Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69 – 83

Exploring purchasing integration in product development

Finn Wynstraa,b,*, Mathieu Weggemana, Arjan van Weelea,c
a
Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, Netherlands
b
Jönköping International Business School, P.O. Box 1026, S-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden
c
Nyenrode University, Straatweg 25, 3621 BG Breukelen, Netherlands
Received 1 August 2000; received in revised form 15 June 2001; accepted 15 August 2001

Abstract

With increasing outsourcing and the growing importance of product innovation as a means for creating competitive advantage, the
integration of purchasing and product development processes has become a key issue for many firms. Although, consequently, the integration
of purchasing and suppliers in product development has attracted growing attention from practitioners and researchers, most research on the
topic remains limited to the context of single development projects. The integration with long-term issues such as technological alignment
between supplier and manufacturer is often neglected. This limited conception and the lack of a coherent definition of what purchasing
integration in product involvement is form a major impediment to the advancement of knowledge in this field. Therefore, this article develops
a framework encompassing various activities across different management levels, which embody the alignment and integration of purchasing
and product development processes.
D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction suppliers. Purchasing can influence the structure of the

supplier network, for example, by supporting newly estab-
Over the past 20 years, the interest in the relations between lished suppliers of products that are important to the firm.
and integration of purchasing processes and tasks and product Purchasing’s development role, finally, concerns systematic-
development processes and tasks—what this article refers to ally aligning the firm’s technological development with the
as ‘purchasing integration in product development’1—has development of suppliers and the supplier network. This role
increased considerably [3,7 – 9,11 – 13,21,22,24,27,30,32 – comprises tasks such as ensuring that the technical compe-
35,38,43]. For a better understanding of the logic behind this tencies of suppliers are exploited in the firm’s R&D processes
integration, it is useful to look at the goals of the purchasing and generating suppliers’ interest in developing products that
function. These have, among others, been discussed by the firm needs and wants.
distinguishing three different roles: a rationalization role, a The three roles are complementary to each other, and
structure role, and a development role [4]. The rationalization partially overlapping. The rationalization role focuses on
role concerns purchasing’s task to contribute to the firm’s matching the firm with suppliers in such a way that
competitive strength by minimizing total costs of production, production and indirect costs are minimized, and the devel-
logistics, prices of inputs, etc. Purchasing’s structure role opment role focuses on matching with the purpose of
refers to handling the firm’s supplier network, especially in achieving synergetic effects in technological development.
terms of the degree of dependency of the firm on specific The structure role provides some restrictions for the per-
formance of the two other roles. The rationalization role can,
for example, in the short run be favored by a single-sourcing
* Corresponding author. Technology Management, Eindhoven Uni- strategy aimed at achieving economies of scale. On the other
versity of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, Netherlands. hand, that strategy may create an unfavorable supplier
Tel.: +31-40-247-3841, +46-36-156-136; fax: +31-40-246-5949, +46-36- structure in the long run by ‘locking-in’ the customer into
161-06.
that specific relation.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Wynstra).
1
To avoid potential confusion, it is important to stress that we mean
The conclusion is that the integration of purchasing in the
‘integration’ to refer to a state rather than a process. In other words, we are not product development process has to be based not only on
discussing the implementation process towards achieving this integration. purchasing’s development role, but also on the rationalization

0019-8501/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 9 - 8 5 0 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 9 7 - 3
70 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83

Table 1
Overview exploratory case studies
Industry Manufacturer Supplier
Trucks Scania (truck producer, S) Valeo Engine Cooling (oil cooler supplier, S)
DAF Trucks (truck producer NL) Robert Bosch (injection system supplier, D)
Telecommunication hardware Ericsson Radio Systems (mobile telecom system producer, S) Ericsson Components (electronics supplier, S)
Ericsson Radio ‘Kumla’ (printed circuit board producer, S) Cityprint (printed circuit board supplier, NL)
Plastic components Perstorp Components (plastic components producer, S) ICI Polyurethanes (chemicals supplier, UK)
– –
Food and beverages Pripps (beer and beverage producer, S) Munksjö (corrugated board supplier, S)
Friesland Dairy Foods (FDF) (dairy producer, NL) Thomassen & Drijver-Verblifa (TDV)
(tinplate cans supplier, NL)
Power plants ABB Stal (turbine/power plant producer, S) ABB Installation (electrical installation supplier, S)
Stork Wärtsilä Diesel Projects (diesel power plant producer, NL) Holec Projects (electrical installation supplier, NL)
NL = Netherlands; S = Sweden; D = Germany; UK = United Kingdom.

and structure roles. The relative weight of the different roles, framework for purchasing activities related to product devel-
and the extent to which there are potential conflicts and opment. In two steps, this framework is subsequently refined,
overlaps between the three, is dependent on the specific defining, and illustrating its various activities on the basis of
characteristics and motives of the development project or our case studies. The article concludes with reviewing the
more long-term-oriented effort at hand. managerial implications and challenges for further research.
Despite the recent accumulation of publications on the
topic of purchasing integration in product development,
closer analysis reveals the limitations of the main body of 2. Research design
research especially in terms of exactly defining what this
integration in product development involves. These limita- The framework has been developed in two steps, on the
tions have their roots in the scope and the coherence of most basis of two series of original case studies carried out by the
existing research. First, purchasing integration in product authors in two European countries (the Netherlands and
development is generally seen as equivalent to managing Sweden), across a relatively large number of different
supplier involvement in new product development projects industries. In these case studies, the different activities
and little or no attention is paid to long-term strategic issues. constituting purchasing integration in product development
Due to this narrow scope, there is no comprehensive over- have been identified and these activities have been grouped
view of all the appropriate purchasing activities within the into different management levels. The two series of case
product development process. This is also caused by a lack of studies are exploratory, being aimed at shaping an under-
coherence within most existing research. There is no coherent standing and delineation of purchasing integration in product
view of what constitutes purchasing integration in product development [46]. In subsequent research, the framework
development. Most research identifies a number of tasks or has been tested in a number of ‘explanatory’ case studies
responsibilities, but there is no clear definition or conceptu- [47], not reported here.
alization of what purchasing integration is or should be based The first series of case studies comprises nine manufac-
on. Aiming to develop a broader yet coherent conceptualiza- turer – supplier relations, based on interviews with 18 suppli-
tion and definition of purchasing integration in product ers and manufacturers in five industries, as listed in Table 1.2
development, the research for this article has been carried The selected industries reflect a variety in the type of
out to overcome these limitations. This results in a framework production technology being employed [45]: two manufac-
encompassing the various activities purchasing integration in turers with large-series production, two with process produc-
product development consists of. The framework should not tion (to some extent in combination with large-series
only be of use to researchers by filling the observed know- production) and one with unit production.3 A choice has
ledge gap in this area; it may also be used as a tool by been made to carry out case studies of both Dutch and
managers for implementing, improving, and auditing the Swedish companies—not to enable comparisons between
(necessary) integration of the purchasing process and the
product development process in their firm. 2
Interviewees mainly included marketing or sales managers from the
After a brief description of the empirical research under- supplier side, and purchasing directors/managers from the manufacturer’s
lying this framework, the key processes underlying purchas- side. In some cases, (additional) interviews have been conducted with
ing integration in product development, and the different general managers, R&D managers, or senior purchasers responsible for
individual suppliers. Interviews, roughly 40 in total, have typically lasted
levels within purchasing’s integration in product devel-
2 – 3 hours.
opment are identified. The key processes cut across these 3
We have tried to select, as often as possible, a supplier in the same
different levels, and together (as a matrix structure) they country as the manufacturer. Due to different practical problems (company
provide the building blocks for developing an integrated access etc.), this was not always possible.
 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83 71

