How to successfully implement strategic account management

Christopher John Cowley

MBA distance learning final project

Student ID: A001215635

1

Words:6498

2

1. Executive summary

This is a strategic management project, focused on practical implementation of

strategy. The research purpose is to develop a best-practise strategic account

management (SAM) implementation framework to be used by Varian Medical

Systems Inc. This framework will be used to execute the SAM strategy in local

entities around the world.

A small, heterogeneous sample of primary qualitative and quantitative data was

collected from a population of global organizations which have adopted SAM in their

Australian entities. Qualitative data collected by interview to develop the framework

and questions for quantitative data collection. Quantitative data was collected to

increase confidence in results.

Although the research was limited, data gathered is well supported by literature

review. This gives confidence in the independent variables identified as primary

contributors to successful SAM implementation. Adopting the developed framework

will increase probability of successful SAM implementation in local entities.

Delivering performance and changing organizational culture; identified as primary

beneficiaries of successful SAM implementation. Using the developed framework

Varian can deploy best-practise SAM in its domestic marketplaces. This will drive

revenue through the delivery of customer value.

3

2. Contents

1. Executive summary................................................................................................2

2. Contents................................................................................................................3

3. Introduction...........................................................................................................6

3.1. Background.....................................................................................................6

3.2. Previous research............................................................................................6

3.3. Research gaps.................................................................................................7

3.4. Research purpose...........................................................................................7

3.4.1. Figure 1. Star Model.................................................................................8

4. Project outline.......................................................................................................9

4.1. Orientation......................................................................................................9

4.2. Data collection and analysis............................................................................9

4.3. Key findings.....................................................................................................9

4.4. Key implications..............................................................................................9

4.5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................9

5. Orientation..........................................................................................................10

5.1. Literature review...........................................................................................10

5.1.1. Table 1. Star-model categorization of the 10 task of the strategic

execution process................................................................................................10

5.1.2. Strategy and capabilities........................................................................11

5.1.3. Structure................................................................................................11

5.1.4. People....................................................................................................12

5.1.5. Process...................................................................................................13

5.1.6. Incentive.................................................................................................14

4

5.1.7. Culture....................................................................................................14

5.2. Case study: Varian Medical Systems.............................................................15

5.2.1. Table 1. Attributes of Varian vs. Elekta...................................................16

5.2.2. The research problem............................................................................16

5.2.3. Research questions................................................................................17

5.2.4. Significance of the project......................................................................17

6. Data collection and analysis................................................................................19

6.1.1. Table 2. Five research methods related to conditions............................19

6.2. Sampling and data collection........................................................................20

6.3. Qualitative data analysis...............................................................................21

6.3.1. Figure 2. Category structure...................................................................22

6.3.2. Strategy..................................................................................................22

6.3.3. Tools.......................................................................................................23

6.3.4. Processes................................................................................................23

6.3.5. Structure................................................................................................24

6.3.6. People....................................................................................................24

6.3.7. Incentive.................................................................................................26

6.3.8. Culture....................................................................................................26

6.3.9. Performance...........................................................................................26

6.3.10. Communication....................................................................................26

6.4. Quantitative data analysis.............................................................................27

6.4.1. Table 3. Likert scale of respondent opinion............................................28

6.4.2. Table 4. Quartile and median for data...................................................28

6.4.3. Table 5. Top 25% most important attributes..........................................29

6.4.4. Table 6. Performance positive response................................................31

5

7. Key findings.........................................................................................................32

7.1. Figure 3. The SAM implementation framework............................................33

7.2. Table 7. SAM implementation categories.....................................................34

8. Key implications...................................................................................................38

9. Conclusion...........................................................................................................39

10. References.........................................................................................................40

6

3. Introduction

3.1. Background

This is a strategic management project, focused on practical implementation of

strategic account management (SAM). The research purpose is development of a

best-practise SAM implementation framework. The framework will be used by

Varian Medical Systems Inc. (Varian) to execute the strategy in local entities around

the world. Initial understanding of the topic is based on experience of SAM

implementation at Varian in Australia, and learning of strategy execution through

strategic management study.

3.2. Previous research

SAM is a customer-centric strategy to managing customer relationships for Business

to Business (B2B) companies. Browne and Peacock (Peacock and Browne 2014b, p.

8) define SAM as:

The process of selecting a portfolio of strategic customers and developing those customers,

over the long-term, to drive financial performance and shape strategy. SAM helps build

strategic relationships, understand customers deeply and align capabilities with customers’

needs to create long-term joint value.

Executing strategy entails figuring out specific techniques, actions and behaviours for

a smooth strategy-supporting operation. Then following through to get things done

and deliver results (Thompson 2012, p. 330). Strategy most often fails simply

because it is poorly executed (Bossidy and Charan 2011). Even a great strategy can

be sabotaged by poor implementation (Kotler et al. 2012, p. 64). A recent survey of

+400 global CEOs found executional excellence the number one challenge facing

corporate leaders. Translating strategy into results continues to be a challenge for

many organizations. (Gilligan and Wilson 2009, p. 11; Sull, Homkes, and Sull 2015).

7

3.3. Research gaps

Many companies fail to implement SAM successfully. representing failures of

execution, not strategy, but in the end they do not reap the benefits of SAM

(Woodburn and Ryals 2008, p. 20). Implementation must be built on principles of fair

process; engagement; explanation; and expectation clarity (Kim and Mauborgne

2014). The problem is how to overcome the significant challenges of SAM

implementation into Varian’s domestic marketplaces?

Thompson et al argue (Thompson 2012, p. 331) there is no definitive recipe for

successful strategy execution; the specifics of how to execute strategy must be

customized to fit a situation, and management’s judgement about how to best

proceed. Nevertheless, can a framework be established to increase the odds of

successful SAM implementation?

3.4. Research purpose

The project will create a framework to guide successful implementation of SAM into

Varian’s local entities. It uses the star model of organizational design (Figure 1) as an

initial conceptual framework for the research (Kates and Galbraith 2010). The star

model is a deliberate framework for configuring structures, process, rewards and

people to create an effective organization capable of achieving strategy. Taking a

subjective view of organizational culture (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2009), the

study explores and forecasts the impact of SAM on organizational culture and

performance.

