- Email: [email protected]
Centralized and decentralized buying influences
Centralized and Decentralized Buying Influences Joseph A. Bellizzi Joseph J. Belonax This article empirically measures the effects of organizational separation on industrial buying in the commercial construetion industry. It was reasoned that the relationship between organizations and their buying centers should depend on the separations between organizational buying units. Two ~pes of organizational separation were measured-geographic" separation and communication separation. Industrial sellers must relate selling effort to buying behavior and procedures. This study reports on how buying influence varies between firms that operate at various levels of organizational separation. The managerial implications of matching the pattern of buying influence with appropriate selling effort is presented.
INTRODUCTION Organizational separation is defined as the degree to which the operating units within a business firm are separated from each other. Two types of organizational separations can also be defined. The first is geographic separation, or the degree to which the operating units of a
Address correspondence to: Joseph A. Bellizzi, Department of Marketing, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Industrial Marketing Management 11,
111-115 (1982) © Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1982 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York. New York 10017
firm are separated in a geographical or physical dimension. The second is communication separation, or the degree to which units of a firm are separated in a communication sense. Because this study is an investigation of buyer behavior, the business operating units of greatest concern are those units responsible for industrial purchasing.
HYPOTHESES Two hypotheses were tested to determine the effect of geographic separation and communication separation on industrial buyer behavior: 1. Industrial buyer behavior is not significantly related to geographic separation. 2. Industrial buyer behavior is not significantly related to communication separation.
METHODOLOGY The commercial construction industry was selected as the arena in which to conduct this research for two reasons: First, industrial buyer behavior includes more than the behavior exhibited by buyers in manufacturing
111 0019-8501/82/02011 1-05/$02.75
firms. Yet most of the research in the industrial buying area has been conducted within manufacturing firms. Investigations in other industries and service organizations should expand the total knowledge of industrial buyer behavior. This argument is similar to comments made by students of consumer behavior when they remark that our knowledge of consumer behavior is based primarily upon the way consumers purchase such representative items as instant coffee and soft drinks. Second, and perhaps more methodologically meaningful to this study, is the fact that commercial construction companies constantly operate in various degrees of organizational separation. The very nature of the industry is such that operations are conducted away from the administrative offices of the firm in varying degrees. This situation appears to lend itself nicely to an investigation of the effects of organizational separations. In order to obtain data, a mailing list provided by the Associated General Contractors of America was used. A total of 650 questionnaires were mailed to general contractors in the West North Central, U.S. Census Region. This region includes Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. A total of 140 questionnaires were returned and usable. The questionnaires were completed by presidents, owners, vice presidents, purchasing managers, purchasing agents, construction site superintendents, company engineers, office managers, and other managers. The independent variables in this study are geographical separation and communication separation as indicated above. In a previous paper it was reported that construction site superintendents at field locations play a major role in the purchasing process in commercial construction companies [1]. It is believed that varying degrees of geographic and communication separation between construction field locations and the headquarters or branch office locations, which are often staffed with purchasing agents, will affect buying practices in the industry. It is also believed that the variable of geographic sep-
;7
7
277
2
Z7
2
i
77
7
~
iZ
222
~
22
52~
2L
Y
DR. BELLIZZI received a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska. He teaches at Colorado State University as an Assistant Professor of Marketing. Dr. Bellizzi was previously employed by Hilti Fastening Systems as a Market Research Analyst. DR. BELONAX received a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska. He is presently an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Western Michigan University. Dr. Belonax was previously employed by Boroughs Corporation.
