local government and private sector purchasing strategy: a comparative study

*Corresponding author. Tel.: #4428 90 270268.E-mail address: [email protected] (J.G. Murray).

European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 7 (2001) 91}100

Local government and private sector purchasing strategy:a comparative study

J. Gordon Murray*8 Westbourne Crescent, Lisburn, Co. Antrim BT28 3AE, UK

Received 16 March 1999; received in revised form 21 December 1999; accepted 13 March 2000

Abstract

Building upon previous research (Murray, 1999. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 5 (1), 33}42) a tripartitepostal survey to council leaders, chief executives and purchasing managers is used to establish the goals of local government,purchasing's potential strategic contribution and the strategies currently used. These "ndings are compared against the equivalentgoals, purchasing objectives and strategies of the private sector. ( 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Local government; Purchasing strategy; Business success theory

1. Introduction

The elevation of purchasing to a strategic value-addingfunction has been the focus of considerable attentionduring the 1990s. Unfortunately though, most purchas-ing literature has been set against the predominatelyprivate sector, manufacturing industry (Brandes, 1994)with comparatively little attention given to local govern-ment purchasing. This has created a vacuum which onlya few authors have sought to "ll (de Boer and Telgen,1998; Erridge and Murray, 1998a, b).

While some may argue that private sector and publicsector purchasing is becoming increasingly similar (Mar-shall and Humby, 1998), empirical evidence to justifysuch generalisations has not been provided. A risk there-fore exists that local government purchasing may well bedi!erent (Murray, 1999) and if that is the case, its pur-chasing managers may inappropriately be pursuing pri-vate sector strategies when such strategies could prove tobe dysfunctional.

This paper, building on previous research (Murray,1999), presents an hypothesis based on local governmentand private sector purchasing being fundamentally dif-ferent. The hypothesis is then systematically testedthrough research.

2. Methodology

Building upon desk research previously discussed(Murray, 1999), the investigation tests those "ndings andgains new insights through a tripartite postal survey ofUK council leaders, chief executives and purchasingmanagers.

The survey was sent to each of the three actors in 47councils, (population: 470; sampling interval: 10; samp-ling ratio 1 : 10). The chief executive and purchasingmanager received &personalised' letters as they werenamed within the sampling frame. A small number ofadditional questions, regarding currently utilised pur-chasing strategies, were addressed only to purchasingmanagers. Having used a strati"ed, systematic randomsample (Babbie, 1995, p. 212) it can be assumed that thefull array of council types were represented.

From that informed position a robust theory of localgovernment and its purchasing is developed and sub-sequently compared, through a literature review, withprivate sector purchasing strategy.

3. Survey response

One hundred and forty-one questionnaires were sentout. 16% were returned in response to the initial request,a further 13% in response to the "rst reminder and 12%in response to a second and "nal reminder; as a result

0969-7012/01/$ - see front matter ( 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 7 0 1 2 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 6 - X

Table 1The goals of local government: a comparison of two investigations

Goals previously identi"ed from desk research on N.I. Council strategies Goals identi"ed from survey UK Councils (incl. N.I.)(in descending order of commonality) (Percentages indicate level of consensus)

1. Local economic development2. Tourism3. Environment4. Customer focus in service delivery5. Political advocacy6. Quality7. Sta! development8. Pro"le promotion

1. Local economic development (96%)2. Environment (92%)3. Customer focus in service delivery (88%)4. Quality of life (88%)5. Quality (84%)6. Community development (76%)7. Local Agenda 21/Sustainble development (76%)8. Sta! development (76%)9. Open government (64%)

10. Tourism (64%)11. Cost reduction (52%)12. Recreation and leisure (52%)

a response rate of 41% was achieved. The percentage ofresponses from each of the actors was 34% of leaders ofcouncil, 53% of chief executives and 36% of purchasingmanagers. A further 12% responded but were unable tohelp.

