levels of analysis in business-to-business marketing
DESCRIPTION
O serie de articole, scrise in engleza, legate de B2B; cercetari diverse, analize, etcTRANSCRIPT
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Romanian Ministry Consortium]On: 2 March 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918910197]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Business To Business MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792303971
Levels of Analysis in Business-to-Business MarketingRicky Wilke a; Thomas Ritter a
a Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
To cite this Article Wilke, Ricky and Ritter, Thomas(2006) 'Levels of Analysis in Business-to-Business Marketing', Journalof Business To Business Marketing, 13: 3, 39 — 64To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J033v13n03_02URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J033v13n03_02
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Levels of Analysisin Business-to-Business Marketing
Ricky WilkeThomas Ritter
ABSTRACT. Over the last 50 plus years, many authors have contributedto our understanding of business markets. As this research area is com-plex, researchers have addressed issues from different levels of analysishereby also using a variety of theories (e.g., economics, sociology, psy-chology). In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of those contri-butions and to shed light on research in business-to-business marketing asa discipline, it is important to define the different levels of analysis so thatthe different studies can be viewed in relation to each other. Therefore,this paper develops such framework for business-to-business marketing.The framework also sensitizes researchers to the relationship betweenthe level of analysis and the level at which data is collected. Furthermore,the framework can be applied to map the research areas within the busi-ness-to-business marketing field and to define areas of further investiga-tion. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Levels of analysis, observation, paradigms, research,theory, business marketing, industrial marketing
Ricky Wilke (E-mail: [email protected]) and Thomas Ritter (E-mail: [email protected]) are both affiliated with the Department of Marketing, Copenhagen BusinessSchool, Solbjerg Plads 3.C.3, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 13(3) 2006Available online at http://jbbm.haworthpress.com
© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J033v13n03_02 39
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
INTRODUCTION
Business-to-business (or industrial) marketing has received a lot ofattention in the last 50 years. This field has been analyzed from, e.g., thetransaction cost perspective (Williamson 1975), the interaction perspec-tive (Håkansson 1982), the network perspective (Axelsson and Easton1992). Different themes have been addressed like value and value cre-ation (Anderson and Narus 2004), development of relationships (Ford1980, Dwyer et al. 1987), technology and innovation development(Håkansson 1987). Regarding the empirical work, different methodolo-gies have been applied, e.g., case studies, quantitative studies, and ac-tion research.
The different contributions have created a situation where the defini-tion of markets and marketing has become difficult as they can be seenfrom various different angles and at various levels. Some define mar-kets as “a collection of buyers” (Kotler and Keller 2006, p. 11) whileothers see markets as “networks between and within buyers and sellers”(Mattsson and Johansson 1988). Likewise, the definition of marketingis unclear: Linguistically, marketing means being active on markets.Officially, as provided by the American Marketing Association, mar-keting is defined as “an organizational function and a set of processesfor creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and formanaging customer relationships in ways that benefit the organizationand its stake holders” (AMA 2006). Within this vaguely described fieldof “managing customer relationships,” variance occurs as these relation-ships differ significantly in their substance and atmosphere (e.g., Covielloet al. 2002, Day 2000). For the purpose of this paper, we define marketsas institutions in which interactions (of various kinds) between sellersand buyers take place. Sellers are active by marketing and selling activi-ties and purchasers are active by purchasing, procurement and buyingactivities. Their joint interest is successful exchange, which normallyrequires mutual value creation of the exchange on both sides in along-term perspective.
Besides the wealth of studies, an overall consolidation and integrationof the research results into a theory of business-to-business marketing, atheory of interaction or a theory of business networks is still lacking.Besides other factors (like geographical distance, different professionalcultures and pressures) a major issue is the very different levels of anal-ysis used in business-to-business marketing research. In order to gainmore clarity, this paper focuses on the description of these differentlevels. A framework is developed in order to develop a better bases for
40 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
comparison of different studies and in order to identify potential re-search areas. Thus, the aim of this paper is not to provide a new, universaldefinition of markets and marketing but to offer a better understandingof the differences by outlining the different levels of analysis in busi-ness-to-business marketing research.
The following provides an overview of the paper. First, the articlebegins with an account of the concept of “level of analysis” and puts for-ward a framework of levels of analysis in business-to-business market-ing. Second, the issue of causality between the different levels ispresented. Third, typical research topics at different levels are listed.Fourth, we discuss some methodological issues around the differentlevels. Fifth, potential future research areas are outlined. For research-ers and practitioners alike, the paper contributes to their research inattempting to interpret and survey the research discipline of business-to-business marketing. The paper provides a framework to discussclearly research questions and methodology with respect to the level ofanalysis and level of observation.
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESSMARKETING RESEARCH
One of the core dimensions applied to the scope of marketing is themicro-macro dichotomy (Hunt 1976). Hunt argues that “micro,” withrespect to marketing, typically refers to theories and empirical studiesoriented towards individual units, that is to say, an organization’s mar-keting activities. In contrary, “macro” refers to theories oriented to-wards larger units, such as marketing systems or groups of consumers.This scope of marketing reflects a general consensus within the socialsciences, in which society is considered hierarchical or composed of apyramid structure of subsystems or levels that can be isolated, such asmicro-phenomena and macro-phenomena. The hierarchy could, forexample, span the quasi-isolated scientific disciplines such as biology(the cellular level), psychology (the individual level) and sociology (thegroup or societal level). The level to be investigated or explained, then,is the dependent variable and the level of analysis.
However, there is a lack of consensus about the micro-macro distinc-tion within the social sciences, other than that “micro” refers to smallerunits than those implied by “macro” (Wippler and Lindenberg 1987).In marketing relationship studies, the use of the words “micro” and“macro” is different from Hunt’s interpretation, hereby reflecting the
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 41
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
focus on relationships as the focal unit (the micro level) and the widerindustry network as the larger system (the macro level) (Mattsson1997). It was also acknowledged that the gap between micro and macrowas too large, which eventually lead to the introduction of a meso level(Mattsson 1997). On this level, all relationships of a single firm wereconsidered which is a wider focus than analyzing a given, individualrelationship but less than all relationships existing in industries. Thelevel of direct relationships of a firm has also been called “net” in con-trast to “network,” which in this respect is used as the wider industry orsociety level (Johansson and Mattsson 1988). Möller and Halinen(1999) proposed an additional level of analysis which can be placed be-tween the micro and the meso level: the portfolio level. On that level,similar relationships are considered (e.g., customer relationships, sup-plier relationships, innovation relationships) but not the whole net(work)of a firm.
The macro level can be split up more precisely into at least two lev-els. The level of highest complexity and lowest limitations can be de-fined as the level of society. On that level, all objects and actors and alltheir relationships are considered. Society can be regarded as the “ulti-mate” level hereby including all actors within a region (e.g., a countryor a continent). On this level, business elements are intertwined with el-ements of (national) culture, politics, social aspects, etc. As our focus ison business-to-business marketing, we will not focus on societies in thereminder of the paper.
In order to produce meaningful research questions and empirical stud-ies, researchers have employed complexity defense mechanisms (Ritterand Ford 2004). Researchers have focused their attention on markets, in-dustries or clusters of firms, also interpreted as networks (markets-as-net-works). This level corresponds to Mattsson’s macro level.
