Research conducted by the Bristol Business School at the University of the West of England and The Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply

in association with Oracle.

I-RELATEResearch into the factors that buyers consider and

deploy when interacting with external suppliers.

It covers both the UK public and private sectors

and offers a supporting toolset to give guidance

on elements to consider within a variety of

relationship scenarios.

The issue of collaboration and the impact on interaction andrelationships between organisationsand their suppliers have beenextensively discussed in a large bodyof literature. Proximity with suppliershas, for instance, been perceived asencouraging frequent interactions thatlead to closer relationships which, inturn, can affect the exchange and flowof information and knowledge.

Growing complexity of technologiesand global competition are oftenpresented as requiring morecollaborative activities with suppliers,involving them much earlier and moreextensively in product development.This has led firms to rethink the scopeof their organisational boundaries,with many using collaborativerelationships as a cornerstone ofstrategic competitive advantage. This means developing a clearunderstanding of how to managerelationships between buyers andsuppliers. This research definesrelationships as a process made up of variable elements that drives orfacilitates changes in behaviour thatcan either be positive or negativedepending on how they are used.

Overall Aims and Objectives

The research project focusesessentially on buyer–supplierrelationships. It aims to investigate the importance of relationshipmanagement that can impact on performance. It proposes to identify and assess the underlyingdeterminants enabling thedevelopment of good and effective relationships.

The objectives include:

• Reviewing the literature to identifythe theories, tools, models anddeterminants that allow practisingmanagers to consider the strategiccomplexities of managing intra-,inter- and extra-firm relationships inorder to deliver the maximum valuefor their transaction

• Examining the main models,theories and methodologies

• Identifying the determinants(enablers and inhibitors) for the main types of relationshipmanagement (Table 1)

• Identifying the different types ofbuyer–supplier relationship (Table 2)

• Examining how the determinantsvary across differing relationshiptypes at both pre-contract and post-contract stages

• Producing a toolset and brochuresuggesting approaches to establish,manage, sustain and ceaserelationships

• Concluding with implications for managers and offering some suggestions for futuredevelopments of relationshipmanagement strategies.

I-RELATE

Introduction – Research Approach

Determinant Grouping

Pre-ContractRelationshipConsiderations

Pre-ContractPerformanceConsiderations

Pre-ContractProximityConsiderations

Pre-ContractCommitmentConsiderations

Post-ContractPerformanceConsiderations

Post-ContractResponsibilitiesConsiderations

Post-ContractRiskConsiderations

PotentialElements

• Specificationcollaboration

• Supplierreputation/financialperformance

• Supplierexperience

• Supplier size

• Long-termdevelopmentpotential

• Power

• Likeability

• Relationshipbuilding

• Price

• Quality

• Delivery

• Duration

• Flexibility

• Geography

• Culture

• Technology

• Social

• Sector

• Values

• Goal sharing

• Resources

• Investment

• Time

• Intellectualcapital

• Informationsharing

• Equitystakeholding

• Responsive-ness

• Capacityplanning

• Price

• Quality

• Delivery

• Duration

• Re-engagement

• Flexibility

• Termination

• Service/accountmanagement

• Likeability

• Relationshipbuilding/establishment/development

• Governance

• Environmental

• Sustainability

• Longevity

• Stability

• Dependency

• Power balance

Table 1. I-RELATE Relationship Determinants

2

Participants

The research was conducted byprofessionals from the Bristol BusinessSchool at the University of the West ofEngland (UWE), The Chartered Instituteof Purchasing & Supply (CIPS) and Oracle Corporation, who havepreviously collaborated together on the four highly acclaimed I-Seriesresearch projects: I-SAVE; I-ADAPT; I-EXCHANGE; and I-INNOVATE.

Research Methodology

As shown in Figure 1, a researchframework was developed from anextensive literature review on thesubject of buyer–supplier relationships.The broad categories of literaturereviewed drew on several academicdisciplines and included the nature of relationships, social capital, buyer–supplier relations and customerrelationship marketing.

