Chapter 7 Discussion of Results, Conclusions and Suggestions for
7.1 Discussion of the Transaction ‘X-Ray’ Results
It is recognised that the research design favours that empirical evidence is drawn from a relatively small sample and therefore no attempt is made to claim generalisability, however, the research intent is to examine an existing phenomenon through a new lens with the view to shaping a new line of enquiry. It is also recognised that the Rebuy Case explores, by design, transactions that fulfil a relatively tightly defined set of criteria37. As recognised by Gummesson and Polese (2009:347) research context is an important aspect to be considered when reflecting on the significance of any results obtained. Specifically, there is no explicit or implicit assumption that the results of the Rebuy Case would be replicated if the context of the case were to be varied. It is, therefore, with these aspects in mind that the results are discussed.
The significance of BSPV, established across all but one of the individual Transaction ‘X-Rays’, echoes the findings of the exploratory study in which buyer behaviour was significantly influenced by a complex combination of personal and organisational objectives. In the exploratory study these factors were found to include:
Buyer’s desire to exert local control ahead of central control.
Buyer’s motivation to defend a historically held position.
Buyer’s desire to avoid being involved in changes that have the potential to be viewed internally as service failures (logistics, safety performance).
Buyer’s attempt to influence the internal politics of the buying organisation.
Buyer’s perception as to how best to fulfil externally imposed rules.
While the incidence these of buyer specific factors has been identified in earlier studies (Webster and Wind, 1972:18; Johnston and Bonoma, 1981:144;
Spekman, Stewart and Johnston, 1995:38 and Cox, 2004c:173) there has been little success in efforts to incorporate these effects into the core of any resultant theory. By utilising the lens of buyer value perception in the
37 The characteristics for inclusion of transactions in the Rebuy Case are summarised in Table 5.1
183 research design it is possible to make a comparative evaluation of the wider, psychological needs of the buyer against the effects of the organisational goals of the businesses they represent.
The dominance of the behavioural profile of the ‘T-shaped buyer’ is clearly observed within the Rebuy Case. The ‘T-shape’ has previously been adopted by a range of authors to explain behavioural concepts not directly related to procurement activity. Hansen and von Oetinger (2001:108) developed the concept of ‘T-shaped management’. The analogy on which they draw is that successful managers are those who both concentrate on business performance, the bar of the ‘T’, while simultaneously seeking to share knowledge in an attempt to discover and explore new opportunities, the leg of the ‘T’. While the role content is not directly analogous to that of the ‘T- shaped buyer’, the ‘T-shaped manager’ shares the dual focus of value capture and value creation, and must manage the tension created by these twin responsibilities. The ‘T-shape’ has been similarly adopted to describe graduates who have both specific discipline skills and also have a fundamental understanding of the communication, teamwork and collaborative skills that are needed to meet the needs of complex organisations and networks (Bitner and Brown, 2008:44). Taking ‘professionals’ working in the water industry as their focus, Uhlenbrook and de Jong (2012:3478) consider the ‘T-shaped professional’ as not only having the skills and experience related to the disciplines specific to the water industry but also the competencies and interpersonal skills to enable them to successfully conduct ethical interactions.
An interesting development of the ‘T-shape’ concept is, however, advanced by Hansen and Nohria (2004:29) who acknowledge that in the case of the ‘T- shaped manager’ the bar of the ‘T’, which represents the manager’s ‘primary’
role of delivering results, may well take precedence over the ‘secondary’
function, represented by the leg of the ‘T’, relating to knowledge sharing and development. Such an analogy raises the possibility that the ‘T-shaped buyer’
has the primary function of Adversarial capture of commercial value and a somewhat secondary role related to Collaborative, operationally focussed, value development.
The examination of the composite ‘X-Rays’ allows comparison between various sub-groups within the Rebuy Case, a review process which certainly
184 raises noteworthy discussion points and potentially signposts the direction for future investigation. Comparing firstly the Composite Transaction ‘X-Rays’ for male buyers against those of female buyers shows that while for both groups the dominant behaviour pattern is that of the ‘T-shaped buyer’, there are however slight differences between the two groups in respect of the value perceptions held. Female buyers apparently place a greater emphasis on Exchange Value and less on BSPV than did their male counterparts. Such an outcome suggests that female buyers have a focus on the more tangible and immediately measurable outcomes of the pre-sales interaction and are less influenced by the wider psychologically determined aspects of the transaction.
An alternative comparison is that of the Composite ‘X-Rays’ for those transactions involving goods against those transactions that concern mainly services. Again while both behavioural maps reflect the pattern of the ‘T- shaped buyer’ it is interesting to note a slightly increased emphasis on Exchange Value is associated with those transactions involving goods.