A test for &non-respondent bias' was carried out andsatis"ed, following the principles of Armstrong andOverton (1977). That test accepts that the last wave ofresponses are much more characteristic of non-respon-dents than the "rst wave of responses, therefore, if there isa similarity between the "rst and last wave of responses,it can be assumed that no &non-respondent bias' exists.

None of the respondent purchasing managers incor-rectly answered the placebo question. This would indi-cate that the responses from purchasing managers wereapproached in a conscientious manner.

Equally, since few of the respondents appeared to &tick'all answers within a range of options, this would indicatethat the responses are reliable.

4. The hypothesis

The strategic goals of local government are funda-mentally di!erent from those of other organisations andparticularly those of the private sector. A priori, thepurchasing objectives and strategies pursued by privatesector organisations are inappropriate and inadequatefor local government purchasing.

5. Underlying questions

To defend the hypothesis a number of constituentquestions must be answered from the research:

1. What are the strategic goals of local government?2. What are the strategic goals of the private sector?

3. Are the goals of local government di!erent from thoseof the private sector?

4. What are the purchasing objectives of local govern-ment?

5. What are the purchasing objectives of the privatesector?

6. Are the purchasing objectives of local governmentdi!erent from those of the private sector?

7. What are the purchasing strategies pursued by localgovernment?

8. What are the purchasing strategies pursued by theprivate sector?

9. Are the purchasing strategies of the private sectorappropriate and adequate for local government?

6. What are the strategic goals of local government?

The "rst stage of the investigation sought to establishthe strategic goals of local government.

The &abstractive reasoning' approach advocated byCox (1997, pp. 9}10) was followed. This approach "rstdevelops a theory and then tests that theory empirically.

The theory was derived from literature, tested againstthe published strategies of N.I. Councils (Murray, 1999)and latterly by the questionnaire responses from councilchief executives.

This breadth of triangulation was required since, it isthe authors opinion, modern local government purchas-ing is signi"cantly less well documented and understood,as an entity, than its private sector counterparts.

The literature review provided a theory of local gov-ernment business success criteria, namely:

f delivering services to the local population with e$-ciency, e!ectiveness and economy,

f improving the quality of life of its citizens,f demonstrating fairness to all its stakeholders,

92 J.G. Murray / European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 7 (2001) 91}100

f equality in its business transactions,f avoiding corruption,f public accountability,f public stewardship.

Equipped with a theory of local government success,the investigation then sought, through desk research, toempirically test the theory through an analysis of thecorporate strategies published by N.I. Councils (Murray,1999) and more speci"cally through a tripartite postalsurvey of UK council leaders, chief executives and pur-chasing managers.

Responses to the survey from chief executives, havingthe largest response rate (53%), and expected to be closerto the strategic process were assumed to be the mostreliable respondents, were used at this stage. Once again,common goals were taken to be those currently pursuedby more than 50% of the respondent local councils.

Table 1 indicates the comparative "ndings of invest-igations relating to the goals/business success criteria oflocal government.

The analysis indicates that the previous desk researchunderestimated the full scope of local government goalsalthough largely validated the core "ndings.

While the previous research indicated that more than50% of the N.I. Councils had objectives relating to &Pol-itical Advocacy' and &Pro"le Promotion', these goalsappear of comparatively little signi"cance to UK coun-cils in general (20 and 16%, respectively). It is assumedthat this variation was an anomaly of the political envi-ronment, prevalent in N.I. during the period when thestrategies were published, that is, local councils repre-sented the only democratic voice at that time.

The research suggests new goals which the previousresearch had not considered common, speci"cally:

f quality of lifef community developmentf open governmentf recreation and leisuref Local Agenda 21/sustainable developmentf cost reduction.

However, I contend that this extended list is indicative ofsome in local government being confused with the jargonof strategy. It is my opinion that &tourism' is unlikely tobe a goal per se, instead both it and &community develop-ment' are likely to be two of a variety of strategiesadopted in pursuit of &local economic development'.&Community development' may also be a strategy to-wards &quality of life', as would be &recreation and leisure'.I also argue that &environment' and &quality of life' arestrategies relating to &Local Agenda 21/sustainable devel-opment' although anecdotal evidence would at the pres-ent time indicate this goal is still in its embryonic stage ofde"nition.