One of the main outcomes of theliterature review was to identify therelationship determinants whichformed the basis of a structuredquantitative pilot questionnaire. Thiswas circulated to over 500 purchasingpractitioners with experience ofworking in either the public or privatesector. Responses and feedback werecollated and the pilot was amended to form the main survey. This feedback provided data on over 300buyer–supplier relationships. Figure 3shows the breakdown of this responseby both industry and business sector.

As was the case with the pilot, themain survey was circulated via theinternet and was based on quantitativequestions. It was also sent to a widerange of UK-based purchasingpractitioners from the public andprivate sectors. The respondents werefrom throughout the UK detailingexperience in purchasing across all sixrelationship elements. The respondentswere essentially senior managerswith job titles such as Director of

Procurement, Purchasing Director,Group Procurement Manager, RegionalProcurement Manager and ManagingDirector. Amongst the respondents,38% were from the public sector, andthe remaining 62% were from suchprivate sector areas as manufacturing,professional services, utilities andtelecommunications.

I-RELATE

Introduction – Research Approach

One Time/Spot BuyWhere you are typically working on the premise that (often by necessity) youwill need to buy a product or service from a supplier, however it is likely to bethe only such transaction. Any formal agreement on price/delivery/specificationwill be established at the time of order.

Infrequent PurchasesWhere you occasionally trade (maybe by necessity) with a supplier, howeveryou/they have no forward visibility of future purchases. You are unlikely tohave any formal trading agreement in place. Price etc is established when therequirement is known.

Single Order with Scheduled Multiple DeliveriesThese are occasions where you are able to make a single commitment to asupplier covering the multiple provision of goods/services over a given timeperiod. Usually supported by agreed terms and conditions and occasionally a formal specific contractual agreement.

Multiple Orders Supporting Multiple Requirements.These are occasions where you have, by necessity, a more complex tradingrelationship that is typified by multiple products/services being ordered on arelatively frequent basis. These orders are usually purchased against agreedterms and conditions and often supported by a formal contract between thetwo parties.

Single Order – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of DeliverablesThis relationship is typically formed to support a major project, significantcapital acquisition or a purchase designated a ‘strategic product/service’.

It usually involves detailed and ongoing dialogue/cooperation between the two parties throughout each step of the procurement cycle. They often havecomplex terms and conditions and service level agreements that are passeddown the supply chain to subcontractors/partners. They may well includesupplier personnel spending time/being stationed within the buyer’sorganisation. They will almost always be subject to protracted contractdiscussions/negotiations/agreements.

Multiple Orders – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of DeliverablesThese have all the characteristics of the Single Order variety above, theprimary difference being that they are repeated with the same supplier acrossa number of significant purchases. A key identifier is that the buyer andsupplier have entered into a ‘strategic partnership’ or similar involving keyexecutives from both sides.

Table 2. Relationship Categories – Expanded Definitions

3

Managing buyer–supplier relationshipsis a complex task. The key issuesinclude the management ofdependencies and the management of risk or certainties and the frequencyof exchange. A buyer may havedifferent types of relationship with asupplier depending on the importanceof the product, the amount of risk thatis being taken and the balance ofpower/dependency within therelationship. The management ofrelationships is not only about settingup an agreement. A new way ofmanaging the relationship may needto be introduced. Relationships andstrategies are dynamic and need to be managed over time. At differentstages, they may require differentpeople/skills to manage them. This

can develop a competitive advantagethat derives from firm-level resourcesand from difficult-to-imitatecapabilities embedded in networkrelationships as suggested byNahapiet and Ghoshal (1998).

There are many differing forms ofrelationship between buyers andsuppliers. Part of the rationale fordeveloping relationships is that‘relationships within a firm’s network,particularly with suppliers, can becomea valuable source of innovation andprofits’ (Cousins, 2006, p10). However,Cox et al. (2003) outline that not allbuyer–supplier relationships are asource of innovation for the buyer. The type of relationship to be chosenwould depend on what strategy thebuyer wishes to follow.

Our thinking about developing therelationship determinants wasinfluenced by the work of Lambert etal. (1999, 2004), who identified theimportance of drivers, facilitators andmanagement culture. Drivers are themotivations of each party to partner,they must be sufficient to initiate andcontinue with the relation. The analysisof drivers and facilitators is useful toanticipate failure, to select partnersand to specify the most convenientrelation agreement.