In order to organize the wealth of levels we follow a distinction be-tween actors and structure made by Ritter and Gemünden (2003). Re-garding structural elements, we can again distinguish between fourlevels. The basic element of interorganizational research is a dyad, i.e.,the relationship between two actors. Following Halinen and Möller(1999), portfolios can be seen as the next level comprising similarrelationships (e.g., customer portfolio, supplier portfolio, innovationpartners). Typically, relationship portfolio analysis does only considerseveral relationships but not their interconnections (compare, e.g., Krap-fel et al. 1991 and Shapiro et al. 1987). Beyond dyads, further relation-ships need to be considered because relationships potentially influenceeach other (Blankenholm et al. 1999, Ritter 2000). The smallest entity
42 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
which displays all interconnection issues is a triad (Havila 1996). How-ever, in business marketing research, there is a tendency to extend thatlevel towards organizational set (Evans 1966) or a firm’s net (Johanssonand Mattsson 1988), i.e., all direct relationships of a firm also called.Finally, the network defines a level which goes beyond triads or nets. Itis hard to specify a network boundary on a general basis. It can be mar-kets (markets as networks, Johansson and Mattsson 1988), industries,value creation systems (frequently called supply chains) or regionalclusters. Seen from an individual actor’s perspective, the (relevant) net-work may be the part of the network they are aware of. This has been la-beled “network horizon” (Anderson, Håkansson and Johnsson 1994).The “ultimate” network is the whole society. However, as noted above,this level is not meaningful in research and business practice due to itscomplexity. Thus, we do not include it in our further discussion.
The above discussion leads us to a framework of structural levels ofanalysis which is depicted in Figure 1.
Regarding actors as levels of analysis, the objects typically are deci-sion-making units ranging from individuals to households and organi-zations. In organizational studies there are frequently made distinctionsbetween individuals, groups/teams and the firm. Individuals can be seenas the lowest level, who fulfills a certain role in a given context. Movingone level upwards, groups, teams or departments are collections of indi-viduals (or better the roles they perform) all (at least partially) aligned toa joint task and, thus, sharing some values and work practices (e.g., in abuying center). Further, firms are seen as larger collections of groupswith potentially different values and work practices. Here, the bondingelement is the shared participation in a firm, its successes and its chal-lenges as well as a corporate vision, strategy and culture. The fourthlevel is seen in groups of firms, e.g., seen as industries (firms with simi-lar resources and market positions), clusters (seen as regional group-
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 43
FIGURE 1. Illustration of Different Structural Levels of Analysis
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
ings), supply and delivery networks (seen as value creating systems).The level of abstraction and complexity increases as various corporatevisions, strategies and cultures are considered. Figure 2 illustrates thedifferent actor levels of analysis.
For each study, there is a given level of analysis and this becomes themicro level for the research. The immediate higher level is then seen asthe meso level as the impacts from this level are normally strong and ob-servable. All other higher levels form the macro level, often also de-scribed as the environment. Studies typically can choose along the twoidentified dimensions, structure and actor. For example, a dyad can beanalyzed at the different actor levels: between two sales people (individ-ual level), between a sales and a purchasing department (group level),between a buying and a selling firm (organization level), between Siliconvalley (US) and Medicon valley (Denmark) (cluster level). Therefore,the framework for positioning studies in business marketing is a ma-trix built by the two dimensions discussed above (see Figure 3). As itis possible to neglect one dimension the “none” option is added. Anexample is a study of a firms internal buying procedures (thus nostructural dimension applies) or a study of interconnections betweenrelationships (thus no actor dimension applies).
This depiction of the construction of society suggests a layout bymeans of rational-analytical thought. In some way it follows an attemptto reduce the complexity of specific phenomena, such as society or itssublevels (networks or organizations) by breaking them down into un-derlying subsystems (for example, a buying center). Such hierarchies oflevels suggest that they can be isolated or kept apart from the remainingenvironment. By breaking the subsystems down into simpler compo-nents (such as structures, relationships or individuals) causal effect maybecomes understandable. Even though this deduction logic has its
44 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
FIGURE 2. Illustration of Different Actor Levels of Analysis
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
appeal and can be compared to research in physics and chemistry, it in-cludes the problem of separating things which only can be understoodin its totality. While focus on specific research questions at low levels ofcomplexity may contribute significantly to our general understandingof a phenomenon, potential connections between sublevels can be over-seen. Thus, using different levels of analysis is a positive endeavor aslong as the different results are connected to a greater picture.
Regarding the framework, we see some clear dynamics. Until aboutthirty years ago, the majority of business-to-business marketing re-search was oriented towards organizational buying behavior (includ-ing intra-organizational issue such as group dynamics, but structuraldimension not applied). Since then, researchers are working with lev-els of analysis other than actors, specifically with structural elementsof markets such as relationships between two organizations (dyads)and network levels. Researchers provide different reasons for thischange in level of analysis. Bonoma et al. (1978, p. 53) wrote:
. . . the usual approach in industrial marketing has been to regard thesituation as a unit; a single buyer (or buying department) within anorganization is examined as a respondent to certain external stim-uli which affects the activities (. . .). Actually, the industrial buyeris embedded in a series of relationships both intra-organizationallyand inter-organizationally (. . .) supplier-buyer relationships ob-taining in the real world are major ones for understanding buying
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 45
FIGURE 3. Framework of Different Levels of Analysis
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
decisions. None of these can be suitable viewed as external stimuliinfringing on an “independent” actor’s decision-making processes.
Parkinson and Baker (1986, p. 188) wrote that one could have experi-enced “a substantial re-appraisal of the literature dealing with industrialand organizational buying decisions.” Parkinson and Baker refer their“re-appraisal” to “the IMP school,” and continue (p. 189), “Essentiallythis has stemmed from the growing realization that concentration uponspecific decisions has tended to convey the impression that such deci-sions (buying decisions) enjoy a discrete existence and are the result ofactive sellers manipulating passive buyers. Clearly, both of these impres-sions are wrong.” (cf. also Ford 2002). Also within the IMP research,there has been a move from the interaction model (dyad level, e.g.,Håkansson 1982) towards a network view (net and network level, e.g.,Axelsson and Easton 1992).
CAUSALITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT LEVELS
Based on the different levels of analysis we can build a frameworkto position different contributions in relation to each other. Also Dix-on and Wilkinson (1989) point out that various levels of analysis existin marketing theory and that the different levels have impacts on eachother.
The different levels described above do not exist in isolation nor arethey researched separately. Rather the interplay between the differentlevels is most often reported in studies. Table 1 reports some studies toillustrate the different levels. As such, the suggested framework can beused to structure and illustrate antecedent and consequence variables ina given study.
Descriptions of society and its subsystems rest upon a system theoryapproach, while empirically tested theories are usually oriented towardsone of the most important explanations after the principle of linear cau-sality (causal effect occurring sequentially). An essential element of levelmentality involves the links that connect the different quasi-isolatedlevels. Often, a causal direction in our theories starts at a higher leveland moves towards a lower level; from macro to micro. In most theories(e.g., Webster and Wind 1972), the causal arrows start at the environ-ment and move towards the organization. The so-called buying classes,new task, modified rebuy and straight rebuy (Robinson et al. 1967),which are commonly used to evaluate an organization’s environment,
46 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
TA
BLE
1.E
xam
ples
ofP
ublic
atio
nsan
dT
heir
Leve
lofA
naly
sis
Au
tho
r(s)
Jou
rnal
Tit
leS
um
mar
yL
evel
Aric
Rin
dfle
ish
and
Chr
istin
eM
oorm
anJo
urna
lofM
ar-
ketin
gR
esea
rch
vol.
