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.”
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.
collaborate with suppliers to improve the performance of their and can be created only through the joint idiosyncratic contribu- supply chains (Paulraj, Lado, and Chen 2008). Both parties benefi t
tions of the specifi c collaborating organizations (cf. Dyer and Singh 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
Th us, organizations may benefi t more by collaboration than by services to a buyer (Wu and Choi 2005). Th e supplier–supplier rela- acting alone because of economies of scale, process, and/or informa- tionship has been framed as “co-opetition”—
tion. Collaboration may reduce waste in the one in which competing suppliers work
procurement system, achieve better outcomes together to meet the buyer’s requirements
When buyers from diff er-
for taxpayers, and, hence, improve the overall (Wu, Choi, and Rungtusanatham 2010).
ent organizations collaborate
socioeconomic position.
in order to achieve greater
When buyers from diff erent organiza-
Several previous studies of public sector col- tions collaborate in order to achieve greater
effi ciency and better negotiat-
laboration in networks have referred to the effi ciency and better negotiating power with
ing power with suppliers, we
relational perspective (although it is not the suppliers, we refer to this as a “buyer–buyer
refer to this as a “buyer–buyer
central underlying concept in these studies) in relationship.” It may be that because public
relationship.”
the following contexts: sector organizations have similar goals and objectives, collaboration is easier in buyer–buyer relationships than
• Strategic alliances in social service delivery networks (Graddy in buyer–supplier or supplier–supplier relationships. To date, col-
and Chen 2006)
laborative buyer–buyer relationships have not benefi ted from being • Using collaboration as a strategy for enhancing network gov- explored through a relational theory lens. Using interview data from
ernance in watershed management programs (Imperial 2005)
51 senior procurement staff members across the public sector in the • Th e economic aspects of interorganizational relationships in United Kingdom, we show that the relational theory lens provides
the context of strategy formation and strategic governance in us with new insights into collaborative procurement. Th ese insights
public agencies (Johanson 2009)
might help in managing public purchasing collaborations more • Th e role of public business centers in fi rms’ networking capa- eff ectively.
bilities and performance (Spithoven and Knockaert 2011) Th e article is structured as follows: First, the literature review sets
To our knowledge, this is the fi rst study to make relational theory out the theoretical foundations for the study. Previous studies of col- central to a public sector investigation of collaborative procure- laborative procurement are then reviewed, taking a relational view of ment. In the next section, we expand on the details of relational the enablers of and barriers to collaborative procurement. Th e meth- theory and view the collaborative procurement literature through a odology and the fi ndings of the study are subsequently presented
relational lens.
and discussed in light of the literature. Finally, conclusions of the study are presented, along with the implications for policy, practice,
Collaborative Procurement: Enablers and Barriers
and future research. In the relational view, there are four potential enablers of relational rents (Dyer and Singh 1998). In the list that follows, we briefl y
Literature Review
describe the potential enablers and illustrate them with examples
Theoretical Foundations: The Relational View
from our research context to help translate the concepts to a non- Th e theoretical perspective that we adopt is the relational view profi t context.
proposed by Dyer and Singh (1998). Th e relational view assumes that the sources of competitive advantage may span fi rm bounda-
1. Investments in relation-specifi c assets. For example, English ries, just as interdisciplinary and cross-functional strengths lead
local governments coappoint new procurement staff to work to a competitive advantage within the fi rm. In line with this, it
in newly created positions within a collaboration that the is also assumed that interfi rm networks may be more effi cient
organizations have all invested in.
