important.

A close examination into studies on buyer supplier relationships and procurement performance

confirms that there is research that has been carried out in this field. For example (Bart and

Akkermans, 2009) carried out a study on collaboration in buyer supplier relationships. The study

concluded that, that there are five relationship variables (commitment, conflict, economic & non-

economic satisfaction, and trust) that are important in developing and maintaining good buyer-

supplier relationships. However, the research did not look at the effect of these collaborations on

procurement performance.
Another study conducted by (Cousins et al 2008) on Performance measurement in strategic

buyer-supplier relationships. The study established that supplier performance measures alone are

not sufficient to generate superior performance outcomes. Instead, the influence of performance

measures on relationship outcomes is influenced by the extent of a firm’s buyer-supplier

socialization mechanisms.

To the best knowledge of the researcher, no study has been carried out on the effect of buyer –

supplier relationships and the effects of such relationships on procurement performance. This

study therefore seeks to bridge this gap by determining how buyer- supplier relationships affect

the performance of procurement. Therefore, this study seeks to address whether there is any

effects on buyer – supplier relationships answer the following questions: to what extent is the

adoption of buyer – supplier relationships on procurement performance.

• Purpose of the Study

This study is a moderate attempt to address whether there is relationship between buyer –

supplier relationship on procurement performance in Kenya.

• Objectives of the Study

• General Objective

The general objective was to investigate the effects of buyer-supplier relationships on

procurement performance in Government Tertiary Training Institutions in Nairobi County.

• Specific Objectives

The study was guided by the following specific objectives;

 • To establish the effect of trust on procurement performance in government tertiary

training institution.

• To find out the effect of communication to suppliers on procurement performance.

• To analyse the effect of supplier`s commitment on procurement performance.

• To determine the effect of cooperation on procurement performance in government

tertiary training institution.

• Research Questions

• How does trust affect procurement performance in government tertiary training

institution?

• What are the effects of communication to suppliers on procurement performance?

• How does commitment by suppliers affect procurement performance?

• What are the effects of cooperation on procurement performance in government tertiary

training institution?

• Significance of the Study

‘Buyer- supplier’ relationship is an important area of study in the broader field of supply chain.

This study will be very important to different parties in the supply chain such as the following:

Supply chain managers- They will be able to know the kind of buyer- supplier relations their

organizations can adopt. They will also be able to know whether there is any effect of buyer-

supplier relationship on procurement performance.

Scholars- They will be able to enrich their knowledge in the areas of buyer- supplier

relationships. Also other researchers will be able to step in and fill the gaps that will have been
left by the researcher. They will also be able to recognize whether the buyer- supplier

relationship adopted by various organizations has any relationships on procurement performance

and if there is any negative relationship the can come up with the measures to overcome such

negative relationships.

It is also important to note that other scholars will greatly benefit from this study for it will build

a basis for their studies and a source of research information, thus it will be an empirical base for

further studies in the area.

• Limitations of the Study

A research work is never an easy work to overcome. There are occasions when the researcher

would encounter numerous problems, which are basic and unavoidable. This research work was

not an exception. The respondents were unwilling to participate in filling the questionnaires for

fear of victimization. The researcher had to convince them that the findings will be confidential

and will only be used for academic purposes.

The respondents were busy and it was difficult to have them filling in the questionnaires. To

overcome this, the researcher had to drop the questionnaires and leave them with the respondents

to fill them at their own convenient time and pace.

• Scope of the Study

The study will be looking into effects of buyer- supplier relationship on procurement

performance in government tertiary training institutions within Nairobi County. The study

targeted 79 personnel in the procurement, administration, accounts, finance, internal audit,

information and communication and academics departments at Kenya Institute of Special

Education. The study was conducted between November 2015 and February 2016.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

• Introduction

This chapter contains theoretical literature, critical literature, summary and gaps to be filled and

the conceptual framework.

• Review of Theoretical Literature

Previous study has illustrated various theories used to explain the relationship between buyer-

supplier relationships on procurement performance. This study is anchored on the agency theory

and social exchange theory.

• Agency Theory

Agency theory is relevant when one part (principal) depends on another part (agent) for doing

something for the principal. An agency perspective can provide insight into inter-organizational
relationships (Lassar and Kerr 1996; Rossetti and Choi 2008). Eisenhardt (1989) suggests that

agency theory is relevant in situations of supplier and buyer relationship and product innovation.

Agency theory handles principal-agent relationships within or between organizations where the

principal delegates work to the agent. In this paper, the principal represents the buying firm

while the agent is the supplier. In agency theory the contract between the principal and agent is

investigated with concerns on two problems, namely the agency problem and the problem of risk

sharing. The agency problem involves basically two parts, goal conflict and verification

(Eisenhardt 1989). Risk sharing concerns the difference in attitude towards risk of the principal

and agent. Often agency theory takes the principal’s point of view (Aulakh and Gencturk 2000;

Rijsdijk and Van den Ende 2011) but some more recent studies take both the principal and

agent’s perspective (Dou et al. 2009; Van der Valk and Van Iwaarden 2011).

• Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory posits that human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective

cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. It is the exchange of activity, tangible or

intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly between at least two parties. Based on the social

exchange theory a business network may be seen as a type of exchange network (Blakenburg and

Johanson, 1992). (Prenkert and Hallen, 2006) defined it as a set of interconnected exchange

relationships. This is directly linked to supply relationships, and underlines the importance of the

supply network within the business network context. Social exchange models assume that

rewards and costs drive relationship decisions. Eriksson, (2001) argues that the main focus of

such a system is on the transformation and exchanges of resources, and less on the social

exchange component. It is from this perspective that buyer-supplier networks sometimes referred
to as supply networks are most frequently analyzed. These relationships are however usually

embedded in various networks of interconnected buyer-supplier relationships, where both market

exchange transformation and exchange of resources, as well social exchange perspectives trust,

collaboration, etc. should play equal parts. However, despite this, there still exists a gap in the

existing literature in appropriately balancing both of these perspectives in the study of buyer-

supplier relationship. Thus, while the marketing literature has so far focused mainly on the

impact of trust and commitment on satisfaction and loyalty, supply chain management has

focused narrowly on the hard determinants of flexibility, like information optimization and

inventory management. Claro (2004) also emphasizes how business networks, supply chains,

networks and buyer-supplier relationships are all types of business relationships raging from a

web of connections to a dyadic relationship with often blurred boundaries.

• A Review of Key Relationship Models

Several authors have carried out studies related to buyer seller relationships and have come up

with different results related to this topic. The following are some of these studies and they give

an overview of different relationship models that have been developed relating to buyer seller

relationships.

