09 2005 Value Creation

7/31/2019 09 2005 Value Creation

1/27

Value Creation in the Relationship Life Cycle:

A Quasi-Longitudinal Analysis

By

Andreas Eggert

University of Paderborn

Wolfgang Ulaga

ESCP-EAP European School of Management

and

Franziska Schultz


ISBM Report 9-2005

Institute for the Study of Business Markets

The Pennsylvania State University402 Business Administration Building

University Park, PA 16802-3004

(814) 863-2782 or (814) 863-0413 Fax


2/27

-1-



Andreas EGGERT


Marketing Department

Warburger Strasse 100

33098 Paderborn

Germany

Phone: +49 - 5251 60 20 85

Fax: +49 - 5251 60 34 33

Email: [email protected]

Wolfgang ULAGA

ESCP-EAP European School of Management


79, avenue de la Rpublique

75543 Paris Cedex 11

France

Phone: +33 - 1 49 23 26 10

Fax: +33 - 1 49 23 22 48Email: [email protected]

Franziska SCHULTZ



Warburger Strasse 100

33098 Paderborn

Germany

Phone: +49 - 5251 60 21 11

Fax: +49 - 5251 60 34 33

Email: [email protected]


3/27

-2-



Abstract

Among the growing literature on value creation in collaborative buyer-seller relationships, most

researchers examine relationship value at a single point in time. In the present research, we

explore whether different stages of the relationship life cycle moderate the relative importance

of value-creating dimensions. To shed light on the dynamic nature of value in B2B

relationships, we present the results of a survey among purchasing managers using a quasi-

longitudinal research design. Our findings confirm the moderating role of the life cycle in

relationship value creation. More precisely, our results indicate that a key suppliers potentialfor value creation in customers operations increases in relative importance as relationships

move through the life cycle. In turn, a suppliers capabilities to create superior value at the level

of the customers sourcing process display a decreasing role over the life cycle of a business

relationship. No significant link was found in the present study between value creation through

a suppliers core offering and different stages of a buyer-seller relationship.

Introduction

There is a widespread consensus among marketing researchers and practitioners on the

dynamic nature of business relationships (Holmlund, 2004; Johnson and Selnes, 2004; Medlin,

2004). Scholars repeatedly argued that buyer-seller relationships experience different stages

characterized by distinct behaviors, processes or strategic orientations (Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh,

1987; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). Most research exploring the dynamics of business

relationships is of conceptual nature (Wilson, 1995; Wilson and Jantrania, 1994). Yet, from an

empirical point of view, the dynamics of business relationships remain an under-researched topic

(Wilson, 1995). Indeed, few studies have assessed the changing nature of key variables during

the life cycle of business relationships. These studies focused on variables such as satisfaction,

trust, and commitment (Jap, 2001; Jap and Ganesan, 2000).

In recent years, the concept of value has proved helpful to advance our understanding of

business relationships (Anderson, Jain, and Chintagunta, 1993; Parasuraman, 1997; Ravald and


4/27

-3-

Grnroos, 1996; Walter, Ritter, and Gemnden, 2001). Offering superior value to the customer is

essential for creating and maintaining long-term customer-supplier relationships. According to

Anderson (1995, p. 349) value creation and value sharing can be regarded as the raison dtre of

collaborative customer-supplier relationships.

Typically, value research examines relationships at a single point in time (Lapierre, 2000;

Ulaga and Eggert, 2005a). A notable exception from the prevailing snapshot approach is Flint,

Woodruff, and Gardials (2002) study of customers desired value change in business markets.

Value change triggers customers to explore, maintain or terminate a relationship with its

suppliers (Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002, p. 102). If suppliers do not anticipate a customers

value change, this may result in a deterioration of the relationship (Gassenheimer, Houston, and

Davis, 1998). Consequently, suppliers need to be aware of customers value changes to adapt

faster than their competitors to these changes (Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002, p. 102). This

activity is reflected in a supplier-initiated value change that motivates the customer to sustain the

relationship with its supplier (Beverland, Farrelly, and Woodhatch, 2004, p. 931).

