PROJECT

i
Factors Affecting Supplier-Buyer Relationship in State Parastatals:
A Case Study of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Juja
Cecilia Jane Gathoni
A research project submitted to the Department of Procurement and Logistics in the
School of Entrepreneurship Procurement and Management in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of Purchasing and Supplies Management of
Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
2015

ii
DECLARATION
This proposal is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other
University
…………………. …………………
Signature Date
This proposal has been submitted for examination with my approval as University Supervisor
…………………. …………………
Signature Date

1
ABSTRACT
Owing to outsourcing, globalization and ever increasing competition relationships with
suppliers have become increasingly important to buying firms. The suppliers are more seen as
extended resources of knowledge and getting access to that knowledge is claimed to be as
important for a customer as handling internal resources. This study examined the factors
affecting supplier-buyer relationship at state parastatals by using Jomo Kenyatta University
of Agriculture Juja as a case study. In the study the effect of communication, trust, handling
of disputes and collaboration on supplier buyer relationship was explored. The findings of the
study can be useful to the University’s administration and other similar higher learning
institutions. Descriptive research design was adopted where 28 employees were sampled to
take part. A questionnaire was used to collect data. Most of the respondents agreed that the
institution communicates with its suppliers, there is trust and collaboration with the suppliers
and that it experiences disputes with the suppliers. In addition the institution has set up
effective modes of communication, collaboration, building trust and handling disputes. The
study found that communication, collaboration, trust and handling disputes affect relationship
with suppliers

2
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE.........................................................................................................................8
1.1 Background of study..........................................................................................................8
1.2 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Objectives........................................................................................................................ 11
1.3.1 Specific Objectives .................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Research questions .......................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Justification..................................................................................................................... 11
1.6 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 12
1.7 Limitation and Delimitation............................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER TWO......................................................................................................................13
LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................................13
2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Theoretical Framework................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Conceptual Framework................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Critical Reviewof Literature........................................................................................... 14
2.4 .1 Supplier-Buyer Relationship.................................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Trust in Supplier-Buyer Relationship........................................................................ 16
2.4.3 Buyer-supplier trust and collaboration ..................................................................... 17
2.4.4 Communication in Supplier-Buyer Relationship....................................................... 18
2.4.5 Collaboration in Supplier-Buyer Relationship .......................................................... 20
2.4.6 Handling of Disputes in Supplier-Buyer Relationship............................................... 21
2.9 Research Gaps................................................................................................................. 24
CHAPTER THREE..................................................................................................................25
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................25
3.1 Research Design.............................................................................................................. 25
3.2 Population....................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Sampling Frame .............................................................................................................. 26
3.4 Sampling Technique ........................................................................................................ 26
3.5 Instrumentation............................................................................................................... 26
3.6 Data Collection Procedure............................................................................................... 27
3.7 Pilot Test......................................................................................................................... 27
3.8 Data Analysis Technique ................................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................29
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..........................................................................29

3
4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Research Findings ........................................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Communication and buyer supply relationship......................................................... 30
4.2.2 Trust and buyer supplier relationship....................................................................... 32
4.2.3 Collaboration and buyer supplier relationship.......................................................... 33
4.2.4 Handling of disputes and buyer supplier relationship ............................................... 34
4.2.5 Improving buyer supplier relationship...................................................................... 36
4.3 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 36
CHAPTER 5.............................................................................................................................39
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................39
5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 39
5.2 Summary......................................................................................................................... 39
5.2.1 The effect of trust on supplier-buyer relationship ..................................................... 39
5.2.2 The effect of communication on supplier-buyer relationship..................................... 39
5.2.3 The effect of supplier collaboration strategies on supplier-buyer relationship........... 39
5.2.4 The effect of handling disputes on supplier-buyer relationship................................. 39
5.3 Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 40
5.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 40
References............................................................................................................................. 41

4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework ……..............................................................................13
Figure 4.1: Communication and buyer supplier relationship ………………………………31
Figure 4.2: Trust and buyer supplier relationship……………………………………………32
Figure 4.3: Collaboration and buyer supplier relationship…………………………………. 33
Figure 4.4: Handling of disputes and buyer supplier relationship………………………….34

5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Gender and response rate………………………………………………………29
Table 4.2: Position held in the institution………………………………………………….29
Table 4.3: Length of service in current position…………………………………………….30
Table 4.4: Level of education………………………………………………………………30
Table 4.5: Presence of Good Communication…………………………………………….. 30
Table 4.6: Efficacy of modes of Communication…………………………………………....31
Table 4.7: Effect of communication modes on buyer-supplier relationship…………………31
Table 4.8 presence of trust between institution and suppliers………………………………. 32
Table 4.9 Efficacy of modes of trust between institution and suppliers……………………..32
Table 4.10: Effect of trust on buyer supplier relationship……………………………………32
Table 4.11 Presence of collaboration between institution and suppliers…………………….33
Table 4.12: How the institution collaborates with its suppliers……………………………...33
Table 4.13: Effect of collaboration on buyer supplier relationship………………………......34
Table 4.14 Presence of disputes of disputes between institution and suppliers……………...35
Table 4.15: Efficacy of approaches to solve disputes with suppliers………………………..35
Table 4.16: Effects of approaches to solve disputes on buyer supplier relationship………..35

6
ACRONYMS
RBV: Resource based view
PPO: Principal procurement officer
SPO: Senior procurement officer

7
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Collaboration: This is the approach to managing interdependencies between buyer and
supplier that entails pooling of knowledge, a higher level of joint decision making,
information sharing and joint goal setting aimed at enhancing both shared and individual
goals ( Zacharia et al., 2009).
Communication: This is the imparting or exchanging of information by writing, speaking or
using some other medium (Mohrand Nevin, 1990).
Dispute: This is a disagreement followed by opposition against an agenda or contract
(Meadows, 2007).
Procurement: This is the acquisition of goods, services or works from an outside external
source which entails identification of need, risk assessment, seeking and evaluating
alternative solutions, contract award, delivery of and payment for the property and/or services
and, and management of a contract and consideration of options related to the contract (Van
Weele, 2010; Kakouris et al., 2006).
Trust: This the extent to which supply chain partners perceive each other as credible and
benevolent (Min & Mentzer, 2000).

8
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Background of study
The procurement function which entails all activities associated with identification
and specification of needs, identification of decision criteria, initial screening of preferred
suppliers, selecting suppliers, and monitoring performance is one essential task in
organizations (Van Weele, 2010; Kakouris et al., 2006). Owing to outsourcing,
globalization and recently also the trend of supplier base reduction, organizations are
becoming more dependent on their suppliers (Cousins, & Spekman, 2003). The suppliers are
more seen as extended resources of knowledge and getting access to knowledge that is
claimed to be as important for a company as handling internal resources. Supplier
Relationship Management is an all-inclusive approach to managing the affairs and
interactions with the organizations that supply goods and services. This includes
communications, business practices, negotiations, methodologies and systems that are used to
establish and maintain a relationship with a supplier. Benefits include lower costs, higher
quality, better forecasting and less tension between the two entities that result in a win-win
relationship (Ammer, 2009). Supplier relationship management enhances effective
communication between procurement management staff in government ministries and this
helps in implementation of ethical business practices.
Comparative studies show that supply chain firms with high levels of collaboration
have greater chances of sustaining their relationship than those in less collaborative supply
chains (Myhr & Spekman, 2005). This implies that any firm’s ability to generate customer
satisfaction, remain loyal, meet future expectations and intentions and retain suppliers will
condition the desire to maintain the established relationship with its suppliers (Hennig-
Thurau, 2002). Thus, if a company’s competitive advantage is based on its supply
relationships (Gadde, Hakansson, Persson, 2010; Nagurney, 2010), then the development and
management of these relationships should be seen as an important source of organizational
competitive advantage; which in turn provides the foundation for overall organizational
competitiveness (Mracek & Mucha, 2011; Zich, 2010). According to Ni (2006) viewing
relationships as resources satisfies all four resource criteria in the resource-based view
perspective, namely; value, rareness, uniqueness, and non-substitutability. Building on Hunt
and Davis’ (2008), Hunt and Davis (2012) noted that supplier-buyer relationships should
not simply be viewed as a crucial organizational resource that act as a conduit to other
resources but as drivers of sustainable competitive advantages through facilitating the

