09 2005 value creation
Post on 05-Apr-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
1/27
Value Creation in the Relationship Life Cycle:
A Quasi-Longitudinal Analysis
By
Andreas Eggert
University of Paderborn
Wolfgang Ulaga
ESCP-EAP European School of Management
and
Franziska Schultz
University of Paderborn
ISBM Report 9-2005
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
The Pennsylvania State University402 Business Administration Building
University Park, PA 16802-3004
(814) 863-2782 or (814) 863-0413 Fax
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
2/27
-1-
Value Creation in the Relationship Life Cycle:
A Quasi-Longitudinal Analysis
Andreas EGGERT
University of Paderborn
Marketing Department
Warburger Strasse 100
33098 Paderborn
Germany
Phone: +49 - 5251 60 20 85
Fax: +49 - 5251 60 34 33
Email: andreas.eggert@notes.upb.de
Wolfgang ULAGA
ESCP-EAP European School of Management
Marketing Department
79, avenue de la Rpublique
75543 Paris Cedex 11
France
Phone: +33 - 1 49 23 26 10
Fax: +33 - 1 49 23 22 48Email: wulaga@escp-eap.net
Franziska SCHULTZ
University of Paderborn
Marketing Department
Warburger Strasse 100
33098 Paderborn
Germany
Phone: +49 - 5251 60 21 11
Fax: +49 - 5251 60 34 33
Email: franziska.schultz@notes.upb.de
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
3/27
-2-
Value Creation in the Relationship Life Cycle:
A Quasi-Longitudinal Analysis
Abstract
Among the growing literature on value creation in collaborative buyer-seller relationships, most
researchers examine relationship value at a single point in time. In the present research, we
explore whether different stages of the relationship life cycle moderate the relative importance
of value-creating dimensions. To shed light on the dynamic nature of value in B2B
relationships, we present the results of a survey among purchasing managers using a quasi-
longitudinal research design. Our findings confirm the moderating role of the life cycle in
relationship value creation. More precisely, our results indicate that a key suppliers potentialfor value creation in customers operations increases in relative importance as relationships
move through the life cycle. In turn, a suppliers capabilities to create superior value at the level
of the customers sourcing process display a decreasing role over the life cycle of a business
relationship. No significant link was found in the present study between value creation through
a suppliers core offering and different stages of a buyer-seller relationship.
Introduction
There is a widespread consensus among marketing researchers and practitioners on the
dynamic nature of business relationships (Holmlund, 2004; Johnson and Selnes, 2004; Medlin,
2004). Scholars repeatedly argued that buyer-seller relationships experience different stages
characterized by distinct behaviors, processes or strategic orientations (Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh,
1987; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). Most research exploring the dynamics of business
relationships is of conceptual nature (Wilson, 1995; Wilson and Jantrania, 1994). Yet, from an
empirical point of view, the dynamics of business relationships remain an under-researched topic
(Wilson, 1995). Indeed, few studies have assessed the changing nature of key variables during
the life cycle of business relationships. These studies focused on variables such as satisfaction,
trust, and commitment (Jap, 2001; Jap and Ganesan, 2000).
In recent years, the concept of value has proved helpful to advance our understanding of
business relationships (Anderson, Jain, and Chintagunta, 1993; Parasuraman, 1997; Ravald and
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
4/27
-3-
Grnroos, 1996; Walter, Ritter, and Gemnden, 2001). Offering superior value to the customer is
essential for creating and maintaining long-term customer-supplier relationships. According to
Anderson (1995, p. 349) value creation and value sharing can be regarded as the raison dtre of
collaborative customer-supplier relationships.
Typically, value research examines relationships at a single point in time (Lapierre, 2000;
Ulaga and Eggert, 2005a). A notable exception from the prevailing snapshot approach is Flint,
Woodruff, and Gardials (2002) study of customers desired value change in business markets.
