Seller-buyer interactions during the commercialization of technological process innovations

ELSEVIER

0000 Seller-Buyer Interactions During the Commercialization Technological Process Innovations

of

Gerard A. Athaide, Patricia W. Meyers, and David L. Wilemon

For buyers and sellers alike, high-tech process innovations can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, technological process innovations (e.g., computer hardware and software, factory automation equipment) offer buyers the potential for reduced production costs and enhanced product quality. However, early adoption of such innovations is &en a risky proposition. For the seller, successful commercialization requires stimulating not only adoption, but also successful implementation of the innovation. In other words, effective management of seller-buyer relations during the development and commercialization process go a long way toward determining the success of a high-tech process innovation. Gerard A. Athaide, Patricia W. Meyers, and David L. Wilemon examine the relationship marketing activities employed by successful sellers of high-tech process innovations. They identify eight strategic marketing objectives that underlie these relationship marketing activities: product customization, information gathering on product per$ormance, product education and training, ongoing product support, proactive political involvement (to encourage support for the innovation from the various aflected parties in the buyer’s organization), product demonstration and trial, real-time problem-solving assistance, and clarification of the product’s relative advantage. Their findings suggest that successful sellers engage in relationship marketing activities throughout all phases of the commercialization process. Rather than simply trying to close a deal, these firms seek active involvement from potential customers, ranging from codesigning of products to seeking feedback on productrelated problems or desired modifications. This broader scope of customer involvement necessitates cooperation among various groups in the seller’s organization. Product development and engineering work closely with the customer during product customization. Those groups must communicate effectively with the salespeople who demonstrate the product and with the customer support people who obtain feedback and provide real-time problem-solving support. In other words, these relationship marketing activities cut across functional barriers. Consequently, a clear understanding of the buyer’s needs and environment is essential throughout the seller’s organization, not just in the sales and marketing departments.

Address correspondence more, MD 21210.

to Gerard

A. Athaide,

Loyola

J PROD INNOV MANAG 1996;13:406-421 0 1996 Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

College,

Balti-

0737-6782/96/$15.00 PI1 SO737-6782(96)00038-O

SELLERS.

BUYERS.

AND

TECHNOLOGICAL

PROCESS

INNOVATIONS

J PROD

INNOV

hfAh.M:i

407

I’m? Ii 1-06-41 I

Introduction o remain competitive in an emerging global economy, U.S. firms are increasingly adopting technological process innovations [42]. Technological process innovations (also called process innovations) are new, technology-based products that are adopted by firms to lower production costs and enhance product quality [35]. Examples of these innovations include advanced manufacturing technologies such as CAD/CAM, flexible manufacturing systems, as well as office automation systems such as PC networking and desktop publishing software.

T

BIOGRAPHICAL

SKETCHES

Gerard A. Athaide is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Joseph A. Sellinger, S.J., School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Maryland. His research focuses on new product development and innovation management in high-technology industries. He is particularly interested in the use of relationship marketing strategies to seek competitive advantage in technological settings. His research also includes identifying factors that influence a firm’s decision to engage in exporting. He has published in the American Marketing Association’s Summer and Winter Educators’ Proceedings. He is a member of the American Marketing Association and the Academy of Marketing Science. Patricia W. Meyers is Associate Professor of Marketing and Innovation Management at the School of Management, Syracuse, New York, where she is also Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and a research associate of the Earl V. Snyder Innovation Management Research Center. She holds degrees from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Syracuse University. Her research focuses on the development and commercialization of technological innovations. Dr. Meyers’s articles have appeared in several books and journals. including Research Policy, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Journal of Macromarketing, Logistics Information Management, and Journal of High Technology Management Research. This is the third article for the Journal of Product innovation Management. She is a member of the American Marketing Association and the Product Development and Management Association. David Wilemon is a Professor of Marketing and Innovation Management and Director of Syracuse University’s Innovation Management Program. He is a member of the American Marketing Association, Engineering Management Society, and INFORMS. He received his doctorate from Michigan State University. His professional and research interests focus on new corporate ventures, high-performing technical teamwork, R&D management, and innovation management. His research appears in such journals as Academy of Management Journal, Columbia Journal of World Business, Organizational Dynamics, Journal of Marketing, Journal af Product Innovation Management, Califarnia Management Review, Sloan Management Review, Research-Technology Management, R&D Management, Industrial Marketing Management, and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. He has been an advisor to several technology-based organizations. -

Because technological process innovations are complex and may alter existing production processes [ 1,191, buyers are often unable to use them to their full potential. Failure to derive benefits by buyers has negative consequences for sellers because the associated negative word of mouth tends to slow down acceptance of the innovation [25]. Consequently, sellers need both to stimulate adoption and to facilitate successful implementation. Research suggests that an effective strategy to accomplish these objectives is to engage in relationships with buyers [3&j. In particular, it appears that sellers can benefit by engaging in relationships with buyers throughout the commercialization process.’ For example, More [29] and Parkinson [32] noted in independent studies that engaging in relationships upfront during new product development ensures the development of products that meet market needs, whereas Ettlie [lo] and Leonard-Barton [ 191 observed that relationships are appropriate during product installation in order to assure that the innovation runs successfully. In addition, Bentley [2], Meyers and Athaide [26], and Rice and Rogers 1341suggest that sellers who stay in touch with buyers after installation are better able to detect reinvention opportunities such as possible new applications for the technology and desired product modifications. Whereas the literature acknowledges the relevance of relationships in technological new product settings, how sellers manage these relationships is not clear. In particular, two research questions are important to scholars and practitioners: l

l

What activities are undertaken by sellers of technological process innovations over the course of their relationships with buyers? What are the underlying dimensions indicating the basic constructs or rationales that drive these activities?

Answers to these two questions are useful, first, to help catalogue and identify a full set of marketing relationship activities undertaken by sellers during the commercialization of new process technologies (the goal here being to understand more fully what is), and,

’ For purposes of this article, commercialization refers to sellers’ efforts to help buyers realize full benefits from the innovation. Thus it includes sellers’ interactions with potential buyers during product development, product installation, as well as after the innovation is up and running in the buyer’s environment.