112
aration is more meaningful when applied to the general practice throughout a firm rather than in a specific case. For example, firms that generally conduct building operations at great distances from headquarters or branch offices may develop a mode of buying that gives construction site superintendents more influence than they normally possess. However, in a specific case where such a firm takes on a job in close proximity to a headquarters or branch office the mode of buying may not change but may become rigid and comply with its usual long-distance operating practice. For this reason the geographic separation variable was measured by asking respondent firms to report their typical level of geographic separation between field and administrative locations. Each respondent was asked to report on a continuous five-point scale the degree of geographic separation typically encountered within his specific company. The scale ranged from local (I) to extremely distant (5). The scale was clarified by describing the end points and the midpoint. The end points were local and extremely distant. Local was defined as a company where most of the jobs taken on are typically in the metropolitan area of either their headquarters or a branch location. Extremely distant was defined as a company that typically takes on jobs at great distances from either their headquarters or a branch location. The midpoint of moderately distant was described as a firm that usually takes on jobs within the same state or in bordering states of headquarters or a branch location. The communication separation variable was measured on three scales. The three scales measured the degree of written reports, face-to-face site visits, and telephone calls between construction sites and office. It was reasoned that construction site superintendents may exhibit a more influential role when they remain distant in a communicative sense. On the other hand, when construction site superintendents are required to maintain a high degree of contact with central or branch administrators, one might expect them to exhibit less autonomy. As a result of this reduced autonomy, construction site superintendents may have little buying influence vis-a-vis other buyers in the buying center. The scales measuring the frequency of face-to-face communication between construction site and office, the frequency of written reports prepared by construction site superintendents and forwarded to administrative locations, and the frequency of telephone contact between site and office were added together to form one variable yielding a scale low of 3 (indicating an answer of 1 for all three subscales and thus little communication frequency
meaning high communication separation) and a scale high of 15 (indicating an answer of 5 for all three subscales and thus a high degree of communication frequency and less communication separation). It is generally well recognized that industrial buying decisions are made jointly by a number of individuals [2-4]. A multivariate regression model was used because it statistically recognized that the dependent construct is actually composed of numerous conceptually smaller units [5]. The dependent construct of buyer behavior can be conceptualized in many ways. In this study, buyer behavior was conceptualized as buying influence. Buying influence was defined as the formal or informal power of a person to affect others or outcomes in buying situations. The conceptually smaller units that make up the dependent construct are the influences exerted by the members of the buying center or buying participants. In a pilot investigation six buying participants were identified. The six buyers are top managers (presidents, vice presidents, and owners), construction site superintendents, company engineers, purchasing agents, shop foremen and other building trade workers, and architects and consulting engineers. The dependent variable therefore is a matrix of scores that represent the purchasing influences of the six buying center members. Each respondent reported on their perception of the buying influence exerted by the six members of the buying center in their firm on a five-point scale for nine individual buying stages. In order to obtain a total influence score for each buying center member, the scores from the five-point scales for each of the nine stages were addively combined. The range of the five-point scale was as follows: (1) no influence, (2) very little influence, (3) moderate influence, (4) considerable influence, and (5) most influence. Total influence scores across the nine buying stages ranged between 9 (no influence on all nine stages) to 45 (most influence on all nine stages). The buying stages operationalized in this study were a modified version of those advanced by Robinson, Fails, and Wind and are listed below: 1. Anticipation or recognition of a problem (need) and a general solution. 2. Determination of general characteristics and quantity of needed item. 3. Setting specific description of characteristics and quantity of needed item. 4. Search for and qualification of potential sources. 5. Gathering of relevant purchase information and acquisition of proposals.
6. Analysis of information and proposals. 7. Evaluation of information and proposals and selection of supplier. 8. Selection of an order routine (i.e., preparation of purchase order, follow-up activities, expediting, etc.) 9. Performance feedback and evaluation (post-scale product evaluation).
RESULTS Tabulation and analysis of the data provide no basis for rejecting hypothesis one. No relationship was found between buying influence and geographic separation. Mean scores for various measures of geographic separation are found in Table 1. The influence mean scores do not vary greatly across various geographic operating modes found in the commercial construction industry. In Table 1, local firms were defined as companies that responded to item one or two on the geographic separation scale, whereas moderate companies responded to answer three and distant companies responded to answers four and five. The data also fail to reject hypothesis two. Communication separation as operationalized in this study is not significantly related to purchasing influence in the commercial construction industry. Influence means for the six buying participants are in Table 2. Communication separation categories of more communication separation and less communication separaTABLE
1
Participant Influence Means by Geographic Separation"
Participant
Presidents, Vice Presidents, Owners Company Engineers Architects and Consulting Engineers Purchasing Agents Site Superintendents Shop Foremen and other Workers
n = 42
n = 70
n = 28
n = 140
Local
Moderate
Distant
Grand Mean
33.29
33.43
25.32
31.76
23.45
25.11
30.57
25.71
13.29
15.76
18.07
15.48
25.14
24.01
29.61
25.47
27.95
27.01
27.04
27.30
17.91
17.41
17.04
17.49
"Multivariate F value for test of hypothesis of no association between geographic separation and the dependent variable set = I. 1573; p less than 0.5.