Value change triggers customers to explore, maintain or terminate a relationship with its
suppliers (Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002, p. 102). If suppliers do not anticipate a customers
value change, this may result in a deterioration of the relationship (Gassenheimer, Houston, and
Davis, 1998). Consequently, suppliers need to be aware of customers value changes to adapt
faster than their competitors to these changes (Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002, p. 102). This
activity is reflected in a supplier-initiated value change that motivates the customer to sustain the
relationship with its supplier (Beverland, Farrelly, and Woodhatch, 2004, p. 931).
The emerging literature on the dynamic nature of value creation in business relationships
suggests a number of contextual conditions linked to changes in customers value perceptions.
For example, Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial (2002, p. 112) develop a typology of contextual
antecedents to value changes based on two sets of factors. One set of conditions encompasses
factors external to the customers organization, that is, changes in the desires of a customers
customers, changes in the strategies and/or tactics of a customers competitors, changes in
suppliers offerings and performance levels, and changes in a customers macro-environment. A
second set of factors includes conditions that are internal to the customers organization, such as
changes taking place within the organization and the customers perceived capabilities in terms
of performance, knowledge, and control levels. Interestingly, none of these factors refers to the
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
5/27
-4-
life cycle of a business relationship as a potential driver of changes in value perceptions.
Nevertheless, it appears reasonable to assume that the perceived importance of the different
value creating dimensions varies as a relationship moves through its life cycle.
In the present research, we investigate whether the importance of the various value
dimensions is a function of the relationship life cycle. To shed light on this research question,
this article is structured as follows: First, we briefly review the literature on customer value in
business relationships and introduce our conceptual model. Next, we describe the quasi-
longitudinal research design and data collection procedure used in the present study. We then
present our studys results. Finally, we discuss our research findings and the limitations of the
study.
Literature Review and Conceptual Model
Creating superior customer value is key to a companys long-term survival and success
(Slater, 1997; Woodruff, 1997). In business markets in particular, customer value is the
cornerstone of the marketing management process (Anderson and Narus, 2004). Despite its
importance, research on customer value in business markets is still in an early stage (Flint,
Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002). Although value assessment studies enjoy a long tradition in
business marketing, they typically focus on the value of the physical product, neglecting
relational dimensions of customer-perceived value (Dwyer and Tanner, 1999).
In recent years, researchers adopted a relational approach and considered customer value
from a relationship marketing perspective. This has been described as relationship value
(Payne and Holt, 1999). The value of a business relationship is clearly a multidimensional
concept that goes beyond the price vs. quality trade-off prevalent in consumer research (Dorsch,
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
6/27
-5-
Swanson, and Kelley, 1998; Gassenheimer, Houston, and Davis, 1998). Over the past years,
researchers investigated the multiple facets of relationship value (Eggert and Ulaga, 2002;
Lapierre, 2000; Mller and Trrnen, 2003; Ravald and Grnroos, 1996; Ulaga and Eggert
2005a; Walter et al. 2003; Wilson and Jantrania 1994), and integrated the various dimensions of
value creation into an overall definition of relationship value (Ulaga 2003).
Customer-perceived value in business relationships can be improved by either increasing
relationship benefits or decreasing relationship costs. In the present research, we focus on the
role of relationship benefits in value creation. Based on depth interviews with purchasing
professionals, Ulaga (2003) identified six generic relationship benefit dimensions: product
quality, delivery performance, service support, personal interaction, supplier know-how, and
time-to-market. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Ulaga and Eggert (2005b)
demonstrated that there are three fundamental sources of value creation in a business
relationship: value creation through the core offering, value creation in the sourcing process, and
value creation in customer operations. Table 1 aligns the six generic benefit dimensions with the
three sources of relationship value.
--------------------------------
Take in Table 1 about here
--------------------------------
For the present research, we assume that the relationship life cycle moderates the link
between the three sources of value creation and the relationship value construct. Figure 1 shows
a graphical representation of our conceptual model. In line with previous research, we expect all
three sources of value creation to be positively related with relationship value. Yet, in addition,
we suggest that different stages of the relationship life cycle moderate the link between the
various value-creating sources and overall relationship value. To explore this dynamic process,
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
7/27
-6-
we chose a quasi-longitudinal research design. We detail our research design in the following
section.