2. Substantial knowledge exchange, including exchange that fi rms (Dyer and Nobeoka 2000). Th e relational view provides
arrangements for achieving a resource-based advantage than single
results in joint learning. For example, Welsh local govern-
a good fi t with the collaborative arrangements studied, as the ment collaborators exchange information about suppliers organizations are trying to establish an ongoing relationship that
and their performance, about calls for proposals and expres- can create value that otherwise could not be created by any of the
sions of interest, and about invitations to tender and con- organizations independently. As the relational view has been used
tracts in order to negotiate with suppliers more eff ectively. successfully to explore buyer–supplier relations (Chen and Paulraj
3. Combining complementary but scarce resources or capabili- 2004), the theory has the potential to shed light on buyer–buyer
ties, which results in the joint creation of unique new products, relationships.
services, and/or technologies. For example, because of econo- mies of process, Welsh local government collaborations free
In the public sector context of our study, if we substitute the procurement staff to work innovatively with local com- concept of competitive advantage with that of “relational rent,” the
missioners in the commissioning of complex services, such relational view has signifi cance. We defi ne the concept of relational
as providing new regional services to support adults with rent as an advantage generated collaboratively in an exchange rela-
learning diffi culties or combining local needs to provide tionship that cannot be generated by either organization in isolation
more preventative services for vulnerable teenagers.
Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer–Buyer Relationships 589
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 2010 Trust between members
Hoffmann and Schlosser 2001
Knowledge-sharing Cooperation and communication Erridge and Greer 2002; Essig 2000; Ritchie and Chadwick 2001; Schotanus, Telgen, and routines
Boer 2010; Tella and Virolainen 2005
Better understanding through collective learning Cicimil and Marshall 2005; Schroeder, Bates, and Junttila 2002
Complementary Appropriate resources (training, IT, etc.) Erridge and Greer 2002; Hughes, Ralf, and Michels 1998; Rozemeijer 2000 resources/ capabilities 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 2000
Joint 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
4. Eff ective governance mechanisms resulting in lower transac-
Table 2 Relational Barriers to Collaborative Procurement Identifi ed in the
tion costs. For example, National Health Service (NHS)
Literature
collaborations have a governing board made up of repre-
Barriers Themes
Authors
sentatives from each organization, allowing more effi cient
Asset
Diffi culties dealing with
Galaskiewicz 1985
coordination. By having improved governance and greater
interconnectedness
interdependence
economies of scope and scale, transaction costs are lowered while competing over
resources
by lessening the costs associated with searching for suppli-
Partner scarcity
None found in literature
ers, lessening negotiation costs, and lessening the costs of
Resource indivisibility
Inequity of pain and gain
Erridge and Greer 2002;
monitoring contracts. Ritchie and Chadwick
sharing
2001; Rokkan and Buvik 2003; Schotanus, Telgen,
Tables 1–3 provide an analysis of the collaborative procurement
and Boer 2008
literature, grouped thematically according to the relational view’s
Resistance to change
Schotanus 2007
enablers of and barriers to collaboration. Table 1 presents the four Jost, Dawson, and Shaw
Tension between au-
enablers of interfi rm relations. With relation-specifi c assets, the pre- 2005
tonomy and collective
Institutional
Differences in the way of
Jost, Dawson, and Shaw
vious literature suggests that member commitment is important to
environment
working
2005; Polychronakis and
collaboration, which relates to “human-asset specifi city,” the know-
Syntetos 2007
how generated through long-standing relationships (Williamson Exworthy and Peckham 1998 1985). Evidence of knowledge-sharing routines is apparent, with
Geographic distance
cooperation, communication, and collective learning among group
Table 3 Lack of Enablers to Collaborative Procurement Identifi ed in the Literature
members emphasized. Some studies emphasize the importance
Lack of Enablers
Themes
Authors
of complementary resources and capabilities, including sharing
Lack of relation-
Lack of member com-
Ritchie and Chadwick 2001;
appropriate resources and jointly selecting goods and services to buy
specifi c assets
mitment
Schotanus, Telgen, and Boer
together. Finally, choosing a governance structure that minimizes
transaction costs, thereby enhancing effi ciency, is also important
Lack of knowledge- Lack of cooperation and
Schotanus 2007
(Williamson 1985). In this context, the previous literature empha- communication
sharing routines
Lack of com-
Lack of resources
Jost, Dawson, and Shaw 2005;
sizes the need for top management support, appropriate structures,
plementary
Laing and Cotton 1997
and compatible purchasing philosophies.