113
TABLE 2
Participant Influence Means by Communication Separation"
Participant
Presidents, Vice Presidents, Owners Company Engineers Architects and Consulting Engineers Purchasing Agents Site Superintendents Shop Foremen and other Workers
n = 87
n = 53
More Communication Separation
Less Communication Separation
n -
140
Grand Mean
32.06
31.28
31.76
24.93
26.98
25.71
15.24
15.87
15.48
24.56
26,96
25,47
26.84
28.06
27.30
17,76
17.04
17,49
" Multivariate F value t'or test of hypothesis of no association between communication separation and the dependent variable set - 1.0381; p less than 0.5.
tion were established by breaking down the responses into two categories. The m o r e category includes those returns which were scored between 5 and 10 on the communication scale. The less category includes those returns which were scored between 11 and 15 on the communication scale. This classification includes all responses. No firm was scored below 5 on the scale. Observation of the scores in Table 2 discloses very little variation between companies operating with more or less communication separation.
graphic separation conditions and that decentral buyers (construction site superintendents) may possess buying influence regardless of the geographic separation between administrative and construction location. If the above is true, sellers need to present selling messages in more than one geographic location in order to promote products to various influential buyers. The first managerial conclusion, theret`ore, is that sellers need to encourage sales representatives to make calls at central office locations in order to reach office personnel as well as to make sales calls at construction locations in order to contact site workers. While making calls at different locations may not be too difficult, the task takes on some complexity when one considers the second managerial conclusion, that is, developing teamwork among sales representatives is essential. If the distribution of buying influence does not change across varying geographic separation conditions, those buying firms operating at great distances from their central offices should pose promotional problems ['or sellers. In all likelihood, these distant firms are operating (construction operations) in the territory of one sales rep while conducting administrative affairs (central office operations) in the territory of another sales rep. Cooperation, coordination, and a true sense of teamwork must prevail. Sales managers need to develop supervisory plans and incentive plans which encourage rather than discourage true teamwork. Provisions f'or a fair splitcommission plan must be formalized. Finally, sales representatives, often, are like electricity; they follow the path of least resistance. Furthermore, all sales reps are different; they tend to have different
Decentral buyers possess buying influence. The categories and mean scores found in Table 1 and 2 are for illustrative purposes only and the categories were arbitrarily selected. The statistical nonsignificance, however, of both hypotheses were determined by entering all the data into the multivariate regression model.
M A N A G E R I A L IMPLICATIONS Aside from theory building, the findings of this study suggest three important managerial applications. All three of the managerial issues are tied to the fact that buying influence may not differ under varying geo-
114
attitudes and values, likes and dislikes. A sales representative who feels comfortable calling site personnel, for example, is likely to disproportionately allocate more time, effort and sales calls to decentral site locations. At the opposite extreme those sales representatives who feel more comfortable in the central office (which may be more formal, clean, and orderly) are likely to devote a disproportionate amount of time, effort, and sales calls to central office locations. Sales managers must monitor call reports to insure that all influential buyers are being appropriately reached. Furthermore, sales managers need to train sales representatives in ways which help sales
reps feel comfortable in different selling locations and situations.
CONCLUSION While this research has found no evidence to support the organizational separation variables, further research should be directed to this area. In particular, other industries could be studied, other types of organizational separations can be operationalized, and different designs and procedures could be implemented. Such research modifications may support the findings of this study or perhaps refute them and lead to a more complete understanding of organizational buying. For the present, however, sellers in the commercial construction industry should not be surprised to find little differences in buying influence on the basis of either geographic or communications separation; and the scores presented in Tables 1 and 2 reflect the relative influence of the buyers in the industry. Of particular importance may be the fact that top managers, purchasing agents, company engineers, and construction site superintendents are all influential
buying center members. This becomes an important finding when one realizes that top managers, purchasing agents, and company engineers are usually found at central locations and construction site superintendents are usually found at decentral locations. Therefore, sellers may find it necessary to deploy sales and promotional efforts both centrally and decentrally.
REFERENCES 1. Bellizzi, Joseph A., Product Type and the Relative Influence of Buyers in Commercial Construction, Industrial Marketing Management 8, 213 220 (June 1978). 2. Weingand, Robert E., Why Studying the Purchasing Agent Is Not Enough, Journal ~ff'Marketing 32, 41-45 (January 1968). 3. Harding, Murray, Who Really Makes the Purchase Decision? Industrial Marketing, 51, 76-81 (September 1966). 4. Walsh, Charles E., Reaching Those Hidden Buying Influences, Industrial Marketing, 46, 164-170 (October 1961). 5. Finn, Jeremy D.. A General Model for Multivariate Analysis, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1974. 6. Sheth, Jagish N., A Model of Industrial Buyer Behavior, Journal of Marketing, 37, 50 56 (October 1973).