Anderson and Narus (1990) were among the first to test the relationships between both

distributors and manufacturers engaged in a working partnership. They defined a working

partnership “as the extent to which there is mutual recognition and understanding that the success

of each firm depends in part on the other firm, with each firm consequently taking actions so as

to provide a coordinated effort focused on jointly satisfying the requirements of the customer

marketplace” (Anderson and Narus 1990). Using social theory as their foundation and interviews
with managers, constructs and a model were developed and tested that was meant to apply to

both the supplier and the buyer.

Although their proposed model needed re-specification, comparison level of alternatives, relative

dependence, and communication were found to be important in explaining working partnerships

between manufacturers and distributors. The constructs of trust, cooperation and satisfaction,

which had previously been ‘understudied’, were given substantial support for inclusion in

models of channel working relationships. An important implication of their study was the need

for understanding, for marketing practice, partner’s requirements and expectations as these

would be measured against outcomes (i.e. unit performance).

• Mohr and Spekman (1994)

An important distinction made by Mohr and Spekman (1994) in their definition of partnerships

was the need of partners to ‘strive for mutual benefit’. Results of their study found that trust,

commitment, and communication, among other variables were important in predicting the

success of partnerships. In partnerships that had higher degrees of these variables, there was a

corresponding higher likelihood of success (either satisfaction or sales). Satisfaction was an

outcome variable that was based on the partners’ perception of how well expectations were met

by the partnership. A limiting factor in the research to this point had been the lack of research

that differentiated successful and unsuccessful partnerships. Indeed, partnership success may be

measured along two outcome dimensions: endurance or achievement of mutual goals. The

outcome that will have greatest managerial appeal is that which can be related to firm

performance.
• Wilson (1995)

Wilson (1995) proposed that buyer-seller relationships advance through various phases of

development. In each phase, he proposed that different relationship variables would have varying

levels of importance. Trust, satisfaction, power and comparison level of alternatives were

proposed to be important during partner selection and defining purpose of the relationship.

Commitment was important to the relationship when the goal was to create value and maintain

the relationship. Other constructs were also proposed to have varying degrees of importance

throughout the relationship life cycle. The researcher recommended more research in

understanding and conceptualizing how buyer and sellers work together to add value to their

partnership. He recommended further work in order to conceptualize how a set of buyer and

seller relationships becomes a powerful competitive network.

• Review of Critical Literature and Gaps to Be Filled

• Effect of Trust on Procurement Performance

Trust leads retail buyers and sellers to the focus on long - term benefits of the relationship

(Ganesan 1994), and eventually enhance the performance outcomes in buyer- supplier

relationships, including firm competitiveness and transaction costs reduction (Noordewier et al.

1990). Doney and Cannon (1997) indicated that trust influences long - term relationships, while

Morgan and Hunt (1994)found trust has the strongest effect on achieving cooperation in

relationship. Anderson and Weitz (1989) demonstrate the evidence that trust is a key to

maintaining continuity in conventional channel relationships. Furthermore, Siguaw et al. (1998)

concluded distributor trust is related significantly and positively to both cooperative norms and

distributor satisfaction with financial performance.

Literature has largely highlighted the valuable effect of trust in procurement performance.

Benefits of trust have been investigated in different fields of studies and explained through

diverse theories, mainly the transaction cost economics and the relational exchange theory.

Within the transaction cost economics theory, trust is of economic value because it reduces

transaction costs, negotiation costs, monitoring and oversight costs, and uncertainty in

information sharing, acting as a substituting of control (Dyer and Chu, 2003).Within relational

exchange theory, trust is seen critical to foster and maintain relational exchanges. It increases the

probability that organizational actors will exchange information and knowledge, will be involved

in joint learning processes, and will share costs for exploring and exploiting new opportunities

(Inkpen, 2001; Ladoet al., 2008).In operations management studies, trust is seen as significant

predictor of positive outcomes in supply chains performances in terms of improved flexibility,

responsiveness, and cost reduction (Handfield and Bechtel, 2002; Ireland and Webb, 2007;

Laaksonen et al ., 2009, Narasimhan and Nair, 2005). Trust is a key factor for the development

of partnerships among the different agents of a supply chain, distinguished between interpersonal

and inter-firm trust hence high procurement performance (Johnston, Mccutcheon, Stuart, and

Kerwood, 2004). The creation of trust in inter-firm relationships can be considered related to a

country’s cultural context (Dyer and Chu, 2003; Sako, 1992; Zaheer and Zaheer, 2006).

• Effect of Commitment to Suppliers on Procurement Performance

Commitment among buyers and suppliers brings the desire to develop a stable relationship, a

willingness to make short-term sacrifices to maintain the relationship, a confidence in the

stability of the relationship, and investments in the relationship thus improving procurement

performance (Gounaris, 2005).

Commitment enables the suppliers and buyers to develop the belief that the existing relationship

is very important and hence it deserves maximum efforts to maintain it for long-term period thus

improving the procurement performance (Stanko et al., 2007). Relationship commitment makes

both parties to have the willingness to invest resources in a relationship. They are able to secure a

relationship due to its identification with and internalization of the goals and values of another

party thus improving procurement performance of a firm (Kwon, 2005).

Commitment is the key driver of long-term relationship and both buyers and suppliers need to

develop high levels commitment for developing long-term relationship for achieving sustainable

competitive advantage thus improving the procurement performance (Gefen, 2000).

Stanley, (2004) in his study argues that commitment has become an important issue in supply

chain integration because effective planning is based on information shared among partners that

is an essential element for the successful integration making and high procurement performance.

Success of the procurement performance is based on the high level of trust and commitment

among supply chain partners. Supply chain planning is based on information sharing and

commitment between partners that is essential for the successful management of the supply

chain. According to one study, one third of strategic alliances have failed due to a lack of

commitment between partners (Ford, 2001).

• Effect of Communication on Procurement Performance

Effective communication is a critical component of buyer-supplier relationships. Procurement

professionals utilize a variety of media to communicate with suppliers, including phone, fax,

face-to-face, mail, e-mail, Internet, and electronic data interchange (EDI) thus improving

procurement performance (Rodrigo, 2001).

Effective communication in channel relationships can enhance levels of channel member

coordination, satisfaction, commitment levels, and procurement performance (Goodman and

Dion 2001). In fashion apparel industry, frequent communication between retailers and suppliers

can expedite quick and accurate response to volatile market, and reduce the costs and impact of

inaccurate forecasts. With the presence of trust and support, channel members are more willing

to pass information upward and promote bidirectional communication. Consequently, it will help

better match supply with demand and increase profitability for channel members. On the other

hand, under unequal power relationship a less powerful channel party has a tendency not to

provide information and feedback to more powerful ones. Thus, the restricted information flow

will impede the channel relationships and affect the supply chain performance as well. Effective

communication is crucial to maintain a long-term buyer-relationship and achieve high

procurement performance (Bird, 2005).