9
flexibility of embeddedness and dissembeddedness, which are a key competitive advantage
in capacity building.
In the global scene, particularly with multi-international corporations in United States
and Europe, relationships with suppliers have become increasingly important to buying firms
(Ford et al., 2013). This is because in the past few decades the significance of the supply side
has increased and the cost proportion of purchased services and goods weighed against the
purchasing firms’ total costs constitute as much as 70-80% in some sectors (Gadde et al.,
2010). The increase in embracing of outsourcing trend has enabled buying firms to become
specialized, and together with shorter product life cycles and more assortments this has
placed fresh demands on purchasing organizations and their procurement departments when
it comes to coordinating the supply side. The outsourcing trend has also led to a need for
improving the core efficiency on a global level. In order to create products and stay
innovative organizations, often must work closer with their suppliers in increased network
collaboration (Gadde & Persson, 2004; Dyer & Nobeoka, 2002). On the other hand, close
collaboration needs demanding relationships with the suppliers which are pricey, and a
number of organizations have consequently heavily trimmed down their supplier base so as to
keep costs down (Ford et al., 2013).
A number of researchers observe that maintaining positive relationships with
suppliers is increasingly being recognised as a critical factor in sustaining a competitive
advantage by African companies and even by government institutions (Stevenson, 2009;
Naude, & Badenhorst-Weiss, 2012; Roberts-Lombard, 2010). Stevenson (2009) explored the
South African supply management system and noted that most businesses view their
suppliers as partners and that they seek a stable relationship with comparatively few suppliers
that are able to provide high-quality supplies, sustain delivery schedules and remains flexible
in relation to changes in specifications and delivery schedules. Roberts-Lombard (2010)
explored the procurement process in Ghana and noted that business owners and managers
were of the opinion that the strengthening of their existing relationships with suppliers must
be prioritised. More emphasis should be placed on the strengthening of existing
communication channels with suppliers to secure the faster resolution of queries and
complaints and to enhance the sharing of information, skills and knowledge between the two
parties.
There has been an increase in recognition of suppliers-buyer relationship development
by Kenyan firms and the government (Kamau, 2011; Njeru, 2013; Kinoti, et al., 2013).

10
Most Kenyan manufacturing companies have embraced the concept of buyer - supplier
relationships evident by incorporation of buyer- supplier variables in their operations. This
development is faced with numerous challenges such as that lack of communication, lack of
commitment, lack of trust, lack of co-operation and poor performance. With a similar study,
Njeru (2013) found that the Kenya Power and Lighting Company had embraced supplier-
buyer relationship management as one of its key variables in the procurement process. In the
study an overwhelming majority (90%) agreed that management in the company recognize
supplier development. However, most respondents (70 %) indicated that there were no
specific committees tasked with supplier development.
The development and maintaining of suppler- buyer relationship is influenced by a
number of factors. In their study on supply chain management of by Kenyan ministries,
Kinoti, et al. (2013) found that the key supplier relationship management issues that
influence implementation of supply chain management ethics in government ministries
include; the level of commitment in payment of suppliers, supplier development programs,
quality of the procurement process, existence of effective communication system with
suppliers, application of supplier performance management system and implementation of
effective supplier collaboration strategies. As pointed out by Perks and Oosthuizen (2013)
there are differences between small-, medium size and large businesses in terms of the
importance of supplier negotiation best practices and strategies to ensure long-term supplier
relationships in Nigeria. Small businesses focus more on the negotiation process while large
businesses are more focused on creating a long-term supplier relationship. Medium size
businesses regard the negotiation best practices and creating long-term supplier relationships
as equally important. An understanding of the expectations of customers, understating the
needs and preferences of an organisation, the knowledge of the supplier regarding the product
or service to be supplied to an organisation are some aspects that affect supplier buyer
relationship.
1.2 Problem Statement
Research has shown that effective management of supplier –buyer relationship will
give a firm competitive advantage besides other positive benefits for both parties. However,
this process is affected by numerous factors which sometimes are noteworthy challenges.
An infective supplier-relationship can result into to low levels of supplier retention, loss of
relationship loyalty, customer dissatisfaction and failure to meet future expectations and
intentions. In their evaluation of supplier-buyer relationship in Kenyan Public sector

11
procurement, Mwikali and Kavale (2012) noted that higher public higher learning institutions
Kenya have do not efficiently handle their relationships and more should be done to improve
the situation. Remarkably, there is no research that has exclusively examined the situation of
supplier-buyer relationship in a Kenyan higher learning institution. This study aimed to fill
this gap. In this line, this study sought to explore the factors affecting supplier-buyer
relationship Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Juja campus.
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of the study was to explore the factors affecting supplier-buyer
relationship. This was realised by the following specific objectives
1.3.1 Specific Objectives
I. To examine the effect of trust on supplier-buyer relationship at Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology
II. To examine the effect of communication on supplier-buyer relationship at
III. To determine the effect of supplier- buyer collaboration on supplier-buyer
relationship at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
IV. To find out the effect of handling of disputes on supplier-buyer relationship at
1.4 Researchquestions
I. What is the effect of trust on supplier-buyer relationship at Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology?
II. What is the effect of communication on supplier-buyer relationship at Jomo
Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology?
III. What is the effect of supplier collaboration strategies on supplier-buyer
relationship at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
IV. What is the effect of handling disputes on supplier-buyer relationship at Jomo
Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology?
1.5 Justification
The findings of this study can be useful to the Jomo Kenyatta University of
Agriculture and Technology procurement department. The department management can
know which factors affect their relationship with suppliers hence be in a position to improve

12
the relationship to and make it more productive for both parties. The study findings are also
useful to other institutions with similar traits to Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology particularly public higher learning institutions. The study contributes to the
available knowledge on supplier-buyer relationship and fill the gap on the relationship.
1.6 Scope
The study focused on supplier-buyer relationship where trust, communication,
handling of disputes and collaboration are the independent variables while supplier-buyer
relationship is the dependent variable. The study used Jomo Kenyatta University of
Agriculture and Technology located at Juja as a case study.
1.7 Limitation and Delimitation
There exist unique traits in institutions that have significant influence on operations
such as procurement. In this line, the study focused on Jomo Kenyatta University of
Agriculture and Technology which is public higher learning institution that is subject to
public procurement laws. As such the findings are limited to similar institutions. The study
might have been limited by lack of cooperation from respondents, especially those who
considered the information confidential. To overcome this, the researcher assured the
respondents of confidentiality of their information that it was to be used solely for academic
purposes by presenting an introductory letter from Jomo Kenyatta University administration.

13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The reviewed articles were retrieved from general search engines such as Google
Search and academic databases including Ebscohost, ProQuest and Emerald. Keywords were
used to search for the articles. The keywords included supplier-buyer relationship, trust in
supplier-buyer relationship, communication in supplier-buyer relationship, collaboration in
supplier-buyer relationship, and handling of disputes in supplier-buyer relationship. The
chapter also highlights the conceptual framework adopted for the study.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
This study adopts the resource based view (RBV) theory which was introduced by
Wernefrlt (1984) and Barney (1991). The theory holds that organizational performance
is determined by the manner in which firms deploy , manage and position their internal
resources and capabilities. These resources need in valuable, rare and imperfectly imitable
and not substitutable. Resources and capabilities are a bundle of tangible and intangible
assets that include information and knowledge the firm controls , its management skills
and the organizations routines and processes (Barney 1991). The RBV takes the
company as the primary unit of analysis and differences in performance between firma are
due to difference in the way firm resources and capabilities are employed.
According to Ni (2006), viewing relationships as resources satisfies all four resource
criteria in the resource-based view perspective, namely (Barney, 1991): value; rareness;
uniqueness (inimitability); and non-substitutability. Intangible resources have become
especially important in real-life market settings (as opposed to neoclassical market settings),
with heterogeneous demand across and within industries, the existence of information
asymmetries, and heterogeneous and not perfectly mobile resources (Hunt & Morgan, 1995).
If today’s economy is really a network economy (Barabasi, 2003), and most of the
competition takes place across network-embedded companies and their corresponding
networks then relationships can be viewed as key resources (Johnson & Selnes, 2004), and
their management is thus a key source of competitive advantage leading to a favourable
market position and financial performance. Relationships may be seen as a type of intangible,

