journal of business & industrial marketing
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Business & Industrial MarketingOrganizational buying behavior: past performance and future expectationsJagdish N. Sheth,
Article information:To cite this document:Jagdish N. Sheth, (1996) "Organizational buying behavior: past performance and future expectations", Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing, Vol. 11 Issue: 3/4, pp.7-24, https://doi.org/10.1108/08858629610125441Permanent link to this document:https://doi.org/10.1108/08858629610125441
Downloaded on: 29 November 2017, At: 08:39 (PT)References: this document contains references to 95 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10390 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(1980),"Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Organisational Buying Behaviour", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14Iss 5/6 pp. 239-263 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004904">https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004904</a>(1996),"Theory transitions in organizational buying behavior research", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol.11 Iss 6 pp. 7-19 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/08858629610151271">https://doi.org/10.1108/08858629610151271</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:616458 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
IntroductionThe purpose of this invited paper is to assess what has happened since thepublication of the paper, “A model of industrial buyer behavior” (Sheth,1973), and to suggest future academic research opportunities and challengeswith respect to theory, methods and empirical observations in organizationalbuyer behavior (OBB).
As we all know, forecasting the future is a highly risky business, especiallyif you live through the future. However, I will attempt to do this one moretime in this paper for two reasons: First, I probably will not be around towitness the future, and second, the best way to forecast the future is to createone! Therefore, in this paper I will “fast forward” the assessment ofacademic research conducted since the early 1970s and spend more timesuggesting new and exciting research opportunities and challenges in inter-organization buyer behavior. In the Appendix, a detailed review of academicresearch of the past 25 years is provided.
Fast forwardMy first exposure to, and experience with OBB was in 1962 at theUniversity of Pittsburgh. Under the leadership of Professor John Howard,several of us doctoral students were trying to develop a descriptive model ofhow industrial buyers make buying decisions and supplier selection. Idistinctly remember interviewing industrial buyers of steel companies inPittsburgh about their purchase of industrial fasteners (bolts and nuts) andelectrical motors. At that time, the marketing discipline had just discoveredthe marketing concept; and brand loyalty, retailing and mass advertisingwere influential in the development of marketing thought (Sheth et al. 1989).Consequently, I was surprised to discover that industrial, institutional, andtrade buying behaviors were rich with empirical evidence, concepts, andmethodology (Sheth, 1973, 1976).
Since the early 1980s, research on OBB has simply exploded (Ward andWebster, 1991). This can be attributed to at least three reasons. First, theshift from understanding and influencing consumers to customers (industrial, institutional, and trade) has led to a greater focus on OBB.Second, both the academic journals and business professional organizations,including the National Association of Purchasing Management (NAPM),have encouraged research and, publications on inter-organization buyingbehavior. Finally, as suggested in Sheth et al. (1988), the marketingdiscipline is increasingly influenced by the disciplines of organizational
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996, pp. 7-24 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0855-8624 7
Organizational buying behavior:past performance and futureexpectationsJagdish N. Sheth
The author is grateful to Dr Atul Parvatiyar, Emory University in assisting inpreparing the literature review.
Descriptive model
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
behavior (OB), industrial organizations (IO) and transaction cost theories ineconomics.
The three conceptual models in OBB published in the 1960s and 1970s(Robinson et al., 1967; Sheth, 1973; Webster and Wind, 1972) were alsosignificantly influential in generating academic interest in organizationalbuying behavior. The concepts of Make-Buy and Modified-Rebuy; theBuying Center; the behavioral aspects of decision making; the joint vs.autonomous decisions; and conflict resolution in joint-decision makingprocesses led to significant research as summarized in the Appendix of thispaper.
Perhaps the most popular area of research in OBB has been theunderstanding of the decision-making process, its antecedents, as well asmediating and moderating contextual variables. In particular, marketingscholars have tried to apply behavioral and economic concepts of power,conflict, and influence in understanding the group dynamics within thebuying center. Most of the research methodology for studying thisphenomenon has been survey research wherein a key informant is asked toeither role play or recall incidents of specific organizational buyingdecisions.
However, there have also emerged three additional research streams that areworth noting. The first has to do with buyer-seller interaction and buyer-seller relationships, especially in the area of channels as customers. Thisstream of research is heavily influenced by El-Ansary and Stern’s (1972)classic work on power, dependence, and conflict, and later on byWilliamson’s transaction cost theory.
A second stream of research has focused on partnering with suppliers toachieve better product quality and customer satisfaction. Included in thisstream of research are the clinical case studies of supplier partneringrelationships carried out by the IMP group in Scandinavia, and subsequentuse of networks theory and methodology to quantitatively measure thestrength of the customer-supplier relationships over time.
A third major research trend is focused on supply chain partnering and theuse of information technology (networked computing and on-line dataservices). This includes quick response, just-in-time, and the use ofelectronic data interchange (EDI) for maximizing efficiency througheconomies of time (reduced cycle times) and mass customization in sharpcontrast to the older theories of economies of scale and scope.
AssessmentThis fast forward review of the past 20 plus years, surprisingly, generatedthe same feelings and reactions as the first review I did in the 1970s. Despitecontinued impressive research in OBB, I believe there is still a perceptiontoday among marketing scholars that it is a neglected area of marketing. Icited several reasons for that belief in the 1970s (Sheth, 1978). Let us see ifthe same holds true even today.
“First, most research in organizational buying behavior has been practice-oriented and less academic oriented” (Sheth, 1978, p. 65). This, I believe, isstill true but to a less extent. More papers on OBB are now published in the
8 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Three conceptual models
Three research streams
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
first tier academic journals, and probably reflect better scientific approach atleast in terms of logical positivism tradition of scientific inquiry.
“Second, more good research seems to have been conducted in Europe thanin the US and therefore, we are not as aware of its existence” (Sheth, 1978,p. 65). This fact is still very prevalent in terms of generating knowledge (weonly have to look at the impressive research tradition of the IMP group andmore recently in the services marketing area). However, it is betterdisseminated today through publications in US journals as well as moreactive participation by the European scholars in the US based academicconferences.
“Furthermore, research in organizational buying is also scattered acrossseveral disciplines such as political science, organizational psychology, andseveral sub-areas of business including production, finance, and personnelmanagement” (Sheth, 1978, p. 65). Today, this is even more true as scholarsin other disciplines have focused their research on the economic aspects oforganizational behavior and particularly on buying behavior due to therecent interests in total quality management (TQM), and supplier partneringrelationships.
“Third, it seems easier to relate to consumer behavior based on researcher’sown introspective analysis of personal experiences but requires additionalefforts to experience and learn the reality in organizational buyer behaviorprior to conducting research. As such, borrowing and applying many of thetheories and methods from the behavioral sciences seems morestraightforward in consumer behavior than in organizational buyingbehavior” (Sheth, 1978, p. 65). This idea is less true today primarily becauseit is more and more prevalent for marketing scholars to have three to fouryears of work experience before starting the postgraduate education. At thesame time, bulk of field research conducted in the postgraduate courses stilltends to be the study of consumers versus customers. Furthermore, the trendis likely to persist unless the early training during the coursework andinternships is consciously channelled toward business-to-business markets.
“Finally, it is true that consumer marketers have tended to be more receptiveand less hard-nosed about applying new and different techniques andtheories of behavioral sciences probably because of the presumption thatconsumer behavior is, by definition, more complex and emotional thanorganizational buying behavior. Therefore, consumer behavior and consumermarketing have distinguished themselves as the leading edge of themarketing discipline. Hence, the popular belief that research inorganizational buying behavior is scarce, non-scholarly, and more tradeoriented” (Sheth, 1978, pp. 65-55). I believe this is much less true today than25 years ago. Indeed, some of the best young scholars in business-to-business marketing are trained in hard sciences, industrial organizations, andeconomics, as well as committed to academic research in OBB.