• Effect of Cooperation on Procurement Performance

Cooperation is essential for exchange partners to achieve coordination in supply chains. To cope

with highly uncertain demand in fast changing market, retailers are demanding for greater supply

flexibility and responsiveness from their suppliers. Studies showed that when parties cooperate,

they understand each other’s expectation and needs better, which eventually help them to achieve

their mutual goals thus improving procurement performance (Perreault, 1999).

In addition, cooperating parties tend to maintain the long-term relationships and enhance

performance. Cooperation is recognized as key to maintaining long-term relationships and

contributing to firm's success because of increased procurement performance (Liu and Wang,
2000). Cooperation among buyers and sellers is assessed by their integrity, credibility,

trustworthiness, and reputation. When cooperation is established, exchange parties will be more

confident to engage in cooperative activities and avoid opportunistic behaviours thus improve

procurement performance (Cannon, 1999).

According to Maloni, (2000) the power of a supplier over a retailer is increased by the level of

retailer's cooperation the supplier. Cooperation results from the need to maintain the channel

relationship to achieve desired goals and reflects the essentiality and replace ability of the goods

and services provided by the supplier thus successful outcomes.

• Critique and Gap

There are several gaps in the communication literature. First, the influence of the various types

of variables on the buyer- supplier relationships that affect procurement performance are

unknown. A close examination into studies on buyer supplier relationships and procurement

performance confirms that there is research that has been carried out in this field. For example

(Bart and Akkermans, 2009) carried out a study on collaboration in buyer supplier relationships.

The study concluded that, that there are five relationship variables (commitment, conflict,

economic & non-economic satisfaction, and trust) that are important in developing and

maintaining good buyer-supplier relationships. However, the research did not look at the effect

of these collaborations on procurement performance.

Plane and Green (2011) also conducted a study on Buyer-supplier collaboration and the aim of

Facilities Management procurement. The study established that there emerged a general

consensus that a more relational procurement process has a positive influence on the relationship

established and also that the perceived benefits of relational approaches included clarity of
service requirements, value delivery, and cultural alignment. This study however did not show

how buyer – supplier relationships affect procurement performance.

A study done by Mukhwana (2010) discussed on supply chain management practices on

performance. The study found that indeed supply chain management practices have an effect on

the procurement performance. However this study was general in referring to supply chain

management and not specific areas in supply chain management that affects procurement

performance.

Although several studies have stated that they expect a direct effect (Krause et al., 2000), the

relationship has not been empirically tested. Third, if there is an indirect effect, the literature

suggests that the buyer–supplier relationship (BSR) may be a mediator (Johnston & Lewin,

1996).

The literature review confirms that a lot has been done on buyer supplier relationships. But little

has been done on the effect of these buyer-supplier relationships on procurement performance. It

is therefore important to carry out a research on the effect of buyer-supplier relationships on

procurement performance.

• Summary of Theoretical and Critical Literature

Carr and Pearson (1999) found that formal communication of supplier evaluations positively

influenced BSR. Similarly, Davey and Sheehan (2002) found that communication formality had

a positive influence on cooperation, one dimension of BSR.

Commitment is the most common dependent variable used in buyer-seller relationship studies

(Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande 1992). Hardwick and Ford (1986) point out that

commitment assumes that the relationship will bring future value or benefits to the partners.

Wilson (1995) defined the concept of mutual goals as the degree to which partners share goals

that can only be accomplished through joint action and the maintenance of the relationship.

These mutual goals provide a strong reason for relationship continuance.

Lastly, frequent and collaborative communication with key suppliers will benefit the buying

firms in the long run, as it fosters a climate of mutual support, thereby improving customer

responsiveness among channel partners. Clearly, effective communication improves the buying

firm’s performance (D‟amours et al., 1999), and is an important factor in the development of

supply management capabilities. Feedback is essential in communication between the

organization and supplier so as to know whether one party has understood the message in the

same terms as intended by the other party and whether he agrees to that message or not.

• Conceptual Framework

Trust
 Communication

Procurement
Performance

Commitment

Cooperation

Independent variable Dependent variable

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Source: (Author, 2015)

Dependent variable

Procurement performance

Purchasing performance can be considered as the extent to which the purchasing function is able

to realize its predetermined goals at the sacrifice of a minimum of the organization's resources.

Hence, the four dimensions which measurement and evaluation of purchasing activities can be

based on are a price/cost dimension, a product/quality dimension, a logistics dimension and an

organization dimension. Procurement performance is important role in supply chain

management, potentially influences the firm's quality performance, product innovation, customer

responsiveness, and the firm's financial performance (Chen and Paulraj, 2004). Internal and

external customers judge the value received from procurement and will defect if their

expectations are not satisfied. In this regard, procurement should emphasize value creation and

delivery, not procedures. One-tool procurement can use to improve both its supply chain

performance and service to other functions, while helping to improve the firm's competitive

position, is to develop a cooperative relationship with appropriate suppliers. The influence of the

relationship strategies between buyer-supplier on the procurement performance depend on the

benefits perceived by both parts.

Janda et al., (2002) argue that by treating suppliers as allies and sharing strategic information

with them, firms can achieve better lead times and quality, increase operating flexibility, and

establish long-term cost reductions, all of which could help these firms enhance value for the

ultimate customer. According to Chin-Chun (2008), the benefits that result from collaborative

relationships come in the form of a firm’s ability to engage suppliers and other partners in

mutually beneficial value exchanges. Indeed, Hunt (2000) considered relationships to be a

resource and therefore form part of a Buyer-supplier relationships firm’s capital.

Independent variables

Trust

Trust is a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in which the firm has confidence

(Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande, 1992). Trust is an expectation about an exchange partner

that results from the partner's expertise, reliability, and intentionality (Ganesan, 1994). Trust

plays a significant role in shaping interaction and long-term relationship building (Andersen &
Kumar, 2006). Trust as ―the extent to which a firm believes that its exchange partner is honest

and/or benevolent or some variant thereof. Moorman et al.'s (1992) definition reflects two

components of trust: credibility and benevolence.

Credibility reflects the customer's belief that the supplier has sufficient expertise to perform the

job effectively and reliably, while benevolence reflects the extent of the customer's belief that the

supplier's intentions and motives are beneficial to the customer even when new conditions arise

about which a commitment has not been made (Ganesan,1994). An interesting perspective on

trust is that long- term relationships may not require trust; rather the relationship may be based

on the necessity of having a supplier or distributor (Kumar, 2005). Although trust can be

important at all stages of the relationship, the measurement of trust can only occur after a partner

has been in a relationship long enough to evaluate this dimension. Similar to performance

satisfaction, trust becomes of greater and measurable importance in the last two stages of

relationship development.