XL
Nov
.20
03
“Int
erfir
mco
oper
atio
nan
dcu
s-to
mer
orie
ntat
ion”
Impl
icat
ions
ofin
terf
irmco
oper
atio
nfo
ra
firm
’sle
velo
fcu
stom
eror
ient
atio
n.P
/O
Ger
ryB
aton
da;
Cha
dP
erry
Eur
opea
nJo
ur-
nalo
fMar
ketin
gV
ol37
No
10,
2003
App
roac
hes
tore
latio
nshi
pde
velo
pmen
tpro
cess
esin
inte
r-fir
mne
twor
ks
The
pape
rex
amin
esth
edy
nam
ics
ofbu
sine
ssne
twor
ks,
that
is,h
owth
ese
inte
r-or
gani
zatio
naln
etw
orks
grow
and
de-
clin
e.T
hefin
ding
sre
veal
edth
atin
ter-
firm
netw
ork
deve
lop-
men
tis
anev
olut
ion
ofun
pred
icta
ble
stat
esra
ther
than
apr
edet
erm
ined
sequ
ence
ofirr
ever
sibl
est
ages
.In
turn
,asi
x“s
tate
s”m
odel
ofin
ter-
firm
netw
ork
deve
lopm
entw
asfo
rmu-
late
dfr
omda
ta.
C/C
orN
/N
And
erso
n,Ja
mes
C.
Hak
anss
on,H
akan
John
ason
,Jan
Jour
nalo
fMar
-ke
ting
Oct
.94,
Vol
.58
Issu
e4,
p.1,
15p
Dya
dic
busi
ness
rela
tions
hips
with
ina
busi
ness
netw
ork
con-
text
Pro
vide
sa
mea
nsfo
run
ders
tand
ing
dyad
icre
latio
nshi
psbe
-tw
een
firm
sin
busi
ness
-to-
busi
ness
setti
ngs.
How
deco
n-st
ruct
edfir
ms
and
valu
e-ad
ding
part
ners
hips
rela
teto
busi
-ne
ssco
ordi
natio
n.
N/D
Fra
zier
,Gar
yL.
Jour
nalo
fMar
-ke
ting,
fall
1983
vol.
47
Inte
rnat
iona
lExc
hang
eB
ehav
ior
inM
arke
ting
Cha
nnel
s:A
Bro
ad-
ened
Per
spec
tive
The
auth
ors
advo
cate
that
ther
eis
anur
gent
need
for
are
al-
istic
conc
eptu
aliz
atio
nof
the
proc
ess
ofex
chan
gebe
havi
orbe
twee
nor
gani
zatio
nsw
ithin
mar
ketin
gch
anne
ls.T
heau
-th
ors
stre
ssth
atth
ein
tero
rgan
izat
iona
lnet
wor
kis
depe
n-de
nton
the
rew
ard
each
mem
ber
ofth
ere
latio
nshi
pex
pect
san
dre
ceiv
es.
O/P
Hal
lén,
Lars
;Joh
anso
n,Ja
n;S
eyed
-Moh
amm
ed,
Naz
eem
Jour
nalo
fMar
-ke
ting
Vol
.55
(Apr
il19
91)
p.29
-37
Inte
rfirm
Ada
ptat
ion
inB
usin
ess
Rel
atio
nshi
psT
heau
thor
s’ob
ject
ive
isto
expl
ain
the
role
ofad
apta
tion
inbu
sine
ssre
latio
nshi
ps.T
hey
argu
eth
atbu
sine
ssre
latio
n-sh
ips
also
have
aso
cial
aspe
ctth
atsh
ould
bein
clud
edw
hen
anal
yzin
gor
gani
zatio
nalr
elat
ions
hips
.The
focu
sis
plac
edon
supp
lier
adap
tatio
nas
cust
omer
adap
tatio
n.
O/D
Iaco
bucc
i,D
awn
Hop
kins
,Nig
elJo
urna
lofM
ar-
ketin
gR
esea
rch
vol.
XX
IXF
ebru
-ar
y19
92p.
5-17
Mod
elin
gdy
adic
inte
ract
ions
and
netw
orks
inm
arke
ting
Ana
lyze
sth
ere
latio
nshi
pbe
twee
ndy
adic
inte
ract
ions
and
thei
rpo
tent
iali
nva
rious
mar
ketin
gco
ntex
ts.B
asic
soci
alin
-te
ract
ion
mod
el;C
lique
san
dac
tor
equi
vale
nce;
Act
oran
ddy
adat
trib
utes
;Mul
tirel
atio
nala
ndse
quen
tiali
nter
actio
ns;
Com
paris
onbe
twee
ngr
oups
.
I,G,D
/D
47
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
TA
BLE
1(c
ontin
ued)
Au
tho
r(s)
Jou
rnal
Tit
leS
um
mar
yL
evel
Hom
burg
,Chr
is-
tian;
Kro
hmer
,H
arle
y;C
anno
n,Jo
seph
P.;
Kie
dais
ch,I
ngo
Jour
nalo
fInt
er-
natio
nalM
arke
t-in
g.V
ol.1
0N
o.4
2002
p.1-
29
Cus
tom
ersa
tisfa
ctio
nin
tran
snat
iona
lbuy
er-s
uppl
ier
rela
tions
hips
The
stud
yan
alyz
escu
stom
ersa
tisfa
ctio
nin
buye
r-su
pplie
rre
latio
nshi
psac
ross
natio
nalb
ound
arie
s.D
/O
Bak
kela
nd,
Gun
nar;
Ber
thon
,Pie
rre;
Ew
ing,
Mic
hael
T.
Pitt
,Ley
land
F.
Jour
nalo
fBus
i-ne
ssR
esea
rch;
Sep
2003
,V
ol.5
6Is
sue
9,p.
699,
11p
Nor
ms
and
pow
erin
mar
ket-
ing
rela
tions
hips
:Alte
rnat
ive
theo
ries
and
empi
rical
evi-
denc
e
The
stud
yex
plor
esth
ero
leof
rela
tiona
lnor
ms
and
gove
rnan
cem
echa
-ni
sms
inm
arke
ting
dyad
s.T
heau
thor
sex
amin
eth
ere
latio
nshi
pdy
ads
from
the
pers
pect
ive
ofa
larg
esu
pplie
rfa
cing
ala
rge
num
ber
ofsm
alle
rbu
yers
findi
ngth
atno
rms
can
serv
eas
ago
vern
ance
mec
hani
smw
hich
safe
guar
dag
ains
topp
ortu
nist
icbe
havi
our.
Itis
how
ever
foun
dth
atno
rms
dono
tpla
ya
sign
ifica
ntro
lein
the
rese
arch
cont
ext,
show
ing
that
mec
hani
sms
othe
rth
anno
rms
are
atw
ork.