The emerging literature on the dynamic nature of value creation in business relationships

suggests a number of contextual conditions linked to changes in customers value perceptions.

For example, Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial (2002, p. 112) develop a typology of contextual

antecedents to value changes based on two sets of factors. One set of conditions encompasses

factors external to the customers organization, that is, changes in the desires of a customers

customers, changes in the strategies and/or tactics of a customers competitors, changes in

suppliers offerings and performance levels, and changes in a customers macro-environment. A

second set of factors includes conditions that are internal to the customers organization, such as

changes taking place within the organization and the customers perceived capabilities in terms

of performance, knowledge, and control levels. Interestingly, none of these factors refers to the


5/27

-4-

life cycle of a business relationship as a potential driver of changes in value perceptions.

Nevertheless, it appears reasonable to assume that the perceived importance of the different

value creating dimensions varies as a relationship moves through its life cycle.

In the present research, we investigate whether the importance of the various value

dimensions is a function of the relationship life cycle. To shed light on this research question,

this article is structured as follows: First, we briefly review the literature on customer value in

business relationships and introduce our conceptual model. Next, we describe the quasi-

longitudinal research design and data collection procedure used in the present study. We then

present our studys results. Finally, we discuss our research findings and the limitations of the

study.

Literature Review and Conceptual Model

Creating superior customer value is key to a companys long-term survival and success

(Slater, 1997; Woodruff, 1997). In business markets in particular, customer value is the

cornerstone of the marketing management process (Anderson and Narus, 2004). Despite its

importance, research on customer value in business markets is still in an early stage (Flint,

Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002). Although value assessment studies enjoy a long tradition in

business marketing, they typically focus on the value of the physical product, neglecting

relational dimensions of customer-perceived value (Dwyer and Tanner, 1999).

In recent years, researchers adopted a relational approach and considered customer value

from a relationship marketing perspective. This has been described as relationship value

(Payne and Holt, 1999). The value of a business relationship is clearly a multidimensional

concept that goes beyond the price vs. quality trade-off prevalent in consumer research (Dorsch,


6/27

-5-

Swanson, and Kelley, 1998; Gassenheimer, Houston, and Davis, 1998). Over the past years,

researchers investigated the multiple facets of relationship value (Eggert and Ulaga, 2002;

Lapierre, 2000; Mller and Trrnen, 2003; Ravald and Grnroos, 1996; Ulaga and Eggert

2005a; Walter et al. 2003; Wilson and Jantrania 1994), and integrated the various dimensions of

value creation into an overall definition of relationship value (Ulaga 2003).

Customer-perceived value in business relationships can be improved by either increasing

relationship benefits or decreasing relationship costs. In the present research, we focus on the

role of relationship benefits in value creation. Based on depth interviews with purchasing

professionals, Ulaga (2003) identified six generic relationship benefit dimensions: product

quality, delivery performance, service support, personal interaction, supplier know-how, and

time-to-market. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Ulaga and Eggert (2005b)

demonstrated that there are three fundamental sources of value creation in a business

relationship: value creation through the core offering, value creation in the sourcing process, and

value creation in customer operations. Table 1 aligns the six generic benefit dimensions with the

three sources of relationship value.

--------------------------------

Take in Table 1 about here

--------------------------------

For the present research, we assume that the relationship life cycle moderates the link

between the three sources of value creation and the relationship value construct. Figure 1 shows

a graphical representation of our conceptual model. In line with previous research, we expect all

three sources of value creation to be positively related with relationship value. Yet, in addition,

we suggest that different stages of the relationship life cycle moderate the link between the

various value-creating sources and overall relationship value. To explore this dynamic process,


7/27

-6-

we chose a quasi-longitudinal research design. We detail our research design in the following

section.

--------------------------------

Take in Figure 1 about here

--------------------------------

Quasi-Longitudinal Analysis

Gathering longitudinal data on business-to-business relationships poses serious problems

(Anderson, 1995). Researchers need to collect data about the same set of relationships with

identical partners over several periods. In many instances, this is a virtually impossible task and

may partly explain why longitudinal research is still an exception even when we deal with

dynamic phenomena such as business relationships.