14
non-price factors and source of firm competitiveness. They are the most important sources of
competitive advantage of the firm which directly and indirectly influence the position and
performance of the firm in international markets (Raskovic & Morec,2013).). Within a supply
chain perspective, and particularly related to buyer-supplier relationships, Hunt & Davis
(2008) have called for the employment of the resource-advantage theory perspective in better
understanding the competitive advantage-building nature of buyer-supplier relationships and
their management.
2.3 Conceptual Framework
2.3.1 diagram
2.4 Critical Review of Literature
2.4 .1 Supplier-Buyer Relationship
As relationships are not standardized, they can be expressed as unique aspects
regarding; content, dynamics, how it evolves, how it affect other parties and success
requirements (Ford et al., 2003). In order to manage this, a conceptual model has been
developed, dividing the business relationships into; actor bonds, activity links and resource
ties. Analysing the relationship within these dimensions enables creating closer relationship
with some customers. Changing viewpoint and seeing the relationship from the suppliers
perspective, the focus for a supplier, in its relationship, is said to be the need to support its
customer with a solution to a problem, whereas the customer focus is on making the most out
of its chosen suppliers.
Collaboration
Communication
Trust
Handling of Disputes
Supplier Buyer
Relationship

15
Developing deep relationships and even creating “super supplier collaboration” with
selected suppliers is by Liker & Choi (2004) and Billington et al. (2006), respectively,
recommended in order to gain competitive advantages. These studies have in Japanese car
manufacturers, such as Toyota and Honda, and their way to success is said to be derived from
the overall business culture and ability to choose an increased collaboration in the most
strategic buyer-supplier relationships. It is further stated that the level of collaboration is set
so high that the specific relationship will be able to generate the double value in proportion to
the cost produced througsh these super collaborations (Billington et al., 2006).
The supplier buyer relationship is based on number of factors that are interrelated. In
a study that used quantitative research design, Bemelmans et al., (2012) found that trust,
mutual respect for each other, understanding, communication, interpersonal relationship are
common in all supplier-buyer relationship However, the researchers only explored
corporations in the manufacturing sector. Similarly, Hunt & Davis (2008) used a meta-
analysis of articles to determine the common facets of a supplier buyer relationship. The
researchers found that cooperation, partnership approach, fairness in order management,
efficacy of conflict management are all necessary for a fruitful relationship between supplier
and buyer. Technical capability and efficiency of the supplier, organizational strategy
knowhow of the buyer and power-dependence are essential in managing relationship between
automotive companies and the suppliers (Billington et al., 2006).
Terpend et al, (2008) and Bemelmans et al., (2012) distinguished 5 constructs that
determine the effectiveness of this relationship management. These constructs are made up of
aspects that have to be met in different ways in order to achieve higher maturity levels in
buyer-supplier relationship management. The first construct is optimization of supply base
which entails finding the appropriate number of suppliers. This process includes supplier
selection, supplier rating system, team arrangement, needs of the company, supplier market
research, supplier differentiation, optimizing supplier base, differentiated policy,
documentation and communication. The second construct is managing the relationship by
having effective strategies and calculating values such as coordination, trust, information
sharing, creativity and senior management, having a purchasing policy, assessment process,
documentation, cooperation with supplier, improvement programs and communication. The
third construct is integration of suppliers into the operational process (Terpend et al, (2008).
This entails standardization, simplification and synchronization of procedures in order to

16
improve performance indicators as cost, speed which can be achieved by supplier integration,
multidisciplinary cooperation, communication, documentation, planning process,
improvement plan and evaluation process. The fourth construct is integrating suppliers into
the value-creation process which involves using knowledge of suppliers to develop new
products, processes or services that are aimed at maximizing the performance of the focal
company. This can be attained by value-creation process policies, involvement of purchasing,
supplier selection, assessment of supplier processes, evaluation of supplier performance,
corrective actions, decision-making process, targets and objectives, cooperation with
suppliers, communication, multidisciplinary, usage of information technology systems,
documentation. The fifth construct is developing suppliers which encompasses monitoring
in order to identify opportunities at the supplier in order that can improve the performance
of the supplier. This can be achieved by creating of supplier-improvement programs, follow-
up improvement programs, certifying suppliers, evaluation of supplier performance,
identification of corrective actions, communication, complaint procedure and documentation.
In all the constructs planning, follow up, communication and documentation are common
(Bemelmans et al., 2012).
2.4.2 Trust in Supplier-Buyer Relationship
Trust is the extent to which supply chain partners perceive each other as credible and
benevolent (Doney & Cannon, 1997).Credibility reflects the extent to which a firm believes
their relationship partner has the expertise to perform effectively while benevolence occurs
when a firm believes their relationship partner has intentions and motives that will benefit the
relationship (Ganesan, 1994). This is supported by Moorman (1993) who defines trust as a
willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence.
Swan and Trawick (1987), operationalises trust in five aspects of; dependable or
reliable, honest or candid, competent, partner orientation, and likeable/friendly while Sako
(1992) operationalises it in three dimensions of; contractual trust, based on the belief that the
other party will fulfil its promises and act as agreed; competence trust, based on the belief
that the other party will be capable of doing what it has promised; and trust in goodwill,
based on the shared belief of both parties that the other is deeply compromised to promoting a
good development of the relationship and is willing to do more than could be expected
according to the contractual terms without expecting anything in exchange. Goran (2005)
also operationalizes trust but differently from Swan (1987) and Sako (1992) by looking at it

17
in terms of mutual and interactive trust. He argues that interactive trust is a kind of non-stop
trust in business dyads describing a continuous process of trust while mutual trust is a kind of
on-the-spot-account trust in business dyads describing a discontinuous process, that is, a
condition of trust. He also appreciates that there is a close relationship between mutual and
interactive trust in business dyads, since interactive trust reflects a process and mutual trust
reflects a condition. Furthermore, Muhwezi (2009) argues that trust gives the confidence that
the other party can be relied upon and that it is also both a precondition and an outcome of
collaboration. He believes that trust is conveyed through faith, reliance, or confidence in the
collaborating partner and is viewed as a willingness to forego opportunistic behaviour.
2.4.3 Buyer-supplier trust and collaboration
Berry and Parasuraman (1991) stated that buyer-supplier collaboration requires trust if
the relationship is to be sustained. Successful buyer-supplier collaboration is often referred to
as a relationship, characterized by a high level of trust a long with a willingness to share risk
(Maini & Sahay, 2002).When the level of trust is high, partners in the collaboration want to
continue, and this progressively reduces opportunism. Once there is trust, the partner values
the relationship wants to be identified with the collaboration and is constrained to leave
(Gilliland & Bello, 2002). Collaboration and trust are reciprocal processes; they depend upon
and foster each other (Mettessich & monsey, 1992). Greater collaboration holds the
possibility of greater trust as partners have experience with one another overtime and have
the opportunities to witness the benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty and openness
of their partner.
Trust is often emphasized as the most important issue for managing long-term
relationships and cooperation, but it is also a result of long-term relationships between parties
(Min & Mentzer, 2000). Moorman (1993) assert that trust is “a willingness to rely on an
exchange partner in whom one has confidence” and Anderson and Narus (1990) focus on the
perceived outcomes of trust where one firm believes that another company will perform
actions that will result in positive outcomes for the firm as well as not take unexpected
actions that will result in negative outcomes. It can normally be agreed that trust
consequently exists when one party has confidence in a collaborative exchange partner’s
reliability and integrity (Zineldin & Jonsson, 2000).This is in agreement with Luo and Park
(2004) who suggest that Collaborative arrangements among partners induce further
collaboration over time and the emergence of trust and loyalty which generate increasing
benefit. Additionally, for supply-chain partnerships to become truly collaborative in nature,