115
INTRODUCTION Organizational separation is defined as the degree to which the operating units within a business firm are separated from each other. Two types of organizational separations can also be defined. The first is geographic separation, or the degree to which the operating units of a
Address correspondence to: Joseph A. Bellizzi, Department of Marketing, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
Industrial Marketing Management 11,
111-115 (1982) © Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1982 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York. New York 10017
firm are separated in a geographical or physical dimension. The second is communication separation, or the degree to which units of a firm are separated in a communication sense. Because this study is an investigation of buyer behavior, the business operating units of greatest concern are those units responsible for industrial purchasing.
HYPOTHESES Two hypotheses were tested to determine the effect of geographic separation and communication separation on industrial buyer behavior: 1. Industrial buyer behavior is not significantly related to geographic separation. 2. Industrial buyer behavior is not significantly related to communication separation.
METHODOLOGY The commercial construction industry was selected as the arena in which to conduct this research for two reasons: First, industrial buyer behavior includes more than the behavior exhibited by buyers in manufacturing
111 0019-8501/82/02011 1-05/$02.75
firms. Yet most of the research in the industrial buying area has been conducted within manufacturing firms. Investigations in other industries and service organizations should expand the total knowledge of industrial buyer behavior. This argument is similar to comments made by students of consumer behavior when they remark that our knowledge of consumer behavior is based primarily upon the way consumers purchase such representative items as instant coffee and soft drinks. Second, and perhaps more methodologically meaningful to this study, is the fact that commercial construction companies constantly operate in various degrees of organizational separation. The very nature of the industry is such that operations are conducted away from the administrative offices of the firm in varying degrees. This situation appears to lend itself nicely to an investigation of the effects of organizational separations. In order to obtain data, a mailing list provided by the Associated General Contractors of America was used. A total of 650 questionnaires were mailed to general contractors in the West North Central, U.S. Census Region. This region includes Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. A total of 140 questionnaires were returned and usable. The questionnaires were completed by presidents, owners, vice presidents, purchasing managers, purchasing agents, construction site superintendents, company engineers, office managers, and other managers. The independent variables in this study are geographical separation and communication separation as indicated above. In a previous paper it was reported that construction site superintendents at field locations play a major role in the purchasing process in commercial construction companies [1]. It is believed that varying degrees of geographic and communication separation between construction field locations and the headquarters or branch office locations, which are often staffed with purchasing agents, will affect buying practices in the industry. It is also believed that the variable of geographic sep-
;7
7
277
2
Z7
2
i
77
7
~
iZ
222
~
22
52~
2L
Y
DR. BELLIZZI received a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska. He teaches at Colorado State University as an Assistant Professor of Marketing. Dr. Bellizzi was previously employed by Hilti Fastening Systems as a Market Research Analyst. DR. BELONAX received a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska. He is presently an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Western Michigan University. Dr. Belonax was previously employed by Boroughs Corporation.