--------------------------------
Take in Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------
Quasi-Longitudinal Analysis
Gathering longitudinal data on business-to-business relationships poses serious problems
(Anderson, 1995). Researchers need to collect data about the same set of relationships with
identical partners over several periods. In many instances, this is a virtually impossible task and
may partly explain why longitudinal research is still an exception even when we deal with
dynamic phenomena such as business relationships.
To overcome this challenge, Anderson (1995) proposes to collect data on business
relationships at one point in time, classify the relationships by their phase, and use this
information for quasi-longitudinal analysis. This approach raises the question of how to classify
business relationships into distinct phases. As a straightforward solution, the respondents could
classify the relationships themselves. This is only feasible, however, if the respondents are
familiar with the concept of the relationship life cycle (Jap and Ganesan, 2000, p. 234).
Alternatively, relationships could be classified based on their age. Age, however, is not a valid
measure for relationship phases. For example, some relationships may reach maturity after a few
months while others are still in the growing stage after several years. In addition, relationships
may experience a second growth or rejuvenation phase, e.g. when the supplier introduces a new
product or service (Ellram, 1991; Kotler, 2003). To deal with this problem, we rely on the
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
8/27
-7-
definition of the relationship life cycle model (Iaobucci and Zerrillo, 1997). While a relationship
is characterized by strong growth in the build-up phase, it hardly grows in the maturity phase,
and finally shrinks in the decline phase (Ellram, 1991).1 Evidently, the defining characteristic of
these phases is the strength and direction of growth. Therefore, we asked our respondents
whether they intend to expand their business with the respective supplier and used their answers
to categorize the relationship as being in the build-up, maturity, or decline phase.
Quantitative Study
Sampling Procedure
Empirical data were gathered in a cross-sectional survey among purchasing managers in
US manufacturing companies. The study was conducted in cooperation with the Institute for
Supply Management (ISM, formerly National Association of Purchasing Managers - NAPM),
the countrys national association of purchasing professionals. 1,950 members of ISM were
randomly selected from the associations database. We selected only senior-level managers
indicated by job titles, such as VP Procurement, Director of Global Sourcing, Director of Supply
Chain Management, Purchasing Manager, or Senior Buyer. In addition, only manufacturing
companies (Standard Industrial Classification codes 28-30 and 33-39) were selected.
All managers received a cover letter, the survey instrument, and a business reply
envelope by mail. Subsequently a reminder letter was mailed two weeks after the first contact.
Overall, 421 questionnaires were returned. Twenty-one were dropped due to missing data or low
respondent competency yielding a net response rate of 20.5%.
1In our research context, we focused on established relationships. Therefore, we did not include the exploration
phase but limited our research to the build-up, maturity and decline phases, respectively (Jap and Ganesan, 2000).
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
9/27
-8-
Survey Instrument
The survey was composed of three parts. In the first part, respondents were asked to
select a specific key component they purchased from at least two suppliers. They were further
asked to describe the final product for which the component was sourced. Finally, respondents
were asked to name their main supplier for the specific product as well as their second supplier
in terms of purchasing volumes. Given the definition of customer value as a relative judgment
(Sinha and DeSarbo, 1998), the purpose of this initial stage was to ask the respondent to consider
a specific supplier and to prepare for a comparison of alternative buyer-supplier relationships.
Specifically, we asked participants to compare the main supplier and the second supplier in terms
of purchasing volumes for a given component. We chose this approach for several reasons. First,
depth interviews have shown that managers typically compare these two alternatives when
making value judgments (Ulaga 2003). Second, we needed to ensure that respondents used
similar comparison standards to allow for meaningful comparisons.
The second part contained a list of items tapping the various relationship value
dimensions investigated in our research (see appendix). Respondents were asked to compare
their main supplier with the second supplier of the same component on these value items. All
items used seven-point rating-scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
Finally, in the third part of the questionnaire, participants were invited to respond to a set
of questions describing themselves, their company, and the supplier relationship. As the
empirical study relied on the perceptions of key informants, it was of particular importance to
ensure that respondents were competent to report on the supplier relationship. To qualify for
inclusion in our quantitative analysis, respondents had to fulfill minimum requirements with
respect to their position, tenure with the company, as well as the length of the relationship with
the supplier. In addition, respondents were asked for a self-assessment of their ability to portray
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
10/27
-9-
the supplier relationship accurately. Specifically, they were asked to indicate how confident they
felt about answering the questionnaire, how involved with and knowledgeable they were about
the supplier, and to which extent they could influence purchasing decisions in the relationship
with the main supplier.