To overcome this challenge, Anderson (1995) proposes to collect data on business

relationships at one point in time, classify the relationships by their phase, and use this

information for quasi-longitudinal analysis. This approach raises the question of how to classify

business relationships into distinct phases. As a straightforward solution, the respondents could

classify the relationships themselves. This is only feasible, however, if the respondents are

familiar with the concept of the relationship life cycle (Jap and Ganesan, 2000, p. 234).

Alternatively, relationships could be classified based on their age. Age, however, is not a valid

measure for relationship phases. For example, some relationships may reach maturity after a few

months while others are still in the growing stage after several years. In addition, relationships

may experience a second growth or rejuvenation phase, e.g. when the supplier introduces a new

product or service (Ellram, 1991; Kotler, 2003). To deal with this problem, we rely on the


8/27

-7-

definition of the relationship life cycle model (Iaobucci and Zerrillo, 1997). While a relationship

is characterized by strong growth in the build-up phase, it hardly grows in the maturity phase,

and finally shrinks in the decline phase (Ellram, 1991).1 Evidently, the defining characteristic of

these phases is the strength and direction of growth. Therefore, we asked our respondents

whether they intend to expand their business with the respective supplier and used their answers

to categorize the relationship as being in the build-up, maturity, or decline phase.

Quantitative Study

Sampling Procedure

Empirical data were gathered in a cross-sectional survey among purchasing managers in

US manufacturing companies. The study was conducted in cooperation with the Institute for

Supply Management (ISM, formerly National Association of Purchasing Managers - NAPM),

the countrys national association of purchasing professionals. 1,950 members of ISM were

randomly selected from the associations database. We selected only senior-level managers

indicated by job titles, such as VP Procurement, Director of Global Sourcing, Director of Supply

Chain Management, Purchasing Manager, or Senior Buyer. In addition, only manufacturing

companies (Standard Industrial Classification codes 28-30 and 33-39) were selected.

All managers received a cover letter, the survey instrument, and a business reply

envelope by mail. Subsequently a reminder letter was mailed two weeks after the first contact.

Overall, 421 questionnaires were returned. Twenty-one were dropped due to missing data or low

respondent competency yielding a net response rate of 20.5%.

1In our research context, we focused on established relationships. Therefore, we did not include the exploration

phase but limited our research to the build-up, maturity and decline phases, respectively (Jap and Ganesan, 2000).


9/27

-8-

Survey Instrument

The survey was composed of three parts. In the first part, respondents were asked to

select a specific key component they purchased from at least two suppliers. They were further

asked to describe the final product for which the component was sourced. Finally, respondents

were asked to name their main supplier for the specific product as well as their second supplier

in terms of purchasing volumes. Given the definition of customer value as a relative judgment

(Sinha and DeSarbo, 1998), the purpose of this initial stage was to ask the respondent to consider

a specific supplier and to prepare for a comparison of alternative buyer-supplier relationships.

Specifically, we asked participants to compare the main supplier and the second supplier in terms

of purchasing volumes for a given component. We chose this approach for several reasons. First,

depth interviews have shown that managers typically compare these two alternatives when

making value judgments (Ulaga 2003). Second, we needed to ensure that respondents used

similar comparison standards to allow for meaningful comparisons.

The second part contained a list of items tapping the various relationship value

dimensions investigated in our research (see appendix). Respondents were asked to compare

their main supplier with the second supplier of the same component on these value items. All

items used seven-point rating-scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).

Finally, in the third part of the questionnaire, participants were invited to respond to a set

of questions describing themselves, their company, and the supplier relationship. As the

empirical study relied on the perceptions of key informants, it was of particular importance to

ensure that respondents were competent to report on the supplier relationship. To qualify for

inclusion in our quantitative analysis, respondents had to fulfill minimum requirements with

respect to their position, tenure with the company, as well as the length of the relationship with

the supplier. In addition, respondents were asked for a self-assessment of their ability to portray


10/27

-9-

the supplier relationship accurately. Specifically, they were asked to indicate how confident they

felt about answering the questionnaire, how involved with and knowledgeable they were about

the supplier, and to which extent they could influence purchasing decisions in the relationship

with the main supplier.