Table 2 three key processes in structuring and managing supplier

Mini-case companies
involvement in product development. Håkansson and Eriks-
1. Philips Medical Systems a producer of medical equipment son [24] use similar yet more detailed terms. Partly based on
2. Fokker Aircraft a producer of aircraft
previous studies [23], they present four key issues in dealing
3. Océ a producer of copiers and
drawing room equipment with, as the title of their article suggests, ‘getting innovations
4. Rank Xerox Manufacturing a producer of copiers out of suppliers’. These are prioritizing, mobilizing, coordi-
(Nederland BV) nating, and timing.4 Prioritizing refers to the choices the
5. ASM Lithography a producer of wafer steppers manufacturer has to make how and where to invest his
6. Fluke Industrial a producer of test and
resources. This involves not only the choice of actual collab-
measuring instruments
7. Hollandse Signaalapparaten a producer of radar systems oration partners, but also the choice for a specific form and
8. Philips CE Hasselt a producer of laser-optic modules intensity of supplier involvement [23]. Companies need to set
9. DAF Trucks a producer of trucks priorities regarding the technical areas or specific suppliers
they want to work with. Without prioritizing, supplier
involvement may cost more time and effort than it saves.
the two countries, but to broaden the empirical basis of the Mobilizing involves encouraging or motivating suppliers to
research and to enable intra-industry comparisons. start working on a particular development. Without mobil-
The second series of empirical studies consists of ‘mini’ ization, suppliers may not be interested and willing to make
case studies, in which we studied nine additional companies. the necessary commitments and efforts. Coordinating
Purchasing managers from different companies (see Table 2) involves the adjustment and adaptation of development
were invited to a working group of researchers and practi- activities and resources between suppliers and the manufac-
tioners to present a case study of their respective companies, turer. Without coordination, joint development will result in
which then have been analyzed to identify the major issues ill-fitting components, double work, incompatible technical
in product development from a purchasing perspective. solutions, etc. This need for coordination grows with the
Additional interviews have been held at most of these firms, increasing specialization and fragmentation of development
but all in all, this second series of case studies was less activities. Timing is a special kind of coordination, which
extensive than the first series. This can be explained by the involves the coordination and adaptation of development
second series being aimed at investigating the managerial activities and resources in time. Without timing, product
processes within single firms, from the viewpoint of one development will suffer from (unexpected) bottlenecks,
type of managers, whereas the first series of case studies unnecessary delays, and missed deadlines.
looked at (the usually more complex issue of) supplier – These four processes—prioritizing, mobilizing, coordi-
manufacturer relations, from both parties’ point of view. nating, and timing—form the basis for our analysis of
purchasing integration in product development. They serve
as criteria for deciding which activities add value to product
3. Defining purchasing integration in development. Table 3 lists examples of activities that
product development embody these different key processes.

For identifying the activities that contribute to purchasing 3.2. Levels of purchasing integration in product
integration in product development, the three purchasing development
roles defined in the previous section are still rather broad
concepts. One way to provide more focus regarding the In addition to a definition or conceptualization of pur-
essence or contents of purchasing integration in product chasing integration in terms of underlying key processes, it
development, necessary to guide the identification of the may be helpful to distinguish the levels within the product
specific activities it encompasses, would be by defining the development process that this integration can be directed at.
common characteristics of those activities. In other words, One of the shortcomings of the body of research that is
identifying what kind of activities does purchasing integ- specifically targeted at the relation between purchasing and
ration consist of. One alternative for describing these product development, is its almost exclusive focus on
common characteristics would be by means of the key activities at the level of (directed at) individual development
processes that underlie this integration. projects.
Based on a broad overview of existing literature, it seems
3.1. Key processes underlying purchasing integration in that three different levels (or areas) can be distinguished
product development within purchasing’s integration in product development: (1)

Existing literature provides some definitions of the key 4

Actually, the authors use the words prioritizing, mobilizing,
processes underlying purchasing integration, or rather sup- synchronizing, and timing, respectively. In our research, synchronizing
plier involvement, in product development. Bonaccorsi [8] has been replaced with coordinating because of the potential confusion
talks about incentive, search, and coordination as being the between synchronizing and timing.
72 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83

Table 3
Examples of key processes
Key process Example
Prioritizing
selecting a supplier for the development of a specific component

Mobilizing


deciding how many resources (travelling expenses, hours) can be invested in managing the collaboration with a specific supplier
promising a supplier a long-term production contract in exchange for its collaboration in the development of the component

letting a supplier use the knowledge developed in the collaboration also for third party customers (after a period)
Coordinating
having a packaging equipment and packaging material supplier adapt their respective new products to each other

Timing


sharing development workloads between different suppliers according to their respective specializations
making sure that the internal R&D department delivers the basic technical requirements in time to the supplier so that the project
deadline can be made

introducing/developing a new final product just after a supplier of critical components has (autonomously) renewed its product
projects, (2) suppliers, and (3) technologies. The distinction the development activities by suppliers. The area includes
between these different levels acknowledges that the activ- activities like preparing, planning, and coordination of
ities within purchasing integration in product development product development activities of suppliers during a specific
may be focused at primarily one of three levels: either a development project. These tasks have, per definition, a
project (a series of development activities within a specific limited time frame even though a particular development
period in time), a supplier (a long-term relation with a specific may last weeks or years. ‘Projects’ is an area that is high-
supplier), or a technology (the combination of knowledge and lighted by research that has largely been published over the
physical objects in a specific technical area, e.g., electro- last decade, mainly from the perspective of the purchasing
mechanics). Partly, these three levels represent different department, and predominantly Anglo-Saxon in origin.
levels of abstraction. A specific supplier may be the primary The level of ‘suppliers’ includes long-term ‘relationship
source for a particular technology for the manufacturer, while management’ tasks with, as one of the main elements, the aim
any given project involves collaboration with specific sup- that these suppliers contribute to the innovative position and
pliers. Yet, each of the three levels has a different time capabilities of the firm in the long run. This encompasses
horizon, and each of them involves different activities and activities such as the maintenance of a preferred supplier base
processes. Each of the three levels is also emphasized by a and market research. These tasks have to be carried out not
different school of academic research (see Table 4). only in parallel with ongoing development projects but
Most of the research on purchasing’s role in product especially in between projects. The ‘suppliers’ level has been
development has focused on the level of ‘projects’. At this covered by research dominated by the IMP Group, which has
level, issues arise concerning the way product development traditionally focused at the more long-term interaction
is internally carried out and how this can be integrated with between firms. This school of research is more (Continental)

Table 4
Research strands and levels of purchasing integration
Level of purchasing integration/
examples of authors Emphasis
Projects
Burt and Soukup [11]
Clark [12]


tasks of purchasing departments in new product development projects
effects of supplier involvement on the scope and performance of new automobile projects
Dowlatshahi [13]
purchasing tasks within development projects, differences between development and purchasing functions
Birou [7]
influence of supplier involvement on project performance (cost, quality, product performance, development time)
Hartley [21]
ofquantification of benefits of supplier involvement and the identification
effective management techniques at the level of individual projects
Kamath and Liker [27]
different roles suppliers may have in development projects in terms of moment and intensity of involvement
Ragatz et al. [38]
used
most and least successful cases of supplier involvement with regard to project outcomes, managerial instruments
at project level

