SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT AND

SUPPLY CHAIN PERFORMANCE IN ALCOHOLIC

BEVERAGE INDUSTRY IN KENYA

BY

RUTH WANGECI WACHIRA

A RESEARCH PROJECT PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA), SCHOOL OF
BUSINESS,UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

OCTOBER 2013
 DECLARATION

I declare that this research proposal is my original work and has never been submitted to

any other University for assessment or award of a degree.

Signature…………………………….. Date…………………………

RUTH WANGECI WACHIRA D61/63804/2011

This project has been submitted with my authority as the university supervisor.

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

MICHAEL K CHIRCHIR

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank the Almighty God for the strength and countless blessings granted to be able to

start and finish the MBA program.

Special thanks go to my Supervisor Mr. Michael Chirchir for his continuous guidance,

patience, criticisms and support throughout this project. I shall forever be indebted to you

for your support. Also extending gratitude to my moderator Mr. Akelo for his comments

and criticisms.

Great appreciation to all the respondents, without feedback it would have been

impossible to finalize on this project.

iii
 DEDICATION
This Research Project is dedicated to my family and friends.

Particular dedication goes to my father whose love for education has no bounds and his

unconditional love and values has made me a better person in life. Great appreciation

goes to my incomparable mother for nurturing in me the virtue of hard work, endurance

and hope in my endeavours.Her example as a remarkable woman are the reasons I am

able to do what I do. You will always have permanent place in my heart.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION................................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study........................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Supplier Relationship Management ................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Supply Chain Performance................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Alcoholic Beverage Industry In Kenya .............................................................. 4
1.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research Objectives .................................................................................................. 7
1.4 Significance of the Research ..................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................ 8
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Supplier Relationship Management .......................................................................... 8
2.3 Supplier Relationship Management And Supply Chain Performance. ..................... 9
2.3.1 Supplier Relationship Spectrum ....................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Relationship Elements ...................................................................................... 13
2.4 Challenges Of Supplier Relationship Management ................................................ 15
2.5 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................. 18
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Research Design...................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Population And Sampling ....................................................................................... 18
3.4 Data Collection........................................................................................................ 19
3.5 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER FOUR:DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS................................... 21
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 21
4.2 General Information Analysis. ................................................................................ 21
v
4.2 The Extent of Relationship Between Suppliers and the Organization........................ 24
4.3 Impact of Supplier Relationship Management on Supply Chain Performance. ..... 27
4.4 Regression Analysis ................................................................................................ 27
4.6 Coefficient of Determination, R2 ........................................................................... 28
4.8 F Test for the Full Model ........................................................................................ 29
4.10 Challenges In Implementation Of Supplier Relationship Management ............... 30
CHAPTER FIVE:SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.. 32
5.1 Summary ................................................................................................................. 32
5.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 32
5.3 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 33
5.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 33
5.5 Suggestions For Further Research .......................................................................... 34
References......................................................................................................................... 35
Appendices........................................................................................................................ 40
Appendix I..................................................................................................................... 40
Research Questionnaire................................................................................................. 40
Appendix II ....................................................................................................................... 44
Alcoholic Beverages Manufacturers Licensed By Kenya Revenue Authority In The Year
2012 .................................................................................................................................. 44

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: When Supplier Relationship Management was first introduced. .....................22

Table 4.2: Position held in the organization ......................................................................22

Table 4.3: No of years held in a position ...........................................................................23

Table 4.4:Gender…………………………………………………………………………24

Table 4.5: Extent of relationship between suppliers and the organisation. .......................25

Table 4.6: Significance Tests for Coefficients...................................................................27

Table 4.7: The Full Model .................................................................................................28

Table 4.8: ANOVA TABLE ..............................................................................................29

Table 4.9: Challenges in implementation of supplier relationship Management ..............30

vii
 ABSTRACT
Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) plays a pivotal role in reduction of costs and
increased efficiency in the supply chain function. Supplier relationship management is
the business process that provides the structure for how relationships with suppliers are
developed and maintained. Supplier relationship management has become a critical
business process as a result of: competitive pressures; the need to consider sustainability
and risk; the need to achieve cost efficiency in order to be cost competitive; and the need
to develop closer relationships with key suppliers who can provide the expertise
necessary to develop innovative new products and successfully bring them to market.
Significant benefits are possible from better managing relationships with key suppliers. It
has been shown that integration of operations with suppliers can improve firm
performance (Swink et al., 2007; Singh and Power, 2009; Flynn et al., 2010). An
additional benefit of cross functional, collaborative relationships with key suppliers is the
ability to co-create value (Enz and Lambert, 2012). The study applied a multistage
sampling technique to select the sample size 38 respondents from 38 supply chain
professionals in the alcoholic beverage companies. Questionnaires were used as the main
data collection instruments. Descriptive statistics was used aided by Statistical Package
for Social Scientists (SPSS) to analyze the quantitative data. The study utilized
descriptive and multiple regression analysis to determine the relationship between
Supplier Relationship Management and Supply Chain Performance. The objectives of the
study was to establish the extent of SRM in alcoholic beverage industry, its impact on
supply chain performance and challenges faced in implementation of SRM. This research
indicates that by adopting collaborative relationships with their suppliers contribute to
competitive advantage and value creation in Supply Chain Performance.

viii
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

The world has increasingly become complex, uncertain and very competitive. In order to

remain competitive and relevant in the market, most companies have developed strategies

to cope with these challenges. Supply chain being an integral part of the business highly

contributes to the success of an organization especially, when modern technologies for

instance integration are used .However, this cannot be achieved without managing good

relationships with the suppliers. Supply chain deficiencies pose threats to most

organizations especially those who do not perceive the need for supplier relationship

management (SRM) (Akintonye, 2000).

The need for achieving efficiency in supply chains has fuelled the need for supplier

relationship management. Companies that have perfected the art of supplier relationship

management have well defined and efficient supply chains. Hughes and Jonathan (2010),

defined supplier relationship management (SRM) as a discipline of strategically planning

for, and managing, all interactions with third party organizations that supply goods and/or

services to an organization in order to maximize the value of those interactions. In

practice, SRM entails creating closer, more collaborative relationships with key suppliers

in order to uncover and realize new value and reduce risk.

1
1.1.1 Supplier Relationship Management

According to Cavinato (2012), the term "Supplier Relationship Management (SRM)"

refers to the practice and process for interacting with suppliers. Most supply professionals

view SRM as an organized approach to defining what they need and want from a supplier

and establishing and managing the company-to-company (or procurement-to-sales) link

to obtain these needs. Formal or not, academic and consulting company research shows

that organized approaches to supply and suppliers produce positive sourcing results.

