ent 35 (2006) 904–912

Industrial Marketing Managem

Marketing competencies and the sources of customer valuein business markets

Francesca Golfetto ⁎, Michael Gibbert 1

Bocconi University, Business Management Department, Viale Filippetti 9, I-20122 Milan, Italy

Accepted 12 June 2006

Abstract

This introduction to the special issue discusses the notion of marketing competencies in buyer–supplier relationships, and the role thesecompetencies play in creating value for the customer. Existing work on the role of competencies in industrial marketing has two main foci. Thefirst, established approach deals with competencies as inputs to organizational processes, and seeks to establish in how far marketing competenciessuch as customer relationship management, channel design, etc. lead to superior financial returns. The second, emerging, approach focuses on themarketing of competencies as a source for customer value. This article uses supply and demand side perspectives to look at these two approachesand suggests a typolology involving four distinct value-creation strategies. Recent literature is discussed and implications for advancing theapplication of resource-based thinking to industrial marketing are provided.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Competencies; Supplier value creation potential; Customer value; Market-based assets; Resource-based view; competence-based marketing

1. Where this special issue came from: history of a researchstream

The idea for this special issue comes from practice. It grewout of the experience of Bocconi University's Research Centeron Markets and Industries (Cermes) during projects involvinginternational trade fairs and other “live” communication events.

Doing contact research with companies, we increasingly sawa phenomenon which we somehow could not account for usingestablished theoretical frameworks. In marketing communica-tion for business markets, it had become increasingly commonto focus communicative content on the upstream resources andskills that suppliers offered to customers, rather than on theproducts to be sold. For example, instead of focussing oncurrent products, exhibitors at capital goods trade fairs tended topresent on the stands technical staff from the R&D departmentand prototypes built to customer specifications. Trade fairsexhibiting yarn presented fashion shows and the clothingcollections for the coming seasons (future products of their

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 02 5836 3735; fax: +39 02 700523034.E-mail address: francesca.golfetto@unibocconi.it (F. Golfetto).

1 Tel.: +39 02 5836 3634; fax: +39 0323 70 474.

0019-8501/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.06.007

customers), rather than the balls of cotton or wool to be sold. Atfairs specializing in medical instruments, the technicians ofsupplying firms discussed developments in pathologies andresearch techniques, and not the particular characteristics of theinstruments themselves. Thus, what we saw in practice was that,instead of focussing on products, the exhibitors presented thecompetencies underlying these products, competencies thatcould be instrumental also in the future to add value to thecustomers' processes, and competencies that would dovetailneatly with the customer's specific competence gaps.

In stark contrast, the mainstream literature (specifically theresource-based view of the firm) did not appear to contemplatesuch initiatives. The resource-based view has become influen-tial in explaining the origin of competitive advantage anddifferences in profitability, but emphasized resources and com-petencies as inputs or highly specific internal factors whichrepresented Valuable, Rare, Immobile on factor markets, andNon-substitutable (VRIN) features (e.g., Barney, 1991). Theassertion of competencies' non-availability on factor markets, inparticular, was in direct conflict with what we saw in practice.We concluded that the “competence marketing” activities attrade shows and exhibitions could not be accounted for usingresource-based logic. To clarify this apparent conflict between

905F. Golfetto, M. Gibbert / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 904–912

immovable competencies (in theory) and competencies at theheart of supplier's marketing strategies (in practice), a series oftheoretical investigations and case studies were launched in anattempt to reconcile the paradox. Initially, research was framedmostly in terms of marketing communication (Borghini, Golfetto,& Rinallo, in press; Golfetto &Mazursy, 2004; Rinallo, Golfetto,&Gibbert 2006)2, but as the work progressed, it became clear thatthe area of study was much broader.

Asked why they focused marketing communication oncompetencies, rather than products, the supplier/exhibitorsreplied that their presentations were determined by the factthat customers no longer wanted to see products, as productswere obvious and banal. Customers wanted know-how, supportfor their activities and involvement in specialized innovation,and the presentations sought to communicate precisely suppli-ers' specific competence that had been developed to be in linewith that of their customers. Moreover, during the events of livecommunication, part of this know-how was freely passed on, inorder to support the credibility of a competence which wasdifficult to demonstrate. Consider the following observation by ayarn producer (fabric producers) samples of fabric made with thefirm's yarns and clearly suggesting future fashion trends:

The research we did on the end market and the stylingproposals embodied in our products and in the specializedcompetence of our firms allow us to overcome competitionfrom low cost producers… we distribute samples of our cre-ations to visitors, even if few of them return as customers.Nevertheless, this release of creativity serves to underline thatjust as we can offer everyone free creativity, we can alsocreate it specifically for individual customers. The approachpays off, because leading Italian and international fashiondesigners are among our customers. Others can copy anindividual item, but not our essential ability, which is to createcontinuously new items aligned with emerging trends.