18
trust, is not only a desired characteristic, but a necessary characteristic. According to Mentzer
et al (2000) strong relationships increase the likelihood that firms will exchange critical
information as requirement to collaborate. In order for this sharing of critical information to
occur, a high degree of trust must exist among the collaborating partners (Frankel et al.,
2002). When exchange partners communicate and share similar values, trust is enhanced. In
this respect, shared values reflect the degree to which partners share goals that can be
accomplished via joint action and align incentives towards parity in buyer-supplier
collaboration.
2.4.4 Communication in Supplier-Buyer Relationship
Communication is one of the essential components in the buyer supplier relationship.
Communication may be related to product price, contractual agreements, technical
specifications, organizational strategy and may be market related know-how. Communication
can only be effective if both the parties understand the requirement of each other and in the
same level of thinking & understanding. Through improved information and communication
between suppliers and buyers, a reduction of process costs can be expected in the whole
value-added chain. Cost savings must be of benefit to both sides. Through improved
information and communication between suppliers and buyers, a reduction of process costs
can be expected in the whole value-added chain. Cost savings must be of benefit to both
sides. Through improved information and communication between suppliers and buyers, a
reduction of process costs can be expected in the whole value-added chain. Cost savings must
be of benefit to both sides Time delays, distorted demand signals, and poor visibility of
exceptional conditions result in critical information gaps and serious challenges for SC
managers, including misinformation and ultimately, mistrust. For example, when partners
lose faith in the forecast they receive, they typically respond by building up inventory buffers
to guard against demand uncertainty. The disruption that results from dramatic, sudden
changes in forecasted demand is amplified as it travels up through the supply chain.
According to Mohr and Nevin (1990), there are four categories of communication:
content, way, feedback and frequency. These categories will shape the communication
intensity and the integration between supplier-buyer. Content refers to the message that is
transmitted. Two predominant subcategories are: the type of information exchanged and the
type of influence strategy embedded in the exchange, such as direct or indirect influence.
Indirect influence strategy is designed to change the recipient’s beliefs and attitudes, such as

19
through education and communication of the evaluation, so that the recipients have more
complete knowledge for decision-making (Boyle and Dwyer, 1995; Frazier and Sheth, 1985).
Communication medium refers to the method used to transmit information. Two predominant
classification schemes include: medium richness and formality. Medium richness is defined
as the number of cues that can be used by the receiver to interpret the message and ranges
from face-to-face, which is considered the richest medium, to electronic data transfer which
is considered the least rich medium (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Formality assesses the structure
and routine of the communication (Carr and Pearson, 1999; Mohr and Sohi, 1995). Formality
is defined as the degree to which the inter-organizational communication of the supplier
evaluation is established through structured rules and fixed procedures. Communication
feedback, also called bi-directionality, refers to two-way communication between two firms
(Mohr and Sohi, 1995; Purdy et al., 1994).
Communication has been described as the glue that holds together a channel of
distribution (Mohrand Nevin, 1990). In a study by Coote et al. (2003) two-way exchange of
meaningful and timely information, thus communication, leads to increased commitment
expressed by both partners in a buyer supplier relationship. Wu et al. (2004) found that
dependence, trust and communication, measured as one buyer-supplier relationship construct,
leads to greater commitment expressed towards the partner in the relationship. Goodman and
Dion (2001) found that buyer-supplier relationships characterized by a high degree of
dependence are likely to be typified by commitment, since it is difficult to switch to an
alternative partner. The same researchers found that the communication quality increases
supplier’s commitment to a buying company. Moreover, the communication plays important
role in the integration with distribution channel, because it allows the suppliers to improve
the performance according to the customer’s needs. In a highly integrated buyer-supplier
relationship, the supply chain because an important and valuable source of information. The
type of information received, according to Gulati and Gargiulo (1999), will be more “intense”
compared to that one ones received directly from the market. In a vertically integrated chain,
information access and supply flow through the formal and informal hierarchic structure.
Relationship between the parts would create a wide channel of rich information
dissemination. Thus, information value is related again on its content and credibility more
than the infrastructure that makes possible the information sharing.

20
2.4.5 Collaboration in Supplier-Buyer Relationship
Supplier-buyer collaboration is the approach to managing interdependencies between
buyer and supplier that entails pooling of knowledge , a higher level of joint decision
making, information sharing and joint goal setting aimed at enhancing both shared and
individual goals ( Zacharia et al., 2009). In a similar manner Togar and Sridharan (2002)
define collaboration as two or more chain members working together to create a competitive
advantage through sharing information, making joint decisions, and sharing benefits which
result from greater profitability of satisfying end customer needs than acting alone . This
two definitions show that buyer-supplier collaboration is a departure from the anchor point
of discreteness that underlies business transactions to a relational exchange as the roles of
supplier and buyer are no longer narrowly defined in terms of the simple transfer of
ownership of products. Organizations will collaborate with each other in order to gain unique
resources such as specialized knowledge and skills, which are needed for complex problem
solving. Collaboration can bring companies the necessary resources and skill, thereby
creating unique, inter-firm resources and capabilities. These created interdependencies
between buyer and supplier which increase the level of collaboration. By using a
descriptive research design that sampled 20 companies from manufacturing, hospitality,
finance and banking sectors, Zacharia et al., (2009) found that higher interdependency leads
to deeper and intense levels of collaboration.
Collaboration often goes along with long-term agreements (Arshinder and Deshmukh,
2007) and requires the willingness of all involved parties to work together and to invest in the
relationship (Wu et al., 2006). Moreover, the strategic goals of both partners have to be
aligned to each other (Morgan, 2007). However, despite being a substantiate prerequisite for
control, cooperation often is limited as the partners want to protect themselves against the
others’ opportunistic behaviour. Both sides of the relationship cannot be sure that partners are
operating in the interests of the cooperative venture as autonomous partners may have
incentives to cheat and free-ride in order to attain their own specific goals at the expense of
the objectives of the collective undertaking (Caglio and Ditillo, 2008). Besides the basic
willingness to collaborate and to commit to the relationship, the authors conclude that formal
control asks for systematic coordination mechanisms to align objectives of both partners and
joint actions across company boundaries (Caglio & Ditillo, 2008).

21
Collaborative supplier relation is a likely determinant of competitive advantage.
Kotabe et al. (2002) described how greater supplier integration can help minimize the risks
associated with the launch of new products. Increasingly it is recognized that supplier
involvement and integration in the production process can have a substantial positive effect
on corporate performance by adding value to the production process that is supplemental to
the economic value of the relationship. Supplier involvement through cross-firm teams or
supplier presence on buyer premises or through other such mechanisms also increases social
exchanges between buyers and suppliers. In some cases, supplier integration might entail that
suppliers are able to anticipate certain buyer needs well in advance which creates efficiency,
flexibility and coordination in operations. These factors enhance the positive outcomes to the
buyer. Kotabe et al. (2002) comment that, ‘by involving suppliers extensively in product and
process development, assemblers (buyers) could gain faster product development cycles,
lower input costs and higher end-product quality’. Some extant research has noted that when
buyer–supplier relationships exhibit a greater degree of relational norms, they experience
lowered negotiation costs and more commitment which serve to positively influence
performance (Tangpong & Ro, 2009).
Buyers collaborate with suppliers whom they perceive as having made idiosyncratic
investments on their behalf. More generally, it is the willingness to collaborate that
demonstrates the supplier’s commitment to sustain the relationship (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995;
Zineldin, 1998). It should be noted that the resource invested in performing some
collaborations to support a given relationship cannot be readily transferred elsewhere
(Williamson, 1985). Such an act can signal commitment to that relationship and result in a
company being considered more trustworthy by an exchange partner.
2.4.6 Handling of Disputes in Supplier-Buyer Relationship
In the process of conducting business between supplier and buyer, there is a
likelihood of disputes arising. The disputes might be caused by disagreement on terms of the
contract, delayed payment, confusion over a delivery time and either party failing to fulfil
agreed of anticipated terms. Contractual disputes are time-consuming, expensive and
unpleasant. They can destroy buyer-supplier relationships painstakingly built up over a period
of time and can impact on the supply chain (Meadows, 2007). They can add substantially to
the cost of a contract, as well as nullifying some or all of its benefits or advantages. They can
also impact on the achievement of value for money. As such both supplier and buyer
should ensure that the likelihood of disputes is minimized and when they occur the

