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

relationships with suppliers” (CIPS, 2022). However, Porter (1985) would instead define the notion of procurement as the function of purchasing inputs utilised within a company’s value chain, herein raw materials, supplies, and other consumable items. Through a comparison of the two characterisations of procurement, the two perspectives are alike. However, Porter (1985) does not directly mention anything about the management of supplier relationships. Essentially, procurement is not only about coordination of the organisation’s material needs for manufacturing (Rejeb, et al., 2018). Rejeb et al., (2018) continue by stressing that contemporary procurement is equally about the emphasis upon granting access and sharing information with supply chain partners. In essence, procurement is about visibility. According to Porter (1985), the difference between procurement and inbound logistics are still notable, as procurement refers to the spend across an organisation in various activities, whereas inbound logistics refers only to direct inputs to the product. It means that procurement does not necessarily relate to raw components to produce the physical produce, as it could likewise be procurement of machines for the plant, temporary help, supplies for the office, or consultancy services to support strategic decisions. Overall, as stated by Porter (1985, p. 41), “the dispersion of the procurement function of obscures the magnitude of total purchases”. In essence, the statement clearly exhibits how procurement is associated with various activities across the value chain and not only the direct raw components for the operations. i. Procurement Logistics Beyond the conceptualisations of procurement and inbound logistics, a new notion has begun to receive great attention throughout academia in the last decade. The phenomenon is known as procurement logistics, which “… comprises the connection between the supplier’s distribution logistics and manufacturer’s production logistics system” (Zander, et al., 2020). According to Tracy and Sands (2011), there is a need to strengthen supply chains by bridging the gap between logistics and procurement. Essentially, in a time where transparency and holistic recognition are argued to be the means to succeed in the ‘new normal’, the notion of procurement logistics has received its attention due to a need of bringing further flexibility and efficiency to the supply chain (Thalbauer, 2020; Bogaschewsky, 2019), thus, enhancing the emphasis on the practice of holistic exchange of information (Büchi, et al., 2020). By comparing the original, known notion of inbound logistics to procurement logistics, Rejeb et al., (2018) explain that the new phenomenon has a deeper emphasis as it also includes the relational action of exchanging data and information with one’s supply chain partners. Hence, procurement logistics intends to extend the upstream activities’ responsibility by going beyond the action of purchasing goods and the receiving of goods at the warehouse (Zander, et al., 2020). It can therefore be interpreted that its aim is to directly enhance the state of stability in the physical creation of the product. Holistically, the new, discovered term is essentially still about procuring the required materials to produce the physical product. However, it paves the way for a new perception on the importance of communication within upstream logistics and sets the stage for an additional range of actions required to sustain one’s competitiveness (Globaltranz, 2016). d) Agility In relation to the rising pursuit of developing one’s capabilities within value chain thinking, agility, responsiveness, and resilience have become recurrent conceptualisations in modern procurement, which have been proved costly to neglect corporately in the recent decades (Barratt & Oke, 2007; Christopher & Lee, 2004). Specifically, agility has received a lot of attention within academia, as various industries have been exposed to increased volatility and unpredictability in correlation with occurrences of broken supply chains Time for Revitalisation of Value Chain Management: A Reassessment of Porter’s View on Procurement 6 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue VII Version I Year 2022 ( ) A © 2022 Global Journals In continuation of the conceptualisation of procurement, Mônica et al., (2021) make it clear that there has been a vast debate of the role of procurement over the last years. The debate has concerned the role of procurement in the value chain, but also the concrete definition of which practical actions are required in a procurement function (Ellram & Birou, 1995; Georgino, et al., 2021). Already back then, Porter (1985) seemed aware of this potential debate, as he in Competitive Advantage commented on the closeness between the secondary activity procurement and the primary activity inbound logistics. He further stressed that inbound logistics ought to be viewed as, “activities associated with receiving, storing, and disseminating inputs to the product, such as material handling, warehousing, inventory control, vehicle scheduling, and returns to suppliers” (Porter, 1985, pp. 39-40). Reflectively, it becomes apparent that the two activities, inbound logistics and procurement, do have certain similarities. Similar to inbound logistics, procurement refers to the function of purchasing input, but the function of procurement also emphasises enhancement of the relational information flow between the focal company and its suppliers (Büchi, et al., 2020). Nonetheless, the closeness between the activities is acknowledged by Porter (1985, p. 41) himself, as he concludes that: “… purchasing inputs are commonly associated with primary activity”. Ultimately, one could be curious as to which practical actions are required in these two activities and whether they are more alike than one would think. (Georgino, et al., 2021; Zander et al., 2021; Elenjickal, 2021; Thalbauer, 2021). According to Swafford et al.,