The research revealed, above all, that our informants' ‘workon competencies’ was not limited to Marketing Communica-tion, but also involved up-stream activities which aimed tocreate value-for-customer based on supplier competencies. Thisled to at least three specific processes: (i) the alignment ofsupplier competencies with the customer's business processes,(ii) the experiential communication of supplier competencies,and (iii) the delivery of competencies to the buyer's businessprocesses. The implications of these processes at first sight seemto be similar to those identified in the relational perspective ofthe resource based view (e.g., Dyer & Singh, 1998; Jap, 1999).However, there are two major differences to that literature. First,it involves a development of competencies between supplierand customer, which is driven by the supplier (that can also be asmall firm) instead then by the customer (generally a large firmin a high-tech sector). Furthermore, in competence marketing,the competence sharing processes seem to begin as early as thepre-contractual phases, rather than only in consolidated

2 See also the following conference presentations: Borghini & Rinallo, 2003;Golfetto, 2003; Golfetto & Rinallo, 2004; Rinallo & Borghini, 2003.

customer/supplier relationships (Zerbini, Golfetto, & Gibbert,in press).3

When we presented this research at professional meetings,the reactions of the audience fell into one of two categories.While in academic meetings in which the resource-based viewpredominated, the position of ‘competence-based marketing’was made difficult by the deep-rooted concept of the non-transferability of competencies, in business contexts, therewere enthusiastic reactions, because ‘competence-based mar-keting’ gave a name to what firms were already doing.Comforted by these positive responses and, in particular, by theencouragement of various colleagues in the Industrial Market-ing Purchasing Group (IMP), it was decided to better clarifythis approach, extending the research and involve otherinterested parties in the debate. This gave rise to the paneldiscussion during EMAC, Milan 2005 and the work in thisspecial issue.

The next two sections discusses two major schools of thoughtregarding the interface of marketing and the resource-based view,and evaluate these two schools from demand and supply sideperspectives. In an attempt to integrate extant work on marketingcompetencies, we present a typology involving four distinct valuecreation strategies.We then discuss the papers in this special issuein terms of this framework and deduce areas for further work.

2. Marketing competencies and the marketing ofcompetencies

A glance at the work currently done in industrial marketingreveals two quite different approaches for using resource-basedthinking. In the first approach, authors draw on marketing in thebusiness-to-consumer realm, where the resource-based view hasbeen used for some time to explain how marketing competen-cies and capabilities such as customer relationship management,market orientation, superior channel design skills, etc. influencecompetitive advantage (e.g., Bharadwaj, Varandarajan, & Fahy,1993; Day, 1994; Srivastava, Fahey, & Christensen, 2001;Srivastava, Shervani, & Fahey, 1998).

The thinking behind this attempt at integrating the resource-based view and (consumer) marketing is to view certainmarketingprocesses as special kind of competence, thereby adding to theincreasing catalog of competencies in other functional areas (e.g.,research and development, strategic planning, etc.). The reasoninghere is as follows: to the extent to which these “marketing com-petencies,” or “market-based assets” fulfill the hallmarks of theresource-based view (including value, rarity, immobility on factormarkets, and non-substitutability), they are expected to be a keyingredient in competitive advantage, i.e., superior financialreturns. Empirical work has been busy testing this causal chain,and results consistently support the hypothesized relationships(Barney & Arikan, 2000).

Much of the current work more or less builds on directly onthis literature consumer marketing. For example, Hooley,

3 See also the following conference presentations: Gibbert & Golfetto, 2004;Golfetto, Gibbert, & Zerbini 2004; Golfetto & Zerbini, 2005; Golfetto, Zerbini,& Gibbert 2006).

906 F. Golfetto, M. Gibbert / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 904–912

Greenley, Cadogan, and Fahy (2005) develop and empiricallytest scales for measuring marketing resources and competenciesand for assessing their performance outcomes. Although manyobservers have made the link between marketing resources orcompetencies (we use the terms “resources” and “competencies”interchangeably) and performance outcomes (Bharadwaj et al.,1993; Day, 1994; Srivasta et al., 2001, 1998), Hooley et al.further distinguish marketing competencies into market-basedresources and marketing support resources. According to them,market-based resources are those that are “directly deployed inthe marketplace to create or maintain competitive advantage,whereas marketing-support resources ‘support’ marketingactivities and contribute indirectly to competitive advantage”(Hooley et al., 2005: 19). They find that, so-conceptualized,marketing resources strongly influence performance (p. 25).

While this first approach to use the resource-based view iscommendable, it also limits our view of the role of competencies,especially in a field like industrial marketing and purchasing.Fundamental to the resource-based view is the notion thatcompetitive advantage is a function of an organization's focus oncore competencies. By implication, to the extent to which firm Afocuses on core competencies (which fulfill certain criteria), it willlikely outsource competencies that are less critical or “core” to asuitable supplier, say, firm B. This implies that firm B logicallybecomes a competence marketer, selling the required competen-cies to firmA (e.g., Hamel& Prahalad, 1994; Quinn, 1980). Thus,the resource-based view from this perspective seems to have anatural affiliation with issues that are at the very heart of industrialmarketing and purchasing.