Communication

Communication processes underlie most aspects of organizational behaviour and are critical to

organizational success (Mohr and Nevin, 1990). The relationship literature identifies three

aspects of communication behaviour that are important to successful relationships:

communication quality, extent of information sharing between partners and participation in

planning and goal setting. Communication quality includes the accuracy, timeliness, adequacy,

and credibility of information exchanged, Participation refers to the extent to which partners

engage jointly in planning and goal setting. When one partner’s actions influence the ability of

the other to effectively compete, the need for participation in specifying roles, responsibilities,
and expectations increases. Input to decisions and goal formulation are important aspects of

participation that help partnerships succeed (MacNeil, 1981).

Commitment

Commitment is the most common dependent variable used in buyer-seller relationship studies

(Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande 1992). Hardwick and Ford (1986) point out that

commitment assumes that the relationship will bring future value or benefits to the partners.

There is little doubt that commitment is a critical variable in measuring the future of a

relationship. Commitment to the relationship is defined as an enduring desire to maintain a

valued relationship. Relationship value corresponds to the belief that relationship commitment

exists only when the relationship is considered important. Enduring desire to maintain the

relationship reflects a committed partner who wants the relationship to endure indefinitely and is

willing to work at maintaining it (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).

Cooperation

Cooperation has been defined as, “similar or complementary coordinated actions taken by firms

in interdependent relationships to achieve mutual outcomes or singular outcomes with expected

reciprocation over time” (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Morgan and Hunt (1994) seem to accept

the above definition of cooperation but continue to expand the definition by emphasizing the

proactive aspect of cooperation vs. being coerced to take interdependent actions. The interaction
of cooperation and commitment results in cooperative behaviour allowing the partnership to

work ensuring that both parties receive the benefits of the relationship.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

• Introduction

This chapter describes the research design and the research methodology to be employed in this

study. This is set out in sections under sub-headings containing research, research design, target

population, sampling for the study, data collection instruments and procedures and finally the

data analysis and presentation methods to be used in the study.

• Study Design

The descriptive design was employed in the study. The design was used to describe the

characteristics of the independent variables (trust, communication, commitment, cooperation and

mutual goals). This was appropriate to obtain information concerning the current status of the

phenomenon to describe what the current situation is with respect to the variable of the study.

Gharry and Gronhaug (2005) asserts that in descriptive design the problem is structured and well

understood a fact that Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) agrees that descriptive design is most

preferred because it gives a report on things as they actually are.

• The Target Population

The Kenya Institute of Special Education with a work force of about 79 employees is one of the

special needs government tertiary institutions in the Republic of Kenya. According to Sekaran,

(2005), population is a group of individuals, objects or items from which samples are taken for

measurement or it is an entire group of persons, or elements that have at least one thing in

common. The study targeted the employees of KISE in Nairobi only.

• Sample Design

Purposive sampling involves selecting certain units or cases based on a specific purpose rather

than randomly (Kothari, 2011). The purpose of sampling will be to gain an understanding about

some features or attributes of the whole population based on the characteristics of the sample.

This study used purposive sampling. This method exposes the researcher to various stakeholders

who have different experiences with the issues of the study.

The purpose of sampling is to gain an understanding about some features or attributes of the

whole population based on the characteristics of the sample. A sampling frame is the list of all

the items where a representative sample was drawn for the purpose of research. In this study, a

sample size of 24 employees was used. Mugenda and Mugenda, (2003) asserts that sampling is

that part of the statistical practice concerned with the selection of individual or observations

intended to yield some knowledge about a population of concern, especially for the purposes of

statistical inferences. They advise that a researcher would have to use 30% of the total target

population as a sample size for it to be accepted as a good representative sample.

Table 9: 1: Sample Size and sampling Frame

KISE Departments Target population Sample size

Administration 12 3
Human resource 10 3
Accounts 8 2
Procurement 7 2
Finance 10 3
Internal audit 3 1
Electrical 5 2

ICT 5 2

Academics 19 6

Total 79 24

Source: Human Resource Department (KISE)

• Data Collection Procedures/Instruments

The data collection instrument that was used is a Questionnaire which was designed using the

variables identified as important for meeting the case study objectives. A closed- ended was
administered to the respondents. The questionnaire was used since it was easy to administer and

with data obtained is easy to analyze, Mugenda and Mugenda (2003).

The questionnaire was administered using a drop and pick later method. The respondents in the

questionnaire were employees of KISE. The primary source of data collection method that was

used in the study include use of questionnaire that will be used to source for crucial information

from the Institute. The questionnaire took both take the form of open and closed ended questions

in order to enable effective data collection. The secondary data was attained from the written

materials which included the journals magazines, and other past studies and other relevant books.

This enabled the researcher to compare the data from the questionnaires with the written

materials. This enabled effective data collection and analysis from KISE.

• Data Analysis and Presentation

Sekaram, (2003) asserts that there are three objectives in data analysis; getting a feel for the data,

testing the goodness of the data, and answering the research question. He notes that establishing

the goodness of data lends credibility to all subsequent analysis and findings because it measures

the reliability and the validity of the measures used in the study. After gathering data from

questionnaire schedules, they were checked adequately for reliability and clarification. The data

was analyzed using quantitative techniques, whereby the findings were presented in the form of

frequency distribution tables and pie charts while qualitative techniques were incorporated in the

study to facilitate description and explanation of the study findings. By so doing this created

good understanding of the study findings.

 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION
OF FINDINGS

• Introduction

This chapter deals with the presentation and analysis of data collected through questionnaires

from the field. The data collected was analyzed and presented in tabular form, graphs, and charts

and shown in percentages. Out of forty (24) respondents issued with questionnaires, thirty seven

(22) successfully filled and returned them for analysis, hence giving the study 92% response rate.

This is shown in table 2 below.

Table 2: Response Rate

Responses Number of Respondents Percentages (%)

Expected responses 24 100

Received responses 22 92

None- responses 2 8

Source: Research Data (2016)

• Presentation of Data

• Duration in the Organization

The study wanted to establish the level of experience of the respondents and the findings are

illustrated in the table below:

Table 3: Work experience of the respondents

Years of service Frequency Percentage (%)

1-2 years 4 16.7

3-5 years 3 12.5

6-9 years 6 25.0

10 years and above 11 45.8

Total 24 100

Source: Research Data (2016)

The results revealed that 16.7 % had working experience of 1-2 years, 12.5 % had working

experience of 3-5 years, and 25 % had experience of 6-9 years, while 45.8 % had experience of

over 10 years.