O/D
Dib
ben,
Mar
kan
dH
arris
,Sim
onJo
urna
lofM
ar-
ketin
gM
anag
e-m
ent1
999,
15,
463-
483
Tru
stan
dC
o-op
erat
ion
inB
usin
ess
Rel
atio
nshi
pD
evel
opm
ent:
Exp
lorin
gth
eIn
fluen
ceof
Nat
iona
lVal
ues
The
stud
yex
plor
esw
heth
eror
tow
hate
xten
tnat
iona
lval
ues
may
effe
ctde
velo
pmen
tofr
elat
ions
hips
betw
een
indi
vidu
als
indi
ffere
ntco
untr
ies
bysp
ecifi
cally
exam
inin
gtr
usta
ndco
oper
atio
nbe
twee
npe
ople
.
I/D
48
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
Rin
gber
g,T
orst
en;
For
quer
Gup
ta,
Sus
an
The
Jour
nalo
fB
usin
ess
and
Indu
stria
lMar
-ke
ting
2003
Vol
.18
No.
6pp
.607
-626
The
impo
rtan
ceof
unde
r-st
andi
ngth
esy
mbo
licw
orld
ofcu
stom
ers
inas
ymm
etric
busi
ness
-to-
busi
ness
rela
-tio
nshi
ps
Res
earc
hers
with
inth
ebu
sine
ss-t
o-bu
sine
ssre
latio
nshi
plit
erat
ure
have
argu
edth
atth
elo
yalty
conc
epti
son
lypa
rtia
llyun
ders
tood
,and
,con
se-
quen
tly,c
allf
oran
incr
ease
dat
tent
ion
toid
entif
yth
ein
tera
ctio
nne
eds
ofth
ecu
stom
ers
asw
ella
scu
stom
ers’
perc
eptio
nof
the
rela
tions
hip.
Fur
ther
inve
stig
ates
this
empi
rical
ly,t
hrou
ghin
-dep
thin
terv
iew
s,th
em
enta
lmod
els
oftr
ades
men
,ade
fined
segm
entw
ithin
the
smal
lbus
ines
sse
ctor
,and
iden
tifie
sth
epr
esen
ceof
aun
ique
sub-
cultu
rale
thos
amon
gth
em.T
heet
hos
isba
sed
onun
ique
valu
es,m
oral
s,an
dw
ayof
life,
and
cont
rast
sth
epu
rely
utili
taria
nap
proa
chto
unde
rsta
ndin
gke
ycr
iteria
inem
ergi
ngbu
si-
ness
-to-
busi
ness
rela
tions
hips
.Bas
edon
thes
efin
ding
ssu
gges
tsth
atcu
rren
tbus
ines
s-to
-bus
ines
sre
latio
nshi
pm
odel
sar
ein
adeq
uate
and
need
toin
clud
em
ore
ofa
cons
umer
beha
vior
,val
ue-d
riven
focu
s.S
ugge
sts
that
this
segm
enti
slo
cate
dbe
twee
nan
dbe
twix
tthe
busi
ness
-to-
busi
ness
and
the
cons
umer
mar
kets
asbo
thut
ilita
rian-
driv
en(b
rand
trus
t)an
dsy
m-
bolic
/val
ue-d
riven
(bra
ndaf
fect
)cr
iteria
are
nece
ssar
yfo
res
tabl
ishi
nglo
ng-t
erm
rela
tions
hips
.Sug
gest
sth
atin
vest
igat
ing
the
role
ofbr
and
affe
ctm
aysh
edfu
rthe
rlig
htup
onth
epr
esen
ceor
abse
nce
oflo
yalty
with
inth
ebu
sine
ss-t
o-bu
sine
ssm
arke
ts.
I/D
Wal
ter,
Ach
im;
Ritt
er,T
hom
asT
heJo
urna
lof
Bus
ines
san
dIn
dust
rialM
ar-
ketin
g20
03V
ol.1
8N
o.4
pp.3
53-3
64
The
influ
ence
ofad
apta
-tio
ns,t
rust
,and
com
mitm
ent
onva
lue-
crea
ting
func
tions
ofcu
stom
erre
latio
nshi
ps
Sup
plie
rsdo
noto
nly
mai
ntai
nre
latio
nshi
psw
ithcu
stom
ers
for
the
cust
om-
ers’
bene
fits
buta
lso
for
thei
row
nsa
ke.V
ario
usim
port
antv
alue
-cre
atin
gfu
nctio
nsof
busi
ness
rela
tions
hips
with
cust
omer
sha
vebe
enid
entif
ied
inth
epa
st.H
owev
er,t
hepr
econ
ditio
nsof
this
inte
r-or
gani
zatio
nalv
alue
-cre
-at
ion
have
notb
een
addr
esse
din
dept
h.D
raw
ing
upon
ada
taba
seof
over
200
cust
omer
-sup
plie
rre
latio
nshi
ps,a
dapt
atio
ns,t
rust
and
com
mitm
enta
reid
entif
ied
aske
ydr
iver
sfo
rva
lue
crea
tion.
The
resu
ltsof
this
stud
yha
veco
nsid
erab
leco
nseq
uenc
esfo
rth
em
anag
emen
tofi
nter
-org
aniz
atio
nalr
e-la
tions
hips
and
netw
orks
rega
rdin
gth
epr
oces
sof
how
valu
eco
uld
becr
e-at
edin
busi
ness
mar
kets
.
D/D
Loui
seC
anni
ng;
Stu
art
Han
mer
-Llo
yd
The
Jour
nalo
fB
usin
ess
and
Indu
stria
lMar
-ke
ting,
2002
,V
ol.1
7N
o.7
pp.6
15-6
36
Mod
ellin
gth
ead
apta
tion
proc
ess
inin
tera
ctiv
ebu
si-
ness
rela
tions
hips
Pla
ces
adap
tatio
nw
ithin
the
cont
exto
ffirm
beha
vior
insu
pplie
r-cu
stom
erre
latio
nshi
psbe
fore
goin
gon
tore
view
prev
ious
adap
tatio
nst
udie
s.G
ives
the
ratio
nale
and
outli
neof
the
chos
enca
se-s
tudy
base
dre
sear
chst
rate
gybe
fore
findi
ngs
are
pres
ente
din
whi
chth
ena
ture
ofth
ead
apta
tion
proc
ess
and
prog
ress
ion
ofth
ispr
oces
sar
eco
nsid
ered
.Con
clud
esby
disc
ussi
ngth
esi
gnifi
canc
eof
the
findi
ngs
inte
rms
ofun
ders
tand
ing
ofth
ead
apta
tion
proc
ess
and
futu
rere
sear
chas
wel
las
impl
icat
ions
for
man
agin
gth
ispr
oces
s.
O/O
49
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
TA
BLE
1(c
ontin
ued)
Au
tho
r(s)
Jou
rnal
Tit
leS
um
mar
yL
evel
Gab
rielB
affo
urA
wua
hT
heJo
urna
lof
Bus
ines
san
dIn
dust
rialM
ar-
ketin
g,20
02,
vol1
6no
7pp
.574
-599
Afir
m’s
com
pete
nce
deve
l-op
men
tthr
ough
itsne
twor
kof
exch
ange
rela
tions
hips
Indi
scus
sing
wha
tafir
m’s
com
pete
nce
isal
labo
utan
dho
wth
atis
deve
l-op
edov
ertim
e,th
efo
cus
has
been
onho
wa
firm
deve
lops
its“c
ore”
or“d
istin
ctiv
e”co
mpe
tenc
eal
lby
itsel
f.T
heem
bedd
edne
ssof
afir
min
netw
orks
ofex
chan
gere
latio
nshi
psan
dho
wth
atim
ping
eson
the
deve
lop-
men
tand
nurt
ure
ofa
firm
’sco
mpe
tenc
eha
sat
trac
ted
very
scan
tstu
dy.
