Implementation of supplier development practices: an ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) perspective.

(1)

Implementation of supplier development practices:

an ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) perspective.

Master Thesis

MSc Supply Chain Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Rita Santos Gomes Student number: S3746305 E-mail: a.r.gomes@student.rug.nl

Supervisor

Stefania Boscari

Coassesor

Taco Van der Vaart

(2)

2

Abstract

Purpose: This research is aiming to investigate how suppliers’ characteristics influence the level of success of supplier development practices (supplier assessment and collaboration practices). The suppliers’ characteristics are examined based on the theoretical framework of

ability-motivation-opportunity, as it allows for a comprehensive perspective of suppliers as well

as their respective responses to buyer-driven practices.

Design/methodology/approach: For this investigation, an in-depth explorative case study has been conducted. The primary data consisted of semi-structured interviews: five interviews with staff of a buyer, and four interviews with smallholder farmers’ suppliers from the two countries on the scope of the research (Colombia and Peru).

Findings: The findings show that an assessment of suppliers’ abilities in the first place is essential to understand what the most effective activities for each supplier are. Buyer-driven practices in line with suppliers’ abilities suggest higher motivation of the supplier to implement such initiatives. Results also show that suppliers’ motivations to engage in supplier development practices increase with the opportunities provided by the buyer, as well as with behavioural aspects such as job recognition or the buyers’ commitment.

Managerial implications: This study proposes insights for the design of supplier development activities. Specifically, it proposes hints on how to address suppliers’ characteristics and how to use these insights to plan customized practices for different suppliers.

Keywords: supplier development; ability; motivation; opportunity; supplier assessment;

supplier collaboration; AMO framework

Acknowledgement:

I would like to thank my supervisor Stefania Boscari for her continuous encouragement during the whole process of the thesis. I am especially grateful for her helpful feedback and for her

supportive advice on how to deal with a research project.

I am also thankful to my friends and colleagues. Particularly, I would like to thank Clara Ripoll and Ankrii Seydlitz for their insightful suggestions and endless motivation.

Lastly, I would like to thank my parents for providing me with constant support throughout my years of study; and to Miguel for his unfailing encouragement during the process of writing my

(3)

3

List of abbreviations

AMO Ability-motivation-opportunity OM Operations management CBF Coffee buying firm

CMC Country manager Colombia CMP Country manager Peru

QCC Quality control manager Colombia QCP Quality control manager Peru TECHST Technical staff

(5)

5

1. Introduction

In the last decades, the intensification of global competition, the high degree of technological and customer changes, as well as the necessity for agile market responses have enhanced the need for firms to look outside organizations to ensure an efficient supply chain. In the present day, organizational competitiveness relies on supply chain capabilities and responsiveness, requiring a higher collaboration between buyers and suppliers, hence elevating the importance of supplier development (Chen et al., 2016; Modi & Mabert, 2007). The concept of supplier development refers to any effort of a buying firm to improve suppliers’ capabilities and/or performances (Krause & Ellram, 1997). Prior research identifies a large number of activities under the topic, including from low involvement activities (such as evaluation and monitoring), to more complex and resource demanding initiatives (such as trainings and buyer’s personnel transfer) (Krause & Scannel, 2002). Accordingly, scholars agree that a supplier development activity is usually initiated by an evaluation with the aim of identifying areas for improvement – supplier assessment

practices. Based on the obtained results, buyers can develop initiatives towards what needs

improvement, investing resources on supplier’s operations and engaging in a cooperative and proactive sharing – supplier collaboration practices (Bai & Sarkis, 2016; Gavronski et al., 2011).

Although it is proven that firms will strongly benefit from collaboration activities if an accurate supplier assessment is carried out in the first place (Krause, 2000), the results or the level of success of supplier development practices vary, depending on various factors (Su et al., 2018). Some of the factors that scholars identify as crucial towards the success of supplier development initiatives are effective and collaborative communication (Spekman et al., 2002; Cao & Zhang, 2012), trust between buyer and supplier (Li et al., 2007), or buyers’ long-term perspective (Humphreys et al., 2004; Li et al., 2012). Additionally, scholars strongly support that the level of buyer-supplier involvement influences the results of supplier development activities (Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2005).

(6)

6

(Sarang et al., 2016). Some of the aspects studied are suppliers’ characteristics, such as their organizational culture (Lee et al., 2018), their absorptive capacity level (Arroyo‐López et al., 2012), or their level of innovation and technology adaptation (Sarang et al., 2016). However, despite the increasing focus on this matter, the reasons why some supplier development activities successfully increase certain supplier performances but the same practices fail when applied to other suppliers is still not made clear in the literature. Thereby, this paper attempts to further the understanding of such reasons through the theoretical framework of ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982), which provides foundations that can contribute to a better comprehension of the implementation of supplier development initiatives (Kim et al., 2015).

While ability comprises capability to perform, motivation represents willingness to perform, and opportunity embraces the factors that enable or facilitate to perform an activity (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982). Originally, the AMO framework was proposed by scholars to study work performance, positing that ability, motivation and opportunity are direct antecedents of employees’ performances (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982). This means that employees’ abilities and motivations are subject to work conditions (e.g. salary and job content) that can more or less facilitate achieving better performance. In order to perform, they also need resources (e.g. information and technology) – opportunities (Sterling & Boxall, 2013). Whilst the AMO framework is traditionally linked to the work behavioural domain (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982), scholars strongly encourage its extension in order to support the successful implementation of operations management (OM) programs (Boudreau et al., 2003). Despite the wide OM knowledge about time and physical resources restrictions, much less is understood about behavioural constraints in OM contexts (White, 2016). Still, such behavioural barriers can highly limit the effectiveness of managerial practices (Boudreau et al., 2003). For example, studies done in programs such as just-in-time or process improvement have proved to be unsuccessful without motivation and full involvement of employees (Shah & Ward, 2003). Similarly, research has proved that organizations’ behavioural activities (as feedback or work sharing) are crucial for the major success of employees in flexibility programs (Schultz et al., 2003).