While the last 25 years of research has continued the tradition of earlierresearch and have moved up the ladder of academic rigor and relevance, Isee some challenges and opportunities in business-to-business marketingwhich paralleled similar efforts in international marketing and morerecently in services marketing. First, business-to-business marketing willnot become a discipline unless it is anchored to a well-respected theory
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996 9
Generating knowledge
Hard sciences andeconomics
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
whether home grown or imported. This seems to have made a significantdifference in the respectability of consumer research and to some extentmarketing strategy in marketing. So far, business-to-business marketingseems to be still in search of a good theory, and therefore, it ispredominantly context driven similar to international marketing. Second,business-to-business marketing must become methodologically moresophisticated especially as compared to other areas of marketing such asbrand equity, product life cycle, and advertising. The latter have utilized theeconometric and mathematical modelling and analytical tools to enhancescientific knowledge and respectability. While the use of LISREL,networks, and other multivariate techniques in business-to-business marketsis admirable and in the right direction, the potential to do more is enormous.Also, it will be highly desirable to rely less on surveys of subjectiveperceptions of key informants as the basic data collection procedure, andinstead use more financial and other analytical data bases similar toCOMPUSTAT and PIMS databases. Figure 1 thus suggests surpluses andshortages of research in OBB.
OBB has been dramatically changing since the 1970s for at least fourreasons (Figure 2). First, global competitiveness, especially in themanufacturing sector, such as process machinery, automobiles and heavyengineering, have pointed out the competitive advantages of creating andmanaging supply chain relationships. Second, emergence of the TQMphilosophy has encouraged “reverse marketing” starting with externalcustomers and moving backward into procurement processes andpractices, especially as they relate to reduced cycle times and zeroinventory management. For example, demand driven manufacturing(DDM) or flexible manufacturing and operations have been instituted inorder to serve the diversity of demand with respect to form, place andtime value to customers. Third, industry restructuring through mergers,acquisitions and alliances on a global basis has reorganized theprocurement function from a decentralized administrative function to acentralized strategic function. This is further intensified by outsourcing(buy vs make), many support functions such as data processing, andhuman resources. Finally, use of information technologies including
10 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Need more Critical shortage
Copious surplus Need more
HowDescriptiveapproach
Analyticalapproach
What
Conceptualconstructs
Empiricalstudies
Figure 1. Creating the future
Total qualitymanagement philosophy
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
networked computing, quick response, EDI and other computer tocomputer programmed procurement have restructured the buyingphilosophy, processes and platforms.
Fundamentally, the consequence of changing paradigms of OBB is likely toresult in a two-dimensional shift as shown in Figure 3.
As OBB shifts from a transaction centred to a relational-centred philosophy,and as it shifts from a decentralized domestic sourcing to a centralizedglobal sourcing process, most of the academic research and theory related toorganizational decision making including the buying center concept, makevs. buy decisions, sources of interdepartmental conflict and its resolution,and buyer-supplier negotiations will become obsolete. As Eric Hoffer, thephilosopher historian has eloquently stated: “In times of drastic change, it is
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996 11
Globalcompetitiveness
Industryrestructuring
Changingparadigms
ofprocurement
Technologyenablers
TQMphilosophy
Figure 2. Changing paradigms of organizational buying behavior
Future procurementpractices
Globalsourcing
Domesticsourcing
Transaction Relationship
Past procurementpractices
Figure 3. Two-dimensional shift in organizational buying behavior
Two-dimensional shift
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
the learners who inherit the future. The learned find themselves equippedwith a world that no longer exists.” I believe our older knowledge in OBB islikely to be less and less valuable. We need to learn new concepts, methodsand theories appropriate for the new world of OBB.
There is enough precedent in marketing for this crisis of relevance. Forexample, scholars who studied operations research found themselves caughtin the transition to multivariate techniques. Similarly, within multivariatetechniques, we witnessed the shifts from the traditional regression,discriminant and factor analysis to logit-probit models, on the one hand, andLISREL on the other hand. Similar shifts of knowledge took place in thesubstantive areas of marketing. For example, behavioral theories ofmarketing were superseded by competitive strategy theories and conceptsfrom industrial organizations, and more recently the market transactionstheories and concepts are giving way to hierarchies and networks asorganizational frameworks.
The good news is that as the half life of academic knowledge declinesexponentially, it is also creating enormous opportunities for future researchin OBB (see Figure 4). The following areas of future research look verypromising for academic research as the procurement practice changes fromtransaction centred to relationship centred, and from domestic to globalsourcing:
• Supplier as customer. As supply function becomes more a strategicdifferentiator and a core competency, it will encourage treating suppliersless as vendors and more like partners. Therefore, the buyingorganizations will have to develop both commitment and trust. It ispossible to be a world class supplier, but it is very difficult to be a worldclass customer. Customers often engage in opportunistic behavior eventhough they are happy with existing suppliers by exercising their marketpower. This results in lack of a trusting relationship. Most supplierstherefore, do not trust their customers. Similarly, business customers do
12 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Hub andspokes
organization
10 19
8 3
2
7 46 5
Servicesprocurement
Supplier ascustomer
Cross-functional
supplier teams
Does partneringpay?
Supplyexperience
curves
Bondingwith
suppliers
Globalsourcing
Cross-culturalvalues
Cross-national
rules
Figure 4. Emerging research opportunities in organizational buying behavior
Crisis of relevance
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
not like to reduce the supplier choices because of the fear that they willbe dependent on them. Therefore, they do not make a commitment byreducing their choices. In the future, business customers will have toreduce the number of suppliers and invest in a handful of suppliers withrespect to training, capital and know how. In other words, whatcompanies do with their customers with respect to customer selectivityand key account management processes and practices will becomeequally important for managing relationships with their suppliercommunity.
• Cross-functional supplier teams. As business customers begin to sourceon a global and relational basis with their key suppliers, they will haveto internally create and maintain cross-functional teams that arededicated or focussed on their key suppliers. As these cross-functionalsupplier teams replace the buying center structure and process, there willbe a need for academic frameworks, concepts, and methods to study andenhance performance of cross-functional supplier teams.
• Does partnering pay? Just as relationship marketing is struggling withthe issue of return on investing in relationships with customers, therewill be similar concerns about partnering with suppliers. Therefore, whatwill be very desirable is to develop a performance metric thatanalytically quantifies supplier relationship equity. My a priorihypothesis is that similar to smaller market share brand names whosecost of maintenance is more that its value, supplier partnering withsmaller share suppliers will not be economical. This should result insupplier selectivity.
• Supply experience curves. Managing supplier relationships on a globalbasis is not an easy task as most business customers have realized.Therefore, in industries where supply function is a key strategicadvantage, companies will focus on creating core competency in supplyside management and develop sharper experience curves. Therefore, weneed to learn how to apply experience curve concepts and methods tosupply side management similar to what is applied in manufacturing.
• Hub and spokes organization. As organizations reduce the number ofsuppliers in each product or service category, and at the same timeoutsource internal activities, there will be a need for developing a huband spoke organization in which one or two suppliers in each product orservice category are the spokes and the procurement organizationbecomes the hub on a global basis. This hub and spokes organizationalarchitecture has analogs in local area networks (LANS) and in computerassisted logistics systems (CALS). It would be fascinating to usenetworks methodology to study the hub and spokes organizationaldesigns.
• Bonding with suppliers. Creating, managing, and enhancing ongoingrelationships with suppliers on a global basis will require organizationsto learn about, and invest in bonding processes and philosophies similarto what organizations are learning and practicing with their customers.What are the governance concepts and processes for bonding withsuppliers? Are they different from the governance processes appropriatefor bonding with customers?
• Global sourcing. This is a key driver for future academic research.While several global enterprises, especially in the automotive, hightechnology and the aerospace industries are establishing processes and
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996 13
Buying center structureand process
Outsource internalactivities
Establishing processesand platforms
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
platforms, it is still at an infancy stage of practice in other industries.Similarly, there is no real academic framework that provides insightsand explanations for global sourcing. At best, we have one or two bookson global sourcing that reflect its importance and practice.
• Cross-cultural values. Both the buying and selling practices and valuesystems vary significantly across cultural boundaries. In some cultures,reciprocity is declared illegal and unethical whereas in other cultures itis the preferred way of doing business. What is considered as an agencyfee in one country is recognized as a bribe, subject to prosecution underthe anti-corruption laws. Similarly, doing business with family membersand politically connected individuals is presumed to provide a sense oftrust and commitment in some cultures whereas it is considered asnepotism and unethical behavior in others. This is another area ofacademic research of enormous potential.
• Cross-national rules. Similar to cross-cultural differences, there are alsocross-national rules that regulate economic behaviors of enterprises.Specifically, the two-tier regulation (one for domestic and the other forforeign enterprises) is common with respect to ownership, managementcontrol, and coproduction practices. With the rise of nationalism inrecent years, this has become a key issue for global enterprises such asMcDonald’s, Coca-Cola, General Electric, and Enron, especially as theyexpand their market scope and supply scope in large emerging nationssuch as India, China, and Indonesia.