Supplier relationship management acts as a focal point between the organization and the

final consumers. Organizations that have problems with their supply chain networks or

channels can adopt Supplier Relationship Management practice to enhance their supply

chain efficiency. Hughes (2010) stated that “inefficient supply chains were the major

cause of poor organizational performance” he insisted that organizations with integrated

supply chains recorded high profits than those who paid little attention to supply chains

(Rogers, 2001).

1.1.2 Supply Chain Performance

Supply Chain Performance is defined as the multiple measures of performance developed

by the organization to gauge the ability of a supply chain to meet an organization’s long-

term and short-term objectives. Performance measurement is the process of quantifying

the effectiveness and efficiency of action Neely et al. (1995). The instrument that

regularly supports the performance measurement process is referred to as performance

measurement supply chain (PMS). A PMS maintains various metrics (performance

2
measures) that are used for different purposes like supporting decision making and

management control, evaluating the results, motivating people, stimulating learning,

improving coordination and communication (Neely and Simons, 2005). A performance

measure is information delivered to the management function, evaluating the efficiency

and the effectiveness of a process, resource or an outcome.

According to Neely (2005) organizations of all sizes are realizing that they no longer

have complete control over their market success. This is because they rely heavily on the

performance of their supply chain trading partners. Many large organizations are now

insisting that their small and medium industrial suppliers help them improve supply chain

cost, reliability and responsiveness.

Beamon (1998) strongly implied that supply chain improvements will not only improve

internal performance, but will also create benefits that will ripple through to customers

and partners as well. Cost savings through reduced inventory levels, expediting,

fulfillment and premium freight costs could allow a company to provide more favorable

prices or terms to customers. Likewise, effective planning and execution can help

companies and their customers adapt to the market’s demand shifts. When the company

can purchase, produce and distribute the right products to the right channels in the right

quantities at the right time, both supplier and customer will increase revenue capture by

channel and region.

3
1.1.3 Alcoholic Beverage Industry in Kenya

The growth of various sectors of the Kenyan economy, such as wholesale and retail and

the services industry, along with the ever increasing number of local sporting and

entertainment events, has led to increasing numbers of consumers indulge in social

drinking. These trends bode well for manufacturers within the industry, which are making

further investments to cater for the growing demand for alcoholic drinks. During the

course of 2012 key international companies sought to penetrate the Kenyan market

further in order to tap into the growing domestic demand for alcoholic drinks. Heineken

set up an office within the country to oversee brand advertising and distribution, leaving

the fate of Maxam Ltd, its local distributor, in its hands. Diageo, which owns East

African Breweries Ltd (EABL), oversaw the rollout of key new brands such as Tusker

Lite and Snapp, while the company’s popular Senator Keg brand led volume sales.

Distell threatened to sever ties with Kenya Wine Agencies Ltd (KWAL), a government-

owned wines and spirits distributor, as it felt the persistent delays in privatizing the entity

were interfering with its strategic expansion plans within the region – a matter which was

settled out of court with KWAL. SABMiller, which owns 29% of Distell, recently

acquired Crown Beverages Ltd to secure a firm foothold within the region and lock horns

with the industry giant EABL. The most notable local producer which has not yet fallen

prey to this multinational encroachment is Keroche Breweries Ltd, which also has

expansion plans of its own as it seeks to battle it out with the big guns for market share.

An earlier market study by Euro Monitor had listed EABL as the leading beer company

4
in Kenya, holding an 83% volume share in 2011(Euro Monitor International,

2012).Appendix II lists all the alcoholic beverage companies in Kenya.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

A number of studies have been done on Supplier Relationship Management and supply

chain performance. Supplier relationship management is gaining momentum globally due

to immense competition in the alcoholic beverage industry. This has triggered the need to

develop better relationships with suppliers to enhance Supply Chain Performance. Gently

and Ford (2003) suggested the need to redefine supply chain management relationships in

order to enhance productivity in organizations. They argued that with better supplier

relationship management organizations can reduce cycle times and reduce costs in supply

chains.

Hsiao (2002) on her study, found that trust,communication,cooperation and power

dependence with supply contracts had a positive relationship on supply chain

performance in retail outlets in Taiwan.Mettler and Rohner (2009) found that by

exchanging product and supplier information with other hospitals, the purchasing

department under study made the first move to establish strategic aspects of SRM. The

availability of comprehensive and up-to-date product information could enhance the

bargaining power of the hospital’s purchasing department. Hospitals which had

experience with ICT-supported sourcing had sustainable cost reductions. Goko (2012) on

her study found that suppliers need to maintain reliable records, errors to be identified

early, supermarkets to decentralize their management structures, suppliers should

5
conform to specifications and that senior level management should be fully committed

especially in supplier development programmes so as to overcome the challenges faced in

supplier quality management. The empirical findings of this study did not consider other

industries for example: alcoholic beverage industry in Kenya. Ratemo (2011) in his study

concluded that it was evident that suppliers failed to maintain proper records, long cycle

times and increased costs in procurement. The company failed to maintain good

relationships with their suppliers leading to poor supply chain performance. Murithi

(2011) found out one Communications Company relied only on one supplier, there were

no professionals in the procurement department, no early supplier involvement, poor

coordination and information sharing between supply chain partners, this caused delays

within the supply chain especially when the supplier took long to supply products and

services. Previous local studies investigating the impact of supplier relationship

management have limited themselves into retail industries. Previous studies majorly

focus on the last stage of the supply chain which is delivery of finished goods; however

this research aims to focus on Supplier Relationship Management from procurement of

raw materials to delivery of finished goods.

The study seeks to answer the following research questions: What is the extent of

supplier relationship management in alcoholic beverage industry in Kenya? What is the

relationship between supplier relationship management and supply chain performance in

alcoholic beverage industry in Kenya?

6
1.3 Research Objectives

Research objectives of the study:

i. To establish the extent of Supplier Relationship Management in alcoholic

beverage industry.

ii. To determine the impact of Supplier Relationship Management on Supply Chain

Performance in alcoholic beverage industry in Kenya.

iii. To determine the challenges faced in implementing Supplier Relationship

Management in alcoholic beverage industry in Kenya.

1.4 Significance of the Research

The findings from this study will provide an insight into the importance of supplier

relationship management on supply chain performance in the alcoholic beverage

industry.

Other firms will have a better understanding of supplier relationship management and its

importance on supply chain performance.

Academicians and researchers may use the findings from the study as a source of

reference. Besides; the study will be a basis for further research.

7
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to provide a critical evaluation of the available research

evidence about Supplier Relationship Management and how it influences Supply Chain

Performance in the alcoholic beverage industry in Kenya. It covers various studies

conducted by other researchers on supplier relationship management and supply chain

performance. Among the areas reviewed include: extent of supplier relationship

management, challenges of supplier relationship management and solutions to supplier

relationship management. The chapter also covers the conceptual framework of this

study.

