Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

Which resources and capabilities underpin strategic key account T

management?
⁎
Rodrigo Guesalagac,d, Mika Gabrielssona,b, , Beth Rogersb, Lynette Ryalsc, Javier Marcos Cuevasc
a
University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland
b
University of Portsmouth, Richmond Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth PO1 3DE, UK
c
Cranfield University, College Road, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK
d
School of Management, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Key account management (KAM) supports the profitability and financial sustainability of firms in business-to-
Key account management business markets. It also attracts considerable academic research. However, KAM research remains largely
Strategic account management atheoretical and lacking in conceptual foundations. This paper argues for an organizational-level, resource-based
Resource-based theory view of KAM. Using a systematic approach, the authors review the KAM literature to identify the critical re-
sources and capabilities that underpin strategic KAM. The analysis synthesizes and integrates previous research
on KAM applying a resource-based lens to reveal that strategic KAM comprises complex portfolios of resources
and capabilities that constitute a source of competitive advantage. The authors discuss the theoretical and
practical implications of this unique view of KAM and identify directions for further research.

1. Introduction 2002), in that it requires integrated processes and cross-functional

teams (McDonald, Millman, & Rogers, 1997) configured at the organi-
Difficult market conditions, changes in customer needs, and the zational level. Since scholars first made the distinction between account
reshaping of business practices through new technologies are making management and sales, research has stressed the roles of complexity
business-to-business (B2B) marketing and sales complex; in response, and organizational coordination (Ford, 1980).
suppliers are embracing transformational changes to remain competi- This organizational perspective includes research on relationship
tive (Wiersema, 2013). Key account management (KAM) can build and effectiveness (Richards & Jones, 2009) recognizing that, to realize
sustain competitive advantage through the establishment of valuable benefits, organizational commitment and change must occur on both
long-term relationships with B2B customers (Dyer & Singh, 1998; sides of the dyad (Frankwick, Porter, & Crosby, 2001). Research ex-
Tzempelikos & Gounaris, 2015). In 2014, Barney noted that resource- amining the retention of key customers (Sluyts, Matthyssens, Martens,
based theory and marketing have enjoyed a “rich conversation”; in this & Streukens, 2011; Wilson & Weilbaker, 2004) conceptualizes KAM as a
study, we extend that conversation to apply a resource-based perspec- process (Ryals & McDonald, 2007) evolving dynamically over time and
tive for the first time to a systematic review of the literature on key featuring distinct transition stages for roles, skills, processes, and re-
account management. sources (Capon & Senn, 2010; Davies & Ryals, 2009).
Research related to KAM exposes a substantial shift in practice to- Recently, this research has stressed the importance of the strategic aspects
ward longer-term relationships (Gounaris & Tzempelikos, 2014) that of KAM, involving “the selection, establishment, and maintenance of close
demand stronger organizational commitment of people and resources institutional relationships with a firm's most important customers” (Bradford,
than are necessary in more transactional relationships (Geiger & Turley, Challagalla, Hunter, & Moncrief, 2012, p. 42). Much of that recent research
2006). Customer management relies increasingly on systems and ma- focuses on how suppliers can transform these relationships into sources of
terial objects, such as information technology and hardware (cf. sustained competitive advantage; as an overall term, strategic KAM draws
Reckwitz, 2002), rather than the relationship-building capabilities of attention to the “management practices that aim at inter- and intra-organi-
individual actors. Accordingly, the KAM approach is organization-to- zational alignment, in order to improve account performance (and ultimately
organization and team-based (Homburg, Workman Jr., & Jensen, shareholder value creation)” (Storbacka, 2012, p. 259).

⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland.
E-mail addresses: rodrigo.guesalaga@cranfield.ac.uk (R. Guesalaga), mika.gabrielsson@uef.fi (M. Gabrielsson), [email protected] (B. Rogers),
lynette.ryals@cranfield.ac.uk (L. Ryals), [email protected] (J. Marcos Cuevas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.05.006
Received 22 May 2015; Received in revised form 17 May 2018; Accepted 18 May 2018
Available online 25 May 2018
0019-8501/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

Although such research has been highly informative, it lacks a

theoretical basis to support the development of systematic research.
Some early studies (Homburg et al., 2002; Shi & Wu, 2011) have sug-
gested that resource-based theory has the potential to bridge this gap; a
suggestion based on the view of firms as a bundle of resources and
capabilities embedded within the KAM processes.
In response, we seek to analyze KAM literature from the perspective
of resource-based theory (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) and identify
which resources and capabilities underpin strategic KAM. The notion of
strategic in this research is based on how the identification and adequate
use of critical resources and capabilities can make the practice of key
account management more strategic. Hence, we use the term strategic
to study how a resource-based theory of KAM can help supplier com-
panies identify, build, and sustain resources and capabilities that are
sources of sustained competitive advantage.

2. Conceptual framework

2.1. Resource-based theory

The resource-based theory offers a compelling framework for ex- Fig. 1. An analytical lens to classify resources and capabilities.
plaining the development of a firm's competitive advantage and linking
it to organizational performance (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984); the operations), we adopt the tangible/intangible resources and opera-
theory conceptualizes organizations as bundles of resources and cap- tional/dynamic capabilities lenses with their foundations in resource-
abilities that include both tangible and intangible assets that firms use based theory, which we believe more closely reflect the nature of KAM
to conceive of and implement their strategy (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; (Fig. 1).
Barney & Arikan, 2001) and gain competitive advantage (Eisenhardt & The distinction between tangible and intangible resources is ap-
Martin, 2000). propriate, considering that marketing research increasingly focuses on
Customer relationships are vital market-based assets that firms use to market-based intangible assets as an important source of sustained
obtain competitive advantage (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Kozlenkova, Samaha, competitive advantage (e.g., brands, customer relationships)
& Palmatier, 2014; Lusch & Harvey, 1994). As socially complex resources, (Kozlenkova et al., 2014). It also is consistent with Gruber et al.’s
they are trust-based, value-based, and costly to imitate (Barney, 2014). (2010) association of tangible and intangible resources with sales and
Although strategy and marketing literature has used the resource-based distribution performance. Similarly, management literature emphasizes
approach extensively (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Gruber, Heinemann, the contrast between tangible and intangible resources, arguing that the
Brettel, & Hungeling, 2010; Morgan, Kaleka, & Katsikeas, 2004; Yu, latter can be the most crucial factor in improving strategic competi-
Ramanathan, & Nath, 2014), it is surprisingly scarce in KAM research (cf. tiveness (Petrick, Scherer, Brodzinski, Quinn, & Ainina, 1999). Tangible
Shi, White, McNally, Cavusgil, & Zou, 2005). resources may include property, plants, equipment, financial assets, IT
Strategy literature defines capability (or competence) as a set of systems, and personnel; intangible resources may include knowledge,
“skills and resources which enable the company to achieve superior sales orientation, customer involvement, reputational capital, and lea-
performance” (Harmsen & Jensen, 2004, p. 535) in a way that is dif- dership skills (Gruber et al., 2010; Petrick et al., 1999). Tangible re-
ficult for competitors to imitate (Barney, 1991; Prahalad & Hamel, sources related to KAM include assets such as information systems with
1990). In the KAM context, resources and capabilities include not just customers, key account managers, and formal organizational structures;
key account managers and their relationship management skills but intangible resources include market knowledge, customer orientation,
also organizational resources and capabilities. and senior management support.
The classification of capabilities as either operational or dynamic
2.2. Resource-based lens: defining KAM resources and capabilities has been used widely in management research to recognize that op-
erational capabilities constitute the building blocks of the process
To analyze KAM from a resource-based perspective, we begin by needed to accomplish tasks, whereas dynamic capabilities involve
distinguishing resources from capabilities, using definitions provided higher-level activities that enable greater payoffs (Teece, 2014). Op-
by Helfat and Peteraf (2003, p. 999), who describe a resource as “an erational capabilities, also known as ordinary or substantive cap-
asset or input to production (tangible or intangible) that an organiza- abilities are those that enable firms to make their living by efficiently
tion owns, controls, or has access to on a semi-permanent basis,” and a performing activities linked to routines (Helfat & Winter, 2011; Teece,
capability as “the ability of an organization to perform a coordinated set 2012; Winter, 2003). Examples include administration, purchasing,
of tasks, utilizing organizational resources, for the purpose of achieving manufacturing, and transportation (Gebauer, 2011; Teece, 2014). In
a particular end result.” This distinction, which appears in both strategy contrast, dynamic capabilities enable firms to alter how they make their
and marketing literature (Gruber et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2014), offers an living (Helfat & Winter, 2011; Winter, 2003); they are higher-level
appropriate lens for studying KAM, in that its success depends on the activities that make operational capabilities more productive and help
management of assets (e.g., people, structures) and the ability to un- reconfigure resources, especially in rapidly-changing business en-
dertake specific tasks and processes (e.g., customer selection and ac- vironments (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, 2014; Teece, Pisano, &
count planning). Shuen, 1997). Typically, dynamic capabilities are linked to en-
Firms have different resources and capabilities (Yu et al., 2014) and trepreneurial action (Teece, 2012); examples include the orchestration
the relevance of a specific typology depends mainly on the context and of resources, adaptation of processes, and recognition and exploitation
on market realities (Day, 1994). Whereas some classifications of re- of business opportunities (Gebauer, 2011; Teece, 2014). In KAM, ex-
sources and capabilities (e.g., Grant, 1991; Nath, Nachiappan, & amples of operational capabilities could be the selection of key ac-
Ramanathan, 2010) distinguish their sources (e.g., human, technolo- counts, the development of KAM programs, and establishment of
gical, or financial) or functional natures (e.g., marketing versus

161
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

performance metrics. Likewise, an example of a dynamic capability in • For conceptual papers, theoretical robustness and relevance to a
the KAM field is the adjustment of KAM processes to suit new market resources and capabilities perspective
trends, and the reshaping of customer relationships.
This second filter also applied a time frame from 2000 to the pre-
3. Methods sent. (Although papers about KAM were produced in the 1980s and
1990s, they explored it as a new phenomenon and offered little detail
To explore the resources and capabilities that underpin KAM we on how it worked.)
adopted a systematic review methodology (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; In both filtering stages, the authors resolved minor differences
Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003) to locate, critically appraise, and through iteration and discussion and by reference to the full text of the
synthesize relevant, high-quality sources. Compared with a narrative items under discussion. After the second filter was applied, 72 papers
review approach, the approach reduces the risk of bias through a remained for extraction and synthesis.
transparent and auditable process of systematic search and selection
(Denyer & Tranfield, 2009). The systematic review comprises five steps: 3.4. Extraction and synthesis
planning, searching, selection, extraction and synthesis, and reporting.
The authors performed the extraction and synthesis of the papers
3.1. Planning using the framework described to categorize KAM resources and cap-
abilities. Doing so involved assigning the papers according to whether
The planning team comprised the authors and two independent their insights related to tangible resources, intangible resources, op-
academics who acted as subject matter and process advisors. This panel erational capabilities, or dynamic capabilities. Two authors working
specified the focus and scope of the review: (1) to conceptualize KAM independently conducted the extraction; they discussed and resolved
according to the resource-based theoretical lens, (2) to identify and categorization differences. They further conducted thematic analysis
classify critical KAM resources (as tangible and/or intangible) and within each category. The authors refined the categories as they worked
capabilities (as operational and/or dynamic), and (3) to investigate on the details of the text. Categories, themes, and contributing articles
how those resources and capabilities have underpinned the develop- are illustrated at the end of each section of the results of the systematic
ment of KAM research over the past 15 years. literature review.

3.2. Searching 3.5. Reporting

We conducted searches in citation databases (EBSCO, Science In the next four sections, we present our findings about the re-
Direct, Emerald, and Web of Knowledge), using the following search sources and capabilities that underpin KAM as an organizational cap-
terms: ability, categorized as tangible resources, intangible resources, opera-
tional capabilities, and dynamic capabilities.
• (key OR major OR large OR strategic OR global OR national) AND
• (account OR customer OR client) AND
• (management OR manager)
4. Findings

4.1. Demographics of the systematic literature review

Although they are not specifically synonyms for key account man-
agement, we decided to include the terms “key”, “major”, “large”,
The literature review identifies 72 articles, published in 24 journals
“strategic”, global” and “national” account management in our search
(Table 1). The distribution of articles by journal shows that Industrial
because articles examining these variants of KAM might include perti-
Marketing Management has the most articles on KAM resources and
nent findings on the organizational practices necessary to select, es-
tablish, and maintain relationships with important customers. Search
Table 1
strings also included the acronyms KAM, NAM, SAM, and GAM.
Distribution of articles by journal.

3.3. Selection Journal Number of articles

Industrial Marketing Management 22

Our initial keyword search and subsequent cross-referencing and J of Business & Industrial Marketing 10
de-duplication identified 195 source papers, which we then filtered European J of Marketing 4
twice. The first selection filter was relevance, as follows: J of Strategic Marketing 4
J of Business-to-Business Marketing 3

• Papers not addressing KAM were excluded

J of Marketing Management 3
J of Personal Selling & Sales Management 3
• Papers not based on data were excluded (except for theoretical/ J of the Academy of Marketing Science 3
conceptual papers on resource-based theory) International Business Review 2

• Papers in which the sample was not drawn from companies with a J of International Business Studies
Management International Review
2
2
KAM program or did not include individual KAM workers were
Marketing Management J 2
excluded Business Horizons 1
Corporate Communications: An International J 1
Two authors reviewed each title and abstract, as well as the European Management J 1
International J of Service Industry Management 1
methods section if required; they eliminated 68 articles on the grounds
International Studies of Management and Organization 1
of their lacking relevance to the topic of interest. J of Business Market Management 1
Two different authors scrutinized the full text of the remaining 127 J of International Marketing 1
papers with regard to quality and strategic focus. These filter criteria J of Management Development 1
included: J of Marketing 1
J of Retailing & Consumer Services 1

• Empirical data content and relevance

Research-Technology Management 1
Service Industries J 1
• An organizational perspective on KAM
162
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

Fig. 2. Evolution of publications: articles published shown by five-year period.

Fig. 4. Resource-based KAM framework.

capabilities (22), with 31% of the total.
We classified the articles into five-year time periods: 2001–2005,
4.3. Tangible resources
2006–2010, and 2011–2015. Fig. 2 shows a substantial increase be-
tween the first two periods, after which the number remained stable.
Table 2 lists KAM tangible resources in the proposed framework,
With regard to research orientation, we found that 15 (21% of the
together with illustrations and the articles in which they appear.
total) are conceptual, 24 (33% of total) are empirical with a qualitative
approach (in-depth interviews, case studies, and/or focus groups), 27
(38%) are empirical with a quantitative approach (survey-based), and 6 4.3.1. Key account managers
(8%) are empirical with a combination of qualitative and quantitative The highest ranked factors in customer perceptions of the success of
approaches (Fig. 3). their suppliers' KAM programs are the skills, knowledge, and pro-
fessionalism of their key account managers (Abratt & Kelly, 2002).
Managers are tangible resources that bridge the gap between suppliers
4.2. KAM resources and capabilities in literature and customers. Key account managers are highly qualified business
professionals dedicated to particular customers (Al-Husan & Brennan,
Fig. 4 summarizes the findings of our systematic literature review 2009; Guenzi et al., 2007; Ojasalo, 2001). In addition to revenue-gen-
using the lens of resource-based theory with regard to resources and erating responsibilities, they have a role that is more relationship or-
capabilities for strategic KAM. iented than that of traditional salespeople and thereforethe role de-
Fig. 5 shows the distribution of types of KAM resources and cap- mands different skills and behaviors (Guenzi et al., 2007). Customer
abilities across the 72 articles. Each article could contain references to expectations are high, such that buying decision makers expect key
multiple resources and capabilities, and as a result we identified 191 account managers to understand their future needs, be familiar with
appearances, or indications of the presence of specific resources or their competitors, know their value-creation processes, design com-
capabilities. The distribution is as follows: tangible resources 23.6%; prehensive solutions, have professional integrity, and build trust
intangible resources 18.8%; operational capabilities 36.6%; and dy- (Abratt & Kelly, 2002; Georges & Eggert, 2003; Guenzi et al., 2009;
namic capabilities 20.9%. Nätti & Palo, 2012). These weighty expectations explain why highly
Next, we examined the evolution of this distribution over the three skilled key account managers are a rare breed and highlight their im-
time periods of our analysis (Fig. 6). Both types of capabilities exhibit a portance in developing unique value for clients and suppliers.
steady growth in importance over time; the participation of operational
capabilities is consistently greater than that of dynamic capabilities, but 4.3.2. Key account teams
the latter show a higher growth rate (20.5% versus 9.4%). We note a As KAM becomes embedded, investment in cross-functional account
reduced focus on tangible resources, especially in the most recent five- teams becomes more evident, providing a more formalized operational
year period, and a relatively reduced focus on intangible resources from network for account managers (Davies & Ryals, 2009). The responsi-
2001 to 2005 to 2006–2010, followed by an increase for the period bilities of KAM teams are constantly evolving, especially for those that
2011–2015. are fluid in terms of their role and their composition. Such KAM teams
have the dual challenge of enabling customer access to the supplier
6 Conceptual resources and creating and capturing value for suppliers (Bradford
15 et al., 2012).
Empirical Qualitative In addition to their operational, technical, logistics, and marketing
expertise, cross-functional KAM teams may cover financial and legal
matters (e.g., value quantification, account performance measurement,
27 Empirical Quantitative and contract management) and strategic and operational delivery re-
sponsibilities (Zupancic, 2008). Cross-functionality in key account
24 Empirical Qualitative & teams enables interaction and communication with customers' func-
Quantitative tional departments and the coordination and utilization of knowledge
and activities across departments and geographies (Marcos-Cuevas
Fig. 3. Distribution of articles by research orientation. et al., 2014; Salojärvi et al., 2010; Salojärvi & Saarenketo, 2013). This

163
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

Fig. 5. Distribution of articles by type of resource and capability.

flexibility is valued by buyers (Georges & Eggert, 2003) and associated 2014; Nätti & Palo, 2012). This goal involves the long-term develop-
with both market performance and adaptability (Homburg et al., 2002) ment of strategic, operational, and interpersonal fit, which in turn
and the development of trust in relationships (Guenzi et al., 2009). drives the effectiveness and performance of relationships (Richards &
However, such complexity makes teams difficult to design and manage Jones, 2009).
(Al-Husan & Brennan, 2009; Atanasova & Senn, 2011; Bradford et al., Integrated access to marketing and sales resources also contributes
2012; Storbacka, 2012). In B2B relationships between very large busi- to KAM effectiveness (Workman et al., 2003) and may even extend to
nesses, KAM teams may have dozens or even hundreds of members, relationships with third parties in the supply chain, such as sales agents
making them organizational units in their own right. (Hollensen, 2006). Formalization of KAM structures is associated with
success (Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2014), though it can be negatively as-
4.3.3. Organizational structure sociated with performance if it becomes nothing more than an alter-
Although KAM organizational units have their own identities, native bureaucracy (Workman et al., 2003). It should be designed to
human resource managers, and information systems (Shi et al., 2004), support and foster interorganizational fit between suppliers and cus-
they ultimately must be integrated into their core organizations (Nätti tomers (Storbacka, 2012; Toulan et al., 2006). Above all, structures
& Palo, 2012). When suppliers are structured according to product di- must allow for flexibility in value delivery to key accounts (Nätti &
visions or geography, the addition of customer units can be an orga- Palo, 2012; Salojärvi et al., 2010).
nizational challenge (Storbacka, 2012).
Successful KAM implementation requires supportive management 4.3.4. Training
systems to ensure that resources are deployed to create value for both The introduction of KAM is associated with investments in training
customers and suppliers (Ivens & Pardo, 2008; Marcos-Cuevas et al., programs for key account managers (Davies & Ryals, 2009), though it is

20
16.2% 20.3% 23.5%
14 Dynamic capabilities
Operational capabilities
33 32.4%
Intangible resources 36.2%
25 38.8%
6
Tangible resources
27.0% 14.5%
12 10 16
18.8%
10
20 24.3% 29.0%
16 18.8%
9

2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015

Fig. 6. Distribution of types of resources and capabilities by 5-year periods.

164
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

Table 2
Tangible resources.
Tangible Resources

Resource Illustrative aspects Articles

Key account managers − Customers' expectations of Abratt and Kelly (2002); Al-Husan and Brennan (2009); Al-Husan, AL-Husan, and Fletcher-Chen
profile (2014); Davies and Ryals (2009); Georges and Eggert (2003); Guenzi, Georges, and Pardo
− Skills and knowledge (2009); Guenzi, Pardo, and Georges (2007); Harvey, Novicevic, Hench, and Myers (2003); Nätti
and Palo (2012); Ojasalo (2001).
KAM teams (includes senior managers) − Cross-functional span Al-Husan and Brennan (2009); Atanasova and Senn (2011); Bradford et al. (2012); Davies and
− Role in knowledge Ryals (2009); Georges and Eggert (2003); Guenzi et al. (2009); Homburg et al. (2002); Marcos-
dissemination Cuevas, Nätti, Palo, and Ryals (2014); Salojärvi and Saarenketo (2013); Salojärvi, Sainio, and
Tarkiainen (2010); Storbacka (2012); Zupancic (2008).
Organizational structure (includes “fit” − Degree of formalization Hollensen (2006); Ivens & Pardo, 2008; Marcos-Cuevas et al. (2014); Nätti and Palo (2012);
to customer) − Fit to customer's characteristics Richards and Jones (2009); Salojärvi et al. (2010); Shi, Zou, and Cavusgil (2004); Storbacka
(2012); Toulan, Birkinshaw, and Arnold (2006); Workman, Homburg, and Jensen (2003).
Training − Scope of development Abratt and Kelly (2002); Al-Husan and Brennan (2009); Atanasova and Senn (2011); Davies and
− Behaviors vs. mindset Ryals (2009); Guenzi et al. (2009); Marcos-Cuevas et al. (2014).
Processes and technology − Information sharing Geiger and Turley (2006); Jean, Sinkovics, Kim, and Lew (2014); Marcos-Cuevas et al. (2014);
− Internal processes and Nätti and Palo (2012); Salojärvi et al. (2010); Sluyts et al. (2011).
procedures

clear that learning and adjustment are important for all KAM team organizational culture, and team spirit) and intangible market-based
members and their organizations (Al-Husan & Brennan, 2009; assets (Srivastava, Fahey, & Christensen, 2001) that suppliers can de-
Atanasova & Senn, 2011; Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2014). Training may be ploy to generate and capture value in relation to their key accounts.
aimed at skills development (Davies & Ryals, 2009), behaviors (Abratt
& Kelly, 2002), or “practices, processes, structures, and mindsets” 4.4.1. Top management support
(Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2014, p. 1216). The involvement of senior managers in KAM is central to supplier
performance and building long-term customer relationships. Top
4.3.5. Processes and technology management support is a necessary antecedent of “structural adjust-
Units devoted to KAM need specific internal processes and proce- ments and relational capabilities development to facilitate the im-
dures (Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2014), supported by information tech- plementation of the supplier's KAM programmes” (Gounaris &
nology resources, to facilitate the transfer of information across busi- Tzempelikos, 2014, p. 1118). That is because of its role in generating
ness functions and between suppliers and customers (Jean et al., 2014). relational orientations and supportive attitudes and behaviors within
To develop strategic business relationships, it is vital to establish in- supplier companies (Gounaris & Tzempelikos, 2013). In their in-depth
frastructures that support partnerships, work with key customers, and analysis of a global supplier of technology and services to the auto-
enable the codification, sharing, and utilization of knowledge about motive industry, Guenzi and Storbacka (2015) found that the success of
markets, supply chains, and customers (Geiger & Turley, 2006; Jean KAM implementation depends on top managers spreading the firm's
et al., 2014; Nätti & Palo, 2012; Salojärvi et al., 2010; Sluyts et al., cultural values of entrepreneurial spirit and customer centricity. To that
2011). end, they must “demonstrate and embody such values by showing
consistent actions, that is, by modifying their every-day decisions and
4.4. Intangible resources behaviors” (Guenzi & Storbacka, 2015, p. 89). Similarly, Guesalaga
(2014) found that top management involvement in aligning the goals of
Table 3 lists the intangible resources relating to KAM that emerged various functional areas and creating customer-oriented cultures can
from our systematic literature review, illustrative aspects, and the ar- enhance the quality of the relationships between suppliers and key
ticles in which they appear. accounts.
Several studies examine the influence of intangible resources on the
effectiveness of KAM programs. We distinguish between intangible re- 4.4.2. Organizational culture
sources within supplier companies (top management support, The classic definition of organizational culture is that it is “a

Table 3
Intangible resources.
Intangible resources

Resource Illustrative aspects Articles

Top management support − Organizational alignment Davies & Ryals, 2009; Gounaris and Tzempelikos (2014); Gounaris and Tzempelikos (2013); Guenzi and
− Resource allocation Storbacka (2015); Guesalaga (2014); Homburg et al. (2002); Nätti and Palo (2012); Salojärvi et al.
(2010); Tzempelikos and Gounaris (2013); Workman et al. (2003).
Organizational culture − Customer centricity Davies & Ryals, 2009; Guenzi and Storbacka (2015); Nätti and Palo (2012); Ojasalo (2002); Pressey,
− Cross-functional cooperation Gilchrist, and Lenney (2014).
Team spirit − Influence without authority Homburg et al. (2002); Jones, Dixon, Chonko, and Cannon (2005); Richards and Jones (2009); Salojärvi
− Influence on customer relationships and Saarenketo (2013); Workman et al. (2003).
Customer knowledge − Anticipation of customer needs Abratt and Kelly (2002); Hakanen, 2014; Nätti, Halinen, and Hanttu (2006); Ryals and Rogers (2007);
− Exploration versus exploitation of Salojärvi et al. (2010); Salojärvi and Saarenketo (2013).
knowledge
Relationship quality − Key dimensions Abratt & Kelly, 2002; Gounaris and Tzempelikos (2013); Gounaris and Tzempelikos (2014); Guesalaga
− Interpersonal factors (2014); Haytko (2004); Jones, Richards, Halstead, and Fu (2009); Richards and Jones (2009); Ryals and
Davies (2013); Sharma (2006); Tzempelikos and Gounaris (2013); Workman et al. (2003).

165
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions and symbols that define the success (as indicated by the achievement of mutual trust, information
way in which a firm conducts its business” (Barney, 1986, p. 657). A sharing, and long-term relationship intentions). Guesalaga (2014)
customer-centric culture based on cross-functional cooperation is clo- measures relationship quality as a critical KAM outcome incorporating
sely associated with successful KAM (Davies & Ryals, 2009). This in- elements of satisfaction, trust, and commitment. Richards and Jones
tangible cultural resource can be developed through several mechan- (2009) identify relationship effectiveness as a desired outcome for KAM
isms, such as interfunctional training, team rewards, and even the use but conceptualize it as having both affective and empirical components
of language and job titles that promote integration and cooperation of trust, commitment, cooperation, information sharing, and conflict
within the company (Guenzi & Storbacka, 2015). The KAM context is resolution (albeit the actual amount of conflict might not be reduced;
distinct from other sales or marketing environments in its need for a Ryals & Davies, 2013).
culture based on internal interaction and cooperation rather than a One justification for identifying relationship quality as an intangible
strict orientation toward customers (Nätti & Palo, 2012). There is even resource is its role in creating value for relationship partners that is
evidence of resistance to KAM implementation on the part of sales and both rare and difficult for competitors to imitate. Studies have re-
marketing people in the same company; executives from these func- peatedly linked relationship quality to financial performance (e.g.
tional areas may perceive losses of power and resources, increased Gounaris & Tzempelikos, 2013; Gounaris & Tzempelikos, 2014; Jones
workloads, and greater tensions in the working environment, among et al., 2009; Richards & Jones, 2009; Tzempelikos & Gounaris, 2013).
other factors (Pressey et al., 2014). Ojasalo (2002) argues that it is Another justification is that, like other assets, it is manageable and can
important to identify gaps between suppliers' and customers' organi- be improved (or damaged) by the actions of parties over time. Although
zational values and culture, because these differences may constitute relationship quality is often studied at the organizational level, it ac-
barriers to developing cooperation. tually consists of a series of relationships between individuals; these
relationships may be both professional and personal. Therefore, sup-
4.4.3. Team spirit pliers implementing KAM are urged to monitor and actively develop
Organizational culture is closely linked to the team spirit or esprit de their interpersonal relationships and social bonds with key contact
corps of the KAM team (Homburg et al., 2002); that is, the extent to employees in the buyer–supplier dyad (Abratt & Kelly, 2002). Haytko
which members of the team commit to shared goals and one other (2004) finds that developing close, interpersonal relationships with
(Homburg et al., 2002). Because KAM success relies on team effort their customers' “boundary spanners” brings business benefits such as
(Jones et al., 2005) and because key account managers may not have faster approvals, more flexibility in scheduling, and better conflict re-
formal authority over executives from other functional units (Workman solution. Moreover, Sharma (2006) finds that the social/personal bonds
et al., 2003), team spirit is a key resource. Workman et al. (2003) find between buyer and supplier personnel supports KAM success, high-
esprit de corps to be the most significant predictor of KAM effectiveness lighting the role of relationship quality as an asset.
(i.e., relationship quality, performance in the market, and profitability).
Consistent with this finding, Richards and Jones (2009) propose that, as 4.5. Operational capabilities
esprit de corps increases and the desire to work together to serve key
accounts emerges, KAM effectiveness increases. Salojärvi and Table 4 lists the KAM operational capabilities proposed in our fra-
Saarenketo (2013) also link team spirit to supplier performance (i.e., mework, with illustrations and the articles in which they appear.
competitive position, key account turnover, price, and profitability), as
a consequence of the dissemination of customer knowledge and the 4.5.1. Key account selection
cross-functional capabilities of the team. Those accounts that are truly key are few in number and should be
distinguished from other accounts. Although the prioritization of such
4.4.4. Customer knowledge relationships is a fundamental KAM process (Storbacka, 2012), it has
Deep knowledge and understanding of the markets and businesses received little attention (Wengler et al., 2006). Account selection cri-
of key accounts is a fundamental success factor in KAM, for both sup- teria include customer size, profitability, and lifetime value (Al-Husan
pliers and customers (Abratt & Kelly, 2002). Customer knowledge can & Brennan, 2009; Toulan et al., 2006; Wengler et al., 2006). Less tan-
help suppliers anticipate the future needs of key accounts, develop gible selection criteria include organizational or strategic fit (Georges &
detailed KAM plans to address those needs, and facilitate customer Eggert, 2003; Gosselin & Bauwen, 2006; Gosselin & Heene, 2003;
embeddedness; the closer the relationships between customers and Richards & Jones, 2009; Toulan et al., 2006; Workman et al., 2003).
suppliers, the more difficult it is for competitors to break in and, all else Depending on its size, sector, and overall strategy, each company
being equal, the more value suppliers can capture (Abratt & Kelly, has its own selection criteria, focused on future potential rather than
2002; Ryals & Rogers, 2007). past performance (Storbacka, 2012). To achieve long-lasting partner-
Firms must achieve a balance between tacit and explicit mechan- ships, regular reassessment is necessary (Sullivan et al., 2012). This
isms for obtaining and transferring customer-specific knowledge, and process of selection and reselection is an important capability
between the exploration of new knowledge and the exploitation of (Storbacka, 2012).
current knowledge (Nätti et al., 2006). Salojärvi et al. (2010) show that
firms can enhance the utilization of customer-specific knowledge 4.5.2. Relationship and trust building
through teams, top management involvement, KAM formalization, and Socially complex resources, such as trust and value-based relation-
customer relationship management technology. Moreover, a team- ships, are hard for competitors to imitate (Barney, 2014). Strong busi-
based structure for KAM is positively associated with customer ness relationships, featuring indicators such as customer advocacy, re-
knowledge acquisition, dissemination, and utilization (Salojärvi & quire purposeful activities to drive performance (Davies & Ryals, 2014;
Saarenketo, 2013). The integration of customer knowledge within the Friend & Johnson, 2014). Whereas many such activities may be rooted
buyer–supplier dyad happens through the co-creation of value in value creation, key account managers and their teams also value
(Hakanen, 2014). personal aspects of relationship building, such as customer focus, pro-
fessional integrity, and trustworthiness (Abratt & Kelly, 2002; Guenzi
4.4.5. Relationship quality et al., 2009; Nätti & Palo, 2012). Participation in activities that foster
Although research has covered relationship quality in the B2B the development of personal networks is important (Al-Husan et al.,
context, much of it treats relationship quality as an outcome rather than 2014; Blythe, 2002).
a resource. Relationship quality incorporates several components. For The ability to anticipate and address sources of crisis and conflict
example, Workman et al. (2003) use KAM effectiveness as a measure of between suppliers and customers, as well as within supplier

166
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

Table 4
Operational capabilities.
Operational capabilities

Capability Illustrative aspects Articles

Key account selection − Tangible and intangible criteria Al-Husan and Brennan (2009); Georges and Eggert (2003); Gosselin and Bauwen (2006);
− Historical versus forward-looking Gosselin and Heene (2003); Harvey, Myers, and Novicevic (2003); Henneberg, Pardo, Mouzas,
factors and Naudè (2009); Ojasalo (2001); Ojasalo (2002); Richards and Jones (2009); Storbacka
(2012); Sullivan, Peterson, and Krishnan (2012); Toulan et al. (2006); Wengler, Ehret, and Saab
(2006).
Relationship and trust building − Managing conflict Abratt and Kelly (2002); Al-Husan et al. (2014); Blythe (2002); Davies and Ryals (2014); Friend
− Interpersonal skills and Johnson (2014); Georges and Eggert (2003); Guenzi et al. (2009); Nätti and Palo (2012);
Nätti, Rahkolin, and Saraniemi (2014); Speakman and Ryals (2012).
Knowledge management − Intelligence acquisition Al-Husan et al. (2014); Brehmer and Rehme (2009); Jones et al. (2009); Marcos-Cuevas et al.
− Creation of customer value (2014); Nätti et al. (2006); Nätti and Palo (2012); Piercy and Lane (2006); Ryals and Holt (2007);
Ryals and Rogers (2007); Salojärvi et al. (2010); Salojärvi and Saarenketo (2013); Shi et al.
(2005); Shi and Wu (2011); Storbacka (2012); Wagner and Hansen (2004); Zupancic (2008).
Value proposition development − Development of account plans Bradford et al. (2012); Davies and Ryals (2014); Georges and Eggert (2003); Hakanen (2014);
− Value co-creation with customers Pardo, Henneberg, Mouzas, and Naudè (2006); Ryals and Rogers (2007); Sharma (2006);
Storbacka (2012); Sullivan et al. (2012).
KAM teams' design and process − Empowerment of key account Atanasova and Senn (2011); Birkinshaw, Toulan, and Arnold (2001); Bradford et al. (2012);
coordination managers Judson, Gordon, Ridnour, and Weilbaker (2009); Marcos-Cuevas et al. (2014); Nätti and Palo
− Internal marketing and planning (2012); Piercy (2009); Rehme, Kowalkowski, and Nordigården (2013); Salojärvi and Saarenketo
(2013); Shi et al. (2005); Shi, White, Zou, and Cavusgil (2010); Shi and Wu (2011); Storbacka
(2012); Swoboda, Schlüter, Olejnik, and Morschett (2012); Vanharanta, Gilchrist, Andrew,
Pressey, and Lenney (2014); Wengler (2007); Wiessmeier, Thoma, and Senn (2012).
Measurement and reward − Short-term vs. long-term Atanasova and Senn (2011); Davies and Ryals (2009); Davies and Ryals (2013); Davies and Ryals
performance (2014); Ryals and Holt (2007); Ryals and Rogers (2006); Storbacka (2012).
− Motivation and reward

organizations, is critical. Long-standing relationships are rarely free should be unique to each key customer's needs, thereby enabling in-
from conflict, so key account managers must communicate effectively novation and promoting customer satisfaction (Sharma, 2006;
in crisis situations. To do so, they need interpersonal and problem- Storbacka, 2012). If relationships are to survive, value propositions
solving skills to manage multiple, simultaneous episodes of conflict must evolve along with customer needs (Bradford et al., 2012).
(Speakman & Ryals, 2012), and processes that can be invoked when
problems occur (Nätti et al., 2014).
4.5.5. KAM teams' design and process coordination
Whereas KAM teams represent tangible resources, team designs and
4.5.3. Knowledge management their sources of support are operational capabilities that accommodate
Literature frequently refers to the importance of information ac- the functions and skills and the degree of empowerment required
quisition and analysis in KAM (e.g., Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2014; Nätti (Atanasova & Senn, 2011). So, for example, account teams are posi-
et al., 2006; Salojärvi et al., 2010; Wagner & Hansen, 2004). The core tively associated with new product development (Judson et al., 2009;
processes of intelligence acquisition are gathering, collating, and dis- Wiessmeier et al., 2012). Teams may be multinational, cross-cultural,
seminating data to appropriate decision makers across organizations. and/or cross-functional (Shi & Wu, 2011). Some are long term, whereas
Account teams facilitate these activities (Salojärvi & Saarenketo, 2013), others are formed or reformed when customer businesses change
using systems to support knowledge sharing (Nätti & Palo, 2012). (Bradford et al., 2012). Specific features, such as sharing customer-re-
Knowledge and intelligence play key roles in creating customer value lated knowledge (Salojärvi & Saarenketo, 2013), communication (in-
(Shi et al., 2005). cluding conflict management), and proactivity (Atanasova & Senn,
However, it is insight, rather than information, that really drives 2011), must be designed into account team processes.
KAM. Storbacka (2012) positions customer knowledge management Suppliers who coordinate their functions and organizations to de-
(acquisition and analysis) as the first critical process of KAM. Salojärvi liver value to key customers are more likely to be successful
et al. (2010, p. 1396) concur, describing customer knowledge utiliza- (Birkinshaw et al., 2001; Shi et al., 2010). Such coordination involves
tion as “the ‘driving force’ of key account management.” Knowledge the cross-subsidization of resources and planning and organization of
management finds its application in defining customer portfolios and joint activities between suppliers and customers (Shi et al., 2005); so,
analyzing the value of key accounts, competitor analysis, customer KAM is an organization-wide challenge (Storbacka, 2012; Wengler,
needs (Ryals & Rogers, 2007), risk, and potential profitability (Jones 2007) that requires internal partnering and internal marketing (Piercy,
et al., 2009;Piercy & Lane, 2006; Ryals & Holt, 2007). 2009). By introducing KAM, suppliers can improve systems and struc-
tures across their wider organizations (Nätti & Palo, 2012) although
suppliers must balance short- and long-term deliverables and avoid
4.5.4. Value proposition development
over-bureaucratization of account management (Marcos-Cuevas et al.,
Customer insight—analyzing the customer's market and business
2014; Vanharanta et al., 2014).
model and matching the supplier's capabilities to the customer's chal-
lenges—can be synthesized and structured into key account plans that
focus on value creation and capture (Ryals & Rogers, 2007). Pardo et al. 4.5.6. Measurement and reward
(2006) posit that key accounts are characterized by relational value,that Although KAM is focused on customer value, it must deliver value to
is, value that is coproduced by the supplier and customer in partnership suppliers (Davies & Ryals, 2014; Storbacka, 2012). Measuring and
and delivers benefits to both. This value, and its associated benefits to monitoring the value created in partnerships with customers can be
suppliers, tends to accrue over the longer term as shared investments complex (Ryals & Holt, 2007). Co-monitoring and co-measurement can
increase (Davies & Ryals, 2014). Value creation must be recognized by help, by improving perceptions of fairness (Ryals & Rogers, 2006). KAM
but also involve customers (Storbacka, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2012); it can quickly increase customer satisfaction, the quality of customer

167
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

relationships, and joint investments, although increased revenues and proactive identification of solutions to customers' future needs (effec-
profits take longer to achieve (Davies & Ryals, 2014). Key customers tively, creating business opportunities for suppliers) is critical to suc-
inevitably try to use their power to accrue more value (Ryals & Holt, cess. Suppliers need better sensing abilities than both their competitors
2007), so suppliers need to be vigilant and regularly review account and their customers (Ryals & Holt, 2007). Analytical methodologies are
performance. an important building block of dynamic capability (Teece, 2012). The
The performance measurement and rewards of key account man- continuing improvement of customer information systems and analytics
agers and KAM teams should be linked to the qualitative and quanti- (Jean et al., 2014; Nätti & Palo, 2012; Salojärvi et al., 2010), underpins
tative goals set for the performance of their key accounts (Atanasova & account planning. Dynamic data analysis can also improve assessments
Senn, 2011). Because the outlooks of key account managers are not of suppliers' strategic and financial risks (Piercy & Lane, 2006; Ryals &
necessarily more long term than those of sales professionals (Davies & Holt, 2007).
Ryals, 2013), mature account management systems should align re- While systems innovation is important, account-focused profes-
wards with longer-term objectives (Davies & Ryals, 2009). sionals are needed to complete the sensing and their idea generation is a
dynamic capability. The diverse composition of KAM teams, their in-
4.6. Dynamic capabilities ternal communications, and their “absorptive capacity” (Hakanen,
2014, p.1195) enable broader acquisition and utilization of information
Teece (2012) presented dynamic capabilities as the management of about customer-related opportunities and markets (Birkinshaw et al.,
resources in a firm to cope with rapidly changing environments. Dy- 2001; Salojärvi et al., 2010; Salojärvi & Saarenketo, 2013; Zupancic &
namic capabilities both draw from operational capabilities and feed Müllner, 2008).
back into them. Previous studies note the need for KAM to be proactive While “sensing” ensures that effective insight contributes to good
(Atanasova & Senn, 2011; Blocker, Flint, Myers, & Slater, 2011; strategy, enabling suppliers to identify and select future opportunities
Brehmer & Rehme, 2009; Homburg et al., 2002; Nätti et al., 2006), not in key accounts (Brehmer & Rehme, 2009; Shi & Wu, 2011), opportu-
over-formalized (Gosselin & Bauwen, 2006; Vanharanta et al., 2014; nity creation (“seizing”) must follow on from its sensing (Teece, 2012).
Workman et al., 2003), or capable of accommodating flexibility or
fluidity (Bradford et al., 2012; Gounaris & Tzempelikos, 2013). The 4.6.2. Opportunity creation
concept of a mature version of KAM that requires change and re- Shi and Wu (2011) define three “seizing” routines: account selec-
configuration has also been explored (Davies & Ryals, 2009). Table 5 tion, value proposition development and delivery, and infrastructure
shows the dynamic capabilities relating to KAM identified in our sys- development. Although these routines have been portrayed as core
tematic review of the literature, and also their illustrative aspects and operational capabilities within KAM, they are dynamic, in that part-
the articles in which they appear. nerships with key customers demand regular reassessment (Sullivan
et al., 2012). In their study of purchasing decision makers, Friend and
4.6.1. Market sensing Johnson (2014) note that a lack of adaptiveness in value proposals is a
Information acquisition and analysis in KAM is an operational cause of failure, implying a dynamic element in operational routines.
capability (e.g., Nätti et al., 2006; Salojärvi et al., 2010; Wagner & Accommodation of change in key account plans (Davies & Ryals, 2014;
Hansen, 2004), but it can be leveraged to anticipate future customer Ryals & Rogers, 2007), facilitated by trust building undertaken by se-
needs. Information about the financial values of key accounts (Ryals & nior managers (Guesalaga, 2014) and problem-solving capabilities in
Holt, 2007), resources and processes (Zupancic, 2008), decision makers account teams (Ryals & Rogers, 2007), contribute to the realization of
and decision making (Al-Husan et al., 2014), and the competitive en- opportunities.
vironment (Wagner & Hansen, 2004) may signal upcoming changes in
the value of key accounts. Teece (2012, p. 1396) describes sensing as, 4.6.3. Continuous improvement
“identification and assessment of an opportunity.” With the benefit of Suppliers must make continuous improvements and changes as they
system-driven predictive analytics, sensing can incorporate the lever- adjust to KAM and learn to respond quickly and flexibly to new cir-
aging of information to gain advantage with key accounts. Sensing has a cumstances that affect their key accounts (Davies & Ryals, 2009; Shi
positive effect on performance (Shi & Wu, 2011) possibly due to its role et al., 2005). Vanharanta et al. (2014, p. 2093) advocate “wayfinding”
in reassuring customers that the supplier is paying attention to their to reduce the risk of KAM becoming bureaucratic and to ensure that the
future needs (Abratt & Kelly, 2002). Blocker et al. (2011) find that the organization continuously reviews the case for KAM. Suppliers may