Building on this approach, wedeveloped the framework set out in Figure 2, which identifies keyrelationship characteristics, categoriesand successful determinants.

I-RELATE

Buyer–Supplier Relationship Framework

CIPS Library Initial Academic Literature Searches

Other Sources

Refined CIPS Search

SupportingArticles

Refined Literature Search

Related Public Material not Identified at

Stage 1 Primary Source Review andSecondary Source Identification

Refined Buyer–Supplier Related Research

Relationship Theory

Supporting Research

Refining Literature Review Against I-RELATE Primary Objectives

Identification of Primary I-RELATE Supporting Research Material

Sequenced to Reflect Relationship Lifecycle• Needs identification• Supplier identification• Supplier selection• Relationship management• Relationship termination

Key Reference Material• Relationship determinants• Self-diagnostic models• Scoring algorithms• Links between elements and performance

Initial Questionnaire Design

Pilot Study

Full Survey

Primary Literature Sources

Figure 1. I-RELATE Literature Review and Questionnaire Design Methodology

4

I-RELATE

Buyer–Supplier Relationship Framework

Figure 2. Plotting the Path to a Successful Buyer-Supplier Relationship

RelationshipCharacteristics

Relationship Categories (Types)

Successful RelationshipDeterminants

Frequency of Purchases One Time/Spot Buy Pre-Contract Relationship

Complexity of Purchase Infrequent Purchases Pre-Contract Proximity

Length of Agreement Single Order with ScheduledMultiple Deliveries

Pre-Contract Performance

Number of Potential SuppliersMultiple Orders SupportingMultiple Requirements

Pre-Contract Commitment

Price SensitivitySingle Order – Significant JointOwnership/Management ofDeliverables

Post-Contract Risk

Sharing of Intellectual Capital

Multiple Orders – Significant JointOwnership/Management ofDeliverables

Post-Contract Performance

Contribution to Overall BusinessSuccess

Post-Contract Responsibilities

Central GovernmentLocal GovernmentHealthEducationOther PublicRetailTelecoms and Media

ManufacturingUtilitiesFinancial ServicesProfessional ServicesOther PrivateOther

PublicPrivateOther

Figure 3. Respondents by Industry Sector

5

Horizontal axis scale: a = One Time/Spot Buy, b = Infrequent Purchases, c = Single Order with Scheduled Multiple Deliveries, d = Multiple Orders Supporting Multiple Requirements, e = Single Order – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables, f = Multiple Orders –Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables

Primary vertical axis scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Almost Always, 5 = Always

(*) Secondary vertical axis scale: 1 = Least Important, 2 = Quite Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important, 5 = Critical

The results and analysis are discussed in two sections: the firstdealing with responses related to pre-contract and the second to post-contract considerations.

Pre-Contract Considerations

This section looks at responsesreflecting how the traditionalpurchasing elements of price, qualityand delivery are viewed across therelationship categories.

The responses for these threeelements (Figure 4) showed animportant consistency regardless oftransaction type. All results had anaverage that, at the very least, rated on the scale as ‘important’. Price wasfairly constant in the important/veryimportant range and quality/deliveryscaled up from important to veryimportant as the complexity ofpurchase increased. This indicates that these three traditional valuescontinue to be at the core of allsupplier selection decisions whateverthe nature of the purchase. Thisbehaviour is in line with themes that were emergent from our initialliterature review.

The second part reviews results where the level of importanceincreases as the relationshipcategories increase in complexity.

As can be seen in Figure 5, areas such as flexibility and mutual sitevisits both rise in importance once the purchasing complexity/frequencyincreases. Meanwhile, supplier size,specification collaboration bargainingpower and development potential are used with increasing frequency as we move away from one-off orinfrequent purchases.

I-RELATE

Results and Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e f

Price Quality Delivery

Horizontal axis scale: a = One Time/Spot Buy, b = Infrequent Purchases, c = Single Order with Scheduled Multiple Deliveries, d = Multiple Orders Supporting Multiple Requirements, e = Single Order – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables, f = Multiple Orders –Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables

Vertical axis scale: 1 = Least Important, 2 = Quite Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important, 5 = Critical

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e f

Collaboration on Specification

Supplier Bargaining Power

Flexibility (*)

Supplier Size

Mutual Site Visits (*)

Development Potential (*)

Figure 4. The Importance of Performance in Supplier Selection

Figure 5. The Rate Supplier Characteristics are Considered During Selection

6

Our third part reviews those resultsthat require more interpretation andexplanation. Here we specificallyconcentrate on what draws a buyer to an organisation.

