Table 2 Comparison of procurement... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2

Comparison of procurement frameworks: Kraljic, purchasing chessboard, and the urgency-substitutability framework

Dimension	Kraljic (1983) matrix	Purchasing chessboard (Schuh et al., 2008)	This study: urgency × substitutability under unmitigable supplier dominance
Primary purpose	Portfolio classification to allocate purchasing attention and manage supply risk	Portfolio logic + power positioning to select strategic levers by power configuration	Explain the conditions under which procurement strategies remain feasible under unmitigable supplier dominance
Core assumption about buyer agency	Buyers can shape outcomes via sourcing choices and leverage	Strategy depends on power position	Buyer agency is structurally constrained under supplier dominance Buyers cannot freely choose among theoretically available procurement strategies
Key dimensions	Profit impact × supply risk	Kraljic categories × power positions (dominance/interdependence/independence)	Consequence severity (urgency) × replaceability under operational + institutional constraints (substitutability)
Typical strategic logic	Optimize cost/risk trade-offs via segmentation and supply strategies	Select levers suited to each power position	Determine strategy feasibility based on urgency-substitutability contingencies
Theoretical contribution	Foundational purchasing portfolio theory General prioritization and risk segmentation in purchasing	Integrates power into portfolio thinking How power positions alter which levers are theoretically available	Theory elaboration: Under unmitigable supplier dominance, strategy feasibility precedes strategy selection, with urgency and substitutability defining the boundaries of the feasible strategy set. Which established procurement strategies remain feasible for weaker buyers Why some strategies become infeasible or counterproductive Why the effectiveness of the same strategy varies across urgency-substitutability conditions
Limitations	Persistent supplier dominance: situations where switching/leverage are infeasible	The implementation feasibility and boundary conditions of levers for structurally weak buyers	Identifies the feasible strategy set but does not prescribe selection among feasible alternatives

Dimension	Kraljic (1983) matrix	Purchasing chessboard (Schuh et al., 2008)	This study: urgency × substitutability under unmitigable supplier dominance
Primary purpose	Portfolio classification to allocate purchasing attention and manage supply risk	Portfolio logic + power positioning to select strategic levers by power configuration	Explain the conditions under which procurement strategies remain feasible under unmitigable supplier dominance
Core assumption about buyer agency	Buyers can shape outcomes via sourcing choices and leverage	Strategy depends on power position	Buyer agency is structurally constrained under supplier dominance Buyers cannot freely choose among theoretically available procurement strategies
Key dimensions	Profit impact × supply risk	Kraljic categories × power positions (dominance/interdependence/independence)	Consequence severity (urgency) × replaceability under operational + institutional constraints (substitutability)
Typical strategic logic	Optimize cost/risk trade-offs via segmentation and supply strategies	Select levers suited to each power position	Determine strategy feasibility based on urgency-substitutability contingencies
Theoretical contribution	Foundational purchasing portfolio theory General prioritization and risk segmentation in purchasing	Integrates power into portfolio thinking How power positions alter which levers are theoretically available	Theory elaboration: Under unmitigable supplier dominance, strategy feasibility precedes strategy selection, with urgency and substitutability defining the boundaries of the feasible strategy set. Which established procurement strategies remain feasible for weaker buyers Why some strategies become infeasible or counterproductive Why the effectiveness of the same strategy varies across urgency-substitutability conditions
Limitations	Persistent supplier dominance: situations where switching/leverage are infeasible	The implementation feasibility and boundary conditions of levers for structurally weak buyers	Identifies the feasible strategy set but does not prescribe selection among feasible alternatives

Source(s): Authors' own creation