408

J PROD INNOV 1996;13:4Oti21

MANAG

second, having identified a full range of relationship activities, to explore the underlying dimensions or strategic marketing objectives that these activities address (the ultimate goal here is to enhance the timing and allocation of sellers’ marketing resources toward appropriate bundles of relationship activities to improve the commercialization of process innovations). To gain insight into these questions, we conducted an extensive study that focused on relationship marketing activities undertaken by successful* sellers of process innovations in high-technology settings. This article reports the early stages of our results in three main sections. First, we argue the importance of research in the area. Second, we describe our method. We conclude by presenting our findings, discussing their managerial implications, and proposing directions for future research. Research Importance The marketing of products based upon new technologies is different from traditional marketing [17,39]. These technologically intensive environments tend to be information intensive, and the rapid pace of technological change causes potential buyers to have frequent turnovers in their general stock of knowledge [ 111. Although marketers of technological process innovations in industrial settings experience high failure rates [24], research on the marketing of new products to industrial firms has been limited when compared with research on the marketing of innovations to individual consumers. This led Anderson, Chu, and Weitz [l] to conclude that the conceptualization of organizational buying-and of innovations in particular-needs more rigorous research. Existing research on organizational buying behavior has been concerned most often with the adoption decision, i.e., how sellers can affect buyers’ decisions to purchase innovations. Where technological innovations are involved, sellers are better advised to focus on the commercialization process, i.e., how they can help buyers rationalize their purchase decisions and then achieve full benefits from the innovation [41,42,45]. Realization of desired benefits by buyers makes future marketing efforts easier, assists with * Data analysis was restricted to the subset of respondents who had successfully marketed the innovation. Success was measured by a 6-point scale asking respondents to indicate the extent to which the innovation was successful from a profitability standpoint. Observations with scores less than 4.0 were deleted from subsequent analysis.

G. A. ATHAIDE

ET AL.

product improvements, and leads to positive word of mouth, all of which increase the likelihood that an innovation will succeed [25,27]. Whereas available evidence indicates that sellers can successfully commercialize their innovations by maintaining appropriate relationships with buyers, ineffective management of these relationships has often contributed to the failure of technological innovations in industrial markets [29]. An important reason for this poor management is the absenceof a normative framework that suggests how relationships should be managed. As yet there is no theoretical framework which explicates the content (i.e., the specific activities) of these relationships [ 141. Although anecdotal evidence and case studies indicate the desirability of these relationships, there are few empirical studies that seek to understand the overall extent and underlying dynamics of these relationships [31]. In particular, the activities that should be undertaken by sellers who wish to build and maintain relationships are not well documented. The need for research in the area is well summarized by Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20, p. 2141 who state: Just as the concept of selling was expanded into the broader area of marketing, so now marketing is being stretched at its conceptual boundaries to include the interface with product development upstream and with customer implementation of new processes downstream. The management of neither interface is well understood.

Against this background, the dual purposes of this study are to develop a comprehensive inventory of relationship activities undertaken by successful sellers of technological process innovations over the course of their relationships

with buyers and to identify

the

basic dimensions that underlie these activities. Research Method Determination

of Relationship

Marketing

Activities

The identification of a complete set of relationship marketing activities in the specific context of industrial technological process innovations is an important element of this study. To compile a detailed yet parsimonious set of activities, we restrict our focus to include only the relationship activities undertaken by sellers during the development and early commercialization process, because these are most crucial in shaping the life cycle and profitability of technological innovations. Also, our concern is limited to those situations where the seller interacts directly with the buyer instead of via marketing intermediaries or OEMs.

SELLERS,

BUYERS.

AND

TECHNOLOGICAL

PROCESS

Table 1. Summary Firm A

Firm B

Firm C

Firm D

Firm E

INNOVATIONS

Information

on Pilot Study Sites

Is a systems vendor for hospital-based physicians where the physicians conduct their private practices and do their own patient/insurance carrier billing. The company develops software for insurance claims submission, i.e., it will generate an electronic file that can be sent directly to the insurance carrier’s mainframe and thus speeds up turnaround time. Buyers generally lack detailed product knowledge. R&tionship Activities: Puts in the hardware, software. Demonstrates product. Provides intensive implementation support including training and installation. Maintains open communications via telephone, electronic mail, and terminal emulation. Responds immediately to customer problems. Designs and maintains NMR spectroscopic data processing and analysis software. Buyers include scientific laboratories and universities who are knowledgeable about product use and benefits. Customers are mostly Fortune X-type companies. Relationship Activities: Codevelops products with industry leaders. Provides minimal installation support. Offers training as an option. Communicates with buyers via fax. toll-free numbers, and electronic mail. Provides newsletters and continuing product enhancements. Markets insurance billing software to physicians who lack product knowledge. Relationship Activities: Conducts need analysis for buyers. Product demonstrations and intensive installation support provided to buyers. Publishes newsletters and organizes user group meetings. Manufactures and sells instruments used to detect defects in engines. Small number of buyers in the aviation and power industries. Buyers are conservative and neetf 10 be assured of the product’s benefits. Relationship Activities: Codesigns custom products with knowledgeable buyers and actively seeks new applications for the technology from them. Educates unknowledgeable buyers on product benefits. Presents technical papers at user industry conferences. Provides comprehensive instruction manuals. Markets instruments used to detect the presence of hydrofluorocarbons. Buyers include manufacturers of semiconductor chips, refrigerators, and air conditioners and are knowledgeable about the product. Relationship Activities: Codevelops product with industry leaders. Provides product demonstrations and training manuals. Modifies products for large buyers. Maintains communications via toll-free numbers.

Thus the unit of analysis is the seller-buyer dyad. To operationalize the focus on initial commercialization of an innovation we consider seller-buyer interactions during the first time sale of a technological process innovation to a particular buyer (although the seller may have interacted previously with a buyer while marketing other products). Finally, our research only incorporates sellers’ perceptions of the relationship marketing activities undertaken during the commercialization process. Our research began with an exploratory study. An extensive candidate list of activities was derived from a comprehensive review of relevant literature [e.g., 10,19,26,29,32,44] and from personal interviews with industry executives representing five firms from the computer software and scientific instruments industries (see Table 1 for firm profiles). Ten personal in-

terviews were conducted, each of which lasted about an hour. Interviewees were asked to describe how they managed their relationships with buyers, and to identify specific relationship activities involving their buyers. In addition, interviewees were also asked if they performed each of the activities identified from the literature and given the opportunity to adjust the list as they thought fit. In all, 34 activities were identified. which are listed in Table 2.3 ’ At the conceptual level, it is possible to argue that relationship marketing is different from similar constructs like “market orientation” and “customer focus.” Relationship marketing, particularly in industrial settings emphasizes customer satisfaction at the individual customer level. whereas “market orientation”/“customer focus” emphasize customer satisfaction at the market segment level. For this tiicle, however, we relied on practicing marketing managers to articulate the activities that they considered to be a part of relationship marketing (as opposed to “market orientation” or “customer focus”) and thus provide support for construct validity.