(7)

7

a department (Kang & Kim, 2017; Sterling & Boxall, 2013). Yet, literature has been focused on analysing the influence of the three theoretical concepts within organizations (i.e. in an inter-employee, or in an organization-employee perspectives) (Sterling & Boxall, 2013; Siemsen et al., 2008), neglecting a buyer-supplier approach. Kim et al.’s (2015) research is the only study that relies on the AMO framework in order to study an inter-organizational (i.e. in a buyer-supplier) interaction. This exceptional paper addresses why suppliers respond differently to supplier development practices through the lens of ability, motivation and opportunity. However, it narrows supplier development practices only to knowledge-transfer practices, not covering other relevant buyer-driven activities (such as evaluation and feedback, training and personal transfer). The successful use of the AMO framework to study the effectiveness of knowledge sharing initiatives on suppliers’ performances makes this theoretical perspective interesting for a better understanding of other supplier development activities. Therefore, drawing upon the AMO framework and specifically focusing on both assessment and collaboration supplier development practices, this paper aims to answer the following research question:

“How does the understanding of suppliers’ abilities, motivations and opportunities (AMO) influences the implementation of supplier development practices?”

(8)

8

economical resources is not enough to improve smallholder farmers’ productivity, suggesting that

supplier development practices should also go towards their involvement and motivation to change

(Zeweld et al., 2017). Finally, literature has increasingly focused on linking farmers to competitive markets due to the fact that agriculture in developing countries, where small scale farmers play the biggest role, is considered one of the largest contributors to world poverty (Fischer & Qaim, 2012; Bingen et al., 2013) - thus, intensifying the relevance of the context.

This research will contribute to the theory in three different ways. Firstly, it will add to the literature on supplier development by gathering further insights about the reasons of success of supplier development practices, specifically with a focus on suppliers’ characteristics. This understanding will be grounded on the AMO framework, as it permits a more comprehensive view and a systematic analysis of various characteristics of suppliers, as well as of how they lead to different responses to buyer-driven practices. Secondly, this paper is one of the first investigations studying an inter-organizational perspective (buyer-supplier) through the lens of the AMO framework. By doing so, it answers to the call of some scholars who encourage the extension of this framework in order to support the implementation of OM practices (Boudreau et al., 2003), also contributing for more research needed in behavioural OM (Johnsen, 2009; Yeniyurt et al., 2014). Lastly, through the innovative application of the AMO framework in OM, this study contributes to the literature in the AMO research, which has widely focused on applying the theoretical framework in numerous management areas, but scarcely in OM.

(9)

9

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Supplier development practices

The concept of supplier development was introduced by Leenders (1966), and considers any activity performed by buying firms in order to improve suppliers’ performances. Although the first notions and applications of the concept date back to decades ago, the topic is still relevant and of interest to practitioners and researchers. The increasing globalization of the markets during the past years has been responsible for a growing externalization of strategic activities from the focal firm (Nagati & Rebolledo, 2013). As the performance of a firm is highly linked to their suppliers’ performance, it is extremely important that organizations collaborate with their suppliers in all the supply chain levels in order to achieve an efficient and competitive supply chain (Cao & Zhang, 2011; Wagner, 2006; Modi & Mabert, 2007).

The continuous interest and applicability of supplier development has led authors to develop more complete definitions on the topic. Krause & Ellram (1997) defines supplier development as “any effort of a buying ﬁrm with its supplier(s) to increase the performance and/or capabilities of the supplier and meet the buying firm's short- and/or long- term supply needs”. Likewise, Watts & Hahn, (1993) describes it as “a long-term cooperative effort between a buying ﬁrm and its suppliers to upgrade the suppliers’ technical, quality, delivery, and cost capabilities and to foster ongoing improvements”.

Although these definitions are commonly accepted by scholars, organizations tend to approach supplier development in different ways (Hahn et al., 1990), giving rise to different terminologies in the literature (Wagner, 2006). A widely used classification of supplier development practices distinguish between two main approaches: supplier assessment and

supplier collaboration. In one of the first studies conceptualizing supplier development, Hahn et

al. (1990) proposes supplier assessment as an activity through which suppliers’ capabilities are evaluated, thus areas for improvement are identified. Consequently, the buyer must engage in direct activities with the suppliers towards what is missing or needing improvement – supplier collaboration practices.

(10)

10

Kalchschmidt, 2014). Supplier assessment practices include evaluation processes, whereby the buying firm quantifies and communicates the targets and measurements to its suppliers (Prahinski & Benton, 2004). Through quantification, the suppliers can compare their actual performance and the buyers’ expectation (Prahinski & Benton, 2004), and through the feedback received, they are given directions for improvement (Krause et al, 1998). Supplier assessment activities can also incorporate competition among forces in the market, as the buyer can compare suppliers’ evaluations, and respectively advise them to improve their performances (Krause et al., 2000). As all these initiatives require a minimum investment of the buyer’ resources, literature also classifies supplier assessment as practices with a basic level of buyer-supplier involvement (Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2005). According to this, some examples distinguished by scholars as supplier assessment practices are evaluations of suppliers’ managerial and performance capabilities (as quality, delivery, cost, technical) (Hahn et al., 1990; Humphreys et al., 2004), suppliers’ feedback according to the evaluation done (Krause et al., 2000; Carr & Pearson, 1999), as well as suppliers’ certifications (Krause & Scannell, 2002).

(11)

11

& Romano; Hines et al., 2006). Table 2.1. provides a summary of the main supplier assessment and supplier collaboration activities identified in the literature.

Table 2.1.: Summary of supplier development practices

2.2. Ability-Motivation-Opportunity (AMO) framework

The origins of the theoretical basis of AMO rely on research developed by industrial psychologists – who directly links employees’ performances with their abilities (Lawshe, 1945) – and studies by social psychologists – who argues that employees’ motivation is crucial in order to ensure performance (Maclnnis & Jaworski, 1989). Later on, opportunity was added to these two dimensions based on the premise that performance is not only dependent on personal factors but Supplier development

practices Based on/Source Details/Definition

Supplier assessment practices

Evaluation

Humphreys et al., (2004); Watts & Hahn (1993); Wen-Li et al., (2003)

Suppliers’ performances measurement that can provide valuable information about general areas of weakness where performance improvements are needed.

Feedback Krause et al., (2000)

Aims to provide the supplier direction for improvement and clarifications of the buying firm’s expectations.

Certifications Krause & Scannell, (2002); Galt

and Dale (1991)

Suppliers’ recognition for a certain level of performance.

Supplier collaboration practices

Training Forker et al., (1999); Krause

(1997); Krause et al. (2000)

Training/educational program organized by the buyer for its suppliers.

Technical assistance

Forker et al., (1999); Langfield‐ Smith & Greenwood (1998); Narasimhan et al., (2008)

Support from buyers’ staff experts, where technical information is provided.