The conclusion of the analysis provides a robust the-ory of local government business criteria, viz.

Local government business success goals are fairness,equality, public accountability, local economic develop-ment, environmental stewardship, customer focus in pro-vision of local services, quality of life, quality, LocalAgenda 21, open government and cost reduction.

7. What are the strategic goals of the private sector?

Having considered the business success criteria of localgovernment it is appropriate to contrast those with anoverview of private sector goals.

Return on investment (ROI) is the private sector busi-ness success criterion (Anso!, 1985, pp. 54}56; Min-tzberg, 1994; Gibbs, 1998; Hughes et al., 1998) or as Coxdescribes it &pro"t maximisation' (1997, p. 105). Pro"tmaximisation makes perfect sense when one recallsthat the owners of a "rm have forgone the securityof interest payments for the risk of investment inthe organisation, as have institutional investors and len-ders (Porter, 1992). As a result the primary measure ofsuccess will be the return on investment commensuratewith risk.

That primary objective can only be achieved throughdelivering a sustainable competitive advantage (Porter,1980; van Weele, 1994, p. 115) which provides the corner-stone for survival and growth (Anso!, 1985, p. 62; Leen-ders et al., 1989, p. 608). Marketing theory would indicatethat such sustainable competitive advantage can onlybe the consequence of pursuing a customer orienta-tion (Armstrong and Kotler, 1987; Jefkins, 1989).Porter (1980) on the contrary argues that such advantageis manifested through the application of the genericstrategies of cost leadership, niche focus and/or di!erenti-ation.

However, such self-centred objectives do not "t com-fortably with the stakeholder concept (Freeman, 1984)which in turn recognises the business reality of satis"cingbeing required so that the needs of environmentalists andother pressure groups are re#ected. This is not to say thatprivate sector organisations will not have the environ-ment as a goal, one identi"ed by Leenders et al. (1989,p. 608), but merely to accept that such a goal may notnecessarily be for purely altruistic reasons.

While only a cursory literature review was deemednecessary to establish the goals of the private sector, it isapparent that there exists considerable consensus on theexisting paradigm of private sector business success cri-teria, viz.

Private sector business criteria are Return on Investmentdelivered through pro"t maximisation, sustainable com-petitive advantage, survival and growth.

J.G. Murray / European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 7 (2001) 91}100 93

Table 2A comparison of the goals of the private sector and those of local government

Private sector Local government

Core ethos Pro"t maximisation FairnessEqualityDemocracyPublic accountabilityPolitical advocacy

Corporate objectives Return on investment Local economic developmentSustainable competitive advantage EnvironmentSurvival Customer focus in service deliveryGrowth Quality of life

QualityLocal Agenda 21Open governmentCost reduction

Fig. 1. Strategic gap analysis: chief executive's perception of purchas-ing's contribution to the achievement of local government goals.

8. Are the goals of local government di4erent from thoseof the private sector?

A comparison of the goals of local government andthose of the private sector (see Table 2) provide aninformed position from which it can be deduced that the"rst proposition of the hypothesis is justi"ed.

The strategic goals of local government are funda-mentally di!erent from those of other organisations andparticularly those of the private sector therefore.

While it has been argued that the strategic goals of localgovernment and the private sector are di!erent, it doesnot necessarily follow that purchasing objectives andstrategies pursued by private sector organisations areinappropriate and inadequate for local government.

9. What are the purchasing objectives oflocal government?

The tripartite survey of local council actors providedthe information for establishing not only the current andpotential goals of local government purchasing but alsopurchasing's current objectives.

Adopting a top-down approach and considering theresponses received from chief executives (see Fig. 1), theresults of this analysis indicate a gap between the currentand potential contribution from purchasing to the goalsof local government. This gap provides a major strategicopportunity for local government purchasing profes-sionals to add value and should therefore be the focus ofpurchasing strategies, along with the maintenance ofother contributions.