Sample Characteristics

Although we limited our sample frame to manufacturers in chemical, mechanical, and

electrical industries, respondents purchased a broad variety of components for multiple

applications. Customer organizations ranged from small enterprises to multi-billion dollar

companies. On average, manufacturers had been buying from the main supplier for thirteen

years, with a standard deviation of nine years.

Respondents held senior positions in their firms. They averaged seventeen years of

experience in their area and had been with their companies for 10.4 years, on average. Responses

regarding confidence about answering the survey and knowledge of the supplier relationship

were high, as suggested by mean ratings of 6.0 (confidence in answering the survey), 6.01

(involvement in the supplier relationship), 6.15 (knowledge about the supplier), and 5.89

(influence of purchase decisions) on a seven-point scale.

Relationships were assigned to the respective life cycle phase (build-up, maturity,

decline) as a function of the reported intention to expand business with the main supplier. We

measured the intention to expand business with three items (see appendix for item formulation).

Reasonable cut-off values were determined using cross checks and case-based inspection.

Relationships with standardized factor scores below -1.0 were assigned to the decline phase.

Relationships with factor scores between -1.0 and .50 were assigned to the maturity phase. The

build-up phase included relationships with a factor above .50. As a result, we had 138

relationships in the build-up, 208 in the maturity, and 54 in the decline phase.


11/27

-10-

Results

Table 2 reports key properties of our measurement scales. Cronbach's Alpha is greater

than .70 for all measures. All indicators show significant factor loadings greater than .70.

Average variance extracted exceeds seventy percent. Altogether, these properties confirm

reliability and convergent validity of our scales (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988; Nunnally, 1978).

--------------------------------


--------------------------------

Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion. Table

3 shows that the smallest average variance extracted exceeds the squared correlation between

each pair of value sources. This indicates a satisfactory level of discriminant validity.

--------------------------------


--------------------------------

After convergent and discriminant validity were successfully established, summated

scales were constructed for each value source. Finally, we employed moderated regression to

assess our conceptual model (see Table 4).

--------------------------------

Take in Tables 4 about here

--------------------------------

The moderated regression model is significant (F = 166.04, df = 6) and shows a good fit

(R2= .72). All first-order effects are significant. With a standardized coefficient of .55, sourcing

process contributes most to the explanation of observed variance, followed by customer


12/27

-11-

operations with a standardized coefficient of .26, and core offering with a standardized

coefficient of .09.

To gauge the moderating effect of the relationship life cycle on the value sources, we

included three interaction terms in our regression model. In accordance with Aiken and West

(1991), interaction terms were constructed as product terms of the standardized factor scores.

The interaction term between customer operations and relationship life cycle has a standardized

coefficient of .15. The interaction term between sourcing process and relationship life cycle is

negative with a standardized coefficient of -.10. Both interaction effects are significant and of

moderate strength (Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted, 2003, p. 195). The interaction between core

offering and relationship life cycle is not significant.

Discussion and Implications

The present research attempted to shed light on the dynamic nature of value creation in business

relationships. In particular, we intended to investigate whether different stages of the relationship

life cycle moderate the role of various sources of value creation in business relationships. Our

studys results provide a number of insights.

First, considering direct effects only, our findings demonstrate the importance of each

value driver investigated in our study. Overall, value creation in the customers sourcing process

through service support and personal interaction appears as the main value driver in the present

research. The relationship benefit dimensions Supplier know-how and Time-to-market

which operate at the level of the customers operations play an intermediary role in overall

value perceptions. Finally, the suppliers core offering, that is, product quality and delivery

performance, displays the lowest potential for value creation in business relationships. These


13/27

-12-

findings provide strong empirical evidence for the fundamental trend toward product

commoditization in many business markets (Rangan and Bowman, 1992). As the core offering

accounts for little variance when comparing the main supplier to the second best supplier,

successful vendors have to search for new ways to differentiate themselves from competition

(Vandenbosch and Dawar, 2002). Offering superior value through personal interaction and

service, access to know-how, and increased time-to-market, appear as promising avenues for

differentiation in todays highly competitive business markets.