2.2 Supplier Relationship Management

Buffington and Burt (2002) defined Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) as the

systematic, enterprise-wide assessment of suppliers’ assets and capabilities with respect

to overall business strategy, determination of what activities to engage in with different

suppliers, and planning and execution of all interactions with suppliers, in a coordinated

fashion across the relationship life cycle, to maximize the value realized through those

interactions (Andaleeb, 1996).Buffington (2002) further indicated that the focus of SRM

is to develop two way mutually beneficial relationships with strategic supply partners to

deliver greater levels of innovation and competitive advantage than could be achieved by

operating independently or through a traditional, transactional purchasing arrangement.

8
Croxton and Rogers (2001) concurred that in many fundamental ways, SRM is

analogous to Customer Relationship Management. Just as companies have multiple

interactions over time with their customers, so too do they interact with suppliers when

negotiating contracts, purchasing, managing logistics and delivery, collaborating on

product design, etc. The starting point for defining Supplier Relationship Management is

a recognition that these various interactions with suppliers are not discrete and

independent instead they are accurately and usefully thought of as comprising a

relationship, one which can and should be managed in a coordinated fashion across

functional and business unit touch-points, and throughout the relationship lifecycle

(Bresnen, 2000).A study by Goko (2012), found out that that suppliers need to maintain

reliable records, errors to be identified early, supermarkets to decentralize their

management structures, suppliers should conform to two specifications and that senior

level management should be fully committed especially in supplier development

programs so as to overcome the challenges faced in supplier quality management. In his

study, Ratemo was evident that suppliers failed to maintain proper records, long cycle

times and increased costs in procurement. The company also failed to maintain good

relationships with their suppliers leading to poor supply chain performance.

2.3 Supplier Relationship Management and Supply chain performance.

The importance of Supplier Relationship Management within the supply chain is

substantiated by a number of scholars. Burnes and New (1996) emphasize the importance

of partnership sourcing for supply chain improvement. Slack and Bates (1997) stress that

partnerships are critical to the successful management of the supply chain. Lamming

9
(1994) asserts that good relationships with suppliers are necessary for a lean supply

process. The role of the supplier in the procurement process was always implied in

discussions about the supply chain. However, as the supply chain management concept

developed specific implications on Supplier Relationship Management have been

addressed. Cooper and Ellram (1993) on the role of logistics and purchasing, concluded

that they could contribute to supply chain management in five ways including leadership,

inventory management expertise, facilitate information links, provide negotiation

expertise, and providing an interfirm perspective Novack and Simco (1991) provided a

conceptual model of the purchasing process in the supply chain. They maintained that

purchasing is the key intermediary between members of the supply chain. The point

being made is that it is essential that purchasing serve an integral, if not a primary role, in

the management of the supply chain (Leenders et al., 1994)

Supplier Relationship Management necessitates a consistency of approach and a defined

set of behaviors that foster trust over time Flynn (2010).Effective Supplier Relationship

Management requires not only institutionalizing new ways of collaborating with key

suppliers, but also actively dismantling existing policies and practices that can impede

collaboration and limit the potential value that can be derived from key supplier

relationships. At the same time, SRM should entail reciprocal changes in processes and

policies at suppliers.

10
2.3.1 Supplier Relationship Spectrum

Lindgreen and Wynstra (2005) suggested that two supplier management models have

emerged from both practice as well as academic research on the issue of how to optimally

manage suppliers. They distinguished between two basic purchasing strategies, tactical

and strategic or in other words, adversarial and partnership.

2.3.1.1 Adversarial Relationships

Adversarial approach to relationship was first suggested by Porter (1985) on maximizing

bargaining power while minimizing dependency on suppliers. Porter (1985) argued that

in order to maintain bargaining power, the buyer should source from many suppliers,

commit short term contracts with the suppliers; share no information with suppliers

regarding sales, cost, product design; and make (or receive) no improvement suggestions

to (or from) suppliers. Saunders (1997, p. 255) lists various factors that characterize the

traditional (adversarial) nature of the relationship between the buyer and supplier in a

supply transaction. Adversarial relationship is promoted when they operate at arm's

length with communication carried out in a formal manner rather than by personal

contact. In an adversarial relationship, gains by one partner are seen as being at the

expense of the other.

Leenders and Flynn(1995) asserts that, a traditional relationship with suppliers is one that

uses short-term contracts based primarily on price and that firms switch between

traditional suppliers more frequently in search of the best price and may have an arm’s

length, adversarial relationship with them. Shapiro (1994) also concurs with adversarial

view citing that transactional relationships are commonly used where supplier
11
relationships basically serve to facilitate the exchange process and fulfill the contract

requirements. Kaufmann and Stern (1988) commented that in economic theory,

dependence is traditionally regarded as something negative, inhibiting market forces to

act in the most efficient manner, companies should optimize and preserve bargaining

power by being independent.

2.3.1.2 Collaborative relationships

Lambert (2001) defines a partnership as "a tailored business relationship based on mutual

trust, openness, shared risk and shared rewards that results in business performance

greater than would be achieved by two firms working together in the absence of

partnership. Hill (1995) and Sheard (1996) cites that the best strategy for winning and

retaining business is for buyers and suppliers to collaborate i.e. work together. Lajara and

Lillo (2004) highlights that the practice consists of selecting the “best” suppliers working

closely with them and entering into long term relationships based on mutual needs and

trust. Sheard (1996) further comments that essentially, the concept means using the

resources of a supplier to the maximum benefit possible. Weitz and Bradford (1999)

supports the partnership approach arguing that it looks at a supplier as an extension of the

buying organization specifically an extension of the purchaser’s research capabilities,

storage, potentials, financial backing and manufacturing and quality control needs. This

trend was also observed by Hunt and Morgan (1995) who noticed a tendency among

customers to move from an arm’s length relationship towards closer collaborative

arrangements. Horvath (2001) proposed that Collaboration through intelligent e-business

networks would provide the competitive edge to all the participants in a value chain to

12
prevail and grow. It is found that collaborative partnerships can be achieved both via trust

and through electronically mediated exchange. Myhr and Spekman (2005) investigated

how supply-chain partners can achieve collaboration under varying circumstances

(transactional types) by developing trust-based social foundations and by utilizing

electronically mediated exchange. Results also indicated that electronically mediated

exchange more readily enhances collaboration in exchange relationships involving

standardized products, while trust plays a larger role when customized products are being

exchanged. However, Bensaou (2000) suggests a hybrid of the competitive model and a

partnership model as another supplier relationship strategy.

2.3.2 Relationship elements

Olsen and Ellram (1997) suggested that the links between the characteristics of the

relationship such as trust, cooperation, and the performance of the relationship need

further research. Owing to the key issues discussed earlier, four dimensions of the buyer-

supplier relationship will be explored.