• Position in the Organization

The study wanted to find out the position of every respondent in the organization and the

findings are illustrated in the table below:

Table 4: Position in the Organization

Officer Frequency Percentage (%)

Administrator 12 15.1

Human resource 10 12.6

Accountant 8 10.1

Procurement 7 8.8

Finance 10 12.6

Auditor 3 3.7

Electrician 5 6.3

IT 5 6.3

Tutor 19 24.1
 Total 79 100

Source: Research Data (2016)

The findings in table (4) above shows that administration officers represents 15.1 % of total staff,

12.6 % of them are in the human resource office, 10.1 % are in the accounts, 8.8 % in the

procurement, 12.6 % in the finance, 3.7 % are in the audit department, 6.3 % are in the electrical

department, also 6.3 % are in the IT department, while the majority which represent 24.1 % are

tutors.

• Gender of Respondents

The study wanted to find out the distribution of respondents by gender and the findings are

illustrated in the figure below:

Figure 2: Gender of the Respondents

Figure 2: Gender of the Respondents

Source: Research Data (2016)

The findings revealed that 59 % of the respondents were males, while 41 % were females.

• Effects of Trust on Procurement Performance

The researcher sought to find out how trust affects procurement performance and the summary of

the findings were presented on table 5 below.

Table 5: Effect of Trust on Procurement Performance

Elements measured under trust SD D N A SA

Information and knowledge sharing 4% 10% 2% 33% 51%

Cost sharing in exploration of new ideas 21% 20% 8% 39% 12%

High quality products and services 1% 1% 1% 19% 78%

Reduced Costs 3% 2% 7% 35% 53%

Suppliers keep our best interests in mind 5% 4% 11% 38% 42%

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

The findings show that trust positively influences procurement performance. There was high

level of performance in cases where trust was strong. This was consistent with (Ganesan 1994),

who found out that Trust leads retail buyers and sellers to the focus on long - term benefits of the

relationship, and eventually enhance the performance outcomes in buyer- supplier relationships,

including firm competitiveness and transaction costs reduction (Noordewier et al. 1990).

(Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Doney and Cannon, 1997) also found out that trust between the buying

firm and its suppliers improves cooperation, enhance satisfaction, reduce conflicts, facilitate

information exchange, and lead to long-term relationships.

• Effect of Communication on Procurement Performance

Table 6 below shows the findings on the effect of communication on procurement performance.

Table 6: Effects of communication procurement performance

Elements measured under communication SD D N A SA

Reduced lead time 2% 3% 3% 52% 40%

Open sharing of information 2% 6% 5% 42% 45%

Willing to share information is beneficial to us 2% 3% 5% 37% 53%

Communicate unforeseen challenges 1% 1% 1% 28% 69%

Exchange of information frequently 2% 2% 3% 15% 78%

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

Source: Research data (2016)

Communication was shown to have a positive and significant effect on procurement

performance. Communication received a high rating among firms which maintained a strong

buyer-supplier relationship. Reduced lead time was noted, unforeseen challenges were

communicated and therefore there was enhanced procurement performance .this conquered with

(Bird, 2005) findings that effective communication is crucial to maintain a long-term buyer-

relationship and achieve high procurement performance.

• Effect of Cooperation on Procurement Performance

Table 7 below shows findings on the level of agreement on the statement concerning the effect of

cooperation on procurement performance.

Table 7: Effect of Cooperation on procurement performance

Elements measured under cooperation SD D N A SA

Joint development work with suppliers 2% 3% 3% 8% 84%

Understand each other’s expectations 5% 8% 9% 33% 45%

Joint decision making 2% 1% 3% 63% 31%

Take full responsibility 3% 2% 3% 33% 59%

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

Source: Research data (2016)

The findings revealed that cooperation has a positive and significant effect on procurement

performance. Previous research on channel distribution has suggested that there is a positive

relationship between cooperation and satisfaction (Anderson and Narus 1990; Skinner et al.
1992). Cooperation between channel members will increase channel efficiency and help

members attain their mutual goals. Therefore, the study was in line with prior findings.

• Effect of Commitment on Procurement Performance

The table 8 below shows the findings of the effect of commitment on procurement performance.

Table 8: Effect of Commitment on Procurement Performance

Elements measured under commitment SD D N A SA

Relationship deserves our firm’s maximum 1% 1% 2% 26% 70%

attention

View relationship as long term partnership 2% 5% 6% 27% 60%

Suppliers deliver high quality products on time. 1% 2% 2% 23% 72%

Relationship with major suppliers is very important 1% 2% 2% 7% 88%

We are willing to make short-term sacrifices 17% 40% 8% 22% 18%

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

Source: Research data (2016)

The findings revealed that commitment has a positive and significant effect on procurement

performance. This is in line with prior findings. According to (Stanko et al., 2007) Commitment

enables the suppliers and buyers to develop the belief that the existing relationship is very

important and hence it deserves maximum efforts to maintain it for long-term period thus
improving the procurement performance. Relationship commitment makes both parties to have

the willingness to invest resources in a relationship.

They are able to secure a relationship due to its identification with and internalization of the

goals and values of another party thus improving procurement performance of a firm (Kwon,

2005).

• Effects of Buyer-supplier on Procurement Performance

The researcher sought to know how buyer-supplier relationship had affected procurement

performance. The findings were shown in the table 9 below.

Table 9: Effects of buyer-supplier on procurement performance

Elements measured under buyer-supplier effects S D D N A SA

Improved competitive pricing 3% 4% 8% 15% 70%

Reduced lead time 6% 7% 5% 63% 19%

Reduced risk of none supply 0% 2% 4% 72% 22%

Improved dependability of deliveries 0% 5% 12% 17% 66%

Improved inventory management 7% 4% 5% 22% 62%

Increased sales 2% 6% 7% 54% 31%

 Improved customer satisfaction 1% 3% 6% 20% 70%

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

The research findings revealed that buyer-supplier relationship has lead to improved competitive

pricing, reduced lead time, reduced risk of non supply, improved dependability of deliveries,

improved inventory management, and increased sales and improved customer satisfaction. This

shows that buyer-supplier relationship aspects improve procurement performance.

• Summary of Data Analysis

The study also sought to determine the relationship that exists between buyer–supplier

relationships and procurement performance in government tertiary training institutions within

Nairobi County.

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques, which included frequency, percentage

and tables. From the research findings, it can be concluded that trust, commitment, cooperation

and communication influence procurement performance. All the four independent variables were

also measured using the responses on each of the variables obtained from the respondents. The

results are illustrated and explained next.

 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Introduction

The study was carried out to establish the effect of buyer–supplier relationships on procurement

performance in government tertiary training institutions in Nairobi County. The study had four

objectives, to establish the effect of trust on procurement performance in government tertiary

training institution, to find out the effect of communication to suppliers on procurement

performance, to analyse the effect of supplier`s commitment on procurement performance and to

determine the effect of cooperation on procurement performance in government tertiary training

institution. This chapter presents the summary of findings for the four objectives mentioned
above, the conclusions, recommendations made based on findings and the suggestions on areas

that need to be researched as far as this concept is concerned.