8

3.4.1. Figure 1. Star Model

Source: (Kates and Galbraith 2010, p. 3)

9

4. Project outline

After introduction the report has five sections:

4.1. Orientation

Completes a literature review of SAM and strategy execution to establish current

understanding of the research. Second, a detailed description of Varian and the

significance of the project.

4.2. Data collection and analysis

Describes the methodology of collection, and provides analysis of qualitative and

quantitative data collected.

4.3. Key findings

Provides a broad summary of the project key findings. Recommends a SAM

Implementation framework.

4.4. Key implications

Explains how the findings relate to literature. Recommends actions for successful

SAM implementation.

4.5. Conclusion

Addresses unresolved issues and demonstrates project purpose achievement.

10

5. Orientation

5.1. Literature review

Literature review addresses:

(1) issues of generalizability because data collection only occurs in Australia, to

ensure the framework developed will be applicable in other countries;

(2) develops questions to be answered in the case study research; and

(3) establishes if other categories need to be created not currently captured in

the star-model?

Thompson et al (Thompson 2012, pp. 331-2) define ten basic managerial tasks of the

strategic execution process (appendix 10.1). Table 1 categorizes the ten tasks into

the star-model. Culture is included to assist categorization of the literature review.

5.1.1. Table 1. Star-model categorization of the 10 task of the

strategic execution process

*Not part of the star-model

Source: (Kates and Galbraith 2010, p. 3; Thompson 2012, p. 332)11

5.1.2. Strategy and capabilities

Strategy is a set of capabilities at which an organization must excel to achieve its

strategic goals (Kates and Galbraith 2010, p. 3). Thompson et al (Thompson 2012, p.

4) define strategy as:

The competitive moves and business approaches that managers are employing to

compete successfully, improving performance, and grow the business.

Why choose SAM to achieve strategic goals? Companies do not implement SAM

unless there are powerful positive or negative drivers, external negative drivers are

the most powerful (Woodburn and Ryals 2008, p. 20). Changes in market,

competitors and technology lead to market consolidation. A smaller number of large

customers hold increasing power over vendors (Peacock and Browne 2014b, p. 21).

The shock of how poorly a company manages their large customers is often a

compelling reason for SAM implementation (Peacock and Browne 2014b, p. 5).

Is SAM a winning strategy for B2B companies? 70% of companies reporting customer

relationships repaired or saved through SAM in the last two years. However, a

majority also admit their SAM programs fall short of being fully functional and

effective (SAMA 2014, pp. 4,7). Companies adopt SAM because it creates long-term

joint value, captured in the form of profits. Strategic accounts are twice as likely to

grow 11% or more than other accounts. (Raynor and Ahmed 2013; Peacock and

Browne 2014b; SAMA 2014).

When a company chooses a deliberately different strategy its organizational

capabilities must change. If a company does not place its capabilities into

implementing the chosen strategy then the strategy will become ineffective (Muh.

Darmin Ahmad et al. 2013; Lafley and Martin 2013; Kates and Galbraith 2010).

5.1.3. Structure

Regardless of initial structure, cross-functional collaboration is essential for success.

Good strategy execution requires a team effort. All managers have strategy

12

executing responsibilities, and all employees are active participants in the strategy

execution process (Thompson 2012, p. 330). Adapting organizational structure to

support SAM in strategy execution has positive influence on performance (Čater and

Pučko 2010). In designing a customer-centric structure, keeping the organization

clear and simple for customers and employees is essential. The organization must

have alignment and flexibility to agilely respond to customer needs and deliver real

value (Kates and Galbraith 2010, pp. 3-5). An integrated customer-centric structure

able to maintain strong networks across the businesses is the ultimate structure.

One in which, customers get what they want (Woodburn 2006, p. 20) Such

collaboration and networking requires the right structure and the right people.

5.1.4. People

A company is nothing without its people, and the job of leaders and managers is to

manage the complexity created by the implementation. (Kingsmill et al. 2005; Kates

and Galbraith 2010; Forsyth 2012). With education, role modelling from leaders, and

demonstrating success, SAM finally sinks into company DNA. Becoming “the way we

do things here” (Kotter 2014, p. 26). From literature review 3 sub-categories

developed: (1) communication; (2) leadership; and (3) Education.

5.1.4.1. Communication

Communicating why Varian is implementing SAM is essential to cross-functional

collaboration. People who understand the company strategy and why it’s been

implemented are motivated to become enthusiastic leaders themselves as they

overcome implementation obstacles (Kotter 2014, pp. 79-81). Successful strategy

execution requires every person in Varian works together, contributing to the effort

of implementation (Muh. Darmin Ahmad et al. 2013, p. 198; Harrington and Kendall

2006). The most prominent problem inhibiting execution is the company’s strategy

and objectives not being clearly communicated, understood and internalized by

everyone at the company (Muh. Darmin Ahmad et al. 2013, p. 198; Harrington and

13

Kendall 2006). Simply, people will not listen unless the situation is put into context

that seems relevant to them (Kotter 2014, p. 121).

5.1.4.2. Leadership

A transformational leader with clear vision, sense of urgency, committed to

development of people is essential. Coupled with a focused, professional team

determined to execute their leader’s strategy a huge impact can be achieved in a

short period of time (Alldredge et al. 2003, p. 54; Kotter 2014, pp. 79-81).

Conversely, the biggest obstacle to strategy execution is poor leadership. (Čater and

Pučko 2010). Leadership is a moral and skill-based exercise in creating a vision,

empowering and inspiring people to want to achieve the vision. Enabling them to do

so with energy and speed (Kotter 2014, p. 60). Leaders must be continual learners to

meet their own development needs and cultivate skills critical to successful

leadership (Barrett, Beeson, and Board 2002).

5.1.4.3. Education

Implementing SAM is a process of continual learning to develop and hone skills

critical to success. Education also provides the perfect medium for cross-functional

learning and sharing, which leads to collaboration. The entire business must be

educated in SAM fundamentals. They must understand why SAM is being

implemented and what it will mean to them. This is not a one-off event and a

continual learning program must become a part of the SAM process (Peacock and

Browne 2014b, pp. 89,90).

5.1.5. Process

Process discipline is essential in implementing SAM. More than half of managers

want more structure in the processes coordinating activities across the company

(Sull, Homkes, and Sull 2015, p. 61). A lack of clear programs and plans; no routine

and integrated systems to control, are significant problems inhibiting strategy

implementation (Muh. Darmin Ahmad et al. 2013, p. 198). The processes put in place

14

have to be deliberate. Implementation doesn’t happen by itself, what happens

naturally is entropy (Lafley and Martin 2013, p. 147).