410

.I PROD INNOV 1996;13:406-421

Table 2. Relationship Process Innovations

MANAG

Marketing

G. A. ATHAIDE

Activities during Development

Relationship Activities During Commercialization 1. Co-design product with buyer 2. Co-develop product with buyer 3. Jointly solve problems during product development 4. Demonstrate product 5. Offer phased-in installation

6. Avoid technical jargon while communicating with potential buyers 7. Offer product trials 8. Provide product test results 9. Demonstrate product applications 10. Spend time explaining the product’s capabilities to potential buyers 11. Clarify how product will impact daily operations 12. Indicate implications of adoption on buyer’s performance 13. Analyze buyer’s needs 14. Seek feedback on desired product adaptations (prior to installation) 15. Obtain buyer input on product design 16. Get reactions to prototype 17. Customize product for the buyer 18. Adapt product to fit buyer’s environment 19. Actively involved in politics of the buying organization 20. Negotiate between different factions in buyer’s organization 21. Help buyer assimilate product 22. Install the product 23. Provide hands-on training 24. Provide instruction manuals 25. Maintain open communications 26. Provide on-site service support 27. Maintain annual service contracts

and Commercialization

ET AL.

of Technological Identified in Pilot Study Interview with Firms:

Obtained from the Literature

A

B

C

Leonard-Barton and Kraus [21], More [29] von Hippel [44] More [29], von Hippel [44] Tyre [42]

D

E

r/

v

J 1/

r/ v

Rothwell [37], Bentley [2], Leonard-Barton and Kraus [21], Meyers and Athaide [26] Bentley [2], DeBruicker and Summe [4], Ettlie [lo], Kosnik [17], Leonard-Barton and Gogan [201 Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20] Meyers and Athaide [26] Tyre [42], Meyers and Athaide [26] Meldrum and Millman [25], Webster [46] Bentley [2], Moriarty and Kosnik [30] DeBruicker and Summe [4], Rothwell [37] Moriarty and Kosnik 1301

w

Bentley [2], Etthe [lo], Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20] More [29], Moriarty and Kosnik [30], Rothwell [37] Parkinson [32]

J

w

v

Leonard-Barton and Kraus [21], Parkinson [32] Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20], Leonard-Barton and Kraus [21], Parkinson 1321,Rothwell 1371 Bentley [2], von Hippel [44], Kosnik [17] Bentley [2], Kosnik [17], Leonard-Barton 1191,Tyre WI Bentley [2], Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20], Meyers and Athaide [26] Bentley [2], Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20], Meyers and Athaide [26] Leonard-Barton and Kraus [21], voss [45] DeBruicker and Summe [4], Kosnik [17], Meyers and Athaide [26] Ettlie [lo], Kosnik [17], Leonard-Barton and Kraus [21], Tyre [42] Bentley [2] Bentley [2], Moriarty and Kosnik [303 DeBruicker and Summe [4], Moriarty and Kosnik [30] ____-_

r/

w

v

SELLERS,

BUYERS.

AND

TECHNOLOGICAL

PROCESS

INNOVATIONS

Table 2. Continued Identified in Pilot Study Interview with Firms:

Relationship Activities During Commercialization

Obtained from the Literature

28. Solve problems as soon as possible 29. Seek input on product modifications (after installation) 30. Seek feedback on product problems 31. Ask buyer for desired additional features 32. Sponsor user groups 33. Publish newsletters 34. Provide product upgrades

Bentley [2], Kosnik [17], Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20] Ettlie [lo], Rice and Rogers [34] Kosnik [17], Meyers and Athaide 1261 Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20] Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20], von Hippel [44] Leonard-Barton and Gogan [20], Rothwell [37]. Meyers and Athaide [26] DeBruicker and Summe [4], Moriarty and Kosnik 1301

These 34 activities were then included as part of a larger questionnaire that measured sellers’ perceptions regarding their relationship management practices in high-technology settings. Responses to each activity were elicited on a 7-point scale anchored by 1 = “not at all” and 7 = “to a great extent.” Participating marketing managers were asked to indicate the extent to which their firms undertook each of the 34 activities during the commercialization process. All responses were framed in the context of a specific seller-buyer relationship, i.e., one that sellers engaged in during the first time sale of a high-technology process innovation introduced to the market within the past 2 years and judged commercially successful. Respondents to the survey were middle-level marketing managers because the exploratory interviews had revealed that in most cases these managers were most knowledgeable about and directly responsible for implementing their firms’ relationships with buyers.

Questionnaire

Refinement

and Sample Identification

The first step in the survey data collection process was a pretest. The questionnaire containing the 34 activities was mailed to 150 marketers of high-technology process innovations in one Mid-Atlantic state. The list of firms was obtained from the 1993 Technology Resource Guide for that state. The pretest was used to refine item reliability and to estimate the response rate. (The final instrument is available but omitted here because of space limitations.) Based on the response rate to this pretest (13.33%), we estimated the appropriate sample size for the final mailing to be 1275 firms. (The questionnaire contained 34 relationship activities, which necessitated a minimum of 170 com-

A

B

C

D

E

I/

d

v

I/

r/

r/

vc

Lcr

d

v

I/ J d I/

UC v’

v J v L/

r/ r/

I/ v

L/

r/

v’

Yc

r/

I/

pleted questionnaires, i.e., five per activity, for stable results from the planned factor analysis [40].) For the final study, only firms which had been in existence for at least 5 years, had between 25 and 500 employees and annual sales between $5 million and $500 million were targeted. This assured a base level of expertise and “staying power.” The sample size consisted of 1500 firms from the total sampling frame (2124 firms) obtained from the 1994 Corporate Technology Directory. All of these firms were hightechnology firms in industries that concentrate on process innovation systems or components, i.e., computer hardware and software, factory automation, environmental equipment, test and measurement instruments, and technologically based manufacturing equipment. Following Dillman [6] as well as suggested procedures by Miller [28], key features of the mailing included preparing the questionnaire as a booklet and a dated, personalized cover letter highlighting the relevance of the study and the importance of the respondent to the study’s success. In addition. each respondent was promised an Executive Summary as a reward for participating in the study and complete confidentiality regarding responses. To stimulate responses. a follow-up postcard was mailed I week after the initial mailing. A final letter and replacement questionnaire were mailed to nonrespondents at the end of the third week. As a result of these efforts 334 completed responses were obtained (15 questionnaires were returned because of incorrect mailing addresses) for an effective response rate of 2249%. Thirty-one responses were discarded because of incomplete data. Of the remaining 303 firms, 242 were successful in marketing the innovation and their responses were used for subsequent data analysis.