resources/capa-
Lack of standardized pro- Laing and Cotton 1997
bilities
cedures and processes Lack of procurement
Dyer and Singh (1998) present four barriers to collaboration for Aylesworth 2003; Erridge and
skills
Greer 2002
those seeking to imitate successful collaborations. In the list the
Lack of timing (contracts
Ritchie and Chadwick 2001
follows, we briefl y describe these barriers, again illustrating with
end at different dates) Lack of data
examples from our research: Erridge and Greer 2002
Lack of effective
Lack of procurement
Erridge and Greer 2002;
governance
credibility, loss of status
Ritchie and Chadwick 2001
1. Interorganizational asset interconnectedness is based on the
Lack of attention to sup-
Schotanus 2007
accumulation of shared resources. For example, concern
plier resistance Lack of top management
within English local governments over investing in a col- Schotanus 2007 laboration and neglecting the needs of one’s own organiza- support
tion, with some local governments willing to contribute more than other members to collaborations in terms of
not much of an issue in our study, as local governments and time, resources, knowledge, skills, and abilities.
NHS trusts have many potential collaborators.
3. Resource indivisibility because of coevolution of resources. with complementary resources and relational capacities. Th is is
2. Partner scarcity suggests that there are likely to be few partners
For example, once local governments have invested in a
590 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013 590 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013
to some extent. All of the interviewees buy similar products and
4. Institutional environment may not lend itself to cooperation. services, such as transportation services, agency staff , and energy; the For example, English local governments have diff ering local NHS also buys medical products. political agendas, which may make collaboration diffi cult.
Our study employed purposeful sampling (Strauss and Corbin Table 2 summarizes themes from the collaborative procurement lit-
1990), selecting interviewees who were senior procurement staff with erature, grouped according to the four barriers. Several authors have detailed knowledge and experience of collaborative procurement for identifi ed interdependence among organizations as a potential con-
at least two years. Interviewees were identifi ed through our spon- straint. No previous studies of collaborative procurement that we
sors, who provided public sector contacts. Interviewee titles included identifi ed cite scarcity of partners as a barrier. Th e equal sharing of
director, chief executive, category manager, and senior buyer. benefi ts between collaborating organizations is an important aspect of interorganizational relationships (Lejeune and Yakova 2005).
More than 50 interviews is a reasonable sample size for a qualitative Several studies refer to barriers to collaborative procurement, such as study (Morse 1994), allowing us to have some confi dence in the gen- resource indivisibility and inequity of sharing “pains and gains,” that eralizability of our observations. As an estimation of how representa- is, sharing the (dis)advantages of collaboration. Two studies identify
tive our sample is of public buyers, the total spending of the sample diff erences in the way of working as a potential hindrance in terms
organizations is approximately £16.8 billion, which represents about of the institutional environment.
8 percent of the estimated spending of £220 billion in the public sec- tor (National Audit Offi
ce and Audit Commission 2010). Studies of collaborative procurement reveal that a lack of certain enablers (e.g., lack of member commitment, lack of standard rou-
Semistructured Interviews and Analysis
tines, etc.) could also hinder collaboration. We classify these as “lack An interview tool—with open-ended questions related to the job of enablers,” as distinct from barriers, and put them in a separate
situation of the interviewee, experiences of collaborative procure- table (see table 3). Th e lack of enablers seems to correspond to the
ment, constraints, problems, enablers, and so on—was developed. list of enablers in table 1, although no evidence was found in the lit- Interview summaries were sent to interviewees and verifi ed. erature specifi cally relating to “lack of knowledge-sharing routines.”
Th e interview fi ndings were compared across the NHS and English From our review of previous studies of collaborative procurement,
and Welsh local governments. Transcripts and summaries of the we can see that the relational view can help conceptualize and clas-
interviews were coded initially by one researcher. Th e coding was sify barriers to and enablers of collaborative
conducted according to the themes in the rela- buying. We also found it helpful to distin-
tional framework (Berg 1995). Each subsequent guish between barriers and “lack of enablers”
We provide an empirical inves- transcript was analyzed in the same way until
there was a “saturation of themes” (Miles and perspective. In this article, we provide an
in evaluating the literature from a relational
tigation of these relational
concepts by interviewing senior Huberman 1994). A second researcher inde-
empirical investigation of these relational
practitioners engaged in collab- pendently coded 10 interview transcripts and
concepts by interviewing senior practition-
summaries. Th orative procurement activities. e two researchers had 87 percent
ers engaged in collaborative procurement inter-rater agreement regarding the consistency activities. We seek to evaluate whether the
and frequency of allocation of interview quotes relational view can explain what happens when public sector organi- to themes, which can be regarded as an acceptable level of agreement zations collaborate in their procurement activities. Th e next section
(Carey, Morgan, and Oxtoby 1996).