Figure 6 shows consistently high-scoring positive factors drawn out by the research. These covered thesuppliers’ experience, both articulatedby the supplier and others, as well asprevious positive supplier experienceswithin the buyer’s organisation. Inaddition, we observed fairly positivefindings in respect of suppliers’compatible values (ethics, principles,etc), way of working and technologicalcompatibility. The findings suggest that all these elements are frequentlyconsidered on all purchases andalmost always considered on the morecomplex ones. This also suggests thatthese elements have become a coreaddition to accompany price, qualityand delivery.

I-RELATE

Results and Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e f

Positive Previous Experience (Supplier)Positive Previous Experience (Individual)Compatible ViewSimilar Ways of Working to SupplierTechnologically CompatibleSupplier’s Known Experience (*)

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e f

Geographical ProximitySales Person’s Likeability (*)

Industry Sector Proximity

Horizontal axis scale: a = One Time/Spot Buy, b = Infrequent Purchases, c = Single Order with Scheduled Multiple Deliveries, d = Multiple Orders Supporting Multiple Requirements, e = Single Order – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables, f = Multiple Orders –Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables

Primary vertical axis scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree

(*) Secondary vertical axis scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Almost Always, 5 = Always

Horizontal axis scale: a = One Time/Spot Buy, b = Infrequent Purchases, c = Single Order with Scheduled Multiple Deliveries, d = Multiple Orders Supporting Multiple Requirements, e = Single Order – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables, f = Multiple Orders –Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables

Primary vertical axis scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree

(*) Secondary vertical axis scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Almost Always, 5 = Always

Figure 6. Consistently High-scoring Factors

Figure 7. Consistently Low-scoring Factors

In contrast, Figure 7 illustrates areasthat do not play a significant part insupplier selection almost regardless of the category of purchase. Theseelements include: geographicproximity; industry sector; and the‘likeability’ of the salesperson from aprospective supplier. This sends out aclear message to suppliers that whilstthese factors may come into playunder certain circumstances it is thepositive areas above on which theyneed to focus.

7

1

2

3

4

5

Joint Dispute ResolutionOngoing Supplier StabilityAccount Management

Joint Relationship AssessmentsSupplier Flexibility

a b c d e f

Post-Contract Considerations

This section compares our initial pre-contract consideration findings in the core purchasing elements of price, delivery and qualityperformance. It shows that bothquality and delivery considerationspost-contract retain a high level ofimportance across all relationshiptypes whereas price falls away inimportance understandably for theone-time buy/infrequent purchases(Figure 8). This behaviour is also inline with themes that were emergentfrom our initial literature review.

Again, there are some results wherethe level of importance increases asthe relationship categories increase in complexity. These are shown inFigure 9 and cover the elements ofjoint relationship meetings, disputeresolution, ongoing supplier stability,flexibility and account management.

I-RELATE

Results and Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e f

Price DeliveryQuality

Horizontal axis scale: a = One Time/Spot Buy, b = Infrequent Purchases, c = Single Order with Scheduled Multiple Deliveries, d = Multiple Orders Supporting Multiple Requirements, e = Single Order – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables, f = Multiple Orders –Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables

Vertical axis scale: 1 = Least Important, 2 = Quite Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important, 5 = Critical

Horizontal axis scale: a = One Time/Spot Buy, b = Infrequent Purchases, c = Single Order with Scheduled Multiple Deliveries, d = Multiple Orders Supporting Multiple Requirements, e = Single Order – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables, f = Multiple Orders –Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables

Vertical axis scale: 1 = Least Important, 2 = Quite Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important, 5 = Critical

Figure 8. The Importance of Performance in Supplier Evaluation

Figure 9. Supplier Selection Factors Differ Significantly Across Relationship Elements

8

Our third part again reviews thoseresults that require more interpretationand explanation. Here, there is focuson three elements: environmentalimpact; creating a win–winrelationship; and the likeability of the supplier’s representatives.