Suppliers
Bergman and Johanson [6]
Axelsson [3]


manufacturer – supplier interaction in product development
long-term access to supplier knowledge, joint development of new capabilities
Bonaccorsi [8]
structuring and managing supplier involvement in the long run
Håkansson and Eriksson [24]
underlying managerial processes involved in getting product innovations out of suppliers
Technologies
Ford and Farmer [17]
contribution of materials function to make-or-buy decisions
Pralahad and Hamel [36]
core competencies, resource allocation, and outsourcing
Wheelwright and Clark [42]
Quinn and Hilmer [37]


technology planning and strategy, external acquisition of technological capabilities (long term)
core competencies and range of outsourcing options
 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83 73

Table 5
Initial framework
Levels Activity Embodied key processes
Technologies
outsource
determine which technologies to keep/develop in-house and which ones to
to suppliers (develop-or-buy)
prioritizing

Suppliers
target suppliers for technological collaboration prioritizing

motivate suppliers to develop products the firm needs mobilizing, coordinating

leverage the capabilities of suppliers coordinating, timing
Projects
determine which suppliers to involve, at which moment, to what extent prioritizing, mobilizing,
coordinating, timing

integrate internal development activities with those of suppliers coordinating, timing

integrate development activities of different suppliers (‘horizontally’ and ‘vertically’) coordinating, timing

European in origin, and is not dominated by a purchasing prioritizing the technological areas the manufacturer will
(department) perspective but studies the issue also from other spend his internal resources on (see Table 5).
functional perspectives such as marketing and engineering. Such a ‘develop-or-buy’ decision is usually a more
At the third and final level, ‘technologies’, the main issue fundamental decision than the make-or-buy decision for
regards the division of work between the manufacturer and production activities, since a decision to ‘buy’ a certain
its suppliers in the development and improvement of spe- technology nearly automatically implies that the production
cific technological knowledge and skills. This involves what activities using that technology have to be outsourced too.
are often called ‘develop-or-buy’ decisions. These decisions When a manufacturer decides to maintain technological
are usually of such a critical importance to the firm that know-how in a certain area, it can still decide to outsource
besides purchasing and development, general management the production activities that use that know-how, if appro-
will be a key player. This level of ‘technologies’ is dealt priate in a particular situation [18].
with by research both in strategic management and product The activity of ‘determining’ which technologies to keep/
development as well as in the area of strategic purchasing develop in-house and which ones to outsource actually
management or outsourcing. encompasses other more continuous activities as well such
This identification of three different main levels or areas as identifying and evaluating technologies relevant to the
within purchasing integration in product development pro- firm. Analyzing the availability of technologies in the
vides a conception of this integration being not limited to supplier market is one of the core purchasing-related tasks
(contributing to the efficiency and effectiveness of) single within ‘determining which technologies to keep in-house’.6
development projects. Additionally, we argue that the levels It should be noted, however, that a clear develop-or-buy
are closely connected and that the activities at each level are policy does not mean an inflexible policy. The policy could
aimed at the same objectives: realizing the key processes of indicate, for example, apart from technologies that should
prioritizing, mobilizing, co-coordinating, and timing. always be bought and technologies that should always be
developed internally, certain ‘gray’ areas where a final
decision should be based on the context of a particular
4. Initial framework project. Besides, there are more options than ‘totally buy’ or
‘totally develop’ a technology and components related to
In this section, specific activities at each of the three that. A manufacturer may choose to maintain some basic
levels are defined. The first series of case studies (of nine expertise in a certain technological area, leaving the spe-
supplier –manufacturer relations) have provided examples cialist capabilities to the supplier. In that way, the manufac-
how the key processes of prioritizing, mobilizing, coordi- turer can still (to some extent) evaluate the technical
nating, and timing are handled for each of the different proposals of the supplier, and monitor technological devel-
levels.5 By ‘inductively’ reformulating these examples into opments in the supplier market. An example can be found at
more general activities, a framework is developed. the truck producer DAF Trucks, which still maintains
expertise in injection systems although it relies heavily on
4.1. Technologies the specialist knowledge of supplier Robert Bosch.
Develop-or-buy policies may help to determine the
The first level, technologies, encompasses one activity: extent of supplier involvement in a specific development
determining which technologies to keep/develop in-house,
and which ones to outsource to suppliers. Essentially, the
6
‘develop-or-buy’ decision embodies the key process of Thomas [40] argues that the value (to the manufacturer) of a given
technology can be assessed in terms of the availability of the technology, its
maturity, and the reliance of the purchasing firm on that technology for its
competitive position [36]. The higher the level of availability (and stability,
5
Some additional examples were extracted from previously published and the lower the level of dependence), the greater possibilities to ‘buy’ the
research. technology from suppliers.
74 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83

project. However, many companies have determined their with a large number of suppliers is not easy and not for free
develop-or-buy policy only in very general terms, and often [2,20]. One of the motives behind the pervasive trend of
do not update it regularly. This often leads to unnecessary supply base reduction is exactly to better benefit from the
and protracted discussions at the beginning of (and some- technological knowledge of the remaining ones [11,19,44].
times even during) development projects between project The second activity, motivating or getting suppliers
managers, purchasers, and development engineers. interested in developing (parts of) products that the cus-
tomer firm needs or wants, clearly involves the key pro-
4.2. Suppliers cesses of mobilizing and coordinating (see Table 5). To
make a supplier interested primarily implies mobilizing its
The second level, suppliers, seeks to promote suppliers’ resources; in listening and adapting to the manufacturer’s
contributions to the innovative capabilities of the firm. How needs and wants, the supplier has to consume some of its
a manufacturer deals with a supplier in an ongoing relation- resources. One possibility for the manufacturer to mobilize
ship clearly affects the willingness and opportunities of that the supplier’s resources is to become attractive for the
supplier to participate in a particular development project. supplier, based on business volume involved, its image,
For instance, at one of the manufacturers in the case studies, new product ideas, relations with other customers, etc. [24].
a supplier once indicated that it had decided to offer its new In a sense, it implies that the manufacturer has to present
components no longer to the manufacturer in question but itself as a kind of supplier to its supplier—of unique benefits
rather to other customers, because it felt mistreated by the [28, 31]. DAF Trucks is able to mobilize Bosch on the basis
manufacturer in its exclusive emphasis on price in the of its openness and swiftness in sharing information and
regular contract negotiations. In other words, the character technical feedback, for example on field trials of new
of the ongoing relationship hampered collaborative projects. injection system models.
On the basis of the case studies, three activities can be Matching technical capabilities is also a key element in
distinguished within this level: this motivation process. If the manufacturer has some
knowledge or expertise the supplier can gain access to
 target suppliers for collaboration; through the collaboration, and which is relevant to him, it
 motivate suppliers to develop products the firm needs; is easier for the manufacturer to engage the supplier.
and Overall, however, the importance of motivating a sup-
 exploit the capabilities of suppliers. plier to participate in technological collaboration is often
underestimated because most practitioners and researchers
The first activity in building and maintaining collaborative usually see manufacturers as being more powerful than
supplier relationships concerns targeting collaboration suppliers, thus being able to ‘demand’ or even force their
partners, which is mainly a form of the key process of suppliers to collaborate (for example, by threatening to
prioritizing. withdraw business). Our case studies have shown that this
These priorities may be formed on the basis of the is not always the case; Robert Bosch is much larger and
importance of the technology or product involved and the much more ‘powerful’, in that sense, than DAF.
relative standing of specific suppliers in that technology. The third activity at the suppliers level, leveraging the
Returning to our earlier example, DAF Trucks has labeled technological competencies of suppliers, entails the key
Robert Bosch as a partner because injection systems are processes of coordinating and timing. Naturally, all collab-
such an important component in its truck engines, and orations involve some leveraging—exploiting—of the sup-
Bosch is a leading company in the field. plier’s technological capabilities, usually in areas decided by
Targeting collaboration partners is not the same as decid- the manufacturer. This third activity, however, refers to
ing which suppliers are going to be involved in a specific letting the manufacturer adapt to the (existing) capabilities
development project. Firstly, a large share of technological of its suppliers instead of asking the supplier to develop
collaboration takes place outside the context of a specific products the manufacturer needs. Leveraging, in that con-
project, and has a more permanent character. Examples are text, implies that the customer firm closely watches and
the different collaborations that DAF Trucks (and other truck analyzes the capabilities of its supplier, and ‘constructs’ a
producers) has with suppliers that are more ‘research’- new product around (based on) the component or material
oriented than geared towards the development of a specific developed by the supplier. Whereas in the previous activity
truck or part model. Secondly, manufacturers may want to of motivating suppliers to develop specific products, mobil-
have close contacts with several innovative suppliers for a izing, and coordinating are important processes, in leverag-
specific product at the same time. They may want to have ing existing supplier capabilities the coordination process is
several suppliers in their supplier base to choose from for a still important, but mobilizing is now replaced by timing.
specific development project. In that way, customer firms try The manufacturer adapts itself by ‘synchronizing’ its new
to maintain some independence and flexibility (i.e., they product introduction to those by suppliers, rather than
secure purchasing’s ‘structure role’) [14]. However, there is a asking them to develop new components and the like at a
trade-off issue here as maintaining intensive relationships moment it suits the manufacturer. This strategy can be
 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83 75