412

J PROD INNOV 1996;13:406-421

MANAG

G. A. ATHAIDE

Table 3. Univariate

Statistics-Relationship

Relationship Activities

Mean (SD)

1. We codesigned the product with the customeP 2. We codeveloped the product with the customer 3. We worked consistently with the customer to solve specific problems related to the product 4. We demonstrated the product to the customer 5. We offered the customer the option to buy the product in stages 6. We consciously tried to communicate in simple language as opposed to technical jargon 7. We offered free or low-cost product trials 8. We presented results of product tests to the customer 9. We demonstrated various applications of the product 10. We spent time making sure that the customer knew what the product could do 11. We indicated which tasks would change after buying the product 12. We alerted the buying firm on how this product would impact their performance 13. We customized the product to meet the customer’s requirements 14. We modified the product prior to installation 15. We tried to understand the politics of the customer’s organization 16. We negotiated with different factions and/or interest groups in the buying organization 17. We helped the buying firm integrate the product into their operations 18. We conducted on-site customer needs analysis 19. We sought feedback on product modifications (prior to installation) 20. We sought feedback on product design and features 21. We sought feedback on the product prototype 22. We installed the product 23. We provided hands-on training 24. We provided instruction manuals 25. We maintained open communications with the customer (using fax, 800 numbers, electronic mail, etc.) n All items had a 7-point

response

scale where

Activities Percentage of Responses with Scores >4.0

3.63 (2.17) 2.99 (2.04) 5.15 (1.77)

48.7

5.79 (1.71) 3.37 (2.35) 5.17 (1.62) 4.10 (2.52) 5.04 (2.14) 5.16 (1.85) 6.11 (1.03) 4.94 (1.76) 5.36 (1.46) 4.43 (2.30) 3.67 (2.19) 5.21 (1.77) 4.59 (2.06) 5.33 (1.62) 4.68 (2.06) 4.89 (1.86) 5.36 (1.67) 4.72 (2.25) 4.51 (2.61) 5.40 (2.19) 5.95 (1.86) 6.43 (0.95)

87.6

1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent.

34.6 81.7

45.7 79.5 58.1 76.2 81.5 89 78 89.4 64.6 49.5 84.8 68.1 87.4 68.4 75.3 85.4 69.3 61.1 78.6 86.6 94.4

ET Al

SELLERS.

BIJYERS.

AND

TECHNOLOGICAL

PROCESS

INNOVATIONS

Table 3. Continued Relationship

Activities

26. We provided on-site service support We sold the customer annual service contracts 28. We responded immediately to customer problems 29. We sponsored user group meetings 27.

30.

We published newsletters

3 I. We provided the buyer with product upgrades (either free or for an annual fee) 32. We sought input on product modifications (after installation) 33. We sought feedback on problems with the product 34. We sought feedback on additional product features desired by the customer

Results Data Analysis

Table 3 presents three important univariate statistics for each relationship activity, i.e., its mean, standard deviation, and the percentage of respondents with scores greater than or equal to 4.0 (on a ‘I-point scale) for each activity. The results indicate that 27 of the 34 activities (79%) have means above 4.0, the theoretical midpoint of the scale. In fact, with the exception of two activities (product codevelopment and user group sponsorship), all of the activities have means above 3.0 on the 7-point scale. Also, for 20 of the 34 activities, at least 75% of the respondents had scores greater than or equal to 4.0. Collectively, these univariate statistics provide strong evidence that the majority of the 34 relationship activities are both relevant as well as undertaken to a great extent by successful sellers of technological process innovations in a variety of high-technology settings. The underlying dimensions of the various relationship activities were then examined using exploratory factor analysis (principal components analysis with a varimax rotation). The procedure was conducted following the guidelines of Dillion and Goldstein [5] and Kim and Mueller [ 161. The conventional wisdom of including factors with eigenvalues of one or greater led to the identification of eight factors with a cumulative explained variance of 64%. A scree test also

Mean (SD) 5.39 (1.99)

3.10 (2.53) 6.19 (0.99) 2.90 (2.20)

3.15 (2.38) 3.29 (2.35) 5.29 (1.77) 6.06

Percentage of Responses with Scores >4.0 .---x0.x

38 90.7 35.8 37.1

60.3 83.3 9.5

(1.20) 5.83 ( 1.40)

92.4

indicated that an eight-factor solution was appropriate. Activities were assigned to factors only if they had factor loadings of 0.5 or higher and did not have cross loadings greater than 0.4 on more than one factor. The results of the factor analysis are also shown in Table 4. Description

and Interpretation

qf Factors

The eight factors emerging from the factor analysis are described below. Because the interpretation of the underlying dimensions is still at an early stage, we included examination of the relevant literature and text from our initial exploratory interviews in our considerations. Some of them are included below to enrich interpretation and understanding. Factor 1. Product customization involves sellerbuyer interactions that occur *‘upfront” during the development of customized product offerings. The activities that comprise this dimension include customizing the product to meet the buyer’s needs, codesigning the product with the customer, modifying the product prior to installation, product codevelopment, and joint product-related problem solving. The intensity of product codevelopment, however, had a mean of only 2.99, which indicates that although sellers actively involve potential buyers in the development of custom products, they still undertake this activity unilaterally. A potential explanation for this could be that the buyer may not be able to devote personnel to the codevelopment effort.

414

J PROD INNOV 1996;13:406-421

G. A. ATHAIDE

MANAG

ET AL.

Table 4. Results of Factor Analysis Relationship Activities” Factor 1: Product customization We customized the product to meet the customer’s requirements We codesigned the product with the customer We modified the product prior to installation We codeveloped the product with the customer We worked consistently with the customer to solve problems related to the product Factor 2: Information generation on product performance We sought input on product modifications (after installation) We sought feedback on additional product features desired by the customer We sought feedback on problems with the product We sought feedback on product design and features We sought feedback on the product prototype Factor 3: Product education/training We indicated which tasks would change after buying the product We provided hands-on training We alerted the buying firm on how this product would impact their performance We spent time making sure that the customer knew what the product could do We demonstrated various applications of the product We provided instruction manual$’ Factor 4: Ongoing product support We sold the customer annual service contracts We provided the buyer with product upgrades (either free or for an annual fee) Factor 5: Proactive political involvement We negotiated with different factions or interest groups in the buying organization We tried to understand the politics of the customer’s organization Factor 6: Product demonstration/trial We demonstrated the product to the customer We offered free or low-cost product trials We offered the customer the option to buy the product in stages Factor 7: Real-time problem solving assistance We maintained open communications with the customer (using fax, 800 numbers, e-mail etc.) We responded immediately to customer problems Factor 8: Clarification of the product’s relative advantage We presented results of product tests to the customer We provided on-site service support Percent Variation Explained by Each Factor a Activities interpretation