Sample Characteristics
Although we limited our sample frame to manufacturers in chemical, mechanical, and
electrical industries, respondents purchased a broad variety of components for multiple
applications. Customer organizations ranged from small enterprises to multi-billion dollar
companies. On average, manufacturers had been buying from the main supplier for thirteen
years, with a standard deviation of nine years.
Respondents held senior positions in their firms. They averaged seventeen years of
experience in their area and had been with their companies for 10.4 years, on average. Responses
regarding confidence about answering the survey and knowledge of the supplier relationship
were high, as suggested by mean ratings of 6.0 (confidence in answering the survey), 6.01
(involvement in the supplier relationship), 6.15 (knowledge about the supplier), and 5.89
(influence of purchase decisions) on a seven-point scale.
Relationships were assigned to the respective life cycle phase (build-up, maturity,
decline) as a function of the reported intention to expand business with the main supplier. We
measured the intention to expand business with three items (see appendix for item formulation).
Reasonable cut-off values were determined using cross checks and case-based inspection.
Relationships with standardized factor scores below -1.0 were assigned to the decline phase.
Relationships with factor scores between -1.0 and .50 were assigned to the maturity phase. The
build-up phase included relationships with a factor above .50. As a result, we had 138
relationships in the build-up, 208 in the maturity, and 54 in the decline phase.
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
11/27
-10-
Results
Table 2 reports key properties of our measurement scales. Cronbach's Alpha is greater
than .70 for all measures. All indicators show significant factor loadings greater than .70.
Average variance extracted exceeds seventy percent. Altogether, these properties confirm
reliability and convergent validity of our scales (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Nunnally, 1978).
--------------------------------
Take in Table 2 about here
--------------------------------
Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion. Table
3 shows that the smallest average variance extracted exceeds the squared correlation between
each pair of value sources. This indicates a satisfactory level of discriminant validity.
--------------------------------
Take in Table 3 about here
--------------------------------
After convergent and discriminant validity were successfully established, summated
scales were constructed for each value source. Finally, we employed moderated regression to
assess our conceptual model (see Table 4).
--------------------------------
Take in Tables 4 about here
--------------------------------
The moderated regression model is significant (F = 166.04, df = 6) and shows a good fit
(R2= .72). All first-order effects are significant. With a standardized coefficient of .55, sourcing
process contributes most to the explanation of observed variance, followed by customer
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
12/27
-11-
operations with a standardized coefficient of .26, and core offering with a standardized
coefficient of .09.
To gauge the moderating effect of the relationship life cycle on the value sources, we
included three interaction terms in our regression model. In accordance with Aiken and West
(1991), interaction terms were constructed as product terms of the standardized factor scores.
The interaction term between customer operations and relationship life cycle has a standardized
coefficient of .15. The interaction term between sourcing process and relationship life cycle is
negative with a standardized coefficient of -.10. Both interaction effects are significant and of
moderate strength (Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted, 2003, p. 195). The interaction between core
offering and relationship life cycle is not significant.
Discussion and Implications
The present research attempted to shed light on the dynamic nature of value creation in business
relationships. In particular, we intended to investigate whether different stages of the relationship
life cycle moderate the role of various sources of value creation in business relationships. Our
studys results provide a number of insights.
First, considering direct effects only, our findings demonstrate the importance of each
value driver investigated in our study. Overall, value creation in the customers sourcing process
through service support and personal interaction appears as the main value driver in the present
research. The relationship benefit dimensions Supplier know-how and Time-to-market
which operate at the level of the customers operations play an intermediary role in overall
value perceptions. Finally, the suppliers core offering, that is, product quality and delivery
performance, displays the lowest potential for value creation in business relationships. These
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
13/27
-12-
findings provide strong empirical evidence for the fundamental trend toward product
commoditization in many business markets (Rangan and Bowman, 1992). As the core offering
accounts for little variance when comparing the main supplier to the second best supplier,
successful vendors have to search for new ways to differentiate themselves from competition
(Vandenbosch and Dawar, 2002). Offering superior value through personal interaction and
service, access to know-how, and increased time-to-market, appear as promising avenues for
differentiation in todays highly competitive business markets.