22
parties should always look for constructive ways of resolving disputes that save time and
money and minimise damage to important relationships. In this line, after using a qualitative
research design to explore how 30 firms solved their disputed, Moura and Teixeira (2010)
concluded that escalating disputes to litigation, or leaving them unresolved, carries high
business risks and costs. With the help of an impartial mediator, many formal complaints can
be resolved using approaches such as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) without involving
the courts.
Given the expense and disruption caused to any contract when a dispute arises and the
damage to client/supplier relationships, the importance of following dispute avoidance
techniques cannot be over-emphasised. However, notwithstanding the emphasis on the desire
to avoid dispute, officers should not act in a way which compromises the party’s rights and
potential benefits. Dispute resolution, in its widest sense, includes any process which can
bring about the conclusion of a dispute. Dispute resolution techniques can be seen as a
spectrum ranging from the most informal negotiations between the parties themselves,
through increasing formality and more direct intervention from external sources, to a full
court hearing with strict rules of procedure.
The supplier and buyer can choose some known techniques of dispute resolution
namely; negotiation, mediation, conciliation, neutral evaluation, expert determination,
litigation, arbitration, and adjudication (Aliment, 2008). The stated methods entail varied
processes which in turn bring a number of merits and demerits. In negotiation the objective
is to settle the dispute as soon as possible. The process is the most efficient form of dispute
resolution in terms of management time, costs and preservation of relationships besides
faster, cost saving, preserving, confidentiality, ensuring preservation of relationships and
enabling the parties to control of process and outcome (Witkin, 2010). The technique of
mediation which includes conciliation entails settling a dispute by including a third party as
the negotiator. This technique has advantages similar to those of negotiation but the
inclusion of a neutral third party can make the negotiation more effective. It should be seen as
the preferred dispute resolution route in most disputes where conventional negotiation has
failed or is making slow progress. The aim of neutral evaluation technique is to test the
strength of the legal points in the case (Kaufmann-Kohler, 2005). It can be particularly useful
where the dispute turns on a point of law. In this case a third-party neutral, usually a retired
judge or a lawyer, gives a confidential opinion as to what the outcome of a trial would be.
This procedure can be carried out entirely on paper, saving the parties the time and expense

23
of an oral hearing. The opinion can then be used as a basis for settlement or for further
negotiation. The supplier and buyer can resort to expert determination as a means of
resolving their dispute. In this approach the parties agree to be bound by the decision of an
expert in the field of dispute. This process can be useful where the dispute is about a technical
matter. The expert will commonly be given powers to investigate the background of the
dispute himself, rather than just relying on the evidence the parties choose to present (Witkin,
2010).
The technique of arbitration is a process for resolving disputes in which both sides
agree to be bound by the decision of a third party, the arbitrator. If court proceedings are
begun by one party they will normally be stayed on the application of the other party relying
on the arbitration clause (Kaufmann-Kohler, 2005). The agreement to arbitrate should be in
writing. It can take the form of a clause within the original contract or can be made after a
dispute has arisen. It is possible, as long as all parties agree, to amend an arbitration
agreement at any stage so that it better serves the needs of the parties. The Arbitration Act
gives the widest discretion to the parties to decide between themselves how their dispute is to
be resolved but provides a fall-back position if agreement cannot be reached. Like litigation
and adjudication, arbitration is an adversarial process. The grounds for appeal are limited
though its advantages are some control of process, possible cost saving over litigation,
confidentiality, parties can choose an arbitrator who is an expert in the relevant field,
resolution is guaranteed and decisions are legally binding and enforceable. The supplier and
buyer can resolve to use litigation which will involve going to court if the use of a consensual
process is not provided for in the contract and cannot otherwise be agreed. Litigation will
involve preparation for trial before a judge, and may well be a lengthy, drawn-out and costly
process. Parties often agree a settlement before the case comes to court, but in some cases not
before months or even years of effort have been spent on expensive preparatory work. The
litigation process has advantages which include possibility to bring an unwilling party into
the procedure and the solution will be enforceable without further agreement. On the other
hand the disadvantages are that it is potentially lengthy and costly, adversarial process likely
to damage business relationships and outcome is in the hands of a third party, the judge
(Kaufmann-Kohler, 2005).

24
2.9 ResearchGaps
A number of studies have been conducted on various aspects on supplier-buyer
relationship. However the studies exhibit research gaps that this study will seek to fill.
Communication as facet of supplier-buyer relationship was explored by study by and Coote
et al. (2003), who found that communication is essential to increased commitment. However
the researcher conducted a study. Wu et al. (2004) and Goodman and Dion (2001) explored
the association between commitment and the buyer-supplier relationship feature namely
trust, dependence and communication. The researchers found that there exists a significant
relationship between the factors. However, the two studies did not explore if communication,
trust affect supplier–buyer relationship a gap this study will seek to fill. Arshinder and
Deshmukh (2007), Morgan, (2007) and Wu et al. (2006) explored what factors affect
collaboration between buyer and supplier and this study will take it further by exploring if
collaboration affects buyer-supplier relationship. Moura and Teixeira (2010) used a
qualitative research design to explore how 30 firms solved their disputed concluded that
escalating disputes to litigation, or leaving them unresolved, carries high business risks and
costs. This study will seek to explore if the business risks presented by dispute resolution
affects buyer-supplier relationship.
Stevenson (2009) and Naude, & Badenhorst-Weiss (2012) explored the South
African supply management system in the private sector while Roberts-Lombard (2010)
explored how business managers and owners related with their suppliers in Ghana. The
researchers found that management of supplier-buyer relationship is given precedence.
Kinoti, et al. (2013) studied the supply chain management of Kenyan ministries while Njeru
(2013) conducted a study to explore how Kenya power had embraced e-procurement to
improve relations with suppliers. Similarly Kamau (2011) explored the supply-relationship
management in the Kenyan manufacturing companies. Remarkably no study has explored
factors affecting buyer-supplier relationship of a government institution and by extension a
higher learning institution. This study aims to fill this gap by exploring factors affecting
supplier-buyer relationship Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.

25
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 ResearchDesign
In research activities, Bryman (2001) points out that a research design is a roadmap
used to provide definitions to the method as well as the procedure that the researcher applies
in guiding and focusing the entire research process. Bryman emphasizes that when choosing a
research design the researcher should ensure the design helps answer collection of evidence
that will answer the research questions as unambiguous as possible. Collecting appropriate
evidence involves specifying the type of evidence needed to test the theory, answer the
questions and describe the phenomenon or relationships under study. With this in mind, a
quantitative research design was used in this study.
A quantitative research design entails collection and manipulation of numerical data
with an intention of providing descriptions and explanations to a certain research
phenomenon (Saunders et al., 2007). When a researcher intends to extract meaningful
summaries from data, a quantitative design is appropriate. Further if the researcher intends to
test hypotheses a quantitative research is most appropriate, as it will enable collecting
numerical data and its analysis. Creswell (2009) observed that researchers who hypothesizes
existence of relationship between variables and want to explore if the relationships are
significant at a given confidence level should utilize quantitative research design. As such,
quantitative research sign was appropriate since the researcher expected to obtain meaningful
summaries from the data and explore existence of relationships between variables by testing
hypothesis at a set level of significance.
3.2 Population
According to Castillo (2009), a research population is defined as the total number of
subjects, participants or individuals being investigated by the researcher to guide him/her in
the process of answering the existing research questions. In the same vein, Welman & Kruger
(2001) opine that a research population refers to the total number of elements that guide a
research study in the process of answering the pending research questions. In this study the
research population was Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology employees

26
who have responsibilities making procurement decisions. There were 28 employees who
made procurement decisions.
3.3 Sampling Frame
How good a population is represented by a sample depends on the sample size,
selection procedures, and the sample frame. A sample frame is the proportion of the
population who has the probability of being included in the sample by possessing the desired
attributes (Curtis et al., 2000). The sampling frame must include traits that are in the
population. When designing a sampling frame the researcher should ensure it is
comprehensive by entirely covering the population and include only those members of the
population that will be accessible. To ensure comprehensiveness, the probability of inclusion
of population members should be known to avoid a skewed sampling frame (Curtis et al.,
2000). In this line the sampling frame was Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture
employees who make decisions that affect supplier decisions. There were 28 employees with
a responsibility of making procurement related decisions.
3.4 Sampling Technique
Castillo (2009) defines a research sample as a proportion or a sub-group of the entire
research population. As such, a research sample should be selected from the target population
scientifically as a means of promoting validity as well as reliability of the research findings.
According to Orodho (2010), the sampling techniques applied by researchers when
conducting their research activities are probability or non-probability sampling methods. To
this end, this research employed a probability sampling technique particularly criterion
sampling. Criterion sampling is the selection of research participants who meet set standard
or who exhibit certain desirable traits. In this line the researcher sought to include the
employees who in the procurement department and whose roles affect communication trust,
collaboration and handling of disputes with suppliers. This is because the employees with
such responsibilities are in a position to have information on how the institution handles
supplier issues. This is in line with the research objectives. The researcher conducted a
census by sampling all the 28 employees who made procurement decisions.
3.5 Instrumentation
The study utilized primary data to obtain answers to the research questions. The data
was collected by use of questionnaires distributed randomly to the identified research
participants. The questionnaires contained closed ended questions. The questionnaires were