Fl

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

0.76 0.62 5.33

5.07

0.83 0.75 0.73 0.67 0.57

0.77 0.77 0.72 0.68 0.58

0.74 0.69 0.67 0.63 0.57 0.47 0.81 0.77

0.83 0.83 0.71 0.65 0.61

0.71 0.71

12.15

11.67

9.11

7.89

6.63

6.26

with loadings less than 0.5 and those with significant cross-loadings, i.e., greater than 0.4 on more than one factor were not considered and hence are not shown in this table. 27 of the 34 activities were retained. . . Consequently, . . .. -r .I.^ c--t,,-

for

SELLERS.BWERS.ANDTECHNOLOGICALPROCESS

INNOVATIONS

Several scholars have argued that the present marketing concept is limited because it regards customers as playing a passive role in product development [ 12,13,44]. Such developer-driven models assume that customers influence product development primarily during concept tests and test marketing. In contrast, More [29] and Urban and von Hippel [43] observed that in industrial high-technology settings, buyers often play an important role in product development by proactively providing input on desired customized products. This was the case for Firm D (which marketed a computer-assisted instrument used to detect cracks in aircraft and boiler engines). The sales manager noted: We have a large businesswith [firm) X and we work with their engineers closely during product development, we also work with [firm] Y and pretty much every utility company. . And so mostof our products . . when they go into development,tend to be specifically related to a customer’sapplication. The vice president of marketing at Firm E (which marketed halogen leak detectors to manufacturers of semiconductors) agreed: We sell very complex products, [but] some of our customershave got a lot of experiencewith the product [and so] we work with them to solve a specific problem. Such buyer involvement during product customization can provide sellers with several competitive advantages. For example, product codevelopment efforts may suggest potential technology applications that the seller was unaware of. It also reduces the risk of marketplace failure by ensuring the development of products that meet buyers’ needs as they are emerging. Likewise, product adaptation activities like product modification benefit both buyers as well as sellers. Buyers derive competitive benefits by obtaining a customized product that is not available to competitors. Sellers stand to gain because adaptation builds buyer trust by indicating the sellers’ willingness to accommodate the buyer’s unique needs and makes future resells a lot easier. Also, joint problem solving with buyers is particularly appropriate for newer technologies whose performance outside the laboratory is not well known. In such situations, sellers benefit by working closely with buyers to detect and correct “bugs” that could not be eliminated in the laboratory and to assessthe performance limits of the technology. Finally, continuous involvement by buyers working with sellers during

J PROD INNO\' MANA(I 19%- I .~3w6-.4.: '

i1.F

product customization can accelerate the development process and reduce costs by reducing the risk of timeconsuming product post launch redesigns. Factor 2. Information gathering on product peflormance captures sellers’ attempts to seek productperformance-related input throughout the launch and early commercialization process. This information helps sellers adapt the innovation to fit local conditions while also identifying the more stable aspectsof design that may become standard. For newer technologies some “bugs” can be detected only when the product is being used in the buyer environment. In addition, once users acquire some familiarity with the product they often desire added capabilities in future versions of the product [4], Sellers who actively seek feedback are therefore in a better position to correct problems with existing products as well as offer new, improved versions of the product in future. Perhaps more importantly frequent attentive interaction with the buyer during early commercialization exposes the seller to the buyer’s “mind set” and learning patterns. A project manager responsible for product development at Firm C (which marketed applications software to the health care industry) observed: I really encourageeverybody who works with me to meet with customers.You learn their perspective [because] what’s important to a programmer might not necessarilybe important to a user. [Meeting with customers] always gives you their perspective. This interplay between sellers and buyers of technological process innovations appears to be aimed at discovering both the emerging applications and functionalities of the technology as sell as the buyers’ process of discovering needs as they develop. This may well be an example of “convergence in understanding” that often occurs during the launch of successful process innovations [22]. In a way, sellers learn how buyers develop their thinking about the new technology and then use this knowledge to reshape the product and their approach to other buyers. Factor 3. Product educationkzining includes a broad set of activities that the seller performs to help the buyer get the innovation up and running. As Voss [45] points out, many of these activities need to be undertaken prior to product installation. For example, because technological process innovations are complex, buyers need to be educated about potential applications of the new technology before they can evaluate its appropriateness. Often this education processrevolves around managing customer expectations

416

.I PROD INNOV 1996;13:406421

G. A. ATHAIDE

MANAG

as is evident from the following comments technical support manager at Firm C:

by the

The customer’s expectation level determines his level of satisfaction. If he expects “x” and he gets “x plus something,” he’s very happy. If he expects “x” and he gets “x minus something,” he’s very unhappy. . . . the main thing involved in this is to set the expectations up in the beginning. Thus an important aspect of education in this context is the mutual exploration and setting of expectations and standards. Besides education, sellers must devote resources to providing buyers with installation support such as skills training. As Leonard-Barton and Kraus [21] noted, implementation of new technologies often gets off track because the developer did not see the provision of skills training as part of their responsibility and no one in the user organization prepared to receive and apply the technology. The appropriate level of skills training varies with the technical sophistication of the customer. Firms A and C (which marketed software to healthcare providers) provided extensive training since their customers lacked familiarity with the product. As the president at Firm A said: We train them over a period of a month. We don’t train them all at once. And it’s interactive. Part of it’s here [at the seller’s facility], part of it’s there [at the customer’s office]. We do a great deal of handholding in this business. The customer support manager at Firm C agreed: We do everything for [our customers]. We drive out there, we plug in their terminal, and we unplug it. We do everything. We do all kinds of things for people, we always have. On the other hand, Firm D’s product (a computerassisted instrument used to detect cracks in aircraft engines) was menu driven and simple to use. Therefore, installation support was limited to providing users with instruction manuals. Firm E marketed software to knowledgeable buyers like research laboratories. In this case, also, the extent of training provided was minimal and limited to the provision of training manuals. Thus, whereas the type and intensity of skills training may well vary among a seller’s products and buyers, the overall dimension of training from the seller’s point of view is contingency based and must be actively assessed and acted upon for each buyer as part of a comprehensive relationship strategy.

ET AL.

Factor 4. Ongoing product support consists of two activities, i.e., maintaining annual service contracts and providing buyers with product upgrades. These activities ensure that buyers have continuing access to the latest version of the product. Dunn, Friar, and Thomas [9] note that starting off with a base product and continuing to provide access to product upgrades is effective in building relationships. All firms in the pilot study made some continuing efforts to provide buyers with product enhancements. The following remarks by the founder of Firm B (which markets nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data analysis software to scientific laboratories) are representative: [Our customers] don’t get a [computer] tape once and that’s it. [They] get a new tape every six months, two releases a year . . . the new tape is enhanced with bug fixes and new capabihties. Continuously providing buyers with the latest technology helps overcome buyers’ fears of being stuck with obsolete products in the face of rapid technological changes. This dimension of activities therefore provides buyers with a strong incentive to stay in the relationship. Factor 5. Proactive political involvement indicates that buyers considering the adoption of technological process innovations go through an internal political process in which successful sellers can play an important role by proactively managing activities that obtain the cooperation of affected stakeholders within the buyers’ organizations. Sellers’ involvement in the politics of the buyer’s organization revolves around obtaining the support of opinion leaders [36], negotiating between antagonistic factions who place different priorities on desirable product features [2], and making sure that the actual end users are involved in the decision making process [20]. As the vice president of marketing at Firm C reflected: If the administrator [of a buyer’s division or unit] makes a decision to go with the system the staff is sometimes not receptive to that decision or doesn’t feel like they had a part . . . but it’s our job to win them over and we try real hard to do that. This dimension seems to go beyond the usual good marketing practice of identifying and influencing the decision-making unit to include as well the active involvement of end users and the reconciliation of divergent viewpoints and perceptions of actual functionality . Factor 6. Product demonstrationhrial includes

SELLERS,

BUYERS.