Second, looking at the interaction effects in our regression model, our findings confirm

the moderating role of the relationship life cycle in the assessment of value perceptions. Two out

of three interaction terms are found to be significant. This clearly indicates the life cycle

dependence of the direct effects discussed before. More specifically, a suppliers potential for

superior value creation in the customers sourcing process is the strongest in the early stages of

the relationship life cycle. Evidently, business customers perceive a stronger need for personal

interaction and service support during the sourcing process in the build-up as opposed to the

maturity and decline phase of business relationships. The opposite is true for value creation at

the level of customers operations. Our research has shown that know-how transfer and time-to-

market explain more of the variance observed as the relationship moves through its life cycle. A

possible explanation for this finding may be that customers need experience in dealing with their

respective suppliers to fully understand and assess their potential for this strategic kind of value

creation. Finally, in the present study, the relationship life cycle does not affect the role of a

suppliers value creation through the core offering. The present study focused on the assessment

of buyer-seller relationships for key components. Given this specific focus on strategically

important products, it appears reasonable that customers value a suppliers product quality and

delivery performance invariably from the different life cycle phases.


14/27

-13-

Overall, our research clearly demonstrates the dynamic nature of value creation in

business relationships. Consequently, suppliers not only face the challenging task to assess and

manage their value creation potential for different customers and customer segments. In addition,

they need to anticipate and respond to value changes to avoid dissatisfaction in the partnership.

To maintain successful partnerships with their customers, suppliers must be able to consistently

meet changes in their customers value demands. Basically, suppliers can choose between two

strategic options, a reactive and a proactive one. Within the reactive option, suppliers try to adapt

to customer value changes whenever they occur. The preferred strategy, however, should be to

anticipate customer value changes (Beverland, Farrelly, and Woodhatch, 2004). The capability to

do so may well become a source of competitive advantage in todays business markets.

Finally, from an academic point of view, our empirical research has shown that buyer-

seller relationships are dynamic phenomena, indeed. As opposed to single transactions that can

be studied using a snapshot approach, research on long-term collaborative partnerships calls for a

longitudinal approach. In many instances, quasi-longitudinal research designs may represent a

suitable solution to align the need for dynamic analysis with the limited resources available for

academic research.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

As in any empirical research, the results of the present study cannot be interpreted without taking

into account the studys limitations. Furthermore, this research generates a set of researchable

questions that need to be addressed in future research projects.

First, and foremost, we limited our approach to the assessment of relationship benefits.

Relationship costs were not considered in the present research. Future research should include


15/27

-14-

both aspects to provide a more encompassing picture of the dynamic nature of value creation in

business relationships.

Second, the present research focused on the sourcing of key components. It would be

interesting to enlarge the scope of research to include a variety of business products and services

in the investigation of relationship value.

Third, we investigated the dynamic process solely from the customer perspective.

However, as we are interested in understanding value creation in the dyad, further research could

explore the dynamic nature of value creation from the vendors perspective.

Our intention with the present research was to set forward a first step toward the

understanding of the dynamic nature of value creation in business relationships. More research is

needed to fully understand how buyers and sellers view value creation in all stages of the

relationship life cycle.