Figure 10 shows an increasing, but not overwhelming, desire to take into account the environmental impact of goods/services provided. Of course in some areas such as logistics,packaging and chemicals these arehighly significant. However, this seemsto indicate that, although a fast-risingtopic, environmental concerns have yet to make it into the ‘core package’when identifying potential suppliers.

Figure 11 highlights the buyer’s desireto achieve a win–win relationship withtheir contracted suppliers. The resultsare quite startling. When consideringone-time buys and infrequentpurchases, the concept of a win–winrelationship has very little importance.This somewhat ambivalent approachcontinues until the purchases are inthe most significant categories (e andf) and even then it does not reach the ‘very important’ status. This cansuggest that buyers are taking theview that they want to retain the upperhand in terms of bargaining power.The findings in the pre-contract phase,in respect of bargaining power,support this view.

Figure 12 cross checks earlier work in this research in respect of the ‘likeability’ of a supplier’srepresentatives. The results completelycorroborate our conclusion of the pre-contract phase, namely that buyers are not taking into account the likeability of individuals whenmaking an assessment as to asupplier’s potential or current worth to them. This is different from thecircumstance where individuals from a supplier have performed well as thiscircumstance does gain recognition in a buyer’s future consideration.However, being ‘nice people’ does not get you business!

I-RELATE

Results and Analysis

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e f

Environmental Considerations

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e f

Desire For a Win–Win Relationship

1

2

3

4

5

a b c d e f

Likeability of Staff as a Supplier Performance Measure

Figure 10. Further Points of Interest I

Figure 11. Further Points of Interest II

Figure 12. Further Points of Interest III

Horizontal axis scale: a = One Time/Spot Buy, b = Infrequent Purchases, c = Single Order with Scheduled Multiple Deliveries, d = Multiple Orders Supporting Multiple Requirements, e = Single Order – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables, f = MultipleOrders – Significant Joint Ownership/Management of Deliverables

Vertical axis scale: 1 = Least Important, 2 = Quite Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important,5 = Critical

9

I-RELATE

Conclusions

The I-RELATE research hasinvestigated the importance ofrelationship management andidentified the underlying determinantsenabling the development of goodand effective relationships.

From an extensive literature review, the research has developed a framework for practitioners thatsuggests a number of relationshiptypes (Table 2) and the range ofpotential determinants (Table 1). These different relationship typeswere refined during the pilot study.Most responses gave a reasonableassurance that they resonated withthe vast majority of participants. Thisformed the platform to explore theassumption that the ‘strength’ ofrelationship determinants would varydepending on the relationship type.

What existing literature did not showwas which elements vary under which circumstances and typically by how much. The purpose of thisresearch was to determine how theelements varied. The results andinterpretation set out on pages 6–9illustrate our findings.

The particular areas of interest inrespect of pre-contract considerationsin the findings include:

a) The core elements of price, qualityand delivery that have been thecornerstone of procurementteaching to date play a significantpart in all relationship types fromlow-level, one-time buys through tohighly complex strategic productsand services.

b)There appears to be the emergence of a new set ofadditional core elements that have a significant bearing on all relationship types.

These elements were happening when:

• The buyer or the buyingorganisation had a previous good experience from a supplier

• A supplier has known experiencein the target subject matter

• Suppliers are compatible in respect of their overallviews/values/ways of working

• Suppliers are compatible inrespect of their technology.

This suggests that buyers are carryingout a more detailed analysis ofpotential suppliers and the availabletechnology (internet, etc) supports theavailability of information that allowssuch analysis.

c) The research also suggests thatdeterminant elements that mayhave been expected to play asignificant part in at least some of the relationship types (such asgeographic proximity, the industrysector and the likeability of thesalesperson) are low contributors in respect of supplier selection.

This suggests some very interestingmessages to suppliers. The knowledgeand reputation of the organisation (notnecessarily the people who you employto sell your goods/services) coupledwith the ability to compete on price,quality and delivery that will lead tobeing selected as a preferred supplier.