AND

TECHNOLOGICAL

PROCESS

INNOVATIONS

J PKOD

lwi

marketing relationship activities that reduce the buyers’ perceived risk of adoption, specifically performance risk. Managing risk is often the most important issue confronting technology-based companies [25]. In industrial marketing, for example, this risk frequently revolves around product performance, i.e., ascertaining if the product will deliver the promised benefits [33). As the sales manager at Firm D observed: I don’t believe that anybody would buy a $50,000 piece of equipment if it didn’t have it conclusively proven that it would obtain them what they wanted. . . . We would have to prove to the customer that the equipment is capable of what we would say it’s capable of doing and we do that through a private on-the-site demonstration.

Offering product trials and the option to buy the product in stages are also effective activities to manage performance risk. Although there are, of course, several types of risk involved in the purchase of process innovations, performance risk appears to offer the strongest challenge in the management of marketing

relationship activities during early commercialization. Factor 7. Real-Time problem solving assistance indicates sellers’ strong commitment to solving customers’ problems as quickly as possible. This commitment is well captured by the following remarks made by the founder of Firm B: Most [product implementation] problems are responded to immediately . . other problems are corrected perhaps as a “work around” thar is already known by the customer support person.

An important aspect here is the felt immediacy of sellers’ responses to buyers’ problems.

The emphasis

is on detecting problems and solving them quickly. Many technology companies like Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer, and Microsoft use electronic mail to help resolve customer

problems

[17]. The following

comments made by the president of Firm A demonstrate that such electronic

communications

INNO\

h~lAUA(;

.L!7

I ~~Jllh--l~

Firm C also relies extensively on electronic communications to help it proactively address buyer problems. As the technical support manager reflected: We have set up electronic communications with every one of our customers to our entire customer support staff. We include some marketing people and myself so they can never say we weren’t there to complain to. If they want to fire off an e-mail [message] to me that tells me they think we have the worst customer support staff in the world they can do that. I think it shows that we are really committed. Thus it appears that successful sellers of process in-

novations go to great lengths to set up and maintain two-way communication networks that facilitate efficient detection and resolution of customer problems. The seller’s attitude is to help buyers in any way pos-

sible so that downtime is minimized. Problems are regarded as opportunities to improve current versions of the product as well as to build buyer trust that the seller will take care of them in times of trouble. Factor 8. Clarifying the product’s relative advantage indicates that sellers have to convince buyers that the innovation is superior to the product currently being used. The decision to adopt an innovation is motivated by a search for relative advantage, i.e., the degree to which the innovation provides better benefits than current practices or reasonable alternatives [2 I ,36.46]. This requires that sellers present the results

of product trials to potential buyers and provide them with the support necessary to take advantage of the product’s potential. A complicating aspect of this fac-

tor is the changing and often uncertain nature of buyers’ perceptions of relative advantage for the process innovation as illustrated dent of Firm A:

by this quote from the presi-

After they [customers] have looked at two or three systems, it all looks alike. They don’t know what they’re looking for anymore and they’re really looking for someone that they can trust.

are an in-

tegral part of speedy and responsive problem solving: All our customers are on modems. We’re live on their system, they can see keystroke for keystroke everything that we’re doing . . [In addition] we are now on a beeper system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so that particularly new end users, if they go in at night or on the weekends and they’re trying to get going on the system and they get really hung up, they call us and [receive] the same level of support at night or on weekends as they do daily.

Sellers have an opportunity

to earn buyers’ trust by

being honest about the product’s performance in trial runs. Evidence about the product’s performance also enables sellers to articulate the relative advantages of the innovation.

Providing

buyers with requisite on-site

support is then the appropriate next step to ensure that buyers can realize these relative advantages. The above eight dimensions of activities indicate that sellers engage in relationship marketing activities throughout the commercialization process. Also. in-

418

J PROD INNOV 1996:13:406-421

MANAG

stead of treating potential buyers as passive entities, successful sellers actively involve potential buyers in the commercialization process. Such involvement could entail customizing or codesigning products, discovering ways in which buyers learn about effective product use, seeking input on product-related problems, or asking for feedback on desired product modifications. Collectively, then, the picture of relationship marketing that emerges from these eight factors suggests a relationship marketing process that is seller led but buyer guided.

Managerial Implications The results of our study indicate that successful sellers of technological process innovations undertake 34 marketing relationship activities with their buyers during development and early commercialization. These activities appear to reflect eight basic underlying dimensions. Marketing managers in new process technology markets should find this information useful in managing their firms’ relationships with customers. Whereas existing research on relationship marketing has tended to emphasize higher order constructs like trust, negotiation, and communications, this study focuses on the observable building blocks of these constructs, i.e., the specific relationship building activities that can help managers build trust, which facilitates cooperative negotiations as well as open communications between sellers and buyers. Our proposed underlying dimensions of marketing relationship activities during the development and launch of new process innovations offer deeper understanding about why sellers engage in specific activities and may also help in assessing the effectiveness of these activities. In addition, the findings of this study have the following managerial implications. Implementation of a relationship marketing strategy requires the coordination of several different functional groups in the selling organization. For example, while product development and engineering are closely involved with potential buyers during product customization, sales is often responsible for product demonstration or trial and clarifying the product’s relative advantage. In addition, the customer support department may have prime responsibility for realtime problem solving. Consequently, the quality of a firm’s relationships with its customers is a reflection of the internal coherence that exists between its various functional units. Senior management has an important responsibility to create a culture where this

G. A. ATHAIDE

ET AL.

cooperation is encouraged and supported. Techniques that can be used to foster effective internal interface among employees in different functions include job rotations, periodic meetings between all personnel involved in the relationship management process, or informal information sharing sessionsaimed at developing shared perspectives and encouraging joint problem solving. In addition, a team selling approach where for example, product developers, customer support representatives, and salespersonnel make joint salespitches to potential customers can underscore the importance of working together to satisfy customer needs. This research also suggests that because personnel from product development, engineering and customer support interface with the buyers, the quality of their interactions will affect buyers’ satisfaction and future purchase intentions. In a sense then, these personnel are “part-time marketers” [ 131. Therefore, they must be sensitized to identify and seize potential market opportunities to support customers as they arise. Such opportunities may take the form of desired product enhancements which can serve as the foundation for future generations of the product. Also, these part-time marketers need skills training in relationship management. Important elements of this training could include developing listening skills to facilitate understanding the customers’ perspective as well as learning effective negotiation and joint problem-solving strategies when dealing with customers. Perhaps one of the most important implications of this study is how important it is for sellers of technological process innovations to know their customers as well as their customers’ environment. As our study points out, in many industries sellers and buyers no longer have clear boundaries between them; rather, these boundaries are both blurred and often highly permeable. As our study found, sellers and buyers are often engaged in joint new product development, gaining feedback and knowledge from buyers; educating product influencers and users; providing product support, communicating information about product or process benefits; and even engaging as intermediaries and influencers of opinion leaders in the buyer’s organization. To conduct such activities requires a high degree of acumen about how to maintain customer links that are satisfying, useful, and profitable. Such capabilities requires new ways to train employees regarding initiating, building, and maintaining customer relationships. This is a far different view from the more traditional definition of “selling” that characterized American business for so many decades.