outlines the methodology for the study. Finally, we presented the fi ndings of the study at a workshop. In
Methodology
total, 36 interviewees attended, as well as 10 attendees from other We adopted a “sequential exploratory” mixed-methods design
public sector organizations. Feedback from the workshop was posi- (Hanson et al. 2005), in which qualitative interview data are col-
tive, and practitioners affi rmed the identifi ed barriers and enablers. lected and analyzed fi rst, along with secondary data by using Web sites, reports, and documentation provided by the public sector
Findings and Discussion
organizations. Next, themes from the qualitative data were trans- We found broad evidence for adopting a relational view in the con- formed into counts to see which collaborative procurement themes
text of the study but modifi ed the framework by making new addi- were most frequently mentioned by interviewees. Feedback on the
tions to the themes and by distinguishing between barriers and “lack fi ndings was then sought at a workshop.
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
Interview Sample
fi ndings, and new themes. In the appendix, the three tables are inte- Th e sponsors of the research were the NHS Purchasing and Supply
grated into one to provide an overview of all of the themes found Agency, the South East Centre of Excellence, and Value Wales. Th is and their eff ects on the performance of a buyer–buyer collaboration. shaped our sample to focus on the NHS (24 interviews), English local government (16 interviews), and Welsh local government
Note that each table indicates how many interviewees commented (11 interviews). Th e interviewees came from a balance of national
on a theme. If a theme emerged repeatedly across the diff erent
Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer–Buyer Relationships 591 Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer–Buyer Relationships 591
Lit. Local NHS Total Relation-specifi c
Themes
Lit. Local NHS Total
Lack of enablers
Themes
14 12 14% assets
Member commitment
10 8 16%
Lack of
Lack of member
relation-specifi c
commitment
Knowledge- Cooperation and communication
Lack of attention to setting
Benefi ts calculated and
4 3 6%
realistic expectations
routines communicated
7 15 12% Better understanding through
Lack of
Lack of common coding
collective learning
sharing routines Lack of cooperation and
Standardized procedures and
resources/ processes
Lack of
Lack of data
Joint selection of goods and
Lack of standardized
resources/
procedures and processes
Appropriate resources (training,
10 2 7% IT, etc.)
4 4 7%
capabilities
Lack of attention to
( potential) confl icts
Complementary expertise, skills,
1 2 3%
between local and
and resources
collaborative staff
Effective gov- Top management support
6 4 5% ernance
5 7 11%
Lack of resources
6 2 4% Supplier involvement and
Agreed goals and performance
8 2 5% measures
6 5 10%
Lack of procurement skills
Lack of timing (contracts
7 2 8%
end at different dates)
2 5 4% SME support
capacity
Because of a lack of
6 0 5%
data having to rely on
Implementation of appropriate
1 2 3%
suppliers for data
structures
Lack of strategic buying,
3 2 3%
69 43 100%
better for commodities
Lack of effective
Lack of procurement
9 5 8%
governance
credibility, loss of status Lack of top management
7 3 5%
support
been identifi ed in previous collaborative procurement literature)
7 3 5% Barriers
Lack of attention to supplier
8 2 5% Asset
Themes
Lit. Local NHS
Total
resistance Lack of consideration of the
Interdependence diffi culties
3 2 7%
supply market
interconnectedness while competing over 109 77 100% resources Neglect interests of own
2 2 6%
organization Neglect needs of local
2 1 4%
community
Discussion of general fi ndings and comparing sectors. In the
Partner scarcity None found in the data
0 0 0%
study, several enablers of collaborative procurement emerged
Resource indivisibility Tension between autonomy
73 15%
strongly. Participants felt that collaboration was particularly aided
and collective
Inequity of pain and gain
6 1 10%
by “member commitment and standardized routines and
sharing
procedures.”