27
divided into two parts with the first part capturing demographic data of the research
respondents while the second part had questions in line with the research objectives.
3.6 Data Collection Procedure
The study utilised primary data that was collected from questionnaires to be randomly
distribute d to the target population. The questionnaires were physically distributed by the
researcher. The researcher contacted the respondent to know which time was best to avail and
collet the questionnaire.
In the data collection process the researcher observed the necessary ethics. The
researcher ensured the data collected was protected and can be accused be respondents but
cannot be shared without their informed consent of participation in the research (Foy, 2004).
In this light, there was a consent form that was filled by the respondents before the
questionnaire was filled. The consent form was be submitted to the researcher. In surveys,
the researcher is obliged to disclose information about the research (Foy, 2004). The
information included the contact details of the researcher’s institution, the objective of the
research. Additionally, the researcher included the estimated time it was to take to complete
the questionnaires, deadline of completion and let the respondents know in case of any need
there will be a follow up. The researcher preserved anonymity of the participants.
3.7 Pilot Test
According to Saunders et al. (2007), conducting a pilot test prior to the actual data
collection process enables the researcher to evaluate whether the respondents can effectively
comprehend and answer the research questions as provided in the data collection tools. The
pilot study also enables test the hypotheses of the study; in the process of testing the
hypotheses, the researcher may see the need of changing some of the hypothesis and
replacing them with new ones and as such promoting increased reliability and validity of the
entire research process (Meriwether, 2001). With these considerations the researcher
conducted a pilot test that involved 5 employees. The pilot test sought to establish the
feasibility of the study given how it had been conceptualized, if the participants
comprehended the research instrument, and any challenges that were likely to be incurred
in the actual data collection.

28
3.8 Data Analysis Technique
Descriptive statistics are used to describe a sample by providing summary of the data
under study (Field 2000). Descriptive statistics differs from inferential statistics in that it
descriptive statistics do not use the data to learn about the population and they are not based
on probability theory like inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics are mean, maximum,
minimum, mode, percentages and standard deviation were used. Minimum is the least value
while maximum is the highest value (Field 2000). Mean is the average of a sample arrived at
by dividing the aggregate by number of summed items. Standard deviation measures how
observations vary from the mean.

29
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of analysed views from the research participants in
the sequence they appear in the questionnaire. The section includes results of demographic
data and opinions of the procurement officers. Frequency and percentages were used. In
addition, the analysis from the open-ended questions are included. A comprehensive
discussion is also part of this chapter
4.2 ResearchFindings
Table 4.1 Gender and response rate
Frequency Percent
Gender Male 6 30
Female 14 70
Total 20 100
Questionnaire Response Positive 20 70
Negative 8 30
Total 28 100
In the study, 28 procurement officers were issued with questionnaires but only 20 were
returned having been dully filled. This represented a 70% success rate. The study included six
male and 14 female participants.
Table 4.2: Position held in the institution
Frequency Percent
PPO 1 5
SPO 3 15
APO 2 10
PO 14 70
Total 20 100

30
Only one officer was a Principal procurement officer (PPO) while there were 3 senior
procurement officers (SPOs) accounting for 15%. Most of the respondents were procurement
officers as represented by 14 officers accounting for 70%.
Table 4.3: Length of service in current position
Frequency Percent
Less 5 6 30
10-15 10 50
More than 15 4 20
Total 20 100
Half the participants had served for 10 to 15 years while another 30% had worked in
their positions for less than 5 years. Only 20% had worked for more than 15 years.
Table 4.4: Level of education
Frequency Percent
Bachelors 12 60
Masters 8 40
Total 20 100
Sixty percent (60%) of the participants had attained a bachelor’s degree as their
highest education level while only 40% had attained a master’s degree. This shows that a
degree is a minimum qualification for one to be working in the procurement department.
4.2.1 Communication and buyer supply relationship
Table 4.5: Presence of Good Communication
No Yes Total
Presence of Good Communication
between institution and suppliers
15 85 100
Most participants agreed that there is good communication between the institution and
its suppliers as represented by 85% of the respondents whereas only 15% of the respondents

31
were of the opinion that there does not exist good communication between the institution and
its suppliers.
Table 4.6: Efficacy of modes of Communication
No Yes Total
Efficacy of modes of communication
between institution and suppliers
5 95 100
When asked if the current modes of communication are effective, 95% of the
respondents had a positive response. Only 5% of the respondents were of the perception that
the modes of communication used between the suppliers and the institutions are not efficient.
Table 4.2.2: Effect of communication modes on buyer-supplier relationship
No Yes Total
Effect of communication modes on
buyer-supplier relationship
25 75 100
Three quarters of the participants were of the opinion that communication affects the
institution’s relationship with suppliers. Only 25% of the respondents were of the view that
communication does not affect relationship between the institution and its suppliers. All the
respondents said that the institution verbally communicates with its suppliers besides using
newspapers, emails and telephone. Only the PPO said that newspapers are a means of
communication with suppliers.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PresenceGood
Communication
If Communication
modes are effective
effect of
communication on
buyer- supplier
Relationship
Percenatge
Factors in communication
Communication and buyer supplier relationship
No
Yes

32
Figure 4.1: Communication and buyer supplier relationship
4.2.2 Trust and buyer supplier relationship
Table 4.8 presence of trust between institution and suppliers
No Yes Total
Trust between institution and
suppliers 30 70 100
As represented by 70% of the respondents, it was evident that the university by is
there trust between the institution and its suppliers. Slightly less than a third (30%) of the
procurement officers who took part in the study were of view that there is no trust between
the institution and its suppliers.
Table 4.9 Efficacy of modes of trust between institution and suppliers
No Yes Total
Efficacy of modes of trust
between institution and suppliers 25 75 100
The researcher enquired if the used mode to maintain are effective. In this line, 75%
of the procurement officers said the methods are effective while a only 25% said that the
modes of trust used are not effective.
Table 4.10 Effect of trust on buyer supplier relationship
No Yes Total
Effect of trust on buyer
supplier relationship 10 90 100
The researcher further probed the how trust is maintained with suppliers. Most
participants said that trusts is maintained through setting timely payment policies, through
high employee integrity and by ensuring employee observe high standards of ethics when
dealing with suppliers.

33
Figure 4.2: Trust and buyer supplier relationship
4.2.3 Collaboration and buyer supplier relationship
Table 4.11 Presence of collaboration between institution and suppliers
N0 Yes Total
Presence of collaboration between institution
and suppliers 10 90 100
Asked if there is collaboration between the institution and its suppliers, a majority of
the procurement officer who took part in the study answered in the affirmative as represented
by 90%. Only 10% of those who took part in the study were of the view that the institution
does not collaborate with its suppliers.
Table 4.12: How the institution collaborates with its suppliers
Yes No Total
Having mutual goals with suppliers 80 20 100
Mutual information sharing between 80 20 100
Responsiveness towards each other’s and needs 75 25 100
Jointly managing supplies for the next period
together 75 25
100
Sharing long-term product and service plans 80 20 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Presence of trust If modes of trust are
Effective
effects of trust on
buyer-supplier
relationship
percenatge
Aspects of trust
Trustand buyer supplier relationship
No
Yes

34
The researcher enquired the approaches used to ensure collaboration with suppliers.
Eighty percent (80%) of the research participants were of the opinion that having mutual
goals with suppliers, mutual information sharing between our institution and our suppliers,
and having long-term product and service plans with suppliers are approaches of
collaboration. In addition, three quarters were of the view that responsiveness towards each
other’s and needs between institution and suppliers and jointly managing supplies for the next
period together with our suppliers are modes of collaboration with suppliers.
Table 4.13: Effect of collaboration on buyer supplier relationship
N0 Yes Total
Effect of collaboration on buyer supplier
relationship 45 55 100
More than half (55%) of the respondents said that collaboration affects the
institution’s relationship with suppliers while 45% were of the opinion that collaboration does
not affects the institution’s relationship with suppliers.
Figure 4.3: Collaboration and buyer supplier relationship
4.2.4 Handling of disputes and buyer supplier relationship
Table 4.14 Presence of disputes of disputes between institution and suppliers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N0 Yes
Percenatge
Views of Procurement offcers
Collaboration and buyer supplier relationship
Presence of collaboration
Effect of collaboration on buyer-
supplier relationship

35
No Yes Total
Experiencing of disputes between
institution and suppliers 5 95 100
Only one procurement officer was of the opinion that the institution does not
experience disputes with its suppliers while 95% of the research respondents were of
different opinion.
Table 4.15: Effects of approaches to solve disputes with suppliers
No Yes Total
Efficacy of approaches to solve
disputes with suppliers 5 95 100
A majority of the respondents, 95% said that the approaches used by the institution to
solve disputes with suppliers effective. Only 5% of the procurement officers who took part in
the study were of the view that the approaches used in solving disputes are not effective.
Table 4.16: Effects of approaches to solve disputes on buyer supplier relationship
No Yes Total
Effects of approaches to solve disputes on buyer
supplier relationship 25 75 100
Most of the participants were of the view that approaches to solve disputes have an
effect on the relationship between the institution and its suppliers. This was represented by
75% while only 25% were of the view that the approaches to solve disputes have no effect on
the relationship between the institution and its suppliers.