16/27

-15-

TABLE 1

Sources of Value Creation and Corresponding Value Dimensions

Sources of Value Creation

Core Offering Sourcing Process Customer operations

Relationship

Value

Dimensions

Product quality Delivery performance

Service support Personal interaction

Supplier know-how Time-to-market


17/27

-16-

TABLE 2

Scale Properties

Indicator Loading t-value AVE Cronbachs Alpha

product1 0.87 26.14

product2 0.91 standardized

product3 0.89 27.41

product4 0.84 24.16

product5 0.90 28.44

product6 0.90 28.11

81.5 % 95.4 %

delivery2 0.85 standardized

delivery4 0.95 26.75

delivery5 0.95 26.8

89.2 % 93.9 %

service1 0.85 standardized

service3 0.83 20.37

service4 0.85 21.26

service5 0.89 22.7

80.0 % 91.6 %

personal1 0.86 26.08

personal2 0.91 standardized






78.8 % 95.5 %

knowhow2 0.69 16.44

knowhow5 0.91 27.34

knowhow6 0.80 20.97

knowhow7 0.90 26.86

knowhow8 0.90 standardized

76.4 % 92.1 %

time1 0.93 standardized

time2 0.73 18.91

time3 0.91 30.14

time4 0.86 26.34

80.3 % 91.7 %

value1 0.90 28.47

value2 0.92 standardizedvalue3 0.76 19.84

value4 0.90 27.78

81.6 % 92.4 %

expansion1 0.90 29.32

expansion2 0.95 33.31

expansion3 0.92 standardized

90.0 % 94.4 %


18/27

-17-

TABLE 3

Discriminant Validity

Core

Offering

Sourcing

Process

Customer

Operations

Core Offering 0.75

Sourcing Process 0.55 0.74

Customer Operations 0.38 0.63 0.73

(N.B.: Bold numbers on the diagonal show the AVE; numbers below the diagonal represent the squared

correlations)


19/27

-18-

TABLE 4

Relationship Life Cycle As a Moderator of Changes in Value Dimensions

Independent Variable: Relationship Value

Dependent Variable Coefficient t-value

Core offering .09 2.09 **

Sourcing process .55 10.79 ***

Customer operations .26 5.72 ***

Core offering

x

relationship life cycle

N.S. 1.02

Sourcing process

x


-.10 - 1.92 *

Customer operations

x


.15 3.07 ***

***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .10

R2

= .72; F = 166.04; df = 6

Notes: We report two-tailed significance levels. N.S. = not significant


20/27

-19-

FIGURE 1

Conceptual model

Relationship life cycle

Build-up (coded as 1)Maturity (coded as 2)Decline (coded as 3)

Relationship value

Core offering

Product qualityDelivery performance

Sourcing process

Service supportPersonal interaction

Customer operations

Supplier know-howTime-to-market

Moderator

variable


21/27

-20-

Appendix:

Scale Items

Expansion

Mean Standard

Deviation

expansion1 Our firm expects to expand its business with the main

supplier.

5.09 1.36

expansion2 The main supplier will receive a larger share of our

business in the future.

5.10 1.44

expansion3 The main supplier will be used more than it is now over

the next few years.

5.17 1.46

Core Offering

Product Quality:

product1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

provides us with better product quality.

4.55 1.59

product2 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier meets

our quality standards better.

4.62 1.60

product3 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier's

products are more reliable.

4.47 1.59

product4 Compared to the second supplier we reject less products

from the main supplier.

4.60 1.69

product5 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

provides us with more consistent product quality over

time.

4.69 1.60

product6 Compared to the second supplier we have less variations

in product quality with the main supplier.

4.53 1.68

Deliveryperformance:

delivery1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

performs better in meeting delivery due dates.

4.74 1.68

delivery2 Compared to the second supplier we have less delivery

errors with the main supplier.

4.67 1.66

delivery3 Compared to the second supplier deliveries from the

main supplier are more accurate (no missing or wrong

parts).

4.58 1.63


22/27

-21-

Souring Process

Service Support:

service1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

provides us with better services.

4.92 1.52

service2 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier is

more available when we need information.

4.83 1.65


provides us with more appropriate information.

4.74 1.50


responds faster when we need information.

4.84 1.61

Personal

Interaction:

personal1 Compared to the second supplier it is easier to work

with the main supplier.

4.89 1.61

personal2 Compared to the second supplier we have a better

working relationship with the main supplier.

5.07 1.52

personal3 Compared to the second supplier there is a better

interaction between the main supplier's people and

ours.

5.07 1.54

personal4 Compared to the second supplier we interact better with

the main supplier.

4.91 1.57

personal5 Compared to the second supplier we can addressproblems more easily with the main supplier.

4.83 1.56

personal6 Compared to the second supplier we can discuss

problems more freely with the main supplier.

4.69 1.59

personal7 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

gives us a greater feeling of being treated as an

important customer.

4.72 1.63


23/27

-22-

Customer Operations

SupplierKnow-how:

knowhow1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

provides us a better access to his know-how.

4.73 1.55


knows better how to improve our existing products.

4.37 1.48


performs better at presenting us with new products.

4.37 1.56


knows better how to help us drive innovation in our

products.

4.40 1.47


knows better how to assist us in new productdevelopment.

4.52 1.51

Time-to-Market:

time-to-market1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

performs better in helping us improve our time-to-market

4.48 1.50

time-to-market2 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier helps

us more in improving our cycle time.

4.55 1.57

time-to-market3 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier helps

us more in getting our products to market faster.

4.40 1.58

time-to-market4 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

performs better in helping us speed up product

development.

4.61 1.55

Relationship Value

value1 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier adds

more value to the relationship overall.

5.00 1.51

value2 Compared to the second supplier we gain more in our

relationship with the main supplier.

4.93 1.45

value3 Compared to the second supplier the relationship with

the main supplier is more valuable.

5.02 1.51

value4 Compared to the second supplier the main supplier

creates more value for us when comparing all costs and

benefits in the relationship.

5.01 1.49


24/27

-23-

References

Aiken, L. S., and West, Stephen G. (1991), "Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting

Interactions," Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Anderson, James C. (1995), "Relationships in Business Markets: Exchange Episodes, Value

Creation, and Their Empirical Assessment,"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 346-350.

Anderson, James C., Dipak C. Jain, and Pradeep K. Chintagunta (1993), "Customer Value

Assessment in Business Markets: A State-of-Practice Study," Journal of Business-to-

Business Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3-29.

Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (2004), "Business Market Management:

Understanding, Creating, and Delivering Value", 2nd edition, Upper Saddle River:

Prentice Hall.

Beverland, Michael, Francis Farrelly, and Zeb Woodhatch (2004), "The Role of Value Change

Management in Relationship Dissolution: Hygiene and Motivational Factors," Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol. 20, No. 9/10, pp. 927-939.

Chin, Wynne W., Barbara L. Marcolin, and Peter R. Newsted (2003), "A Partial Least Squares

Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a

Monte Carlo Simulation Study and Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study,"

Information Systems Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 189-217.

Dorsch, Michael J., Scott R. Swanson, and Scott W. Kelley (1998), "The Role of Relationship

Quality in the Stratification of Vendors as Perceived by Customers," Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 128-142.

Dwyer, F. Robert, Paul H. Schurr, and Sejo Oh (1987), "Developing Buyer-Seller

Relationships,"Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 11-27.

Dwyer, F. Robert and John F. Tanner Jr. (1999), "Business Marketing: Connecting Strategy,

Relationships and Learning," Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.


25/27

-24-

Eggert, Andreas and Wolfgang Ulaga (2002) "Customer-Perceived Value: A Substitute for

Satisfaction in Business Markets?,"Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17,

No. 2/3, pp. 107-118.

Ellram, Lisa M. (1991) "Life-cycle Patterns in Industrial Buyer-Seller Relationships,"

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 21, No. 9,

pp. 12-21.

Flint, Daniel J., Robert B. Woodruff, and Sarah Fisher Gardial (2002), "Exploring the

Phenomenon of Customers Desired Value Change in a Business-to-Business Context,"

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 102-117.

Fornell, Claes and David Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with

Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.

18, No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Gassenheimer, Jule B., Franklin S. Houston, and J. Charlene Davis (1998), "The Role of

Economic Value, Social Value, and Perceptions of Fairness in Interorganizational

Relationship Retention Decisions,"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26,

No. 4, pp. 322-337.

Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), "An Updated Paradigm for Scale

Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment,"Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 186-192.

