Key account management as a firm capability

Abstract

Firms manage numerous inter-organizational relationships. Key account management (KAM) is a concept used to manage a specific subset of these relationships, i.e. a supplier firm's relationships with strategically important customers. Scholars have studied different elements of KAM such as actors, resources, or relationships. Surprisingly few studies discuss the link between KAM and competitive advantage. By adopting a capability perspective on KAM, we seek to develop a theoretical basis to better explain its performance-implications. The capability perspective is compatible with extant approaches and complements them with new arguments concerning the value that a KAM system has in competition. The purpose of our article is to develop a conceptual model of a supplier firm's KAM capability and to indicate avenues for future research.

The role of customer orientation in key account managers’ performance: a client network perspective

“…This extends our understanding of KAMs’ customer orientation and its effect on purchasing outcomes. Most studies have adopted a unilateral perspective to investigate how firms’ key account management capabilities or practices improve firm performance (Gounaris and Tzempelikos, 2014; Guesalaga et al , 2018; Ivens et al , 2018; Tzempelikos and Gounaris, 2015), while others have focused on the linkages between KAMs’ behaviors and their individual or team performance. No study has been able to consider how key account customers actually react to KAMs’ customer orientation behaviors (Guenzi et al , 2007; Lai and Yang, 2017).…”

Top managers’ role in key account management

“…To check the intra-organizational alignment on the internal processes and procedures, on the internal cooperation, and on new ways of doing business. Blocker et al, 2011;Bradford et al, 2012;Guesalaga and Johnston, 2010;Ivens et al, 2018;Marcos-Cuevas et al, 2014;Pereira et al, 2018;Piercy, 2009;Philippe Gosselin and André Bauwen, 2006;Richards and Jones, 2009;Salojärvi et al, 2013;Vanharanta et al, 2014;and Workman et al, 2003. To mitigate the trade-offs that arise from the conflict between short/long-term deliverables.…”

“…Baddar Al-Husan and Brennan, 2009;Davies and Ryals, 2014;Georges and Eggert, 2003;Ivens et al, 2018;Philippe Gosselin and André Bauwen, 2006;Ryals and Rogers, 2007;Toulan et al, 2006;Wengler et al, 2006;and Workman et al, 2003. To check the value added to the KAs to induce the customer to get engaged in suppliers' projects; to unveil opportunities to increase the supplier's financial return, to improve the account managers' performance, or to build barriers to the competitors.…”

“…Improvement of organizational structure may also require an analysis of intra-organizational alignment (Guesalaga and Johnston, 2010; Marcos-Cuevas et al , 2014). This analysis embraces the partnerships already established by internal departments (Ivens et al , 2018; Piercy, 2009), as well as internal processes and procedures (Marcos-Cuevas et al , 2014; Pereira et al , 2018; Vanharanta et al , 2014). Beyond that a supplier may be interested in checking marketing and sales resources in relation to KA effectiveness (Workman et al , 2003) or considering whether the KAM perspective is fluid and flexible (Bradford et al , 2012).…”

“…According to the literature, the selection and reselection of KAs aims to ensure long-lasting partnerships (Sullivan et al , 2012). The common elements usually considered include the customer’s size, profitability and lifetime value (Baddar Al‐Husan and Brennan, 2009; Toulan et al , 2006; Wengler et al , 2006), as well as the relational costs, revenue and technology matching (Ivens et al , 2018). Organizational or strategic fit are also considered in defining KAs (Georges and Eggert, 2003; Gosselin and Bauwen, 2006; Workman et al , 2003).…”