Embracing Codependency: Enhancing Success

  • Bonnie Keith
  • Kate Vitasek
  • Karl Manrodt
  • Jeanne Kling


As mentioned in chapter 4, transaction-based models are great for driving competition and ensuring low prices. Unfortunately, the highly competitive processes that enable an organization to get the best price do not always bring out the best from suppliers. Buyers can unlock value by moving along the sourcing continuum to hybrid or relational contract models. Properly structured relational contracting models—preferred provider, performance-based, and Vested business models—lead to organizations viewing suppliers as sources of competitive advantage, not as operating at arm’s length. As an organization moves to collaborative, relational Sourcing Business Models, it needs to apply different methods. Most importantly, it also needs a different mindset to unlock potential.


Preventive Maintenance Relational Contract Supply Relationship Prefer Provider Supplier Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Oliver Williamson, “Outsourcing: Transaction Cost Economics and Supply Chain Management,” Journal of Supply Chain Management (April 2008): 5–16.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gary L. Frazier, Robert E. Spekman, and Charles R. O’Neal, “Just in Time Exchange Relationships in Industrial Markets,” Journal of Marketing 52, no. 4 (October 1988): 52–67; http://wwwjstor.org/discover/10.2307/1251633?sid=21105463022561&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3738664; accessed February 27, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gerard Chick and Robert Handfield, The Procurement Value Proposition (London: Kogan Page, 2012).Google Scholar
  4. J. Dwyer, Collaborative Advantage (London: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  5. no. 7 (1997): 535–556. J. Dwyer and H. Singh, “The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage,” Academy of Management Review 23, no. 4 (1998): 660–679.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    Jeanette Nyden, Kate Vitasek, and David Frydlinger, Getting to We: Negotiating Agreements for Highly Collaborative Relationships (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).Google Scholar
  7. 14.
    A description of this program can be found in Kate Vitasek and Steve Geary, Performance-Based Logistics: A Contractor’s Guide to Life Cycle Product Support Management (Knoxville: Haslam College of Business; University of Tennessee, 2008).Google Scholar
  8. 16.
    Kate Vitasek; “ProcurementDepartmentsNegotiating ‘Too Aggressively,’” Forbes Magazine, March, 3, 2015; http://www.forbes.com/sites/Google Scholar
  9. 26.
    Leah Rae, “GT Advanced Technologies Signs Multi-Year Sapphire Materials Agreement with Apple,” LED Inside, November 6, 2013; http://www.ledinside.com/news/2013/ll/gt_advanced_technologies_signs_multi_year_sapphire_materials_agreement_with_apple; accessed January 3, 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 27.
    Arjan J. van Weele, Purchasing & Supply Chain Management: Analysis, Strategy, Planning and Practice (n.p.: Cengage Learning EMEA, 2010), p. 209.Google Scholar
  11. 31.
    Jonathan L. S. Byrnes, Islands of Profit in a Sea of Red Ink: Why 40 Percent of Your Business Is Unprofitable and How to Fix It (New York: Portfolio Hardcover, 2010).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bonnie Keith, Kate Vitasek, Karl Manrodt, and Jeanne Kling 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bonnie Keith
  • Kate Vitasek
  • Karl Manrodt
  • Jeanne Kling

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations