Coping with inter-organizational conflicts

Inter-Organizational Conflicts

Coping with Inter-Organizational Efficient Interaction Organization

405

J‘BUSN RES 1985:13:40-420

Conflicts

Strategies for Buyer and Seller

Hans Georg Gemiinden University of Kiel, Germany

The author analyzes how buyer and seller organization can cope effectively with their inter-organizational conflicts. A general efficiency hypothesis is deducted proposing an inverted u-shaped relation between conflict handling intensity and efficiency. It is argued that the seller will reach a maximum efficiency at a quite low level of conflict handling intensity whereas the buyer will reach a maximum efficiency at a quite high level of conflict handling intensity. To test these propositions a concept to measure the transactional efficiency of buyer and seller organization and a typology of conflict handling interaction strategies are developed and applied to 195interaction processes in which computers were bought or leased for the first time. The empirical findings confirm both hypotheses. They show that buyer and seller should neither smooth over existing conflicts nor let them escalate. They should either renounce at conflict handling activities and strive for a modest solution which can be implemented soon and improved in further transaction processes, or they should consciously fight out their conflicts in an open manner and restrict these activities to the decision stage. The first strategy seems sufficient for a solution with a low level of aspiration, the second is appropriate when a solution with a high level of aspiration is intended. Therefore, both parties should first agree upon the level of aspiration of their innovative solution and then choose an interaction strategy which corresponds to this goal.

Marketing for Complex Innovations - A Challenging Interaction Problem for Buyer and Seller Organization Although Industrial Marketing has received great and rapidly growing attention [l, 4, 5, 13, 17, 33, 47, 52, 621, it is still strongly neglected relative to its economic importance and relative to the complexity and heterogeneity of its problems. This is especially true for the exchange process of an innovative capital good, which is analyzed here. Such an exchange raises a crucial marketing problem with great chances and risks for both parties: seller and buyer organization. The seller may

Address correspondence to Dr. Hans Georg Gemiinden, Institut fiir Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Albrechts-Universitlt zu Kiel, Olshausenstrabe 40-60, D-2300 Kiel, West Germany.

Journal of Business Research 13, 405-420 (1985) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1985 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017

Christian-

0148-2963/85/$3.30

406

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

H. G. Gemiinden

sell an expensive capital good, find a model client who gives excellent references for his product, gain useful experiences how to implement his product, and break well-established relationships [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 21, 29, 35, 39, 41, 43, 46, 48, 53, 58, 59, 61, 65, 66, 681 between buyers and competing sellers. But he also runs the risk that he may not get his customer. He can get a bad word-ofmouth if his customer is dissatisfied, and he may loose know-how if it is diffused by a lost customer to his competitors. The buyer may find a cost-saving method for his problems or he may get a higher solution quality. But he must invest a lot of time to learn to know the innovative technology. He must overcome barriers to innovate and he runs the risk that the seller may not support him in the promised way. How these challenges are managed is an interaction problem between a buyer and seller organization. Therefore, an interaction approach [German: 1, 2, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38,49, 51,62; Scandinavian: 21,23,24, 25, 26, 27, 40, 41, 42; Anglo-American: 3, 4, 15, 30, 31, 44, 45, 60, 631 is needed to analyze this problem. Following this idea, we will first develop a model with different interaction strategies and derive hypotheses for their assumed efficiency. Then, we develop a concept to measure the efficiency of buyer and seller organization and apply it to our empirical example. Finally, we will test our hypotheses and discuss the results.

The

Optimal

Hypotheses

Level

of Intensity

of Coping

with

Conflicts: Efficiency

for Buyer and Seller Organization

. Conflicts between buyer and seller cannot be “resolved” definitely once and for all; they have to be regulated and tolerated permanently. Conflicts should not be seen as an annoying, pestering plague. They should be accepted as potentially productive tensions, as challenges which can motivate to action and clarify the goal structure. The problem is to find the right course between Skylla and Charybdis: Skylla, that is the smoothing over conflicts policy which denies existing and leads to unresolvable problems during the implementation. Charybdis, that is the escalation of fighting out conflicts which boundless time and energy consuming decision processes.

may

conflicts

lead

to

Between both intensities of engaging in conflict handling activities, there is an intermediate level leading to better results for buyer and seller. This is our general efficiency hypothesis, which states an inverted U-shaped relationship between level of conflict handling intensity and efficiency. But, where is the “optimal” point? Does the curve have the same shape for buyer and seller? What instruments can be used to cope with inter-organizational conflicts? To answer these questions we develop a typology of different interaction strategies to measure the degree of conflict handling intensity. There are two ways of managing inter-organizational conflicts with a given seller organization: 1. Using

a direct approach,

the decision

makers

of the buyer

organization

ne-

Inter-Organizational

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

Conflicts

Table 1. Conflict handling interaction

strategies. Consultation only

Consultation

407

before choice

the final

Consultation after the final choice

Without Negotiation

Tolerated Conflict

Considered Confrontation

Smoothing Conflicts

With Negotiation

Prevented Confrontation

Open Confrontation

Escalated Confrontation

over

gotiate with the representatives of that specific organization. (“Negotiation Strategy”) 2. Using an indirect approach, the decision makers of the buyer organization consult representatives of other seller organization. (“Consultation Strategy”) Both activities can be performed in four temporal modes: only before the final choice, only after the final choice, before and after the final choice, and not at all. On a purely deductive basis, we could distinguish between 4x4= 16 different interaction strategies. But such an approach is only of limited practical use: first, we had to restrict our operationalization of “negotiations” on bargaining activities which occurred before the final choice. For bargaining activities which occurred after the final choice, our data base did not allow us to decide whether a discussion of conflicting issues was a real negotiation or not. Second, because of the seldom occurrence of post-decisional consultations of competing sellers, we combined the and “decision and implementation consulmodes “implementation consultation” tation.” Both cases show a symptomatic post-decisional escalation of conflicts. The resulting typology is shown in Table 1. These strategies are now ordered on an ordinal intensity scale of carrying out conflicts: 1. The lowest rank is given to the “smoothing over conj?icts” strategy. We suppose that the renunciation at negotiations corresponds to a denial of conflicts: as the post-choice consultation of competitors shows, existing conflicts have only been postponed but not resolved. 2. The second lowest rank is assigned to the “tolerated conflict” strategy where neither negotiations nor consultations of competing sellers also occurred before the final choice. But, in contrast to the smoothing over conflicts strategy, no competing sellers are consulted after the final choice. We assume that at least a rudimentary discussion about conflicting issues has taken place in this case. 314. The “prevented” and the “considered confrontation” are characterized by the fact that only one instrument for tackling conflicts has been used. We assign a lower rank to the prevented confrontation, since we assume that the seller could prevent the buyer from consulting competitors by early concessions. Such a limitation of the conflict handling intensity is not given in case of the considered confrontation. It is more likely that the perception of a new offer intensifies the inter-organizational conflicts. 5. The “open confrontation” gets the second highest intensity rank because two conflicts handling instruments are used during the decision stage.

408

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

H. G. Gemiinden

Table 2. Predicted Intensity Rank 6

efficiency

values for buyer and seller for different

Interaction Strategy Smoothing over conflicts Tolerated confict Prevented Confrontation Prevented Confrontation Open Confrontation Escalated Confrontation

5 4 3 2 1

Seller’s Efficiency

interaction

strategies

Buyer’s Efficiency

low

low

high average

average average

average

average

average

high

low

IOW

6. The highest rank is given to the “escalated confrontation” since the high intensity of carrying out conflicts is not restricted to the decision process but continued during the implementation process. We predict the following effects (see Table 2). A low efficiency for buyer and seller if they choose a smoothing over conjlicts strategy or an escalated confrontation. A high seller efficiency for the tolerated conflict strategy where conflicts are not carried out during the decision process and where these conflicts can be tolerated later on. A high buyer efjiciency for the open confrontation, where conflicts are not denied, but carried out consciously and where they are limited to the decision process. An average eficiency for buyer and seller for the prevented confrontation, where the seller makes concessions and the buyer renounces to consult competitors. An average efficiency for buyer and the buyer expresses substantial determined enough to negotiate the seller gets his customer but

seller for the considered confrontation, where

interest for offers of competitors but is not for better commercial conditions, and where a skeptical one.

The Efficiency of Buyer and Seller Organization: Concept and its Application The Measurement

A Measurement

Concept

Our measurement

concept comprises the following steps:

1. The theoretical derivation starts with the formal definition of “efficiency” [17,18,22,34,54,55,57,64]. We define efficiency as a summarizing statement upon the attainment of several efficiency dimensions. 2. To clarify the meaning of efficiency, the next step requires a specification of several theoretical ejjiciency dimensions. 3. These dimensions have to be operational by empirical indicators in the next step.

Inter-Organizational

Conflicts

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

409

4. To reduce our many efficiency indicators, we used factor analyses. The resulting factors can be interpreted as empirical eficiency dimensions. 5. Since this step produced several empirical dimensions, a further summarizing step was required. We used cluster analyses to find transaction processes with similar efficiency profiles.

Applying

the Concept Our empirical object is a random sample of 195 transaction processes completed until June 30, 1966 to obtain an EDP system for an organization with no previous EDP equipment. The data were collected by Witte and his research team [5, 17:771021. They performed a systematic content analysis of about 147,000 documents filed by the four major EDP manufacturers. The analyzed documents included: “ . . . correspondence, offers, system proposals, contracts, estimates of the data volume and of the cost effectiveness, complaints, invoices, internal statistics, and internal memos concerning the enterprises in the sample.” [5:161] To gain our theoretical efficiency dimensions, we ask two questions: 1. Which object is to be evaluated as efficient or inefficient? 2. From whose perspective is something called efficient or inefficient? The evaluated objects are: the activities of the decision process reaching from the initiative, when a competent member of the buyer organization decides to allocate resources to the decision process [50:27], to the final choice of an EDP configuration when the (first) contract is signed, the chosen solution, at the end of the decision process, and the activities of the implementation process, reaching from the formal choice of an EDP-configuration to the (first) installation of an EDP-configuration. The perspective of evaluation comprises three categories: the buyer organization’s point of view, the seller organization’s point of view, and the common perspective of buyer and seller organization. With this classification we want to make a pragmatic distinction between efficiency aspects dominantly related to the buyer organization, to the seller organization, and those aspects related to both organizations. Combining these two criteria gives us nine theoretical efficiency dimensions which are operationalized by 40 efficiency indicators. (Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the results of this scaling procedure). These efficiency indicators were now factor-analyzed using principal component analysis and varimax rotation. Five factors were extracted, explaining 50.4 percent of the common variance. We interpret the fiv- factors in the following manner: (cf. Table 1). 1. Our first factor, the “rationality of the decision process” comprises the efficiency indicators of the decision process. High factor loadings indicate a wide problem definition, with a high willingness to decide, a great degree of transparency, and a wide and deep goal structure. On the other hand high factor loadings also document high decision expenditures for buyer and seller organization and a long duration of the decision process. 2. Our second factor, the “stability of choice” is characterized by high positive loadings on stability and definiteness of choice, and uninterruptedness of the

410

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

H. G. Gemiinden

Table 3. Buyer’s

Efficiency

Indicators Measurements

Indicator Buver’s Width

of the problem

definition

Equality of the problem activities Willingness

solving

to decide

Decision

Efficiencv

Weighed sum of the problem makers

objects

considered

by the decision

Entropy measure of the distribution of the problem activities over various problem components

solving

Weighed sum of problem before the final choice

were made

objects

for which choices

Degree

of transparency

Number of alternative EDP-systems considered during the decision process, relative to the offer of the EDP-market

Degree

of rationality

Counts how many kinds of typical rational performed during the decision process

Thoroughness

Number

of goal sections

goals

Number

of goal attributes

of the buyer-

Time consumption decision stage

Width of the decision Depth

General rating from the data collectors superficial to [6] meticulous

of decision goals

of the decision

Decision expenditure organization

Buyer’s Degree

Solution

considered

activities

reaching

from [2]

by the decision

considered

makers

by the decision

of buyer-organization

members

makers

during

the

Efficiency

Summarizing expert judgment considering chosen hardware, software, and utilization of the computer relatively to the firm’s historical situation

of innovation

Time lag between the firm’s adoption pioneers in the firm’s branch

of the EDP-

and the adoption

Technical system

novelty

Adequacy

of solution

Quantative

flexibility

Number of capacity steps (in a given computer changing the type of central unit

Qualitative

flexibility

Possibilities

components

Expert rating of the adequacy periphery devices

Buyer’s Adequacy

have been

of means-ends-changes

to connect

Implementation

of the central

external

devices

unit and the family)

without

with the central

unit

Efficiency

Ratio of changes related to the EDP-hardware the changes related to the EDP-application

and software,

to

Corrections objects

related

to reference

Number of EDP-applications designed during the decision stage minus supplementary EDP-configurations designed and programmed during the implementation stage

Corrections

related

to focal objects

Ratio of considerations EDP-configurations

of the chosen EDP-configuration during the implementation stage

Weighed sum of major contracts

corrections

Major Stability

correction

steps

Rating of the data collectors changes to [S] no changes

of choice

Definiteness

Similarity

of choice

Uninterruptedness implementation

the chosen

steps such as annulment

reaching from [2] great of the chosen solution and installed

of

and many

EDP-configuration

Number of postponements of major implementing activities like installation, programming, and training of buyer-organization members

of the

Implementation expenditure buyer-organization

between

to all

of the

Time consumption implementation

of buyer-organization stage

members

during

the

Inter-Organizational

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

Conflicts

411

Table 4. Seller’s Efficiency Indicators Measurements

Indicator Seller’s Decision Improvement

Difference between central unit

of volume (DP)

Elimination

of competitors

Decision expenditure organization

Intensity

(DP)

of competitors’

Training

Measured

scale)

Elimination

Difference unit

(IP)

of competitors

Intensity stage

(IP)

Implementation expenditure seller-organization

during

the decision

members

during

stage the

members

Efficiency

on a monetary

Seller’s Implementation of volume

influence

and contracted

scale with 6 categories

Measured on a capacity scale with 9 categories Rating, reaching from [2] many, and severe reservations no reservations at all

Sales volume (capacity scale) Contractual reservations

Improvement

of first offered

time given to the buyer-organization

Seller’s Solution (monetary

volume

Time consume of seller-organization decision stage

of the seher-

Expenditure for the training of buvina-organization members

Sales volume

Efficiency

of the

to [6]

Efficiency

between

volume

of competitors’

of contracted

influence

and installed

during

Time consume of seller-organization implementation stage

central

the implementation

members

during

the

Table 5. Common Efficiency Indicators Indicator

Measurements Common

Bargaining

climate

Style of the buyer-seller correspondence Duration

of the decision

Major interruptions process

from [2] extreme

Data collector’s rating extremely warm

ranging

Date of the contract

process

of the decision

with chosen

solution

behavior

Goal attainment

evaluation

Duration of the implementation process

Solution

disputes

from [l] extremely

to [5] kind and cold to [7]

event minus date of the start event

Sum of the three largest

interruptions

of the decision

process

Efficiency

Data collector’s rating of buyer’s satisfaction with chosen solution ranging from [l] extremely unsatisfied to [7] extremely satisfied Common

Complaint

Efficiency

Data collector’s rating open atmosphere

Common Satisfaction

Decision

Implementation

Efficiency

Number and intensity of buyer’s implementation stage

complaints

during

the

Positive and negative evaluations of the implemented by members of the buyer-organization Date of the installation the contract event

of the EDP-configuration

solution

minus date of

412

J BUSN

RES 1985:13:405-420

H. G. Gemiinden

Table 6. Matrix of Factor Loadings of the Efficiency Indicators Efficiency

Indicator

Factor I

Factor II

Width of problem definition Equality of problem definition Willingness to decide Degree of Transparency Degree of Rationality Thoroughness of the decision Width of the decision goals Depth of the decision goals Decision expenditure (BO)

Factor III

.15 .20

Factor IV

-.17 -.I5

Factor V

Comm.

r .42 -I #____I

.14 -.ll

Degree of innovation Technical novelty of EDP-System Adequacy of solution components Quantitative flexibility Qualitative flexibility Adequacy of means-ends-changes Corrections of reference objects Corrections of focal object: Major correction steps Stability of choice Definiteness of choice Uninterruptedness of implementation Implementation expenditure (BO) Improvement of volume (DP) Elimination of competitors (DP) Decision expenditure (SO) Expenditure for training Sales volume (monetary scale) Sales volume (capacity scale) Contractual reservations Improvement of volume (IP) Elimination of competitors (IP) Implementation expenditure (SO)

.18 -.I6

-.23 -.lS .18 -.28 -.21

.27 -.21

-.I8 -.I6 .18

.24 .24 .29 -.23

-.13 -.12 .17 .13

-.22

-.31 .38 .66

-.19

-.19 -.13 .14 .14

;I?!?

.I1 -.17

-.38 .20

-.20 -.29 .26

I 1

.11 .34 .26

:z

.13

-.16

-.12

1 -.23 .22

I

pj

.lO -.25

-.24

.ll

.lI r--7 I .47 I .37

.62 .32 .67 .61 .63 .I7 .58 .60 .79

.14

.30 .26 .55 .79 .50 .72 .74 .84

.12

.17 .53 .73 .52

.25

.hl .45 .22

.14

.39 .60 .7x

Bargaining climate Style of correspondence Duration of decision process Interruptions of decision process Satisfaction

with solution

Complaint behavior Goal attainment evaluation Duration of implementation

proc.

implementation process. The negative loadings show that a low stability of choice is empirically equivalent with many major correction steps, and a long duration of the implementation process. The high loading of improvement of volume during the implementation process points out that the seller can only sell a greater configuration if he is willing to accept a longer implementation process. 3. High loadings on the third factor document high implementation expendi-

Inter-Organizational

Conflicts

_I BUSN RES 1985: 13:405-420

413

tures. We multiply the factor loadings with -1 and name our new factor “economy of implementation” since it indicates cost savings, as compared to other transaction processes. 4. Our fourth factor comprises the efficiency indicators of our common perspective. High positive factor loadings announce a good bargaining climate, a friendly style of correspondence, high satisfaction with the chosen solution, and positive evaluation of goal attainment. Negative loadings are symptomatic for many and severe complaints. We will therefore label this factor “harmony of interaction. ” 5. Our last factor shows high loadings for the qualitative flexibility and the sales volume (monetary scale). The substantially positive loadings of quantitative flexibility, technical novelty, and sales volume (capacity scale) suggest that a certain “flexibility slack” may have been paid by the buyer organization. This assumption is confirmed by a substantial negative loading of the adequacy of solution components. Leaving the question open whether some overselling has taken place or not, we can state that higher factor loadings indicate a higher sales volume and label our fifth factor therefore “sales success.” The last step of our scaling procedure is a cluster analysis of the transaction processes using Ward’s hierarchical method which produces the following solution: Three clusters which are inefficient for buyer and seller. They comprise solutions with a very low stability of choice, a very bad interaction climate, or very high expenditures during the decision and implementation process. One seller-eficient cluster with a very low decision expenditure, a high stability of choice, and average values for the other factors. One buyer-efJicient cluster: it is characterized by a low sales volume and average values for the other factors. This means that the buyer has got a very good problem-solving support/price ratio. One cluster which is efficient for both parties. This cluster has positive values on all five factors.

The

Empirical

Test

To test our predictions we have to determine the percentages of favorable solutions per chosen interaction strategy. We determine buyer’s (seller’s) favorable solutions by summing up the relative frequencies of the buyer-efficient (seller-efficient) cluster and the cluster which is efficient for both parties. Figure 6 confirms our predictions:’ 1. A very low and a very high intensity inefficient solution for both parties. lated confrontation”)

of conflict handling activities lead to an (“smoothing over conflicts” and “esca-

‘The m&hypothesis that the relative frequencies of the efficiency clusters are equal for all strategies may be rejected (p
414

J BUSN RES 19X5:13:405-420

H. G. Gemiinden

2. The seller reaches his maximum efficiency at a quite low level of conflict handling intensity. (“tolerated conflict”) 3. The buyer reaches his maximum at a quite high level of conflict handling intensity. (“open confrontation”) But, the optimal solution of each party also appears to be a second-best solution for the partner-organization.’ So, there do exist two strategies which are favorable for both parties. Which of both interaction pattern is chosen, seems to be of secondary importance. It appears to be of primary importance that the parties agree to choose one good solution and avoid their inejjkient neighbors. Let us now take a closer look at the interaction strategies by inspecting the relative frequencies of our four cluster types: (see Figure 2.) The curve of ineficient solutions () underlines the dysfunctional effects of a smoothing over conflict policy and of an escalated confrontation. It also shows a substantial risk for the considered confrontation. A detailed analysis proves that in one of four transactions with this interaction pattern comes a very bad interaction climate. The curve of seller-efJicient solutions (- - -) confirms our prediction that the seller reaches his maximum efficiency at a quite low level of conflict handling intensity. It seems to be the buyer’s renunciation at consulting competing sellers which leads to a seller-efficient solution with a very low decision expenditure. (The “tolerated conflict” and the “prevented confrontation” strategies in which no decision consultation took place) The curve of buyer-eficient solutions (.....) reaches its maximum for the prevented and not for the open confrontation as we have expected. But fighting out conflicts costs time and resources and therefore inhibits buyer-efficient solutions which are characterized by quite low decision expenditures. The curve of solutions which are efjicient for both parties (---) reaches its maximum with the open confrontation strategy. Its high frequency overcompensates the seldom occurrence of buyer- or seller-efficient solutions. From an inspection of the detailed findings of the efficiency factors we may conclude that an intensive, but limited confrontation costs time and resources, but it also yields a stable solution, a very good interaction c!imatr, _nd a high sales success. Moreover, this strategy also leads to a very high degree of innovation of the chosen solution. (See Table 2 for this indicator.)

CONCLUSIONS 1. Buyer and seller should neither smooth over existing conflicts nor let them escalate. 2. They should either renounce at conflict handling activities and strive for a modest solution which can be tested soon and improved in further transactions, or

*The buyer’s second best solution is the prevented confrontation and not the tolerated seller’s best solution. But the difference is so small that it can be neglected.

conflict strategy

which is the

+

+

J BUSN RES

415

416

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

H. G. Gemiinden

417

3. they should consciously fight out these conflicts in an open manner and restrict these activities to the decision stage. The latter interaction strategy seems promising when a high level of aspiration is intended. Then it will pay back to engage into time-consuming activities for carrying out conflicts. 4. Buying and selling an innovative capital good is a difficult interaction problem for both parties, buyer and seller organization. According to our findings their marketing task is: a. to come to an agreement with each other upon the level of aspiration of their innovative solution, and b. to choose an interaction strategy which corresponds to this goal.

References 1. Backhaus.

K. Investitionsgiiter-Marketing, Vahlen, Miinchen

2. Backhaus, marketing

K., Giinter, B. A phase-differentiated interaction approach to industrial decisions. industrial Marketing Management 51255-270 (1976).

(1982).

3. Bonoma, T. V.. Zaltman, G., eds. Organizational Buying Behavior, American Association, Chicago, 11 (1978).

Marketing

4. Bonoma, T. V., Zaltman, G., Johnston, W. J. Zndustrial Buying Behavior, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1977). 5. Bubb, P. L., van Rest, D. J. Loyalty as a component Industrial Marketing Management 12:25-32 (1973).

of the industrial

6. Buckner,

London

J. How British Industry Buys, Hutchinson,

7. Cardozo, R. N., Cagley, J. W. Experimental of Marketing Research 8:329-334 (1971).

(1967).

study of industrial

8. Cunningham, M. T., Kettlewood, K. Source loyalty European Journal of Marketing 10:60-79 (1976).

buying decision.

buyer behavior.

in the freight

transport

Journal market.

9. Cunningham, M. T., White, J. G. The determinants of choice of supplier. A study of purchase behavior for capital goods. European Journal of Marketing 7:189-202 (1973/ 74). IO. Dempsey, W. A. Vendor selection Management 7:257-267 (1978).

and

the

buying

Industrial Marketing

process.

11. Diebold Deutschland Gmbh. Bedeutung und Entwicklung des Computereinsatzes in Bayern, in Soziale Probleme der Automation in Bayern. Bayerisches Staatsministerium fiir Arbeit und Soziale Fiirsorge, ed., Miinchen (1969), pp. 767-900. 12. Engelhardt, W. H., Backhaus, K., Giinter, Bestandsaufnahme und Ansatzpunkte Betriebswirtschaft 47: 153-169 (1977).

B. Investitionsgiiter-Marketing. zur Weiterentwicklung,

13. Engelhardt, W. H., Giinter, B. Investitionsgiiter-Marketing. Anlagen, Teile, Roh- und Einsatzstoffe, Energietrtiger, Stuttgart (1981). 14. Ford, D. Stability factors in industrial Management: 7:410-422 (1978).

marketing

15. Ford, D. The development of buyer-seller Journal of Marketing 14:339-353 (1980).

relationships

Eine kritische Zeitschrift fiir Einzelaggregate,

Zndustrial Marketing

channels. in industrial

markets.

European

16. Gemiinden, H. G. Effiziente Interaktionsstrategien im Investitionsgiitermarketing, Marketing - Zeitschrift fiir Forschung und Praxis 2:21-32 (1980). 17. Gemiinden, H. G. Innovationsmarketing - Interaktionsbeziehungen und Verwender innovativer Investitionsgiiter, Mohr (Siebeck),

zwischen (1981).

Hersteller

418

J BUSN RES 1985:13:4OS-420

Inter-Organizational

J. M., eds. New Perspectives

18. Goodman, P. S., Pennings, San Francisco (1977). 19

on Organizational

Conflict5

Effectiveness,

Gunter, B.. Anbieterkoalitionen bei der Vermarktung von Anlagegutern Organisationsformen und Entscheidungsprobleme, in Anlagen-Marketing. Sonderheft 7. 1977 von Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift fur betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung. W. H. Engelhardt and G. Lapmann, eds. pp. 152-172.

20. Gunter. Duncer

B. Das Marketing von Gro@urlugen. und Humblot Berlin (1979).

Strategieprobleme

des Systems

Selling,

P. B. L. Organizational mating and industrial marketing 21. Guillet de Monthoux. conservatism - some reasons why industrial marketing managers resist marketing theory, Industrial

Marketing

Management

42-36

(1975).