5.1.6. Incentive

This category is modified from reward to incentive because successful SAM

implementation requires the right behaviour to be encouraged, and the wrong

behaviour to be discouraged. Continual learning implies continual teaching, to

educating acceptable behaviour. This requires suitable rewards and punishments to

achieve changes in behaviour desired (Schein 2010, p. 19).

Most compensation schemes were originally devised to encourage sales functions.

SAM is about achieving long-term strategic objectives with customers. Compensation

structures should be focused on longer-term, team-based incentives to influence

future performance. However, companies are nervous about changing sales

incentive programs they have used for years. Nevertheless if a change in behaviour is

genuinely required the reward system must also change. (Woodburn and Ryals 2008,

p. 23; Aguinis 2013, p. 11; Peacock and Browne 2014b, p. 92; Woodburn 2006, p. 7)

In 2008 SAMA found the biggest internal barrier to successful SAM was too much

focus on short-term objectives at the expense of long-term opportunities (Peacock

and Browne 2014b, p. 96). In 2014, SAMA found the situation unchanged. Managers

responsible for SAM implementation feel hindered by legacy polices of sales

incentive programs. (SAMA 2014, pp. 16,24).

5.1.7. Culture

The human mind needs cognitive stability, consistency and meaning. An

organization’s culture is its basic assumptions learnt through shared experience to

meet the mind’s needs. These shared experiences have proved to cope with external

environment and internal relationships.(Schein 1984; Schein 2010). At Varian, most

employees are Engineers. They experience strong socialization and shared

experience during education and training. This builds strong beliefs and values in

15

company’s technology, products and customer service. There is real pride in

company products and technical capability. These assumptions are considered valid

because they have successfully provided stability. The organization’s culture is deep,

pervasive, and complex. To challenge such stable and proven assumptions is to

trigger anxiety and activate defence mechanisms. Yet implementing strategy

challenges and changes basic assumptions, the culture around which the

organization is built. (Schein 1984; Schein 2010; Waterman, Peters, and Phillips

1980). Good or bad, the organization’s culture will change when strategy is

implemented. However, although culture is an essential part of an organization

leaders cannot design culture directly (Kates and Galbraith 2010, p. 3).

5.2. Case study: Varian Medical Systems

Varian’s primary business is sale and support of medical linear accelerators,

associated products and software to public and private health providers. Customers

use Varian products and software to deliver radiation oncology treatment to cancer

patients. Like DEC (Schein 2010, p. 40), Varian was founded by physicists and

engineers and is dominated by an engineering mentality. It’s proud of the quality of

its products and ability to service them. Varian’s strength is its ability to assist

customers efficiently and effectively deliver radiation oncology for optimal treatment

outcomes. (Wilson 2014).

Varian’s main competitor is Elekta Medical Systems (Elekta). Elekta offer a similar

suite of products and service, in similar marketplaces to Varian. Elekta’s strategy is

offering of lowest price for products that at least match the features and

performance of Varian (Thompson 2012). Table 1 offers comparison of the

companies.

In Australia, Varian is the market leader with approximate 65% market share,

serviced by a team of seventy-five employees, predominantly Engineers. The

company was frequently accused of arrogance by customers; reaction to the proud

company culture. In 2008 VMSA suffered its first significant loss since creation in

16

1999. Outsold by Elekta, this unappealing situation repeated in 2009. These losses

became the compelling reason to consider significant change in how business was

conducted. After discussion with external business consultants, SAM became the

emergent strategy to address the loss in market share. SAM was implemented with

impressive results. Achieving double-digit revenue growth which outstripped five-

year growth plan expectations (Peacock and Browne 2014a, p. 43). The Australian

experience was successful. However, it highlighted significant challenges of

implementing SAM.

5.2.1. Table 1. Attributes of Varian vs. Elekta

Attributes Varian Elekta

2014 US$ sales revenue 3 billion 1.5 billion

Employees6500 3800

Founded 1950 1972

Strategy differentiation best-cost providerMarket listing USA Sweden

Source: (Wilson 2014; Savander 2014)

5.2.2. The research problem

Varian must build on its reputation to deliver a quality supply chain, continuing to

consistently conform to customer expectations in every country it operates (Slack

2012, p. 386). It has reorganised from a centralized functional structure, to a de-

centralized matrix of function & geography. To deliver customer expectations, Varian

first needs to better understand customer objectives. The new matrix structure

encourages customer centric focus. Managing Directors in each country tasked to

determine strategy in their domestic market. The new structure creates a hospitable

17

environment to support SAM implementation (Thompson 2012). Strategy execution

is concerned with translating decision into action. The research problem is how to

successfully implement SAM into local entities? The objective is development of a

SAM implementation framework for use in Varian’s domestic marketplaces.

5.2.3. Research questions

To fully understand the research problem, the following research questions are

posed, developed from the star-model and thoughtful literature review:

(1) Why do organizations introduce SAM to their business practises?

(2) Under what structure does SAM implementation thrive?

(3) How does implementing SAM affect processes?

(4) What is the relationship between performance reward and a customer-

centric organization?

(5) How do people respond to SAM implementation?

(6) How does implementing SAM impact the culture of an organization?

5.2.4. Significance of the project

Today’s customers are well informed about products and services before they even

approach Varian. Consolidation is creating larger customers with greater buying

power and demands. The strategic reality for Varian is they are viewed as:

(1) a valued, strategic partner helping to make money and drive revenue; or

(2) a transactional, commodity supplier of costs to be reduced (Peacock and

Browne 2014b, pp. 4-7).

Customers want a single point of contact, products customized to meet their needs;

an integrated bundle of services and products (Kates and Galbraith 2010). Varian

must nurture their customers and other stakeholders: employees; suppliers;

distributors to earn sufficient profits for the shareholders (Kotler et al. 2012, p. 64).

These elements create need for establishing strong customer relationships to

understand customer value and deliver results, keeping competition away. Aligning

18

Varian capabilities with customer needs creates a win-win partnership; valued by

both parties. (Vitasek, Manrodt, and Kling 2012). For Varian successful SAM

implementation will provide significant competitive advantage in an increasingly

challenging marketplace.