Financial support Wagner (2006); Narasimhan et

al., (2008)

Financial assistance from the buyer, usually for a specific purpose.

Temporary personnel transfer

Krause & Ellram, (1997); Wagner, (2006); Monczka et al., (1993)

Buyers’ employees are temporarily assigned to a supplier's facility.

Supply of equipment or materials

Wagner (2006); Monczka et al., (1993)

Provision of equipment that the supplier needs to perform operations.

Pricing schemes Formentini & Romano, (2006);

Hines et al., (2006)

(12)

12

also determined by exogenous aspects (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982). Therefore, from the research of Blumberg & Pringle (1982), abilities, motivations and opportunities explain work performance. For an effective activity to occur, the three concepts should be considered and the degree of presence and interaction between them will determine the final performance’s level - which means that a lower value of any of these aspects will consequently reduce the final outcome. Finally, proposed by Bailey (1993) and further developed by Appelbaum et al. (2000) these findings were theorized in a framework called AMO (ability-motivation-opportunity), confirming that the three mechanisms play interactive and complementary roles in influencing employees’ performances.

Literature has widely applied the AMO framework to several management areas, namely social capital activation (Binney et al., 2006), consumer behaviour and decision-making (Pieters et al. 1998), risk analysis and information sharing at the ﬁrm level (Wu et al., 2004). Recently, scholars have been transposing the concepts of ability, motivation and opportunity to the OM domain. Because there is limited understanding about how behaviour aspects (i.e. ability and motivation) limit operational performances (Siemsen et al., 2008), some authors strongly encourage the use of this theoretical basis to identify and better manage these constraints (e.g.: providing opportunities) (Kim et al., 2015). Moreover, despite being originally applied to study work performance in an individual level (Boxall & Macky, 2009), the AMO theory “represents a meta-theoretic principle which transcends speciﬁc topics and domains of study” (Kim et al., 2015), appropriate to study “empirical phenomena across a wide variety of contexts and situations” (Aguinis et al., 2016) – thus being suitable for an organizational level of analysis.

(13)

13

From an inter-organizational perspective, there is still limited research. So far, just one study relies on a buyer-supplier approach, where knowledge-sharing initiatives are considered as an opportunity to increase suppliers’ performance (Kim et al., 2015). The outcomes from these opportunities (how effective they are) depend on the degree of suppliers’ motivation to receive the information, as well as on its ability to absorb and apply the new knowledge into processes (Kim et al., 2015). The successful use of the AMO framework to study the effectiveness of buyer-driven knowledge initiatives on suppliers’ performances makes this theoretical perspective interesting for a better understanding of other supplier development practices.

2.2.1. Ability

Ability refers to a natural capacity that enables an individual to perform a task successfully

(Blumberg & Pringle, 1982). Blumberg & Pringle (1982) defines several variables under the ability dimension, namely age, knowledge, skills and level of education. Previous experience and prior knowledge also affect ability (Boon et al., 2014; Minbaeva, 2013). As individuals and organizations have the capacity to learn and absorb knowledge, they will be more able to perform in areas where they have previously worked in (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Consequently, literature describes “ability-enhancing practices” (Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016) as initiatives designed for ensuring and increasing the right knowledge and skills to perform an activity or task, at both individual and collective levels (Demortier et al., 2014; Subramony, 2009). For instance, training is proposed as an effective practice to increase the skills and knowledge of workers and organizations (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005; Kehoe & Wright, 2013).

2.2.2. Motivation

Motivation comprises “the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in

(14)

14

increase motivation, they usually lead to a focus on short-term gains (Minbaeva, 2013; Schimansky, 2014). Contrary to this, intrinsic motivation is normally associated to a long-term relation, as it refers to an inner engagement and commitment to a task (Schimansky, 2014). It also encompasses job satisfaction and involvement, expectations, perceived tasks (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982), as well as readiness and desire to engage in a behaviour (Maclnnis et al. 1991). Despite intrinsic motivation being related to personal attitudes, some authors point out that external motivation affects internal motivation (Bos‐Nehles et al., 2013). For instance, performance recognition or a monetary reward based on work quality are considered stimulators for a better performance (Heyman & Ariely, 2004). Furthermore, scholars argue that motivation can be affected by the ability to perform. Lack of skills or knowledge to perform a certain task may lead to demotivation due to the low probability of success to perform (Bos‐Nehles et al., 2013; Siemsen et al., 2008).

2.2.3. Opportunity

Opportunity consists of the external factors of a task that enables or constrains a

(15)

15

AMO

dimensions Details/Definition Sub-dimensions Based on/ Source

Ability "Acquired or natural capacity that enables an individual to perform a particular task successfully"

(Blumberg & Pringle, 1982).

Age and health; knowledge; level of education; prior experience; learning skills; absorptive capacity;

communication skills; intelligence; organization skills.

Blumberg & Pringle, 1982; Boon et al., 2014; Minbaeva, 2013; Demortier et al., 2014; Subramony, 2009; Schimansky, 2014; Kim et al., 2015; Sarikwal & Gupta, 2013;

Bos‐Nehles et al., 2013

Motivation "The degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specified behaviours"

(Kim et al., 2015).

Job engagement; commitment; satisfaction; job involvement;

perceived tasks or activities; readiness and desire to perform; expectations; job recognition; work valuation.

Opportunity “Environmental or contextual

mechanisms that permits action, where the work environment provides the necessary support” (Bos‐Nehles et al., 2013).

Equipment; materials; capital resources; working conditions; information; time; payment; knowledge sharing of peers; behaviours of co-workers; task/job preparation.

Table 2.2.: Summary of AMO sub-dimensions

2.3. The context of smallholder farmers

(16)

16

To deal with all these complex requirements, any practice started by an organization can be vital in order to empower farmers, especially those in emerging-economy countries (Dania et al., 2018). An effective collaboration with smallholder farmers suppliers can facilitate their access to resources, thus increasing their efficiency and productivity (Makate et al., 2017), and consequently their socio-economic stability (Lebacq et al., 2013). Adding to this, each farming context is considered complex and unique (Speelman et al., 2007), due to the specificity of natural resources, different education levels or technical work experience (Agnete et al., 2003). This suggests that organizations’ initiatives should be consistent with these resources, adapted to each specific situation and focus on the potential results that farmers can achieve (Zhou, 2010).