36
Figure 4.4: Handling of disputes and buyer supplier relationship
Three quarters of those who took part in the study were of the opinion that handling of
disputes affect the institution’s relationship with suppliers. The researcher further probed
what causes disputes with suppliers. In this regard payment delays to suppliers, delayed
supplier deliveries and poor quality supplier product were the causes of supplier disputes.
Figure 4.3: Handling of disputes and buyer supplier relationship
4.2.5 Improving buyer supplier relationship
In line with the research objective, the study sought to know how the supplier-buyer
relationship between Jogo Kenyatta University of Technology Juju Campus and its suppliers
be improved. Most respondents were of the opinions that use of dialogues is one way the
relationship with suppliers can be improved. In addition, having meeting the suppliers on
annual basis to resolve any concerns and make plans for the future is another approach to
enhance relationship between the institution and its suppliers.
4.3 Discussion
The research found that the institution communicate with its suppliers by use of
various means. The use of print, electronic and verbal communication mechanisms is an
indication that the institution uses appropriate means of communication that meet a particular
purpose or are appropriate to a specific supplier. The use of information and communication
technologies fosters the integration of business processes across the supply chain by
0
20
40
60
80
100
Presence of disputes Efficacy of approaches
to solve diisputes
Effect of disputes on
buyer-supplier
relationship
Percenatge
Aspects of Trust
Handlingof disputes and buyer
supplier relationship
No
Yes

37
facilitating the information flows, which are necessary for coordinating a business activity
and strengthening relationships.
The presence of communication and use of effective mods helps the institutions
reduce negative effects of uncertainty. This is likely given that any ambiguities can be
clarified. In addition viewing communication as the formal as well as informal sharing of
meaningful and timely information between firms shows that the parties involves trust one
another. This further helps foster the relationship between the institution and its suppliers. In
addition effective communication in channel relationships enhances levels of coordination,
satisfaction, commitment levels, and performance.
The study also found that there is trust between the institution and its supplier
and that trust plays a role in the relationship with the suppliers. This is holds because where
the parties have trust in one another, then there will be ways by which the two parties can
work out difficulties such as power conflict, low profitability, among others. Trust leads
buyers and suppliers to the focus on long-term benefits of the relationship and eventually
enhance the performance outcomes in buyer-supplier relationships, including firm
competitiveness and transaction costs reduction. In addition the presence of trust enables
parties to accrue a number of benefits such as reduction in transaction costs in an exchange
relationship, minimization of risk of opportunistic behavior, increase in long-term orientation,
willingness to make idiosyncratic investments and engage in future business opportunity as
well as facilitating cooperative transaction.
The institution collaborates with its suppliers and this affects its relationship with its
suppliers. This is because collaboration can be seen as complementary coordinated actions
taken by institution and its suppliers in an interdependent relationship to achieve mutual or
singular outcomes with expected reciprocation over time. As such the two collaboration
between the two parties reflects the expectations of working together to achieve mutual and
individual goals jointly. Such mutual working helps the foster relationship with the supplier.
The collaborative inter-business relationship is principally based upon trust between business
parties. This further shows that when the institution collaborates with its suppliers, there is
trust which also affect the kind and strength of the relationship with suppliers. Collaboration
also increases channel efficiency and help parties attain their mutual goals.
The study found the institution experiences disputes with its suppliers and has instated
mechanism to handle the disputes. In addition, the disputes affect the relationship between
suppliers and the institution. This holds because disputes can make the institution and its

38
suppliers less receptive one another’s and can take time and energy away from the pursuit
of business goals, and can cause restricted and distorted flows of information. Nevertheless, it
is important to appreciate that disputes when handled effectively, can also function to affect
business relationships positively. For instance, disputes can serve as a medium through which
problems can be aired and solutions derived. It can serve integrative functions through the
voicing of each party’s perspectives and can enhance the ability to work together in the future
hence strengthening relationships. In some cases disputes can motivates parties to adapt,
grow, and seize new opportunities. This shows that creative action on the part of one party is
needed if the dispute is to be successfully resolved.

39
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a summary, conclusions and recommendations in line with the
research phenomenon. The summary is an extended abstract while conclusions are derived
from the summary. The chapter also includes recommendation which are drawn from the
conclusions. The recommendations are on practice and future research.
5.2 Summary
5.2.1 The effect of trust on supplier-buyer relationship
The study found that there is trust between the institution and its suppliers. Moreover
trust affects the relationship between the institution and its suppliers. Trust leads buyers and
suppliers to the focus on long-term benefits of the relationship and eventually enhance the
performance outcomes in buyer-supplier relationships, including firm competitiveness and
transaction costs reduction.
5.2.2 The effect of communication on supplier-buyer relationship
The study established that the institution communications with its suppliers and that
communication affects the relationship between suppliers and the institution. The presence
of communication and use of effective modes helps the institutions reduce negative effects of
uncertainty. As such it fosters the relationship between the suppliers and institution as the two
can communicate and deal with any differences.
5.2.3 The effect of supplier collaboration strategies on supplier-buyer relationship
The institution collaborates with its suppliers and this affects the relationship between
the two parties. The collaboration between the two parties reflects the expectations of
working together to achieve mutual and individual goals jointly and also increases channel
efficiency and help parties attain their mutual goals. Such mutual working helps the foster
relationship with the supplier.
5.2.4 The effect of handling disputes on supplier-buyer relationship
The study found the institution experiences disputes with its suppliers and has instated
mechanism to handle the disputes. In addition, the disputes affect the relationship between
suppliers and the institution. Disputes affect relationship with suppliers given they can
make the institution and its suppliers less receptive one another’s and can take time and

40
energy away from the pursuit of business goals, and can cause restricted and distorted flows
of information. Nevertheless, when disputes when handled effectively, can also function to
affect business relationships positively.
5.3 Conclusion
This study examined the factors affecting supplier-buyer relationship at state
parastatals by using Jogo Kenyatta University of Agriculture Juja as a case study. In the study
the effect of communication, trust, handling of disputes and collaboration on supplier buyer
relationship were explored. The study might have been limited by lack of cooperation from
respondents but the researcher assured them of privacy. A descriptive research design was
adopted where 28 employees sampled to take part and issued with a questionnaire. The study
had a 70% response rate where 20 questionnaires were returned having been dully filled.
Most of the respondents agreed that the institution communicates with its suppliers, there is
trust and collaboration with the suppliers and that it experiences disputes with the suppliers.
In addition the institution has set up effective modes of communication, collaboration,
building trust and handling disputes. The study found that communication, collaboration,
trust and handling disputes affect relationship with suppliers.
5.4 Recommendations
The institution should evaluate its communication, collaboration, building trust and
handling disputes modes with suppliers. This will help bring out their efficiency and how
they can be strengthened on improved. In addition the institution should evaluates how best
it can resolve disputes with suppliers to ensure this strengthens its relationship with suppliers.
There is need for further research to establish how communication, collaboration, building
trust and handling disputes affect relationship with suppliers.