• Services procurement. We know a lot about product procurement;however, our academic knowledge for services procurement seems to belimited. As organizations outsource more and more internal services,and as suppliers engage in providing value-added services to theircustomers, one expects greater need to understand and research servicesprocurement. Furthermore, most advanced countries are, defacto,services economies as measured by employment and GNP contributions.Services Procurement will have the same issues as what servicesmarketing scholars have experienced: Are services different thanproducts? What is the impact of perishability, simultaneity of productionand consumption, and lack of standardization on services procurementfunction, especially on a global basis? This has become a major issue inadvertising agencies, professional services (accounting, legal, humanresources and consulting), as well as information services (dataprocessing, telecommunications and on-line services).
Concluding remarksThe fundamental message of this invited paper for scholars in OBB can besummed up as good news and bad news. The bad news is that half life of theimpressive knowledge generated in the past 25 years is declining at anexponential rate. The good news is that the repositioning of the procurementpractice from an administrative, and transaction focused function to astrategic, and relational focused function is generating numerous futureopportunities for innovative and insightful academic research.
References and further reading
Anderson, P.F. and Chambers, T.M. (1985), “A reward/measurement model of organizationalbuying behaviour”, Journal of Marketing, Spring, pp. 7-23.
Anderson, E., Chu, W. and Weitz, B. (1987), “Industrial purchasing: an empirical explorationof the buyclass framework”, Journal of Marketing, July, pp. 71-86.
14 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Providing value-addedservices
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
Anderson, J.C., Håkaansson, H. and Johanson, J. (1994), “Dyadic business relationships withina business network context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, October, pp. 1-15.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1978), “Exchange and decision processes in the buying center”, in Bonoma,T.V. and Zaltman, G. (Eds), Organizational Buying Behavior, American MarketingAssociation, Chicago, IL, pp. 100-25.
Banting, P., Beracs, J. and Gross, A. (1991), “The industrial buying process in capitalist andsocialist countries”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 20, pp. 105-13.
Barclay, D.W. (1991), “Interdepartmental conflict in organizational buying: the impact of theorganizational context”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, May, pp. 145-59.
Bellizzi, J.A. and McVey, P. (1983), “How valid is the buy-grid model?”, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 12, pp. 57-62.
Berkowitz, M. (1986), “New product adoptation by the buying organization: who are the realinfluencers?”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 33-43.
Berkowitz, M. (1988), “End users and technical staff as influences in buying new industrilproducts: high stakes, but do they really matter?”, Advances in Business Marketing, Vol. 3,pp. 27-48.
Bonoma, T.V. and Johnston, W.J. (1978), “The social psychology of industrial buying andselling”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 17, pp. 213-24.
Bonoma, T.V., Bagozzi, R.P. and Zaltman, G. (1978), “The dyadic paradigm with specificapplication toward industrial marketing”, in Bonoma, T.V. and Zaltman, G. (Eds),Organizational Buying Behavior, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 49-66.
Bonoma, T.V., Zaltman, G. and Johnston, W.J. (1977), Industrial buying behavior, Report No.77-117, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA
Boyle, B., Dwyer, F.R., Robicheaux, R.A. and Simpson, J.T. (1992), “Influence strategies inmarketing channels: measures and use in different relationship structures”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 29, November, pp. 462-73.
Brown, S.P. (1995), “The moderating effects of insupplier/outsupplier status on organizationalbuying attitudes”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 170-81.
Bunn, M.D. (1993), “Taxonomy of buying decision approaches”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 57, January, pp. 38-56.
Bunn, M.D. (1994), “Key aspects of organizational buying: conceptualization andmeasurement”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 160-69.
Bunn, M.D. and Clopton, S.W. (1993), “Patterns of information source use across industrialpurchase situations”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 457-78.
Cadotte, E.R. and Stern, L.W. (1979), “A process model of interorganizational relations inmarketing channels”, Research in Marketing, Vol. 2, pp. 127-58.
Carter, J.R. and Narasimhan, R. (1994), “The role of purchasing and materials management intotal quality management and customer satisfaction”, International Journal of Purchasingand Materials Management, Summer, pp. 3-13.
Choffray, J.M. and Lilien, G.L. (1980), “Industrial market segmentation by the structure of thepurchasing process”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 9, pp. 331-42.
Clopton, C.W. (1984), “Seller and buying firm factors affecting buyers negotiation behaviorand outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, February, pp. 39-53.
Dabholkar, P.A., Johnston, W.J. and Cathey, A.S. (1994), “The dynamics of long-termbusiness-to-business exchange relationships”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 130-45.
Dempsey, W.A. (1978), “Vendor selection and the buying process”, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 7, pp. 257-67.
Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1987), “A comparison of factors affecting use of marketinginformation in consumer and industrial firms”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24,February, pp. 114-18.
Dholakia, R.R., Johnson. J.L., Bitta, A.J.D. and Dholakia, N. (1993), “Decision making time inorganizational buying behavior: an investigation of its antecedents”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 281-92.
Drumwright, M.E. (1994), “Socially responsible organizational buying: environmental concernas a noneconomic buying criterion”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 1-19.
Dumond, E.J. (1994), “Moving toward value-based purchasing”, International Journal ofPurchasing and Materials Management, Spring, pp. 3-8.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing buyer seller relationships”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 11-27.
El-Ansary, A.I. and Stern, L.W. (1972), “Power measurement in the distribution channel”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, February, pp. 47-52.
Frazier, G.L. (1983), “Interorganizational exchange behavior in marketing channels: abroadened perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Fall, pp. 68-78.
Frazier, G.L. and Rody, R.C. (1991), “The use of influence strategies in interfirm relationshipsin industrial product channels”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, January, pp. 52-69.
Frazier, G.L., Spekman, R.E. and O’Neal, C.R. (1988), “Just-in-time exchange relationships inindustrial markets”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, October, pp. 52-67.
Grønhaug, K. (1976), “Exploring environmental influences in organizational buying”, Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 8, August, pp. 225-9.
Håkaansson, H. (Ed.) (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods: AnInteraction Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Hallén, L., Johanson, J. and Seyed-Mohamed, N. (1991), “Interfirm adaptation in businessrelationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, April, pp. 29-37.
Han, S.L., Wilson, D.T. and Dant, S.P. (1993), “Buyer-seller relationships today”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 22, pp. 331-8.
Handfield, R.B. (1993), “A resource dependence perspective of just-in-time purchasing”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 11, pp. 289-311.
Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1990), “Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of jointaction in buyer-supplier relationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, February,pp. 24-36.
Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1992), “Do norms matter in marketing relationships?”, Journal ofMarketing, No. 56, April, pp. 32-44.
Heide, J.B. and Miner, A.S. (1992), “The shadow of the future: effects if anticipatedinteraction and frequency of contact on buyer seller cooperation”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 265-91.
Heide, J.B. and Weiss, A.M. (1995), “Vendor consideration and switching behavior for buyersin high technology markets”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, July, pp. 30-43.
Henthorne, T.L., LaTour, M.S. and Williams, A.J. (1993), “How organizational buyers reducerisk”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 22, pp. 41-8.
Jackson, D.W. Jr, Keith, J.E. and Burdick, R.K. (1984), “Purchasing agents’ perception ofindustrial buying center influence: a situational approach”, Journal of Marketing, Fall, pp. 75-83.
Johnston, W.J. and Bonoma, T.V. (1981), “The buying center: structure and interactionpatterns”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, Summer, pp. 143-56.
Kohli A. (1989), “Determinants of influence in organizational buying: a contingencyapproach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, July, pp. 50-65.
Kohli A.K. and Zaltman, G. (1988), “Measuring multiple buying influences”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 17, July, pp. 197-204.
Leigh, T.W. and Rethans, A.J. (1984), “A scripttheoretic analysis of industrial purchasingbehavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, Fall, pp. 22-32.
Lynn, S.A. (1987), “Identifying buying influences for a professional service: implications formarketing effort”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 16, pp. 119-30.
Martilla, J.A. (1971), “Word-of-mouth communication in the industrial adoptation process”,Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 8, May, pp. 173-8.
Martin, J.H., Daley, J.M. and Burdg, H.B. (1988), “Buying influences and perceptions oftransportation services”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 17, pp. 305-14.
Matthyssens, P. and Bulte, C.V. (1994), “Getting closer and nicer: partnerships in the supplychain”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 27, February, pp. 72-83.
McQuiston, D.H. (1989), “Novelty, complexity, and importance as causal determinants ofindustrial buyer behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, April, pp. 66-79.
Metcalf, L.E., Frear, C.R. and Krishnan, R. (1992), “Buyer seller relationships: an applicationof the IMP interaction model”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 27-46.
Michaels, R.E., Day, R.L. and Joachimsthaler, E.A. (1987), “Role stress among industrialbuyers: an integrative model”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 28-45.
Moriarty, R.T. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1982), “Exploring complex decision making units: a newapproach”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, May, pp. 182-91.
16 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
Moriarty, R.T. Jr and Spekman, R.E. (1984), “An empirical investigation of the informationsources used during the industrial buying process”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.21, May, pp. 137-47.
Nicosia, F.M. and Wind, Y. (1977), Behavioral models of organizational buying processes”,Behavioral Models for Market Analysis: Foundations for Marketing Action, Dryden Press,Hinsdale, IL, pp. 96-120.
Noordwier, T.G., John, G. and Nevin, J.R. (1990), “Performance outcomes of purchasingarrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54,October, pp. 80-93.
Patton, W.E. III, Puto, C.P. and King, R.H. (1986), “Which buying decisions are made byindividuals and not by groups”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 129-38.
Perdue, B.C. (1992), “Ten aggressive bargaining tactics of industrial buyers”, Journal ofBusiness and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 45-52.
Perdue, B.C. and Summers, J.O. (1991), “Purchasing agents’ use of negotiation strategies”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, May, pp. 175-89.
Provan, K.G. (1993), “Embeddedness, interdependence, and opportunism in organizationalsupplier-buyer”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 841-56.
Puto, C.P. and Qualls, W.J. (1989), “Organizational climate and decision framing: an integralapproach to analyzing industrial buying decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.26, May, pp. 179-92.
Qualls, W.J. and Puto, C.P. (1989), “Organizational climate and decision framing: anintegrated approach to analyzing industrial buying decisions”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 26, May, pp. 179-92.
Ramaswamy, V., Gatignon, H. and Reibstien, D.J. (1994), “Competitive marketing behavior inindustrial markets”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 45-55.
Rangan, V.K., Moriarty, R.T. and Swartz, G.S. (1992), “Segmenting customers in matureindustrial markets”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, October, pp. 72-82.
Robertson, T.S. and Wind, Y. (1980), “Organizational psychographics and innovativeness”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, June, pp. 24-31.
Robinson, P.J., Faris, C.W., and Wind, Y. (1967), Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing,Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Ronchetto, J.R. Jr, Hutt, M.D. and Reingen, P.H. (1989), “Embedded influence patterns inorganizational buying systems”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, October, pp. 51-62.
Ryan, M.J. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Decision-specific conflict in organizational buyerbehavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp. 62-8.
Schmittilen, D.C. and Peterson, R.A. (1994), “Customer base analysis: an industrial purchaseprocess application”, Marketing Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41-67.
Sheth, J.N. (1973), “A model of industrial buyer behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37,October, pp. 50-6.
Sheth, J.N. (1976), “Buyer seller interaction: a conceptual framework”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 3, pp. 382-6.
Sheth, J.N. (1978), “Recent developments in organizational buying behavior”, P.U.Management Review, Vol. 1, January, pp. 65-92.
Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M. and Garrett, D.E. (1988), Marketing Theory Evolution andEvaluation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Silk, A.J. and Kalwani, M.U. (1982), “Measuring influence in organization purchasedecisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, May, pp. 165-81.
Spekman, R.E. (1981), “Segmenting buyers in different types of organizations”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 10, pp. 43-8.
Spekman, R.E. and Stern, L.W. (1979), “Environmental uncertainity and buying groupstructure: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, Spring, pp. 54-64.
Sriram, V. and Banerjee, S. (1994), “Electronic data interchange: does its adoptation changepurchasing policies and procedures”, International Journal of Purchasing and MaterialsManagement, Winter, pp. 31-40.
Swift, C.O. and Coe, B.J. (1994), “Sourcing preference scale”, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 23, pp. 171-80.
Thomas, R.J. (1982), “Correlates of interpersonal purchase influence in organizations”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, September, pp. 171-82.
Thomas, R.J. (1984), “Bases of power in organizational buying decisions”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 13, pp. 209-17.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
Vyas, N. and Woodside, A.G. (1984), “An inductive model of industrial supplier choiceprocesses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, Winter, pp. 30-45.
Ward, S. and Webster, F.E. Jr (1991), “Organizational buying behavior”, in Robertson, T.S. andKassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ, pp. 419-58.
Webster, F.E. Jnr (1970), “Informal communication in industrial markets”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 7, May, pp. 186-9.
Webster, C. (1993), “Buyer involvement in purchasing success”, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 22, August, pp. 199-205.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1965), “Modelling the industrial buying process”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 2, November, pp. 370-76.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1991), “Informal communications in industrial markets”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 7, May, pp. 186-9.
Webster, F.E. Jr and Wind, Y. (1972), “A general model for understanding organizationalbuying behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, April, pp. 12-19.
Weiss, A.M. and Heide, J.B. (1993), “The nature of organizational search in high technologymarkets”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, May, pp. 220-33.
Wilson, D.T. (1987), “Qualitative approaches to organizational buying behaviour theorydevelopment”, Advances in Business Marketing, Vol. 2, pp. 115-39.
Wilson, E.J., Lilier, G.L. and Wilson, A.T. (1991), “Developing and testing a contingencyparadigm of group choice in organizational buying”, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 28, November, pp. 452-66.
Woodside, A.G. (1994), “Network anatomy of industrial marketing and purchasing of newmanufacturing technologies”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 52-63.
Woodside, A.G. and Sherrell, D.L. (1980), “New replacement part buying”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 9, pp. 123-32.
Zaltman, G. and Bonoma, T.V. (1977), “Organizational buying behavior”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 6, pp. 53-60.
AppendixResearch related to Sheth (1973) and Webster and Wind (1972) modelsDecision-making process:
• Dempsey (1978). This reports the results of a study dealing with the vendor selectionprocess. Based on the results of the study, the author identifies five evaluative criteria(vendor stability, basic economic criteria, geographic affinity, attendant services, andassurance mechanisms) and four categories (seller dominated external information, buyeroriented external information, salesmen, and buyer oriented internal information).
• Vyas and Woodside (1984). The authors develop an inductive model of supplier choiceprocesses. Their descriptive, composite model incorporates subroutines of events,interactions and decisions learned from studying entire industrial buying processes of 18products.
• Anderson and Chambers (1985). Describes a new model of organizational buying processbased on the assumption that organizational buying behavior is essentially a form of workbehavior. The model emphasizes the role of reward measurement systems in motivatingpurchasing process participants. A second submodel is concerned with the process ofgroup interaction and consensus formation.
• Banting et al. (1991). This reports the results of a two nation (Hungary and Canada)study of the industrial buying process. Similarities as well as differences in purchasingpatterns between the two nations were found.
• Rangan et al. (1992). This offers a framework for buyer behavior orientedmicrosegmentation of industrial customers. Four segments of national accounts of a largeindustrial company are identified: transaction buyers, programmed buyers, relationshipbuyers and bargain hunters.
• Dholakia et al. (1993). The authors report an empirical investigation on the length of timefirms take in making major purchase decisions and examines its antecedents. Findingssuggest that firm size, buy-class, decision-making unit (DMU) size, information sourcesand size of consideration set, all significantly affect decision-making time.
• Bunn (1994). The author applies a combination of literature and field-based approachesto develop four constructs that underlie buyer behavior: procedural control; proactive
18 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
focusing; use of analysis techniques; and search for information. Measurement scales forthese constructs are created and evaluated through a survey of purchasing professionals.
• Schmittlein and Peterson (1994). Their model applies customer base analysis in whichpast purchase behavior of customers are observed to understand the current and likelyfuture purchase patterns. Results indicate that customer base analysis can be botheffective in predicting purchase patterns and in generating insights into how key customergroups differ.
• Brown (1995). The author tests a conceptual model of the relationships among buyer’sperspectives of and attitudes toward a vendor company’s marketing mix, and themoderating effects of insupplier/outsupplier status of the seller. Results indicatesignificant moderating effects of insupplier/outsupplier status, and generally validatespredictions made on the basis of attitude theory.