2.3.2.1 Trust.
Beach (2012) insisted that trust is key to any successful supplier relationship

management. A good relationship is built on trust between the organization and the

supplier. An organization should be able to identify a trustworthy supplier who can be

relied upon to supply goods and services to the organization on time.

13
2.3.2.2 Communication

Simatupang and Sridharan, (2002) defined information sharing as the access to private

data between business partners thus enabling them to monitor the progress of products

and orders as they pass through various processes in the supply chain. They identified

some of the elements that comprise information sharing, consisting of data acquisition,

processing, storage, presentation, retrieval, and broadcasting of demand and forecast data,

inventory status and location, order status, cost-related data, and performance status.

They also add that information sharing pertaining to key performance metrics and process

data improves the supply chain visibility thus enabling effective decision making.

Information shared in a supply chain is of use only if it is relevant, accurate, timely, and

reliable (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005; Tathee, 2007). Information sharing with

business partners enables organizations making better decisions and making action on the

basis of greater visibility (Davenport, et al, 2001; Tathee, 2007).

2.3.2.3 Risk Assessment and Management

Risk is the danger that a decision leads to negative deviations from set goals (Zsidisin,

2001) Zsidisin (2003) defines supply risk as “...the probability of an incident associated

with inbound supply from individual supplier failures or the supply market occurring, in

which its outcomes result in the inability of the purchasing firm to meet customer demand

or cause threats to customer life and safety”.

14
2.3.2.4 Strategic Supplier Partnership

Thatte (2007) stated that strategic supplier partnership as the long-term relationship

between the organization and its supplier. Gunasegaram et al (2001) asserted that a

strategic partnership emphasizes long-term relationship between trading partners and

promote mutual planning an problem solving efforts. Strategic partnership between

organizations promote shared benefits and ongoing collaboration in key strategic areas

like technology, products, and market (Yoshino and Rangan, 1995; Thatte, 2007).

Strategic partnerships with suppliers lead organization working closely and effectively

with a few suppliers rather than many supplier that have been selected on the basis of cost

efficient. Many advantage of consisting supplier early in the product-design process are

that suppliers can offer cost effective design alternative, assist in selecting better

components and technologies, and aid in designing assessment (Tan et al, 2002; Thatte,

2007).

2.4 Challenges of Supplier Relationship Management

Choy (2001) postulated that, lack of advanced technology is a challenge in supplier

relationship management.SRM in many organizations is achieved through use of modern

technology for example: integration which is used by private firms to act as a link

between the suppliers and the organization. Sometimes when two organizations have

different technologies it may be difficult to develop SRM since the supply chain network

may be broken down due to incompatibility between the two companies making it

difficult to operate (Michael, 2008).

15
Choy and Michael (2008) explained that lack of trust is another challenge that face

SRM.Trust is a vital component in supply relationship management. Most organizations

fear developing SRM due to lack of trust from their suppliers. Trust enhances SRM and

thus increased productivity due to timely supply of goods and services. (Flynn, 2002)

stated that, communication is also very important to organizations that want to maintain

good relationships with its suppliers. To maintain a good supplier relationship

management an organization should always ensure adequate communication between its

supply chain partners. Johnson (1999) explained that, technology plays a critical role in

supplier relationship management. Organizations with similar level of technology can

adopt SRM since it is easy to detect when an organization is out of stock through

integrating systems. The supplier company gets an alert notifying him to supply goods

and services to its customers this however, helps reduce prolonged cycle times

(Kim,1999).On the other hand, Josh(2008), insisted that proper coordination is a key

ingredient to enhancing supplier and buyer relationships. When an organization and a

supplier cooperate and work together, efficiency is enhanced within supply chain partners

leading to increased productivity.

Khalfan (2007) further indicated that, any supplier relationship management, the biggest

responsibility lies with the supplier. The success of a buyer to supplier relationship is

determined by the supplier. If the supplier is reliable the organization is likely to improve

efficiency on its supply chain channels and organizational performance (Johnson,

1999).The proximity between the supplier and the organization is important to consider

in supplier relationship management. An organization should find a supplier who is

16
within reach in times of need, this helps in cutting transportation costs and reduced cycle

times leading to increased supply chain performance (Jap, 2000).

2.5 Conceptual Framework

Based on the above literature review, the following conceptual framework can be drawn.

Independent variable Dependent Variable

Trust

Communication Supply chain performance

Risk assessment and

management

Strategic Supplier
partnership

Source (Ruth Wachira, Supplier Relationship Management and Supply Chain

Performance (2013)

Adopting supplier development programs for their core suppliers ensures organizations

get the best out of these collaborations. This not only enhances efficiency and reduction

of operational costs but also strengthens the suppliers’ involvement in the overall strategy

of the organization.

17
 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the research methodology that was applied in conducting the study.

It discusses the research design, target population, sampling design and sample size, data

collection procedures and instrument, determination of reliability and validity as well as

data analysis techniques.

3.2 Research Design

The study involved a descriptive research design of cross sectional type. Tanur (1982)

asserts that a survey is a means of collecting information about a large group of elements

referred to as a population. A survey has three characteristics: to produce quantitative

descriptions of some aspects of the study population in which case it is concerned either

with relationships between variables, or with projecting findings descriptively to a

predefined population; data collection is done by asking people structured and predefined

questions and data is collected from a fraction of the target population.

3.3 Population and Sampling

The population of the study in this research included 38 supply chain professionals in the

alcoholic beverage industry. (See Appendix 2)

18
3.4 Data Collection

Primary data was collected using a questionnaire. The respondents were supply chain

professionals in the industry. Supply chain professionals were considered since they

understand the Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) in the organization as well as

the importance and the challenges involved in SRM. The data was collected by use of a

structured questionnaire that was administered by drop and pick later method and through

email.