The
purp
ose
ofth
isst
udy
isto
deep
enou
run
ders
tand
ing
ofth
eex
tent
tow
hich
afir
m’s
netw
orks
ofex
chan
gere
latio
nshi
psin
fluen
ceits
com
pete
nce
deve
lopm
ent.
Tw
oem
piric
alca
sest
udie
sha
vebe
enco
nduc
ted
inth
atre
gard
.One
impo
rtan
tcon
clus
ion
isth
ata
firm
’sne
twor
k(s)
ofex
chan
gere
latio
nshi
psis
anas
sett
hatc
anbe
expl
oite
dto
deve
lop
itsco
mpe
tenc
e.A
nim
port
anti
mpl
icat
ion
ofth
est
udy
isth
atit
take
sa
long
time
and
man
yre
sour
ces
tobu
ildex
chan
gere
latio
nshi
psth
atla
stin
our
inte
grat
edm
ar-
kets
.Man
yre
sour
ces
and
skill
sw
illbe
need
edto
hand
lere
latio
nshi
ps,o
nce
esta
blis
hed.
D/O
Key
suk,
Kim
Jour
nalo
fthe
Aca
dem
yof
Mar
ketin
gS
cien
ce,
July
2000
,vol
.28,
no.3
,pp
.388
-405
(18)
On
Inte
rfirm
Pow
er,C
hann
elC
limat
e,an
dS
olid
arity
inIn
dust
rialD
istr
ibut
or-S
up-
plie
rD
yads
The
stud
yin
tend
sto
conn
ectt
hatl
ink
byhi
ghlig
htin
g(1
)th
em
oder
atin
gef
fect
sof
chan
nelc
limat
eon
the
inte
rfirm
pow
er-in
fluen
cepr
oces
san
d(2
)th
em
ain
effe
ctof
influ
ence
stra
tegi
eson
are
latio
nale
xcha
nge
elem
ent,
solid
arity
ofa
dyad
.Spe
cific
ally
,the
auth
orpr
opos
esth
atch
anne
lclim
ate,
asm
anife
sted
bydy
adic
trus
tand
dyad
icre
latio
nshi
pco
ntin
uity
,mod
erat
es(1
)th
elin
kbe
twee
nas
ymm
etry
ofin
terf
irmpo
wer
and
the
use
ofin
fluen
cest
rate
gies
and
(2)
the
reci
proc
atio
nof
influ
ence
stra
tegi
es.I
ntu
rn,t
heus
eof
influ
ence
stra
tegi
esis
posi
ted
toaf
fect
solid
arity
ofa
dyad
.The
resu
ltsof
hypo
thes
es’t
ests
,bas
edon
the
anal
ysis
ofin
dust
riald
istr
ibut
or-s
uppl
ier
dyad
s,(1
)pa
rtia
llyco
nfirm
the
mod
erat
ing
effe
cts
ofdy
adic
trus
tand
dyad
icre
latio
nshi
pco
ntin
uity
and
(2)
fully
conf
irmth
em
ain
effe
cts
ofin
fluen
cest
rate
gies
ondy
adic
solid
arity
.
O/D
50
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
are also an expression of the characteristics of an organization’s envi-ronment–which is to say how the organization interprets its environ-mental characteristics.
Although micro and macro levels are normally considered to influ-ence each other reciprocally, no existing theories are able to manageboth causalities at once (DiMaggio 1991). Huber (1991, p. 12) states:
Implicitly, the causal arrows neatly point in one direction, al-though common sense and research make us aware that everythinginteracts with everything else. The problem is how to untangle thesnarl of causal arrows. Under what conditions do individuals af-fect the societies in which they live? Under what conditions dosocieties affect individual destinies? An old joke says that econo-mists explain why people make certain choices; sociologists ex-plain why they don’t have any to make. The comparison is funny.The reality is sobering. Neither discipline has solved the problemof conceptualizing and analyzing the simultaneous interaction be-tween individuconceptualize the problem only along one direction,from micro to macro or from macro to micro. . . .
The problem is referred to as “the action-structure paradox” (Van deVen and Poole 1988) or “the micro-macro link/dilemma” (Huber 1991).If we examine the relationship between the individual and the organiza-tion, between the organization and the dyad or between the dyad and thenetwork, it is obvious that these levels influence each other reciprocally.But introducing the causal arrows in two directions, for example, frommicro to macro and from macro to micro, would result in circular cau-sality, virtually impossible to verify. Models that focus on the reciprocalinteraction between two levels of analysis, for instance, between the or-ganization and the network, therefore can be considered as conceptualmaps of reality rather than precise theories. The different levels of anal-ysis must be treated as quasi-isolated but as complementary connectedin our efforts to understand the overall picture.
RESEARCH TOPICS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS
At the lowest level of analysis within business-to-business market-ing, an individual’s characteristics are analyzed. Hereby variables areconsidered, such as an individual’s personality, age or educational back-ground (Webster and Wind 1972). At the group level issues like group
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 51
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
processes, division of labor, portfolio of qualifications in the group areconsidered (Helfert and Vith 1999). A significant study on this level isWebster and Wind’s (1972) investigation of the buying center. Also, effi-ciency of purchasing and sales departments a unit, organizational buildupare discussed. At the organization level, studies analyze the interplaybetween different department, e.g., sales and marketing, marketing andfinance, marketing and production (e.g., Rueckert and Walter 1987).
At the dyad level, focus is placed on exchange episodes (a delivery, apayment, a meeting) and the coordination of the two firms’ activitiesand the development of the relationship between the two actors. For thislevel of analysis one can refer to, for example, The IMP Group’s “Inter-action Model” (e.g., Håkansson 1982), “The Political Economy Frame-work” (Stern and Reve 1980) which represents statistical conceptual-izations of a dyad, and Dwyer et al.’s (1987) and Ford’s (1980) concep-tualization of the dynamics of organizational dyads. Wilson’s (1978)conceptualization of the pattern of development that characterizes ne-gotiations between individuals from two organizations is also repre-sented here.
On the portfolio level, we have studies on customer and supplierportfolios (e.g., Freytag and Clarke 2001, Turnbull and Zolkiewski1997). Most studies try either to differentiate relationships into differentgroups or to detect interconnections within the set of relationships. Thestudy of triads and nets forms the next level. Examples are a triad analy-sis (Havila 1996), firm’s production net (Johanson and Mattsson 1988)and innovation net (Gemünden et al. 1996).
The network level examines the formal or informal connections be-tween various relationships. A network can be interpreted as all systemsthat meet the necessary criteria in order to characterize them as social sys-tems (Van de Ven et al. 1974). A group of organizations, in other words,must have some form of common explicit or implicit goals and interac-tions between the organizations, in order to be considered as a network.As mentioned above, networks can have various boundaries: e.g., StarAlliance and World One are two networks in the airline industry net-work. The economy of geographically localized areas can be consideredas a network although these companies may operate in different indus-tries. It would be a very decentralized network, however, from the localauthorities’ point of view (which would act as the “network coordina-tor”) having one or several explicit or implicit common goals with re-spect to the local community.