• Buying center – influence of members of buying center. Silk and Kalwani (1982) reportedfindings bearing on the reliability of measures used in industrial market surveys toidentify the structure of buying groups. They found a lack of consensus about purchaseinfluence between pairs of informants from the same organization. They also foundratings appear to differentiate among roles but not stages in the decision process.
• Thomas (1982) studied the nature of interpersonal influence on the individual’s decisionin organizational buying. Findings suggest that social and organizational bases ofinfluence of personal sources explain changes in a decision maker’s product evaluations.
• Jackson et al. (1984) carried out work to identify relative influence of participants andhow it changes across purchase of different products, buy classes and procurementdecisions. Findings indicate that the relative influence of the buying center members isconstant in different buy classes, but changes across product types and decision types.
• Thomas (1984) studied internal relationships among key participants in the buying center.Findings indicate relative importance of selected bases of power, and their relativeimportance by organizational position.
• Berkowitz (1986) addressed the issue of who the main influencers are in new productadoption. Findings indicate that end users and technical staff are interested in productsampling; that price was an important consideration among end users and technical staff;and that the purchasing department exercised the final authority for ordering.
• Lynn (1987) analyzed the structure of the buying center for a professional service andfound that CPA buying centers are similar in size and in the number of levels of corporatehierarchy and functional areas as other industrial services.
• Kohli and Zaltman (1988) developed a multi-item scale to tap influence, and the processthrough which influences are manifested in buying centers.
• Martin et al. (1988) compared the expectations of buying center role groups fortransportation mode selection and found meaningful differences between role groups.Findings support the suggestion that role members in a buying center have differentperceptions of suppliers.
• Kohli (1989) identified factors that affect an individual’s influence in the buying center.The study found that expert power has the greatest influence followed by reinforcementpower of the individual.
• McQuiston (1989) focussed on who participates on organizational purchase and decisionsand the factors that affect the interpersonal influence between participants during thesession. This author proposed a structural equation model that suggests the purchasesituation attributes of novelty, complexity and importance are causal determinants ofparticipation and influence in industrial purchase decisions.
• Ronchetto et al. (1989) introduced the organizational buying system concept as anorganizational framework for exploring the patterned, repeated interactions thatcharacterize ongoing purchasing processes. Findings indicate that organizational actorsderive influence from the position they occupy within the buying system. Individualinfluence is derived from properties of the formal and informal structure.
• Buying center – structure. Choffray and Lilien (1980) present a methodology forsegmenting industrial markets on the basis of functional involvement in phases of thepurchasing decision process. Implementation of the methodology in a real life situationinvolving industrial cooling systems led to the identification of four segments oforganizations.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
• Woodside and Sherrell (1980) report a study on purchase of industrial equipment in thepaper manufacturing industry. Five decision stages and five overlapping buying centerswere found.
• Johnston and Bonoma (1981) developed a method for the quantifiable dimensions of abuying center. They defined and operationalized five interactive dimensions of the buyingcenter: vertical and lateral involvement; extensiveness; connectedness; and purchasingmanager centrality.
• Moriarty and Bateson (1982) tested the current methodologies of surveying all membersof a DMU. They found that there was a greater response rate to the use of “snowballingby telephone” technique as against single stage and exhaustive snowballing.
• Environmental influences on organizational buying behavior. Grønhaug (1976)developed a taxonomy for classifying organizations and comparing their behavior inbuying situations, based on the organizations that were product dependent and productindependent and found purchasing activities to be more structured in product dependentthan in product independent organizations. The study also found that search behavior,buying motives and goals pursued were different in the two types of organizations.
• Spekman and Stern (1979). presented a conceptual and methodological framework forexamining OBB from a multiperson level of analysis. They view structure as a centralvariable for it shapes the nature and degree of interpersonal interaction within the buyinggroup, and it is also a primary determinant of the buying group’s information acquisitionand processing capabilities.
Based on the in-depth study of 21 buying processes, Drumwright (1994) addresses how andwhy socially responsible buying becomes important in organizations. Socially responsiblebuying is addressed under the general rubric of noneconomic buying criteria and is observedfrom the perspective of concern for the environment.
• Information search. Webster (1970) found little support for word-of-mouthcommunication in industrial markets and suggested a key role for manufacturers’salesmen.
• Martilla (1971) established the importance of word of mouth communication withinfirms and found that the opinion leaders had greater exposure to impersonal information.
• Moriarty and Spekman (1984) conducted empirical investigation of the sources ofinformation sought by decision participants and discovered the importance of non-personal information.
• Deshpande and Zaltman (1987) studied the use of marketing information in industrialfirms.
• Bunn and Clopton (1993) developed the taxonomy of industrial customers informationsource use. They concluded that purchase situations are significantly related to choice ofan information source mix.
• Weiss and Hiede (1993) studied the nature of the search behavior in high technologymarkets. They concluded that search behavior is determined in part by certain inherentcharacteristics of markets and in part by buyer’s present situation.
• Organizational climate and role perceptions. Qualls and Puto (1989) explored thebenefits of using organizational climate as one of the factors affecting decision-framingprocesses of industrial buyers. Experimental findings indicate that buyer’s generalorientation towards risk affects the frame and, subsequently, the buyers’ choice. However,there were mixed results with regard to the organizational climate factors affectingdecision frame and subsequent choice.
• Robertson and Wind (1980) conducted an empirical study that focussed on organizationalclimate to explain industrial buying behavior.
• Spekman (1981) presented organizational type as a potentially important companyspecific characteristic that affects the organizational buying process. Differences in theimportance associated with purchasing related factors exist among purchasing managersfrom commercial, not-for-profit and governmental organizations.
• Thomas (1982) conducted an empirical study on the role perceptions of the members of abuying center.
• Michaels et al. (1987). Research perspectives from role theory are examined with a largesample of purchasing professionals. The results suggest that an awareness of the nature
20 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
and influence of role stress in the buying context could be valuable to marketingprofessionals.
• Henthorne et al. (1993) examined the role played by informal members of the buyingcenter and their impact on the type and level of risk perceived by the organizationalbuyer. Results indicated that informal influence has a significant effect on perceived riskexperienced by the organizational buyer.
• Conflict resolution. Ryan and Holbrook (1982) propose a construct, decision-specificconflict, in an attempt to integrate purchasing conflict, exchange transactions andmicrosegmentation. Using 17 purchasing decisions faced by automobile fleetadministrators, nomological validity was supported by an inverted U shaped relationshipbetween conflict and responsibility weighted by time.
• Barclay (1991) formulated a model of organizational characteristics that affect buyingrelated interdepartmental conflict and found that organizational characteristics such asbarriers to communication, the reward system and the ambiguity of departmentalresponsibilities explain a substantial portion of the variance in the manifestations ofbuying related conflict.
Research related to Robinson et al. (1967)
• Buy-class framework. Bellizi and McVey (1983) based on research conducted in thecommercial construction industry, test the effects of product type and purchaseexperience on industrial buyer behavior (to test the validity of the buy - grid model). Thefindings indicate that product type is a meaningful variable which is related to industrialbuyer behavior. However, the purchase experience variable or buy-class variable is notsignificantly related to buyer behavior.
• Leigh and Rethans (1984) apply cognitive script theory to the analysis of industrialpurchase behavior in a computer terminal purchase. Industrial buyers’ scripts for theoverall new purchase process, an initial sales call, a follow up negotiation meeting and amodified rebuy situation are established and validated.
• Patton et al.’s (1986) research premiss is that in certain types of industrial purchasedecisions (vendor selection in modified rebuy situations), the presence of certainmediating variables may indicate that the individual purchasing agent rather than abuying group may make the vendor selection decision. Major findings are thatindividual decisions seem to predominate in modified rebuy decisions, that loyalty toexisting suppliers seems to have an effect on the extent of individual decision makingand that the extent of joint decision making appears to be related to the size of the firm.
• Anderson et al. (1987) used an empirical approach to examine the buy-class framework.Managers of salesforces were asked about the behavior their salespeople encounter on thepart of their industrial customers. Much of what salespeople observe is found tocorrespond closely to the buy-class theory. Also “problem newness” and “informationneeds” dimensions are found to be strongly related. However, “seriousness ofconsideration of alternatives” seems to be a separate dimension that does not operateentirely as predicted by the buy-class framework.
