2. 192 D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205
that encourage high customer interactivity (Bonner, 2005; 2005). Unfortunately, the sharing of customer information is
Reinartz, Krafft, & Hoyer, 2004; Robinson, Marshall, & Stamps, where many organizations fail in the pursuit of becoming
2005). customer-centric (Manning & Reese, 2002). Ultimately, the
Despite this promise, it has become commonplace in the leveraging of multiple types of customer data across
academic literature and popular business press to claim that functional departments will require a cultural shift in
CIS and the related concept of CRM have been at best organizational philosophies and structure so that the sharing
ineffectual and at worst a financial nightmare. 2 Growth-wise, of information is more commonplace (Fredericks, 2005;
through the latter half of the 1990s through early 2000, Zahay & Griffin, 2004).
companies spent billions of dollars on CIS designed to track To date, CIS research has focused primarily on “installation”
and strengthen customer relationships. As has been commen- issues such as gaining sponsor support, IT infrastructure, and
ted upon extensively in the literature, the majority of the firms training (Wilson, Daniel, & McDonald, 2002) rather than on
investing resources in CIS technology failed to garner the understanding organizational factors that influence when, how,
expected benefits associated with getting close to customers. and why firms “adopt” CIS and similar CRM information tech-
Many adopters of CIS technology grew frustrated and learned nology (Kickul & Gundry, 2002; Mole, Ghobadian, O'Regan, &
firsthand that becoming customer-centric requires a high level Liu, 2004; Peppers & Rodgers, 2003). Moreover, little is known
of coordination between IT, marketing, and other functional about the organizational and strategy formation processes
areas (Gulati & Oldroyd, 2005; Zahay, Griffin, & Fredericks, through which organizations can successfully harness customer
2004; Zahay, Peltier, Griffin, & Schultz, 2004). The lack of information within and across firms (Peltier et al., 2003; Peltier,
internal coordination that many organizations encountered and Schibrowsky, Schultz, Zahay, in press). Given the promise that
the resulting negative impact on ROI contributed to a sharp successful CIS offers organizations desiring to get closer to
drop in CIS development. After rising 28% between 1999 and customers, conceptual and empirical research are needed that
2000, CRM sales dropped by 5% in 2001, 25% in 2002, and offer insight for explaining why organizations succeed and fail in
17% in 2003 (Gartner Research, 2004). implementing CIS (Avlonitis & Panagopoulos, 2005; Payton &
Even as sales of CIS technology lagged, organizations were Zahay, 2005).
still facing an exponential rise in the amount of information Although research investigating how organizations evaluate,
needed to meet data demands associated with managing elec- adopt, and implement CIS technology is in its infancy, the new
tronic commerce and supply chain applications (Gartner Re- product development (NPD) literature and related literature on
search, 2000). In spite of past failures, recent investments in CIS entrepreneurial activities provide a strong theoretical and empi-
technologies have grown at an impressive rate. Part of this rical foundation for studying its diffusion (Griffin, 1997). The
resurgence can be attributed to the fact that beginning in 2002, NPD literature is especially relevant for explaining how orga-
CIS users started reporting increased satisfaction with their nizations reassess, realign, adopt, and utilize CIS that match
investments (Bain & Company, 2005). This increased satisfac- internal capabilities, meet resource allocations requirements,
tion can be traced to the use of a more focused CIS approach and that enhance firm profitability (Jayacharndran, Sharma,
that coordinates the transfer of customer information to orga- Kaufman, & Raman, 2005). Implementation of customer infor-
nizational entities responsible for interacting (i.e., salespeople, mation management technology is a cross-functional, complex
call centers, direct/interactive marketing, etc.) with customers process integrating a multitude of individual and organizational
(Rigby & Ledingham, 2004). Significantly, Bain & Company factors. Therefore, literature from the Resource-Based View
Study (2005) reported that 75% of the global firms they sur- (RBV) of the firm also provides a conceptual foundation for
veyed are now using CIS. Forrester Research predicts that the explaining how and why CIS adoption decisions are made and
CIS market will grow at more than an 11% annually pace why certain firms are more effective in building information-
through 2007 (Forrester Research 2002, 2004). intensive customer relationships (Fredericks, 2005; Theohar-
There is a growing consensus that CIS systems provide a akis & Hooley, 2003; Tian, Talai, & Wesley, 2005). Merging
mechanism for effectively and efficiently serving customers. these rich and diverse literature bases, this paper presents the
However, successful customer-driven CIS requires a commit- findings from a study investigating organizational factors ne-
ment to understanding and implementing relational strategies cessary for successfully managing customer information.
that are based on the needs of individual customers across the Acknowledging the importance of organizational factors in
relationship lifecycle, from the initial segmentation and targe- contexts involving cross-functional processes and strategy
ting of prospects and new customers, through customer formation, the goal of this research is to answer the following
valuation and retention (Peltier et al., 2003; Rigby & questions:
Ledingham, 2004). Yet, gaining organization-wide acceptance
of CIS technology is no easy task and necessitates the sharing 1. What specific organizational factors are relevant to effec-
of information across functional boundaries (Robinson et al., tively manage customer information in the firm?
