Key Account Management and Quality in Business-to-Business Relationships

What are the main elements of successful Key Account Management (KAM)? What is the nature of quality for the company and for the individual in business-to-business relationships? What kind of managerial practices are required at the company and individual level in Key Account Management? This paper focuses on these central aspects of KAM. It describes the main elements of KAM, which is a systematic marketing management approach in the business-to-business context with the objective to build profitable and long-lasting relationships with major accounts. Although paying customers in the business-to-business market are organizations, they are always represented by individuals. Thus, successful KAM requires appropriate handling of both the organizational and the individual levels. This paper describes the nature of quality for the company and for the individual in business-to-business relationships. As a synthesis, this paper suggests a framework for KAM practices deploying the main elements of KAM and the company and individual levels of business-to-business relationships. The weakness of the traditional quality management approach is that it pays little, if any, attention to customer importance. By providing similar quality to each customer, more important customers are penalized and less important customers are rewarded. This paper broadens the traditional quality management approach by introducing the concept of targeted quality based on customer importance.

Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing in Strategic Alliances: The Role of Knowledge Sharing as Strategic Control Behavior among Multinational Enterprises

International strategic alliances (ISAs) have become increasingly important for the stability, growth, and long-term viability of modern business organizations. Alliance partnerships as inter-firm cooperative ventures represent an influential mechanism for asserting corporate strategic control among autonomous multinational enterprises. These different cooperative arrangements are made of equity investments or contractually-based partnerships. Different alliance forms represent different approaches that partner firms adopt to control their mutual dependence on the alliance and on other partners. Earlier research shows that the partner characteristics could provide an explanation for alliance strategic behavior and see alliances as alternative forms to markets or hierarchies for addressing specific strategic needs linked to partners’ characteristics and their subsequent strategic motives. These characteristics of the partners’ and subsequent strategic motives are analyzed as knowledge sharing factors and how these influence inter-firm control in alliances within the context of the focal-firm STMicroelectronics and its alliance partners Nokia, Ericsson and IBM. This study underline that as contracts are incomplete, they are therefore required to maintain mutual dependence based control mechanisms in addition to a contract. For example, mutual dependence based control mechanisms could be joint financial investments and the building of an ownership structure between the parties (e.g., JVs). However, the present study clarifies that subsequent inter-firm control is also exercised through inter-firm knowledge sharing. The present study contributes by presenting a dynamic interplay between competitive and cooperative rent seeking behavior. Such coopetition behavior describes the firm's strategic orientation to achieve a dynamic balance between competitive and cooperative strategies. This balance is seen in knowledge sharing based cooperation and competition behavior. Thus this study clarifies coopetition strategies by introducing the role of inter-firm cooperation and the competitive nature of knowledge sharing. Simultaneous cooperative and competitive behavior is also seen as synergetic rent-seeking behavior. Therefore, this study extends the perspective of previous studies on competitive and cooperative seeking behavior.

Comparison of North American universities with and without medical schools and their technology transfer initiatives

Empirical research available on technology transfer initiatives is either North American or European. Literature over the last two decades shows various research objectives such as identifying the variables to be measured and statistical methods to be used in the context of studying university based technology transfer initiatives. AUTM survey data from years 1996 to 2008 provides insightful patterns about the North American technology transfer initiatives, we use this data in our paper. This paper has three sections namely, a comparison of North American Universities with (n=1129) and without Medical Schools (n=786), an analysis of the top 75th percentile of these samples and a DEA analysis of these samples. We use 20 variables. Researchers have attempted to classify university based technology transfer initiative variables into multi-stages, namely, disclosures, patents and license agreements. Using the same approach, however with minor variations, three stages are defined in this paper. The first stage is to do with inputs from R&D expenditure and outputs namely, invention disclosures. The second stage is to do with invention disclosures being the input and patents issued being the output. The third stage is to do with patents issued as an input and technology transfers as outcomes.