EJECUCIÓN DEL CONTRATO 23. RESPONSABLE DEL CONTRATO

The informants were asked to assess the quality of the relationship. They were asked: “How good or well functioning is this relationship?” Based on all the answers the dyad MSys-EMS1 had the best relationship (5.6), fol- lowed by the dyad MSys-EMS2 (4.8) and, in third place, the dyad MSys- EMS3 (4.1). The supplier informants’ assessments of the relationship were higher in all cases than the MSys informants’ assessments of the same rela- tionship. Hence the suppliers tended to assess the relationship more posi- tively than MSys. However, the ranking of these relationships remained unchanged when the answers given by the MSys interviewees were com- pared across the three dyads.

The informants were also asked to assess the importance of the supplier’s relational effort. They were asked: “How important is the supplier’s rela- tional effort for MSys?” The dyad MSys-EMS1 gave the highest rating (5.6 on average), the dyad MSys-EMS2 the second highest (5.2) and the dyad MSys-EMS3 the lowest (4.6). In the dyads MSys-EMS1 and MSys-EMS2 the average scores of the MSys informants and from EMS informants for the

5 THEORY DEVELOPMENT

importance of the supplier’s relational effort were relatively close to each other. In the dyad MSys-EMS3, the EMS informants gave a higher score (5.1) than the MSys informants (4.0).

Another indicator relating to the impact of supplier relational effort stud- ied here is the sales volume in the dyad and how has it developed. If we compare the suppliers’ sales to MSys in these dyads in 2007 and 2009, we see that sales increased by 10-15% in the dyad MSys-EMS1, but it decreased slightly in the other two dyads (0-5%). This is just one indicator; other fac- tors affected sales during the study period, especially the recession, which might have hit in the different product categories differently.

The impact of the supplier’s relational effort can be discussed further on the basis of the other research evidence, i.e. interviews, open discussions and observations. In the dyad MSys-EMS1, the supplier’s informants as- sessed the relationship on the operational level as of very high quality, and they were very positive about how well the relationship was working on a daily basis. They were a little too modest in their assessment of their effort when compared against MSys’s assessment of the same effort. They were also realistic and a little concerned about the resources available for making an effort. The representatives of the strategic level of management and of engineering services were also very positive about the relationship, alt- hough they had some concerns about the transparency of the “bigger pic- ture” and about the limited time resources available for innovative discus- sions. In their assessment MSys stated that the relationship had become a lot better during the past six months and they were willing to give even higher ratings if the situation continued along this path. Thus, according to the assessment, the trend in the development of the relationship in the dyad MSys-EMS1 was positive. Business had been growing, which is also a sign of a developing business relationship. In the dyad MSys-EMS1, all the in- formants were positive about the relationship and saw that a lot of mean- ingful supplier relational effort exists. The trend in the development of the relationship was positive and future prospects were also positive in this dyad.

In the dyad MSys-EMS2, most of the informants from both companies were positive about the relationship; MSys was significantly less satisfied with the relationship on the strategic level. The supplier’s informants were quite consistent and positive in their assessments while at MSys views dif- fered more. However, the average scores were very positive. Both compa- nies were mainly positive about the trend in the development of the rela- tionship. Some differing views were expressed on development prospects in the long-term. In the dyad MSys-EMS2, both companies had experienced a

5 THEORY DEVELOPMENT major conflict situation the previous year, but the conflict had been re- solved and the expectations for future cooperation were positive, especially in the supplier company.

In the dyad MSys-EMS3 the operational level assessments differed signif- icantly between MSys and EMS3. On the operational level MSys gave lower scores than EMS3 for relationship quality. On the strategic level problems in the relationship were seen in both companies and the ratings were in line with each other. The trend in the development of the relationship at the moment was seen as negative in both companies. One reason was probably the recent withdrawal of products from EMS3 at short notice. The amount of business had been declining as well and no new products had been trans- ferred to this supplier lately.

In the dyads MSys-EMS1 and MSys -EMS2, many positive outcomes due to development effort, such as more competitive products and improve- ments in processes, were evident. In the dyad MSys-EMS3, competitiveness had not developed satisfactorily.

In the dyad MSys-EMS1, in particular, the business environment in the relationship felt safe, facilitating interaction and open discussion. People had learned to know each other, the other company, and their business, products and processes. It was easier to communicate and to work together. The way of working had become more easy-going and operations more effi- cient. Problem solving had become more effective and quicker. Both quick responses and actions were possible, and relational costs were lower. This was also partly true for the dyad MSys-EMS2, despite some conflicting views.

In the dyads MSys-EMS1 and MSys-EMS2, there were also indications that the supplier companies had learned a lot during their history with MSys and that this had enabled them to develop their overall business as well. In the dyad MSys-EMS3, the outcome was far more modest.

How much these outcomes were affected by the supplier relational effort is hard to determine. However, significant differences in supplier relational effort in the different dyads were highly evident. On the basis of this re- search there seems to be a positive correlation between supplier relational effort and positive outcomes, both affecting the relationship and shared business. This in turn indirectly affects the overall performance of both companies.

The following propositions summarize the findings concerning the impact of supplier relational effort.

5 THEORY DEVELOPMENT

Proposition 7. Supplier relational effort has a positive impact on how

good or well-performing the buyer-supplier relationship is perceived by the actors.

Proposition 8. Supplier relational effort has a positive impact on sales

volume in the buyer-supplier relationship.

The results are summarized in Figure 5. The numbers in the figure refer to propositions 1 to 8. According to the results, the quality of the current rela- tionship is a factor affecting the amount of supplier relational effort en- gaged in. At the same time the quality of the relationship is affected by the amount of supplier relational effort. This is the situation in reality in the business environment: a good quality relationship encourages the supplier to make relational effort, which in turn further enhances the relationship. It is a positive spiral which at its best can lead to a constantly improving rela- tionship. A large current volume of sales can also be a factor facilitating supplier relational effort. This is part of the attractiveness of the customer, and it further increases the amount of supplier relational effort. This effort can then lead to a further increase in sales volume. So, also in the case of sales volume, a positive spiral can occur where the increasing sales volume enhances the effort leading to further increase in sales.