2. By what strategy-formation process can firms most effec-
2 tively embark upon a strategy to integrate customer infor-
The authors view Customer Information Systems and Customer Relation-
ship Management Systems as relatively interrelated customer-based informa- mation into strategic processes?
tion and management technology. In this article we use CIS to place the 3. What are possible differences between high and low per-
emphasis on customer information. forming adopters of CIS?
3. D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205 193
2. Organizing framework: resource-based theory successful launch innovations (Moorman, 1995). How these
informational resources are supported and shared across
The Resource-Based View of the firm is grounded on the functional areas is seen to be crucial to the success of CIS
principle that organizations possess a finite set of resources and NPD efforts (Hayton, 2005; Wade & Hulland, 2004; Zahay
through which they attempt to cultivate competitive advantages & Handfield, 2004). Similar to the NPD context, the use of
and superior long-term performance (Grant, 1991). Conceptu- customer information can be seen as an interactive process
ally, firms can secure and sustain competitive advantages in one through which decision-makers make sense of what is occurring
of two ways, by having significantly more resources that their internal and external to the organization and leveraging key
competitors and/or by better utilizing them, especially when informational assets to add value to the firm. To effectively
these resources are relatively scarce and cannot be easily copied, utilize informational assets necessary for understanding and
acquired or substituted (Barney, 1991; Rumelt, 1986). Empir- responding to customers, an organizational culture must be in
ical studies within the RBV literature have shown that financial place that supports the formation of knowledge depositories
performance is variable across firms with disparate amount of allowing access to multiple NPD teams and/or functional
resources, underscoring the importance that individual, firm- groups, and that creates an environment conducive to its use
specific resources have in maximizing organizational profits (Davenport, De Long & Beers, 1998; Zahay, Griffin, &
(Wade & Hulland, 2004). Furthermore, because performance is Fredericks, 2004; Sherman, Berkowitz, & Souder, 2005;
also variable for firms with a relatively equal financial footing, Yasuda, 2005).
organizations that better utilize their resources in a complemen- Consistent with research objectives, the NPD literature was
tary and mutually dependent fashion are likely to form better examined in detail as a means of (1) identifying organizational
buyer–seller relationships (Xie, Song, & Stringfellow, 2003). factors that influence the acceptance of CIS within and across
Overall, there is a paucity of conceptual and empirical organizations, (2) determining organizational factors that might
research investigating the strategic use and implementation of be important for effectively managing customer information, and
CIS as an organizational resource, particularly with regard to (3) understanding strategy-formation procedures for integrating
viewing customers as an organizational asset (Zander & Zander, customer information into the strategic planning process. Al-
2005). The lack of theory and normative guidance regarding the though exploratory in nature and not exhaustive, Fig. 1 presents
effective utilization of CIS have in part contributed to research the organizational factors derived from the NPD literature for
findings showing that performance differences between firms explaining the successful adoption of CIS. These interrelated
using customer relationship management are smaller than organizational dimensions, which are discussed below, include:
would be expected (Avlonitis & Panagopoulos, 2005). Logi- Information quality, Communication, Cross-functional integra-
cally, firms with a greater “information orientation” regarding tion, Conflict management, Teamwork, team rewards, co-loca-
the management and utilization of customer information tion, and Top management support. The applicability of these
technology across functional entities should expect superior categories to the context of CIS management is subsequently
firm performance. In fact, specific to the management of data, tested through qualitative research methods.
effective CIS practices using both relational and transactional
data have been shown to contribute to organizational success 3.1. Information quality
(Zahay & Griffin, 2003, 2004; Zahay, Griffin et al., 2004;
Zahay, Peltier et al., 2004). From a Resource-Based View of the In a review of earlier NPD work, di Benedetto (1999)
firm, integrating in-depth knowledge of customers into the underscored the importance of information-gathering efforts to
decision-making process is an underutilized organizational the overall success of new product launches. More recently, van
resource and presents a distinct opportunity for long-term der Bij, Song, and Weggeman (2003) and Garcia (2005) equated
growth. Because buyers differ in the types of relationships they information quality to knowledge dissemination, positing that the
seek, the segmentation and target-specific deployment of success of technology-based innovations is a function of the
informational assets are crucial for ensuring deep and continual quality of the information received and utilized throughout the
customer relationships (Peltier et al., 2007). NPD process. In addition to its availability, Agün, Lynn, and
Byrne (2006) suggested that the extent to which NPD teams are
3. Organizing framework: new product development receptive to market and technology-based information directly
theory impacts its perceived value. Specific to past data collection
efforts, Sherman et al. (2005) showed that the quality of infor-
Although the RBV of the firm and CIS have received scant mation an organization has in its database regarding previous
conceptual and empirical integration to date, the NPD literature entrepreneurial product development efforts contributed to launch
studying entrepreneurial activities within firms offers a strong proficiency. Similarly, and consistent with effective CIS, Song,
theoretical foundation for investigating the successful adoption van der Bij, and Weggeman (2005) found that the quality of
and utilization of customer-based assets. In harmony with the knowledge transfer is directly related to information technology
notion of customer information as an organizational asset, it is excellence. Focusing on the frequency and quality of information
critical for new product development teams to have access to a received throughout the NPD, Maltz and Kohli (2000) noted a
wide range of internal (e.g., competencies) and external non-linear relationship exists between the two constructs, an
information (e.g., customer needs) resources to develop and indication that information quality is compromised when
4. 194 D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205
Fig. 1. New product literature review summary, top organizational factors relating to NPD success.