Table 5
Dynamic capabilities.
Dynamic capabilities

Capability Illustrative aspects Articles

Market sensing − Analytical methodologies for predictive Hakanen (2014); Jean et al. (2014); Nätti et al. (2014); Piercy and Lane (2006); Ryals and Holt
change (2007); Shi et al. (2005); Shi et al. (2010); Shi and Wu (2011); Wagner and Hansen (2004);
− Insight generation Zupancic (2008); Zupancic and Müllner (2008).
− Creative and absorptive capacity of KAM
teams
Opportunity creation − Change-driven key account plans Blocker et al. (2011); Brehmer and Rehme (2009); Davies and Ryals (2014); Friend and Johnson
− Intrapreneurial approach in key account (2014); Guesalaga (2014); Judson et al. (2009); Rehme et al. (2013); Ryals and Rogers (2007);
teams Shi and Wu (2011); Storbacka (2012); Sullivan et al. (2012); Workman et al. (2003).
Continuous improvement − Continuous process redesign (new resources Al-Husan et al. (2014); Davies and Ryals (2009); Davies and Ryals (2013); Georges and Eggert
and routines) (2003); Gosselin and Bauwen (2006); Harvey, Novicevic, et al. (2003); Henneberg et al. (2009);
− Continuous adjustment of value proposition Piercy and Lane (2006); Shi et al. (2005); Vanharanta et al. (2014).
Reconfiguration − Capabilities for radical changes of KAM Al-Husan et al. (2014); Blocker et al. (2011); Bradford et al. (2012); Davies and Ryals (2009);
resources and routines Gosselin and Bauwen (2006); Jean et al. (2014); Judson et al. (2009); Shi et al. (2005); Shi and
− Anticipation of turbulence in business Wu (2011); Vanharanta et al. (2014).
environment
− Managing relationship turbulence

168
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

conduct active portfolio management of their customer relationships, continue to be of interest, scholarly attention is shifting to research on
possibly reducing investment in some accounts that are becoming less capabilities (e.g., Fig. 6). Authors increasingly recognize that capabil-
strategic, or devising exit strategies for others, given that many cus- ities—or coordinated tasks that utilize resources—not only enable firms
tomer relationships are time-limited or cyclical (Piercy & Lane, 2006). to do business in the present but also help them change how they will
Continuous improvement in KAM is driven by the need for suppliers to do business in the future.
align their offers with customers' changing business activities. Such By examining the breadth and depth of the portfolio of resources
initiatives may include introducing customized services that reduce and capabilities necessary for KAM to thrive, our review reveals that the
customers' costs or risks and influence their perceptions of value strategic value of resources stems from the ways in which they are used
(Georges & Eggert, 2003), managing misalignments (Henneberg et al., with other resources and capabilities to generate revenues and profits
2009), or developing lateral relationships for continuous improvement (Phelan & Lewin, 2000). We find, given evidence of the highly dynamic
in key account relationships (Georges & Eggert, 2003; Haytko, 2004). nature of B2B environments and markets, that the role of dynamic
In practice, the alignment of supplier and customer value in busi- capabilities is key. As noted by Helfat and Peteraf (2003), we confirm
ness relationships is relatively rare (Davies & Ryals, 2014; Piercy & that an over-concentration on current competence at the expense of
Lane, 2006). Research has illustrated the difficulties suppliers experi- renewal does not represent successful resource management. The dy-
ence in capturing value from KAM (Davies & Ryals, 2014). Competitive namic aspects of organizational capabilities—defined as the ability to
pressures tend to reduce differentiation over time and open up oppor- integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to
tunities for customers to revert to transactional relationships (Gosselin address rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997)—are es-
& Bauwen, 2006). Therefore, to continue to capture value from KAM sential to successful KAM, which must address rapidly changing cus-
relationships, suppliers must make constant adjustments and improve- tomers and environments or even create market change (Eisenhardt &
ments; they must become learning organizations (Al-Husan et al., 2014; Martin, 2000). Thus, in stable markets, organizational capabilities are
Harvey, Novicevic, et al., 2003). detailed, analytic, stable processes that resemble traditional routines
but, in high-velocity markets, they are emergent, fragile processes with
4.6.4. Reconfiguration unpredictable outcomes (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
Vanharanta et al. (2014, p. 2094) observe that KAM is “much like Our review highlights the importance of continuously renewing
strategy in general … emergent and dynamic.” When markets change KAM capabilities related to roles, skills, and resources associated with
rapidly, incremental improvements are no longer sufficient and radical the management of key accounts (Capon & Senn, 2010; Davies & Ryals,
reconfiguration becomes essential to KAM competitiveness (Shi & Wu, 2009). Dynamic capabilities enable companies to respond to changes in
2011). In these circumstances, fluid and flexible perspectives are su- the business environment by identifying needs for change, formulating
perior to fixed and formal KAM (Bradford et al., 2012). The con- responses, and implementing them (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;
sequences to KAM teams of disruptive change are substantial: they must Gebauer, 2011; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006). Our findings,
play consultancy roles to introduce new ways of doing business, new which indicate the rise of research on dynamic capabilities, also suggest
resources, and new routines to their customers; such new approaches an increase in environmental uncertainty (e.g., Fig. 6). Globalization
may be radical and difficult to imitate (Salojärvi & Saarenketo, 2013; poses one of the greatest challenges facing humankind, and requires the
Shi et al., 2005). Account teams must also be adaptive enough to ad- anticipation of and response to multiple business environments and
vocate the radical change required by customers (Gosselin & Bauwen, sources of uncertainty and risk. Many company practitioners of KAM
2006; Jean et al., 2014; Shi & Wu, 2011). excel at using their operational capabilities; however, developing and
Radical reconfiguration is associated with longer-established KAM consistently delivering dynamic capabilities does set a challenge.
programs and a tendency for them to grow out of local initiatives to Nevertheless, having such capabilities is a source of differentiation that
address multiple markets, or over time, even to become global (Davies helps companies succeed. As Teece (2014) notes, dynamic capabilities
& Ryals, 2009). As KAM programs develop, account teams must tackle that involve higher-level activities enable enterprises to direct their
more ambiguous and complex problems and must develop innovative ordinary activities toward high-payoff endeavors but require managing
solutions to serve their key accounts flexibly. Such developmental ac- or orchestrating of resources to address and shape rapidly changing
tion can be a catalyst for closer strategic and operational alignment of business environments. Our review indicates that suppliers can create
suppliers and customers (Gosselin & Bauwen, 2006; Richards & Jones, competitive advantage by differentiating KAM according to dynamic
2009). Managing volatility and turbulence in the customer environment capabilities, making it difficult for their competitors to imitate them.
is a different and more dynamic activity than traditional market sen-
sing; suppliers who anticipate and respond to external contingencies 5.1. Managerial implications
(Al-Husan et al., 2014) and adjust to relationship turbulence obtain
greater competitive advantages (Blocker et al., 2011). Our framework outlines the critical KAM resources and capabilities
that require investment and support (Figs. 4 and 5). It delineates focal
5. Discussion areas for designing KAM interventions that create differentiated com-
petitive advantages. Our results can enhance the effectiveness of KAM
KAM is now viewed as an important source of competitive ad- programs; and our findings could in future be translated into a set of
vantage and differentiation but lacks a theoretical lens that integrates dimensions that are amenable to benchmarking across organizations.
its critical elements and supports its practice. To address this gap, we The current research also examines the resources and capabilities
conduct a systematic literature review of KAM through the lens of re- that underpin KAM, some of which are currently well-understood (e.g.,
source-based theory (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984), integrating the tangible and intangible resources and operational capabilities; how-
dynamic capability perspective (Teece et al., 1997), allowing us to ever, dynamic capabilities such as market sensing, opportunity crea-
classify the relevant resources and capabilities that underpin KAM tion, continuous improvement, and reconfiguration may go unnoticed
(Fig. 1). during strategic reviews or customer-related performance evaluations.
Our theoretical contribution stems from providing a conceptually Our systematic review provides insights that managers can use to
grounded framework (Fig. 4) of KAM as complex and interconnected generate value from their most important customer relationships.
sets of resources (tangible and intangible) and capabilities (operational We recognize that KAM has been criticized by practitioners who
and dynamic) that—over time—have the potential to generate sus- argue that it does not bring about the outcomes it was initially pre-
tained competitive advantage. While a company's tangible and in- dicted to. This review helps explain these failures and makes a case for
tangible resources are the building blocks of KAM and such resources conceptualizing KAM as a set of resources and capabilities that—if