Second, looking at the interaction effects in our regression model, our findings confirm
the moderating role of the relationship life cycle in the assessment of value perceptions. Two out
of three interaction terms are found to be significant. This clearly indicates the life cycle
dependence of the direct effects discussed before. More specifically, a suppliers potential for
superior value creation in the customers sourcing process is the strongest in the early stages of
the relationship life cycle. Evidently, business customers perceive a stronger need for personal
interaction and service support during the sourcing process in the build-up as opposed to the
maturity and decline phase of business relationships. The opposite is true for value creation at
the level of customers operations. Our research has shown that know-how transfer and time-to-
market explain more of the variance observed as the relationship moves through its life cycle. A
possible explanation for this finding may be that customers need experience in dealing with their
respective suppliers to fully understand and assess their potential for this strategic kind of value
creation. Finally, in the present study, the relationship life cycle does not affect the role of a
suppliers value creation through the core offering. The present study focused on the assessment
of buyer-seller relationships for key components. Given this specific focus on strategically
important products, it appears reasonable that customers value a suppliers product quality and
delivery performance invariably from the different life cycle phases.
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
14/27
-13-
Overall, our research clearly demonstrates the dynamic nature of value creation in
business relationships. Consequently, suppliers not only face the challenging task to assess and
manage their value creation potential for different customers and customer segments. In addition,
they need to anticipate and respond to value changes to avoid dissatisfaction in the partnership.
To maintain successful partnerships with their customers, suppliers must be able to consistently
meet changes in their customers value demands. Basically, suppliers can choose between two
strategic options, a reactive and a proactive one. Within the reactive option, suppliers try to adapt
to customer value changes whenever they occur. The preferred strategy, however, should be to
anticipate customer value changes (Beverland, Farrelly, and Woodhatch, 2004). The capability to
do so may well become a source of competitive advantage in todays business markets.
Finally, from an academic point of view, our empirical research has shown that buyer-
seller relationships are dynamic phenomena, indeed. As opposed to single transactions that can
be studied using a snapshot approach, research on long-term collaborative partnerships calls for a
longitudinal approach. In many instances, quasi-longitudinal research designs may represent a
suitable solution to align the need for dynamic analysis with the limited resources available for
academic research.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
As in any empirical research, the results of the present study cannot be interpreted without taking
into account the studys limitations. Furthermore, this research generates a set of researchable
questions that need to be addressed in future research projects.
First, and foremost, we limited our approach to the assessment of relationship benefits.
Relationship costs were not considered in the present research. Future research should include
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
15/27
-14-
both aspects to provide a more encompassing picture of the dynamic nature of value creation in
business relationships.
Second, the present research focused on the sourcing of key components. It would be
interesting to enlarge the scope of research to include a variety of business products and services
in the investigation of relationship value.
Third, we investigated the dynamic process solely from the customer perspective.
However, as we are interested in understanding value creation in the dyad, further research could
explore the dynamic nature of value creation from the vendors perspective.
Our intention with the present research was to set forward a first step toward the
understanding of the dynamic nature of value creation in business relationships. More research is
needed to fully understand how buyers and sellers view value creation in all stages of the
relationship life cycle.