2.4. Research model

The research model underlying this study is presented in figure 2.1. Abilities, motivations and opportunities (AMO) are identified as suppliers’ characteristics that can either facilitate or hinder the process of supplier development (Kim et al., 2015).

Aligned with the literature, which argues that a buyer-supplier assessment should be the basis for an effective engagement on collaboration activities with suppliers (Krause et al., 2000), this study frames supplier development practices as supplier assessment and supplier

collaboration. Ability, motivation and opportunity have complementary roles (Appelbaum et al.,

2000), which means that each of the three concepts cannot be isolated from the others, and a lower level of one of the dimensions will result in a lower final outcome (Siemsen et al., 2008; Bos‐ Nehles et al., 2013). This interaction between the concepts explains the focus of this research on the three theoretical aspects at the same time.

The model is applied in a developing country context, where the considered suppliers are small scale farmers. Because smallholder farmers tend to have limited social, economic and managerial skills (Serra & Poli, 2015), any supplier development practice initiated by a buyer can have a major impact on their performance results, making the case interesting and suitable for this study.

(17)

17

How does the understanding of suppliers’ abilities, motivations and opportunities (AMO) influences the implementation of supplier development practices?

(18)

18

3. Methodology

3.1. Research design

The research question was addressed with an inductive case study for two main reasons. Firstly, it is considered the best research method for gathering more in-depth insights of a phenomenon in its natural setting and contextual conditions (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991). Because the aim of this study is to understand specific suppliers’ characteristics underlying supplier development practices, this method is suitable as it permits the interviewee to share descriptions of the perceived events, allowing for their interpretation by the researcher (Dicicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Secondly, it is appropriate for an exploratory research. The innovative use of the AMO framework to study supplier development, makes the exploratory lens considered suitable as it allows for development of variables not completely understood by literature (Karlsson, 2016). Due to the high complexity of the phenomenon under research, and in order to conclude a more comprehensive understanding of the observed practices (Wahyuni, 2012), this research was limited to one in-depth case, where embedded cases were included. The unit of analysis is ‘a buyer’ and its suppliers, given that the study examines how the understanding of suppliers’ characteristics influence the results of practices initiated by a buyer.

3.2. Case selection and research context

(19)

19

production processes, in order to ensure a consistent and quality production. All these activities initiated by CBF can be found in detail in the findings section (table 4.1.).

The interviewed suppliers were all small-scale farmers already on the chain of CBF. The sample contained farmers from both Peru and Colombia, all of them producing coffee and thus having similar production processes. Although all were considered “smallholders”, the interviewed sample contained different sized farmers, as well as some working with the buying firm for a long time and some who have only recently started to sell their products. Moreover, the interviewed farmers were chosen by the buyer company, as it had a more comprehensive knowledge of each farmers’ production and their respective history. All this permitted to make sure the sample was as wide as possible in order to better represent the case (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Interviewee Nº Role Main activities

Coffee Buying Firm (CBF)

1 Country manager Colombia (CMC)

Responsible for coordinating the processes and ensuring the strategic vision of the company in Colombia and Peru

(respectively). In Colombia: warehouses in 4 regions; around 3000 producers; 84 employees. In Peru: warehouses in 2 regions; around 600 producers; 8 employees.

1 Country manager Peru (CMP)

1 Quality control manager Colombia (QCC)

Responsible for all the traceability of coffee produced in Colombia and Peru: quality analysis; respective feedback to the farmers; quality check on the production processes (farms); quality check on warehouses.

1 Quality control manager Peru (QCP)

1 Technical staff (TECHST)

Responsible for all the technical assistance activities and education programs provided to the farmers in both countries.

Smallholder farmers suppliers

3 Farmers from Colombia (FarmA/B/C)

Coffee producers in Colombia. The coffee business comes from previous generations, where mostly family, friends and neighbours work in. Working with the CBF for 4 years (on average).

1 Farmer from Peru (FarmD)

Coffee producer in Peru. Only producing coffee for 6 years, so the coffee business is still small and familiar. Working with the CBF through a cooperative (for 3 years).

(20)

20

3.3. Data collection

The major source of data for this research consisted of interviews with the CBF, through staff members with different roles in Colombia and Peru; and with small farmers suppliers, sharing the buyer and having similar production processes. In order to guide this process, a protocol interview was design, containing interviews’ procedures and the main key questions (Saunders et al., 2009). Semi-structured interviews were conducted, in order to clarify (sub-)questions, and to explore topic-related themes that emerged during the conversation (Dicicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). An overview of the conducted interviews can be seen in table 3.1, having an average length of one hour.

Firstly, both country managers from Perú and Colombia were interviewed for a better comprehending of the vision of the company and how exactly they were working with the farmers. This allowed for an understanding of whether something was missing on the protocol guide for future interviews with the farmers, as well as to better understand their (future) answers. Thus, the case study protocol was updated due to new insights obtained, following Glasser & Strauss (1967) theory. Moreover, some overlapping questions permitted data triangulation (Karlsson, 2016). Later, when the interviews with the farmers were already taking place, three other interviews with staff members were included: with the quality control officers from Perú and Colombia, and with a technical staff member from CBF. Through this data, the aim was to obtain information about how the company provided technical assistance to the farmers, what were the main activities initiated with them, and what were the respective impacts.

(21)

21

the plantations were conducted by the farmers, which allowed a better understanding of processes and practices, as well as differences between farmers behaviours and production procedures in both countries. In addition to observations, notes were also taken to record relevant facts. All the interviews were performed in the native language of the interviewees (Spanish). All of them were recorded, transcribed in the same language, and finally translated to English.

Secondary data was included in the analysis, as it is proven that using multiple sources of data on the same phenomenon increases reliability of the study (Hyer et al., 1999). The buying firm’s website (in English) was examined, analysed and coded; and used as a complementary tool, to help in the understanding of some unclear points in the interviews. The analysis of both primary and secondary data, along with observations and notes during the interviews ensured the reliability of the research (Eisenhardt, 1989). This method of collecting data from multiple resources permits to collect more comprehensive information, and allows to cross-check the consitency of the data, named triangulation (Patton, 2005).

3.4. Data coding and data analysis

Interviews’ transcription was the initial step of the data analysis because it is considered crucial to start to become familiar with the context (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Moreover, as the interviews were conducted in Spanish, they were also translated to English. Afterwards, both primary and secondary data were collected on the software Microsoft Excel, allowing a consistent treatment of the data during the interactive coding process.