52 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
CHOICES OF LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
Regarding Research Questions
In principle, the researcher’s problem statement determines the levelof analysis–the researcher normally addresses the problem statement ata specific level. Within the research milieu there does not seem to beany particular guidelines, (1) one can support the idea of choosing thehighest level of analysis possible in order to include as much informationas possible in the analysis, (2) alternatively, one can advocate employingthe lowest level of analysis thus reducing complexity, (3) finally, one can,as this article suggests, argue for the necessity of addressing all of thelevels (or at least different ones) as they collectively complement eachother in an attempt to see the entire picture.
Re (1) The mid-1970s critique against organizational buying be-havior theory seemed to inspire several researchers to reconsider thestructural level, initially toward dyads (Bonoma et al. 1978, Håkansson1982). This discussion involved considering higher interorganizationallevels of analysis because organizations are neither passive nor closedinformation processing systems. But if the organization is not viewed asa closed system which adjusts based on external environmental forcesentirely, then neither should the dyad be considered as a closed system.This same line of argumentation has more recently been employedagainst the dyad as the level of analysis insofar as dyads are a part of thenetwork level. Ford (2002) writes, “More recently, our analysis has sug-gested that it is inappropriate to focus solely on single relationships. In-stead, we see the company as embedded in a range of relationships withbuyers, sellers, partners, government, etc. . . . This concept of networkhas the potential to provide greater understanding of individual, firmand industry behavior.” That is to say that fewer demarcations reducethe risk of excluding information which is relevant to the analysis.Braddach and Eccles’s (1989) study provides a good example of howthe study of the organizational set (a firm’s net) can contribute to under-standing an organization’s behavior. They illustrate an organization thatbought out a customer in order to avoid the company’s franchisee ex-hibiting opportunistic behavior based on asymmetrical information.One should be aware, however, that one has to reach the societal levelbefore one can avoid this critique of the chosen level of analysis. AsVan de Ven et al. (1974) expressed, “Only society, which Parsons(1966: 17-18) defines as a ‘total social system,’ includes all the actionsnecessary to its own existence.”
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 53
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
Re (2) One can also be critical of choosing the network level of analy-sis. Critics in the 1970s and 1980s claimed that it was incorrect toaddress the complex network level of analysis before a satisfactorycomprehension of the lower dyadic level of analysis was achieved(Bonoma et al. 1978, Achrol et al. 1983). Achrol et al. (1983) referred tothe few empirical observations and the relatively underdeveloped statethat characterized theory development on the network level, and sur-mised that one should only consider the network theories as descriptivetools (e.g., in connection with flow-charts), which do not allow for ex-tensive tests, theory- and hypothesis formulations. At that point in time,the available empirical and theoretical background material on dyadicrelationships was significantly more developed and comprehensivethan the material which addressed networks. Bonoma et al. (1978) dem-onstrated that researchers were primarily concerned with the dyadiclevel of analysis within psychology and sociology; those disciplineswhich traditionally have influenced marketing. Although the criticsadmitted that a network level “. . . would more completely capture thecomplexity of interorganizational relations . . .” (Achrol et al. 1983),and that it “. . . may in fact present a more accurate view of the marketingworld than a dyadic perspective . . .” (Bonoma et al. 1978), the critics em-phasized that interorganizational research was, at present, best servedby remaining at the dyadic level of analysis. Thus, today’s research atthe network level is still at an early stage. The IMP group has carried outnumerous network studies that seem to be very promising (Ford 2003).“It poses obvious conceptual and methodological problems–but then sodid interfirm relations some years ago” (Ford 2003).
Re (3) There is hardly any doubt that higher levels (e.g., cluster andnetwork) are relevant and fruitful levels of analysis today. It is worthyto note, however, that an orientation towards higher levels of analy-sis should not exclude the lower levels of analysis such as the dyad orthe individual, as long as the analysis potential at these levels is notdepleted. Selecting one level of analysis excludes the others. This is dueto the fact that the other levels of analysis must be considered as given,as long as there is no solution to the micro-macro dilemma. Therefore,understanding higher levels is not only achieved by addressing them di-rectly but can also be accomplished by studying lower levels which in-fluence higher levels of analysis. An important issue with this approachis the combination of different research results. There, meta-analysesand reviews should not be limited to given levels but focus more widelyacross levels.
Some research questions are exemplified in Figure 4.
54 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
Regarding Empirical Data Collection
Given a research question, there should be congruence between thelevel of analysis and the level of observation. Inevitably, a central issueaccompanying the level discussion concerns the issue of how macro-phenomena or micro-phenomena should, or could, be reduced to or ex-plained by theories or empirical observations of lower levels, typicallythe individual level. This is a complex discussion with several view-points and nuances. The most extreme and controversial opinions pres-ently being debated are individualist and collectivist methodologies(Agassi 1973).
Individualist methodology subscribes that supraindividual (such associal) phenomena should be reduced to the individual level when giv-ing scientific explanations. For example, individualist methodologywould hold that the explanation of organizational buying behavior, or amarket, should occur on an individual level, and the organizational ormarket phenomena should be explained as an aggregate sum of the in-volved individuals’ behavior. Individualist methodologists contend thatindividuals, compared to organizations, are easier to observe and there-fore easier to acknowledge.
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 55
How characteristics ofan individual influence a
relationship’s development?(e.g., salesperson’s education)
FIGURE 4. Research Questions Across Different Levels of Analysis
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
On the other hand, the collective methodologist contends that thebehavior of an organization is greater than the sum of the involved indi-viduals’ behavior, or that “social phenomena should be explicable in asocial context” (Durkheim 1972). Some supraindividual phenomena arenot only a result of individuals’ conscience behavior, but they have theirown identity which is independent of other individuals (e.g., corporateculture).
The methodology chosen is of vital importance to relate theory anddata. Neoclassical microeconomics can be considered as individualistmethodology, i.e., not applying the structural dimensions and herebyseeing actors as independent. Within neoclassical microeconomic re-search, markets are considered to be aggregated phenomena. Thereforeit would be appropriate to base one’s studies of supraindividual, or socialphenomena, macro-phenomena, exclusively on observations of individ-uals. But when moving away from pure individualism-based methodol-ogy, there must be an accordance between theory and data. Studies ofsocial phenomena cannot solely be based on observations of specific in-dividuals.