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
16/27
-15-
TABLE 1
Sources of Value Creation and Corresponding Value Dimensions
Sources of Value Creation
Core Offering Sourcing Process Customer operations
Relationship
Value
Dimensions
Product quality Delivery performance
Service support Personal interaction
Supplier know-how Time-to-market
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
17/27
-16-
TABLE 2
Scale Properties
Indicator Loading t-value AVE Cronbachs Alpha
product1 0.87 26.14
product2 0.91 standardized
product3 0.89 27.41
product4 0.84 24.16
product5 0.90 28.44
product6 0.90 28.11
81.5 % 95.4 %
delivery2 0.85 standardized
delivery4 0.95 26.75
delivery5 0.95 26.8
89.2 % 93.9 %
service1 0.85 standardized
service3 0.83 20.37
service4 0.85 21.26
service5 0.89 22.7
80.0 % 91.6 %
personal1 0.86 26.08
personal2 0.91 standardized
personal3 0.90 28.97
personal4 0.90 28.73
personal5 0.87 26.81
personal6 0.83 23.95
personal7 0.79 21.31
78.8 % 95.5 %
knowhow2 0.69 16.44
knowhow5 0.91 27.34
knowhow6 0.80 20.97
knowhow7 0.90 26.86
knowhow8 0.90 standardized
76.4 % 92.1 %
time1 0.93 standardized
time2 0.73 18.91
time3 0.91 30.14
time4 0.86 26.34
80.3 % 91.7 %
value1 0.90 28.47
value2 0.92 standardizedvalue3 0.76 19.84
value4 0.90 27.78
81.6 % 92.4 %
expansion1 0.90 29.32
expansion2 0.95 33.31
expansion3 0.92 standardized
90.0 % 94.4 %
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
18/27
-17-
TABLE 3
Discriminant Validity
Core
Offering
Sourcing
Process
Customer
Operations
Core Offering 0.75
Sourcing Process 0.55 0.74
Customer Operations 0.38 0.63 0.73
(N.B.: Bold numbers on the diagonal show the AVE; numbers below the diagonal represent the squared
correlations)
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
19/27
-18-
TABLE 4
Relationship Life Cycle As a Moderator of Changes in Value Dimensions
Independent Variable: Relationship Value
Dependent Variable Coefficient t-value
Core offering .09 2.09 **
Sourcing process .55 10.79 ***
Customer operations .26 5.72 ***
Core offering
x
relationship life cycle
N.S. 1.02
Sourcing process
x
relationship life cycle
-.10 - 1.92 *
Customer operations
x
relationship life cycle
.15 3.07 ***
***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .10
R2
= .72; F = 166.04; df = 6
Notes: We report two-tailed significance levels. N.S. = not significant
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
20/27
-19-
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model
Relationship life cycle
Build-up (coded as 1)Maturity (coded as 2)Decline (coded as 3)
Relationship value
Core offering
Product qualityDelivery performance
Sourcing process
Service supportPersonal interaction
Customer operations
Supplier know-howTime-to-market
Moderator
variable
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
21/27
-20-
Appendix:
Scale Items
Expansion
Mean Standard
Deviation
expansion1 Our firm expects to expand its business with the main
supplier.
5.09 1.36
expansion2 The main supplier will receive a larger share of our
business in the future.
5.10 1.44
expansion3 The main supplier will be used more than it is now over
the next few years.
5.17 1.46
Core Offering
Product Quality:
product1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
provides us with better product quality.
4.55 1.59
product2 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier meets
our quality standards better.
4.62 1.60
product3 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier's
products are more reliable.
4.47 1.59
product4 Compared to the second supplier we reject less products
from the main supplier.
4.60 1.69
product5 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
provides us with more consistent product quality over
time.
4.69 1.60
product6 Compared to the second supplier we have less variations
in product quality with the main supplier.
4.53 1.68
Deliveryperformance:
delivery1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
performs better in meeting delivery due dates.
4.74 1.68
delivery2 Compared to the second supplier we have less delivery
errors with the main supplier.
4.67 1.66
delivery3 Compared to the second supplier deliveries from the
main supplier are more accurate (no missing or wrong
parts).
4.58 1.63
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
22/27
-21-
Souring Process
Service Support:
service1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
provides us with better services.
4.92 1.52
service2 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier is
more available when we need information.
4.83 1.65
service3 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
provides us with more appropriate information.
4.74 1.50
service4 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
responds faster when we need information.
4.84 1.61
Personal
Interaction:
personal1 Compared to the second supplier it is easier to work
with the main supplier.