41
References
Aliment, R. J. (2008). Alternative Dispute Resolution in International Business
Transactions. Brief, 38, 12.
Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. (1992), “The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in
distribution channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (1) 18-34.
Arshinder, K., Deshmukh, S.G., 2007. Coordination in supply chains: an evaluation using
fuzzy logic. Production Planning and Control 18, 420-435.
Barabasi, A.-L. (2003). Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it
Means.New York, NY: Plume Book.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
Bemelmans,J., Voordijk, H., Vos, B., Buter J.,(2012). Assessing Buyer-Supplier Relationship
Management: Multiple Case-Study in the Dutch Construction Industry. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, January 2012, p. 163-167
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services: Competing through Quality,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Billington, C., Cordon, C. & Vollmann, T., 2006. Super supplier collaboration. IMD, (134),
.1-4.
Caglio, A., Ditillo, A., 2008. A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm
relationships: Achievements and future directions. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 33, 865-898.
Cousins, P.D., & Spekman, R. (2003). Strategic Supply and the Management of Inter and
Intra-Organisational Relationships. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
9 (1), p.1929.

42
Dyer, J.H. & Nobeoka, K. (2002). Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-
sharing network: The Toyota case.
Ford, D., Gadde, L.E., Hakansson, H. & Snehota, I., 2003. Managing business relationships.
2nd ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Gadde, L.,E., Håkansson, H. & Persson, G. (2010). Supply Network Strategies. 2nd ed.
Chippenham: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships.
Journal of Marketing 58(2), 1-19.
Goran. S (2005). Mutual versus Interactive trust : a conceptual approach on Customer and
supplier Perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp. 101-114
Hunt, S. D. & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition.
Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1-15.
Hunt, S. D. & Davis, D. F. (2008). Grounding Supply Chain Management in Resource-
Advantage Theory. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(1), 10-21.
Johnson, M. D. & Selnes, F. (2004). Customer Portfolio Management: Toward a Dynamic
Theory of Exchange Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 1-17.
Kamau, I. N. (2013). Buyer-supplier Relationships and Organizational Performance Among
Large Manufacturing Firms In Nairobi, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Nairobi).
Kaufmann-Kohler, G. (2005). Online Dispute Resolution and its Significance for
International Commercial Arbitration. Global Reflections on International Law,
Commerce and Dispute Resolution Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner.
International Chambers of Commerce, 439-440.

43
Kinoti, J. B., Arasa, R., Waititu, G. A., & Guyo, W. (2013). Influence of Supplier
Relationship Management on the Implementation of Supply Chain Management
Ethics in Government Ministries in Kenya. Global Advanced Research
Journal of Management and Business Studies 2(9), 469-473.
Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2002). Gaining from vertical partnerships:
Knowledge transfer, relationship duration and supplier performance improvement in
the U.S. and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4),
293–316.
Liker, J.K. & Choi, T.Y., 2004. Building deeper supplier relationships. Harvard Business
Review, 1-11.
Luo, Y. & Park, S.H. (2004). Multi-party co-operation and performance in international
equity joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 140-60.
Rašković, M., & Mörec, B. (2013). Determinants of supplier-buyer relationship
Competitiveness in transnational companies. Economic and Business Review, 15(1),
5-31.
Meadows, P. (2007). A review of the economic impact of employment relations services
delivered by ACAS. NIESR.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D.: 1994. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing. Journal of Marketing 58, 20-38.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factor affecting trust in market research
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1). 81-101.
Moura, H. M. P., & Teixeira, J. M. C. (2010). Managing stakeholders conflicts
Mracek, P. & Mucha, M. (2011). Application of knowledge in advergaming as a possible
source of competitive advantage. Journal of Competitiveness, 3(3), 108-118
Muhwezi, M. (2009).Horizontal Purchasing Collaboration in developing Countries:
Behaviour Issues: Journal of Global Business Issues 11 (2)

44
Mwikali, R., & Kavale, S. (2012). Status of Supplier Buyer Relationship in Kenyan Public
sector . International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(14), 189-193.
Nagurney, A. (2010). Optimal supply chain network design and redesign at minimal total
cost and with demand satisfaction. International Journal of Production Economics,
128(2), 200- 208.
Naude, M. J., & Badenhorst-Weiss, J. A. (2012). Supplier-customer relationships:
weaknesses in South African automotive supply chains. Journal of Transport and
Supply Chain Management, 6(1), 91-106.
Ni, L. (2006). Relationships as organizational resources: Examining public relations impact
through its connection with organizational strategies. Public Relations Review, 23(3),
276-281.
Njeru, A. W. (2013). Factors influencing supplier development in public entities
in Kenya: A case study of Kenya Power. International Journal of Social Sciences and
Entrepreneurship, 1 (5), 544-561
Perks, S., & Oosthuizen, M. (2013). Exploring Supplier Negotiation Best Practices And
Supplier Relationships Strategies in South Africa. Retrieved from
http://sibresearch.org/uploads/2/7/9/9/2799227/riber_k13-096_333-350.pdf
Roberts-Lombard, M. (2010). The supplier relationship practices of travel agencies in the
Western Cape Province-What is the status quo?. Acta Commercii, 10, 1-14.
Sako, M., 1992. Prices, Quality and Trust – Inter-firm Relationships in Britain and Japan.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK Selnes,
Tangpong, C., & Ro, Y. (2009). The role of agent negotiation behaviors in buyer–supplier
relationships. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21(1), 58–79.
Terpend, R., Tyler, B. B., Krause, D. R., and Handfield, R. B. (2008). Buyer-supplier
relationships: Derived value over two decades. Journal of Supply Chain
Management., 44(2),p. 28–55

45
Witkin, N. (2010). Consensus Arbitration: A Negotiation‐Based Decision‐Making Process for
Arbitrators. Negotiation Journal, 26(3), 309-325.
Wu, F., Yeniyort, S., Kim, D., Cavusgil, S.T., 2006. The impact of information technology
on supply chain capabilities and firm-performance: A resource-based view. Industrial
Marketing Management 35, 493-504.
Zich, R. (2010). Concepts in Strategic Sourcing .International Journal of Production
Economics, 13(1), 60-7

46
Appendix
ResearchQuestionnaire
This questionnaire has been designed for the objective of collecting data on the factors
affecting supplier buyer relationship at Jomo Kenyatta University of Technology Juja
Campus. The data collected will be treated with a very high degree of confidentiality and it is
meant for academic purpose only.
You are kindly asked to fill out this questionnaire by putting an “X” in front of the applicable
answer or in the applicable cell.
PRELIMINARIES.
Section A
1.What is your position in this institution?
………………………………………………………..
2. How long have you worked in this position?
a) Less than 5 years [ ]
b) 5 to 10 years [ ]
c) 11 to 15 years [ ]
d) Above 15 years [ ]
3. Gender?
a) Male [ ]
b) Female [ ]
4 what is your highest level of education
Middle level [ ] Bachelors [ ] Masters [ ] Doctoral [ ]
Section B
5 Communication
5.1 In your opinion is there good communication between the institution and its suppliers?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5.2 What modes of communication do use to communicate with suppliers?

47
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5.3 Do you consider the modes of communication effective?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5.4 In your opinion, does communication affect the institution’s relationship with suppliers?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Section C
Trust
6.1 In your opinion is there trust between the institution and its suppliers?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6.2 How does the institution maintain trust with its suppliers?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6.4 Are the modes of maintaining trust effective?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
6.5 In your opinion, does trust affect the institution’s relationship with suppliers?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Section D
Collaboration
7.1 In your opinion is there collaboration between the institution and its suppliers?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain

48
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
7.2 Which of the following modes of collaboration exists with suppliers?
Having mutual goals with suppliers [ ]
Mutual information sharing between our institution and our suppliers [ ]
Responsiveness towards each other’s and needs between institution and suppliers [ ]
Jointly managing supplies for the next period together with our suppliers [ ]
Sharing our long-term product and service plans with suppliers [ ]
7.3 In your opinion, does collaboration affect the institution’s relationship with suppliers?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Section D
Handling of Disputes
8.1 In your opinion does the institution experience disputes with its suppliers?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
8.2 What type of disputes does the institution experience disputes with its suppliers?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
8.3 Which approaches of handling disputes does the institution use to solve disputes with
suppliers?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
8.4 Are the approaches used by the institution to solve disputes with suppliers effective?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
8.5 In your opinion, does handling of disputes affect the institution’s relationship with
suppliers?

49
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Kindly explain
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Section E
9. How can the supplier-buyer relationship between Jomo Kenyatta University of Technology
Juja Campus and its suppliers be improved?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

PROJECT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to PROJECT

Similar to PROJECT (20)

PROJECT