The data was coded through an interactive process, consisting of 5 steps (figure 3.1.), combining both inductive and deductive development of codes (Yin, 2011). First, each informant was analysed separately. Data was fragmented, and portions of the interviews considered relevant to answer the research question were inductively coded (first-order coding) (Yin, 2011). Due to the large amount of data and information collected, and since not all the quotes were related to the research question, data was reduced and some parts of the interviews were excluded (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Afterwards, a second-order coding was done, in which each of these quotes were categorized by different practices initiated by the buying firm (e.g. technical assistance;

(22)

22

literature (table 2.1.), but other relevant topics were also introduced in the second-order coding (e.g. trust and commitment; long-term relationship), and thus properly categorized in the coding tree. In a third-order coding, each quote was classified as supplier assessment or supplier

collaboration practices. Next, data was related with the concepts of the AMO framework – ability, motivation, and opportunity. Based on the operationalization of table 2.2., data was deductively

coded for one or more sub-dimensions of the AMO framework concepts. Lastly, and based on the mentioned steps, the coding tree was built (appendix A). All the coding process was done on a basis of a continuously changing process: once more data was analysed, more concepts were introduced or previous concepts were adapted (Karlsson, 2016).

The following example clarifies the coding process: “The producers feel valued

economically, they feel productions valuated, in this case. They feel the efforts they do on the price premiums for a better-quality coffee. With CBF we do it, we premium the ones having a good physical coffee, a good quality” (QCP_INT_10). Regarding different practices initiated by the

buying firm, this quote was coded as “pricing scheme” (2nd_{order coding) and, consequently, as a}

supplier collaboration practice (3rd order code). Regarding the AMO framework, it was coded for

motivation (job recognition; work valuation; satisfaction) and opportunity (payment).

Moreover, the amount of data obtained allowed for an in-depth comprehension of the activities provided by CBF, leading to a summary (table 4.1.) and schematizations (figures 4.1. and 4.4.) of the main supplier development practices for both countries. These tables and visual maps helped to conduct the analysis and findings of this research (Langley, 1999).

(23)

23

countries, and permitted to understand how the results of the implementation of supplier development practices vary according to these differences.

(24)

24

4. Findings

Section 4 presents the findings of this study. The different supplier assessment and supplier collaboration practices developed by CBF are summarized in the table 4.1., which allows for their in-depth comprehension. In the following sub-sections, this information helps to better understand the interactions of CBF and its suppliers, as well as of how suppliers’ characteristics (abilities, motivations and opportunities) underlie the implementation of these various supplier development initiatives. Section 4.1. observes these practices in cases from Colombia (4.1.1.), and in cases from Peru (4.1.2.). Section 4.2. presents a cross-case analysis, where suppliers’ abilities, motivations and opportunities are grouped and compared.

Supplier development

practices Explanation Specific conditions

Supplier assessment practices

Quality evaluation

Analysis to the quality of each sample of coffee arriving at CBF. This

evaluation defines whether the coffee will be rejected or purchased by the warehouse; and if accepted, it will also be the measure for the payment of the total amount of coffee.

•It is done in the proper quality-analysis labs of CBF.

•It is always done individually for each different sample arriving at CBF. •It is always done over time (i.e. each time that a new sample arrived, a new quality evaluation is done).

Feedback

Practical recommendations in order to improve processes to produce the coffee and increase its quality. Additionally, CBF provides a document with all the details about the quality analysis.

•It is always done in person (CBF staff with the respective farmer).

•It is done for each lot sold by the farmers.

Technical assistance

Consists of regular visits to the

plantations, in order to support farmers on their production processes. The main goal is to continuously educate them to increase productivity and improve quality.

•Provided by a specific technical team of CBF.

•It is done in the field (i.e. farmers plantations).

•Regularity of the assistance depends on each farmer’ necessities and specific requests.

(25)

25

Supplier development

practices Explanation Specific conditions

Pricing scheme

Quality grading system in which farmers are paid accordingly to the quality of their respective coffee production. After the first quality evaluation, a score is given

corresponding to one of the 5 types of coffee qualities defined on the grading system. The higher the score (quality), the higher the payment given to the farmers.

•Always updated according to the results of each quality evaluation.

Financial support

The company can provide a financing for: (1) improving some infrastructure or production process; (2) help farmers to pay labour in advance to their producers.

•It is just provided for farmers who are working with CBF for at least one year (which means they already have a purchasing relationship).

Table 4.1.(continued): Supplier assessment and supplier collaboration practices initiated by CBF

4.1. Colombian cases and Peruvian cases

Section 4.1. separately presents cases from both countries. The fact that the buyer-supplier dyads are similar within each country, allows for an analysis for cases in Colombia (4.1.1) and cases in Peru (4.1.2.). For both countries, the various supplier development practices initiated by CBF (table 4.1.) are studied through the lens of suppliers’ abilities, motivations and opportunities. This allows for an understanding of how and why these suppliers’ characteristics underlie each practice, thus influencing their respective implementation.

4.1.1. Colombian cases

(26)

26

4.1.1.1. Quality evaluation and respective feedback

A supplier assessment of the quality of the coffee samples arriving at the CBF labs is a crucial first step in order to understand which are the most accurate practices for each farmer. Due to the uniqueness of each farm, this evaluation is done individually for each lot sold by the farmers (“Because each farmers’ coffee is different, the sample has to be fully representative of their

coffee” (CMP_INT_10)), and in person with each different supplier. The technical staff from CBF

ask additional information to the farmers, in order to start to understand their context (i.e. location, level of skills and education, economic level): “We have access also to all the additional

information: where is their farm, where it is located, what are the fermentation methods they use, all these details are received” (CMP_INT_11). This allows CBF to understand the external

environment of each farmer (opportunities), as well as their abilities or capabilities to perform. Thereafter, feedback and recommendations are given accordingly to the first coffee evaluation: “We give each farmer a document with all the details about what is going on their

coffees and production” (CMP_INT_14). Thus, CBF staff tailors the feedback given to each

specific case, considering which are their main abilities. Some examples in the interviews with the CBF’ staff clarify this: “We give them specific recommendations, because sometimes the problems

are profit problems, or sometimes they are collection problems. So we give them recommendations that will allow them to improve and the next time they can come with better coffees”

(QCC_INT_8).