SELLERS,

BUYERS,

AND

TECHNOLOGICAL

PROCESS

INNOVATIONS

Our findings also suggest that an important prerequisite for successful relationship management is an intimate knowledge of the buyer’s industry. For example, the impact of regulatory changes on product attributes must be continuously monitored and responded to via modified products. Also, having a salesforce that is capable of speaking the buyer’s language makes it easier to communicate the relative advantages of the innovation. The firms in our exploratory study sought to acquire buyer industry knowledge by maintaining open communications with their buyers. An interesting finding of this research was the increasing use of information technologies like electronic mail to ensure that buyers could communicate recent developments in their industry 24 hours a day. In addition, Firms A and C sought to acquire user industry knowledge by recruiting people from the buyer industry to serve as salespeople. Finally, traditional marketing approaches have emphasized satisfying the needs of a market segment with a single product. In contrast, our study suggests that for technological process innovations, no one product can satisfy the needs of all potential buyers. Sellers must therefore be willing to customize their products for individual buyers rather than using “hard-sell” techniques to promote the adoption of limited, standardized offerings. Directions

for Future Research

Undertaking relationship activities requires the expenditure of considerable resources. Given that most organizations do not have unlimited resources to expend on relationship activities, it makes sense to perform only those activities that are both cost effective and add value to the relationship [ 181. Some initial insights into this issue emerged from our study. In particular, it appears that newness of the technology, prior relationship history, and buyer knowledge will strongly influence the kinds of activities that sellers undertake around a particular dimension. This was seen most clearly in our discussion of Factor 3 in which types and amounts of education and training appeared to vary by mediating variables such as these. In the case of new technologies, the entire range of market needs that potentially can be satisfied by the technology are not well explored in the development and launch stages of commercialization [7]. This increasesthe likelihood that reinvention will occur [34]. As an example, this was the case for Firm D whose sales manager remarked:

410

Every day there’s an opportunity for a new market to open becauseeveryday there’s an engineerthat’s putting oneof our instrumentsor somebodyelse’sinstrument for that matter into a different area that he never has before. . .

Sellers may therefore benefit from joint new product development activities with buyers aimed at discovering new applications of the technology, particularly with “lead users” [44]. But a recurring problem is how to identify appropriate partners for such joint activities. Because all potential applications cannot be determined upfront nor are they necessarily within the strategy of particular sellers, sellers are well advised to stay in touch with current buyers u@er installation to detect usable reinvention opportunities [23]. Such targeted knowledge-generation activities may be particularly intense for newer technologies. If so, future research is needed to help marketers identify ways to manage this complex challenge. Research into the organizational adoption of technological products shows that buying firms are more likely to remain with sellers who have supplied them with related products in the past [47]. There are several reasons for this. First, current sellers are perceived as less risky than new sellers 1257. Second, prior interactions may lead to high switching costs because of buyer commitment to idiosyncratic investments [ 14,151. Third, prior experiences provide sellers with an opportunity to build credibility and trust [38]. Comments from the project manager at Firm C lend support to these findings: But generally what we’ve found and what I agree with too-if the customer asks for something and it’s not a regulatory change-if it’s something that’s really crippling their office we’ll fix it immediately. As long as you tell them a date, i.e., it will be fixed in October and they know from your past history that you’re pretty good about that they generally don’t have problems. It takes some time to build that up.

Thus, sellers who have maintained good relationships with buyers (during adoption of other products) may have to spend less time earning the buyer’s trust through product demonstrations and trials. Further research is needed into the types of activities that are most helpful in this ‘ ‘loyalty-building” process. Finally, research on the diffusion of technological process innovations indicates that an importance reason for their failure is the inability of potential adopters to use them to the fullest extent. Because technological process innovations tend to be complex. buyers

420

J PROD INNOV 1996;13:40&421

often require assistancewith implementation. The intensity of this support, however, should vary with buyer knowledge. For example, unknowledgeable buyers often require extensive hand-holding during product installation. With knowledgeable buyers, however, sellers stand to obtain greater benefits by focusing limited relationship resources on cooperation during product development and minimizing the intensity of installation support. Collectively, these perspectives suggest the following directions for future research. l

Situational determinants of appropriate relationship activities-What is the appropriate type of relationship in low-technology settings? How do performance of these relationship activities differ for mature products and repeat purchases? If so, how often should a firm audit its contextual environment?

Other underexplored areas involving seller-buyer relationships during the commercialization of technologically intensive process innovations suggested by our work include studies of: l

l

l

G. A. ATHAIDE

MANAG

Dyadic viewpoints of the relationship, i.e., simultaneous measurement of sellers’ as well as buyers’ perspectives on sellers’ relationship activities-How do buyers perceive the relationship activities of sellers? Do buyers themselves initiate specific relationship activities and if so how and under what circumstances? Gaps in sellers’ and buyers’ perceptions of relationship activities-Where do these gaps occur most frequently and why? Who should address them and how? Seller-buyer relationship activities in global markets-what role do cultural and managerial differences play here? How can they be anticipated, accommodated, and managed? Conducting studies similar to ours but among different countries would begin to build a transnational database about seller-buyer relationships during commercialization and technology transfer of process innovations.

Our study provides some important insights into the full range of marketing relationship activities that sellers can practice in commercializing technological process innovations. In addition, it proposes eight underlying dimensions represented by these activities. More

ET AL.

research is needed to enrich our understanding. We hope others will join us in these exciting efforts.

The authorsappreciatethepartialfundingof thisresearchby the Earl V. SnyderInnovationManagement ResearchCenterat the Schoolof Management, Syracuse University.

References 1. Anderson, E., Chu, W. and Weitz, pirical exploration of the buyclass 51:71-86 (July 1987).