Institutional Confl icting local politics
6 9 21%
environment and differing priorities Resistance to change
Eff ective governance, including “top management support and
7 4 16%
Geographic distance
4 2 9%
implementation of appropriate structures,” was mentioned as an
Diffi culties in stakeholder
2 3 7%
enabler, particularly by NHS interviewees. Some NHS collabora-
management
tions gave indications of such governance and cultural change issues
Differences in way of
2 2 6%
on their Web sites. For example, one collaboration stated that its
working
41 29 100%
aim is “to bring about a new way of working in purchasing and transformational change in relation to procurement” (PRO-CURE 2010).
public sector settings (i.e., having a higher percentage than other themes), this may indicate that it is a relatively common theme
It is not shown in the table, but “standardizing procedures and proc- in collaborative public procurement. For ease of comparison, we
esses” was particularly emphasized by Welsh purchasers, who also also provide a column summarizing themes that emerged from the
saw “a lack of standardized procedures and processes” as hindering data but have not been identifi ed previously (the mark in the
collaboration (see table 6). Th is can be explained by the fact that “Literature” column means that a theme has not been identifi ed in
reducing bureaucracy and standardizing procedures and processes previous collaborative procurement literature and is a novel fi nding
have been given strong national attention in Wales (Value Wales from our data).
Procurement 2009).
Enablers
In terms of knowledge-sharing routines, interviewees discussed Enablers identifi ed in the study are presented in table 4. Th ese
collaboration being enabled by “cooperation, communication, empirically derived enablers show a reasonable degree of congruence and sharing.” However, they did not specifi cally discuss “collec- with those identifi ed in the literature in table 1.
tive learning,” which has been identifi ed as an enabler in previous
592 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013
Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer–Buyer Relationships 593
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.
Barriers
Barriers 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.
594 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013
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 Enablers
Regarding 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).
In terms of knowledge-sharing routines, a new theme among NHS Collaboration may also assist in adherence to policy guidance. interviewees was that hospital trust procurement departments have
Public sector procurement needs to observe European Union pro- “no common procurement coding system” for coding and categoriz-
curement policies and rules. It should also demonstrate accountabil- ing products and services. Th is leads to “a lack of [comparable] data”
ity, fairness, equity, and transparency; maximize competition; and on which products and services are being bought by which hospitals.
maintain a level playing fi eld for suppliers (European Commission Collaborations may have “to rely on possibly less reliable data from sup-
2012). Th ese procurement principles might be met more effi ciently pliers” to calculate compliance with collaborative contracts and to iden-
by collaborative procurement than by individual organizations, as tify new possibilities for joint tenders. Collaborating organizations can
acceptable procurement processes can be followed more eff ectively benefi t from improving relational information technology and e-collabo- and expertise can be consolidated. ration for relational rent (Johnson et al. 2007; Rosenzweig 2009).
Another useful direction for future policy may be to develop guidance Some interviewees commented that collaborative procurement was
and promote the more strategic aspects of collaboration rather than more suited to standard items and commodities, whereas more
use collaborative procurement as a vehicle for exploiting economies strategic purchasing to meet longer-term aims was better left to the
of scope and scale. Collaborative purchasing clearly benefi ts standard organizational level. “Our focus is away from
routine items, where one can achieve savings by strategic purchasing in our collaborations, as
Some interviewees commented
aggregating demand among several organiza-
tions and by driving down prices with suppli- Collaborative Procurement Hub, senior buyer).
a lot of managerial eff ort is required” (NHS
that collaborative procurement
was more suited to standard ers, for example, buying electricity or paper in
bulk. Strategic purchasing concerns analyzing Some interviewees believed that collaborative
items and commodities, whereas the product or service portfolio of the collec-
purchasing of commodities would, over time,
tive organizations (Kraljic 1983). Decisions become routine and release staff to focus on
more strategic purchasing to
can be made about which items are most costly more strategic purchasing. Th e possibility of col-
meet longer-term aims was
(e.g., the building of new hospitals), present laborating on strategic items was discussed at the
better left to the organizational
the greatest supply risk (e.g., the health service fi nal workshop conducted as part of this study.