• Summary of Findings

The study found out that trust between the buying firm and its suppliers improves cooperation,

enhance satisfaction, reduce conflicts, facilitate information exchange, and lead to long-term

relationships.

The study results showed that Communication have a positive and significant effect on

procurement performance. Communication received a high rating among firms which maintained

a strong buyer-supplier relationship. Reduced lead time was noted, unforeseen challenges were

communicated and therefore there was enhanced procurement performance

The findings revealed that cooperation has a positive and significant effect on procurement

performance. Cooperation between channel members will increase channel efficiency and help

members attain their mutual goals. Therefore, the study was in line with prior findings.

The findings revealed that commitment has a positive and significant effect on procurement

performance. Commitment enables the suppliers and buyers to develop the belief that the

existing relationship is very important and hence it deserves maximum efforts to maintain it for

long-term period thus improving the procurement performance. Relationship commitment makes

both parties to have the willingness to invest resources in a relationship.

The research findings revealed that buyer-supplier relationship has lead to improved competitive

pricing, reduced lead time, reduced risk of non supply, improved dependability of deliveries,

improved inventory management, and increased sales and improved customer satisfaction. This

shows that buyer-supplier relationship aspects improve procurement performance.

• Conclusions

The study results also showed that commitment positively and significantly affects procurement

performance. Particularly, the relationship that the firm has with major suppliers is a long-term

partnership that the firms are very committed to such relationship. Further, communication has a

positive and significant effect on procurement performance. As a result, firms let their suppliers

know what they expect of them at all times and they keep each other informed about events or

changes that may affect the other party. Thus, suppliers are provided with relevant information

that might help them. As well, cooperation was also shown to have a positive and significant

effect on procurement performance. There is evidence from the study that trust has a positive and

significant effect on procurement performance. Through trust, suppliers are genuinely concerned

about the company and they offer the best quality product in the market.

• Recommendations

In light of the research findings, communication, commitment, cooperation and trust have shown

positive and significant effect on procurement performance, as a result, the following

recommendations are made:

Since trust has a positive and significant effect on procurement performance, there is need for

organizations to employ this element for mutual benefits. This will enable them enjoy many

benefits including reduction in costs, free flow of ideas and knowledge and sharing of sensitive

information.
Communication is also key if procurement performance is to be enhanced. As such there is need

for buyers and suppliers to be in constant communication and to expedite quick and accurate

response. It is necessary for organizations to work towards creating long term relationships.

Cooperation is also necessary in enhancing procurement performance. As a result there is need

for buyers and sellers to cooperate in decision making and work jointly. This will enhance

integrity, credibility trustworthiness and bring satisfaction to both parties. Commitment is also

essential in enhancing procurement performance. There is therefore need for buyers and

suppliers to be committed to the existing relationship since it deserves maximum efforts to

maintain it for long term. There should be willingness to invest resources and share information

for mutual benefit.

• Suggestion for further study

This study focused on the effect of buyer-supplier relations on procurement performance. It can

be replicated with a larger, more representative sample. It is also recommended that this study be

replicated in different business sectors within the Nairobi region. Furthermore, it would be

interesting to know whether the observed findings hold for other firms as well. There is also need

to establish the roles of communication, trust and commitment in value-creation in strategic

networks.
 Reference

Araujo, L. (2004). Markets, market making and marketing: Paper presented at the 2004 IMP

annual conference: Copenhagen.

Bart, V., & Henk, A. (2009). Collaboration in buyer-supplier relationships: Middelburg.

Benton, M., Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2005). Moving from performance measurement

to performance management facilities, 20 (5/6), 217- 219

Burt, N., Brehmer, P.O., & Johansson, A. (2003). Business development with electronic

commerce: Refinement and repositioning. Business process management journal, Vol. 10

No.1, pp.44-62

Butler, T.W. (1995). Management science operations research projects in healthcare: the

administrator's perspective. Healthcare management review, No. 1.

Blome, N. S. (2011). The importance of records management within a governance, retention and

compliance: Alfresco white paper series.

Cannon, J., P. & Perreault, D. W. (1999). Buyer-seller relationships in business market: Journal

of business research, XXXXVI (November), 439-60.

Carr, S., & Pearson, K. (1999). Value for money, Summit, No. 1, Vol. Vol. 9 pp.20-1.

Collins, J., & Hussey, R. (2003). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate &

postgraduate students. New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.

Chen, F., Drezner, Z., Ryan, J. K., Simichi-Levy, D. (2011),’The bullwhip effect managerial

insights on the impact of forecasting and information variability in a supply chain’ In

Mayur, S., Ganeshan, R., Magazine, M.J. (Eds.), Quantitative models for supply chain

management: International series in operations research and management science. Kluwer

academia publishers: Boston, Vol. 17. pp. 419-439.

Claro, D., Claro, P., & Hagelaar, G. (2004). Co-coordinating collaborative joint efforts with

suppliers: the effects of trust; transaction specific investment and information networks in

the dutch flower industry. Supply Chain Management: An international journal, 11(3), 216-

224.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods: Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Cousins, P. D. (1999). Supply base rationalisation, myth or reality: European journal of

purchasing & supply management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-25.

Cousins, P. D., Lawson, B., & squire, B. (2008). Performance measurement in strategic buyer-

supplier relationships: International journal of operations &Production management, 238-

258.

Crotts, J., Buhalis, D., & March, R. (2000). Managing relationships in the global hospitality and

tourism industry: New York, NY:

D’Amours, R. A., Bradley, S. P., Hamel, G. (1999). Outsourcing and industrial decline:

Academy of Brynjolfsson.

Davey, O., Sheehan, M. J. (2002). The role of financial journalists: Fordham journal of

Corporate and financial law, 12, 323-36.

David, K. H. (2012). Analysing the Buyer Supplier Relationship Engagement on the

Performance Benefits and Its Impact on Business Performance, International journal of

contemporary business studies Vol 3, No 12 ISSN 2156-7506

David T.W. (1995). An integrated model of Buyer –Seller relationships: ISBM Report lo-1995,

The Pennsylvania State University.

Dobler, D., & Burt, D. (1996), ‘Purchasing and supply management.’ New York, NY:

McGraw‐Hill.
De Jong, G. & Nooteboom, B. (2000). The causal structure of long-term supply relationships -

an empirical test of a generalized transaction cost theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Boston.

Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2003), The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction. Vol. 7, No.

6, pp.649-66.

Dyer, J. H., (1996). Does Governance Matter? Keiretsu Alliances and Assets Specificity as

Source of Japanese Competitive Advantage., Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp.649-66.

Dwyer, R., Schurr, P. & Henry, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships: Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 11-27.

Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-

sharing network: The Toyota Case, Strategic management journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp.

345-67.