Today’s business-to-business marketing researchers are not pure in-dividualist methodologists. It is not assumed, for example, that organi-zational buyer behavior is merely an aggregated phenomenon whichcan be derived as a sum of the respective individual’s behavior. Busi-ness-to-business marketing researchers would normally research socialphenomena in a social context. This suggests that we must, as a mini-mum, research or observe organizations with all of the characteristicsand dimensions that we acknowledge, characterize or conceptualize. Inaddition to the individuals involved, one would typically describe an or-ganization in terms of processes, configurations, cultures or other fac-tors that are observable. Nevertheless, one often experiences a gapbetween theory and data. Coleman (1990, p. 1) expresses it as follows:
A central problem in social science is that of accounting for thefunctioning of some kind of social system. Yet in most social sci-ence, observations are not made on the system as a whole, but onsome part of it. In fact, a natural unit of observation is the individualperson; and in the development of quantitative methods of re-search, the dependence on individual-level data–most often inter-views, but sometimes administrative records of behavior, directobservation, or other forms of data–has increased greatly. This hasled to a widening gap between theory and research: Social theorycontinues to be about the functioning of social systems of behavior,
56 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
but empirical research is often concerned with explaining individ-ual behavior. (cf. Huber 1991, Alexander et al. 1987, Giddens1990)
One cannot ignore the fact that within business-to-business market-ing research there are a few studies which exhibit an apparent lack ofcongruency between the level of analysis and the level of observation.This could be attributed to the fact that the researchers carrying outthese studies are individualist methodologists. But often, however, thislack of congruency is probably due to the author not describing his cho-sen level of analysis sufficiently. For example, if one were to ask oneor more individuals from one organization about the dyads or inter-organizational relations involving their organization, it would not beunacceptable to assume that the study concerns interorganizational rela-tions, as is the case with Pfeffer and Salancik (1978). One should, how-ever, be aware that the aforementioned study did not analyze a dyad, aninterorganizational relation, because the level of analysis was the orga-nization. The observation can help us to understand how an organiza-tion, or individuals from an organization, interpret and organize theirtasks in order to influence the interorganizational relationships in whichthey are involved. The organization or individuals of an organization,remain the dependent variables. Figure 5 illustrates the link between thelevel of analysis (research question) and the level of observation atwhich data are gathered.
It is quite natural to demand multi-informant data while analyzing acomplex issue like industrial marketing. However, while multi-infor-mant data solves some problems (e.g., common source bias), it createsother challenges. A central issue is how to combine the different answersof individuals about one relationship. There are several possibilities:
• MINIMUM implies that the minimum score from all respondentsis taken as the combined measure. This would imply that the weak-est link determines the outcome.
• MAXIMUM is similar to MIN but here the highest value counts.• AVERAGE takes the mean value of all respondents and thus ac-
counts for a moderate compensation. The problem with this mea-sure is that larger differences are treated equal to small difference.For example, if respondents submit a level 4 answer it makes thecase similar to when one respondent is on level 2 and the other onlevel 6. Such a linear substitution seems therewith questionable(Medlin 2003).
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 57
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
• ROOT corrects for the above-mentioned deficiency as greater dif-ferences between the two respondents are reflected in lower valuesfor the mutual measurement.
All the above possibilities are potentially applicable depending onthe specific question. Thus, we need theoretical arguments and empiri-cal testing in order to develop guidelines on when to use what sort ofcombination method.
POTENTIAL FUTURE RESEARCH TOPICS
The presented framework of levels of analysis does not solve the prob-lems of research in business-to-business marketing. However, it providesa tool for understanding of the different approaches and enables research-ers to position their work more precisely. Such positioning could enablea better comparison of results and could help to consolidate the researchfindings into a comprehensive theory. The use of Figures 3 and 5 to po-sition studies can increase understanding and Table 2 may help organizemeta studies and reviews.
58 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
FIGURE 5. Levels of Observant vs. Level of Observation
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
The developed framework may help to identify neglected areas and,thus, help to provide guidance for further research questions. As ex-pressed above, various studies deal with different levels of actors andtheir influences on structure as well as object. However, there is a ten-dency that higher levels (e.g., cluster, network) are less developed. Inparticular, the interplay of these elements opens rich research questions:
• How can networks be managed by cluster? Which different rolesexist and which competencies are needed in order to fulfill differentnetwork roles? A study at this level is Harland and Knight (1998).
• How can individuals develop their network picture (Ford et al.2004)? Given the importance of networks for a firm’s businesssuccess, an understanding of a firm’s network is essential. How-ever, little is known about network analysis processes, i.e., withwhich tools do firms analyze their networks and to which extentare these tools efficient?
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have provided a detailed framework of different lev-els of analysis. Hereby, we have distinguished between actors and struc-ture. The framework allows for a more detailed discussion of the variouscontributions to business-to-business marketing. We think that it is avaluable contribution in order to specify a studies background.
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 59
TABLE 2. Matrix for Meta Study Analysis
ObservedObserving
Network Net Portfolio Dyad Cluster Organization Group Indi-vidual
Network
Net
Portfolio
Dyad
Cluster
Organization
Group
Individual
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
Furthermore the methodological discussion “level of analysis vs.level of observation” improves by highlighting potential discrepanciesin levels of analysis rather than avoiding such discussions. Gaps be-tween the two levels should be addressed either by analyzing phenom-ena at other levels or by developing methodologies which explicitlydeal with the gap between these two levels.
REFERENCES
Achrol, R. S., T. Reve and L. W. Stern (1983), “The environment of marketing channeldyads: a framework for comparative analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall),55-97.
Agassi, J. (1973), “Methodological individualism,” in Modes of individualsm and col-lectivism, John O’Neill, eds, London: Heinemann.
AMA. Dictionary of marketing terms, American Marketing Association.Anderson, James C., Håkan Håkansson and Jan Johanson (1994), “Dyadic business re-
lationships within a business network context,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 1-15.Anderson, James C. and James A. Narus (2004), Business market management: under-
standing, creating, and delivering value, 2nd edition, Upper Saddle River (NJ):Prentice Hall.
Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. 1992. Industrial networks: a new view on realityBlankenburg Holm, D., K. Eriksson and J. Johanson (1999), “Creating value through
mutual commitment to business network relationships,” Strategic ManagementJournal, 20, 467-486.
Bonoma, Thomas V., Richard P. Bagozzi and Gerald Zaltman (1978), “The dyadic par-adigm with special application towards industrial marketing,” in Organizationalbuying behavior, Thomas V. Bonoma and Gerald Zaltman, eds, Chicago:
Braddach, J. and R. Eccles (1989), “Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plu-ral forms,” Annual Review of Sociology, 15.
Coleman, James S. (1990), Foundations of social theory, Cambridge: Harvard Busi-ness Press.
Coviello, Nicole E., Roderick J. Brodie, Peter J. Danaher and Wesley J. Johnston(2002), “How firms relate to their markets: an empirical examination of contempo-rary marketing practices,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 33-46.
Day, George S. (2000), “Managing market relationships,” Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 28 (1), 24-30.
Dixon, D. F. and Ian F. Wilkinson (1989), “An alternative paradigm for marketing the-ory,” European Journal of Marketing, 23 (8), 59-69.
Durkheim, Émile (1972), Den sociologiske metode, Copenhagen: Fremad.Dwyer, F. R., Paul H. Schurr and Sejo Oh (1987), “Developing buyer-seller relation-
ships,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 11-27.Evans, W. (1966), “The organization set: toward a theory of interorganizational rela-
tions,” in Approaches to organizational design, J. Thompson, eds, Pittsburgh: Uni-versity of Pittsburgh Press, 168-187.
60 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
Ford, David (1980), “The development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial mar-kets,” European Journal of Marketing, 14 (5/6), 339-354.
Ford, D. (2002), Understanding business marketing and purchasingFreytag, Per V. and Ann H. Clarke (2001), “Business to business market segmenta-
tion,” Industrial Marketing Management, 30 (6), 473-486.Gemünden, Hans G., Thomas Ritter and Peter Heydebreck (1996), “Network configu-
ration and innovation success: an empirical analysis in German high-tech indus-tries,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (5), 449-462.