level.
needs to ensure supply of fl u vaccinations from During the workshop, it was suggested that there
specialist suppliers, whereas saline or bandages must be “greater exploration of the more strategic aspects of collabora-
might be available from a wide variety of suppliers), and are of greatest tion,” rather than a focus on standard items that were deemed “easy.”
strategic importance (e.g., commissioning complex health and social Th is echoes calls for purchasing to have a more strategic focus (Chen,
care services, such as mental health services, may have the biggest Paulraj, and Lado 2004; Ellram and Carr 1994), which has been found
impact on community well-being).
to be benefi cial to integration in buyer–supplier relationships (Paulraj, Chen, and Flynn 2006) and may also benefi t buyer–buyer relationships. Important categories can be managed by specifi c teams, and key
supplier relationship management can be developed. By working
Managerial Implications
more closely with suppliers, one is more likely to have product Th e fi ndings discussed in the previous sections
innovations and quality improvements. have several lessons for policy and practice.
Th Strategic purchasing is more easily pursued e new themes that we identi-
For policy makers, the research highlights with collaborative procurement, where there some of the specifi c common barriers to and
fi ed from our data may indicate are economies of scope and scale and dedi-
cated staff , and where mainly large and/or may assist policy makers in identifying areas
enablers of collaborative procurement, which
that policy makers could (1)
develop tools for calculating the (quasi)monopolistic suppliers are involved.
of support and guidance that can be off ered
Collaborative procurement, therefore, regionally and nationally. Th e new themes
benefi ts of collaboration, (2)
off er facilitation to collaborating enhances effi ciency concepts (Gershon 2004)
that we identifi ed from our data may indicate
organizations to aid discussion by providing savings and introduces dynamic
that policy makers could (1) develop tools for effi ciencies such as innovation and product or calculating the benefi ts of collaboration, (2)
their diff ering local needs, and
service quality.
off er facilitation to collaborating organizations
(3) off er advice on involving
to aid discussion their diff ering local needs,
suppliers and SMEs in the early In terms of practitioner implications, the
and (3) off er advice on involving suppliers
research suggests some common factors that and SMEs in the early stages of collaboration.
stages of collaboration.
signal successful collaborations, as well as other factors that may answer some of Dyer
Looking at the lessons for policy makers from the perspective of and Singh’s (1998) concerns about why many collaborations fail. relational theory, knowledge-sharing routines benefi t interfi rm rela-
Practitioners need to put eff ort into standardizing procurement pro- tions (Dyer and Singh 1998) and public sector knowledge networks
cedures and processes, agreeing on goals and performance measures, (Dawes, Cresswell, and Pardo 2009) but were not widely in evidence and ensuring the commitment of members and the joint selection in our study. In the Netherlands, the PIANOo Web site (2007)—
of goods and services, which all have been identifi ed as important to funded by the Dutch government—provides online discussion
the success of collaborations. Rather than achieving a collaborative forums for procurement practitioners, which may be an effi cient way advantage, “collaborative inertia” is sometimes a more apt descrip- for communities of practice to establish knowledge-sharing routines
tion of the collaborative process (McGuire 2006). Practitioners need and exchange knowledge to support collaborative procurement.
to fi nd some way of reconciling tensions between individual and
Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer–Buyer Relationships 595 Collaborative Procurement: A Relational View of Buyer–Buyer Relationships 595
local governments and collaborating health care providers that have into building relational capital and commitment between collabora- not yet been identifi ed in the literature. For local governments pur- tion members may provide a way to overcome such barriers. Our
chasing collaboratively, dealing with concerns about local issues and fi ndings affi rm the observation that public managers need to budget buying from SMEs seem to be specifi c success factors. For health care the time necessary to negotiate with collaboration members about
providers, concerns about product innovation and ensuring security how to govern, paying attention to the tension between self-interest
of supply seem to be strong collaborative procurement themes. and collective interest and building reciprocal and trusting relation- ships (Th omson and Perry 2006).
