suPlay Purchasing Game Beer Game Minigames Poll SSA

Research foundation

The science behind Supplier Satisfaction Analyses

SSA operationalises a peer-reviewed framework for measuring supplier satisfaction, preferred customer status, and preferential treatment — developed and empirically validated across two decades of research by Vos, Schiele, Hüttinger and colleagues.

The nine dimensions of supplier satisfaction

The framework distinguishes first-tier antecedents that directly drive supplier satisfaction from second-tier antecedents that act indirectly through the first tier. Effect sizes (β) below are from the Vos et al. (2016) revised model for direct procurement.

First-tier antecedents — direct effect on satisfaction

These four dimensions explain up to 61% of variance in supplier satisfaction (Vos et al. 2016, direct-procurement sample, n = 171).

Growth opportunity

The supplier's perceived potential to grow through the relationship — new product lines, new markets, scaling volume.

β = 0.20**

Profitability

The supplier's perception that the relationship is, or will be, economically profitable. Strongest direct antecedent in both procurement contexts.

β = 0.38**

Relational behavior

The buyer's openness, trustworthiness, reciprocity, and cooperative conduct toward the supplier.

β = 0.34**

Operative excellence

The buyer's efficiency and reliability in day-to-day operational processes — ordering, billing, delivery handling. Particularly important in indirect procurement.

β = 0.18* (indirect)

Second-tier antecedents — act via the first tier

These five dimensions influence supplier satisfaction indirectly by shaping the first-tier perceptions.

Innovation potential

The buyer's perceived innovative capability, which signals long-term growth opportunity to the supplier.

→ growth opportunity (β = 0.60**)

Reliability

The buyer's predictability and dependability in commitments. Strongest second-tier driver of relational behavior in indirect procurement.

→ relational behavior (β = 0.57**)

Support

The buyer's assistance with supplier development — training, knowledge sharing, problem-solving.

→ relational behavior (β = 0.22**)

Involvement

The buyer's active participation in the supplier's processes, including early supplier integration in development.

→ relational behavior (β = 0.20**)

Contact accessibility

The availability and responsiveness of buyer contact persons. The dominant driver of perceived operative excellence.

→ operative excellence (β = 0.40**)

The empirical chain — why measuring this matters

Vos et al. (2016) and Schiele et al. (2011) together establish a four-step causal chain: the buyer's behavior shapes supplier satisfaction, which determines whether the buyer is awarded preferred customer status, which in turn unlocks tangible preferential treatment.

61%
of variance in supplier satisfaction is explained by the four first-tier antecedents (Vos et al. 2016, direct procurement, n = 171)
β = 0.41**
effect of supplier satisfaction on preferred customer status (both direct and indirect procurement)
β = 0.55**
effect of preferred customer status on preferential treatment (direct procurement; β = 0.51** indirect)
β = 0.54**
effect of preferred customer status on supplier innovativeness, with a very high effect size (f² = 0.58; Schiele et al. 2011, n = 166)
β = 0.51**
effect of preferred customer status on supplier benevolent pricing — meaning preferred customers receive both more innovation and better prices, contradicting the expected innovation–pricing trade-off
30%
of variance in preferential treatment is explained by preferred customer status (direct procurement)

** p < 0.01 (one-sided). Statistics drawn from the Vos et al. (2016) and Schiele et al. (2011) papers cited below.

How the framework evolved

The framework now used in SSA was developed across three peer-reviewed contributions:

  1. Schiele, Veldman & Hüttinger (2011) first established that preferred customer status drives both supplier innovativeness and benevolent pricing — contradicting the prevailing assumption that buyers must choose between cheap suppliers and innovative ones.
  2. Hüttinger, Schiele & Veldman (2012) synthesised the literature on customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction, and preferred customer status into a single overarching framework, identifying seven candidate antecedents of satisfaction.
  3. Vos, Schiele & Hüttinger (2016) empirically validated the framework across both direct and indirect procurement, added profitability as an eighth antecedent, and established the revised two-tier model: four first-tier antecedents (growth opportunity, profitability, relational behavior, operative excellence) and five second-tier antecedents acting through them.

SSA implements the validated Vos et al. (2016) framework directly — the questionnaire dimensions, scaling, and analytical model used in the platform map one-to-one onto the peer-reviewed constructs.

The researchers

SSA is built and maintained by the researchers who developed the underlying framework.

Frederik G.S. Vos

Lead researcher · SSA platform owner

Assistant Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management at Portland State University. PhD from the University of Twente. Associate Editor of the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. Executive Committee member of IPSERA. Co-founder of suPlay.

Lead author of the Vos et al. (2016) replication and extension that established the revised supplier satisfaction model.

Google Scholar ↗ PSU profile ↗

Holger Schiele

Co-author of the framework

Professor of Technology Management — Innovation of Operations at the University of Twente. Habilitation focused on innovations from and with suppliers. Foundational contributor to the preferred customer concept in academic supply management research, with over 9,000 citations.

Co-author of all three papers underpinning the SSA framework (Schiele et al. 2011, Hüttinger et al. 2012, Vos et al. 2016).

Google Scholar ↗ UTwente profile ↗

Cited papers

The peer-reviewed publications behind the SSA framework. Links point to the publisher's canonical version (DOI) and, where permitted, to a freely accessible postprint.

  1. Vos, F.G.S., Schiele, H., & Hüttinger, L. (2016). Supplier satisfaction: Explanation and out-of-sample prediction. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4613–4623. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.013 · Free full text (UTwente repository, Taverne amendment)
  2. Schiele, H., Veldman, J., & Hüttinger, L. (2011). Supplier innovativeness and supplier pricing: The role of preferred customer status. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1), 1–27. DOI: 10.1142/S1363919611003064
  3. Hüttinger, L., Schiele, H., & Veldman, J. (2012). The drivers of customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction and preferred customer status: A literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(8), 1194–1205. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.10.004

Apply the framework to your own supplier base

SSA implements this validated framework as a turnkey assessment platform — scientifically grounded surveys, automated analysis, benchmarking, and reporting.

For Buying Firms Get started