169
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

managed adequately—can increase long-term performance by devel- Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
oping sustained competitive advantage. Our proposed framework helps Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (2014). How marketing scholars might help address issues in resource-based
managers clarify expectations and understand why KAM initiatives may theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 24–26.
fail when they are conceived as isolated and discrete events rather than Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. M. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications.
a combination of interrelated resources and capabilities. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. S. Harrison (Eds.). Handbook of strategic management
(pp. 124–188). New York: Wiley.
Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2010). VRIO framework, strategic management and com-
5.2. Research directions petitive advantage. New Jersey: Pearson.
Birkinshaw, J., Toulan, O., & Arnold, D. (2001). Global account management in multi-
national corporations: Theory and evidence. Journal of International Business Studies,
Qualitative research is needed to explore whether our con- 32(2), 231–248.
ceptualization of KAM in terms of resources and capabilities is com- Blocker, C. P., Flint, D. J., Myers, M. B., & Slater, S. F. (2011). Proactive customer or-
prehensive, and to extend or consolidate the resources and capabilities ientation and its role for creating customer value in global markets. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 216–233.
identified. Researchers might then propose specific measures for each
Blythe, J. (2002). Using trade fairs in key account management. Industrial Marketing
construct and develop quantitative studies to test the model and explore Management, 31(7), 627–635.
how KAM programs vary in terms of resource and capabilities mix. Bradford, D. K., Challagalla, N. G., Hunter, C. W., & Moncrief, C. W. (2012). Strategic
Using resource-based theory, researchers might also evaluate the account management: Conceptualizing, integrating, and extending the domain from
fluid to dedicated accounts. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(1),
resources and capabilities identified here, based on whether they are 41–56.
valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and supported by organizations, as Brehmer, P. O., & Rehme, J. (2009). Proactive and reactive: Drivers for key account
in the four-question VRIO framework (Barney & Hesterly, 2010). That management programmes. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 961–984.
Capon, N., & Senn, C. (2010). Global customer management programs: How to make
approach should also lead researchers to study various new types of them really work. California Management Review, 52(2), 32–55.
KAM resources and capabilities, and the extent to which they can Davies, I. A., & Ryals, L. J. (2009). A stage model for transitioning to KAM. Journal of
meet all four VRIO criteria, which would indicate they are truly stra- Marketing Management, 25(9–10), 1027–1048.
Davies, I. A., & Ryals, L. J. (2013). Attitudes and behaviours of key account managers: Are
tegic in nature for the supplier. Interesting questions also include to they really any different to senior sales professionals? Industrial Marketing
what extent such strategic KAM related resources and capabilities differ Management, 42(6), 919–931.
from those already identified in generic marketing research, and the Davies, I. A., & Ryals, L. J. (2014). The effectiveness of key account management prac-
tices. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(7), 1182–1194.
extent to which KAM-specific dynamic capabilities differ from higher- Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing,
level organization-specific dynamic capabilities. Research on these 58(1), 37–52.
questions could help companies assess their opportunities to develop Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan, &
A. Bryman (Eds.). The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689).
and maintain sustainable competitive advantages through KAM and
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
differentiate themselves from their competitors. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
A closer look at how KAM resources and capabilities are related interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4),
would also be a worthwhile avenue of future inquiry. For example, we 660–679.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
might investigate which resources are meaningful antecedents of which Management Journal, 21(1), 1105–1121.
capabilities; or seek to determine which methods companies use to Ford, D. (1980). The development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets.
develop or acquire KAM resources and capabilities. Research might also European Journal of Marketing, 14(5/6), 339–353.
Frankwick, G. L., Porter, S. S., & Crosby, L. A. (2001). Dynamics of relationship selling: A
address the level and type of returns companies might expect from longitudinal examination of changes in salesperson-customer relationship status.
particular resources or capabilities, and in what timescale. A follow-up Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21(2), 135–146.
question might then be whether returns can be evaluated individually Friend, S. B., & Johnson, J. S. (2014). Key account relationships: An exploratory inquiry of
customer-based evaluations. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(4), 642–658.
or if they should be clustered. Further research might also seek mod- Gebauer, H. (2011). Exploring the contribution of management innovation to the evo-
eration effects between specific resources and capabilities, and then lution of dynamic capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1238–1250.
determine which operational capabilities are most critical to successful Geiger, S., & Turley, D. (2006). The perceived impact of information technology on
salespeople's relational competencies. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(7–8),
KAM, and in which contexts dynamic capabilities are most required.
827–851.
As the research has to date predominantly scrutinized KAM from the Georges, L., & Eggert, A. (2003). Key account managers' role within the value creation
supplier side, future research could extend to examine the extent to process of collaborative relationships. Journal of Business to Business Marketing, 10(4),
1–22.
which strategic KAM processes can develop into mutually dependent
Gosselin, D. P., & Bauwen, G. A. (2006). Strategic account management: Customer value
and symbiotic relationships. Such research would presumably consider creation through customer alignment. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
what are the characteristics that customer organizations must have to 21(6), 376–385.
make them mutually strategically beneficial; and what capabilities Gosselin, D., & Heene, A. (2003). A competence-based analysis of account management:
Implications for a customer-focused organization. Journal of Selling & Major Account
suppliers should have in order to identify such mutually strategic sup- Management, 5(1), 11–31.
plier-customer dyads; and, how might suppliers develop their strategic Gounaris, S., & Tzempelikos, N. (2013). Key account management orientation and its
KAM resources and capabilities through such relationships. implications: A conceptual and empirical examination. Journal of Business-to-Business
Marketing, 20(1), 33–50.
Further analysis of these and other questions would contribute to Gounaris, S., & Tzempelikos, N. (2014). Relational key account management: Building
both the conceptualization and application of our proposed framework. key account management effectiveness through structural reformations and re-
lationship management skills. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(7), 1110–1123.
Grant, R. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for
References strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 3–23.
Gruber, M., Heinemann, F., Brettel, M., & Hungeling, S. (2010). Configurations of re-
Abratt, R., & Kelly, P. M. (2002). Customer–supplier partnerships: Perceptions of a suc- sources and capabilities and their performance implications: An exploratory study on
cessful key account management program. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(5), technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12), 1337–1356.
467–476. Guenzi, P., Georges, L., & Pardo, C. (2009). The impact of strategic account managers'
Al-Husan, F. B., AL-Husan, F. B., & Fletcher-Chen, C. C. (2014). Environmental factors behaviors on relational outcomes: An empirical study. Industrial Marketing
influencing the management of key accounts in an Arab Middle Eastern context. Management, 38(3), 300–311.
Industrial Marketing Management, 43(4), 592–602. Guenzi, P., Pardo, C., & Georges, L. (2007). Relational selling strategy and key account
Al-Husan, F. B., & Brennan, R. (2009). Strategic account management in an emerging managers' relational behaviors: An exploratory study. Industrial Marketing
economy. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(8), 611–620. Management, 36(1), 121–133.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Guenzi, P., & Storbacka, K. (2015). The organizational implications of implementing key
Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46. account management: A case-based examination. Industrial Marketing Management,
Atanasova, Y., & Senn, C. (2011). Global customer team design: Dimensions, determi- 45, 84–97.
nants, & performance outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 278–289. Guesalaga, R. (2014). Top management involvement with key accounts: The concept, its
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive dimensions, and strategic outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(7),
advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665. 1146–1156.