Implications for Further Research
Th ere are several opportunities for future research. Th e existing
Conclusion
literature on collaborative procurement has often lacked theoretical Th is study adopted a relational lens to explore collaborative pro-
underpinnings and has not had a comprehensive overview of barri- curement. Applying this perspective to collaborative procurement
ers and enablers. In this article, we address these gaps by adopting a not only provides us with an extensive overview of (newly found)
relational lens and extending existing knowledge of what helps and impeding and enabling factors in collaborative procurement (see
hinders collaboration. We would like to continue our contribution appendix) but also with new insights.
to theory testing and develop a more fi nely grained understanding of how the conditions for collaboration might be made more condu-
Among other things, we found that, compared to collaboration cive from a relational perspective and what the implications are for on nonprocurement issues, collaborative procurement is hindered
collaborating organizations. Th is could include survey research to sys- specifi cally by a lack of common coding systems, a lack of considera- tematically scrutinize the antecedents and moderating factors aff ecting tion of the supply market, supplier resistance, reliance on suppliers
collaborative procurement and how collaboration aff ects fi nancial and for data, and a lack of strategic buying. We also found that, com-
operational performance. We feel that the relational approach may pared to collaborative procurement in the private sector, collaborative prove fruitful in future studies of collaborative procurement. procurement in the public sector is hindered by local politics and dif- fering priorities. On the other hand, partner scarcity does not present Furthermore, other theories may shine more light on buyer–buyer an obstacle to collaborative procurement in the public sector.
relations and the broader fi eld of collaborative public procurement
procurement literature) Factor Categories
Lit. Total (Lack of) relation-specifi c assets and asset
(Lack of) member commitment
Lack of attention to setting realistic expectations
Interdependence diffi culties while competing over resources
Neglect interests of own organization
0% (Lack of) knowledge-sharing routines and
Neglect needs of local community
6% partner scarcity
Lack of common coding systems
(Lack of) cooperation and communication
Benefi ts calculated and communicated
0% (Lack of) complementary resources/ capa-
Better understanding through collective learning
9% bilities and resource indivisibility
(Lack of standardized) procedures and processes
Lack of data
Lack of attention to (potential) confl icts between local and collaborative staff
Joint selection of goods and services
Lack of resources
Lack of procurement skills
Tension between autonomy and collective
Lack of timing (contracts end at different dates)
Appropriate resources (training, IT, etc.)
Inequity of pain and gain sharing
Because of a lack of data having to rely on suppliers for data
Lack of strategic buying, better for commodities
1% (Lack of) effective governance and
Complementary expertise, skills, and resources
6% institutional environment
(Lack of) top management support
Confl icting local politics and differing priorities
Lack of procurement credibility, loss of status
Agreed goals and performance measures
Resistance to change
Lack of attention to supplier resistance
Lack of consideration of the supply market
Supplier involvement and capacity
SME support
Geographic distance
Diffi culties in stakeholder management
Differences in way of working
Implementation of appropriate structures
596 Public Administration Review • July | August 2013
(Bingham and O’Leary 2006), such as the resource-based view (Barney References
1991), the collaborative paradigm (Huxham 1993), or social capital
Aylesworth, Mary. 2003. Purchasing Consortia in the Public Sector: Models and
theory (Granovetter 1985; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). Th ese theo-
Methods for Success. Paper presented at the International Supply Management
ries have been previously applied to investigations of supply networks
Conference, Nashville, TN, May 18–21.
and may have salience in public sector buyer–buyer contexts.
Bakker, Elmer, Helen Walker, Fredo Schotanus, and Christine Harland. 2008.
Choosing an Organizational Form: Th
e Case of Collaborative Procurement
Our study sample involved the NHS and English and Welsh local
Initiatives. International Journal of Procurement Management 1(3): 297–317.
governments. We would like to extend the sample to include more
Barney, Jay. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
public sector collaboration settings, such as collaborations within
Management 17(1): 99–120.