Having identi"ed the current and potential contribu-tion of purchasing to the strategic goals of local govern-ment, the investigation considered the current objectivesof purchasing (see Fig. 2).

&Value for money' (VFM)/ &value maximisation' is ob-viously perceived as the primary objective of purchasing,it being the identi"ed by an aggregated 89% of leaders ofcouncil, 84% of chief executives and 77% of purchasingmanagers and a view previously alluded to by Lyne(1996). Surprisingly, the previous "ndings (Table 1 andFig. 1) did not re#ect this, either as a strategic goal oflocal government or indeed a current, or potential contri-bution of purchasing.


Fig. 2. The current objectives of local government purchasing.

Further comparison with the goals of local govern-ment would suggest that the only areas where purchasingobjectives re#ect the &higher level' goals of local govern-ment are &quality', &local economic development', &costreduction', &sustainability' and &environment'. Surprising-ly, the research, while having previously identi"ed pur-chasing's potential contribution in these areas, does notre#ect that there is widespread transference into statedobjectives. Quality was stated by only 11% of leaders,32% of chief executives and 23% of purchasing managersas an objective. Local economic development, while notexplicitly stated as a purchasing objective, appears to bere#ected by less than 10% of the various actors as &sup-porting local business'. Cost reduction was cited by only10% of chief executives and none of the respondent leadersor purchasing managers. Environment and sustainabilitywere identi"ed by approximately 10% of leaders and chiefexecutives but not one of the respondent purchasingmanagers stated these areas to be objectives.

While the research identi"ed a gap between the currentand potential contribution of purchasing and the objec-tives of purchasing, I have taken an eclectic view as beingthe most valid. This proactive approach illustrates the

true opportunity space and is considered the most proac-tive and strategic response of purchasing to the goals oflocal government.

The goals of local government purchasing are value formoney/best value, Local Agenda 21, environment, localeconomic development, quality of life, quality, customerfocus in service delivery and cost reduction.

10. What are the purchasing objectives ofthe private sector?

A comprehensive literature review was carried out toestablish current private sector strategic purchasingobjectives.

From the literature it is possible to generalise thatthere are, at present, four schools of strategic purchasing,namely, &classic', &cost reduction', &cost/quality/innova-tion/delivery ', and &contingency'.

10.1. The classic school

The &classic' school (for example, Baily, 1987; Scheuing,1989; Dobler and Burt, 1996) elevated, what I considerthe tactical objectives associated with transactional/cleri-cal positioned (Syson, 1992, pp. 234}235) or mass pro-duction style purchasing (Hines, 1996), to the realm ofpurchasing objectives. That school considers purchas-ing's raison d 'eL tre to be delivering the optimum mix of the&5 Rights' namely, right price, time/place, quality, qualityand supplier.

10.2. The cost reduction school

The &cost reduction school' views purchasing's primarystrategic role and objective as being to reduce costs.

One can hardly be surprised, given the predominately"nancial drivers of private sector corporate objectives,that cost reduction has almost invariably been cited inliterature as an objective of purchasing (for example,Taylor, 1975; Kraljic, 1983; Baily, 1987; Leenders et al.,1989; Syson, 1992; Lamming, 1993; Gadde and Hakan-sson, 1994; Speckman et al., 1994; van Weele, 1994; Dob-ler and Burt, 1996; Hines, 1996) but some commentators(for example, Fitzpatrick, 1996) have gone so far as tostate that cost reduction is the primary objective of pur-chasing.