Giddens, Anthony (1990), Consensus and controversy, London: Falmer International.Håkansson, Håkan (1982), “An interaction approach,” in International Marketing and
Purchasing of Industrial Goods, Håkan Håkansson, eds, Chichester et al.: JohnWiley & Sons, 10-27.
Håkansson, Håkan (1987), Industrial technological development: a network approach,London et al.: Croom Helm.
Harland, Christine M. and Louise A. Knight (2001), “Supply network strategy: roleand competence requirement,” International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, 21 (4), 476-489.
Havila, V. (1996). International business relationship triads: a study of the changingrole of the intermediating actor
Huber, Joan (1991), Macro-micro linkages in sociology, Sage: American SociologicalAssociation Presidential Series.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1976), “The nature and scope of marketing,” Journal of Marketing,40 (3), 17-28.
Johanson, Jan and Lars-Gunnar Mattsson (1988), “Internationalisation in industrialsystems: a network approach,” in Strategies in Global Competion, N. Hood and J. -.Vahlne, eds, London: Croom Helm, 287-314.
Kotler, Philip and Kevin L. Keller (2006), Marketing management, 12th edition edi-tion, Upper Saddle River: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Krapfel, R. E. J., D. Salmond and R. E. Speckman (1991), “A strategic approach to man-aging buyer-seller relationship,” European Journal of Marketing, 25 (9), 22-37.
Mattsson, Lars-Gunnar (1997), “Relationship marketing in a network perspective,” inRelationships and networks in international markets, Hans G. Gem nden, ThomasRitter and Achim Walter, eds, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 37-47.
Medlin, Chris J. (2003), “A dyadic research program: the interaction possibility spacemodel,” Journal of Business and Business Marketing, 10 (3), 63-80.
Möller, Kristian K. and Aino Halinen (1999), “Business relationships and networks:managerial challenges of network era,” Industrial Marketing Management, 28 (5),413-427.
Parkinson, S. T. and M. J. Baker (1986), Organizational buying behaviour: purchasingand marketing management implications, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik (1978), The external control of organizations: aresource dependence perspective, New York: Harper & Row.
Ritter, Thomas (2000), “A framework for analyzing interconnectedness of relation-ships,” Industrial Marketing Management, 29 (4), 317-326.
Ritter, Thomas and David Ford (2004), “Interactions between suppliers and customerin business markets,” in Rethinking Marketing: Developing a New Understanding
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 61
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
of Markets, Håkan Håkansson, Debbie Harrisson and Alexandra Waluszewski, eds,Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 99-116.
Ritter, Thomas and Hans G. Gemünden (2003), “Inter-organizational relationships andnetworks,” Journal of Business Research, 56 (9), 691-697.
Robinson, Patrick J., Charles W. Faris and Yoram Wind (1967), Industrial buying andcreative marketing, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Ruekert, Robert W. and Walker, Orville C., Jr. (1987), “Marketing’s interaction withother functional units: a conceptual framework and empirical evidence,” Journal ofMarketing, 51 (1), 1-19.
Shapiro, B. P., V. K. Rangan and R. T. Moriarty (1987), “Manage customers for profits(not just sales),” Harvard Business Review, 65 (5), 101-108.
Stern, Louis W. and Torger Reve (1980), “Distribution channels as political econo-mies: a framework for comparative analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 44 (3), 52-64.
Turnbull, Peter W. and Judith M. Zolkiewski (1997), “Profitability in customer portfo-lio planning,” in Understanding business markets, David Ford, eds, 2nd edition,London: The Dryden Press, 305-325.
Van de Ven, Andrew H., Dennis C. Emmet and Richard Koenig Jr. (1974), “Frame-works for interorganizational analysis,” Organization and Administrative Science,5 (1), 113-129.
Van de Ven, Andrew and Scott M. Poole (1988), “Paradoxical requirements for a the-ory of organizational change,”
Webster, F. E. and Y. Wind (1972), “A general model for understanding organizationalbuying behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 36 (April), 12-19.
Williamson, Oliver E. (1975), Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust impli-cations, New York & London: The Free Press.
Wippler, Reinhard and Siegwart Lindenberg (1987), “Collective phenomena and ratio-nal choice,” in The micro-macro link, Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, Rich-ard Munch and Neil J. Smelser, eds, Berkley: University of California Press.
62 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executives, as well as academics, in business-to-business firms facechallenges in analyzing the position and interactions of their own firmwithin complex business networks in which relationships betweenfirms are normally multiplex, often long-term oriented and intercon-nected. They also face a wealth of theoretical arguments, analyticalmodels, and toolboxes with which they may gain insights about theirbusiness system complexity. However, some of these contributionsseem to contradict each other at first sight but a closer analysis revealsthat they are operating at different levels of analysis. As such it is impor-tant to understand the different levels in business to business.
In order to address this potential confusion, this paper develops aframework for distinguishing different levels of analysis. Hereby, eightlevels of analysis in business-to-business marketing are suggested cov-ering two different dimensions: structure and actors. Starting with thestructural level, we identify dyad, portfolio, net and network as relevantlevels. From a managerial perspective, these different levels deal withdifferent tasks: What does a firm want with a given customer relation-ship (dyad)? What kind of different customers are in their customer base(portfolio)? How are different innovation initiatives with customersconnected to a firm’s innovation strategy (net)? Which position doesa firm have in its value chain (network)? Related to this, differentperformance measures apply at these different levels: e.g., a personresponsible for synergies between relationships (net level) should be re-warded for realizing such synergies. In many firms, such views chal-lenge existing procedures and mind-sets.
At the actor level, individuals, groups, firms and clusters can be dis-tinguished. These different levels may influence, manage, participateand/or interact in business markets. Again, different issues are relatedto these levels: Which personality matches best a given customer (indi-vidual)? What characteristics are important for successful team selling(group)? How does a firm position itself on a market (firm)? How canwe organize efficient responses to customer demand changes along thevalue chain (cluster)? Also with dimension, different approaches to per-formance evaluation need to be employed: if, e.g., a firm wants to in-crease its team sales effectiveness, incentives should be related to teamperformance instead of individual achievements.
Furthermore, the paper discusses the difference between the level ofanalysis (or in managerial terms the focus of decision making) and thelevel of observation (i.e., the source of information). Ever so often, we
Ricky Wilke and Thomas Ritter 63
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010
witness a great discrepancy between the two. A typical example in-cludes one respondent to answer for a whole industry. This is not per sewrong but there are limits to this approach and decision makers needto understand these limits. As such, the framework offers a searchingarena for alternative observation methods or actors.
Applying the framework, executives can organize their managerialtool box in order to match tools with tasks at the appropriate level. It isinefficient, if not dangerous, to apply the wrong tools to a given situa-tion. As such, a clear understanding of the relevant level of analysis is aprecondition for good decision making. Furthermore, the frameworkhelps managers to identify gaps in their knowledge base or organiza-tional set-up, e.g., limited data is available for specific levels, or nofunction is responsible for a given level. If certain aspects of analysisare permanently overseen, the firm is blind to certain areas of their envi-ronment and thus becomes vulnerable to change because such change isperceived as unpredictable and no precautions can be taken. Therefore,an understanding of the levels and an application of the framework areessential for any manager, regardless of hierarchical level, industry orgeographical place.
64 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETING
Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 19:20 2 March 2010