Beitrag zu einer Methodologie 22. Gzuk, R. Messung der Effizienz van Entscheidungen. der Erfolgsfeststellung betriebswirtschaftlicher Entscheidungen, Mohr (Siebeck), Tubingen (1975). H. H., et al. International 23. Hakansson. Chicester et al.. (1982). 24. Hakansson. Industrial

H.. Johanson, Marketing

2s. Hakansson. Marketing

J., Wootz.

Management

H., Gstberg, Management

Marketing

B. Influence

5:319-332

C. Industrial 411133123

and Purchasing

tactics

of Industriul

in buyer-seller

Goods.

processes.

(1976).

marketing:

An organizational

problem?

fndustrial

(1975).

H., Wootz. B. Changes in the Propensity to Import. An Interaction Model 26. Hakansson, on the Firm Level. Foretagsekonomiska Institutionen vid Uppsala Universitet. Department of Business Administration University of Uppsala, Dissertation, Uppsala (1975). 27. Hallen. L., Snehota, I. International Purchasing in a Small Country. Fiiretagsekonomiska Institutionen vid Uppsala Universitet. Department of Business Administration University of Uppsala, Uppsala (1981). 28. Hill, R. W., Hillier, Organisational

29

Jarvis. L. P.. Wilcox, J. B. True Vendor Industrial

30

T. J. The key to more Behavior. Bath (1977).

Buying

Marketing

Management

effective

selling

to industrial

Loyalty or Simple Repeat

6:9- 14

Purchase

markets, Behavior’?

(1977).

Johnston, improved

W. J., Bonoma. T. V. Reconceptualizing industrial buying behavior: toward research approaches, in Educators’ Proceedings of the American Marketing Association. B. A. Greenberg and D. Bellenger, eds. (1977), pp. 247-251.

31. Johnston,

W. J., Bonoma,

Industrial

Marketing

T. V. Purchase

Management

process

10:253-264

for capital equipment

and services,

(1981).

M. Das Marketing von Investitionsgiitern. Theoretische eines Interaktionsansatzes, Gables, Wiesbaden (1978).

32. Kirsch, W., Kutschker, empirische Perspektiven

H.. Kutschker, M. Ansatze und Entwicklungstendenzen Auf dem Wege zu einem Interaktionsansatz, PlanungsOrganisations-wissenschaftliche Schriften, Munchen (1977). Lutschwitz,

im

lnvestitionsgiitermarketing.

und

33. Kirsch,

W.,

34. Knopf, R. H. Dimensionen Mannheim (1975).

des

35. Kratz, J. Der Interaktionsprozep Dissertation. Bochum (1975). 36

Kutschker, Bezugsrahmens

37

und

Kutschker,

Erfolgs brim

von Reorganisationsprozessen, Kauf

von einzeln

gefertigten

Dissertation, Investitionsgiitern,

M. Verhandlungen

als Elemente eines verhaltenswissenschaftlichen des Investitionsgutermarketing. Dissertation, Mannheim (1972).

M.,

Kirsch,

Entscheidungsprozessen.

Beschaffungsentscheidungen wissenschaftliche Schriften,

W. Verhandlungen in multiorganisationalen Untersuchung der Absatzund Eine empirische Planungsund Organisationsvon Investitionsgutern, Miinchrn (1978).

419

J BUSN RES 1985:13:405-420

H. G. Gemiinden

38. Kutschker, M., Kirsch, W. Industriemarketing und Einkauf in Europa. Deutschlandstudie, Planungs- und Organisations wissen-schaftliche Schriften, Miinchen (1979). 39. Luffman, G. A. Industrial buyer behavior: Journal of Marketing 8:93-107 (1974).

some aspects of the search process.

40. Mattson, L. G. Systems selling as a strategy Management 3:107-120 (1973).

on industrial

European

Industrial Marketing

markets.

relations in industrial markets. 41. Mattson, L. G. On stability and change in supplier-buyer Working Paper presented at the 5th Annual Workshop of the European Academy for Advanced Research in Marketing, Fontainebleau (1976). relations on innovative behavior 42. Mattson, L. G. Impact of stability in supplier-buyer on industrial markets. Paper discussed at the Symposium “New Directions in Marketing”, Oslo 1975. Rev. Version, Uppsala (1976). 43. Newall, J. Industrial buyer behavior. behaviour for communication policies Marketing 11:166-211 (1977). 44. Nicosia, F. M., Wind Y. Emerging Marketing Management 6:353-369

A model of the implications of risk handling in industrial marketing. European Journal of

models of organizational (1977).

buying processes.