10.3. The cost/quality/innovation/delivery school

The cost reduction school is implicitly challenged bythe bulk of literature, which appears to emanate fromthe &cost/quality/innovation/deliveryschool' (CQID) (forexample, Lamming, 1993; Monczka et al., 1993; Speck-man et al., 1994; van Weele, 1994; van Weele andRozemijer, 1996) which focuses on objectives, not only of


Table 3A comparison of the purchasing objectives of the private sector and those of local government

Private sector purchasing Local government purchasing

Purchasing objectives Cost reduction Value for money/ &best value'Quality improvement Local economic developmentInnovation transfer Environmental stewardshipSecurity of supply Quality of life

Cost reductionQuality improvementLocal Agenda 21Customer focus in service delivery

cost reduction, but also quality improvement, innovationtransfer, security of supply and reduced delivery time.These objectives also include the somewhat amorphousobjective of #exibility which although given reference(Speckman et al., 1994; Watts et al., 1995; van Weele andRozemijer, 1996), is not given substance, appearing to bean amalgam of the core components.

10.4. The contingency school

If there exists one major collective criticism of theclassic, cost reduction and CQID schools, it is that theypredominately su!er from &manufacturing myopia' andhave failed to give su$cient consideration to purchasingwithin other industries (Brandes, 1994). That criticism ispartly addressed by the last school, which I refer to as theContingency school (for example, Rajagopal and Be-rnard, 1993; Watts et al., 1995; Carter and Narasimhan,1996; Carr and Smeltzer, 1997). The School holds a Con-tingency view that purchasing's role should directly #owfrom the wider goals of the "rm and not be limited orrestricted by former traditions.

Purchasing's strategic contribution, according to thecontingency school, lies in integration with the explicitgoals of other functions (Carter and Narasimhan, 1996)and developing appropriate synergistic purchasing strat-egies. For such a integrative roll to be pursued, purchas-ing managers will need to think &outside the box', beyondareas pursued currently by the classic, cost reduction andCQID schools. Only then will a strategic orientation bein evident (Fitzpatrick, 1995), one which is "t for theunique purpose of the particular host organisation. Ittherefore is self-evident that it is impossible to boldlystate the speci"c objectives which characterise thisschool.

10.5. Private sector purchasing objectives

The literature highlights a lack of consensus and thepresence of four Schools of strategic purchasing, namely,the classic, cost reduction, cost/quality/innovation/deliv-ery and contingency.

Since the core attributes of both the classic and costreduction schools can be derived from the cost/qual-ity/innovation/delivery school and the contingencyschool, by de"nition, cannot easily be articulated, it waspossible only to make a deduction that:

The objectives of private sector purchasing are primarilycost reduction, quality improvement, innovation transferand delivery (security of supply/lead time improvement).

11. Are the purchasing objectives of local governmentdi4erent from those of the private sector?

A comparison of the research "ndings relating to pur-chasing objectives indicates a disparity between the coreobjectives of local government and private sector pur-chasing (see Table 3).

The second proposition of the hypothesis is thereforesupported viz.

The objectives of local government and private sectorpurchasing are di!erent.

12. What are the purchasing strategies pursued bylocal government?

The survey did not seek to speci"cally identify thecomplete range of strategies pursued by local govern-ment purchasing. It did, however, identify the range ofstrategies currently adopted in pursuit of three objectives,namely, local economic development, Local Agenda 21and environment. That information, when married withthe selection of strategies survey respondents currentlypursue, provides an understanding of the approacheswhich have been used by local government:

f Local sourcing/preferencef Internal advicef Create awareness of purchasing opportunitiesf Green purchasing


f Encourage suppliers to adopt similar policiesf LETSf Production of green purchasing guidef Longer-term contractsf J.I.T.f P.I.S.f Debrie"ngf Supplier developmentf Co-ordinated purchasingf Pareto analysisf Purchase cards.

13. What are the purchasing strategies pursued bythe private sector?

The literature review identi"ed a common view on thevariety of purchasing strategies available to private sec-tor purchasing:

f make/buy/leasef internal/external (industry) standardisationf Domestic/overseasf Single/multiple sourcingf Stockless/JITf Annual blanket orders/ systems contractingf Partnership/adversarialf Distributors/manufacturersf Vertical integration/arm's lengthf Supplier rationalisationf Consortia/co-ordinated purchasingf Centralisation/decentralisationf Forward/spot buyingf Quality/costf Short-long-term contractsf Earlier supplier involvementf Supplier developmentf Supplier councilsf Supplier certi"cationf Reverse marketingf Supplier assistancef Value analysis/value engineeringf Utilisation of IT/ISf Internal marketingf Skills development

14. Are the purchasing strategies of the private sectorappropriate and adequate for local government?

A comparison of the indicative purchasing strategiespursued by local government and the portfolio of optionsavailable to the private sector does not support thehypothesis that private sector strategies are inappropri-ate for local government, at least some are appropriate.The suggestion, however, that local government pursue

supplemental strategies leads to the conclusion that pri-vate sector strategies are inadequate.

