Purchasing goods using a viable and efficient action scheme is an essential task for any organization. The technique of “The Seven Right,” namely the TQRDCEB strategy, is a prominent policy to be implemented when an enterprise is in search of a supplier (Dharmadhikari & Basak, 2016). The TQRDCEB is a tool that is most commonly used to measure and communicate a supplier’s performance, offering the company a chance of determining its potential partners. Various enterprises use the assessment system to evaluate their suppliers’ attitudes towards essential business elements, furthering their communication possibilities. Based on the examinations received, the owners can make an informed decision on their subsequent interaction with a given provider, maintaining the strategic development objectives established.
TQRDCEB is shortened from technology, quality, responsiveness, delivery, cost, environment, and business, and is an insight into the organization’s expectations regarding the quality of the providers’ services and the overall priorities established by the supplier. According to the system, the providing enterprise’s technological equipment, quality control, responsiveness to customers, time of delivery, cost reduction programs, environmental impact awareness, and business management are evaluated (Dharmadhikari & Basak, 2016). Based on the scores received, the purchasing company can decide whether the supplier services fit their requirements and the chosen strategic development or if the provider is unable to accommodate the needs (Dharmadhikari & Basak, 2016). Overall, utilizing the TQRDCEB strategy is an exceptionally effective approach to customizing the purchasing enterprise’s suppliers, examining the potential business relationships, and choosing a perfect provider.
Forming and developing business-to-business relationships (B2B) is essential for any company striving to improve its position on the market. Various types of B2B approaches are available for the organization based on its current advancement goals and management choices, as well as procurement and outsourcing initiatives. Scholars outline several types of such relationships, namely direct partnerships, joint ventures, trade associations, and networks (Zaefarian et al., 2017). Partnerships are one of the most immediate forms of buyer and supplier interaction, and the parties involved require a high level of trust to function properly (Blut et al., 2016). Although the resulting interaction is often incredibly powerful, both of the enterprises become liable for subsequent debts or losses. Due to these factors, this approach is less suited for extensive procurement methods, establishing a small opportunity for outsourcing initiatives.
Another possible variation is a joint venture, which involves two or more enterprises that are focused on achieving a particular objective. This relationship is largely focused on creating a long-term connection, aiming at sustaining the objective’s completion even after the B2B communication ceases (Zaefarian et al., 2017). Similarly to a direct partnership, each contributor becomes responsible for any profits gained or costs lost. Given a broader range of markets available to the partners, outsourcing initiatives become easier to perform, and procurement possibilities rise to higher levels.
A different relationship type is a trade association, which is closely connected to the idea of industry. During this interaction, firms collaborate based on geographic or industrial factors in order to enhance their performance in specific spheres (Zaefarian et al., 2017). The enhancement of commercial and industrial possibilities is a remarkable trait of this venture, and the common interests of the parties are protected during this activity. This form of business communication is highly open to procurement methods, providing the involved parties a tremendous opportunity for fulfilling their outsourcing goals. Finally, a B2B network relationship concerns the collaboration between an enterprise and a brand, which might reduce transaction costs and provide access to additional resources (Park & Lee, 2018). An organization maintaining a business network can efficiently procure supplementary services and is open to a large number of outsourcing opportunities. As the popularity of numerous brands increases in the modern age, networking becomes a lucrative way of establishing successful business relationships and managing additional methods of procurement. Companies within a network are presented with a capability to provide resolutions to other organizations, implying a higher degree of responsibility.
Risk management is closely connected to strategic development opportunities for a particular company, often becoming a subject of exceptional effort. Handling potential outcomes and acting in consideration of future outcomes is the core characteristic of risk management (Huong Tran et al., 2016). Diverse risk negating opportunities are available to organizations’ owners, providing them with a powerful tool of altering various ramifications. The response to risks includes mitigation strategies that envelop the techniques aimed at decreasing the financial loss caused by diminishing the overall possibility of the risk occurrence. An effective method used is a proactive strategy, focused on acting prior to the negative event (Ganeshan & Sivasamy, 2018). In contrast, a reactive approach manages the consequences of the scenario transpired, focusing on the company’s recovery.
Both proactive and reactive action plans can be utilized as effective means of handling risks, namely when collaborating with an organization’s leading suppliers or sharing relevant resources. For example, partnerships often include trust management and credentials delegation programs as primary methods of threat mitigation (Huong Tran et al., 2016). Collaborations, on the other hand, direct their attention to controlling possible ways of access and authorization, as well as engaging in auditing activities to ensure their protection from future risks. Altogether, an enterprise’s decision to follow a particular approach to risk alleviation hinges on the supply chain management practices used.
Blut, M., Evanschitzky, H., Backhaus, C., Rudd, J., & Marck, M. (2016). Securing business-to-business relationships: The impact of switching costs. Industrial Marketing Management, 52, 82–90. Web.
Ganeshan, H., & Sivasamy, N. (2018). Supply chain risk mitigation strategies and its performance of SMEs. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 119, 741–749.
Huong Tran, T. T., Childerhouse, P., & Deakins, E. (2016). Supply chain information sharing: Challenges and risk mitigation strategies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(8), 1102–1126. Web.
Park, C., & Lee, H. (2018). Early-stage value co-creation network – business relationships connecting high-tech B2B actors and resources: Taiwan semiconductor business network case. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(4), 478–494. Web.
Zaefarian, G., Thiesbrummel, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2017). Different recipes for success in business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 63, 69–81. Web.