• Wilson et al. (1991) developed a contingency model for predicting buying center choiceusing two situations of the RFW framework (modified rebuy and new task decisions) andthree levels of perceived risk. Organizational buying centers in firms responded toproduct evaluation decisions. These data were used as input for seven alternate models ofgroup choice in order to note the predictive accuracies of each model by situation. Majorfindings are that in new task situations with high perceived risk, a unanimity model tendsto predict choice most accurately. In modified rebuy situations with moderate to highrisk, group choice models such as a voting model tend to be used; in these, groupjudgments are considered but unanimity is not required.
• Bunn (1993) developed a classification scheme (taxonomy) of buying patterns andsituations. It consists of four prototypical “buying decision approaches” identifiedthrough empirical procedure: search for information, use of analysis techniques, focus onproactive issues, and reliance on control mechanisms. The use of the particular decisionapproach depends on four situational characteristics: purchase importance, taskuncertainity, extensiveness of choice and perceived buyer power.
Research related to buyer – seller interaction modelsDyadic and interactive perspectives. Sheth (1976) provides a comprehensive conceptualizationof the buyer-seller interaction process. It has been postulated that the quality of interaction is a
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
function of the compatibility between the buyer and the seller with respect to both the style andthe context of interaction. A number of personal, organizational, and product-specific factorsare described as determinants of style and extent of communication on buyer-seller interactionprocesses.
• Bonoma et al. (1977) emphasized in this monograph the need for taking a dyadicapproach.
• Nicosia and Wind (1977) suggest a model based on inter-organizational and intra-organizational processes during buying decisions. They take a dyadic perspective ofprocesses in the selling organization as well as processes in the buying organization.They describe the buying process in terms of individuals and groups, both in selling andpurchasing organizations and in terms of activities performed by them.
• Bagozzi (1978) provides an exchange theory framework of industrial buying and decisionprocesses. He emphasizes the interactions between buyers and sellers during theexchange process and reviews leadership and decision-making, group decision-makingprocesses (including research and theory in bargaining and negotiation), coalition andother group effects, and social power approaches.
• Bonoma et al. (1978) posited a “system paradigm” consisting of an “embeddation model”in which dyadic relations are contained in an overall system context. They stress thecharacteristic of “interdependence” in dyadic relations.
• Bonoma and Johnston (1978) offer dyadic or two-party models as reconceptualizationsfor understanding industrial buying behavior. In the dyadic model, the two mostimportant variables are the relational variables between the two parties (e.g. trust,cooperation). The exchanges that take place between the members of the dyad are themost meaningful of these relational variables. Also included are other variables, such assituational variables. Exchanges and interrelationships are posited as the basis forexplaining buying behavior.
• Research focussed on interaction and social variables. Håkaannson (1982) presented theindustrial marketing and purchasing (IMP) group interaction model. Drawing heavily onthe microeconomic notions of the “new institutional economists”, the IMP model reflectsthe idea that transaction costs may be reduced when a transaction is internalized in oneunit. The authors prefer to call the “buyers” and “sellers” as actors linked to one anotherby “short term exchange” episodes and “long-term exchange” episodes. Besides theinteraction based linkages, the relationship is influenced by its “atmospheres” (e.g. powerdependence, cooperation, expectations etc.).
• Metcalf et al. (1992) apply the IMP interaction model to study buyer-seller collaborativeefforts or factors that engender close relationships between buyers and sellers. The basicprocesses are posited as integral to the development of close buyer-seller relationships:exchange, cooperation and adaptation.
• Heide and Miner (1992) examined cooperation between 136 industrial buyers andsuppliers by examining the effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact onbuyer-seller cooperation. Using the iterated games framework, they predict thatanticipated open-ended future interaction or extendedness, and frequency of contact willincrease the chances and that a pattern of cooperative behavior will occur, butperformance ambiguity will decrease such chances. Results indicated that extendednessand frequency are associated with joint cooperation.
• Negotiation process and strategies. Clopton (1984) pointed out that industrial buyers andsellers as individual are boundary spanners, linking communication between the twofirms; moreover, when long-term relationships are usually sought and both parties areexpected to emerge from negotiation with favorable outcomes and conflict is prevalent.
• Perdue and Summers (1991) reported findings from a field study on the relation betweennegotiation strategies used by the purchasing agent and the characteristics of the purchasecontent (cost sensitivity of the buyer firm, supplier competition, uniqueness of the buyingfirm’s specifications, buyer’s cooperative orientation, having information, and formalplanning). Results demonstrate the ability of contextual variables to predict thenegotiation strategies likely to be used by purchasing agents.
• Perdue (1992) reported the findings from a field study of purchasing agents’ use of tenaggressive bargaining tactics when negotiating rebuy purchases of components parts.Results suggest that purchasing agents favor tactics that manipulate the sellers’perceptions about the degree of competition for the purchase contract to persuade (orcoerce) the seller to concede.
22 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
• Dabholkar et al. (1994) proposed a framework of business-to-business interaction thatintegrates approaches to bargaining from social psychology and economics in order toprovide a conceptual paradigm emphasizing long-term relationships. They propose aclassification of negotiation behavior along two dimensions and examine the dyadicnegotiation process that translate negotiation behavior into long-term relationships.
• Buyer-supplier relationships. Dwyer et al. (1987) describe a framework for developingbuyer-seller relationships based on a continuum of contractual, discrete, relationalexchanges.
• Hallén et al. (1991), on the basis of social exchange theory and resource-dependencemodel, formulated a structural model of interfirm adaptation. The model accounts formutual adaptation as a consequence of trust-building as well as for unilateral adaptationdue to imbalanced dependence between the parties. Results support the view thatinterfirm adaptations are elements in a social exchange.
• Heide and John (1992) showed that norms play a very significant role in structuringeconomically efficient relationships between independent firms.
• Han et al. (1993) examined how industrial buyers and suppliers perceive recent changesin business markets and found that major factors influencing companies toward usingfewer suppliers include the need for enhanced performance, cost reduction and greatertechnical cooperation. They also found that good relationships are characterized bymutual trust and satisfactory exchange.
• Provan (1993) developed theory and hypotheses explaining constraints on the emergenceof opportunism when buyer-supplier relations are considered in a network context. It ishypothesized that opportunistic behavior of individual network suppliers relative to thedominant buyer, or hub firm, will decline at increasing levels of embeddedness in aninterdependent supplier-buyer network, despite conditions of high asset specificity andsmall numbers bargaining.
• Anderson et al.(1994) used a network approach to provide a means for understanding theconnectedness of business relationships in a dyadic context. They also conduct asubstantive validity assessment to furnish some empirical support for the constructs.
• Buyer-seller relationships in channel context. Cadotte and Stern (1979) developed adynamic process model for inter-organizational relations in marketing channels. Fiveinterrelated elements are emphasized: conflict potential; dependence (and its obversepower); conflict perception; resultant force; and conflict after match. The model is basedon the political-economy perspective of power and dependence.
• Frazier (1983) developed a framework of inter-organization exchange behavior inmarketing channels.
• Frazier and Rody (1991) developed hypotheses on the reciprocal use of non-coercive andcoercive influence strategies by the supplier and the distributor in the channel dyad andon the interrelationships of these strategies with the interfirm power, latent conflict,manifest conflict, and conflict resolution constructs. Hypotheses are generally supportedby data from a national survey of industrial distributors.
• Boyle et al. (1992) developed new measures of influence strategies in marketing channels(i.e. the means by which a firm’s personnel communicates with its partners to affect theirbehavior) in order to examine associations with the strength of buyer-seller relationships(relationalism) and alternate governance structures (market, administrative, franchise andcorporate).
• Special arrangements between buyers and sellers. Frazier et al. (1988) explained howJIT exchanges compare with other forms of exchange; what conditions are mostconducive to the initiation of JIT exchanges; and what key factors influence the successor failure of initiated JIT exchanges.
• Heide and John (1990), drawing on a normative theory of transaction costs, identifiedconditions under which alliances in industrial purchasing are useful. Results support themodel wherein it is posited that the utility of the relationships is derived from an abilityto safeguard relationship-specific investments and to facilitate adaptation to uncertainty.
• Noordewier et al. (1990) demonstrated that performance in terms of acquisitions costs isenhanced when, under conditions of uncertainty, firms introduce more relational elementsin their purchasing arrangements.
• Handfield (1993) proposed a model using resource dependence to explain how and whypurchasing is moving towards JIT. Results support the idea that purchasing departments
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
in make-to-order firms are likely to reduce the number of critical suppliers in response touncertainty in demand.