especially effective when a customer is faced by large, the component and supplier characteristics that determine
powerful, or very innovative suppliers.7 the need and suitability for early and extensive involvement
[12,27,30,48]. Determining the extent of supplier involve-
4.3. Projects ment is mainly a matter of prioritizing and coordinating, as
it involves choosing and coordinating between involving
Within the level of projects, three activities can be supplier and internal development resources. Determining
distinguished on the basis of the case studies: the moment of involvement—or more precisely, differenti-
ating between different moments for different suppliers
 determining which suppliers to involve, at which within the overall development project—enables the man-
moment, and to what extent, ufacturer to use its resources for managing this supplier
 integrating internal development activities with those of involvement as efficiently as possible. In other words, it is
suppliers, and about prioritizing and timing.
 integrating development activities of different suppliers. The second activity in the level of projects concerns the
integration of development activities of suppliers with those
The first activity, determining which suppliers to involve, of internal departments of the manufacturer. This activity
when, and how, involves all four key issues of prioritizing, centers on the key processes of coordinating and timing.
mobilizing, coordinating, and timing. The decision which The need for this integration depends on the specific form of
supplier to involve in a project becomes especially relevant collaboration. When development work is being carried out
when the manufacturer has several suppliers for a specific equally by the manufacturer and the supplier, the coordina-
product. It is similar to the suppliers activity of targeting tion is likely to be the most intensive. In the collaboration
suppliers for collaborative product development, be it now between DAF Trucks and Bosch, for example, strong
in the context of a specific project. It is not a given fact, integration was taking place between the development
however, that even within a single project only one supplier activities since DAF spends a lot of time too in R&D on
will be involved for each part. In the automotive industry, injection systems and their interaction with other parts of the
for example, a development project may involve two or truck engine.
three suppliers—for one specific part—in the form of a The third activity related to projects concerns horizont-
‘design contest’ [14]. Just like for the more permanent forms ally and vertically integrating development activities of
of collaboration, manufacturers have to balance the costs different suppliers. One of the central findings in research
and benefits of involving more than one supplier [10].8 Also on industrial networks is that relationships between com-
here, the actual choice for a specific supplier has to be based panies cannot be considered in isolation as they influence
on the supplier’s capabilities and ‘mobility’, but additionally one another [1, 26]. When a supplier and a manufacturer
on the supplier’s availability at that specific moment. When cooperate to develop a new product, for example, the
a supplier is involved in many other projects (not necessar- supplier may have to place new demands on its relationship
ily related to product development), it may be hard to with one of its own suppliers. In managing (or studying)
engage it in any (substantial) development collaboration. collaborative relationships with suppliers, these kinds of
However, if the manufacturer picks the right moment interdependencies have to be taken into account as well
(perhaps just through sheer luck) a supplier may be very [39]. As a result, a company not only has to pay attention to
interested in such collaboration. Considering such timing single development relationships with different suppliers,
issues in a more structured manner would probably increase but it also needs to consider the larger supplier network.
the success rate of supplier – manufacturer development This involves horizontally integrating the development
collaboration. capacities and efforts of suppliers delivering different com-
After deciding which suppliers are to be involved, the ponents to the customer firm, and vertically integrating
specific forms of supplier involvement need be identified in development activities between different tiers of suppliers.
terms of the moment (in relation to the whole development This integration primarily incorporates the key processes of
project) and the extent (the degree of development respons- coordinating and timing in order to create the best con-
ibility the supplier has for its particular component) of ditions for collaborative product development [24].
involvement. Existing research has dealt extensively with Horizontal integration is almost always necessary when
the final product contains parts supplied by more than one
supplier. The required intensity depends on the extent to
7
An even stronger example, outside our main case studies, comes from which the innovations in the final product affect (the
a Dutch fruit juice producer that was able to enter a completely new specifications of) more than one part. Vertical integration
distribution channel after a supplier had introduced it to a completely new between the development activities of so-called first tier
form of packaging.
8 suppliers and their (second tier) suppliers is most widely
The choice of involving one or more suppliers also depends on other
factors, such as the manufacturer’s overall purchasing strategy (single vs.
practiced by manufacturers that buy complex modules and
dual or multisourcing) and the number of available suppliers in the network subassemblies, such as in the electronics and automotive
and their relative technological capabilities. industries [22,27].
76 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83