The particular areas of interest in respect of post-contractconsiderations in the findings are:

a) A buyer’s desire to achieve awin–win relationship with theircontracted suppliers appears to vary significantly depending on whoholds the power in the relationship.When considering one-time buysand infrequent purchases, theconcept of a win–win relationshiphas very little importance. Thisambivalent approach continues until the purchases are in the mostsignificant categories (e and f) andeven then it does not reach the ‘veryimportant’ status. This can suggestthat buyers are taking the view thatwhere they believe they have theupper hand in terms of bargainingpower they are prepared to exploit it to their unilateral advantage. Thissupports the view held by somesuppliers that buyers can sometimesdisplay an ‘aggressive’ tendency”.

b) There was some desire to take intoaccount the environmental impactof goods/services provided. In someareas such as logistics, packagingand chemicals this is highlysignificant. However, this seems to indicate that environmentalconcerns are not yet in everybuyer’s ‘core package’ whenidentifying potential suppliers.

The above results have supported thedevelopment of a self-analysis toolsetthat allows a buyer to compare, eitherby supplier or relationship category,their current practice against theresearch findings. This allows thedisplay of the research findings as a ‘menu’ of most common practice by relationship category. It enablespractitioners to identify elements that they appear to be either over- orunderemphasising within their currentpractices. The results are presented intabular and graphical form comparingresults by sector as well as totalrespondents. Figure 13 shows resultsby determinant grouping.

10

I-RELATE

Conclusions

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Pre-co

ntract

Relatio

nship

Pre-co

ntract

Proxim

ity

Pre-co

ntract

Comm

itmen

t

Pre-co

ntract

Perfo

rman

ce

Post

-contra

ct

Responsib

ilities

Post

-contra

ct

Risk

Post

-contra

ct

Perfo

rman

ce

a = One Time/Spot Buy

b = Infrequent Purchases

c = Single Order with ScheduledMultiple Deliveries

d = Multiple Orders SupportingMultiple Requirements

e = Single Order – SignificantJoint Ownership/Managementof Deliverables

f = Multiple Orders – SignificantJoint Ownership/Managementof Deliverables

ab

cdef

11

Figure 13. Averages Across all Relationship Elements (all Questions)

I-RELATE

I-Series of Research

The research is conducted by the Bristol Business School at The University of the West of England and The Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supplyin association with Oracle.

For more information on this research, please visit: www.oracle.com/goto/irelate

The aim of the I-Series of research is to produce research that is:

• Independent

• Topical

• Aimed at practitioners

• Available to all

• Easy to understand

• Based on sound academic research

• Accompanied by a toolset where appropriate

Opposite, you will see information on the five I-RESEARCH projects that collectively have beenaccessed by over 35,000 people in 32 countriesaround the world. This is the result of overseven years’ worth of cumulative research.

I-ADAPT – A study to determine the impact of online auctions on the buyer–supplierrelationship. Specifically excluding price-saving considerations and looking at whathappens post e-auction in areas such assupplier quality, delivery, reliability and account management. For more information, please visitwww.oracle.com/start and enter the keyword I-ADAPT

I-EXCHANGE – Qualitative research into the use and perception of e-marketplaces.Assessing how both buyers and suppliersview them and if they have now developedto become a real consideration in an e-procurement context. For more information, please visitwww.oracle.com/start and enter the keyword I-EXCHANGE

I-INNOVATE – An investigation into theemergence of a fifth stage of purchasingdevelopment. This research identified key elements that span the purchasing‘environment’ and produced a toolset thatlets the practitioner benchmark themselvesagainst the leaders in both private andpublic sectors. For more information,please visit www.oracle.com/start and enter the keyword I-INNOVATE

I-RELATE – A study to determine the factorsthat a buyer takes into account whenconsidering a potential supplier and howthe strength of these factors variesdepending on the nature of the relationship.The research also has an accompanyingtoolset that allows practitioners tobenchmark their approach by supplier ofsupplier relationship grouping against ourresearch findings. For more information,please visit www.oracle.com/goto/irelate

I-SAVE – Independent savings analysis,verification and evaluation including a self-help toolset providing help when trying toassess the savings contribution/ROI from an investment in your procurement‘environment’. For more information, please visit www.oracle.com/start and enter the keyword I-SAVE2