The questionnaire was in the form of Likert scale where respondents were required to

indicate their views on a scale of 1 to 5.The likert scale reported how negatively or

positively the supply chain professionals were disposed to Supplier Relationship

Management. Having numerous items on how Supplier Relationship Management affects

supply chain performance, the values were averaged to portray the impact of the

relationship. The questionnaire contained 4 sections: Section A sought data on the

company profile; section B sought data on the nature of relationship between companies

in the industry and their suppliers; section C sought data on the impact of Supplier

Relationship Management on supply chain performance whereas section D sought data

on the challenges faced by companies on implementation of SRM.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data collected was sorted and coded then entered into the Statistical Packages for

Social Sciences. Descriptive statistics was used to show the relation between Supplier

Relationship Management and supply chain performance. The findings were presented in

19
tables. Regression analysis was used to establish the extent to which the four independent

variables, trust, communication, Risk assessment and management and Strategic supplier

partnership explained the variation in the supply chain performance. The model was

depicted as follows:

Y=a + b1 x1 +b2 x2 + b3 x3 + b4 x4 + e

Where:

Y is Supply Chain performance

a is the Y intercept when x is zero

b1, b2, b4 and b4 are regression weights attached to the variables;

X1 =Trust

X2=Communication

X3=Risk assessment and management

X4=Strategic supplier partnership

e=error term

20
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

The data was collected through questionnaires by email and company visits in the period

between September 2013 and October 2013.With data from the Kenya Revenue

Authority 38 licensed alcohol manufacturers were identified as the target population for

the research. As dictated by the research topic, firms in the alcoholic beverage industry

provided the study context. Although, there is no ‘‘ideal’’ number of cases, researchers

have recommended around 10 (e.g.,Eisenhardt, 1989; Ell-ram, 1996). This study meets

this benchmark and exceeds the number in comparable studies. From the identified

population of 38 suppliers the final obtained sample of 24 companies corresponds to a

63.1 per cent response rate.

4.2 General Information Analysis.

Respondents were asked to indicate the number of years Supplier Relationship

Management was introduced into their organizations. The results are shown in table 4.1

21
Table 4.1: When Supplier Relationship Management was first introduced.
No of Years Frequency Percentage

Less than 10 years 20 83

10 years or more 4 17

Total 24 100

Source: Research Data, 2013

From the findings 83% of the respondents indicated that SRM is a fairly new concept in

their organizations while 17% agreed that it has existed for 10 years or more.

Further the research sought to establish the positions of the respondents in their

respective firms. The findings were as indicated in table 4.2

Table 4.2: Position held in the organization

Position Frequency Percentage

Senior Procurement 3 12

Manager

Assistant Procurement 5 21

Manager

Procurement Officer 11 46

Other 5 21

Total 24 100

Source: Research Data, 2013

In the findings from table 4.2, 79% of the respondents were supply chain professionals in

their organization while 21% were from other discplines.Those not in Supply chain

22
indicated their profession to being that of operations management and that they carried

out Supply chain functions in their capacity level.

Respondents were also asked to indicate how long they had been in those positions given

the scale of less than 5 years, between 5 and 10 years, between 11 and 15 years and more

than 15 years. The findings indicated that 29% of the respondents had worked for less

than 5 years, while 63% had worked between 5 and 10 years while only 8% had worked

between 11 and 15 years. There was no respondent who had worked for more than 15

years. Further findings indicate that not all occupied one position for the whole duration

rather changed but still in the field of supply chain management. This is shown in table

4.3

Table 4.3: No of years held in a position

No. of years Frequency Percentage

Less than 5 Years 7 29

Between 5-10 years 15 63

Between 11-15 years 2 8

Above 15 Years 0 0

Total 24 100

Source: Research Data, 2013

Respondents were also asked to indicate their gender whether male or female.88% were

male while only 12% were female. This is shown in table 4.4

23
Table 4.4: Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 21 88

Female 3 12

Total 24 100

Source: Research Data, 2013

4.2 The extent of relationship between suppliers and the organization

The study sought to determine the extent to which firms in the alcohol beverage industry

related to their suppliers. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they

agreed or disagreed with the statement, 1=To a very large extent, 2=Large extent, 3=To a

moderate extent, 4=Small extent and 5=To a very small extent.

24
Table 4.5: Extent of relationship between suppliers and the organisation.
Statement To a Large extent To a moderate extent Small extent Very Mean Std.
very small Deviation
large extent
extent
Sharing of 16.6% 41.6% 20.8% 12.5% 8.3% 3.81 1.01
information
Integrated 0% 20.8% 16.6% 41.6% 20.8% 3.89 0.75
ERP Systems
Collective 20.8% 33.3% 8.3% 20.8% 16.6% 3.97 0.91
problem
solving
Involvement 41.6% 20.8% 20.8% 12.5% 4.2% 3.89 0.98
in planning
and
objectives
setting with
key suppliers
Exchange of 20.8% 33.3% 16.6% 16.6% 12.5% 3.72 1.19
information
affecting the
business
Training and 8.3% 12.5% 25% 29.2% 25% 4.33 0.59
development
of staff 33.3% 25% 16.6% 16.6% 8.3% 4.10 1.02

Contract 8.3% 45.8% 20.8% 16.6% 8.3% 3.88 0.86

management
8.3% 8.3% 25% 33.3% 25% 4.07 0.96
Trust
41.6% 25% 16.6% 12.5% 4.2% 3.92 1.01
Focus on
discrete
purchasing

Emphasis on
price ,quality
and delivery

Average 19.96% 26.6% 18.71% 21.22% 13.32% 3.96 0.93

Source: Research Data, 2013

From the data above it is evident that most companies in the alcohol beverage industry

share critical information with their suppliers and vice versa. This is shown by a mean of

3.81 and standard deviation of 1.01 that respondents agreed to suppliers sharing
25
information with them. For Integrated Enterprise Resource Planning Systems most of the

respondents agreed that they do not share one functional platform with their suppliers and

this is evident from a mean of 3.89 and std.deviation of 0.75. Collective Problem solving

was to a large extent from a mean of 3.97 and std.deviation of 0.91. It is evident that

some respondents involve their key suppliers in planning and objective setting which was

indicated by a mean of 3.89 and std.deviation of 0.98.With a mean of 4.33 and a

std.deviation of 0.59 the respondents agreed that they do not have training and

development collectively with their suppliers.

Most training is carried out separately by each organization. Contract Management was

seen as one of the key issues most respondents agreed with citing dispute resolution as

one of the reasons why both participate diligently, this was indicated by a mean of 4.10

and std.deviation of 1.02.Trust plays a key role in relation with suppliers since it covers

issues such as commitment and flexibility, this was indicated by a mean of 3.88 and

std.deviation of 0.86.With a mean of 4.07 and std.deviation of 0.96 respondents focused

on discrete purchasing. As indicated by a mean of 3.92 and std.deviation of 1.01,the

respondents agreed to putting emphasis on price, quality and delivery. The study

indicates that respondents have elements of both collaborative and adversarial

relationship; however most of their relationship with suppliers is geared towards

collaborative relationships.

26
 4.3 Impact of Supplier Relationship Management on Supply chain Performance.

4.4 Regression Analysis

In order to establish the relationship among the variables, multiple regression analysis

was conducted. The analysis applied the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) to

compute the measurements of the multiple regression for the study. The findings are as

shown in table 4.6

Table 4.6: Significance Tests for Coefficients

Model Unstandardized Standardized

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta T Sig.