Holmlund, Maria (2004), "Analyzing Business Relationships and Distinguishing Different

Interaction Levels,"Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 279-287.

Iacobucci, Dawn and Philip Zerrillo (1997) "The Relationship Life Cycle: (I) A Network-Dyad-

Network Dynamic Conceptualization, and (II) The Application of Some Classical

Psychological Theories to its Management," Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.

47-68.

Jap, Sandy D. (2001), "The Strategic Role of the Salesforce in Developing Customer Satisfaction

Across the Relationship Lifecycle," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,

Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 95-108.


26/27

-25-

Jap, Sandy D. and Shankar Ganesan (2000), "Control Mechanisms and the Relationship Life

Cycle: Implications for Safeguarding Specific Investments and Developing Commitment,"

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 227-245.

Johnson, Michael D. and Fred Selnes (2004), "Customer Portfolio Management: Toward a

Dynamic Theory of Exchange Relationships,"Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 1-

17.

Kotler, Philip (2003), "Marketing Management," 11th edition, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Lapierre, Joze (2000), "Customer-Perceived Value in Industrial Contexts,"Journal of Business

and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 2/3, pp. 122-140.

Medlin, Christopher J. (2004), "Interaction in Business Relationships: A Time Perspective,"

Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 185-193.

Mller, K. E. Kristian and Pekka Trrnen (2003), "Business Suppliers Value Creation

Potential: A Capability Based Analysis," Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32,

No. 2, pp. 109-118.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), "Psychometric Theory," 2nd edition, New York: McGraw Hill.

Parasuraman, A. (1997), "Reflections on Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Customer

Value,"Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 3-29.

Payne, Adrian and Sue Holt (1999), "A Review of the Value Literature and Implications for

Relationship Marketing, "Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 41-51.

Rangan, V. Kasturi and George T. Bowman (1992), "Beating the Commodity Magnet,"

Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 215-224.

Ravald, Annika and Christian Grnroos (1996), "The Value Concept and Relationship Ravald,

Annika and Christian Grnroos (1996), "The Value Concept and Relationship Marketing,"

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 19-30.

Ring, Peter Smith and Andrew H. Van de Ven (1994), "Developmental Process of Cooperative

Interorganizational Relationships," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 1,

pp. 90-118.


27/27

-26-

Sinha, Indrajit and Wayne S. DeSarbo (1998), "An Integrated Approach Toward the Spatial

Modeling of Perceived Customer Value," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, No. 2,

pp. 236-249.

Slater, Stanley R. (1997), "Developing a Customer Value-Based Theory of the Firm," Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 162-167.

Ulaga, Wolfgang (2003), "Capturing Value Creation in Business Relationships: A Customer

Perspective,"Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 677-693.

Ulaga, Wolfgang and Andreas Eggert (2005a), "Relationship Value in Business Markets: The

Construct and its Dimensions,"Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1,

pp. 73-99.

Ulaga, Wolfgang and Andreas Eggert (2005b), "Value-Based Differentiation in Business

Relationships: Gaining and Sustaining Key-Supplier Status," 2005 AMA Winter

Educators Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, Kathleen Seiders and Glenn

B. Voss (eds.), Austin/TX, pp.294-295.

Vandenbosch, Mark and Niraj Dawar (2002), "Beyond Better Products: Capturing Value in

Customer Interactions,"MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 35-42.

Walter, Achim, Thilo A. Mller, Gabriele Helfert and Thomas Ritter (2003), "Functions of

Industrial Supplier Relationships And Their Impact on Relationship Quality," Industrial

Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 159-169.

Walter, Achim, Thomas Ritter and Hans Georg Gemnden (2001), "Value Creation in Buyer-

Seller Relationships Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Results from a Suppliers

Perspective,"Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 365-377.

Wilson, David T. (1995), "An Integrated Model of Buyer-Seller Relationships," Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 335-345.

Wilson, David T. and Swati Jantrania (1994), "Understanding the Value of a Relationship,"Asia-

Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 55-66.

Woodruff, Robert B. (1997), "Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage,"

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 139-153.

Documents

09 2005 Value Creation