decision-makers receive an inadequate amount of information or by the fact that NPD has seen an increase in the number and
when a state of information overload exists. size of stakeholder groups (e.g., customers, suppliers), and the
Building on the NPD literature and the growing stream of information needed is becoming more cross-functional across
research on information technology, the perceived quality of organizational, cultural and geographic boundaries (Dahan &
information generated through the adoption of CIS and how that Hauser, 2001; Fleiss & Becker, 2006). NPD and entrepreneur-
information is shared across an organization is expected to ial processes that minimize potential communication barriers
contribute to organizational success (Zahay & Griffin, 2003, internal and external to the organization, particularly those
2004; Zahay, Griffin et al., 2004; Zahay, Peltier et al., 2004). involving information technology, are seen as having an
How managers view the quality of information received from increased likelihood for success (Bond & Houston, 2003).
CIS will likely be a function of how well available information Generating organizational awareness of a new technology,
is coordinated and transferred to those individuals who are having frequent and genuine inter-functional and inter-
responsible for interacting with customers (Rigby & Leding- organizational communications, and the use of formal and
ham, 2004; Zahay, Griffin et al., 2004; Zahay & Handfield, informal communications techniques are all means by which
2004). Information quality and CIS management success are communication barriers can be lifted (Holland, Gaston, &
also expected to be related to whether customer information is Gomes, 2000; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1998; Xie et al., 2003).
collected from multiple functional areas within an organization Along these lines, Lam and Chin (2005) and Bstieler (2006)
(Calantone, Cavusgil, & Zhao, 2002) and whether the data have found that strong communications between participants in the
value to marketing and sales personnel (Payton & Zahay, 2005; NPD process lead to mutual trust and greater new product
Peltier et al., 2007). success.
Communication problems seem to be especially challeng-
Proposition 1. The perceptions of the quality of CIS informa- ing with regard to the adoption and implementation of CIS
tion and how information is shared across the organization are technologies, principally with regard to ongoing communica-
expected to positively impact CIS management success. tions between functional boundaries (Robinson et al., 2005;
Zahay, Griffin et al., 2004; Zahay, Peltier et al., 2004). In many
3.2. Communication ways, organizational members must not only be convinced of
why they should accept CIS technology, they are also faced
New product development involves the coordination of a with the dilemma of allocating time to learn about and then
large amount of information in written, face-to-face, and integrate this new way of doing business into their daily work
electronic form (Fisher, Maltz, & Jaworski, 1997; Ganesan, life (Avlonitis & Panagopoulos, 2005). CIS management
Malter, Rindfleisch, 2005; Kahn, 1996). Several studies have success will likely be contingent on having a communication
found a positive relationship between market information use network in place that is collaborative, open, and allows users to
and various measure of business performance, including interact on a frequent basis (Nambisan, 2003). The process of
overall new product development success (Deshpande, Farley, putting the customer database together and learning how the
& Webster, 1993; Moorman, 1995; Slater & Narver, 1995). information held in the customer database will benefit all
However, this information coordination effort is complicated stakeholder groups though improved communication flow.
5. D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205 195
Proposition 2. The frequency and quality of internal and 3.4. Conflict management
external communications are expected to positively impact CIS
management success. The preceding discussion highlights the need in entrepre-
neurial endeavors to develop an interface between marketing,
3.3. Cross-functional integration R&D, and IT. Yet it is often the case that cross-functional
interactions create conflict due to a fear to change the status quo
There is an extensive stream of research investigating the (Pascale & Sternin, 2005), disparate and even incongruent goals
impact of cross-functional integration on multiple NPD between functional areas (Xie et al., 2003), and a host of
performance indices. The marketing literature in particular has personality and cultural differences that naturally arise through
provided strong evidence that allowing functional areas such as bringing functional areas together with different ways of think-
R&D, marketing, manufacturing, finance, and engineering to ing (Griffin & Hauser, 1996). Of significance to CIS, research
participate in the NPD process enhances the likelihood of by Souder (1988) showed that marketing personnel feel that
success (Gupta, Raj, & Wilemon, 1985; Kahn, 1996; Leenders R&D staff (similar to IT staff in an information processing
& Wierenga, 2002; Milson & Wilemon, 2002; O'Dwyer & setting), are too scientific, lack an understanding of real world
O'Toole, 1998; Sethi, 2000; Srivastava et. al., 1999). The issues, focus too much on facts and proofs rather than on
benefits of cross-functional coordination in entrepreneurial common business solutions, and are difficult to understand. In
activities have been conceptualized in terms of more effective contrast, R&D personnel felt that their marketing counterparts
product–technology transfers, better market timing, lower give too little attention to technical details, are impatient, focus
process and marketing costs, greater access to new technology on temporary solutions and on symptoms rather than problems,
options, enhanced product differentiation, and stronger, more and likewise are difficult to understand.
