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

Time for Revitalisation of Value Chain Management: A Reassessment of Porter’s View on Procurement 9 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXII Issue VII Version I Year 2022 ( ) A © 2022 Global Journals found that if fragments of these two activities are suitably unified, it could lead to a new primary activity to cater for changing buyer value and exposure to uncertainty. It has led to the discovery of procurement logistics, which in the view of the author would fit well into a contemporary value model. As a consequence of the recent supply volatilities, companies have been urged to evolve and prepare themselves for a ‘new normal’, since uncertainties are anticipated to occur more frequently. Therefore, to improve the state of stability in the value chain, the author claims that organisational benefits are to be reaped by altering the traditional primary activity inbound logistics into procurement logistics. This would pave the way for a stronger foundation to accommodate to uncertainty, as the notion has a deeper emphasis on promoting information sharing and developing a resilient strategy. Furthermore, the remodified value chain is holistically envisioned to create a ripple effect with the aim of aligning expectation to an enhanced flow of transparency throughout the value system. VII. F uture R esearch The author encourages papers to continue research that challenges the value chain. As this study is solely using secondary data, it would be fruitful to test the integration of procurement logistics, as a primary activity, with the usage of primary data, in order to understanding its implications in real-life practice. Ultimately, future researchers should note that the perspective of this paper has predominately been directed towards the upstream activities in the value chain, more specifically procurement. In the process of writing this paper, the author realised that procurement is not the only activity, which has received a lot of attention over the last decades. Another activity is unarguably the secondary activity technology development technology, the evolution of which has influenced business practices in various ways. For this reason, future papers are also recommended to scrutinise as to whether technology development, as well as the other activities in Porter’s (1985) value chain, ought to be utilised differently in the present business environment in comparison to how it originally was introduced by Porter in 1985. R eferences R éférences R eferencias 1. Abdelhadi, S. E., 2017. Assessment of Procurement Function Significance in Value Chain Model. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: A Administration and Management, 17(1), pp. 28-34. 2. Aktouf, O., Chenoufi, M. & Holford, W. D., 2005. General Issues in Management: The False Expectations of Michael Porter's Strategic Management Framework. Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 4, pp. 181- 200. 3. Argyres, N. & McGahan, A., 2002. An Interview with Michael Porter. The Academy of Management Executives, 16(2), pp. 43-52. 4. Barratt, M. & Oke, A., 2011. Antecedents of Supply Chain Visibility in Retail Supply Chains: A Resource- based Theory Perspective. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(4), pp. 374-391. 5. Bogaschewsky, R., 2019. Digitalisierung in Einkauf und Supply Chain Management. In: R. Obermaier, ed. Handbuch Industrie 4.0 und Digitale Transformation. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, pp. 139-164. 6. Bozarth, C. B. & Handfield, R. B., 2015. Introduction to Operations and Supply Chain Management. 4th, Global edition ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. 7. Brandenburger, A., 2002. Porter's Added Value: High Indeed!. The Academy of Management Executives, 16(2), pp. 58-60. 8. Braunscheidel, M. J. & Suresh, N. C., 2009. The Organisational Antecedents of a Firm's Supply Chain Agility for Risk Mitigation and Response. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), pp. 119- 140. 9. Brooks, C. et al., 2021. Suez disruption to ripple through supply chains. Journal of Commerce, 22(8), p. 6. 10. Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2015. Business Research Methods. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. 11. Büchi, G., Cugno, M. & Castagnoli, R., 2020. Smart Factory Performance and Industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 150(January), pp. 1-10. 12. Chakravarthy, B. S., 1982. Adaptation: a Promising Metaphor for Strategic Management. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), pp. 35-44. 13. Chopra, S. & Sodhi, M. S., 2004. Managing Risk to Avoid Supply-Chain Breakdown. [Online] Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/managing- risk-to-avoid-supplychain-breakdown/ [Accessed 10 04 2022]. 14. Christopher, M. & Lee, H., 2004. Mitigating Supply Chain Risk through Improved Confidence. International Journal of Physcial Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(5), pp. 388-396. 15. CIPS, 2022. What is Procurement?. [Online] Available at: https://www.cips.org/cips-for-individ uals/what-is-procurement/[Accessed 2022 03 26]. 16. Cugno, M. & Castagnoli, R., 2020. Smart Factory Performance and Industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150(1), pp. 1-10. 17. Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. & Henke, M., 2015. The Performance Impact of Supply Chain Agility and Supply Chain Adaptability: The Moderating Effect of Product Complexity.