Ellram, L. M. (1995). Partnering pitfalls and success factors: International Journal of

Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 31 No.2, pp.36-44.

Fearon, H., Dobler, D. & Killen, K. (1992). The Purchasing Handbook New York, NY:

McGraw‐Hill.

Fram, E. H. (1995). Purchasing partnerships, the buyer’s view: Marketing management. Vol. 4,

No.1, pp.49-55.

Gadde, F., & Hakansson, M. (2001). Frictionless commerce, a comparison of internet and

conventional retailers: Management science, Vol. 46 No.4, pp.563-85.

Gao, T., Sirgy, M. J. & Bird, M. M. (2005), "Reducing Buyer decision-making uncertainty in

organizational procurement: Can supplier trust, commitment, and dependence help?" journal

of business research, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 397-551.

Goodman, L. E., & Paul, A. D. (2001). The determinants of commitment in the distributor-

manufacturer relationship: Industrial marketing management, 30, 287-300.

González-Benito, J., Suárez-González, I., & Spring, M. (2000). Complementarities between JIT

Purchasing Practices: An economic analysis based on transaction costs. International

journal of production economics, 67, 3, 279-293.

Gounaris, S. P. (2005). Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: insights from

business-to-business services. Journal of Business research, 126-140.

Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. & Tirtiroglu, E.( 2001). Performance measures and metrics in a

supply chain environment. International journal of operations and production management,

vol. 21, no.il2, pp. 71-87.

Griffith, N., & Myers, W. (2005). Authority and communication in organizations: Review of

economic Studies, Vol. 69, pp

Gronhaug, P. G. (2005). Research methods for business studies: A Practical Guide (3rd ed.).

Prentice Hall.

Handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in improving

supply chain responsiveness: Industrial marketing management 31(4), 367-382.

Harland, C. (1996). Supply Chain Management: Relationships, Chains, and Networks: British

journal of management, Vol. 7 (March), pp.63-80.

Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1990). Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of joint

action in buyer-supplier relationships: Journal of marketing research, Vol. 27 pp.24-36.

Hsu, C. C., Kannan, V. R., Tan, K. C., & Leong, G. K. (2008). Information sharing, buyer-

supplier relationships, and firm performance: A multi-region analysis: International journal

of physical distribution and logistics management, Vol. 38, No.4, pp.296-310.

http://www.ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6776/2/sp08zi01.pdf, accessed on February 18,

2012

Hsu, G. (2006). The use of qualification-based selection in private procurement: a survey

research. Journal of private procurement, Vol. 3 No.2, pp.215-26.

Hausman, Warren H. (2010). Supply chain performance metrics. Management science &

engineering department: Stanford University.

Johnston, D. A., McCutcheon, D. M., Stuart, F. I., & Kerwood, H. (2004). Effects of supplier

trust on performance of cooperative supplier relationships: Journal of operations

management, Vol. 22 pp.23-38.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced score card- measures that drive performance:

Harvad Business Review Jan Feb 71-79, Kenya economic survey 2010.

Knudsen, D. (1999). Procurement performance measurement system, licentiate dissertation:

Department of design sciences, Lund University, Lund.

Kothari, C. R., & Garg, G. (2015). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (3rd ed.).

New Deli: New Age International Publishers.

Kotter, J. P. (1978). Organizational Dynamic. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.

Lambert, D. M., Emmelhainz, M. A., & Gardner, J. (1996). Developing and implementing

supply chain partnerships: The international journal of logistics management, Vol. 7, No. 2,

pp.1-17.

Lee, H. L., Padmanabham, V., and Whang, S. (1997).The bullwhip effect in supply chain., Sloan

management review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.93-102.

Lee, J., & Boss, U. (2002). Operational linkage between diverse dimensions of information

technology investments & multifaceted aspects of a firm’s economic performance: Journal

of information technology, 17,119-131

Lemke, F., Goffin, K., & Szwejczewski, M. (2002). Investigating the meaning of supplier -

manufacturer partnerships: International journal of physical distribution and logistics

management, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.12-35.

Li, S. R., & Ragu-Nathan, T. (2007). The impact of supply chain management practices on

competitive advantage and organizational performance: omega, Vol. 34 No. 2, Pp. 107-24.

Liu, H. & Wang, Y. P. (2000). Interfinn channel relationships, influence strategies and

performance in China: An empirical examination, Journal of transnational management

development, vol. 4, no. 3/4, pp. 135-152.

Lysons, K., & Farrignton, B. (2006). Purchasing and supply management (7th ed.). England:

Pearson Education Publishers.

Maloni, M., & Benton, W. C. (2000). Power influences in the supply chain: Journal of business

logistics, vol. 21, No. I, pp. 49-73.

Manyuru, J. P. (2005). Corporate governance and organizational performance: the companies

quoted at the Nairobi stock exchange: unpublished MBA project school of business,

University of Nairobi.

Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994), "The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship

Marketing", Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, no: July, pp. 20-38.

Monczka, R. M., Trent, R. J., & Handfield, R. B. (2000). Purchasing and supply chain

management.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1993). Relationships between providers and users

of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations, Journal of

marketing research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 314-29.

Mukasa,V. M. (2010). Supply chain management practices on performance, case of Safaricom

ltd. Unpublished MBA project, university of Nairobi.

Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative

approaches, Nairobi: Acts Press.

Nagurney, G. (2010). Local government and private sector purchasing: a comparative study,

European journal of purchasing and supply management, Vol. 7 No.2

Naoum, S. G. (2007). Dissertation research and writing for construction students (2nd ed.).

Amsterdam, Boston: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinenemann.

Narasimhan, R., & Das, A. (2005), An empirical investigation of the contribution of strategic

sourcing to manufacturing flexibilities and performance: Decision Sciences, 30(3): 683-718.

Quarterly, March: 27-37.

Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution, why now and what next?

International journal of operations & production management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205‐28.

O’Connell, S., Henchion, M., & Collins, A. (2006).Optimising the service mix for Irish hoteliers,

the challenge for small food suppliers, International journal of contemporary hospitality

management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 219-30.

O’Toole, T., & Donaldson, B. (2002). Relationship performance of buyer-supplier exchanges,

European journal of purchasing & supply management, Vol. 8,pp. 197-207.

Oyiela, B. M. (2011). Competitive strategies and performance of commercial banks in Kenya:

Unpublished MBA project. University of Nairobi

Renee, F., Richard, P., Elizabeth, W., & David, T. (1997). Effect of buyer-seller relationship

structure on firm performance: ISBM Report 6-1997, Pennsylvania State University.

Sekaran, U. (2005). Research Methods for Business, a Skill Building Approach (4 ed.).

Scheuing, E. E. (1989). Purchasing management, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stanley, E. G., & Gregory, M. M. (2001). Achieving world class supply chain alignment,

benefits, barriers and bridges: Compiled research report.