19

6. Data collection and analysis

Case study research helps comprehension of complex social phenomena. While it

cannot convey what decision to make, it can existentially connect the researcher to

the social phenomena. This ensures research retains a holistic perspective, focused

on the real-world. Case study research use is dependent on 3 elements: (1) type of

research questions; (2) extent of control the researcher has over actual events; and

(3) degree of contemporary focus. Table 2 relates these 3 conditions to the five

major research methods.(Yin 2013; Breslin and Buchanan 2008).

6.1.1. Table 2. Five research methods related to conditions

Source: (Yin 2013)

Having determined the research problem and developed research questions from

literature review, table 3 suggests data collection and analysis is most appropriately

achieved by case study and survey to develop the best-practise framework (Breslin

and Buchanan 2008). Therefore as advocated for business and management

research, a small case study sample of primary qualitative and quantitative research

data was collected (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2009, p. 145). Qualitative data

was collected by interview of executives responsible for SAM implementation in

Australian entities of global organizations. Quantitative data was collected by

questionnaire, developed from literature review and qualitative data analysis.

20

Secondary data is sourced from literature review and the primary researcher’s own

observation during Varian’s SAM implementation in Australia (Saunders, Lewis, and

Thornhill 2009). The research follows AIB Guidelines with consent forms attached in

Appendix 10.2. The data is de-identified, referencing industries rather than specific

companies. Inductive data analysis was used to answer the research questions and

develop the SAM implementation framework.

6.2. Sampling and data collection

Sampling is from the population of global organizations, which have adopted SAM in

their Australian entities, because these are similar in structure to Varian. This

heterogeneous selection of companies from diverse industries creates a purposive

sample of five case studies. The companies selected represent the industries of: (1)

Animal Health; (2) Medical Devices; (3) Oncology Systems; (4) Pharmaceuticals; and

(5) Finance. Limiting factors in sampling include: geographic access; competitive

position with Varian; and willingness to participate in research. The five case studies

are at different stages of SAM implementation, which may impact results.

Qualitative data was first collected to test the conceptual framework and develop

the template for quantitative data collection. This data collected from interview with

a purposive sample of six interviewees selected from a homogenous group

management within each company. Those sampled were “SAM champions”

responsible for the decision to introduce SAM into their strategy, and/or SAM

implementation in their organizations (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2009). Based

on Varian experience, the sample was chosen because SAM champions were

considered the most likely source of meaningful feedback from the small sample.

The interviews followed AIB Guidelines, employing a structured format for

consistency; interviewees asked the questions listed in appendix 10.12.Interviews

were held at the interviewee’s place of work. Each interview was started with

introductions; a description of roles of both interviewee and interviewer; and

explanation for the study. The interviewee was asked for permission to voice-record

21

the interview. Voice recordings later transcribed for data analysis. This process was

employed to: achieve consistency in approach across all interviews reducing impact

of bias; and place the interviewee at ease.

Quantitative data was collected to increase confidence in results. Cancelling out

method effects and reducing errors introduced from interviewer bias or observer

error in qualitative data collection. Data was collected using online questionnaire.

The questions designed to test attributes of each category developed from

qualitative data analysis and literature review (show in appendix 11.4). De-identified

data was collected from employees affected by SAM implementation within the case

study organizations. To ensure current and accurate sample frame a modified form

of self-selection sampling was adopted. Each qualitative data interviewee asked to

send the questionnaire to a cross-functional group of employees affected by SAM

implementation within their organization. This selection process was implemented

to increase the homogeneity of the quantitative data sample whilst ensure it

remained relevant to the study. The potential participants were invited to complete

the questionnaire (appendix 11.5), and given two weeks to complete the survey.

6.3. Qualitative data analysis

An inductive research approach was adopted to develop the framework. However,

the nature of qualitative data collected has implications for analysis. Beginning the

search for a hypothesis with predefined variables is sensible, because the complex

nature of qualitative data requires it to be categorized before it can be meaningfully

analysed. Doing so avoids potentially unstructured initial research. Instead

developing credible associations to achieve the research objective (Silverman 2011;

Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2009). This is why, deducted from experience and

literature review, initial category classification was based upon the star model (Kates

and Galbraith 2010). Secondary data from literature review was used to create

definitions (Table.6), for each parent-, child- and sub-category, used to unitise the

data. The categories were modified during data analysis as dependant and

22

independent variables were established and relationships recognized in SAM

Implementation (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill 2009, pp. 479-87). This process

created a new category structure (figure 2). The analysis and relevant quotes from

interviews below support the new categories.

6.3.1. Figure 2. Category structure

6.3.2. Strategy

In all cases implementing SAM was reaction to a compelling negative reason for

strategy change, often the result of a previous over reliance on product selling. “We

had a complete communications breakdown with our biggest customer”. The selling

focus was wrong for B2B businesses. “We had a big piece of business that we

weren’t successfully pitching for”. Varian “had a problem with the way we were

selling generally, focus on price rather than value and saw that as a stumbling block”.

“Hard feedback” from customers is the compelling reason SAM becomes the reactive

element in emergent strategy. (Thompson 2012, pp. 10-1). An important element to

strategy is communicating it to the business. The “constant push to have all areas

understand why you are doing things this way”.

23

6.3.3. Tools

Implementing SAM requires “changes to business planning tools”, although

availability of the right tools is not essential at the start of implementation. All the

case studies acknowledged need for better tools to: segment and manage accounts;

measure customer satisfaction; and understand customer differential value

proposition (DVP). Astutely, one interviewee observed; “they are just tools at the

end of the day, there is still a process that we need to go through to find out what’s

the best fit for us”.

6.3.4. Processes

Process discipline is vital to creating a better process to “methodically manage

strategic accounts”. All interviewees recognized the need for “a discipline of process

and a different mindset” to create a “more structured approach to managing the

larger accounts”. Process could be better. “How we implemented it probably wasn’t

the greatest”. One case study had “just employed a lean person so we can actually

start to look as process changes”. Qualitative analysis identified three process sub-

categories: (1) segmentation; (2) strategic account review; and (3) DVP.

6.3.4.1. Segmentation

Segmenting accounts is essential to understanding how customers are to be

strategically managed. Often “the sales process is a very long process” of review to

understanding when customer segmentation “drops into the contestable bucket”.

6.3.4.2. Strategic account review

Quarterly strategic account reviews are recommended. This necessitates “sitting

down on a regular basis and going over each of the accounts and seeing what

worked and what didn’t work.” “We aim to meet with all business leaders each

quarter, same as our external customers”.