112
aration is more meaningful when applied to the general practice throughout a firm rather than in a specific case. For example, firms that generally conduct building operations at great distances from headquarters or branch offices may develop a mode of buying that gives construction site superintendents more influence than they normally possess. However, in a specific case where such a firm takes on a job in close proximity to a headquarters or branch office the mode of buying may not change but may become rigid and comply with its usual long-distance operating practice. For this reason the geographic separation variable was measured by asking respondent firms to report their typical level of geographic separation between field and administrative locations. Each respondent was asked to report on a continuous five-point scale the degree of geographic separation typically encountered within his specific company. The scale ranged from local (I) to extremely distant (5). The scale was clarified by describing the end points and the midpoint. The end points were local and extremely distant. Local was defined as a company where most of the jobs taken on are typically in the metropolitan area of either their headquarters or a branch location. Extremely distant was defined as a company that typically takes on jobs at great distances from either their headquarters or a branch location. The midpoint of moderately distant was described as a firm that usually takes on jobs within the same state or in bordering states of headquarters or a branch location. The communication separation variable was measured on three scales. The three scales measured the degree of written reports, face-to-face site visits, and telephone calls between construction sites and office. It was reasoned that construction site superintendents may exhibit a more influential role when they remain distant in a communicative sense. On the other hand, when construction site superintendents are required to maintain a high degree of contact with central or branch administrators, one might expect them to exhibit less autonomy. As a result of this reduced autonomy, construction site superintendents may have little buying influence vis-a-vis other buyers in the buying center. The scales measuring the frequency of face-to-face communication between construction site and office, the frequency of written reports prepared by construction site superintendents and forwarded to administrative locations, and the frequency of telephone contact between site and office were added together to form one variable yielding a scale low of 3 (indicating an answer of 1 for all three subscales and thus little communication frequency
meaning high communication separation) and a scale high of 15 (indicating an answer of 5 for all three subscales and thus a high degree of communication frequency and less communication separation). It is generally well recognized that industrial buying decisions are made jointly by a number of individuals [2-4]. A multivariate regression model was used because it statistically recognized that the dependent construct is actually composed of numerous conceptually smaller units [5]. The dependent construct of buyer behavior can be conceptualized in many ways. In this study, buyer behavior was conceptualized as buying influence. Buying influence was defined as the formal or informal power of a person to affect others or outcomes in buying situations. The conceptually smaller units that make up the dependent construct are the influences exerted by the members of the buying center or buying participants. In a pilot investigation six buying participants were identified. The six buyers are top managers (presidents, vice presidents, and owners), construction site superintendents, company engineers, purchasing agents, shop foremen and other building trade workers, and architects and consulting engineers. The dependent variable therefore is a matrix of scores that represent the purchasing influences of the six buying center members. Each respondent reported on their perception of the buying influence exerted by the six members of the buying center in their firm on a five-point scale for nine individual buying stages. In order to obtain a total influence score for each buying center member, the scores from the five-point scales for each of the nine stages were addively combined. The range of the five-point scale was as follows: (1) no influence, (2) very little influence, (3) moderate influence, (4) considerable influence, and (5) most influence. Total influence scores across the nine buying stages ranged between 9 (no influence on all nine stages) to 45 (most influence on all nine stages). The buying stages operationalized in this study were a modified version of those advanced by Robinson, Fails, and Wind and are listed below: 1. Anticipation or recognition of a problem (need) and a general solution. 2. Determination of general characteristics and quantity of needed item. 3. Setting specific description of characteristics and quantity of needed item. 4. Search for and qualification of potential sources. 5. Gathering of relevant purchase information and acquisition of proposals.
6. Analysis of information and proposals. 7. Evaluation of information and proposals and selection of supplier. 8. Selection of an order routine (i.e., preparation of purchase order, follow-up activities, expediting, etc.) 9. Performance feedback and evaluation (post-scale product evaluation).
RESULTS Tabulation and analysis of the data provide no basis for rejecting hypothesis one. No relationship was found between buying influence and geographic separation. Mean scores for various measures of geographic separation are found in Table 1. The influence mean scores do not vary greatly across various geographic operating modes found in the commercial construction industry. In Table 1, local firms were defined as companies that responded to item one or two on the geographic separation scale, whereas moderate companies responded to answer three and distant companies responded to answers four and five. The data also fail to reject hypothesis two. Communication separation as operationalized in this study is not significantly related to purchasing influence in the commercial construction industry. Influence means for the six buying participants are in Table 2. Communication separation categories of more communication separation and less communication separaTABLE
1
Participant Influence Means by Geographic Separation"
Participant
Presidents, Vice Presidents, Owners Company Engineers Architects and Consulting Engineers Purchasing Agents Site Superintendents Shop Foremen and other Workers
n = 42
n = 70
n = 28
n = 140
Local
Moderate
Distant
Grand Mean
33.29
33.43
25.32
31.76
23.45
25.11
30.57
25.71
13.29
15.76
18.07
15.48
25.14
24.01
29.61
25.47
27.95
27.01
27.04
27.30
17.91
17.41
17.04
17.49
"Multivariate F value for test of hypothesis of no association between geographic separation and the dependent variable set = I. 1573; p less than 0.5.