B. Industrial purchasing: An emframework. Journal of Marketing

2. Bentley, K. A discussion of the link between and its connection with its market. Journal Management 1~19-34 (1990).

one organization’s style of Product Innovation

3. Davis, D. D. Integrating technological, manufacturing, marketing, and human resource strategies. In: Managing Technological Innovation: Organizational Strategies for Implementing Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, D. Davis and associates (eds.). San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1986, pp. 256-290. 4. DeBruicker, F. S. and Summe, G. Make sure your coming back. Harvard Business Review 63(1):92-98

customers (1985).

5. Dillion, W. R. and Goldstein, M. Mu&variate Analysis: Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984. 6. Dillman, D. A. Mail and Telephone Sons, 1978.

Surveys.

I. Dougherty, D. Understanding new markets Management Journal 1159-78 (1990).

New York:

9. Dunn, D. T., Friar, high-tech solutions. (1991).

Methods

and

John Wiley

for new products.

8. Dowling, M. J. and Ruefli, T. W. Buyer-Seller nology strategy. Journal of High Technology 3(2):289-302 (1992).

keep

&

Strategic

relationships Management

and techResearch

J. H. and Thomas, C. A. An approach to selling Industrial Marketing Management 20: 149-159

10. Ettlie, J. E. Implementing manufacturing technologies: Lessons from experience. In: Managing Technological Innovation, D. Davis and Associates (eds.). San Francisco: Josiey-Bass, 1986, pp. 72-104. 11. Glazer, R. Marketing in an information-intensive tegic implications of knowledge as an asset. 55:1-19 (October 1991).

environment: Straof Marketing

Journal

12. Gronroos, C. Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: The marketing and organizational behavior interface. Journal ofBusiness Research 20:3-l 1 (January 1990). 13. Gummesson, relationships.

E. The new marketing-developing Long Range Planning 20(4):1C-20

long-term (1987).

interactive

14. Heide, J. B. and John, G. Alliances in industrial purchasing: The determinants of joint action in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research 27:24-36 (February 1990). 15. Jackson, B. B. Build ness Review 120-128

customer relationships (November-December

that last. Harvard 1985).

Busi-

16. Kim, J. and Mueller, C. Introduction to Factor Analysis: What It Is and How to Do Zt. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1978. 17. Kosnik, T. J. Perennial renaissance: The marketing challenge in high tech settings. In: Managing Complexity in High Technology Organizations, M. A. von Glinow and S. A. Mohrman (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 119-145. 18. Kotler, P. Philip Kotler explores the new marketing keting Science Institute Review l-7 (Spring 1991).

paradigm.

Mar-

19. Leonard-Barton, D. Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy 17(5):251-267 (1988).

SELLERS,

20.

BUYERS.

AND

TECHNOLOGICAL

PROCESS

INNOVATIONS

Leonard-Barton, D. and Gogan J. Marketing advanced manufacturing processes. In: Managing Technological Innovation: Organizational Strategies for Implementing Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, D, Davis and associates (eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1986. pp. 187-219.

21.

Leonard-Barton, D. and Kraus, W. A. Implementing Ifarvard Business Review 63(6):102-l 10 (1985).

new technology.

22.

Lind. M. R. and Zmud, R. W. The influence of a convergence in understanding between technology providers and users on information technology innovativeness. Organi:ation Science 2(2):195-217 (1991).

23.

Loftus. B. S. and Meyers. P. W. Launching emerging technologies to create new markets: Identifying industrial buyers during the early development of marketing relationships. Paper presented at the AMA Winter Educators’ Conference (1993).

24

Lucas, G. H.. Jr. and Bush. A. Guidelines for marketing a new industrial product. Industrial Marketing Management 13: 157-161 (1984).

25 Meldrum. technology (19911. 26

M. J. and Millman, products. Industrial

A. F. Ten Marketing

risks in marketing highManagement 20:43-50

Meyers, P. W. and A&aide, G. A. Strategic mutual learning between producing and buying firms during product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 8:155-169 (1991).

27 Meyers, P. W. and Sivakumar, K. Implementing technological process innovations: A new direction for generating marketing knowledge. Paper presented at the AMA Winter Educators’ Conference (1991). 28 Miller, D. C. Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 5th edition. Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications Inc., 1991. 29 More. R. A. Developer/Adopter situations. Journal @Business 30 Moriarty. continuity.

relationships in new industrial Research 14:501-517 (1986).

R. T. and Kosnik. T. J. High-Tech marketing: Concepts, and change. Sloan Management Review 30(4X7-17 (1989).

31 O’Neal, C. R. JIT procurement and relationship .Markerin~ Management 18:55-63 (1989). 32

product

marketing.

Industrial

Parkinson, S. T. Factors influencing buyer-seller relationships in the market for high-technology products. Journal of Business Research 13:49-60~19XS).

33. Peters. M. P. and Venkatesan M. Exploration of variables inherent in adopting an industrial product. Journal c!f .Wurketing Research IO: 312-315 (1973). 34. Rice, R. E. and Rogers, E. M. Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge: Creation, [email protected]. Utilization 1(4):499-5 14 ( 1980). 35. Robertson, T. S. and Gatignon H. Competitive effects on technologp diffusion. Journal of Markering 5Ot.7): 1-I 3 (I 986). 36. Rogers. E. M. Diffusion Free Press, 1983.

of Inrro~‘orir~n,s.

3rd riiition.

NL’M York:

The

37. Rothwell, R. Marketing-A buccesb factor in industrial innovation. Management Decision l4( I ):43-S? ( 1976). 38. Schurr. P. H. and Ozanne, J. L. Influence on exchange processes: buyers’ preconceptions of a seller’s trustworthiness and bargaining toughness. Journal qf‘ Consumer Re.vearch Il:939-Q63 (19851. Marketin,q. Lexington. MA: Lexing39. Smilor, R. W. Customer-Driven ton, Books, 1989. 40. Stevens, J. Applied Multivariate Statistic:r for I/W Socxzl Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.. 1986. L. G. and Klein, K. J. Innovation characteristics and inno41. Tornatzky, vation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of tindings. It%6 Transactions on Engineering Management 29f I):2835 i 1982). the introduction ot‘ new process technology: 42. Tyre, M. J. Managing International differences in a multi-plant network. Research Po/ic> 20:57-76 (1991). 43. Urban. G. L. and von Hippel. E. Lead user analyzes for the development of new industrial products. Manngemerrt .\cGncr 3415):569-582 (19881. 44 von Hippel. E. Successful industrial products from customer ideas. .Joumal of Marketing 41( I):3949 (1978). of inno45 Voss, C. A. The need for a field of study of implementation vations. Journal qf’ Product Innovatror~ Mannqemrni 2(4):266-271 (1985). 46. Webster. F. E. New product adoption III industrial market<: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing 33:35-V (July 196%. 47. Weiss, A. M. and Heide, J. The nature of organizational starch in high Lechnology markets. Journal of’ Malketin,p R