24

6.3.4.3. DVP

DVP is about understanding the value delivered to customers, and making sure the

customer understands this value too. This requires the value to be recorded; “need

to document measured outcomes”. Varian must be “more aware of DVP” for each

customer.

6.3.5. Structure

Whether intended or not, implementing SAM changes organizational structure,

because SAM changes the focus of roles. “Asked Regional Managers to pull back

from being the key people going to the customers, Account Managers (AMgr) will

take care of these accounts now”. Successful SAM requires the whole business

structure to understand SAM. “From an organizational perspective we got everyone

involved”. Collaboration between teams “for everyone to see the importance of

their own role in managing the account”, and “everyone to be on the same page”.

Involving all managers develops the organization’s understanding and mission

(Aguinis 2013, p. 63).

6.3.6. People

Analysis identified 4 key sub-categories: (1) leadership; (2) selection; (3) education;

and (4) consultant.

6.3.6.1. Leadership

Leadership is sub-divided into two elements: SAM champion; and executive

sponsorship. All the interviewees were obvious SAM champions. Their passion clear

from preparation for the interviews: one interviewee had written answers; another a

PowerPoint presentation. They affect an “organizational change lead by one of the

key managers”. SAM champions must attract executive sponsorship. The “challenge

to bring the executive leadership team into this conversation, which took a long

time”. From one executive sponsor interviewed; “I was passionate about it after

some convincing, but once I decided I was in boots and all”.25

6.3.6.2. Selection

Identifying the right people as AMgrs is vital to success. As one interviewee said

“Need the right people with the right attitude to make changes and move forward”.

AMgrs have varied backgrounds, not necessarily sales. In one case a marketing

employee identified as having the right skills to “fit into the key account role”. AMgrs

selected must become “trusted advisors” to the customer’s business.

6.3.6.3. Education

Developing the entire business’ understanding of SAM in the inclusive environment

of workshops develops acceptance. Cross-functional training helps the business

come to a common-sense conclusion; “why wouldn’t we do it?” “We quickly learnt

that we are not armed with the right skills and communication for what these

customers wanted to have”. In one case study, where SAM is well established; the

AMgr “can sit down with anybody functionally, internally and starting talking about

the value of this to the customer, and they all understand that and contribute to

that”. This is driven by a deeper understanding of the “importance of customer

relationships” by those educated in SAM. Shared learning creates shared experience,

creating a “client engaged organization”. Implementing SAM is a continual learning

process for the entire business. “Continue to try to learn by doing”.

6.3.6.4. Consultant

A consultant is a subject matter expert who provides training and valuable external

critique. “Challenging our thinking, making sure we are doing all the things we had

agreed to do, consistently challenging our thought process going forward”. The

consultant often engaged in independent third-party interview with customer C-

suite; to identify the customer value the business delivers. This process often

provides the reason for change companies need. A reality check one interview

recognized because “the results were not flash”.

26

6.3.7. Incentive

During interview the question “what changes were made to your rewards &

remuneration plan to support SAM?” was often met with pause before answer. “No

real change” a common theme. Only one case study had modified existing sales

incentive schemes to support SAM; they “went from a defined measurement of

growth, to a now more customer based measure”. Incentives need to recognize SAM

as a whole of business strategy; “Rewarding performance for those that are involved

even beyond their day job, not just sales team, looking at recognizing results more”.

Incentive schemes must drive the right behaviour of AMgrs, and the entire business.

6.3.8. Culture

In all cases SAM changed organizational culture. “The psychology of the team

improved and they became solution-focused”. SAM becomes “part of our DNA now”.

Attitudes change to working with colleagues; “collaboration between the teams”

becomes come practise. Culture changes as people collaborate to find better ways to

cope with changing external environment. (Schein 1984; Schein 2010).

6.3.9. Performance

Performance is improved with SAM implementation. The customer-centric strategy

of SAM focuses on delivering customer value, which generates revenue. “Good sales

results in some tough times”. Improved customer relationships deliver results; “In

twenty-two years I’ve been with the company I have never seen the relationship at

the level it is at now”. In this example, the relationship becoming so strong the

customer decided not to go to tender.

6.3.10. Communication

From qualitative analysis a new category for the framework was created. Successful

SAM implementation requires good communication. “A lot of communication and

engagement with your own organization”. Communication channels and language

27

change when SAM is implemented. “Changed the DNA of the language internally of

our organization”.

6.4. Quantitative data analysis

From sixty-eight participants a response rate of 48.5% was achieved, thirty-three

respondents completing questionnaires. Being greater than 30, this sample size

provides a mean sampling distribution close to normal distribution (Saunders, Lewis,

and Thornhill 2009, p. 211). The largest sample (45.45%) was from Varian, followed

by the medical devices sector (21.21%). Account or Sales manager roles were the

majority of respondents (39.39%). This included ‘Other’ roles (6.06%) which on

analysis were deemed to fit this role. Customer support the second largest

responding role (30.30%).

Ranked categorical quantitative data was collected, coded for analysis, and checked

for errors. The responses are shown in appendix 10.6. Appendix 10.8 represents

average; mean; standard deviation; upper and lower quantile statistics for each

question. Respondents also provided further free text comments on SAM

implementation (appendix 10.7). Exploratory data analysis was first used to: (1)

display the data; (2) identify salient features; and (3) interpret salient features (de

Mast and Kemper 2009).

Microsoft Excel was used for data analysis to assess the strength of relationship

between importance and performance of each variable. This analysis ranked

questions in three different ways:

(1) by order of importance;

(2) by order of the difference in mean importance and mean performance; and

(3) by calculating the positive responses, ranked from most positive to least

positive.

Positive responses are defined as the sum of “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses

to each question using the Likert scale defined in table 3. Table 4 shows upper and

28

lower quartile and median calculated for each data order. It is important to

remember when interpreting data; the Likert scale uses lowest score to represent

highest ranking attributes.

6.4.1. Table 3. Likert scale of respondent opinion

Likert scaleDefinition of

respondent opinion

0 don't know

1 strongly agree

2 agree

3 neutral

4 disagree

5 strongly disagree

6.4.2. Table 4. Quartile and median for data

Percentage of results

Quartile Order of Importance

Difference in Mean

Difference in

PostivesBottom 25% Lower quartile 1.66 -0.48 3%

Median 1.78 -0.19 14%Top 25% Upper quartile 1.94 0.04 21%

29

6.4.3. Table 5. Top 25% most important attributes

Importance PerformancePeople Leadership Executive Sponsor 11 Executive management support and sponsorship is

essential to the successful implementation of strategic account management

1.16 1.72

Communication 16 Understanding the value my company delivers to each customer is essential in strategic account management

1.34 2.03

Process 7 Measuring customer satisfaction is essential to strategic account management

1.47 2.14

Communication 1 I know why my company introduced strategic account management

1.59 1.78

People Leadership SAM Champion 10 A champion driving strategic account management implementation is essential to success

1.62 1.86

People Education cross-functional learning

4Implementing strategic account management means the whole company needs to understand the basic principles of strategic account management

1.62 2.32

Tools 6 A customer relationship management system is essential for strategic account management

1.66 2.07

Tools 8 A customer value proposition tool is essential for strategic account management

1.66 2.14

Parent categoryMean Score

QuestionQuestion

No.Sub-categoryChild category

From ranking by order of importance (appendix 10.9) we see the lower quartile of

order importance contains the top 25% most importance attributes (table 5). The

most important attributes are: (1) leadership; (2) communications; (3) cross-

functional education; (4) process and (5) tools. Executive sponsorship is the most

important (mean score 1.16), and with best performance (1.72), which proposes

companies recognize the need for c-suite buy-in to SAM. Tools feature significantly in

the top 25%, however having the rights tools available when implementing SAM was

the least important attribute (mean score 2.78), and worst performance (2.66).

Considering the qualitative analysis this suggests necessary tools only become

apparent to organizations as their SAM skills develop. Meaning lack of tools should

not slow down, or prevent SAM kick-off. Incentive was the worst performing

category, placed 2nd (2.54) and 3rd (2.44) worse performance attributes measured.

Supported by qualitative analysis, this suggests companies are not incentivising their

AMgrs appropriately.

30

From ranking by descending order of difference in mean (appendix 10.10) we

observe:

(1) In none of the highest ranking of importance attributes do companies

mean performance outperform mean importance; and

(2) 50% of the highest ranking of importance attributes feature in the bottom

25% mean difference order. Meaning 50% of the most important attributes

have the worst performance gap measured. The important categories with

the worst performance gap are people (50%) and process (50%).

Recommendations are companies will achieve the greater success by investment in:

(1) Securing executive sponsorship (people category, question 11);

(2) Cross-functional learning of SAM to ensure the whole business understands

the basic principles of SAM and customer value (people category, questions

4, 13, 16);

(3) Changing incentives schemes to reward SAM activates (incentive category,

question 19) ; and

(4) Adopting process to measure customer satisfaction (process category,

question 7).

From ranking the descending order of difference in positive (appendix 10.11) we see

there are 8 attributes in the upper quartile with differences greater than 21%. The

worst performance gap was in question 19; regarding incentive schemes (48%),

suggesting current schemes are inadequate. Question 17, process related, measured

37%, suggesting the discipline of keeping up to date account plans is deficient.

Question 13 measured a 25% gap in cross-functional learning. Question 18 again

indicates poor incentive programs with a 25% gap. Question 8, tools related

measured 22%, indicating tools to measure customer value are missing in businesses

implementing SAM.

Question 24, related to profit performance measure a 23% gap. Further analysis was

undertaken because this attribute had not featured in previous results (table 6). This

31

analysis suggests employees understand the positive impact on customer

satisfaction and revenue, although they are less clear on profit impact. This maybe

because many companies are reluctant to widely share profit information deemed

market sensitive. Companies may consider sharing this information with employees

so there is a better understanding of the implementation results.

6.4.4. Table 6. Performance positive response

Performance Postive response

Implementing strategic account management has increased our customer satisfaction performance

73%

Implementing strategic account management has increased our revenue performance

61%

Implementing strategic account management has increased our profit performance

42%

100% of respondents believed understanding customer differential value and

executive sponsorship essential to SAM. 97% of respondents: (1) knew why their

company had introduced SAM; (2) identified a SAM champion essential to success;

and (3) believed measuring customer satisfaction essential to SAM. These results

denote the importance of those attributes in SAM implementation to the employees

surveyed. The quantitative analysis suggests there are five keys areas for

improvement in SAM implementation:

(1) leadership; specifically executive sponsorship;

(2) The cross-functional education of the entire business;

(3) Availability of tools and the processes discipline to use them to manage

accounts, measuring customer value and satisfaction;

(4) communicating reasons SAM is being implemented; and

(5) having the incentives to promote a customer-centric organization.

32

7. Key findings

Good culture is the result of good performance. Successful companies earn their

performance by putting significant resources in to creating customer value and

generating higher revenue (Raynor and Ahmed 2013). Revenue and customer value

are the measures of performance. However, improving performance often requires a

major negative event to break resistance to change. Only when there is realization

performance is no longer adequate, will major changes like SAM implementation

become possible.

The research developed dependant and independent variables (table 7) defined

with:

(1) nine parent categories;

(2) child and sub categories;

(3) definitions for each category;

(4) answers to relevant research question; and

(5) additional commentary.

Culture and performance are two dependant variables in SAM implementation.

Good performance is the result of good execution; proficient management of the

seven independent variables to deliver desired performance. To successfully

implement SAM, Varian’s managers must understand, act on, and communicate

appropriately these variables. Specific concerns to be addressed by Varian are:

(1) SAM champions must secure executive sponsorship to execute strategy;

(2) new incentive programs which reward delivery of customer value and

creation of long-term revenue and profit must be developed;

(3) shared learning develops team ability to perform and change culture.

Providing opportunity for Varian to overcoming its cognitive defence

mechanisms with dignity; reaching realization change is the less threatening

option to status quo;

33

(4) communication of why, what, how and who of each variable change is a key

success factor in strategy execution. The open and honest communication of

necessary changes to deliver performance is the ‘glue’ connecting strategy

execution variables together. (Rubinstein 2013; Herrmann 1996; Stevenson,

Elliott, and Jones 2002; Conger 1998); and

(5) SAM demands competent customer management achieved with process

discipline across the business to ensure customer value is delivered and

measured. Tools need to be adapted or new tools adopted to understand and

deliver the customer value.

Figure 3 depicts the nine categories in a SAM implementation framework; the

purpose of this research.

7.1. Figure 3. The SAM implementation framework

34

7.2. Table 7. SAM implementation categories

Parent category

Child category

Sub-category

Definition Research question and comments Variable

Strategy Why a company chose SAM to stop or prevent losing in the marketplace (Lafley and Martin 2013, p. 3)

Why do organizations introduce SAM to their business practises?Negative environmental drivers create the most compelling reasons for implementing SAM

Independent

Recommended tools:

(1) Cranfield University (Woodburn 2006) audit and questionnaire tools recommended to support SAM Implementation.

(2) To support SAM processes:a. Peacock and Browne segmentation tools (Peacock and Browne 2014d)b. A CRM as a tool to capture customer related information.c. Valkre Render software to understand customer DVP (Alderman 2014)

IndependentTools A device designed to assist an organization’s people deliver performance (Stevenson, Elliott, and Jones 2002, p. 743)

35

Parent category

Child category

Sub-category

Definition Comment Variable

Clear programs and plans; routine and integrated systems to control, monitor and review the SAM program and its implementation (Muh. Darmin Ahmad et al. 2013, p. 198)

How does implementing SAM affect processes? SAM requires process discipline to successfully implementation

Independent

Segmentation Continual review to understand current customer relationship

Customer relationship is a dynamic variable. Independent

Strategic Account Review

Quarterly update of customer accounts by AMgrs to business and executive managers.

Must be a cross-functional review. Includes assessment of segmentation and DVP.

Independent

Differential Value Proposition

Define the value Varian brings to the customer’s business.

DVP agreed with customer to define actions the business must then execute and deliver

Independent

Structure Formal organization and informal networks created around function, products, geography and customers to execute strategy (Kates and Galbraith 2010)

Under what structure does SAM implementation thrive?Regardless of existing structure, it will change with SAM implementation.Varian’s global restructure creates an environment better suited to adopt SAM.Varian’s global restructure creates a customer-centric environment better suited to adopt SAM.

Independent

Process

36

Parent category

Child category

Sub-category

Definition Comment Variable

People Energized, motivated and empowered to act with a sense of urgency to implement SAM effectively, and understanding why (Kotter 2014, pp. 79-81)

How do people respond to SAM implementation? Positive response from people requires the People child- and sub-categories to be addressed.

Independent

Sam champion Transformational leader able to energise people and engage the whole business in SAM implementation

There must be one leader ultimately driving implementation. They lead by example in the need for continual learning to meet change.

Independent

Executive Sponsor

Senior management license for the SAM Champion to execute changes. Provides credibility to the project.

Executive sponsorship of SAM is essential to enabling the breakdown of internal silos and barriers to implementation

Independent

Selection Choice of the right people to become AMgr. AMgr manage by influence across the entire business. Customer advocates within the business. Customer’s trusted advisors.

Independent

Cross-functional

The whole business learning together. Shared learning overcomes cross-functional silos and increases the entire business acceptance of SAM.

Independent

Continual learning

Program of continual education and learning. Change process is continual which means the learning process must be too.

Independent

Provides:

1. training program delivery;

2. independent customer interviews. Show customers we are serious about changing our engagement with them; and

Education

Leadership

Consultant SAM subject matter expert. Independent

37

Parent category

Child category

Sub-category

Definition Comment Variable

Incentive System of rewards and punishments designed to align company and employee needs into a win-win partnership, essential for business to be successful (Fandray 2001, p. 38; Vitasek, Manrodt, and Kling 2012; Schein 2010, p. 19)

What is the relationship between performance reward and a customer-centric organization? Incentive schemes need to be modified from existing sales oriented programs. Focus on long-term sustainable revenue achieved by delivering customer value.

Independent

Culture Organizational culture is basic assumption learnt together through shared experience, which have worked in coping with external environment and internal relationships to meet the mind’s need for stability (Schein 1984; Schein 2010)

How does implementing SAM impact the culture of an organization?Good culture is an outcome of a good organization. It’s an indicator, not a driver of performance.

Dependent

Performance Actions and behaviours of people which increases company revenue by delivering customer value. (Landy and Conte 2009, pp. 317,8; Raynor and Ahmed 2013)

Performance should be measured in revenue and customer value (Net Promoter Score). Performance is the result of execution.

Dependent

Communication The open and honesty exchange of: why; what; how; and who is going, to perform work to deliver performance (Rubinstein 2013, p. 14; Herrmann 1996, p. 133; Stevenson, Elliott, and Jones 2002; Conger 1998)

The glue that holds the developed framework together. A significant change to business such as SAM implementation will only succeed with clear and consistent communications.

Independent

Source: 1 (Lafley and Martin 2013, p. 3); 2 (Stevenson, Elliott, and Jones 2002, p. 743); 3 (Muh. Darmin Ahmad et al. 2013, p. 198); 4 (Kates and Galbraith

2010); 5 (Kotter 2014, pp. 79-81); 6 (Fandray 2001; Vitasek, Manrodt, and Kling 2012; Schein 2010); 7 (Schein 1984; Schein 2010); 8 (Landy and Conte 2009;

Raynor and Ahmed 2013); 9 (Rubinstein 2013; Herrmann 1996; Stevenson, Elliott, and Jones 2002; Conger 1998)

38

8. Key implications

SAM increases revenue and delivers customer value. To achieve this performance

Varian should implement SAM in its local entities. The challenges and issues Varian

faces are similar to other industries, and in other countries. Following the framework

and specifically addressing the concerns: leadership; process; tools; education;

communication; and incentive will increase the probability of success. Varian should

also be cognisant of the following implications deducted from findings:

Successful SAM implementation is a change management process. Requiring

continual education of all functions.

There will be fundamental changes in organizational culture.

The framework is a management tool. A reminder of the variables to be

managed during SAM implementation and operational process. The local

environment will influence change decisions.

Communications of the results achieved (revenue, profit, and customer

satisfaction) back to the business is an underrated factor to successful

implementation.

The framework could be adopted for any strategy execution or change management

situation, in any business. Today our world is fast paced; with the consequence

management has become an unceasing process of change management. Businesses

require constant attention to keep pace with their perpetually evolving

environments. The framework guides the continual tuning of variables to deliver

performance in customer value and revenue generation.

39

9. Conclusion

Using the framework will increase probability of successful implementation.