Private sector purchasing strategies are generally appro-priate for local government, although they may be inad-equate.

Accepting that private sector strategies are appropriate,but perhaps in need of supplementing, justi"es furtherresearch to establish if an optimum mix of strategies canbe identi"ed for achieving the di!ering goals of localgovernment purchasing.

Some research has already been carried out which hasrelevance, for example, Erridge and Nondi (1994) con-sidered the application of partnership within the publicprocurement regime, while Erridge and Murray (1998a,b) examined the application of lean supply in local gov-ernment.

Unfortunately, both these examples are typical of re-search starting from a given mix and seeking to investi-gate the appropriateness.

Further research will start without such prede"nedboundaries, in other words &a blank sheet of paper' anddetermine what is likely to be the optimum mix or localgovernment model of purchasing for achieving the objec-tives of local government.

15. Conclusion

The hypothesis has largely been defended.

The strategic goals of local government are funda-mentally di!erent from those of other organisations andparticularly those of the private sector. A priori, thepurchasing objectives and strategies pursued by privatesector organisations are inappropriate and inadequatefor local government purchasing.

The goals of local government are fundamentallydi!erent from those of other organisations and parti-cularly those of the private sector. The objectives oflocal government are also di!erent from those of othersectors.

If local government goals are, as the research indicates,much wider ranging than those of the private sector,those in local government, I believe, are doing themselvesand their organisations a disservice, potentially deliver-ing sub-optimal performance through trying to transferprivate sector rationale to local government.

Indeed, the gap identi"ed by chief executives betweenthe current and potential contribution to the strategicgoals of local government (Fig. 1) is of major signi"cance.Chief executives believe an opportunity exists for pur-chasing to increase its contribution to the corporategoals of Local Agenda 21, environment, local economic


Table 4A comparison of private sector and local government purchasing

Private sector purchasing Local government purchasing

Primary stakeholders Shareholders Central, European and global governmentBoard Elected membersEmployees O$cersCustomers CustomersSuppliers SuppliersLocal community Ratepayers

Local electorateMedia

Core ethos Pro"t maximisation FairnessEqualityDemocracyPublic accountabilityPolitical advocacy

Corporate objectives Return on investment Local economic developmentSustainable competitive advantage EnvironmentSurvival Customer focus in service deliveryGrowth Quality of life

QualityLocal Agenda 21Open governmentCost reduction

Purchasing objectives Cost reduction Value for money/ &best value'Quality improvement Local economic developmentInnovation transfer Environmental stewardshipDelivery (Security of supply/lead-time improvement) Quality of life

Cost reductionQuality improvementLocal Agenda 21Customer focus in service delivery

development, quality of life, quality, customer focus inservice delivery, and cost reduction.

Having said that, why is it that the "ndings relating tocurrent local government purchasing objectives (Fig. 2)indicate that even traditional purchasing objectives ofquality and cost reduction do not appear to be currentlygiven a high priority with local government purchasingstrategy? In fact, it seems unbelievable that not one of therespondent purchasing managers considered cost reduc-tion to be an objective.

I suggest that local government purchasing managerscould improve their strategic contribution by adoptinga more strategic approach to quality improvement andcost reduction by transferring lessons from the privatesector. From that position local government purchasingmanagers could then seek to improve their contributionto the other goals identi"ed by chief executives whichappear unique to local government.