sustainable competition advantages (c.f., Tatikonda & Stock, Regardless of why conflict surfaces in the NPD process,
2003). There is also evidence that not all NPD team members there is widespread evidence that its existence is detrimental to
are equally adept at handling functional integration (Bond, the transfer of knowledge throughout an organization and the
Walker, Hutt, & Reingen, 2004), citing the need to identify NPD successful development and launching of innovations (Bstieler,
and CIS champions (Gupta, Cadeaux, & Woodside, 2005; 2006; Maltz & Kohli, 2000; Maltz, Souder, & Kumar, 2001).
Howell & Shea, 2001; Tomkovick & Miller, 2000) and for Although a variety of conflict resolution strategies have been
increasing the diversity of cross-functional teams (Auh & mentioned in the NPD literature, those that seem most closely
Menguc, 2005). Importantly for CIS, cross-functional integra- associated with CIS adoption and implementation include crea-
tion has been shown to be superior when the organization is ting new multi-functional project management teams (Thieme,
adept at recording, retrieving, and reviewing information from Song, & Shin, 2003), having a commitment to collaboration and
past NPD projects (Sherman et al., 2005). open communications between functional areas (Bstieler, 2006;
To date, there has been little academic work on the cross- Lam & Chin, 2005), having senior management support (Gupta,
functional integration and deployment of CIS technology for Raj, & Wilemon, 1986), and tying rewards to overall team
improving customer information management practices (Rein- performance (Keller & Chakrabarti, 1996).
artz et al., 2005). In response, Payne and Frow (2005) empha- As before, there is again relatively little research in the
sized the need for a cross-functional approach to information customer information management literature regarding the
technology, one that positions CIS as a strategic priority for impact conflict and conflict resolution have on CIS manage-
integrating all aspects of the information management process. ment success. One potential cause of conflict is whether a
Despite this call, CIS integration across functional areas, parti- mismatch exists between current and expected information
cularly between information technology and marketing, is dif- management practices, and between the promised benefits of
ficult in that customer data can and should be collected from a using customer information and the true capability of the CIS
multitude of buyer–seller touchpoints and across all stages of (Jayacharndran et al., 2005). This conflict might be intensified if
the customer lifecycle, from the pre-purchase information users don't receive the proper training and technical support
gathered by sales to the post-purchased information gathered by needed to transition to effective CIS management practices
customer service (Payton & Zahay, 2005; Peltier et al., 2003, (Buehrer, Senecal, & Pullins, 2005). Information sharing is also
2007; Zahay, Griffin et al., 2004; Zahay, Peltier et al., 2004). a potential area for conflict, particularly with regard to the
Specific to CIS, we would expect that effective marketing/IT sharing of information between marketing and sales (Manning
integration is associated with superior customer information & Reese, 2002). The marketing–sales dilemma is further com-
management success, especially with regard to the identification pounded by the fact that these two functional areas differ in how
of the types of customer information that should be collected, they value specific types of customer data, with the sales
co-participation in the data collection process, ease of transition organization placing greater value on behavioral data as
to new software and customer management practices, and the compared to the marketing organization with its preference
facilitation of ongoing interactions needed for maintaining and for relational data (Zahay, Griffin et al., 2004; Zahay, Peltier
updating the system. et al., 2004). As a result, disparate departmental goals impede
the ability of marketing and sales personnel to jointly pursue an
Proposition 3. The quality of inter-functional integration is effective CIS that provides a cohesive and 360° view of
expected to positively impact CIS management success. customers (Peltier et al., 2007). Strategically, cross-functional
6. 196 D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205
conflict that surfaces through CIS adoption and implementation importance of encouraging team members to take risks during
can only be resolved through a process of communication and the NPD process. Regarding information flow, Bstieler (2006)
collaboration that identifies how customer data can be utilized found that open and fair communications between team mem-
by varied internal stakeholder groups (Lingreen, Palmer, & bers lead to increased intra-team trust, more collaboration, less
Wouters, 2006). egoistic behaviors, and greater new product success.