Delivering performance and changing organizational culture, the primary

beneficiaries of SAM implementation. Although research was limited in sample size

and homogeneity, data gathered was well supported by literature review. Giving

confidence in the seven independent variables identified as primary contributors to

successful SAM implementation.

Critics may argue the validity of dependant and independent variables offered in this

hypothesis. Further research could scientifically verify the analysis. Generalizability

concerns of the analysis are addressed because the findings are constant with

literature review. Risk the selection process potentially introduces bias is

acknowledged. It is considered acceptable to ensure useful relevance of data

collected from the small sample size. This should not impact external validity of the

research.

The research purpose was achieved with development of the SAM implementation

framework. Using the framework, and addressing the identified concerns, will

increase the probability of successful deployment of best-practise SAM in Varian’s

domestic marketplaces.

40

10. References

Aguinis, H 2013, Performance Management, Pearson.

Alldredge, M, Johnson, C, Stoltzfuz, J & Vicere, A 2003, 'Leadership Development at

3M: New Process, New Techniques, New Growth', Human Resource Planning,

vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 45-55.

Barrett, A, Beeson, J & Board, C 2002, Developing Business Leaders for 2010,

Conference Board, Incorporated.

Bossidy, L & Charan, R 2011, Execution: The discipline of getting things done, Random

House.

Breslin, M & Buchanan, R 2008, 'On the Case Study Method of Research and

Teaching in Design', Design Issues, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 36-40.

Čater, T & Pučko, D 2010, 'Factors of effective strategy implementation: Empirical

evidence from Slovenian business practice', Journal for East European

Management Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 207-36.

Conger, JA 1998, 'The necessary art of persuasion', Harvard Business Review, vol. 76,

pp. 84-97.

de Mast, J & Kemper, BPH 2009, 'Principles of Exploratory Data Analysis in Problem

Solving: What Can We Learn from a Well-Known Case?', Quality Engineering,

vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 366-75.

Fandray, D 2001, 'The New Thinking in Performance Appraisals', Workforce, vol. 80,

no. 5, p. 36.

Forsyth, P 2012, Managing Change, Kogan Page.

Gilligan, C & Wilson, RMS 2009, Strategic Marketing Planning, Elsevier Science &

Technology Books.

Harrington, RJ & Kendall, K 2006, 'Strategy implementation success: The moderating

effects of size and environmental complexity and the mediating effects of

involvement', Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, vol. 30, no. 2, pp.

207-30.

Herrmann, N 1996, The Whole Brain Business Book, McGraw-Hill Education.41

Kates, A & Galbraith, JR 2010, Designing Your Organization: Using the STAR Model to

Solve 5 Critical Design Challenges, Wiley.

Kim, WC & Mauborgne, R 2014, 'Blue Ocean Leadership', Harvard Business Review,

vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 60-72.

Kingsmill, D, Bishop, D, Smith, J, Brown, D, Kearns, P, Phelps, R, Barnard, D, Walsh, B,

Turner, P & Singh, S 2005, ''A company is nothing without its people... What

are you afraid of?'', Personnel Today, pp. 16-7.

Kotler, P, Keller, KL, Ang, SH, Leong, SM & Tan, CT 2012, Marketing Management: An

Asian Perspective, Pearson Education South Asia Pte Limited.

Kotter, JP 2014, Accelerate: Building Strategic Agility for a Faster-Moving World,

Harvard Business Review Press.

Lafley, AG & Martin, RL 2013, Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works, Harvard

Business Press.

Landy, FJ & Conte, JM 2009, Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, Wiley.

Muh. Darmin Ahmad, P, Ujang, S, Arief, D & Kirbrandoko 2013, 'Factors Affecting

Poor Strategy Implementation', Gadjah Mada International Journal of

Business, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 183-204.

Peacock, G & Browne, P 2014a, 'Leading transformational chnage through SAM',

Velocity, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 39-43.

——— 2014b, Managing the B2B Customers You Can't Afford to Lose: How to Create

Joint Value with Your Strategic Accounts, Bennelong Publishing.

Raynor, ME & Ahmed, M 2013, 'Three rules for making a company truly great',

Harvard Business Review, vol. 91, no. 4.

Rubinstein, L 2013, True Leadership: The Source of Success, D Books.

SAMA 2014, 2014 report on current trends & practises in strategic account

management, (Strategic Account Management Association, chairman),

Chicago.

Saunders, M, Lewis, P & Thornhill, A 2009, Research Methods for Business Students,

Financial Times Prentice Hall.

42

Savander, N 2014, Elekta Medical Systems annual report 2014, viewed 20th April

2015,

<http://www.elekta.com/dms/elekta/elekta-assets/Investors/pdf/annual-

report-2013-14/Elekta-Annual-Report-2013-14.pdf%3E.

Schein, EH 1984, 'Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture', Sloan

management review, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 3-16.

Schein, EH 2010, Organizational Culture and Leadership, Wiley.

Silverman, D 2011, Interpreting Qualitative Data, SAGE Publications.

Slack, N 2012, Operations and Process Management: Principles and Practice for

Strategic Impact, Pearson Publishing.

Stevenson, A, Elliott, J & Jones, R 2002, Little Oxford English Dictionary, 8 edn.,

Oxford University Press.

Sull, D, Homkes, R & Sull, C 2015, 'Why strategy execution unravels - and what to do

about it', Harvard Business Review, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 58-66.

Thompson, AA 2012, Crafting and executing strategy : the quest for competitive

advantage : concepts and cases / Arthur A. Thompson, Margaret A. Peteraf,

Jr., A.J. Strickland III, John E. Gamble, 18th edn., ed. A. J. Strickland and John

Gamble, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.

Vitasek, K, Manrodt, K & Kling, J 2012, Vested: How P&G, McDonald's, and Microsoft

are Redefining Winning in Business Relationships, Palgrave Macmillan.

Waterman, RH, Peters, TJ & Phillips, JR 1980, Structure is Not Organization, M.

Wiener.

Wilson, D 2014, Varian Medical Systems annual report, viewed 20 April 2015,

<

http://investors.varian.com/download/VarianMedicalSystems_2014AnnualR

eport.pdf%3E.

Woodburn, D 2006, 'Transitioning to key account management', Cranfield School of

Management Research Report.

Woodburn, D & Ryals, L 2008, 'Implementing strategic account management',

Velocity, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 20-3.

43

Yin, RK 2013, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, SAGE Publications.

44