(Constant) -.011 .185 -1.454 .383

Trust .277 .687 1.578 1.213 .004

Communication .620 .154 1.117 .274 .002

Risk Management .031 .191 .167 .173 .005

Strategic Supplier .137 .123 .138 1.15 .004

Partnership

Source: Research Data, 2013

Dependent Variable: Supply chain performance

Where: x1 = Trust; x2 = Communication; x3 = Risk Assessment and Management

X4= strategic supplier partnership

27
Using a significance level of 5% all the independent variables are statistically significant

since their P values are below 5% (Trust= 0.4%, Communication =0.2%, Risk

Assessment and Management= 0.5% and Strategic Supplier Partnership = 0.4%). The

model shows that trust, communication, risk assessment and management and strategic

supplier relationship are suitable predictors of supply chain performance. The prediction

model is therefore as follows:

Y=-0.11+0.277X1+0.620X2+0.31X3+0.137X4

4.6 Coefficient Of Determination, R2

Table 4.7: The Full Model

Change Statistics

Adjusted RStd. Error ofR Square Sig. F

Model R R Square Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change

1 .888(a).789 .757 .250 .789 24.301 4 26 .000

Table 4.7 indicates that R2 is 78.9%. This value indicates that the four independent

variables explain 78.9% of the variance in supply chain performance of firms in the

alcohol beverage industry. These independent variables are key determinants to improved

performance of Supply Chains in the organizations. According to the rule of thumb where

R2 =70% and above is a very good model, this model fits this description. The

unexplained variance (due to other variables not in the model and purely chance factors)

is only 21.1%.

28
4.8 F Test For The Full Model

Table 4.8: ANOVA TABLE

Sum of

Model Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 6.057 4 1.514 24.301 .000(a)

Residual 1.620 20 .062

Total 7.677 24

For 5% level of significance, the numerator df= 4 and denominator df= 20, critical F

value is 2.87, table 4.8 shows computed F value as 24.301. Hence, the regression model

is statistically significant, meaning that it is a suitable prediction model for determining

the impact of Supplier Relationship Management on Supply Chain Performance. This is

supported by the P-value of 0 % which is less than 5%.Thus the overall model is

statistically significant meaning the independent variables are suitable predictors of

Supply Chain Performance. The findings are in line with Hsiao (2002) who concluded

that trust, communication, cooperation and power dependence with supply contracts had

a positive relationship on supply chain performance in retail outlets in Taiwan and also

supported by Ratemo (2011) citing that the company under study failed to maintain good

relationships with their suppliers leading to poor supply chain performance.

29
 4.10 Challenges in Implementation of Supplier Relationship Management

The study sought to determine the extent to which firms in the alcohol beverage industry

related to their suppliers. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they

agreed or disagreed with the statement, 1=Strongly agree, 2=Agree, 3=Undecided,

4=Disagree and 5=Strongly disagree

Table 4.9: Challenges in implementation of supplier relationship Management

Strongly Strongly Std.
Statement agree
agree Undecided Disagree Disagree Mean Deviation

Lack of technology 8.3% 25% 50% 16.6% 0% 3.70 1.01

Geographical proximity 25% 25% 16.6% 12.5% 20.8% 3.74 0.59

Unreliable suppliers 16.6% 50% 16.6% 8.3% 8.3% 3.86 0.98

Incompetent staff 8.3% 16.6% 20.8% 50% 4.2% 3.89 0.75

Lack of information sharing 4.2% 20.8% 41.6% 25% 8.3% 3.98 1.19

Incompatibility in technology between

41.6% 16.6% 16.6% 12.5% 12.5% 4.10 0.91
organization and Supplier

Average 23.57% 25.67% 20.80% 20.82% 9.02% 3.87 0.90

From the data above, most respondents were undecided on whether lack of technology

was a challenge to implementation of Supplier Relationship Management. This was

indicated from a mean of 3.70 and std.deviation of 1.01 With a mean of 3.89 and a

std.deviation of 0.75 respondents also disagreed on the issue of suppliers having

incompetent staff. With a mean of 4.10 and std.deviation of 0.91 agreed that their

technology and that of their suppliers is incompatible hence posing as a challenge to

implementation of SRM. Respondents agreed that suppliers were unreliable as indicated

30
from a mean of 3.86 and std.deviation of 0.98, many citing timely deliveries as one of the

issues. From amean of 3.98 and std.deviation of 1.19 respondents were not sure whether

information sharing is a challenge in implementation of SRM .Geographical proximity

had different reviews owing to respondents not thinking of it as a hindrance or challenge

as indicated from a mean of 3.74 and std.deviation of 0.59.

31
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary
From the data collected it is evident that trust communication, risk assessment and

management and Strategic supplier partnership have a positive correlation to supply

chain performance. Trust is a pre-requisite in maintaining long term relationships since it

fosters credibility in business transactions. Most firms in the alcohol beverage industry

attribute information sharing as a useful means towards achieving goals and objectives in

their supply chain. Through joint risk assessment and management, firms are able to

focus on continuous improvement thereby reducing costs related to the supply chain

function. Most firms in the alcohol beverage industry are embracing collaborative

relationship with their key suppliers however they still possess some qualities of

adversarial relationship.

5.2 Conclusions

From the research carried out, it is evident that firms in the alcohol beverage industry are

moving towards collaborative relationships with their suppliers to improve on their

supply chain performance. Supplier Relationship Management largely depends upon four

major aspects. They are trust, communication, risk assessment and management and

strategic supplier partnership. Trust may include issues such as commitment, loyalty,

openness, attitude, flexibility etc. Communication issues have to do with information

sharing and technology interchange. Risk assessment and Management affects issues

32
such as innovation, value, contract management and pricing structures. Strategic

partnership issues may be who to choose as a supplier and for what type of product or

service.

5.3 Limitations

In this study the researcher had some limitations in data collection. Most of the

respondents who were interviewed did not have a clear sense about Supplier Relationship

Management and it was a bit difficult to explain the target of this research to the

respondents. Some of them viewed the requested data as confidential for them and

somehow unreachable. Not all respondents answered the questionnaire hence the result

could be more realistic if the researcher got responses from all respondents.

5.4 Recommendations

The study recommends that supply chain professionals in the alcoholic beverage industry

embrace collaborative relationships with their suppliers so as to optimize their supply

chain costs. This can be through establishing clear communication networks, joint risk

assessment and management and having strategic Supplier partnerships with their key

suppliers. Firms should also establish trustworthy suppliers to ensure commitment and

credibility in transactions. Technology was viewed as one of the failures in achieving

supply chain performance and indications from the findings of its crucial role in the

implementation suggest that firms should also invest in technology not only in their firms

but also in partnership with suppliers so as to streamline operations in the supply chain.