Additionally, the fact that the evaluation and respective feedback are done individually and personalized for each case, results in higher farmers’ involvement and proactive attitude towards change. They feel more valued and responsible, thus they are motivated to engage in CBF’ initiatives. One example clarifying this is: “The feedback is always personal; it is explained

producer to producer. But, as I was saying, these changes take time. We want to create long-term relationships, and we want the producer to seethat we are committed. It is not just giving them a quality grade; it comes with an explanation why. And the producers appreciate that, they value that we spend time on them, and this is for us an investment in a long-term. If the farmers have potential and if they want to change, we are here to help them” (CMP_INT_16).

Afterwards, an assessment of processes and resources is also done (“After tasting the coffee

(27)

27

produce different coffee varieties, have different production processes and use different machines, these evaluations permit to have information about what their available resources are (opportunities) and what is their level of knowledge in how to use these resources or apply these processes (abilities): “Our quality team knows the farms, and what is going on there. They realize

the fermentation, what they are doing, how much time do they need to dry. It is a process of understanding what is being done, what is missing, what they need to do to improve”

(CMP_INT_17). This will be the basis for CBF to provide an accurate training towards processes, and the right materials or tools provisions – opportunities given to perform.

4.1.1.2. Technical assistance

Technical assistance provided to farmers is based on the previous supplier assessment. After having identified the needed skills to improve, CBF staff visit the farms in order to train them for a better production. By explaining and educating them on how to do it, CBF’ s goal is to increase their abilities to perform: “Their farmers were visited, it was explained to them that their

drying methods should be improved. We don´t say “You should do this.”, we go more in depth, we explain to them which materials should they use for the change, and these changes are always applicable and feasible in their context, in their farms and with their families” (CMP_INT_34).

Demonstrated by this sentence, other aspect found is that CBF always make sure that the changes are possible to do given each farmers’ context, their respective workforce, materials and financial resources (opportunities to perform).

Farmers’ motivation and engagement were also found through trainings provided by CBF. The main reason is the frequency of the visits, and the continuity of the education provided. A quote from farmer A shows this: “The most important thing CBF offer us is continuity, but more

than this they offer us the possibility of learning how to produce” (FarmA_INT_26). Motivation

is also found to be related to the type of relation established between the buyer and supplier. The fact that CBF staff behaves informally and in a friendly way, makes the suppliers more involved. The interview with farmer A shows this: “I want to thank the staff member of CBF who is coming

to the farms, because he is very open to the producers [...] So I gave him my coffee and it was not good enough, and I always asked him what I was doing wrong, and he always explained me”

(28)

28

in the past permits trust, facilitates communication, and increases farmers’ readiness to engage in activities with the buyer. The following quotes exemplify this: “He is from a family which produces

also coffee, so he understands us very easily [...] Because those who live that, are those who feel that. So then you can speak the same language as we do” (FarmA_INT_5); “They are open to us, they are like a family, always ready to help us, so there is trust and a good reputation of course!”

(FarmA_INT_26); “He generates trust, he is not as a manager, he is like a friend” (FarmA_INT_24).

4.1.1.3. Pricing scheme

The pricing scheme developed by CBF is considered as an opportunity given to the farmers: “The idea is paying good and fair prices, and with this quality tests and the prices paid, each

producer can invest on their farm” (QCP_INT_13). In this specific context of smallholder farmers

as suppliers, any increase on financial resources can highly affects the level of quality produced, but also their socio-economic level. The quotes from farmer A support this: “I am really grateful

to CBF, really grateful. Because they gave us the opportunity to improve my infrastructure, my wellbeing, the wellbeing of my children and of my wife” (FarmA_INT_11); “My economic situation started to improve because of the better prices they started to pay me; and the better prices led me to invest, to grow economically, to grow spiritually, to grow as a family, to make sacrifices in order to produce more quantities to invert our infrastructures” (FarmA_INT_8).

These major impacts on their stability links the better prices paid to farmers’ motivations. Their desire to change towards improvements is linked with the aim of achieving a better quality of life. Moreover, with the fair prices received, farmers feel work valuation, and with the payment increments due to their better production, farmers feel job recognition. The following quote shows this: “The producers want to see their work valued, and they want the production costs justified. I

think this is the main reason why all producers want to produce better coffee” (QCP_INT_3).

4.1.1.4. Financial support

(29)

29

more structures for drying, because he's becoming bigger and he doesn't have enough space”

(CMC_INT_9)); or to pay workforce in advance (“They have to pay the producers who are picking,

because they pick almost every week. So, there is a need to cover that gap. We provided loans for them, so they can pay their pickers, while their coffee is drying” (CMC_INT_9)). Both forms of

financial support are considered as an opportunity given to the farmers. CBF understands current processes and resources, and based on the needs found, the company decides if a loan should be provided.

One interesting finding is that financial support, besides being an opportunity, it is also related with the current opportunities and abilities to perform of each producer. Due to the regular assessments to quantity, quality and processes, CBF is aware of the production capacity of each farm. Thus, the payment of the financial support provided can rely on coffee offers, instead of money repayment. This is explained by the country manager from Colombia: “If you as a farmer

ask me for 10000 dollars to build an infrastructure to improve some process, I know your processes and how much you produce, and how much will you produce more with this improvement, and I calculate if you can pay me back with coffee” (CMC_INT_12). Again, the constant supplier

assessment of farmers’ abilities allows to offer more opportunities.

(30)

30

Figure 4.1.: CBF model in Colombia

4.1.2. Peruvian cases

Before CBF started working in Peru, all the farmers were linked to cooperatives, and used to produce and sell coffee directly to them (figure 4.2.). When CBF arrived at the Peruvian market, the buyer had to adapt to this model, being the last negotiator on the chain and trading coffee through intermediation of a cooperative (figure 4.3.). In the end of the sub-section, figure 4.4. shows a more detailed scheme of how CBF works in Peru.

(31)

31

4.1.2.1. Quality evaluation and respective feedback

Quality supplier assessment is also done for all the coffee arriving at the CBF labs. However, in the Peruvian cases, the coffee is firstly sorted by the cooperative: “The tasting expert

and the quality analyst from the cooperatives choose the coffees that CBF required”

(QCP_INT_6). Thus, in Peru, CBF only negotiates with the farmers that the cooperative identifies as having the right abilities to produce a special coffee: “They have already identified which ones

are the ones who have the potential to grow, to obtain and produce high-quality coffee”

(CMP_INT_24). Other information (e.g. level of education, skills or know-how) is not accessed by CBF: “We do not have all the information about the producers: we received coffee, we checked

the quality, and we had a general idea from where it was from, but we did not have all the traceability of the coffees” (CMP_INT_2). Additionally, CBF does not have any information

regarding resources, materials or production processes applied: “The coffee is inside the

cooperatives, we do not know what is happening” (QCP_INT_8).