The categorisation of the various purchasing schoolssuggests that local government purchasing does not easily"t within one of the mainstream schools but is perhaps,given the potential contribution and objectives discussedabove, more in keeping with a contingency approach.

Clearly, the full range of private sector purchasingstrategies could be applied with local government, indeedrecent government recommendations (Setting New Stan-dards, 1995; HM Treasury/Cabinet O$ce, 1998; Ger-shon, 1999; National Audit O$ce, 1999) encourage theiradoption, but are they enough?

My view is that the transference of existing privatesector purchasing strategies should take place; clearlysuch strategies could improve the contribution to qualityimprovement and cost reduction. However, the transfer-ence of such strategies, I believe needs to take place witha di!erent mind set. Indeed, as Cousins (1999) demon-strated through a study on the application of supplierrationalisation, the correct strategy applied for the wrongreasons or without a strategic perspective can fail todeliver its potential outcomes.

Local government purchasing managers need to con-sider the rationale and implications of applying particu-lar approaches in a holistic way which minimisespotential trade-o!s against the higher goals of local gov-ernment, for example, local economic development, envi-ronment, quality of life, Local Agenda 21 and opengovernment.


This provides a very real challenge, one which musttranscend conceptual debate to the development andapplication of pragmatic purchasing strategy.

The hypothesis that private sector purchasing strat-egies are inappropriate has not been supported at thisstage and is worthy of further attention. Though theevidence would indicate that private sector purchasingstrategies perhaps fall short of delivering local govern-ment purchasing objectives and are therefore consideredboth insu$cient and inadequate.

A revised hypothesis is therefore presented:

The strategic goals of local government are funda-mentally di!erent from those of other organisationsand particularly those of the private sector. A priori,the purchasing objectives pursued by private sectororganisations are inappropriate and inadequate forlocal government purchasing. The purchasing stra-tegies pursued by private sector organisations canbe appropriate for local government but may be inad-equate.

The research "ndings at this stage have re"ned theconcepts previously espoused and are summarised inTable 4.

References

Anso!, I., 1985. Corporate Strategy. Penguin Books, London.Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., 1987. Marketing an Introduction. Prentice-

Hall International, Englewood Cli!s, NJ.Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating non-response bias in

mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14, 396}402.Babbie, E., 1995. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth,

CA.Baily, P.J.H., 1987. Purchasing and Supply Management, 5th Edition.

Chapman & Hall, London.de Boer, L., Telgen, J., 1998. Purchasing practice in Dutch municipali-

ties. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Manage-ment, Spring, 31}36.

Brandes, H., 1994. Strategic changes in purchasing. European Journalof Purchasing and Supply Management 1 (1), 77}87.

Carr, A.S., Smeltzer, L.R., 1997. An empirically based operationalde"nition of strategic purchasing. European Journal of Purchasingand Supply Management 3 (4), 199}207.

Carter, J.R., Narasimhan, R., 1996. Is purchasing really strategic?International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,Winter, 20}28.

Cousins, P.D., 1999. Supply base rationalisation: myth or reality?.European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 5 (3/4),143}155.

Cox, A., 1997. Business Success and Critical Supply Chain Assets:A Way of Thinking about Strategy, Critical Supply Chain Assetsand Operational Best Practice. Earlsgate Press, Boston, UK.

Dobler, D.W., Burt, D.N., 1996. Purchasing and Supply Management,6th Edition (Int.ed). McGraw-Hill, New York.

Erridge, A., Murray, J.G., 1998a. The application of lean supply in localgovernment: the Belfast experiments. European Journal of Purchas-ing and Supply Management 4 (4), 207}221.

Erridge, A., Murray, J.G., 1998b. Lean supply: a strategy for best valuein local government? Public Policy and Administration 13(2), 70}85

Erridge, A., Nondi, R., 1994. Public procurement, competition andpartnership. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Manage-ment 1 (3), 169}179.

Fitzpatrick, J., Purchasing: creating strategic alignment. Proceedings ofFourth Annual IPSERA International Conference, Birmingham.