In general, however, integrating the work of different activities (aimed at limiting the number of alternative spec-
suppliers during product development seems to be a difficult ifications) and ‘extending’ activities (aimed at increasing the
activity. Also for DAF Trucks, ‘early multiple-supplier number of alternatives) [15].
involvement’ in product development is a complicated and The second level, operations responsibility, refers to
difficult issue, requiring special management attention.9 tasks like the timing and coordination of development
Table 5 summarizes the various activities for the three activities of suppliers during a development project. Prepar-
levels, and their relations to the four key processes. ing and starting such a development project is regarded as a
preparations responsibility. The fourth level, structure
responsibility, involves activities related to the management
5. Findings from the second series of case studies of a base of preferred development suppliers. This includes
activities like market research and ‘relationship manage-
After the first version of the framework, the findings ment’. Unlike the three previous levels of responsibility,
that resulted from the second series of case studies are these activities are not project-specific, but targeted at
now discussed. permanently having a supplier (infra-)structure available,
which may be ‘activated’ when a specific project comes up.
5.1. Finding 1: Five levels of responsibility Finally, policy responsibility regards the formulation and
communication of guidelines and policies regarding the role
One of the central notions resulting from the series of of the different internal departments and suppliers in product
(mini-)case studies is that activities related to purchasing development. This policy responsibility forms the starting
integration in product development are being performed at point for the four other responsibilities.
different levels in the organization. Purchasers and devel- Together with this distinction of five levels of respons-
opment engineers discuss the design of a new product, and ibility, the second series of case studies also resulted in
monitor the progress a supplier is making in developing a identifying an additional key process underlying purchasing
specific component. Purchasing managers and perhaps some integration in product development.
of their counterparts from R&D periodically meet with
important suppliers to evaluate ongoing business and dis- 5.2. Finding 2: One additional key process
cuss potential future developments in terms of new tech-
nologies. Purchasing directors develop guidelines for their The second series of cases have clearly demonstrated that
department’s responsibilities and tasks in product devel- purchasing integration is more than only managing supplier
opment projects, and general management may consider to involvement, as is for example reflected in the specification
outsource research and development regarding a specific responsibility. The essence of the difference between pur-
technology to suppliers. This notion has led to distinguish- chasing integration and managing supplier involvement
ing a number of ‘levels of responsibility’ within purchasing regards the collection and dissemination of information
integration in product development, ranging from opera- before or in parallel with the actual involvement of suppli-
tional to more strategic responsibilities. These levels are: ers.10 We label the underlying key process for these kinds of
activities ‘informing’, referring to both acquiring and shar-
 specifications responsibility; ing information. These are activities not directly related to
 operations responsibility; managing supplier involvement, but which take place prior
 preparations responsibility; to (and in parallel with) selecting and working with par-
 structure responsibility; and ticular suppliers, like carrying out market research, evalu-
 policy responsibility. ating different alternative component designs in terms of
availability and costs.
At the first level, purchasing integration in product devel- With this addition, the involvement of purchasing in
opment involves a design or rather specifications respons- product development can be seen to rely on five key
ibility. This refers to assisting in the actual development of the processes: prioritizing, mobilizing, coordinating, timing,
new product as far as supplier materials/components/assem- and informing. The original four processes have been useful
blies are concerned by considering issues that should be taken to describe and analyze the case studies on manufacturer –
into account from a purchasing perspective (e.g., technology supplier collaboration but in the course of our research,
availability, new technological developments in supplier however, it became clear that these key processes—and thus
markets, capacity constraints, lead time, and cost consequen- the specific activities based on that—are primarily related to
ces). A further distinction can be made between ‘restrictive’
10
O’Neal [34] describes this process quite aptly: ‘‘As marketing is
9
It is not always and not only the manufacturer that performs this scanning the environment for unfulfilled needs, and R&D is developing/
horizontal and vertical coordination of development activities. In a tiered acquiring new technology, purchasing is actively acquiring, assimilating,
supplier structure, it is the explicit responsibility of each tier to manage and digesting, and sharing information on new and forthcoming supplier
communicate with the level below [22,33]. developments.’’
 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83 77

Fig. 1. Integrating the management levels and levels of responsibility.

managing supplier involvement. Purchasing integration in ment.11 This final area refers to what has previously been
product development is more than that. called specifications responsibility.
In the following section, the initial version of the The newly identified fifth key process is combined with
framework is being revised based on these two conclusions the original four key processes of the initial framework.
from the second series of cases; a variety of levels of The revised framework concerning purchasing integ-
‘responsibility’ with regard to purchasing integration activ- ration in product development then consists of four man-
ities and a fifth underlying key process. agement areas and five underlying key processes. In the
remainder of this section, specific activities within each of
the four areas are presented and discussed, also in terms of
6. Revised framework their relation to one or more of the five underlying key
processes. Many of those activities have already been
After the two series of case studies, two dimensions identified in the context of the initial framework, and are
have been identified along which a distinction can be made therefore not discussed in detail. Only the ‘new’ activities,
of the different activities within purchasing integration in obviously many of which are related to the key process of
product development: management levels and levels of informing, are presented more extensively by using illus-
responsibility. Clearly, these dimensions seem to overlap trations from the second series of case studies.
to a considerable extent and therefore, the final, revised
version of the framework integrates the two dimensions 6.1. Development management
(see Fig. 1).
Combining the three management levels or areas from The first area, development management, encompasses
our initial framework and the five levels of responsibility four activities:
results in four management areas: development manage-
ment, supplier interface management, project management,  determining which technologies to keep/develop in-
and product management. Development management com- house and which ones to outsource to suppliers;
bines the previous level of technologies and the level of  formulating guidelines for the involvement of suppliers
policy responsibility. It includes all the activities that set the in product development;
stage for the other areas of purchasing integration in product  formulating guidelines for purchasing-related activities
development. The area of supplier interface management of internal departments in product development; and
combines the level of suppliers and the structure respons-  communicating policies and procedures internally and
ibility, involving the permanent and ongoing management externally.
of supplier relationships. Project management integrates the
level of projects and the preparations and operations
responsibilities, distinguishing between project planning
(preparations) and project execution (operations) activities. 11
Note that product management, in our definition, is essentially
Both project planning and project execution mainly encom- different from what is referred to as product management in the general
pass activities in order to enable and support the devel- marketing literature. There, it is used to refer to cross-functional manage-
opment process. However, in addition to that, there are ment of a range of products, including developing long-range strategies
and, for example, preparing marketing plans and sales forecasts [29]. We
activities that are not primarily concerned with the process use the term product management to refer to those activities regarding
of developing the product, but rather with the new product purchasing integration in product development that are directly aimed at
itself: these are grouped into the area of product manage- (the design or specifications of) the new product.
78 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83

The first activity, determining which technologies to keep/  preselecting suppliers for product development collabo-
develop in-house and which ones to outsource to suppliers, ration;
has already been discussed extensively in relation to the  motivating suppliers to build up/maintain specific
initial version of the framework, as the main activity within knowledge or develop certain products;
the level of technologies.  leveraging the technical capabilities of suppliers; and
Apart from such develop-or-buy decisions or issues,  evaluating suppliers’ development performance.
development management involves determining guidelines
for supplier involvement and the purchasing-related activ- The first, monitoring supplier markets with regard to tech-
ities of internal departments within product development. nical developments, including the abilities of specific suppli-
These guidelines can indicate what the manufacturer expects ers, is a basic activity that is instrumental to build up
from suppliers and what suppliers may expect from the technological competence [5]. Market research is a quite
manufacturer regarding product development, for example common activity within purchasing and exists in different
in terms of communication, documentation, and compensa- forms [41], but here we explicitly refer to proactive, continu-
tion. The guidelines may also indicate the responsibilities ous market research with the aim of identifying suppliers and/
and activities of different internal departments regarding or technologies that may be relevant for the development of
purchasing-related activities in product development, since new products. It is thus opposed to ad hoc research in the
the different activities need not be the domain of the frame of a specific development project, like a quick scan that
purchasing department. People from the engineering depart- seeks to identify an alternative supplier for a specific new
ment, depending on their expertise and experience, can component. The key process involved clearly is informing.
carry out some activities. In essence, these guidelines should Within the second series of case studies, we have only seen a
indicate how, when, and by whom the activities in the three few examples of this off-line monitoring of supplier markets,
other areas—supplier interface management, project man- although Océ explicitly indicates this as one of the purchasing
agement, and product management—are carried out. Prim- responsibilities within product development. Many of the
arily, these external and internal guidelines can be seen as case companies agree it is an important issue, but few have
instruments for realizing the key processes of coordinating clear guidelines on, for example, how and how often it should
and timing. They should handle the interdependencies be done. Usually, market research seems to be done in the ad
between the different activities and processes involved—in hoc mode without a clear (long-term) plan.
content and in time. Finally, without effectively commun- The second activity concerns preselecting preferred sup-
icating these guidelines, clearly a case of informing, it may pliers for collaboration in product development, which is the
be difficult to create understanding and acceptance for the same as ‘target suppliers for collaboration’ in the initial
role and involvement of suppliers and the different depart- version of the framework at the suppliers level. Also the
ments in product development. Guidelines can provide a third and fourth activity, motivating suppliers to build up or
constructive basis for discussing problems in the devel- maintain specific knowledge and develop certain products
opment process, and serve as a reference in possible and leveraging existing technological competencies of sup-
competence conflicts. It is important to communicate these pliers, have been discussed within the initial framework.
guidelines also to suppliers. Suppliers also benefit from The fifth, final, and new activity concerns evaluating
clear guidelines with regard to their responsibilities and supplier performance with regard to product development.
those of the departments at the manufacturer: they can adapt In order to keep the preferred supplier base updated, this
their strategy and ways of working to the demands of the performance has to be assessed periodically, based on the
manufacturer, and know whom to turn to with specific experiences in product development projects. This assess-
problems. ment will take place mainly at the level of the development
One of the second series of case companies, copier process at the supplier, for example in terms of adherence to
producer Océ, has developed a policy for supplier involve- deadlines, reliability and quality in communication and
ment in the form of a portfolio approach in distinguishing documentation. To some extent, the assessment can also
and managing different supplier roles in product devel- take place at a product level, for example by reviewing the
opment. This policy also provides guidelines regarding the quality and cost of developed parts compared to the original
responsibilities and tasks of departments such as purchasing objectives (or to similar projects).
and product development. Based on our case studies, assessment methods specif-
ically targeted at product development performance seem to
6.2. Supplier interface management be developed only recently. Only one company was starting
to gain some experience in this area, using a combination of
Within the area of supplier interface management, it is objective methods such as vendor rating on quantitatively
possible to distinguish five main activities: measurable aspects and more subjective methods such as
personal assessments by engineers and purchasers. Still,
 monitoring supplier markets for technical develop- many companies feel there is need for this and also for
ments; new assessment methods to carry it out. Having an up-to-
 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83 79