33
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research

This study focused on Supplier Relationship Management and Supply chain Performance

in alcoholic beverage industry only, further research on other industries should also be

done. Further Research also on effect of Information and Communications Technology

(ICT) on Supplier Relationship Management should be investigated since from the

findings ICT possibilities have been insufficiently used in achieving collaborative

relationships.

34
 REFERENCES
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G., Fitzgerald, E. (2000), "A survey of supply chain
collaboration and management in the UK construction industry", European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 6 No.3/4, pp.159-68.

Andaleeb, S.S. (1996), "An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commitment in

marketing channels: the role of trust and dependence", Journal of Retailing, Vol.
72 No.1, pp.77-93.

Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S. (1977), "Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys",
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No.3, pp.396-402.

Athanasopoulou, P. (2009), "Relationship quality: a critical literature review and research

agenda", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 No.5/6, pp.583-610.

Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M., Sahay, A. (1996), "Trust and performance in cross-border
marketing partnerships: a behavioral approach", Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 27 No.5, pp.1005-32.

Baker, T.L., Simpson, P.M., Siguaw, J.A. (1999), "The impact of suppliers' perceptions
of reseller market orientation on key relationship constructs", Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No.1, pp.50-7.

Barlow, J., Jashapara, A. (1998), "Organisational learning and inter-firm ‘partnering’ in

the UK construction industry", The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No.2, pp.86-
98.

Beach, R., Webster, M., Campbell, K.M. (2005), "An evaluation of partnership
development in the construction industry", International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 23 No.8, pp.611-21.

Beamon, Benita M. 1998. Supply chain design and analysis: Models and methods.
International Journal of Production Economics 55 (3):281-294

Bresnen, M., Marshall, N. (2000), "Building partnerships: case studies of client-

contractor collaboration in the UK construction industry", Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No.7, pp.819-32.

Buchanan, L. (1992), "Vertical trade relationships: the role of dependence and symmetry
in attaining organizational goals", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No.1,
pp.65-75.

Buffington, M., Good, G., Lambert, D.M. (2007), “Structuring successful relationships in
the supply chain; the Cargill and Coca-Cola experience”, Philadelphia, PA, 22-24
October.
35
Burnes, B., New, S., 1996. Understanding supply chain improvement. European Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management 2 (1), 21–30

Burt, D.N., Dobler, D.W., Starling, S.L. (2003), World Class Supply Chain Management,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY,

Calder, B.J. (1977), "Focus groups and the nature of qualitative research", Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No.3, pp.353-64.

Cavinato,J.(2012).Global Supply Chain Management. Center for Strategic Supply

Leadership.

Chatterjee, P. (2004), "Interfirm alliances in online retailing", Journal of Business

Research, Vol.

Choy, K.L., Lee, W.B., Lo, V. (2002), "An intelligent supplier management tool for
benchmarking suppliers in outsource manufacturing", Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 22 No.3, pp.213-24.

Christopher, M. (1998), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Financial Times

Management, London, .57 No.7, pp.714-23.

Cooper, M. and Ellram, L., 1993. Characteristics of supply chain management and
strategy. International Journal of Logistics Management 4 (2), 13–24

Croxton, K.L., García-Dastugue, S., Lambert, D.M., Rogers, D.S. (2001), "The supply
chain management processes", The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 12 No.2, pp.13-36.

Dainty, A.R.J., Briscoe, G.H., Millett, S.J. (2001), "New perspectives on construction
supply chain integration", Supply Chain Management, Vol. 6 No.3/4, pp.163-73.
Das, A., Narasimhan, R., Talluri, S. (2006), "Supplier integration – finding an optimal
configuration", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No.5, pp.563-
82.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Iacobucci, D. (2001), "Investments in consumer
relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration", Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 65 No.4, pp.33-50.

Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the
Uninitiated, SAGE, London, .

Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P. (1997), "An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No.2, pp.35-51.

36
Dryer, J.H., Cho, D.S., Wu, W. (1998), "Strategic supplier segmentation: the next best
practice in supply chain management", California Management Review, Vol.
40 No.2, pp.57-77.

Enz, M.G., Lambert, D.M. (2012), "Using cross functional, cross firm teams to co-create
value: the role of financial measures", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.
41 No.3, pp.495-507.

Fletcher, G. (2003), "CPFR: an emerging supply chain tool", Industrial Management and
Data Systems, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.14-21.

Flynn, B.B., Huo, B., Zhao, X. (2010), "The impact of supply chain integration on
performance: a contingency and configuration approach", Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No.1, pp.58-71.

Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H., Snehota, I. (2003), Managing Business
Relationships, Wiley, Chichester.

Frohlich, M.T., Westbrook, R. (2001), "Arcs of integration: an international study of

supply chain strategies", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No.2,
pp.185-200.

Gentry, J.J. (1996), "Carrier involvement in buyer-seller strategic partnerships",

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol.
26 No.3, pp.14-25.

Giannakis, M. (2007), "Performance measurement of supplier relationships", Supply

Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No.16, pp.300-411.

Gilmour, P. (1999), "A strategic audit framework to improve SC performance", Journal

of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 14 pp.355-63.

Goko (2012) on her study titled, “The effect of supplier quality management on
organizational performance”unpublished MBA Project.University of Nairobi.

Gopal, K.K. (2002), "Performance measurement system", Total Quality Management,

Vol. 13 No.5, pp.715-28.

Hughes ,D. Jonathan, J. ( 2010). "What is Supplier Relationship Management and Why Does
it. DILForientering. Retrieved 26 January 2012.

Jap, S.D., Ganesan, S. (2000), "Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle:
implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment",
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No.2, pp.227-45.

37
Johns, Robert (2005): One size doesn t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude

items, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(2), 237‐64 (on

neutral options).

Johnson, J.L. (1999), "Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: managing

the interfirm relationship as a strategic asset", Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No.1, pp.4-18.

Josh, A.W., Arnold, S.J. (1998), "How relational norms affect compliance in industrial
buying", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 41 No.2, pp.105-14.

Khalfan, M.M.A., McDermott, P., Swan, W. (2007), "Building trust in construction

projects", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No.6,
pp.385-91.

Kim, K. (1999), "On determinants of joint action in industrial distributor-supplier

relationships: beyond economic efficiency", International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 16 No.3, pp.217-36.

Laming, R.C., 1993. Beyond Partnerships: Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply.
Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK.

Leender, M.R., Nollet, J., Ellram, L.M., 1994. Adapting purchasing tosupply chain
management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials
Management 24 (1), 40–42

Leenders, Michiel R. and Flynn, Anna E. Value-Driven Purchasing: Managing the Key
Steps in the Acquisition Process, Chicago: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 1995.