4.89 1.61
personal2 Compared to the second supplier we have a better
working relationship with the main supplier.
5.07 1.52
personal3 Compared to the second supplier there is a better
interaction between the main supplier's people and
ours.
5.07 1.54
personal4 Compared to the second supplier we interact better with
the main supplier.
4.91 1.57
personal5 Compared to the second supplier we can addressproblems more easily with the main supplier.
4.83 1.56
personal6 Compared to the second supplier we can discuss
problems more freely with the main supplier.
4.69 1.59
personal7 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
gives us a greater feeling of being treated as an
important customer.
4.72 1.63
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
23/27
-22-
Customer Operations
SupplierKnow-how:
knowhow1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
provides us a better access to his know-how.
4.73 1.55
knowhow2 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
knows better how to improve our existing products.
4.37 1.48
knowhow3 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
performs better at presenting us with new products.
4.37 1.56
knowhow4 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
knows better how to help us drive innovation in our
products.
4.40 1.47
knowhow5 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
knows better how to assist us in new productdevelopment.
4.52 1.51
Time-to-Market:
time-to-market1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
performs better in helping us improve our time-to-market
4.48 1.50
time-to-market2 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier helps
us more in improving our cycle time.
4.55 1.57
time-to-market3 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier helps
us more in getting our products to market faster.
4.40 1.58
time-to-market4 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
performs better in helping us speed up product
development.
4.61 1.55
Relationship Value
value1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier adds
more value to the relationship overall.
5.00 1.51
value2 Compared to the second supplier we gain more in our
relationship with the main supplier.
4.93 1.45
value3 Compared to the second supplier the relationship with
the main supplier is more valuable.
5.02 1.51
value4 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier
creates more value for us when comparing all costs and
benefits in the relationship.
5.01 1.49
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
24/27
-23-
References
Aiken, L. S., and West, Stephen G. (1991), "Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions," Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Anderson, James C. (1995), "Relationships in Business Markets: Exchange Episodes, Value
Creation, and Their Empirical Assessment,"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 346-350.
Anderson, James C., Dipak C. Jain, and Pradeep K. Chintagunta (1993), "Customer Value
Assessment in Business Markets: A State-of-Practice Study," Journal of Business-to-
Business Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3-29.
Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (2004), "Business Market Management:
Understanding, Creating, and Delivering Value", 2nd edition, Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.
Beverland, Michael, Francis Farrelly, and Zeb Woodhatch (2004), "The Role of Value Change
Management in Relationship Dissolution: Hygiene and Motivational Factors," Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 20, No. 9/10, pp. 927-939.
Chin, Wynne W., Barbara L. Marcolin, and Peter R. Newsted (2003), "A Partial Least Squares
Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a
Monte Carlo Simulation Study and Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study,"
Information Systems Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 189-217.
Dorsch, Michael J., Scott R. Swanson, and Scott W. Kelley (1998), "The Role of Relationship
Quality in the Stratification of Vendors as Perceived by Customers," Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 128-142.
Dwyer, F. Robert, Paul H. Schurr, and Sejo Oh (1987), "Developing Buyer-Seller
Relationships,"Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Dwyer, F. Robert and John F. Tanner Jr. (1999), "Business Marketing: Connecting Strategy,
Relationships and Learning," Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
25/27
-24-
Eggert, Andreas and Wolfgang Ulaga (2002) "Customer-Perceived Value: A Substitute for
Satisfaction in Business Markets?,"Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17,
No. 2/3, pp. 107-118.
Ellram, Lisa M. (1991) "Life-cycle Patterns in Industrial Buyer-Seller Relationships,"
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 21, No. 9,
pp. 12-21.
Flint, Daniel J., Robert B. Woodruff, and Sarah Fisher Gardial (2002), "Exploring the
Phenomenon of Customers Desired Value Change in a Business-to-Business Context,"
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 102-117.
Fornell, Claes and David Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
18, No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gassenheimer, Jule B., Franklin S. Houston, and J. Charlene Davis (1998), "The Role of
Economic Value, Social Value, and Perceptions of Fairness in Interorganizational
Relationship Retention Decisions,"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26,
No. 4, pp. 322-337.
Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), "An Updated Paradigm for Scale
Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment,"Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 186-192.
Holmlund, Maria (2004), "Analyzing Business Relationships and Distinguishing Different
Interaction Levels,"Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 279-287.
Iacobucci, Dawn and Philip Zerrillo (1997) "The Relationship Life Cycle: (I) A Network-Dyad-
Network Dynamic Conceptualization, and (II) The Application of Some Classical
Psychological Theories to its Management," Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.
47-68.
Jap, Sandy D. (2001), "The Strategic Role of the Salesforce in Developing Customer Satisfaction
Across the Relationship Lifecycle," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 95-108.
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
26/27
-25-
Jap, Sandy D. and Shankar Ganesan (2000), "Control Mechanisms and the Relationship Life
Cycle: Implications for Safeguarding Specific Investments and Developing Commitment,"
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 227-245.
Johnson, Michael D. and Fred Selnes (2004), "Customer Portfolio Management: Toward a
Dynamic Theory of Exchange Relationships,"Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 1-
17.
Kotler, Philip (2003), "Marketing Management," 11th edition, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Lapierre, Joze (2000), "Customer-Perceived Value in Industrial Contexts,"Journal of Business
and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 2/3, pp. 122-140.
Medlin, Christopher J. (2004), "Interaction in Business Relationships: A Time Perspective,"
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 185-193.
Mller, K. E. Kristian and Pekka Trrnen (2003), "Business Suppliers Value Creation
Potential: A Capability Based Analysis," Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32,
No. 2, pp. 109-118.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), "Psychometric Theory," 2nd edition, New York: McGraw Hill.
Parasuraman, A. (1997), "Reflections on Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Customer
Value,"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 3-29.
Payne, Adrian and Sue Holt (1999), "A Review of the Value Literature and Implications for
Relationship Marketing, "Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Rangan, V. Kasturi and George T. Bowman (1992), "Beating the Commodity Magnet,"
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 215-224.
Ravald, Annika and Christian Grnroos (1996), "The Value Concept and Relationship Ravald,
Annika and Christian Grnroos (1996), "The Value Concept and Relationship Marketing,"
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 19-30.
Ring, Peter Smith and Andrew H. Van de Ven (1994), "Developmental Process of Cooperative
Interorganizational Relationships," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 1,
pp. 90-118.
-
7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation
27/27
-26-
Sinha, Indrajit and Wayne S. DeSarbo (1998), "An Integrated Approach Toward the Spatial
Modeling of Perceived Customer Value," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, No. 2,
pp. 236-249.
Slater, Stanley R. (1997), "Developing a Customer Value-Based Theory of the Firm," Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 162-167.
Ulaga, Wolfgang (2003), "Capturing Value Creation in Business Relationships: A Customer
Perspective,"Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 677-693.
Ulaga, Wolfgang and Andreas Eggert (2005a), "Relationship Value in Business Markets: The
Construct and its Dimensions,"Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1,
pp. 73-99.
Ulaga, Wolfgang and Andreas Eggert (2005b), "Value-Based Differentiation in Business
Relationships: Gaining and Sustaining Key-Supplier Status," 2005 AMA Winter
Educators Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, Kathleen Seiders and Glenn
B. Voss (eds.), Austin/TX, pp.294-295.
Vandenbosch, Mark and Niraj Dawar (2002), "Beyond Better Products: Capturing Value in
Customer Interactions,"MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 35-42.
Walter, Achim, Thilo A. Mller, Gabriele Helfert and Thomas Ritter (2003), "Functions of
Industrial Supplier Relationships And Their Impact on Relationship Quality," Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 159-169.
Walter, Achim, Thomas Ritter and Hans Georg Gemnden (2001), "Value Creation in Buyer-
Seller Relationships Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Results from a Suppliers
Perspective,"Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 365-377.
Wilson, David T. (1995), "An Integrated Model of Buyer-Seller Relationships," Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 335-345.
Wilson, David T. and Swati Jantrania (1994), "Understanding the Value of a Relationship,"Asia-
Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Woodruff, Robert B. (1997), "Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage,"
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 139-153.
top related