Thereby, the feedback and recommendations given to farmers are just based in an analysis done at CBF labs. Interviewers show it is hard to improve processes and quality just based on a quality score number, without any other information: “It is really hard for a producer to

understand and learn if they hand in coffee and it has 85 points. It is important not only to receive but also to talk and explain to the producers what is happening to their coffee” (CMP_INT_8).

4.1.2.2. Technical assistance

The technical assistance in Peru is developed only based on the main needs found on the first quality assessment done to the coffee. As CBF staff does not have additional information about production processes, resources, or level of farmers’ experience, a personalization on the education provided is lacking. Even though the future objective of CBF’ staff is to provide the same opportunities as in Colombia (assisting producer by producer, giving regular trainings), nowadays the company is applying general workshops for farmers at the cooperatives: “We give

group workshops” (CMP_INT_18). Thus, trainings in the Peruvian model are not tailored to the

(32)

32

4.1.2.3. Pricing scheme

The pricing scheme developed by CBF is also applicable to the negotiations in Peru. However, as negotiations are intermediated by the cooperative, the benefits are not fairly distributed among the producers: “The producers did not feel the better payments we were giving

because the money stayed at the cooperative” (TECHST_INT_4). Most cooperatives pay the

farmers according to the quantity offered, instead of the quality produced: “At the cooperatives the

payment is not reflected. In a cooperative, the payment is done according to the quantity the producer hand in, the quality does not matter” (QCP_INT_5). Therefore, the lower payments

provided by the cooperatives (opportunity to perform) are reflected on the lower level of implementation of practices fomented by CBF: “They need to invest the money. For example, to

buy fertilizers, or to buy material to change their dryers… But if they are not paid, they cannot do these changes” (TECHST_INT_5).

The payment received also has influences on motivations. Farmers feel that even if they strive, their improvements will not be compensated. As they do not see their productions valued, their expectations and readiness toward changes are lower. The following quote reflects this: “The

farmers want to change what is wrong, but they do not have resources because the price is very low. The cooperative does not give them price. We pay them very well, but the cooperative does not” (TECHST_INT_3).

4.1.2.4. Financial support

(33)

33

Figure 4.4.: CBF model in Peru

4.2. Cross-case analysis

In this section, the findings from both countries are grouped into ability, motivation and opportunity. This allows for understanding how these different suppliers’ aspects influence the implementation of supplier development practices by CBF.

4.2.1. Abilities

(34)

34

on how to improve other skills. The same applies to the technical assistance, which is provided to all the farmers of the cooperative and based on the general issues found on the quality assessment. The observations also allow for some conclusions regarding suppliers’ abilities and technical assistance. Farmers in Colombia show that their collaboration with CBF permits a higher level of information about materials, as well as about how to organize their resources. This higher level of knowledge leads to improvements on production processes, and afterwards, on the quality of the coffee produced. Farmers B and C show this: “We learned how to sow in order to have this

process done: how to fertilize, how to check it is growing, and all of this is important in order to have the product. And it was important because it was through the implementation of these processes that we could achieve coffee of grade 4” (FarmB_INT_4/5); “We are changing the way we harvest, in order to have a homogeneous recollection, with no mature soil, and in order to not leave herbicides in the soil, or high presence of chemicals on the coffee. The beneficiary is also more organized” (FarmC_INT_3). Contrary, the know-how and planning of production processes

is still scarce in Peru: “Sometimes I fertilize, sometimes I don´t. It is more or less when we see it is

worth it” (FarmD_INT_30); “Picking the coffee… I have my family, friends, something like that! There are also some workers, and we ask them to come a few times, depending on the collection”

(FarmD_INT_14). These different results in the two countries can also be explained by the lack of understanding of suppliers’ abilities in Peru (from CBF), which leads to engagement of practices that are not tailored for these suppliers.

Other interesting finding when comparing both countries is their different level of basic

abilities. Through the conducted interviews, it is easily perceived that cases from Colombia have

(35)

35

considered essential for CBF’ staff to adapt how they share information or know-how with the suppliers. For example, feedback and recommendations to improve the actual quality of the coffee is only completely understood if the language used is noticeable by the farmer.

4.2.2. Motivations

Farmers’ motivations to perform were found to be much higher in Colombia than in Peru. The major factor contributing to this is the pricing scheme. In Colombia, farmers see the efforts done in the production processes reflected in the final price. Due to these fair prices, their job involvement and attitude towards change is higher. Inversely, Peruvian suppliers are paid according to quantity produced (instead of quality). Even if they invest in their processes to have a higher-quality coffee, “the money stays at the cooperative” (TECHST_INT_4). This means that CBF pays for better quality, but the cooperative does not fairly distribute the benefits among farmers. As their effort is not valued, and their final incomes are the same, they do not have

motivation to invest in better quality. Thus, Peruvian farmers are characterized by lower

expectations and proactiveness towards any activity provided by CBF.

Aligned with this, financial support is also an influencing factor of motivation. Some of the Peruvian farmers want to implement the learnings provided by the technical assistance but they are unable to do so because they do not have money to invest in resources. As they do not have access to financial loans, their expectations and involvement of the changes are lower, as they do not see immediate results: “The fertilizers are really expensive. I am applying this with my own

resources. I work, so I have my own resources. Most of the producers work with their own resources. That´s why we go very slowly” (FarmD_INT_29). Contrary, Columbian farmers have

the possibility of having a financial loan. The results from the implementation of new procedures are faster, so their motivation to continuously improve is higher. Quotes exemplifying this are: “I

am very happy with CBF, because the interest was really cheap” (FarmB_INT_35); “CBF lent us money and we could sell coffee on the grade 3, and then we could sell on the grade 4. They lend us money and we keep going” (FarmB_INT_37). Moreover, this is a cycle: as financial support

(36)

36

Moreover, farmers’ motivation is a consequence of the feelings of trust and long-term investment by the buying firm. For example, the fact that CBF just provides financial assistance for farmers working with them for at least one year means that they invest in long-term relationships. In Peru, the fact that the cooperatives first select the coffee to sell, makes the farmers feel that they are only part of a purchasing relation, so they do not experience commitment from CBF. Moreover, in Colombia, the personal contact in all the activities leads to a friendly relation established between farmers and staff members. Some of the technicians were also small coffee suppliers in the past, which increases farmers involvement with the buyer to implement the activities proposed. In Peru, farmers’ most frequent interactions are with the cooperative. Thus, when they interact with the CBF staff they face it more as a formal relation, because it is more exceptional. The level of trust is lower, as well as their proximity and their level of motivation to be involved in activities initiated by CBF.