The first school of thought in applying resource-based logic toindustrial markets, however, does not have much to say aboutcompetence transfer in vertical partnerships. It is focused onfollowing the assumption that market-based assets and similarmarketing resources and competencies are to be seen primarily asinputs to organizational processes (Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993).While this focus is in linewith the proven practice in the consumerrealm as well as with the mainstay resource-based view literature,it also limits the potential the resource-based view holds forindustrial marketing and purchasing. An important limitationstems from restricting the interpretation of marketing competen-cies as an adjective, as an input factor. “Marketing competencies”thus becomes a generic label for marketing-specific competenciessuch as customer relationship capabilities, channel managementskills, and so on. This is different from the marketing of compe-tencies, which looks into tools and process that firms can use topromote, transfer, and sell competencies in business-to-businessrelationships (Gibbert, Golfetto, & Zerbini, 2006).

3. Competence marketing: supply and demand sideperspectives

Far from being a play on words, the distinction betweenmarketing competencies and the marketing of competencies has anumber of implications. In particular, it points to a second schoolof thinking about the resource-based view/industrial marketingand purchasing conundrum. The first school provides a useful aidfor identifying and empirically testing a specific set of marketing

resources and competencies. That is, for those competencieswhere “marketing” is understood as an adjective, and wherecompetencies are seen as inputs to other organizational processesthat directly create value.

Another interpretation of marketing competencies therefore isto see the word “marketing” as a verb. Seen from this perspective,the research question is no longer “how can we differentiate coremarketing competencies and do they create superior financialreturns for industrial suppliers and buyers?”, but, “how do indus-trial buyers select suppliers based on the suppliers' competenceprofile?”, and “how do industrial suppliers market the competen-cies their customers value?”

The first, demand-side, perspective of this has been pioneeredby Möeller and Törröen (2003), in their conceptual piece onassessing suppliers' future value creation based on their com-petence profile. The issue here is that since product life cycles arebecoming shorter, buyers look for variables other than product-related ones in assessing their suppliers. In particular, they lookinto their supplier's competence profile. Drawing on earlier workin the supply chain literature (Walter, Ritter, &Gemuenden, 2001)Möeller and Törrönen propose that such evaluations will focus onthree main category sets, namely, efficiency-related competen-cies, effectiveness-related competencies, and networking compe-tencies. Presently, Möeller and Törrönen's conceptual argumentsare beginning to receive empirical support from the managerialliterature (Feeney, Lacity, & Wilcocks, 2005) and in empiricaltests. Conceptual foundations for this demand-side perspectivecan be found most notably in the extension of the resource-basedview to networks of firms (e.g., Dyer& Singh, 1998; Hamel, Doz,& Prahalad, 1989). While this literature has focused predomi-nantly on horizontal partnerships, there is some attention also tovertical relationships (Dubois & Torvatn 2002; Håkansson, 1982;Håkansson & Snehota, 1995), with deep case studies informingour understanding about, e.g., Toyota's dealings with its suppliers(Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). Beyond supplier selection issues,research in the strategy and organizational behavior realm hasfocused on the processes that constrain and enable the transfer,acquisition and integration of competencies. Here, it has beenargued that a buyer's prior knowledge in the supplier's offeringincreases the buyer's absorptive capacity and with it the chancesfor a successful buyer–supplier relationship (Cohen & Levinthal,1990). In summary, the demand-side perspective of marketingcompetencies in industrial markets is at the heart of the resource-based view and its extension to inter-firm relationships.

What is much less well understood, however, is the supplyside of competence marketing. As argued above, to the extentthat industrial buyers outsource their competencies to suppliers,these logically become competence suppliers. Some importantquestions arising here are “what are the tools and processes usedby suppliers to develop, market, and deliver competencies toindustrial buyers?” and “how can industrial buyers capture thevalue arising from competence-based transactions?”

4. Four value-creation strategies

The previous discussion of the literature to date suggests thatthe issue of “marketing competencies” can be understood in two

Fig. 1. Marketing competencies and the sources of customer value.

Fig. 2. The special issue papers.

907F. Golfetto, M. Gibbert / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 904–912

basic ways. First, the notion of marketing competencies looks intoa specific type of competencies, e.g., customer relationship man-agement skills, supply chain management, and similar “market-based assets” (e.g., Srivastava et al., 2001, 1998). A second way tolook at this is the idea of marketing of competencies, where theissue becomes one of identifying a marketing mix for competen-cies. Since both perspectives can be seen from both supply- anddemand-side perspectives, we can logically infer four distinctcategories for competence marketing (see Fig. 1).

These four categories of competence marketing also re-present four different strategies/perspectives of value creation inbusiness markets. As such, the traditional perspective, inspiredby the resource-based view, calls for mutual development andsharing of competencies in buyer–supplier relationships (thelower left hand corner in Fig. 1). This value-creation strategy isevident in the literature on vertical as well as horizontal part-nerships, where “intelligent enterprises” focus on a few value-added activities (e.g., Prahalad & Hamel, 1990), while sourcingothers from the world's best suppliers (e.g., Quinn, 1980). Anoutgrowth of this perspective is the application of the resource-based view to a specific type of competencies, namely, those thatfall under the “marketing” heading (with Raj Srivastava et al. asrepresentative in this perspective). Here, customer value comesfrom applying principles of the resource-based view to a specificsubcategory of customer-facing competencies. Empirical workin this tradition is busy evaluating to what extent marketingcompetencies such as customer relationship management,supply-chain integration, etc. can be seen as core competencies,i.e., fulfill the VRIN criteria (the upper left-hand corner in Fig. 1).In summary, the left-hand side of the framework adopts an ex postapproach, which looks at creation strategies once an agreement(contractual or otherwhise) has been reached between buyers andsuppliers to exchange/share competencies.