Proposition 4. Organizational conflict due to the adoption and 3.5.2. Team rewards
implementation of CIS is expected to negatively impact CIS To foster cross-functional unity, a spirit of entrepreneurship,
management success. and innovativeness, organizations are increasingly turning to the
use of rewards linked to team-based performance (Keller &
3.5. Teamwork, team rewards, and co-location Chakrabarti, 1996; Sarin & Mahajan, 2001). Assessing and
rewarding cross-functional performance place greater emphasis
Cross-functional teamwork in NPD is often viewed as one on what the team is doing to successfully develop and implement
solution to organizational conflict issues. In the NPD literature innovations rather than on individual participants (Bonner, Rue-
there are three related teamwork-oriented constructs, how teams kert, & Walker, 2002). Given the importance of cooperation,
work together, the geographic proximity of team members, and taking ownership in the entrepreneurial process, and minimizing
how team members are rewarded. While there is a burgeoning cross-functional self-interests, the use of team-based rewards has
body of literature showing that the creation of cross-functional also been found to be an effective mechanism for reducing goal
project development teams is becoming commonplace in entre- incongruity across team members (Xie et al., 2003). Relevant to
preneurial organization and that the formation of these teams CIS, team-based rewards have also been shown to motivate
contributes vital and value-added, knowledge-sharing activities increased interactions with customers (Bonner, 2005), an impor-
to the NPD process, there is as yet no empirical consensus of tant criterion for collecting and managing data.
how the constitution, social integration, and decision-making
styles of these teams impact the successful completion of the 3.5.3. Co-location
new product development task (Agün et al., 2006; McDonough, An underdeveloped stream of research on NPD teams involves
2000; Sethi, 2000). Notwithstanding, past research has shown the co-location or geographic proximity of project members and
that the way in which cross-functional NPD teams resolve whether distance negatively impacts entrepreneurial efforts.
internal conflict stemming from an inertia to change, vested Based in part on the view that information sharing is a critical
self-interests due to departmental and unit priorities, and the prerequisite for new product development success, early NPD
ownership of resulting ideas, practices, and products, is an research found support that geographic proximity is positively
important success criterion (Bstieler, 2006; Ganesan et al., related to the frequency and quality of interpersonal communica-
2005; Lu & Chyan, 2004; Milson & Wilemon, 2002; Sarin & tions between team members (Kahn & McDonough, 1997; Patti,
Mahajan, 2001). Summarizing earlier NPD research related to Gilbert, & Hartman, 1997; Van den Bulte & Moenart, 1998).
successful outcomes of cross-functional teamwork and cooper- Leenders and Wierenga (2002) demonstrated that cross-function-
ation, Griffin and Hauser (1996) concluded that “evidence is al integration was enhanced by housing marketing and R&D in
strong, consistent, common across a variety of methodologies, close proximity to each other. Recently the NPD literature on co-
and seemingly applicable in both service and products and in location has expanded to include virtual media as a communi-
both consumer and industrial markets” (p. 193). cation device. Of interest, although Ganesan et al. (2005) found
that close geographic proximity fostered increased face-to-face
3.5.1. Teamwork communications, there was no significant impact on knowledge
Recent conceptual and empirical research on NPD teams transfer. Conversely, those authors found that email communica-
offer insights for conceptualizing the successful implementation tions, which are boundary free, lead to greater creativity and
of CIS. Sarin and McDermott (2003) found that NPD project development speed. These findings correspond to research by
leaders were more successful when using a democratic lea- Schmidt, Montoya-Weiss and Massey (2001) showing that virtual
dership style for determining appropriate project goals and NPD teams were superior to co-located teams.
decision-making strategies. Similarly, Agün et al., 2006 noted Undoubtedly, up-to-date CIS technologies and human capital
that NPD teams that were able to reach collective agreement as are critical for developing efficient and effective buyer–seller
the entrepreneurial process evolved experienced higher new relationships (Boulding, Staelin, Ehret, & Johnston, 2005).
product success. In complex task environments, Akgün, Byrne, Based on the review of the NPD literature, we would expect that
Keskin, Lynn, and Imamoglu (2005) discovered that team firms that manage customer information well have continuous,
stability, team member familiarity, and interpersonal trust all wide-spread, and positive interactions between CIS team
positively impacted speed-to-market and new product success. members and organizational users, disseminating information
Ganesan et al. (2005) found that allowing the team to set project and integrating it across functional sources. Thus a dedicated
goals in a cooperative fashion, and then empowering team project team and teamwork (Griffin & Hauser, 1996), a rewards
members to reach these goals through project ownership, were structure for that team (Bonner et al., 2002; Griffin & Hauser,
most influential in generating team commitment and for achie- 1996; Leenders & Wierenga, 2002; Sarin & Mahajan, 2001;
ving launch success. Likewise, Sethi et. al. (2001) showed the Song, Neeley, & Zhao, 1996) and a team that is either co-located
7. D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205 197
to facilitate communication (Griffin & Hauser, 1996; Maltz & participative the organization, the more likely it is that middle
Kohli, 2000; Maltz et al., 2001) and/or that utilizes extensive managers will be involved in strategy formation (Parnell et al.,
virtual communications (Ganesan et al., 2005; Schmidt et al., 2002). In strategic management parlance, firms with a high
2001), are expected to be critical organizational factors to degree of participation and involvement at all levels in the
customer information management success. organization are known as ‘interactive’ firms (Ackoff, 1981).