170
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

Hakanen, T. (2014). Co-creating integrated solutions within business networks: The KAM Marketing Management, 43(7), 1157–1171.
team as knowledge integrator. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(7), 1195–1203. Reckwitz, A. (2002). The status of the “material” in theories of culture: From “social
Harmsen, H., & Jensen, B. (2004). Identifying the determinants of value creation in the structure” to “artefacts”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32(2), 195–217.
market: A competence-based approach. Journal of Business Research, 57(5), 533–547. Rehme, J., Kowalkowski, C., & Nordigården, D. (2013). Sales coordination and structural
Harvey, M., Myers, M. B., & Novicevic, M. M. (2003). The managerial issues associated complexity: A national-international comparison. Journal of Business & Industrial
with global account management: A relational contract perspective. Journal of Marketing, 28(6), 514–522.
Management Development, 22(2), 103–129. Richards, K. A., & Jones, E. (2009). Key account management: Adding elements of ac-
Harvey, M. G., Novicevic, M. M., Hench, T., & Myers, M. (2003). Global account man- count fit to an integrative theoretical framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
agement: A supply-side managerial view. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(7), Management, 29(4), 305–320.
563–571. Ryals, L. J., & Davies, I. A. (2013). Where's the strategic intent in key account relation-
Haytko, D. L. (2004). Firm-to-firm and interpersonal relationships: Perspectives from ships? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(2), 111–124.
advertising agency account managers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Ryals, L. J., & Holt, S. (2007). Creating and capturing value in KAM relationships. Journal
32(3), 312–328. of Strategic Marketing, 15(5), 403–420.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability Ryals, L., & McDonald, M. (2007). Key account plans: The practitioners' guide to profitable
lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010. planning. Oxford: Routledge.
Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Ryals, L. J., & Rogers, B. (2006). Holding up the mirror: The impact of strategic pro-
Strategy for the (n)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), curement practices on account management. Business Horizons, 49(1), 41–50.
1243–1250. Ryals, L., & Rogers, B. (2007). Key account planning: Benefits, barriers and best practice.
Henneberg, S. C., Pardo, C., Mouzas, S., & Naudè, P. (2009). Value dimensions and re- Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15(2–3), 209–222.
lationship postures in dyadic ‘key relationship programmes. Journal of Marketing Salojärvi, H., & Saarenketo, S. (2013). The effect of teams on customer knowledge pro-
Management, 25(5–6), 535–550. cessing, esprit de corps and account performance in international key account
Hollensen, S. (2006). Global account management (GAM): Two case studies illustrating management. European Journal of Marketing, 47(5/6), 987–1005.
the organizational set-up. Marketing Management Journal, 16(1), 245–250. Salojärvi, H., Sainio, L. M., & Tarkiainen, A. (2010). Organizational factors enhancing
Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., Jr., & Jensen, O. (2002). A configurational perspective on customer knowledge utilization in the management of key account relationships.
key account management. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 38–60. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1395–1402.
Ivens, B. S., & Pardo, C. (2008). Key account-management in business markets: An em- Sharma, A. (2006). Success factors in key accounts. Journal of Business and Industrial
pirical test of common assumptions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(5), Marketing, 21(3), 141–150.
301–310. Shi, L. H., White, J. C., McNally, R. C., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S. (2005). Executive in-
Jean, R.-J., Sinkovics, R. R., Kim, D., & Lew, Y. K. (2014). Drivers and performance im- sights: Global account management capability: Insights from leading suppliers.
plications of international key account management capability. International Business Journal of International Marketing, 13(2), 93–113.
Review, 24(4), 543–555. Shi, L. H., White, J. C., Zou, S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2010). Global account management
Jones, E., Dixon, A. L., Chonko, L. B., & Cannon, J. P. (2005). Key accounts and team strategies: Drivers and outcomes. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4),
selling: A review, framework, and research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales 620–638.
Management, 25(2), 181–198. Shi, L. H., & Wu, F. (2011). Dealing with market dynamism: The role of reconfiguration in
Jones, E., Richards, K. A., Halstead, D., & Fu, F. Q. (2009). Developing a strategic fra- global account management. Management International Review, 51(5), 635–663.
mework of key account performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(3–4), Shi, L. H., Zou, S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). A conceptual framework of global account
221–235. management capabilities and firm performance. International Business Review, 13(5),
Judson, K. M., Gordon, G.l., Ridnour, R. E., & Weilbaker, D. C. (2009). Key account vs. 539–553.
other sales management systems: Is there a difference in providing customer input Sluyts, K., Matthyssens, P., Martens, R., & Streukens, S. (2011). Building capabilities to
during the new product development process? Marketing Management Journal, 19(2), manage strategic alliances. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 875–886.
1–17. Speakman, J. I., & Ryals, L. J. (2012). Key account management: The inside selling job.
Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(5), 360–369.
marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 1–21. Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, K. (2001). The resource-based view and
Lusch, R., & Harvey, M. (1994). Opinion: The case for and off-balance sheet controller. marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal
Sloan Management Review, 35(2), 101–105. of Management, 27(6), 777–802.
Marcos-Cuevas, J., Nätti, S., Palo, T., & Ryals, L. J. (2014). Implementing key account Storbacka, K. (2012). Strategic account management programs: Alignment of design
management: Intraorganizational practices and associated dilemmas. Industrial elements and management practices. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(4),
Marketing Management, 43(7), 1216–1224. 259–274.
McDonald, M., Millman, T., & Rogers, B. (1997). Key account management: Theory, Sullivan, U. Y., Peterson, R. M., & Krishnan, V. (2012). Value creation and firm sales
practice and challenges. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(8), 737–757. performance: The mediating roles of strategic account management and relationship
Morgan, N. A., Kaleka, A., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2004). Antecedents of export venture perception. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 166–173.
performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal of Marketing, Swoboda, B., Schlüter, A., Olejnik, P. C. E., & Morschett, D. (2012). Does centralising
68(1), 90–108. global account management activities in response to international retailers pay off?
Nath, P., Nachiappan, S., & Ramanathan, R. (2010). The impact of marketing capability, Management International Review, 52(5), 727–756.
operations capability and diversification strategy on performance: A resource-based Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal
view. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 317–329. of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.
Nätti, S., Halinen, A., & Hanttu, N. (2006). Customer knowledge transfer and key account Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary
management in professional service organizations. International Journal of Service capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. The Academy of Management
Industry Management, 17(4), 304–319. Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352.
Nätti, S., & Palo, T. (2012). Key account management in business-to-business expert or- Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-
ganisations: An exploratory study on the implementation process. Service Industries agement. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Journal, 32(11), 1837–1852. Toulan, O., Birkinshaw, J., & Arnold, D. (2006). The role of interorganizational fit in
Nätti, S., Rahkolin, S., & Saraniemi, S. (2014). Crisis communication in key account re- global account management. International Studies of Management and Organization,
lationships. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 19(3), 234–246. 36(4), 61–81.
Ojasalo, J. (2001). Key account management at company and individual levels in busi- Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
ness-to-business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 16(3), evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
199–220. Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Ojasalo, J. (2002). Key account management in information-intensive services. Journal of Tzempelikos, N., & Gounaris, S. (2013). Approaching key account management from a
Retailing and Consumer Services, 9(5), 269–276. long-term perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21(2), 179–198.
Pardo, C., Henneberg, S. C., Mouzas, S., & Naudè, P. (2006). Unpicking the meaning of Tzempelikos, N., & Gounaris, S. (2015). Linking key account management practices to
value in key account management. European Journal of Marketing, 40(11/12), performance outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 22–34.
1360–1374. Vanharanta, M., Gilchrist, J. P., Andrew, D., Pressey, A., & Lenney, P. (2014). The re-
Petrick, J. A., Scherer, R. F., Brodzinski, J. D., Quinn, J. F., & Ainina, M. F. (1999). Global flexive turn in key account management: Beyond formal and post-bureaucratic pre-
leadership skills and reputational capital: Intangible resources for sustainable com- scriptions. European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12), 2071–2104.
petitive advantage. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(1), 58–69. Wagner, E. R., & Hansen, E. N. (2004). A method for identifying and assessing key cus-
Phelan, S. E., & Lewin, P. (2000). Arriving at a strategic theory of the firm. International tomer group needs. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(7), 643–655.
Journal of Management Reviews, 2(4), 305–323. Wengler, S. (2007). The appropriateness of the key account management organization.
Piercy, N. F. (2009). Strategic relationships between boundary-spanning functions: Journal of Business Market Management, 1(4), 253–272.
Aligning customer relationship management with supplier relationship management. Wengler, S., Ehret, M., & Saab, S. (2006). Implementation of key account management:
Industrial Marketing Management, 38(8), 857–864. Who, why, and how? An exploratory study on the current implementation of key
Piercy, N., & Lane, N. (2006). The underlying vulnerabilities in key account management account management programs. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(1), 103–112.
strategies. European Management Journal, 24(2), 151–162. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard 5(2), 171–180.
Business Review, 68(3), 79–91. Wiersema, F. (2013). The B2B agenda: The current state of B2B marketing and a look
Pressey, A. D., Gilchrist, A. J., & Lenney, P. (2014). Sales and marketing resistance to key ahead. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(4), 470–488.
account management implementation: An ethnographic investigation. Industrial Wiessmeier, G. F. L., Thoma, A., & Senn, C. (2012). Leveraging synergies between R&D

171
R. Guesalaga et al. Industrial Marketing Management 75 (2018) 160–172

and key account management to drive value creation. Research-Technology capabilities on financial performance in the UK retail sector: A resource-based per-
Management, May-June, (15-22). spective. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 25–31.
Wilson, K., & Weilbaker, D. (2004). Global account management: A literature based Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic
conceptual model. Mid-American Journal of Business, 19(1), 13–21. capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies,
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 43(4), 917–955.
24(10), 991–995. Zupancic, D. (2008). Towards an integrated framework of key account management.
Workman, J. P., Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2003). Intraorganizational determinants of Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(5), 323–331.
key account management effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Zupancic, D., & Müllner, M. (2008). International key account management in manu-
31(1), 3–21. facturing companies: An exploratory approach of situative differentiation. Journal of
Yu, W., Ramanathan, R., & Nath, P. (2014). The impacts of marketing and operations Business-to-Business Marketing, 15(4), 455–475.

172