In contrast, the right-hand side of the matrix adopts an exante approach, which seeks to understand value creation po-tential. Thus, when we move to the right-hand side of the figure,we have Möeller and Törröen (2003) proposition to view asupplier's competence portfolio as a predictor for that supplier'sfuture value creation potential. This buyer-perspective (lowerright-hand corner) is a natural complement to the resource-based view and outsourcing literature (e.g., Hamel & Prahalad,1994; Quinn, 1980) in that it seeks to understand suppliers'

value creation potential prior to the actual economic transac-tion. Finally, the upper right-hand corner looks at the flip-side ofthis by adopting the supplier's perspective in an attempt to findout how suppliers can market their competencies so as to createcustomer value. Again, in contrast to the left-hand side of thematrix, this value-creation strategy operates prior to the econo-mic transaction and as such can be seen as an ex-ante valuecreation strategy.

5. The special issue papers

The papers in this special issue deal with a broad spectrum ofindustries and subject areas. The common denominator amongthem is the desire to understand how suppliers' competenciescan be a driver for customer value. As such, they can be po-sitioned in the framework above as shown in Fig. 2.

5.1. Supplier and customer competencies for value creating:who drives the value strategies?

The lead article byKristian Möller “Role of Competencies inCreating Customer Value: a Value-Creation Logic Approach”can be positioned at the center of the framework, since it em-phasizes the relational logic of value production, where thecompetencies of both supplier and customer are required. First,the author works on a frame of value typology that clarifies thecomplex character of value, involving the customer's and thesupplier's perception of value and their specific role in valuecreation. Three basic value-production types are proposed thatare de facto embedded in a continuum and defined by differentconditions of the context. At the one side of the continuum, thereis the “core value” production, represented by specific products,with many close substitutes and many competitors whose com-petencies are basically known. The value production and ab-sorption does not need any major adaptation by actors and theyaim at maximum efficiency in the use of resources and businessprocesses. In a intermediate position, we have the “incrementalvalue-added production”, where through mutual investment andadaptations a supplier and a customer can create incrementalinnovations on products and processes that lead to some compet-itive advantage for both. This situation presumes a complex

908 F. Golfetto, M. Gibbert / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 904–912

interface between customer and supplier involving a joint-coordination of the value-activities, depending on the compe-tence gap between the supplier and the customer. As a conse-quence, costs and benefits are difficult to define, and results arepartially undetermined. The “new future value production” is thesituation at the other end of the continuum, characterized by thefuture orientation of the actors. They aim at radical innovationsinvolving wide changes in the existing value systems and thecreation of new value activities. These require complex net-working capabilities including visioning and sense making ofthe emerging new value system.

In the second step of the article, the author clarifies how thedifferent value creation issues of suppliers and customers cancombine in many dyadic situations and related strategies. Aseach partner can try to use core-value strategy, value-addedstrategy or future-value strategy, the result is at least nine dyadicsituations, described in a ideal matrix, involving both the cus-tomer and the supplier perspective. There are many combina-tions, but the most important would appear to be the differentdriving position assumed from the customer or from the supplier.In fact, value strategies refer to cases where (1) suppliers use theexpansion or improvements of their offering to maintain andadvance their competitiveness (supplier-driven value strategies); (2) customers use their power to induce core value suppliers toimprove their offering (buyer-driven value strategies); (3) thecustomer and supplier collaborate to achieve a better valueposition (joint-value strategies aiming at incremental or radicalinnovations). Finally, value creation strategy is postulated toinvolve several players, depending on how radical theinnovation is.

5.2. Value creation from the buyer perspective: supplierselection and supplier involvement

The research note by Holger Schiele “How to distinguishinnovative suppliers? Identifying innovative suppliers as a newtask for purchasing” is positioned in box 4, as it takes the buyerperspective to investigate supplier's competencies as a source ofpotential future value. It evidences that the suppliers' potential ofinnovation has gained increasing attention among the leadingfirms, even if neither research nor practice have so far offeredconclusive tools helping to identify innovative suppliers: so theprocess is largely left to intuition or good luck. The authordevelops some propositions on the nature of innovative supplier.These propositions regard (a) the character of innovative firm,that should be specialized, with high internal developmentcapability, engaged in several collaborative ventures at the sametime; (b) the character of the buyer–supplier relationship thatshould be based on trust an commitment and involving jointimprovement programs; (c) the enabling and supporting factors,as the geographical proximity to the buyer, the importance of thebuyer for the customer, the previous history of collaborationwith the buyer.

The article by Stephan M. Wagner and Martin Hoegl,“Involving suppliers in product development: Insights fromR&D directors and project managers” explores the key issues tobe considered when firms involve suppliers in new product

development and the counter-measures they can take. Thisperspective is important also regarding supplier selection, asnew suppliers are frequently selected during new productdevelopment. The research is based on a variety of exploratorycase studies in European firms, from industries other thanautomotive and hi-tech, as the authors would give a realisticpicture of the problems related to firms with a lesser channelpower. The study highlights that firms' reasons to integratesuppliers in product development are referred to two differenttypes of projects, and that the related involvement is manageddifferently. In “know how projects”, the firms' intention is toutilize the suppliers specialized knowledge (mostly technolog-ical) in developing highly innovative products. In this case thesuppliers are integrated intensively, with responsibilities forcritical and comprehensive modules or systems and areinvolved in an early stage. In “capacity projects”, the projectsare less innovative and the buying firms merely utilize thesuppliers' R&D resources to overcome a shortage of internalresources. The supplier involvement is limited on the time and,owing to the clearly defined product and task interface, therelationship is less critical than in other cases. The researchhighlights also key issues regarding criteria for suppliers selec-tion, buyer–supplier relationship, project team size andconfiguration. Finally, the article reveals the intentions ofmany R&D managers to increase the involvement of suppliersin the future, related to the opportunity to attain a shorter time-to-market of new products and to achieve cost targets. On theother hand, some impediments to suppliers involvementemerged, including the necessity to protect core competences,the geographical distance of the suppliers and the coordinationwork.

Frédéric Prevot and Robert Spencer, in their article “Suppliercompetence alignment: Cases from the buyer perspective in theBrazilian market,” present three cases study on the field of inter-organizational transfer of competencies, referred to differentindustries (automotive, pharmaceutical, and electronic manu-facture) with development needs in logistic area. This article canbe positioned on Box 2. In all three cases, the activators of theprocess are multinational customers and suppliers are localproducers The observations are referred to the objective of thetransfer, to the type of competences to be transferred and to thetransfer mechanisms that customers activate at the aim of alignthe suppliers competencies. Regarding the objective, althoughthe initial direction of flow is from buyer to supplier, in manycases, the intent is to provide better value to the buyer's owncustomers in the market. This leads the authors first to suggestthat the competence-based marketing view can involveinitiatives targeting not just customers, or customers' customers,but also other actors in the market, in this instance, suppliers.Second, the research findings led to proposals regarding corre-lations between types/complexity of competences transferred,transfer mechanisms and strategic objectives of the transfer.Finally, the authors highlight as the diffusion of competencescomes up against a logic of “protection” well known in the areaof strategic management (protection vis-à-vis competitors, ofcourse, but also more generally relative to other actors in theenvironment, so as to avoid indirect transfer towards

909F. Golfetto, M. Gibbert / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 904–912

competitors). Yet inter-organizational competence transferrepresents a major asset in that, via the development of partnerorganizations, it facilitates the deployment of the transferor'sstrategy in general.

5.3. Value creation from the supplier perspective: competencealignment and marketing

Papers in box 1 take the traditional supplier perspective, that is,the papers deal with specific marketing competencies such ascustomer relationship management, supply chain alignment, etc.The article by Liselore Berghman, Paul Matthyssens, and KoenVandenbempt, “Building competences for new customer valuecreation: An exploratory study” discusses competencies that arerequired in competitive business markets, where suppliers arecontinuously challenged to anticipate rather than follow changesin customer value. The study, based on survey data on a sample ofabout 600 Dutch industrial firms, focuses on the mix ofcompetencies suppliers should develop in order to be able tomeet these customer and market expectations. Using the clusteranalysis, the authors were able to link these competencies to thecapacity of value creation, so detecting four clusters with differentdegrees of expertise in new value creation, each displaying theirown profile of competencies. The findings show the importance,for the new creating value firms, to build the right combination ofcompetencies for absorptive capacity (defined as marketingpractices for external knowledge recognition, assimilation andtransformation), innovative and risk-taking organizational cul-ture, and supply chain/network competencies. A threshold levelseems to exist, but once reached, additional steps seem to developsmoother. Facilitators for new value creation are network infor-mation sharing and network innovation stimulus, which my beharder to influence and manage than the organizational condi-tions. Therefore, the study suggests business marketers seeking tolead the pack in value creation to develop and display their newvalue creation potential and track record to stimulate networkpartners to cooperate.

The paper by Paolo Guenzi and Gabriele Troilo, “Developingmarketing capabilities for customer value creation throughmarketing-sales integration” deals with a very important topicfrom a managerial and theoretical perspective. Managerially, theintegration of marketing and sales departments is often discussed,but hardly practiced. Theoretically, their paper contributes to theliterature by systematically examining the links betweenmarketing and sales. Their approach is explorative, and a reviewof the literature is followed by a qualitative study investigating theantecedents and consequences of marketing-sales integration.

The article by Uta Jüttner, Janet Godsell, and Martin G.Christopher, “ Demand chain alignment: Creating competenciesfor effective product lifecycle management” deals with theintegration of marketing (demand creation) and supply chainprocesses (fulfillment processes). This integration can be seen asa competence that supports effective product lifecycle manage-ment in rapidly changing markets, where products have a shortlife. The study is based on a case from a global player in thetobacco industry that actively embraced the challenge ofdeveloping a demand chain alignment competence and applied

it to its product lifecycle management processes. To avoid manyproblems in quality and time-to-market, the firm linked demandsegments with different demand variability and differentvolumes with supply chain processes featured by differentresponsiveness and attention to the real demand.

The article by Rhona E. Johnsen and David Ford “Interactioncapability development of smaller suppliers in relationshipswith larger customers” aims to add to the knowledge on suppliercapabilities from a relational perspective, by the way of aframework with which to evaluate smaller suppliers' interactioncapability developments and their influence on relationship withlarger customers. The research is based on eight case studies onsmaller UK textile suppliers. The findings identify four criticalaspects of interaction capability related to human interaction,technological interaction, managerial systems interaction andcultural interaction. Moreover, the research highlights how dif-ferences in size between customers may influence the interactioncapability profile that a smaller supplier may develop acrossthese four aspects. Large size differences between suppliers andtheir larger customers may not necessarily be indicative ofsuppliers' interaction capability weaknesses or limitations. In-deed, some of the very smallest suppliers had developed inter-action capabilities that appeared very valuable for largercustomers and distinguished them from alternative suppliersthrough the distinctiveness of their capability base. However, theresearch raised a number of areas where size differences canhave a negative impact on smaller supplier's interaction ca-pability development. These are mainly related to the pressuresthey receive from larger customer that often result in technolog-ical ‘packages’ that were not transferable to other customers.

The article by Francis Farrelly, Pascale Quester, and RickBurton “Changes in sponsorship value: Competencies andcapabilities of successful sponsorship relationship” focuses onthe evolving perception of value in a relationship and on thecompetencies developed by more successful partners to managesuch an evolution. The supplier–customer relationships understudy are particular as they regard sponsors and sponsored sportentities. The research involved 28 firms on the whole, sponsorsand sponsored firms from different continents, that wasrequested to analyze their experience in the last 5–10 years.The findings highlight that relationships have evolved consid-erably, owing to the growing opportunities coming from recip-rocal commitment and joint strategy in brand building.However, there is a lack of reciprocity in their commitment:while some of these partners have made together the necessaryleap forward, some sponsors have also been confronted withresistance on the part of sport entities to adapt the evolvingperception of value. The key competencies that differentiatesuccessful sponsors from the less successful ones are related toprogressive adaptations, reciprocal commitment, brand buildingcapabilities, collaborative capabilities. Finally, we have thearticle in box 3, that assume the supplier perspective formarketing of competencies.

In their note “Capabilities as marketable assets”, Keith Bloisand Rafael Ramirez observe that there are significant opportu-nities for firms to establish unique and potentially profitablepositions by recognizing that some of the capabilities that they

910 F. Golfetto, M. Gibbert / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 904–912

utilize in the creation of their products may themselves bemarketable products. This requires a re-conceptualization ofcapabilities that the authors propose along two dimensions. Onedimension is whether a capability is internally or externallyfocused with regard to value creation. The second dimension isthe distinction on whether the capability is perceived as havingthe ability to relieve customers from doing something becausethe supplier will do it on their stead or alternatively to customersthemselves improve their performance. These two dimensionscan be combined to create four zones within which capabilitiesmay be considered to be located. The authors argued that theway in which capabilities are managed and marketed willdepend upon into which zone a capability falls.

Finally, the note by Thomas Ritter “Communicating firmcompetencies: Marketing as different levels of translation”contributes to the notion of competence-based marketing andcommunication as a way to avoid competing on price and toincrease imitation barriers. The author develops a model of firmcapabilities and an understanding of when to use competence-based communication. It is argued that all market communicationis competence-based but the content of communication and themarketing capability changes along the different waves of marketorientation (product orientation, market orientation, customerorientation, and network orientation) and along the differentcustomer needs. Therewith, marketing communication is seen astranslating firm competencies into customers' language.

6. Discussion and outlook

The number and nature of the articles in the four boxes ofFig. 2 points to areas where further work is needed. The left-hand side of the matrix is reasonably well-established, with anumber of empirical papers (all those in Box 1, and one in Box2). Clearly, further conceptual work is needed in the entire right-hand side of the matrix. Here, the majority of papers areresearch notes, which suggests further work to refine the con-ceptual apparatus. To begin with, the demand side of compet-encies has received some attention both conceptually andempirically (Möeller & Törröen, 2003; Walter et al., 2001). Thiswork is commendable since a firm's ability to exploit externalknowledge can be considered as a critical component of inno-vative performance. As a prime source of the external knowl-edge is recognized to reside in supply chain, supplier selectionhas become a strategic activity, aimed at evaluating the supplierpotential to value creation. The literature has recently focusedon this potential, that has been synthesized in three main func-tions: efficiency, effectiveness and networking. “Efficiency”potential refers to the supplier ability in reducing production andtransactional costs and in improving offering quality. “Effec-tiveness” is related to the supplier ability to contribute to in-cremental innovations as new products and solutions that canextend the customer's market. The “networking function” syn-thesizes the opportunity for the customer to get access to net-work actors of the supplier and then to the opportunity forradical innovations. This potential resides in supplier resourcesand competences: so the customers should select the suppliersby assessing the supplier's resources and competencies under-

pinning the requested functions. Work in this area is beginningto move from a conceptual to an empirical and practical focus(e.g., Feeney et al., 2005), with the main question being “giventhat suppliers' competencies represent a proxy for future valuecreation potential, how can we as buyers be sure to pick the rightsupplier?”.

What is much less well understood both conceptually andempirically is the lower right-hand box (Box 4) of the matrix.Here, supply side of competence marketing raises questionssuch as “what are the tools and processes used by suppliers todevelop, market, and deliver competencies to industrial buyers?”and “how can industrial buyers capture the value arising fromcompetence-based transactions?”.

Finding answers to these questions is non-trivial, since itrequires conceptually challenging foundations of the resource-based view in several important ways. The notion of competencesupplying or competence marketing logically extends the focusfrom resources and competencies as inputs (e.g., Day, 1994; ,Srivastava et al., 2001, 1998) to resources and competencies asoutput, which can be marketed (Zerbini et al., in press). It is herewhere attempts at integrating the resource-based view withindustrial marketing have the potential to contribute not only toindustrial marketing thinking, but to the resource-based viewitself, namely, by emphasizing the need to reconsider a number ofits key premises. For example, resource-based logic holds thatperformance differences stem from inputs that are imperfectlymobile on factor markets (e.g., Peteraf, 1993), deeply embeddedin organizational routines (e.g., Barney, 1991), and generally sosticky that they are difficult to transfer internally (e.g., Szulanski,1996), let alone externally (e.g., Amit & Shoemaker, 1993). Thenotion of competence-based marketing underlying this specialissue proposes that some competencies may be far less immobilethan the RBV commonly assumes. Indeed, marketing competen-cies as output assumes that they be available for purchase onfactor markets. This implies that the criteria for distinguishingperformance-critical competencies from other resources needs tobe re-thought in further work in both strategy and industrialmarketing and purchasing. It also implies that industrialmarketingand purchasingmay be in a strong position to contribute to a betterunderstanding of competencies as such, their very nature, and theway they are leveraged and exchanged in vertical relationships.We hope that the ensemble of papers comprising the currentspecial issue make a first step in this direction.

Acknowledgements

We thank the authors in this issue for submitting their finework to this forum, and for investing time and energy into therevisions. Special thanks is due to our reviewers, all of whichpersevered until the conclusion of the review process andcontinued to write thoughtful and constructive notes to authorseven when we asked for a 10-day turnaround:

• Addis, Michela (Bocconi University)• Borghini, Stefania (Bocconi University)• Caldwell, Nigel (University of Bath)• Chelariu Crisitan (York University)

911F. Golfetto, M. Gibbert / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 904–912

• Cova, Bernard (Euromed, Marseille)• Deeter-Schmelz, Dawn R. (Ohio University)• Emiliani, Mario (Central Connecticut State University)• Fletcher, Richard (University of Western Sydney)• Grando, Alberto (Bocconi University)• Guenzi, Paolo (Bocconi University)• Hayes, Michael (University of Colorado at Denver)• Hoegl, Martin (WHU Otto Beisheim School of Manage-ment, Vallendar)

• Ivens, Björn (Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg)

• Johlke, Mark (Bradley University)• Johnsen, Rhona (University of Bath)• Johnson, Carol (Denver University)• Joseph, Benoy (Cleveland State University)• Marcati, Alberto (Bologna University)• Pace, Stefano (Bocconi University)• Padula, Giovanna (Bocconi University)• Presutti, Manuela (Bologna University)• Rinallo, Diego (Bocconi University)• Ritter, Thomas (Copenhagen Business School)• Rolp Seringhaus (Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo,Canada)

• Spencer, Robert (Euromed Marseille)• Torrisi, Salvatore (Bologna University)• Tunisini, Annalisa (Urbino University)• Verona, Gianmario (Bocconi University)• Wagner, Stefan (WHU Otto Beisheim School of Manage-ment, Vallendar)

• Zerbini, Fabrizio (Bocconi University)

We enjoyed the discussions during a panel symposium whichwe chaired during the EMAC 2005 conference in Milan. Ourpanelists Keith Blois, Kristian Moeller, and Rajendra Srivastavanot only challenged our understanding of competence-basedmarketing, but hopefully also that of the audience, whose activeparticipation made the event a truly memorable experience.

Colleagues at the Institute for Business Management, par-ticularly Stefania Borghini, Stefano Pace, Diego Rinallo, andFabrizio Zerbini have been invaluable sparring partners incountless discussions on competencies and their role in industrialmarketing.

Last but not least, we thank Peter LaPlaca for having thecourage to entrust this special issue to our care, for helping withadditional reviewer resources when reviews were ambiguous,and generally for his generous support over the 2 years it took usto put together this special issue. We hope the readers will enjoythe result. We worked very hard towards that end.