From a practical perspective, the organizational transition to
Proposition 5. CIS team unity is expected to positively impact a customer information management philosophy cannot be seen
CIS management success. as a technology initiative, and instead needs to be guided by a
customer-centric vision nurtured by top management support
Proposition 6. Team-based rewards are expected to positively (Kale, 2004). To this end, top management needs to develop a
impact CIS management success. business strategy for determining how customer information
management practices will be integrated into the organization
Proposition 7. Team proximity is expected to positively impact and how they should evolve over time (Payne & Frow, 2005).
CIS management success. As such, management's support of cultural change is likely to
be one of the key ingredients to CIS management success
3.6. Top management support (Zahay, Griffin et al., 2004; Zahay, Peltier et al., 2004).
The role that top management plays in new product success Proposition 8.
and motivating a spirit of entrepreneurship is receiving a) Top management support is expected to positively impact
considerable research attention in a variety of industries and CIS management success, and
product categories. As with most high level strategic business b) Participative management in terms of an interactive role
decisions, the general consensus within the NPD literature is that for middle management is expected to positively impact CIS
input from senior managers is critical to successful new product management success.
programs, especially those in high risk environments (Griffin,
1997; Henard & Szymanski, 2001). How great a role top mana- Based on the review of the NPD literature, Fig. 1 summarizes
gement should have in the NPD process is as yet unresolved the directional hypotheses between NPD dimensions and CIS
given that some empirical evidence shows that centralized success. Although exploratory, we expect that data quality,
authority structures have a negative impact on team creativity communication effectiveness, cross-cultural relations, level of
and innovativeness, project completeness, and overall quality teamwork, co-location, team rewards, and management support
(Ayers, Dahlstrom & Skinner, 1997; Bonner et al., 2002). will positively impact CIS success and that conflict negatively
NPD theorists have suggested a number of important ways impacts CIS success. Fig. 2 presents the NPD success factors
that top management should be involved in NPD, including that actually emerged from the qualitative research study.
providing a clear signal that innovation is critical to accom-
plishing the organization's mission (Graber, 1996), identifying 4. Methods
NPD champions (Lester, 1998), serving as project screeners and
evaluators at various NPD stages (Bonner et al., 2002), and Since little is known about the organizational processes and
particularly in business-to-business environments, acting as strategy formation pertinent to the successful implementation of
figureheads for conveying the organization's reputation with CIS, we first conducted 17 qualitative interviews in five firms to
key accounts (Wilson & Millman, 2003). There is additional help identify relevant theoretical issues to explore in detail. This
support for the facilitative role of upper management in new first-phase exploratory study was designed to understand the
product development through vis-à-vis ‘interactive control.’ For strategic formation of customer information management systems
example, Jelinek and Schoonhoven (1990) in a case study of and the organizational needs and processes related to the successful
five successful entrepreneurial firms found interactive involve- implementation of these strategies. It was hoped that specific
ment by senior managers in the NPD process contributed to theories, constructs and operationalizations could be developed
NPD success. Imai, Nonaka, and Takeuchi (1985) found that an using this grounded theory approach. Business-to-business (B2B)
interactive management style served as a catalyst for success. firms were the focus of the research because customer information
Although positioned lower in the organizational hierarchy, management systems for B2B firms often involve more inter-
middle managers can also be seen to be important to the NPD organizational communication and coordination as compared to
process since these managers act as facilitators for proposing B2C firms. For example, the sales force, which communicates
objectives, generating and evaluating options, functioning as directly with the consumer and which often holds the key to
product champions, mediating and building consensus during information about and from the customer, must be coerced or
both implementation and strategy formation (Floyd & Woo- convinced to share information so that such a system can function.
dridge, 1994; Hutt, Reingen, & Ronchetto, 1988; Parnell, Business-to-business firms to interview were primarily selec-
Carrarher, & Holt, 2002). In the network view of the firm, middle ted from participants in a prior published quantitative study. These
managers utilize their connections to co-manage a strategy- firms had responded to a quantitative survey on strategy and
formation process that cannot be completely controlled from a customer information management with software and insurance
traditional hierarchy (Kodoma, 2005). In general, the more firms. The initial goal was to return to the prior respondents from
8. 198 D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205
Fig. 2. Qualitative reviews summary, organizational factors relating to CIS success.
that study and, through interviews with firms that were identified were rooted in RBV theory, with the firm seen as a learning
as managing customer information well, to better understand organization which in order to learn must get, store, move and use
organizational and strategic factors in the customer information (share) information across the organization. Prior research found
systems (CIS) management process. that there are eight sub-constructs involved in effective CIS
To create a richer picture of successful CIS management, management and that the differences in firm practices and per-
another B2B company in the office products and services industry formance can be distinguished by an emphasis on data quality and
was contacted. This company was selected because it had recently the ability to share information in the organization. Therefore,
won a prestigious award in Customer Relationship Management data sharing and quality were emphasized in the structured inter-
and is referred to in this research as the exemplar firm. This view script. Other questions centered about the use of customer
company was used as an extreme case for comparing the res- information in a strategic decision the firm had recently made.
ponses of other companies in the study (Miles & Huberman, Practitioner respondents were asked about a recent change in
1994). strategy, and what information was necessary for that change.