Fitzpatrick, J., 1996. Why Purchasing Strategies must become SupplyStrategies. Proceedings of Fifth Annual International IPSERAConference, Eindhoven, pp. 13}26.

Freeman, R.E., 1984. Stakeholder Management: A Strategic Approach.Pitman, London.

Gadde, L.-E., Hakansson, H., 1994. The changing role of purchasing:reconsidering three strategic issues. European Journal of Purchas-ing and Supply Management 1 (1), 27}35.

Gershon, P., 1999. Review of Civil Procurement in Central Govern-ment. HM Treasury.

Gibbs, J.E., 1998. E!ective relationships for supply } attributes andde"nitions. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Manage-ment 4 (1), 43}50.

HM Treasury/Cabinet O$ce, 1998. E$ciency in Civil GovernmentProcurement.

Hines, P., 1996. Purchasing for lean production: the new strategicagenda. International Journal of Purchasing and MaterialsManagement, Winter, 2}10.

Hughes, J., Ralf, M., Michels, B., 1998. Di!erent markets, di!erentdrivers, di!erent relationships: a contingency approach to strategicchange management of the supply chain in global cooperations.Proceedings of seventh Annual International IPSERA Conference,London, pp. 239}252.

Jefkins, F., 1989. Modern Marketing, 2nd Edition. Pitman, London.Kraljic, P., 1983. Purchasing must become supply management.

Harvard Business Review 61, 109}117.Lamming, R.C., 1993. Beyond Partnership: Strategies for Innovation

and Lean Supply. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.Leenders, M.R., Fearon, H.E., England, W.B., 1989. Purchasing and

Materials Management, 9th Edition. Irwin, Boston, MA.Lyne, C., 1996. Strategic procurement in the new local government.

European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 2 (1),1}6.

Marshall, D., Humby, S., 1998. The future of the purchasing profession.Proceedings of Seventh International IPSERA Annual Conference,London, pp. 344}353.

Mintzberg, H., 1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, FreePress, New York.

Monczka, R.M., Trent, R.J., Callahan, T.J., 1993. Supply base strategiesto maximise supplier performance. International Journal of Phys-ical Distribution and Logistics Management 23 (4), 42}54.

Murray, J.G., 1999. Local government demands more. European Jour-nal of Purchasing and Supply Management 5 (1), 33}42.

National Audit O$ce, 1999. Modernising Procurement. The StationeryO$ce, London.

Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy. The Free Press, New York.Porter, M.E., 1992. Capital disadvantage. Harvard Business Review.

(Reprinted in Porter, M. 1998. On Competition. Harvard BusinessPress, Boston MA, USA, pp. 431}467.)

Rajagopal, S., Bernard, K.N., 1993. Strategic procurement and competi-tive advantage. International Journal of Purchasing and materialsManagement, Fall, 13}20.

Scheuing, E.E., 1989. Purchasing Management. Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood Cli!s, NJ.

Setting New Standards: A Strategy for Government Procurement,1995. White Paper Cm2840. HMSO, London.

Speckman, R.E., Kamau!, J.W., Salmond, D.J., 1994. At last purchasingis becoming strategic. Long Range Planning 27 (2), 76}84.

Syson, R. 1992. Improving Purchase Performance. Pitman/Institute ofPurchasing and Supply Management, London


Taylor, B., 1975. The crisis in supply markets: developing a strategy forresources. In: Farmer, D.H., Taylor, B. (Eds.), Corporate Planningand Procurement. Heinmann Professional, London.

Watts, C.A., Kim, K.Y., Hann, C.K., 1995. Linking purchasing tocorporate competitive strategy. International Journal of Purchasingand Materials Management, Spring, 3}8.

van Weele, A.J., 1994. Purchasing Management. Chapman & Hall,London.

van Weele, A.J., Rozemijer, F.A., 1996. Revolution in purchasing: build-ing competitive power through pro-active purchasing. Proceedingsof Sixth Annual IPSERA International Conference, Eindhoven,pp. 27}37.


local government and private sector purchasing strategy: a comparative study

Documents