4.2.3. Opportunities

The technical assistance provided by CBF is considered an opportunity for suppliers, as information, time and resources are shared with the farmers. In Colombia, farmers show improvements in production processes (and consequently in the quality of the coffee) through the technical assistance. The fact that these trainings are done directly with the suppliers, and based on what each production process is lacking (current opportunities and abilities of each farmer) is found to be successful. One quote reflecting the impact of CBF assistance is: “I am producing

higher quality because of the changes on the processes. Because before the company arrived, everything was sold wet” (FarmB_INT_6). Conversely, Peruvian farmers are limited to general

workshops given to all the cooperative, thus missing customization to their specific knowledge, processes and resources needs.

The two countries are also compared in terms of financial opportunities. CBF does not provide loans to their Peruvian suppliers. Therefore, the financial opportunities to invest on production processes are limited. Farmer D shows this: “For the dryer processes, we did a metallic

mesh. I bought it and we are implementing this. We are doing it step by step, but we cannot pay in advance the money. Everything comes from our pocket… Everything was done with my resources”

(37)

37

(38)

38

5. Discussion

Although the literature widely explores reasons that may contribute to the success of supplier development practices, the suppliers-side aspects are sometimes overlooked (Kim et al., 2015). Based on the AMO theoretical framework, this thesis studies suppliers’ abilities,

motivations and opportunities, and how their understanding can lead to a successful

implementation of supplier development practices.

The first main point of discussion focuses on how a direct or an intermediated buyer-supplier relation influence the buyer’ understanding of buyer-suppliers’ characteristics, leading to different results of supplier development practices. In cases from Peru, the cooperative selects which suppliers to sell coffee to the buyer, and after that all the negotiations are done by its intermediation. Thus, although an evaluation is done to the quality of the coffee in the first place, the intermediation of a cooperative hinders the buyer comprehension of suppliers’ abilities (such as the education or the economic level of the farmer). Conversely, Colombian cases are distinguished by a direct, individual and personal contact between buyer and supplier, allowing for an in-depth understanding of each farmer’ context, skills or prior experience. Thereby, findings suggest that only through a direct buyer-supplier relation it is possible to have an accurate understanding of suppliers’ abilities.

(39)

39

study. However, so far scholars define supplier assessment as an evaluation of suppliers’ managerial and performance capabilities (Humphreys et al., 2004). The findings of the current study suggest that suppliers’ abilities (such as knowledge or prior experience) should also be included in supplier assessment. This allows the next supplier collaboration practices to be targeted for specific areas needing improvement, considering what the suppliers are currently able or capable to do. For example, in the observed cases from Colombia, supplier collaboration practices are planned and implemented according to the abilities of each farmer supplier, constantly assessed by the buyer. The continuous improvement on the quality of the coffee produced in Colombia is a successful result of this customization of supplier development practices. Therefore, the following propositions are presented:

P1a: A direct buyer-supplier relation (rather than intermediated by other entity) permits a better understanding of supplier’s abilities by the buyer.

P1b: A better understanding of suppliers’ abilities by the buyer allows for the adaptation of supplier development practices to these characteristics, suggesting higher results from their implementation.

(40)

40

development, which posits that willingness to engage into supplier development practices is not sufficient for their effective implementation, it needs to be complemented with the suppliers’ abilities to do so (Arroyo‐López et al. 2012). As such, the following proposition is advanced:

P2: The greater the alignment between supplier development practices and supplier abilities, the higher the supplier’s motivation to engage in such practices, suggesting higher results from their implementation.

Moreover, suppliers’ motivations and their consequences on the results of supplier development practices have rarely been discussed in previous literature. According to the findings, two main matters of discussion are pointed out.

Firstly, observations suggest that the main factor of motivation is the opportunity given by the buyer of higher payment for better quality. While this conclusion seems straightforward, as an incentive or monetary reward is proved to be a form of stimulation for a better performance (Heyman & Ariely, 2004; Bello-Pintado, 2015), results show that suppliers’ motivations go beyond the higher incomes received. Suppliers’ motivations are found to be linked to the feeling of compensation for the effort on the process made, which consequently brings the feeling of job recognition. Specifically with the fair prices paid according to the level of quality, farmers feel their efforts on production processes valued, which makes them motivated to continue improving the quality of coffee, through the involvement on supplier development practices. While in an organization-employee perspective, literature suggests similar results - meaning that an employee’ job recognition will increase his motivation to work (Bainbridge, 2015) -, in a buyer-supplier approach no study so far has attempted to explore this relation. Thus, it is proposed:

P3: The greater the feeling of fair compensation, and consequently the feeling of job recognition, the higher the suppliers’ motivations to implement successful supplier development practices.

(41)

41

development practices, the current study extends this knowledge by including the factor of motivation. Thereby, the following proposition is suggested:

P4: The greater the feelings of trust, commitment and long-term relationship provided by the buyer, the higher the suppliers’ motivations to implement successful supplier development practices.

Furthermore, observations confirm that suppliers’ abilities, motivations and opportunities play complementary roles. Previous literature on the AMO framework strongly supports this interrelation (Appelbaum et al., 2000). Whilst the paper of Kim et al. (2015) does not empirically confirm the relation between the three notions in a buyer-supplier approach, the current study confirms the complementarity between the theoretical concepts, thus extending the knowledge of the AMO framework to the OM field. The already analysed findings show that one factor cannot be studied alone, but always linked to one another – for example, a supplier is motivated to engage in a supplier development practice if he knows how to do it (abilities); or an opportunity given to a supplier can be a driver of motivation – as previously proposed. Although the three concepts are distinct (allowing for a systematic analysis), this interaction between them leads to a more comprehensive view of such supplier’s characteristics as well as of how they influence supplier development practices results.

Implementation of supplier development practices: an ability-motivation-opportunity (AMO) perspective.