The ‘exemplar’ was dubbed as such because its broad-reaching Not surprisingly, in light of the firms' efforts in the CIS area, in
goals were expected to encompass all of the best practices found all cases the recent strategic change involved using customer
across industries, as indicated in Table 1. Because the learning information differently in the firm. While customer information
processes associated with customer information management are use was emphasized, respondents also included information
the core processes that precede effective customer relationship about their competitors. The sessions were taped and notes were
management (Jayacharndran et al., 2005; Zahay & Griffin, 2004) taken simultaneously. Each interview lasted typically thirty to
this firm was a good choice for comparison purposes. In fact, forty minutes. The lead author listened to the tapes, transcribed
during the interviews the exemplar spoke of the importance of and coded them, building an overall understanding of CIS
codifying and managing customer information before the CRM strategy formation and implementation. Standard methods of
process of identifying and segmenting customers could begin. qualitative research analysis were used to analyze the data,
In that preliminary discussions indicated that less experienced including the creation of coding sheets based on frequency of
managers were less able to provide detailed insights, the mention and the use of iterative processes of data analysis
structured interviews with all companies were conducted with (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The analysis was also conducted in
practitioners who each had at least ten years of experience in their a manner consistent with the method of Yin (1994), whereby
respective functional areas. The exemplar firm allowed seven overall patterns in the data were identified and several rounds of
members of its top management team to be interviewed, including analysis are necessary to achieve a complete picture. Several
its general manager. Job titles ranged from “customer knowledge different iterations of the coding scheme were developed before
manager” to general manager. Qualitative interviews were the final scheme was selected. A detailed description of the
conducted with these marketing practitioners in-person over a coding scheme is available upon request.
six month time frame. Interviews were recorded with permission During the interview a pattern rapidly emerged which
of the respondents and complete confidentiality was ensured. A showed how customer information is integrated throughout the
structured interview script (see Appendix) was developed in part organization that was in fact similar to the process by which
based on operationalizations of the CIS constructs from prior new products are successfully managed within the organization.
research on customer information management. These constructs Co-location, teamwork and functional integration were
9. D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205 199
Table 1
Reality versus the ideal in managing customer information
Organizational capability “Ideal” company Reality
Communication Company exchanges written, oral, electronic information Company exchanges some information about and
about and from customer throughout the organization; from the customer throughout the organization
uses a separate CIS ‘language’ which includes terms
like customer valuation, lifetime customer value, touch points
Systems/data integration (shareability) Company is organized to integrate data, the highest form of Informational ‘silos’ and multiple systems abound and
knowledge management, using appropriate systems, not all systems can talk to each other; no central data
relational as well as transactional data is emphasized repository or way to access data, emphasis is on
integration of transactional data
Teamwork Company uses a dedicated team to develop a new Team may be established but is not dedicated; people try
approach to managing customer information in the firm; to create new vision while working in current positions
people are given leave from their jobs to work on team
Co-location Organizational size and structure allows for all functional Organizational functions are dispersed physically and
areas to work in close proximity; CIS team may be co-located geographically and/or the team responsible for CIS
management is not co-located
Information quality management Organization speaks the language of data and data Organization complains about data quality but does
processes quality and quality data is an organizational priority, not have processes to manage data and to create quality;
with processes in place to manage; data dictionary in place no data dictionary
Functional integration Different functional areas work together to manage Customer information management is responsibility
customer information of each functional area
Top management vision/support Top Management supports effort and is able to understand Top management has little understanding of the
and translate CIS needs to upper management need to manage customer information in the organization
Inter-functional conflict Organization is aware of the need to manage the Organization does little from the top to manage
conflict in the organization revolving around the collection organizational conflicts regarding CIS
and management of customer information
Middle management input to strategy Middle management has strong input to strategy function, Middle management is not involved in decision-making
formation bringing the need for customer information management in terms of bringing customer information management
to top management’s attention; interactively, needs to the attention of upper management and
they create customer-based strategy primarily implements the solution
recurring themes. However, there appear to be some organiza- tiveness by middle managers seemed to play a stronger role than
tional differences unique to the management of customer is usually emphasized in the NPD literature, so, consistent with
information. The similarities and differences of the CIS process proposition 8b, participativeness was added to the explanatory
to the NPD process is the organizing structure of the results graphic in Fig. 2. The importance of a dedicated team emerged
section of this paper. as more important than teamwork skills so teamwork skills were
removed for the final graphic in Fig. 2.