45. Parkinson, S. T., User-Supplier Interaction in New Product Development, PhD. dissertation, University of Strathclyde (1980). 46. Pfeiffer, W. Integrale Qualittit bei hochautomatisierten fiir Betriebswirtschaft, Ergknzungsheft 109-124 (Nov.

P. J., Faris. C. W., Wind, 48. Robinson, Allyn and Bacon, Boston (1967). 49. Rogwalder, Dissertation, 50. Schulz,

Zeitschrift Bibliography. IL (1978).

Y. Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing,

G. Die Interaktionsprozesse Bochum (1979).

beim Marketing

D. H. Die Initiative zu Entscheidungen.

51. Schuster, F. Bartering Processes Management 7:119-127 (1978).

unpublished

Fertigungsanlagen, 1965).

47. Pingry. J. R., Bird, M. M. Industrial Marketing: A Selected and Annotated American Marketing Association. Bibliography Series Nr. 25. Chicago,

Industrial

in Industrial

von Kernkraftwerken,

Mohr (Siebeck),

Tiibingen

(1977).

Industrial Marketing

Buying and Selling,

in organizational buying behavior, in Consumer and 52. Sheth, J. N., Recent developments Industrial Buying Behavior. A. Woodside, J. N. Sheth and P. D. Bennett, eds., Elsevier, New York (1977) pp. 17-34. 53. Der Spiegel Die industrielle Einkaufsentscheidung. Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Informationsund Entscheidungsverhalten. Anlage und Durchfiihrung EMNID-Institut fiir industrielle Markt- und Werbeforschung Dr. K.-H. Strothmann KG, Spiegel-Verlag, Hamburg (1967). 54. Spray, S. L., ed., Organizational Effectiveness: Theory, (1976). 55. Staehle, W. H., Grabatin, 102 (1979).

G. Effizienz von Organisationen,

56. Steers, R. M. Problems in the measurement Science Quarterly 20:546-558 (1975). 57. Steers,

Research

of organizational

R. M. Organizational Effectiveness: A Behavioral

and Application.

Kent

Die Betriebswirtschaft 39:89effectiveness. View.

Administrative

Santa Monica

(1977).

58. Strothmann, K.-H. Imagewirkung im Entscheidungsprozep. Eine Fallstudie zum Beschaffungsprozep bei Anlagen der Mittleren Datentechnik, Spiegel-Veslag, Hamburg (1980). 59. Sundhoff, Giittingen 60. Turnball,

E., Pietsch, (1964).

G.

P. W., Cunningham,

Die Lieferantenstruktur M. T., Ford,

industrieller

I. D., Homse,

Gropunternehmen,

E. Znternational Marketing

420

J BUSN KES IWi:13:405-420

Inter-Organizational

and Purchasing. A Survey among Marketing Countries, London - Basingstoke (1981). 61. Wagner, G. R. Lieferzeitpolitik. Unternehmen. Gables, Wiesbaden

Second, (1978).

62. Wagner. G. R. Investitionsgiitermarketing der Abnehmer. Ein Literaturwegweiser, Praxis 4:124-133 (1982). 63. Webster,

F. E. Jr. industrial

Marketing

and Purchasing

Executives

source

in Five European

and rev. ed. from Die Lieferzeitpolitik

der

im Lichte der Beschaffungsentscheidungen Murketing - Zeitschrift fiir Forschung

und

Strategy, New York (1979).

64. Welge, M. K.. FeBmann, K.-D., Effizienz, organisatorische, Organisation, sec. ed., E. Grochla. ed., Poeschel, Stuttgart, 65. Wind. Y. lndustrial

Conflicts

loyalty. Journul

of Marketing

in Handwiirterhuch 1980, Col. 577-592.

Research

7:4X)-457

der

(1970).

66. Wintsch, E. Die Anulyse des Entscheidungsprozesses heim Kauf van Computern uls Grundlage fiir die Marktheurheitungsmu~nuhmen der Hersteller, Dissertation, St. Gallen (1979). 67. Witte. E. Field Research on a Complex Decision-Making Process. The Phase Theorem. lnternutionul Studies of Management and Organization 2: 156-182 (1972). 68. Zuberbiihler, empirischen

H. Elektronische Datenverurheitung Untersuchung. Bern (1972).

in der Industrie.

Ergebnisse

einer