Melody.J.Hsiao(2002) The impact of buyer-supplier relationship and purchasing process

on the supply chain performance: a conceptual framework.University of Sidney

Michel, P. ., Philippart, M., Verstraete, C., and Wynen, S. (2008). Collaborative

sourcing: Strategic value creation through collaborative supplier relationship
management. Louvain-la-Neuve: UCL.

Murithi.K. (2011). The Influence of Supplier Relationship Management on Procurement

Performance .Msc Project . Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
technology.

Andy Neely, (2005) "The evolution of performance measurement research:

Developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next", International
38
 Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 Iss: 12, pp.1264 –
1277

Neely, Andy, Mike Gregory, and Ken Platts. 1995. Performance measurement system
design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 15 (4):80-116.

Novack, R.A., Simco, S.W., 1991. The industrial procurement process:a supply chain
perspective. Journal of Business Logistics 12 (1), 145–167.

Ratemo.J (2011), “ the influence of Supplier Relationship Management of Procurement

Performance”;Unpublished MSc Project.Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
technology.

Slack, N., Bates, H., 1997. Supply chain management: what happens when the supply
chain manages you?’’

Stock, James R. and Lambert, Douglas M. Strategic Logistics Management, 4"' Edition,
Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2001,

Tanur M Judith,Basic statistics for the Behavioral Sciences,Contemporary

sociology,(Mar.,1982)

39
 APPENDICES

Appendix I

Research Questionnaire
Introduction
This questionnaire has been designed for the sole purpose of collecting data on the impact
of Supplier Relationship Management on Supply Chain Performance in the alcoholic
beverage industry in Kenya. The data collected will be treated with a very high degree of
confidentiality and it is meant for academic purposes only.

Section A: General Information

1. When was the practice of Supplier relationship management first introduced?

Less than 10 years 10 years or more

2. What is your position in the organization?
a) Senior Procurement Manager
b) Assistant procurement manager
c) Procurement officer
d) Other (specify)……………………..
3. How long have you been in this position
a) Less than 5 years
b) 5 to 10 years
c) 11 to 15 years
d) Above 15 years
4. Gender
a) Male
b) Female

Section B: The extent of the relationship between suppliers and the organization.
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements on the nature
of suppliers relationship with the organization. The scale below will be applicable:

40
1= To a very large extent 2= Large extent 3= moderate extent 4= small extent 5=very
small extent.

No Statement 1 2 3 4 5

1 Sharing of information

2 Integrated ERP systems

3 Collective problem solving

4 Involvement in planning and objectives setting with key suppliers

5 Exchange of information on issues affecting the business

6 Training and development of staff

7 Contract management

8 Trust

9 Is Focus on short discrete purchasing?

10 Emphasis on price, quality and delivery.

13. Any other? Please state

………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………

Section C: Impact of SRM on Supply Chain Performance.

Please indicate the extent to which you concur with the following statements on how
SRM has impacted on Supply Chain Performance in alcoholic beverage industry.
1= To a very large extent 2= Large extent 3= moderate extent 4= small extent 5=very
small extent.

41
NO. Statement 1 2 3 4 5

1 TRUST

(a) Considering how decisions affect each other.

(b) Committed to preservation of good relationships

(c) Looking out for each other’s best interests

(d) Willingness to engage in future business opportunity

(e) Credibility in business transactions

2 INFORMATION SHARING

(a) Sharing of proprietary information.

(b) Information in advance of changing needs.

(c) Exchange information that helps in establishing business plans.

(d) Integrated ERP systems

(e)

3 RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

(a) Focus on value and innovation.

(b) Risk management integrated into operations.

(c) Cross-functional teams from firm and suppliers working

together.

(d) Contract management

(e) Focus on continuous improvement

4 STRATEGIC SUPPLIER PARTNERSHIP

(a) Joint problem solving

(b) Improved product quality

(c) Supplier development programs

(d) Inclusion of suppliers in planning and goal-setting activities.

42
Section D: Challenges of Supplier Relationship Management
Please indicate the extent to which you concur with the following statements concerning
the Challenges faced by firms in the alcoholic beverage industry in implementation of
SRM.
Use the scale of: 1= Strongly agree 2= Agree 3= Undecided 4= Disagree 5= Strongly
disagree

No Statement 1 2 3 4 5

1 Lack of Technology

2 Incompetent staff

3 Incompatibility in technology between organization and supplier

4 Unreliable suppliers

5 Lack of information sharing

6 Geographical proximity

7. Any other. Please state

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................

43
APPENDIX II

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES MANUFACTURERS LICENSED BY KENYA

REVENUE AUTHORITY IN THE YEAR 2012

Item Name of company Product Location

1 Aberdares Beverage Limited Spirit Kisumu

2 Africa Spirit Co. Ltd Spirit Nairobi

3 Afro Prime Industries Ltd Spirit Kisumu

4 BilFlex Industries Spirit Nairobi

5 Biscept Limited Spirit Nakuru

6 BMS Industries LTD Spirit Kisumu

7 Crywan Enterprises Ltd Spirit Nairobi

8 Elle Kenya Ltd Spirit Nairobi

9 Fai Amarillo Limited Spirit and wine Naivasha

10 FRM Packers(E.A) LTD Spirit Nairobi

11 Gish Holding Ltd Spirit Nakuru

12 Grand Beverages Ltd Spirit Thika

13 Honeywell Industry Spirit Nairobi

14 Julijo Investment Ltd Spirit Nairobi

15 Kambu Distillers Ltd Spirit Kisumu

16 Kedstar Investment Spirit Nairobi

17 Kefima Suppliers Spirit Tala

44
18 Kenya Breweries Ltd Beer Nairobi

19 Kenya Gin Manufact. Ltd Spirit Nairobi

20 Kenya Wine Agencies Ltd Spirit and Wine Nairobi

21 Keroche Breweries Ltd Spirit and beer Naivasha

22 London Distillers (k) Ltd Spirit Nairobi

23 Lumat Company Ltd Spirit Nairobi

24 Lyniber Suppliers Ltd Spirit Nairobi

25 Mashwa Breweries Spirit and Beer Naivasha

26 MDI Limited Spirit Nakuru

27 Mibbs Ventures Spirit Nairobi

28 Patialla Distillers(K) Ltd Spirit Nairobi

29 Pen Bon (K) LTD Spirit Tala

30 Rhino Beverages LTD Spirit Nairobi

31 Sangilia Wine Manuf. LTD Spirit and Beer Nairobi

32 The Comrade Invest. Co.LTD Spirit Nairobi

33 Top Rank Ltd Spirit Thika

34 UDV (K) Ltd Spirit Nairobi

35 Vine Pack Ltd Spirit Thika

36 Wayne Industries Ltd Spirit Naivasha

37 Wholesome Beverages Ltd Spirit Nairobi

38 Zheng Hong (K) LTD Spirit Nairobi

Source(KRA,2012)

45