113
TABLE 2
Participant Influence Means by Communication Separation"
Participant
Presidents, Vice Presidents, Owners Company Engineers Architects and Consulting Engineers Purchasing Agents Site Superintendents Shop Foremen and other Workers
n = 87
n = 53
More Communication Separation
Less Communication Separation
n -
140
Grand Mean
32.06
31.28
31.76
24.93
26.98
25.71
15.24
15.87
15.48
24.56
26,96
25,47
26.84
28.06
27.30
17,76
17.04
17,49
" Multivariate F value t'or test of hypothesis of no association between communication separation and the dependent variable set - 1.0381; p less than 0.5.
tion were established by breaking down the responses into two categories. The m o r e category includes those returns which were scored between 5 and 10 on the communication scale. The less category includes those returns which were scored between 11 and 15 on the communication scale. This classification includes all responses. No firm was scored below 5 on the scale. Observation of the scores in Table 2 discloses very little variation between companies operating with more or less communication separation.
graphic separation conditions and that decentral buyers (construction site superintendents) may possess buying influence regardless of the geographic separation between administrative and construction location. If the above is true, sellers need to present selling messages in more than one geographic location in order to promote products to various influential buyers. The first managerial conclusion, theret`ore, is that sellers need to encourage sales representatives to make calls at central office locations in order to reach office personnel as well as to make sales calls at construction locations in order to contact site workers. While making calls at different locations may not be too difficult, the task takes on some complexity when one considers the second managerial conclusion, that is, developing teamwork among sales representatives is essential. If the distribution of buying influence does not change across varying geographic separation conditions, those buying firms operating at great distances from their central offices should pose promotional problems ['or sellers. In all likelihood, these distant firms are operating (construction operations) in the territory of one sales rep while conducting administrative affairs (central office operations) in the territory of another sales rep. Cooperation, coordination, and a true sense of teamwork must prevail. Sales managers need to develop supervisory plans and incentive plans which encourage rather than discourage true teamwork. Provisions f'or a fair splitcommission plan must be formalized. Finally, sales representatives, often, are like electricity; they follow the path of least resistance. Furthermore, all sales reps are different; they tend to have different
Decentral buyers possess buying influence. The categories and mean scores found in Table 1 and 2 are for illustrative purposes only and the categories were arbitrarily selected. The statistical nonsignificance, however, of both hypotheses were determined by entering all the data into the multivariate regression model.
M A N A G E R I A L IMPLICATIONS Aside from theory building, the findings of this study suggest three important managerial applications. All three of the managerial issues are tied to the fact that buying influence may not differ under varying geo-
114
attitudes and values, likes and dislikes. A sales representative who feels comfortable calling site personnel, for example, is likely to disproportionately allocate more time, effort and sales calls to decentral site locations. At the opposite extreme those sales representatives who feel more comfortable in the central office (which may be more formal, clean, and orderly) are likely to devote a disproportionate amount of time, effort, and sales calls to central office locations. Sales managers must monitor call reports to insure that all influential buyers are being appropriately reached. Furthermore, sales managers need to train sales representatives in ways which help sales
reps feel comfortable in different selling locations and situations.
CONCLUSION While this research has found no evidence to support the organizational separation variables, further research should be directed to this area. In particular, other industries could be studied, other types of organizational separations can be operationalized, and different designs and procedures could be implemented. Such research modifications may support the findings of this study or perhaps refute them and lead to a more complete understanding of organizational buying. For the present, however, sellers in the commercial construction industry should not be surprised to find little differences in buying influence on the basis of either geographic or communications separation; and the scores presented in Tables 1 and 2 reflect the relative influence of the buyers in the industry. Of particular importance may be the fact that top managers, purchasing agents, company engineers, and construction site superintendents are all influential
buying center members. This becomes an important finding when one realizes that top managers, purchasing agents, and company engineers are usually found at central locations and construction site superintendents are usually found at decentral locations. Therefore, sellers may find it necessary to deploy sales and promotional efforts both centrally and decentrally.
REFERENCES 1. Bellizzi, Joseph A., Product Type and the Relative Influence of Buyers in Commercial Construction, Industrial Marketing Management 8, 213 220 (June 1978). 2. Weingand, Robert E., Why Studying the Purchasing Agent Is Not Enough, Journal ~ff'Marketing 32, 41-45 (January 1968). 3. Harding, Murray, Who Really Makes the Purchase Decision? Industrial Marketing, 51, 76-81 (September 1966). 4. Walsh, Charles E., Reaching Those Hidden Buying Influences, Industrial Marketing, 46, 164-170 (October 1961). 5. Finn, Jeremy D.. A General Model for Multivariate Analysis, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1974. 6. Sheth, Jagish N., A Model of Industrial Buyer Behavior, Journal of Marketing, 37, 50 56 (October 1973).
115