• Swift and Coe (1994) examined single and multiple sourcing of products. A sourcingpreference scale is developed to measure purchasing manager’s attitudes towards eithersingle or multiple sourcing. Differences in selected demographic and organizationalcharacteristics between purchasing managers having preference for single and multiplesourcing were found.
• Supply-chain partnering. Webster (1993) discussed the importance of buyer involvementand then determined the level of involvement or importance that industrial buyers placeon the purchase of services.
• Matthyssens and Bulte (1994) addressed the shift in OBB and industrial marketing. Theyalso discussed the evolution of purchasing toward a more relational and cooperativemode.
• Carter and Narasimhan (1994) integrated the concepts, ideas, and findings that haveemerged from ongoing multi-phase studies of purchasing role in TQM. They developedseveral ideas about what purchasing organizations should do to attain TQM goals.
• Based on empirical data from 21 firms, Dumond (1994) examined the readiness of theorganizational environment, in terms of several critical variables (performancemeasurement system, extent of functional interaction, and access to external information)for successful implementation of value-based purchasing, is examined.
• Based on a survey of 122 purchasing managers, Sriram and Banerjee (1994) results showthat the impact of EDI is moderated by the volume of transactions using EDI. Its adoptionrequires somewhat different skills and training for buyers, and it also changes someaspects of a firm’s relationship with its suppliers.
• Woodside (1994) examined the hypothesis that the marketing-purchasing of new,industrial manufacturing technologies involves the development of a new network ofrelationships within and across enterprises.
(Jagdish N. Sheth is Kellstadt Professor of Marketing at Goizueta Business School,Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.)
24 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING VOL. 11 NO. 3/4 1996
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Carlos Sanchís-Pedregosa, María-del-Mar Gonzalez-Zamora, María-José Palacín-Sánchez. 2018. Outsource Services toImprove Financial Performance: Is There a Limit?. Global Business Review 19:1, 21-31. [Crossref]
2. Denni Arli, Carlos Bauer, Robert W. Palmatier. 2017. Relational selling: Past, present and future. Industrial MarketingManagement . [Crossref]
3. Anni Rajala, Annika Tidström. 2017. A multilevel perspective on organizational buying behavior in coopetition–anexploratory case study. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 23:3, 202-210. [Crossref]
4. ViardotEric, Eric Viardot. 2017. Branding in B2B: the value of consumer goods brands in industrial markets. Journal ofBusiness & Industrial Marketing 32:3, 337-346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. GoraneShrikant, Shrikant Gorane, KantRavi, Ravi Kant. 2017. Supply chain practices and organizational performance. TheInternational Journal of Logistics Management 28:1, 75-101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. ValenzuelaLeslier Maureen, Leslier Maureen Valenzuela, MerigóJosé M., José M. Merigó, JohnstonWesley J., Wesley J.Johnston, NicolasCarolina, Carolina Nicolas, JaramilloJorge Fernando, Jorge Fernando Jaramillo. 2017. Thirty years of theJournal of Business & Industrial Marketing: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 32:1, 1-17.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Manfred Krafft, Oliver Goetz, Murali Mantrala, Francesca Sotgiu, Sebastian Tillmanns. 2015. The Evolution of MarketingChannel Research Domains and Methodologies: An Integrative Review and Future Directions. Journal of Retailing 91:4,569-585. [Crossref]
8. Hanna Keinänen, Olli Kuivalainen. 2015. Antecedents of social media B2B use in industrial marketing context: customers’view. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 30:6, 711-722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Bernd Markus Zunk. 2015. Exploration of Factors Influencing the Customers' Motivation in Buyer-Supplier Relationshipson Industrial Markets. International Journal of Engineering Business Management 7, 23. [Crossref]
10. Aku Valtakoski. 2015. Initiation of buyer–seller relationships: The impact of intangibility, trust and mitigation strategies.Industrial Marketing Management 44, 107-118. [Crossref]
11. Gary K. Hunter. 2014. Customer business development: identifying and responding to buyer-implied information preferences.Industrial Marketing Management 43:7, 1204-1215. [Crossref]
12. Karen Ka-Leung Moon, Fung-Yi Tam, Mei-Mei Lau, Jimmy M.T. Chang. 2014. Production Outsourcing: Perspectivesfrom Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 18:2, 65-83. [Abstract] [PDF]
13. Carolyn (“Casey”) Findley Musgrove, Alexander E. Ellinger, Andrea D. Ellinger. 2014. Examining the influence of strategicprofit emphases on employee engagement and service climate. Journal of Workplace Learning 26:3/4, 152-171. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]
14. Boudewijn A. Driedonks, Josette M.P. Gevers, Arjan J. van Weele. 2014. Success factors for sourcing teams: How to fostersourcing team effectiveness. European Management Journal 32:2, 288-304. [Crossref]
15. Howard Forman. 2014. Buying Centers and the Role of Supply Chain Orientation on New Information TechnologySatisfaction in the Automotive Industry. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 22:1, 41-52. [Crossref]
16. Irene Boesch. 2012. Preferences for Attributes of Industrial Potatoes: An Empirical Investigation of the Swiss Market.American Journal of Potato Research 89:3, 199-206. [Crossref]
17. Yuanqiong He, Kin Keung Lai. 2012. Supply chain integration and service oriented transformation: Evidence from Chineseequipment manufacturers. International Journal of Production Economics 135:2, 791-799. [Crossref]
18. Jennifer D. Chandler, Wes Johnston. Chapter 3 The Organizational Buying Center as a Framework for Emergent Topics inBusiness-to-Business Marketing 41-87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
19. Dario Miocevic, Biljana Crnjak-Karanovic. 2012. The mediating role of key supplier relationship management practices onsupply chain orientation—The organizational buying effectiveness link. Industrial Marketing Management 41:1, 115-124.[Crossref]
20. Tammy Schakett, Alan Flaschner, Tao (Tony) Gao, Adel El-Ansary. 2011. Effects of Social Bonding in Business-to-BusinessRelationships. Journal of Relationship Marketing 10:4, 264-280. [Crossref]
21. Hamed M. Shamma, Robert F. Dyer, Marilyn L. Liebrenz-Himes. 2011. Customer Relationship Management in ProfessionalService Organizations. International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management 2:2, 1-15. [Crossref]
22. Venkata Yanamandram, Lesley White. 2010. Are inertia and calculative commitment distinct constructs?. International Journalof Bank Marketing 28:7, 569-584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Brenda Sternquist, Lu Wang. 2010. Buying committees in the Chinese retail industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing andLogistics 22:4, 492-511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
24. SUBROTO ROY. 2010. SO YOU ALREADY HAVE A SURVEY DATABASE?-A SEVEN-STEP METHODOLOGYFOR THEORY BUILDING FROM SURVEY DATABASES: AN ILLUSTRATION FROM INCREMENTALINNOVATION GENERATION IN BUYER-SELLER RELATIONSHIPS. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46:4,12-24. [Crossref]
25. Ramaraj Palanisamy, Jacques Verville, Christine Bernadas, Nazim Taskin. 2010. An empirical study on the influences on theacquisition of enterprise software decisions. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 23:5, 610-639. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]
26. Wenyu Dou, Hairong Li, Nan Zhou, Chenting Su. 2010. Exploring relationship satisfaction between global professionalservice firms and local clients in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies 41:7, 1198-1217. [Crossref]
27. Suraksha Gupta, T. C. Melewar, Michael Bourlakis. 2010. A relational insight of brand personification in business-to-businessmarkets. Journal of General Management 35:4, 65-76. [Crossref]
28. Jagdish N. Sheth, Arun Sharma, Gopalkrishnan R. Iyer. 2009. Why integrating purchasing with marketing is both inevitableand beneficial. Industrial Marketing Management 38:8, 865-871. [Crossref]
29. A. Inemek, O. Tuna. 2009. Global supplier selection strategies and implications for supplier performance: Turkish suppliers’perception. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 12:5, 381-406. [Crossref]
30. Dae-Young Kim, Ounjoung Park. 2009. A study on American meeting planners' attitudes toward and adoption of technologyin the workplace. Tourism and Hospitality Research 9:3, 209-223. [Crossref]
31. Ohbyung Kwon. 2009. A social network approach to resolving group-level conflict in context-aware services. Expert Systemswith Applications 36:5, 8967-8974. [Crossref]
32. John Ramsay, Beverly A. Wagner. 2009. Organisational Supplying Behaviour: Understanding supplier needs, wants andpreferences. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 15:2, 127-138. [Crossref]
33. Dae‐Young Kim. 2009. THE MODERATING EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS ONINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE: THE CASE OF U.S. CVBS' INTERNET MARKETING. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing 26:3, 329-343. [Crossref]