Stanley, L. A. (2004). Service quality along the supply chain, implications for purchasing:

Journal of operations management.

Stank, T., Keller, S. B. & Daugherty, P. J. (2001). Supply chain collaboration and logistical

service performance: Journal of business logistics, Vol. 22 No.1, pp.29-48.

Sriram, V., Krapfel, R. & Spekman, R. (1992). Antecedents to buyer-seller collaboration: an

analysis from the buyers' perspective'. Journal of Business Research 25(4), 303-320.

Tan, K. C., Kannan, V. R., Handfield, R. B. & Ghosh, S. (1999). Supply chain management: an

empirical study of its impact on performance. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1034-52. 43

Tang, O., Musa, S. N. (2011). Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain

risk management: International journal of production economics, 133(25), 25-34.

Terpend, R.,Tyler, B., Krause, D. R., & Handfield, R. (2008). Buyer-supplier relationships:

Derived value over two decades, Journal of supply chain management, Vol. 44, No. 2,

pp.28-55.

Van Weele, A. J. (2000). Purchasing and supply chain management, Boston, MA: Thomson

Learning.

Veludo, L. A., Harland, C. M., Telgen, J., Thai, K. V. & Callender, G. (2006). Private

procurement: International cases and commentary, journal of private procurement. Volume

8, Issue 3, 303-322.

Vonderembse, J. G. (1999). Effects of a green purchasing strategy, supply chain management:

An international journal, Vol. 5 No.1, pp.37-44.

Walliman, N. (2014). Your undergraduate dissertation: The essential guide for success (2nd

ed.). United Kingdom, UK: Sage Publication Inc.

Wathne, K. H. & Heide, J. B. (2004). Relationship governance in a supply chain network:

Journal of marketing, vol. 68, no. January, pp. 73-89.

Wong, S. (1996). Chinese entrepreneurs and business trust. In Asian Business Networks, Eds.

Hamilton, G. G, Walter de Gruyter, New York.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION TO RESPONDENTS

Kirui Nicholas Kiprotich

1st Dec 2015

RE: REQUEST FOR RESEARCH DATA

Dear Respondent

I am currently undertaking a research study entitled “effects of buyer-supplier relationship on

procurement performance”. The research is towards the partial fulfilment of the requirements for

the award of the Degree of Bachelor of Purchasing and Supply Management of Dedan Kimathi

University of Technology, Nairobi CBD Campus. I would be grateful if you could spend a few

minutes filling out the questionnaire below. No personal information will be disclosed or made

public, and your answers will be kept strictly confidential. If you are interested in the result of

this research, I would be more than happy to send you a summary upon completion of this study.

The questionnaire is into four sections. Please complete each section as instructed. Do not write

your name or any other form of identification on the questionnaire.

Thank you for your cooperation

Yours Sincerely,

Kirui Nicholas Kiprotich

Appendix II: Research Questionnaire

Research Questionnaire

This questionnaire has been designed for the sole purpose of collecting data on the effect of
buyer – supplier relationships on procurement performance in government tertiary training
institutions in Kenya. The data collected will be treated with a very high degree of confidentiality
and it is meant for academic purpose only.

You are kindly asked to fill out this questionnaire by putting an “” in front of the applicable
answer or in the applicable cell.

Section A: General Information

1. Duration the Organization has been in operation

1-2Years { }

3-5years { }

6 -9 years { }

More Years10 { }

2. What is your position in this organization?

Administrator [ ]

Human Resource [ ]

Accountant [ ]

Procurement Officer [ ]

Finance Officer [ ]

Auditor [ ]
 Electrician [ ]

IT Personnel [ ]

Tutor [ ]

Other (specify)………………………………………….

3. How long have you been in this position?

a) Less than 5 years [ ]

b) 5 to 10 years [ ]

c) 11 to 15 years [ ]

d) Above 15 years [ ]

4. Gender

a) Male [ ]

b) Female [ ]

Section B

The Effect of Trust on Procurement Performance

Please indicate the extent to which you concur with the following statements concerning the
listed variables by placing a tick (√) where appropriate.

Element measured under trust SD D N A SA

Information and knowledge sharing

Cost sharing in exploration of new ideas

High quality products and services

Reduced Costs

Suppliers keep our best interests in mind

 SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

Effect of Communication on Procurement Performance

Please indicate the extent to which you concur with the following statements concerning the
listed variables by placing a tick (√) where appropriate.

Element measured under communication SD D N A SA

Effective communication lead to reduced lead time

Open sharing of information is essential

Willing to share information is beneficial to us

Do we communicate unforeseen challenges

Is there exchange of information frequently

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

Effect of Cooperation on Procurement Performance

Please indicate the extent to which you concur with the following statements concerning the
listed variables by placing a tick (√) where appropriate.

Element measured under cooperation SD D N A SA

Our firm involved in joint development work with

suppliers

We understand each other’s expectations

Joint decision making is vital element in buyer-

supplier relationship

Both parties take full responsibility

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

Effect of Commitment on Procurement Performance

Please indicate the extent to which you concur with the following statements concerning the
listed variables by placing a tick (√) where appropriate.

Element measured under commitment SD D N A SA

Relationship deserves our firm’s maximum

attention

We view relationship as long term partnership

Suppliers deliver high quality products on time.

Relationship with major suppliers is very important

We are willing to make short-term sacrifices

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

Procurement Performance

Please indicate the extent to which you concur with the following statements concerning the
listed variables by placing a tick (√) where appropriate.

Elements of Procurement Performance SD D N A SA

Buyer-supplier relationships results in improved

competitive pricing

Buyer-supplier relationship leads to reduced lead

time

Buyer-supplier relationships leads reduced risk of

none supply
 Buyer-supplier relationships leads improved
dependability of deliveries

Buyer-supplier relationships leads improved

inventory management

Buyer-supplier relationships results in increased

sales

Buyer-supplier relationships results in improved

customer satisfaction

SD- Strongly Disagree D- Disagree N- Neutral A- Agree SA- Strongly agree

Thank you for participating

Appendix III: Research Budget

Research Budget

Activity Items/Participants Cost (Kshs)

Consolidation of Library search, travelling: Ksh. 200× 14 days 2800

literature

Pilot Study Transport : 200 × 2 days 400

 Typing Questionnaires 50 × 30 Questionnaires 1500

Photocopying 3000

Main Data Collection Travel, meals and soft drinks: 1 × 2 days ×500 1000

Data Processing, 1 Researcher × 14 days × 100 1400

analysis and report
writing

Purchases/expenses Stationery and writing materials 2000

Internet Bundles Orange Broadband 4000

Sub-total 16100

Contingency Costs: 10% 1610

of the Sub-total

Grand Total 17710

Source of Funds: Self Sponsored