date base of suppliers for different products and technolo- discussed earlier, but—in retrospect—clearly also inform-
gies that can perform development activities for the man- ing.
ufacturer makes the selection of suppliers to collaborate
with in a specific project more efficient by reducing the need 6.4. Product management
for searching and rating suppliers. In fact, many companies
use so-called shortlists or prequalified suppliers, but the With regard to actually assisting in the development of
criteria do not always include specific considerations of the the new product, i.e., directly contributing to the specifica-
supplier’s ability to collaborate in product development. tions of the new product, the activities can be categorized
One company includes aspects such as supplier profitability into ‘extending’ and ‘restrictive’ contributions to the new
and number of training hours in its assessment of suppliers, product development process. Restrictive activities are
since it argues these have a positive effect on the supplier’s aimed at limiting the number of alternative specifications,
investment possibilities and innovative performance. while extending activities are aimed at increasing the
number of alternatives [13,15]. The activities encompass:
6.3. Project management
extending activities:
Within the area of project management, two specific
 providing information on new products and tech-
subareas may be distinguished: project planning and project
nologies being developed or already available and
execution. Project planning entails four main activities:
 suggesting alternative suppliers, products, and

 determining specific develop-or-buy solutions; techniques to achieve a higher quality of the final
 selecting suppliers for involvement in the development product;
and restrictive activities:
project;
 evaluating designed parts in terms of availability,
 determining the extent (‘workload’) of supplier involve-
makeability, lead time, quality, and costs; and
ment; and
 promoting standardization and simplification of
 determining the moment of supplier involvement.
designs and parts.
The first activity regards project-specific develop-or-buy
decisions. These have previously been discussed under the In the first place, product management involves providing
heading of development management as a long-term activ- information on new products and technologies that are
ity, but in fact need to be considered also in the context of available or being developed in the supplier market. This
specific projects. The company may have a develop-or-buy activity is especially relevant in the first phases of a
policy, but this will not always automatically imply which development project. Somewhat later during the project,
decisions should be taken at the project level, for example, after the first options have been reviewed, product manage-
because the component involved incorporates a totally new ment involves suggesting alternative suppliers, product, and
technology not yet considered, or because the project needs technologies in order to achieve a higher product quality.
to meet a tough deadline, which means that the manufac- Both these ‘extending’ activities are closely connected to the
turer cannot undertake all development work it usually activities in the area of supplier interface management,
undertakes. Just like within the area of development man- especially the monitoring of supplier markets. Knowledge
agement, it primarily involves prioritizing. The other three about alternative technologies and the capabilities of spe-
activities have previously, in the initial version of the cific suppliers is crucial for being able to add value to
framework, been discussed at the level of projects. product development: a ‘centralized locus of control with
While project planning activities are primarily carried out respect to the flow and exchange of technical information’
during the initial phase of a development project, or even [43] is an advantage for becoming involved in the product
prior to that, project execution involves activities during the development process.
project. It encompasses the remaining activities listed pre- Suggesting alternatives is closely related to the third
viously under projects: activity: evaluating product designs in terms of availability,
makeability, lead time, quality, and costs. This involves
 integrating development activities between suppliers and informing internal departments about various suppliers’ (in)
manufacturer; abilities to meet specifications, giving information about
 integrating development activities between different first costs, performance, market availability, quality, and reliabil-
tier suppliers; and ity of particular components [11]. Finally, product manage-
 integrating development activities between first tier ment includes finding and proposing other parts that have
suppliers and second tier suppliers. more common specifications, in order to gain efficiency and
purchasing leverage. Part standardization and simplification
The only additional observation we make here is that these can reduce costs, the number of suppliers needed, and the
three activities not only involve coordinating and timing, as time and cost of designing and producing the final product
80 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83

Box 1. Product management at Hollandse Signaalapparaten purchasers, and/or engineers can act as a kind of window on
their technological capabilities (see Box 1).
In the second series of case studies, Hollandse All these four activities involve the key process of inform-
Signaalapparaten, the manufacturer of maritime radar ing, while suggesting alternatives and promoting standard-
systems, provides a good example of these extending ization and simplification also involve prioritizing and
and restrictive product management activities. For some mobilizing as they concern choices between different options,
20 groups of components, the company employs teams and trying to convince or motivate various functions (such as
of purchasers and development engineers, so-called R&D or production) to choose certain options.
article specialists. The specialists have to give their As an overview, Table 6 presents the revised framework
permission to development engineers that want to design with the four different areas of purchasing integration in
a new component, by signing a request for the product development each with its specific activities, and
introduction of a purchase item. Based on their the underlying processes.
experience, technical expertise and market information, Table 6 presents the four management areas with their
the article specialists may agree on the specifications and respective activities as if they were separated from one
propose the appropriate supplier, or suggest a different another, but this is not the case. Apart from the different
design so that available suppliers can meet the management areas being connected to each other in terms of
specifications. Alternatively, the Specialists may reject sharing the same underlying processes, the activities are, in
the request and refer the engineer to the company’s list of many cases, also directly linked with each other. The
standard purchase parts if they think the costs of supplier involvement policies developed within the context
designing and producing a new part outweigh the of development management, for example, are linked with
benefits, while an existing component can do the job too. the project planning activities of determining the extent and
moment of supplier involvement in a specific project. The
[27,42]. These four activities can also be carried out directly market monitoring activities within supplier interface man-
by suppliers themselves, but especially for those suppliers agement are closely related to (being able to contribute
that are not (yet) directly involved in a development project, useful input to) develop-or-buy discussions, be it long-term