Potentially the ability to define and specify goods to a greater extent than is possible with services, due to the intrinsically heterogeneous aspects of service delivery (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988:5), has resulted in a relative decline in the Utility Value associated with goods compared to services.
A further comparison is made between by the ‘Transaction X-Rays’ of those transactions negotiated by buyers whose self-perception is as leaders against those who see themselves in a more supporting role. The ‘T-shaped buyer’
profile is again evident in both groups however, those buyers who perceive themselves as leaders appear to place a greater emphasis on Exchange Value than do their counterparts who perceive themselves in more supportive roles.
This raises the question as to whether the self-perceived leaders are more significantly influenced by the easily demonstrated benefits associated with Exchange Value.
One final composite ‘Transaction X-Ray’ comparison is made between transactions that are undertaken utilising the procurement frameworks applicable in the relevant area of the public sector and those transactions taking place within the private sector. In common with the other comparisons, the dominant behaviour pattern is that of the ‘T-shaped buyer’.
185 The ‘X-Rays’ demonstrate that in both sub-groups the buyer’s value perceptions are influenced by each of BSPV, Exchange Value and Utility Value, but with an increase in the BSPV perception within the public sector and a corresponding increase in the importance of Exchange Value within the private sector transactions examined. This raises the question as to whether this reflects a more dominant profit motive within the private sector against a public sector in which buyer position and influence play a greater role.
A further discussion point arises by extending the analysis of the Transaction
‘X-Rays’ beyond the point of answering the research questions. A simple comparison of the emergent primary and secondary behaviour patterns for each transaction is made with the corresponding dominant value perception.
This comparison forms the basis of Table 7.1: Individual Transaction Behaviours versus Value Perception.
186 Ref.
No.
‘Primary’ Behaviour Pattern
‘Secondary’ Behaviour Pattern
Dominant Value Perception
#03 ‘Γ-shaped’ None Noted Exchange Value
#04 ‘T-shaped’ None Noted Exchange Value /
Utility Value
#05 ‘T-shaped’ None Noted Exchange Value
#10 ‘T-shaped’ None Noted BSPV
#15 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ BSPV
#23 ‘T-shaped’ None Noted Exchange Value
#25 ‘⅂-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
#28 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
#29 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ BSPV
#30 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Utility Value
#31 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
#35 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ BSPV / Utility Value
#37 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
#38 ‘⊥ shaped’ ‘T-shaped’ Exchange Value /
BSPV
#39 ‘T-shaped’ ‘⊥ shaped’ BSPV
#41 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
#42 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
#48 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
#49 ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Utility Value
#55 ‘T-shaped’ None Noted None Noted
#57 ‘Γ-shaped’ ‘T-shaped’ None Noted
Table 7.1: Individual Transaction Behaviours versus Value Perception Kowalkowski (2011:281) recognises the existence of several distinct roles within the buying organisation. He suggests that those whose perspective is operationally focussed are likely to place a greater emphasis on Utility Value than those whose commercially focussed role as payer will lead them to hold a dominant value perception that emphasises Exchange Value. Extending the
187 concept leads to an expectation of a similar association between the buyers’
adopted relationship management approach and the dominant value perception that they hold. Specifically the ‘T-shaped, the ‘Γ-shaped’ and the
‘⅂-shaped’ buyer may be expected to favour Exchange Value. However, the review of the results summarised in Table 7.1 show that such a correlation is present in only half of the individual Transactions considered.
However, expanding the analysis to the aggregated data within the composite
‘X-Rays’ (as summarised in Table 7.2) provides an increase in the support given to the existence of the expected relationship between the dominant ‘T- shaped buyer’ profile and the prevalence of Exchange Value.
Ref. No. ‘Primary’ Behaviour
Pattern ‘Secondary’ Behaviour
Pattern Dominant Value
Perception
All ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
Male ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ None Noted
Female ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
Goods ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
Services ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ None Noted
Leaders ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
Supporters ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ None Noted
Public
Sector ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ BSPV
Private
Sector ‘T-shaped’ ‘Γ-shaped’ Exchange Value
Table 7.2: Composite Transactions Behaviour versus Value Perception
The composite ‘X-Ray’ analysis shows that not only, as noted previously, does the dominant behaviour pattern of the ‘T-shaped buyer’ becomes evident but also where a dominant value perception is apparent, it is strongly likely to be based on Exchange. Equally striking is the absence of Utility Value as the dominant value perception in any of the composite ‘X-Ray’ profiles.