Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 22 Issue 7

Figure 1: The value chain framework. Adopted from Porter (1985) Moreover, Klein (2000) explains that Porter’s (1985) initial conceptualisation of competitive advantage is vague, as it creates confusion as to how to comprehend the term from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. Originally, Porter (1985, p. xxii) stated that “competitive advantage grows fundamentally out of the value a firm is able to create for its buyers”. Another example of a terminological change is the emergent importance of relationships from the late 20th century into the current 21st century. As highlighted by Aktouf et al. (2005), relationships are another missing link in Porter’s (1985) value chain. In their research, it is highlighted that, while the value chain originally intends to divide a business into value activities, it neglects how internal and external relationships tie these activities together (Aktouf, et al., 2005). Consequently, it could be interpreted that Porter’s (1985) value chain disregarded in which way relational bonds were embedded in the stream of activities because the value chain was characterised as less complex in comparison with today’s global supply chain (Min, et al., 2019). This could explain why the relational parameter did not Time for Revitalisation of Value Chain Management: A Reassessment of Porter’s View on Procurement 4 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue VII Version I Year 2022 ( ) A © 2022 Global Journals He further expressed that it is to be found “… at the heart of a firm’s performance in competitive markets” (Porter, 1985, p. xxi). However, based on Porter’s (1985) view, Klein (2000) argues that this presentation of competitive advantage does not define the notion in a contemporary way unless one groups the conceptualisation of competitive advantage together with one’s interpretation of value. In this vein, Aktouf et al., (2005, page 186) consider it is a clear example of how: “… the question of value has divided theorists for decades, competitive advantage loses its relevance as a central notion in strategic thinking”. Reflectively, as business practices and the organisational way of strategising have historically been far from static, one should be cautious in the comprehension of a terminology with a span of more than one decade. Essentially, this indicates that a change in time could lead to an alteration in a notion’s conceptualisation, as it might adapt to new surrounding settings. Porter’s incentive principle of introducing the value chain in 1985 was to give a response to the criticism of his findings presented in Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (1980). The majority of the criticism was particularly levelled against that the findings could not be deployed in the industries of the time, as the presented findings were too macroeconomic (Aktouf, et al., 2005). In other words, it was argued that the one- dimensional nature of his work made it difficult for businesses to apply in practice. In the opinion of Aktouf et al. (2005, p. 185), page 185: “Porter felt obliged to turn to the microeconomic aspects of his doctrine”. According to Porter (1985) himself, the academic chain in Competitive Advantage (1985) was his act of taking accountability by filling out the gaps to the received criticism (Porter 1985; Aktouf, et al., 2005; Argyres & McGahan, 2002b). As a result, the act of taking accountability turned into a success, as the response to his findings was considered awe-inspiring, and still is due to the mainstream usage of his work worldwide. However, as pointed out by Aktouf et al. (2005), one could also claim the mainstream usage has entailed that the definition of competitive advantage, buyer value, and value creation have become too one- sided. development of the generic strategies and the value