Table 6
Revised framework
Levels Activity Embodied key processes
Development management
determining which technologies to keep/develop in-house and which ones
to outsource to suppliers
prioritizing

formulating policies for the involvement of suppliers coordinating, timing

formulating policies for purchasing-related activities of internal departments
communicating policies and procedures internally and externally
coordinating, timing
informing
Supplier interface management
monitoring supplier markets for technical developments informing

preselecting suppliers for product development collaboration prioritizing

motivating suppliers to build up/maintain specific knowledge or
develop certain products
mobilizing, coordinating

leveraging the technical capabilities of suppliers coordinating, timing

Project management

evaluating suppliers’ development performance
planning:
informing

determining specific develop-or-buy solutions prioritizing

selecting suppliers for involvement in the development project prioritizing, mobilizing,
coordinating, timing

determining the extent (‘workload’) of supplier involvement prioritizing, coordinating

execution:
determining the moment of supplier involvement prioritizing, timing

integrating development activities between suppliers and manufacturer

integrating development activities between different first tier suppliers
coordinating, timing, informing
coordinating, timing, informing

second
integrating development activities between first tier suppliers and
tier suppliers
coordinating, timing, informing

Product management extending activities:

providing information on new products and technologies being
developed or already available in supplier markets
informing

result
suggesting alternative suppliers, products, and technologies than can
in a higher quality of the final product
prioritizing, mobilizing, informing

restrictive activities:

lead
evaluating product designs in terms of part availability, makeability,
time, quality, and costs
informing

promoting standardization and simplification of designs and parts prioritizing, mobilizing, informing
 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83 81

Fig. 2. Relations between the four management areas of purchasing integration in product development.

within the context of development management or within a in terms of reducing product and development costs, redu-
specific project in the area of project planning. Similarly, cing development time, and increasing product quality.
product management activities such as suggesting altern- Rather than focusing on these output measures, our research
ative suppliers, products, or technologies are closely inter- focuses on the required ‘throughput’ (process) of (collab-
twined with supplier interface management activities such orative) product development to determine whether purchas-
as market monitoring and motivating individual suppliers to ing integration adds value to that, because the latter relation
develop specific knowledge or products. The relations is more directly observable [46].
between the different management areas are illustrated in The other important notion of the framework is that
Fig. 2. purchasing integration in product development is not limited
In fact, supplier interface management plays a central to managing supplier involvement in single development
role as all other areas draw upon this area. While it may be projects. This inclusion of more strategic, long-term issues
possible, for example, to have development management makes it also more difficult—and less useful—to use short-
without product management, although the latter will norm- term, project-related output measures for identifying valu-
ally be a result of the former, supplier interface management able activities.
is hard to do without. Supplier interface management
represents the more long-term-oriented efforts, inherent to 7.1. Managerial implications
(successful) collaborative product development. In order to
be successful in collaborative product development, firms As stated in the beginning of the article, the framework
need to perform both long- and short-term-oriented man- of activities is not only intended to fill the observed
agement activities, in a consistent way. knowledge gap, thereby fostering the further development
of research in this area. It is also intended as an instrument
for business professionals such as purchasing and devel-
7. Discussion and implications opment managers, for three purposes: implementing,
improving, and auditing purchasing integration in product
One of the main starting points for our research were the development. In our experience, distinguishing these differ-
limitations of existing research in providing a broad and ent management areas makes it easier for firms to imple-
comprehensive definition of what the integration of pur- ment, improve, and audit purchasing integration in product
chasing in product development exactly consists of. The development since it provides a systematic yet simple
current framework, based on the identification of four overview of all the different processes and activities
management areas with their different activities that are involved. For companies aiming to intensify the role of
connected to each other through common underlying key collaboration with purchasing in product development, the
processes, provides—in our opinion—an improved concep- framework can serve as a checklist for the kind of activities
tualization of purchasing integration in product devel- and processes that should be considered. Alternatively, the
opment. The concept of underlying processes provides a framework can guide improvements in a situation where, for
clear selection criterion for whether or not to include an example, supplier involvement in product development is
activity, observed in practice, in the framework. If it does practiced, but fraught with problems in terms of commun-
not contribute to or embody at least one of the five key ication and coordination. Finally, the framework can be used
processes, it does not add any value and is therefore as the basis for an audit instrument to identify the current
redundant. Usually, however, the value of integrating pur- level or state of purchasing integration, which then may be
chasing and suppliers in product development is described compared to benchmarks based on previous situations and/
82 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83

or future goals. The audit could be performed as a qualitat- terms. In that perspective, the framework of activities is
ive assessment by an independent expert, or as a self-rating rather generic and may not provide enough detail to indi-
questionnaire among people involved in the various activ- vidual firms and practitioners on how to carry out the
ities. Pilot studies, among others at Ericsson, involving radar various activities. In other words, firms may still need to
plots to map the status of integration in the four different some specific ‘tailoring’ for their own situation. Future
areas, have shown that managers can easily relate to the research will therefore need to investigate the application
methods and the outcomes of this kind of audits. of the framework in various situations, and in more detail.
On a more detailed level, our framework points to some For example, it could study the effectiveness of formal,
specific issues mostly overlooked in the literature on pur- contract-based approaches vs. that of more informal
chasing integration in product development. First of all, the approaches, in various contexts.
framework is to our knowledge the first to explicitly address The second limitation concerns the ‘rational’ nature of
both the short- and long-term activities of purchasing the framework. The descriptions of the various activities
integration in product development in an integrated manner. are rather mechanistic, while in reality these tasks and
As could be observed in some of our case studies, a firm processes may be much more complex and implicit. In
may excel in project management activities, this may only reality, manufacturers may be forced to ‘cope’ with these
result in some limited short-term benefits if it is not activities rather than manage them. Ford [16] and other
supported by consistent long-term supplier interface man- IMP researchers [20], for example, argue that strategies
agement. like these essentially consist of an interactive process of
Secondly, the framework also addresses the need for ‘coping, reacting to the actions of significant others’.
integrating the development activities of various suppliers Additional research should thus also study the buyer –
whereas most existing models focus on ‘one-to-one’ sup- supplier interactions more intensively and in a longitudinal
plier –manufacturer collaboration. Many firms indeed need perspective.
to start with learning to manage this dyadic collaborations
but very often, handling the connections between different
suppliers is crucial for successfully managing product References
development projects.
A final important point is that this framework focuses on [1] Anderson JC, Håkansson H, Johanson J. Dyadic business relation-
aligning and integrating purchasing and product devel- ships within a business network context. J Mark 1994;58:1 – 15.
[2] Aurojo L, Dubois A, Gadde L-E. Managing interfaces with suppliers.
opment processes. It makes no specific claims as to who Ind Mark Manage 1999;28:297 – 506.
should perform the various activities from the framework, [3] Axelsson B. Supplier management and technological development. In:
while many other publications suggest that the purchasing Håkansson H, editor. Industrial technological development. London:
department should have a bigger role in product devel- Croom Helm, 1987. p. 3 – 176.
opment. According to our research, it is much more crucial [4] Axelsson B, Håkansson H. Inköp för Konkurrenskraft (Purchasing for
competitive advantage). Stockholm: Liber, 1984.
to first define which activities should be performed—then, [5] Axelsson B, Laage-Hellman J. Inköp, En ledningsfrâga (Purchasing—
in a latter stage, the most appropriate people or departments a matter of management). Stockholm: Sveriges Mekanförbund, 1991.
for performing them can be identified. Sometimes, this may [6] Bergman B, Johanson J. Inköp och Produktutveckling (Purchasing
involve purchasers but very often it involves engineers, and product development). In: Håkansson H, Melin L, editors. Inköp.
product managers, or a combination of representatives from Stockholm: Norstedts, 1978. p. 9 – 53.
[7] Birou LM. The role of the buyer – supplier linkage in an integrated
these functions. This is very company-specific issue as it product development environment. Unpublished doctoral thesis,
depends, for example, on the respective experience and Michigan State University, 1994.
education levels of purchasers and engineers and on the [8] Bonaccorsi A. A framework for integrating technology and procure-
organization of their departments [47]. By not focusing a ment strategy. Conference Proceedings of the 8th IMP Conference.
Lyon, 1992, p. 33 – 41.
priori on an increased role of the purchasing department,
[9] Bonaccorsi A. The external and internal integration of resources: evi-
firms can overcome a great deal of potential resistance at dence from a survey on procurement practices of medium and large
development and engineering departments, yet still achieve manufacturing firms. Conference Proceedings of the 6th IPSERA
a better integration between the purchasing and the product Annual Conference. Ischia, 1997, p. T3/1 – 20.
development process. [10] Bonaccorsi A, Lipparini A. Strategic partnerships in new product
development: an Italian case study. J Prod Innovation Manage 1994;
11:134 – 45.
7.2. Research implications [11] Burt DN, Soukup WR. Purchasing’s role in new product development.
Harv Bus Rev 1985;90 – 7 (September/October).
A number of limitations of our research can also be [12] Clark KB. Project scope and project performance: the effects of parts
identified. The first limitation regards the level of detail for strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Manage
the activities listed in the framework. Although the case Sci 1989;35(10):1247 – 63.
[13] Dowlatshahi S. Purchasing’s role in a concurrent engineering environ-
studies, from which the framework of activities has been ment. Int J Purchasing Mater Manage 1992;21 – 5 (Winter).
derived, provide specific illustrations of the different activ- [14] Dyer JH, Ouchi WG. Japanese-style partnerships: giving companies a
ities, the framework describes the activities in quite general competitive edge. Sloan Manage Rev 1993;51 – 63 (Fall).
 F. Wynstra et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 32 (2003) 69–83 83