34. Adam Lindgreen, Balázs Révész, Mark Glynn. 2009. Purchasing orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 24:3/4,148-153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Wendy van der Valk, Frank Rozemeijer. 2009. Buying business services: towards a structured service purchasing process.Journal of Services Marketing 23:1, 3-10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Dae-Young Kim, Xinran Y. Lehto, Sheryl F. Kline. 2009. Organisational channel discrepancies between CVBs and meetingplanners in the USA. International Journal of Tourism Research n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
37. P. González, J. Sarkis, B. Adenso‐Díaz. 2008. Environmental management system certification and its influence on corporatepractices. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 28:11, 1021-1041. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Michael A. Humphreys, Michael R. Williams, Daniel J. Goebel. 2008. Toward an Enhanced Definition and Measurementof Purchasing's Strategic Role in Buyer–Supplier Relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 15:3, 323-353.[Crossref]
39. Wendy van der Valk. 2008. Service procurement in manufacturing companies: Results of three embedded case studies.Industrial Marketing Management 37:3, 301-315. [Crossref]
40. Arthur D. Martinez, Mary Dana Laird, John A. Martin, Gerald R. Ferris. 2008. Job title inflation. Human ResourceManagement Review 18:1, 19-27. [Crossref]
41. Ross Brennan, Paul Baines, Paul Garneau, Lynn Vos. Organisational Buying Behaviour 39-53. [Crossref]42. Henrik Agndal, Ulf Nilsson. 2007. Activity‐based costing: effects of long‐term buyer‐supplier relationships. Qualitative
Research in Accounting & Management 4:3, 222-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]43. Isabel Fernández Quesada, Nazario García Fernández, David de la Fuente. 2007. An unsuccessful initiative to create a buying
centre. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 3:2, 171-187. [Crossref]44. Martin Gersch, Christian Goeke. 2007. Industry Transformation – Conceptual Considerations from an Evolutionary
Perspective. Journal of business market management 1:2, 151-182. [Crossref]45. Alan Smart, Andreas Dudas. 2007. Developing a decision‐making framework for implementing purchasing synergy: a case
study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37:1, 64-89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]46. Gary K. Hunter, Michele D. Bunn, William D. Perreault. 2006. Interrelationships among key aspects of the organizational
procurement process. International Journal of Research in Marketing 23:2, 155-170. [Crossref]47. Vasco Eiriz, Dom Wilson. 2006. Research in relationship marketing: antecedents, traditions and integration. European Journal
of Marketing 40:3/4, 275-291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]48. J. David Lichtenthal, Stephen A. Goodwin. 2006. Product attributes for business markets: Implications for selling and sales
management. Psychology and Marketing 23:3, 225-251. [Crossref]
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
49. Donald W. Barclay, Michele D. Bunn. 2006. Process heuristics in organizational buying: Starting to fill a gap. Journal ofBusiness Research 59:2, 186-194. [Crossref]
50. Åsa Hagberg-Andersson. 2006. Does adaptation pay off?. Industrial Marketing Management 35:2, 202-209. [Crossref]51. Catherine N. Axinn, Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz, Brian T. Straley, Ernest J. Zavoral. How do the Internet and
Internationalization Affect the Buying Center? 347-368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]52. F-Y. Tam, K-L. Moon, S-F. Ng, C-L. Hui. 2005. Sourcing performance satisfaction: A study of the critical success factors
and firm-related characteristics. Journal of the Textile Institute 96:6, 355-363. [Crossref]53. Russell Cropanzano, Marie S. Mitchell. 2005. Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management
31:6, 874-900. [Crossref]54. Luc Cassivi, Pierre‐Majorique Léger, Pierre Hadaya. 2005. Electronic commerce and supply chain integration: the case of the
telecommunication equipment industry. Business Process Management Journal 11:5, 559-572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]55. John Storey, Caroline Emberson, David Reade. 2005. The barriers to customer responsive supply chain management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:3, 242-260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]56. David L. Jones, Ken W. McCleary. 2004. A Model for Assessing Cultural Impacts on International Buyer-Seller Relationships
for Key Accounts of Hotel Companies. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 28:4, 425-443. [Crossref]57. Fung-yi Tam, Ka-leung Moon, Sau-fun Ng, Chi-leung Hui. 2004. The Motivations for Sourcing Production Offshore: A
Multiple Case Study of Small and Medium-Sized Clothing Firms in Hong Kong. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel8:2, 95-107. [Abstract] [PDF]
58. D. Ross Brennan, Peter W. Turnbull, David T. Wilson. 2003. Dyadic adaptation in business‐to‐business markets. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 37:11/12, 1636-1665. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Ellen Day, Hiram C. Barksdale. 2003. Selecting a professional service provider from the short list. Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing 18:6/7, 564-579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Jeong Eun Park, Michele D. Bunn. 2003. Organizational memory: a new perspective on the organizational buying process.Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 18:3, 237-257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Jeffrey E Lewin. 2003. An empirical investigation of the effects of downsizing on buyer–seller relationships. Journal of BusinessResearch 56:4, 283-293. [Crossref]
62. Tracy Harwood. 2002. Business negotiations in the context of strategic relationship development. Marketing Intelligence &Planning 20:6, 336-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. O. Andersen, A. Buvik. 2002. Firms’ internationalization and alternative approaches to the international customer/marketselection. International Business Review 11:3, 347-363. [Crossref]
64. Anu H. Bask. 2001. Relationships among TPL providers and members of supply chains – a strategic perspective. Journal ofBusiness & Industrial Marketing 16:6, 470-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Robert W. Armstrong, Siew Min Yee. 2001. Do Chinese Trust Chinese? A Study of Chinese Buyers and Sellers in Malaysia.Journal of International Marketing 9:3, 63-86. [Crossref]
66. Joel R. Evans, Barry Berman. 2001. Conceptualizing and Operationalizing the Business-to-Business Value Chain. IndustrialMarketing Management 30:2, 135-148. [Crossref]
67. Wesley J. Johnston, Mark P. Leach, Annie H. Liu. Using case studies for theory testing in business-to-business research:The development of a more rigorous case study methodology 215-241. [Abstract] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
68. J. David Lichtenthal. 2000. Literature Reviews, Commentaries and the State of Our Discipline with a Continuing Call forPapers. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 7:4, 3-9. [Crossref]
69. Wouter Faes, Paul Matthyssens, Koen Vandenbempt. 2000. The Pursuit of Global Purchasing Synergy. Industrial MarketingManagement 29:6, 539-553. [Crossref]
70. J. David Lichtenthal. 2000. Literature Reviews and the State of the Discipline. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 7:2-3,1-7. [Crossref]
71. David A. Reid, Richard E. Plank. 2000. Business Marketing Comes of Age: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 7:2-3, 9-186. [Crossref]
72. Robert W. Armstrong, Tan Boon Seng. 2000. Corporate‐customer satisfaction in the banking industry of Singapore.International Journal of Bank Marketing 18:3, 97-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Banwari Mittal. 2000. Determinants of Vendor Patronage in Business Service Markets: An Integrative Model. Journal ofBusiness-to-Business Marketing 6:4, 1-32. [Crossref]
74. Nick Ellis. 2000. Developing graduate sales professionals through co‐operative education and work placements: a relationshipmarketing approach. Journal of European Industrial Training 24:1, 34-42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Jeffrey E. Lewin, Wesley J. Johnston. 1996. The effects of organizational restructuring on industrial buying behavior: 1990and beyond. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 11:6, 93-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)
76. Arch G. Woodside. 1996. Theory of rejecting superior, new technologies. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 11:3/4,25-43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Richard Glavee-Geo. The History and Development of Purchasing Management and Its Theoretical Framework: 379-401.[Crossref]
78. Hamed M. Shamma, Robert F. Dyer, Marilyn L. Liebrenz-Himes. Customer Relationship Management in ProfessionalService Organizations 91-105. [Crossref]
79. L. Cassivi, L.A. Lefebvre, P.-M. Leger, P. Hadaya. Empirical evidence of the impacts of electronic commerce on supply chainintegration in the telecommunication equipment industry 2159-2168. [Crossref]
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
8:39
29
Nov
embe
r 20
17 (
PT)