References

Amit, R., & Shoemaker, P. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent.Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33−46.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journalof Management, 7(1), 99−120.

Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. (2000). The resource-based view: Origins and implica-tions. Ohio State University Working Paper.

Bharadwaj, S. G., Varandarajan, P. R., & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitiveadvantage in service industries: A conceptual model and research propositions.Journal of Marketing, 57, 83−99.

Borghini, S., Golfetto F., and Rinallo D. (in press). “Ongoing Search amongIndustrial Buyers”, Journal of Business Research.

Borghini, S., & Rinallo, D. (2003, September). Communicating competence indiagnostic and medical industry. A view from customers. IMP Conferenc,Lugano.

Cohen,W.M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspectiveon learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128−152.

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal ofMarketing, 58, 37−52.

Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performanceknowledge sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic ManagementJournal, 21, 345−367.

Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy andsources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 23, 660−679.

Dubois, A., & Torvatn, T. (2002, September). Toward Understanding Interactionand Resource Development: the Firm as a Network Buffer. XVIII IMPConference, Dijon.

Feeny,D., Lacity,M.,&Willcocks, L. P. (2005). Taking themeasure of outsourcingproviders. Sloan Management Review, 46, 41−48.

Gibbert, M., & Golfetto, F. (2004, September). The industrial supplier as acompetence marketer: Upstream and downstram implications at Siemens.IMP Conference, Copenhagen.

Gibbert, M., Golfetto, F., & Zerbini, F. (2006). What do we mean by marketingcompetencies? A reply to Hooley et al. Journal of Business Research, 59,148−151.

Golfetto, F. (2003, September). Communicating competence. An experiencialcommunication approach for business markets. IMP Conference, Lugano.

Golfetto, F., Gibbert, M., & Zerbini, F. (2004, October). Impartive capacity:Towards a view of the supplier as a competence provider. StrategicManagement Society Conference, San Juan Puerto Rico.

Golfetto, F., & Mazursky, D. (2004, December). Competence-based marketing.Harvard Business Review, 82, 26.

Golfetto, F., & Rinallo, D. (2004, 2–6 April). Experiencing suppliercapabilities: inside the practice of B2B communication. 9th Conferenceon Corporate and Marketing Communication Coventry: WarwickUniversity.

Golfetto, F., & Zerbini, F. (2005, May). Discarding the view of “competence forfree”. Linking value for customer to competence providing in B2B. Emac—European marketing association conference, Milan.

Golfetto, F., Zerbini, F., & Gibbert, M. (2006, May). Impartive capacity: Towarda view of suppliers as competence providers. EURAM Conference, Oslo.

Håkansson, H. (1982). International marketing and purchasing of industrialgoods: An interaction approach. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationship in businessnetwork. London: Routledge.

Hamel, G., Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989, January). Collaborate with yourcompetitors and win. Harvard Business Review, 133−139.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hooley, G. J., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J.W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performanceimpact of marketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58, 18−27.

Jap, S. (1999). Pie-expansion efforts: Collaboration processes in buyer–supplierrelationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 461−475.

Möller, K. A., & Törröen, P. (2003). Business suppliers' value creation potential. Acapability-based analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 109−118.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179−191.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation.Harvard Business Review, 68, 79−91.

Quinn, J. P. (1980). Intelligent enterprise: A knowledge- and service-based paradigmfor industry. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Rinallo, D., & Borghini, S. (2003, September). Communicating competence:Semiotic analysis at an International Fashion Trade Fair. IMP Conference,Lugano.

912 F. Golfetto, M. Gibbert / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 904–912

Rinallo, D., Golfetto, F., & Gibbert, M. (2006). Consocia et impera: How Frenchand Italian fabric producers cooperate to affirm the “dominant design” in thefashion industry. In M. Gibbert, A. Angehrn, & T. Durand (Eds.), Learningnetworks, strategic management society Oxford: Blackwell Book Series.

Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, K. (2001). The resource-based viewand marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitiveadvantage. Journal of Management, 27, 777−802.

Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets andshareholder value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62, 2−18.

Szulanski, G. (1996, Winter). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to thetransfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,77−91.

Walter, A., Ritter, T., & Gemuenden, H. (2001). Value creation in buyer–sellerrelationships: Theoretical considerations and empirical results from asupplier's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 365−377.

Zerbini F., Golfetto F., Gibbert M. (in press). Marketing of competencies:Exploring the resource-based content of value-for-customers through a casestudy analysis. Industrial Marketing Management.

Francesca Golfetto is Professor of Marketing at Bocconi University and SDABocconi – School of Management in Milan, Italy. She is Co-Director ofBocconi University’s Center of Researches on Markets and Industries. Herresearch interests focus on value creation, market strategies and marketingcommunications in industrial markets. She has published in Harvard BusinessReview, Journal of Business Research and Industrial Marketing Management.

Michael Gibbert is an Assistant Professor at Bocconi University, Milan. Hisresearch interests are applying resource-based thinking in industrial marketingmanagement and the role of constraints in management. Previous work waspublished in MIT Sloan Management Review, Journal of Business Research,Long Range Planning, and Industrial Marketing Management.