[15] Erens FJ, Van Stekelenborg RHA. DFP: design for purchasing! CAPE [38] Ragatz GL, Handfield RB, Scannell TV. Success factors for integrat-
Congrespapers. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samsom, 1993. p. 53. ing suppliers into new product development. J Prod Innovation Man-
[16] Ford D. Purchasing and strategy in complex markets. Paper presented age 1997;14(3):190 – 202.
at the 2nd Worldwide Research Symposium on Purchasing and Sup- [39] Ritter T. A framework for analyzing interconnectedness of relation-
ply Management, 1 – 3 April, London, 1998. ships. Ind Mark Manage 2000;29(4):317 – 26.
[17] Ford D, Farmer D. Make or buy—a key strategic issue. Long Range [40] Thomas R. Purchasing and technological change: exploring the links
Plann 1986;19(5):54 – 62. between company technology strategy and supplier relationships. Eur
[18] Ford D, Saren M. Technology strategy for business. London: Interna- J Purchasing Supply Manage 1994;1(3):161 – 8.
tional Thompson Press, 1996. [41] van Weele AJ. Purchasing and supply chain management: analysis,
[19] Gadde L-E, Håkansson H. Professional purchasing. London: Rout- planning and practice. London: Thomson Learning, 2000.
ledge, 1993. [42] Wheelwright SC, Clark KB. Revolutionizing product development:
[20] Gadde L-E, Snehota I. Making the most of supplier relationships. Ind quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. New York: Free
Mark Manage 2000;29:305 – 16. Press, 1992.
[21] Hartley JL. Understanding supplier involvement in their customer’s [43] Williams AJ, Smith WC. Involving purchasing in product develop-
product development. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of ment. Ind Mark Manage 1990;19:315 – 9.
Quantitative Analysis and Operations Management, University of [44] Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D. The machine that changed the world.
Cincinnati, 1994. New York: Rawson Associates, 1990.
[22] Hines P. Creating world-class suppliers: unlocking mutual competitive [45] Woodward J. Industrial organization: theory and practice. London:
advantage. London: Financial Times/Pitman Publishing, 1994. Oxford Univ. Press, 1965.
[23] Håkansson H. Corporate technological behaviour: co-operation and [46] Wynstra F, van Weele AJ, Axelsson B. Purchasing involvement in
networks. London: Routledge, 1989. product development—a framework. Eur J Purchasing Supply Man-
[24] Håkansson H, Eriksson AK. Getting innovations out of supplier net- age 1999;5(3 – 4):129 – 41.
works. J Bus Bus Mark 1993;1(3):3 – 34. [47] Wynstra F, Axelsson B, van Weele AJ. Driving and enabling factors
[26] Håkansson H, Snehota I. Developing relationships in business net- for purchasing involvement in product development. Eur J Purchasing
works. London: Routledge, 1995. Supply Manage 2000;6(2):129 – 41.
[27] Kamath RR, Liker JK. A second look at Japanese product develop- [48] Wynstra F, Ten Pierick E. Managing supplier involvement in new
ment. Harv Bus Rev 1994;154 – 70 (October – November). product development: a portfolio approach. Eur J Purchasing Supply
[28] Kornelius L, Wynstra JYF. Marketing equals purchasing—customer Manage 2000;6(1):49 – 57.
and supplier redefined. Conference Proceedings of the 5th IPSERA
Annual Conf, Eindhoven, 1 – 3 April 1996, pp. 412 – 21.
[29] Kotler P. Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation
and control. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1991. Further reading
[30] Lamming R. Beyond partnership, strategies for innovation and lean
supply. London: Prentice-Hall, 1993. [25] Håkansson H, Melin L, editors. Inköp (Purchasing): Stockholm. Nor-
[31] Leenders MR, Blenkhorn DL. Reverse marketing: the new buyer – stedts, 1978;6.
supplier relationship. New York: Free Press, 1988.
[32] Mendez EG, Pearson JN. Purchasing’s role in product development: Finn Wynstra is an assistant professor of Purchasing and Business
the case for time-based strategies. Int J Purchasing Mater Manage Marketing at the Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands) and
1994;3 – 12 (Winter). a research fellow at the Jönköping International Business School (Sweden).
[33] Nishiguchi T. Strategic industrial sourcing: the Japanese advantage.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994. Mathieu Weggeman is a professor of Organizational Sciences at the
[34] O’Neal Ch. Concurrent engineering with early supplier involvement: a Eindhoven University of Technology and an associate partner with the
cross-functional challenge. Int J Purchasing Mater Manage 1993;3 – 9 Twynstra Gudde Management Consultants.
(Spring).
[35] Peter M. Early supplier involvement (ESI) in product Development. Arjan van Weele holds the NEVI Chair of Purchasing and Supply
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of St. Gallen, 1996. Management at the Eindhoven University of Technology and Nyenrode
[36] Pralahad C, Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Harv University (Netherlands). All three authors are research fellows at Eind-
Bus Rev 1990;79 – 91 (May – June). hoven Centre for Innovation Studies (ECIS).
[37] Quinn JB, Hilmer FG. Strategic outsourcing. Sloan Manage Rev
1994;43 – 55 (Summer).