5. Results In addition, companies varied significantly in terms of how
they integrated the use of customer information into their com-
Interviews were analyzed by type and frequency of mention pany strategy and how they managed that information. All firms
and results were compared in tabular format and then grouped to some extent embarked upon changes in their customer infor-
according to category. The qualitative data were coded on the mation management strategy as a result of declining profits or
dimensions that were developed from the NPD literature, as competitive pressures; interacting with their environment meant
well as other items frequently mentioned in the interview data. changing the firm in terms of customer information management.
The results of the analysis are summarized in both Table 1 and The firms were categorized into three differing levels of sophis-
Fig. 2. In general, the posited propositions were supported, with tication, by category, exemplar, software and insurance.
some exceptions. The exemplar had the broadest range of the customer infor-
When items were not mentioned that were anticipated from mation management ideal practices as noted in Table 1, such as
the earlier literature review, that item was removed from the data quality, communication, data and functional integration,
coding scheme. For example, although the NPD literature sug- teamwork, top management support and middle management
gests that both cross-functional teams and organizational con- input. The software firm focused on data integration issues to
trols mechanisms, such as team-based rewards, keep teams on understand its customers better and the insurance firms focused
track, the interviewees did not emphasize rewards structures more on data integration issues for operational efficiency
(see Fig. 2). Only the software company briefly mentioned purposes. Therefore, the software and the insurance firms each
rewards structures as regards to working with its sales force. looked a bit like the exemplar in some aspect CIS practices, since
However, all firms noted that software and data integration the exemplar sough both operational efficiency and customer
issues were critical to CIS implementation success so that factor understanding. Although the differences between the software
was substituted for rewards in the summary in Fig. 2. Similarly, and insurance firms are discussed specifically, the characteristics
in the customer information management context, participa- of the exemplar are discussed in depth because that firm provided
10. 200 D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205
a holistic approach to the organizational factors relating to customer information strategy. In Table 1 and Fig. 2, these
customer information management. practices described above are captured by functional integration
Many of the success factors in implementing a customer and the category of top management vision/support. Top ma-
information management system were indeed similar to those nagement vision/support is modified from the NPD environment
from the NPD literature. Common threads and themes across as depicted in Fig. 1 to top management support/participative-
the three types of companies, exemplar, software and insurance ness as found in the CIS environment in Fig. 2 to capture middle
included the importance of a dedicated project team, top ma- management's involvement in CIS development.
nagement support, company vision, process integration, infor- As in new product development and entrepreneurial success,
mation quality and physical proximity or co-location. In all top management was able to lend its support and maintain the
firms inter-organizational conflict was a challenge in effective vision, but in the case of the exemplar the program succeeded
CIS management. only through interaction with a strong-minded middle manage-
In the exemplar organization, not only was communication ment. In other words, successful customer information manage-
an important factor as noted in Table 1 (written communication ment seems to require an approach that is close to the customer
was especially important in the form of a blueprint of the so that management can understand the gaps in the current
interactions between the firm and its customers to which all in system. This approach has been dubbed ‘interactive strategy’
the organization could refer), the individuals in this organization and is the title of this paper. The idea of bottom-up management
spoke an entirely different language, dubbed for this research as approaches is not new (Bower, 1986). However, one of the
‘the language of CIS.’ At all levels people in the organization organizational factors in the successful implementation of
referred to the following terms with ease and there was a shared customer information management systems in the organization
understanding: is the ability of middle and upper management to collaborate
and interact both to form and implement the new direction. An
• Retention rate articulate middle management that took an active and inter-
• Lifetime customer value active role in strategy formation distinguished the exemplar, and
• Consistently value customers to some extent the software firm, from the insurance company
• Touch point (interaction point) integration environment.
• Customer knowledge As in the NPD context, all firms struggled with conflict,
• Customer relationships particularly surrounding systems and data integration issues and
• Data dictionary the integration of sales force data. However, these data inte-
• Interactions vs. transactions gration problems were particularly noticeable for insurance
• Integrated service mode firms, presumably because these firms were older and con-
fronted older, legacy systems. Data integration issues arise, for
None of the other organizations interviewed had such a depth example, when sales maintains information about customers, but
of understanding of the language of CIS as did the exemplar. that information resides in a specialized sales system, inacces-
Also, in the exemplar firm the organizational focus was not sible to other functional areas. In addition, marketing may have
just on capturing transactional information from and about the information about customer needs in a relational database, how-
customer, but collecting relational information (customer ever that database is not accessible to those in customer service,
interactions) as well. Customer service interactions were who must meet personally with the marketers to get access to the
considered particularly notable. While the team assigned to database. The resulting “information silos” frustrate marketing
create the new customer data management system was not efforts and hampered the ability of these insurance firms, in
specifically co-located in the organization, there was a dedicated particular, to respond to customer needs by offering new under-
project team assigned to the effort. As noted under teamwork in writing solutions.
Table 1, members of this team were given leave from their jobs The software company was somewhat in the middle in terms
for as long as a year to work on a new CIS system in a completely of CIS implementation success factors and in terms of customer
dedicated effort. information strategy formation. Key motivations for changing
Another striking process in the exemplar firm and to some customer information management practices in this firm were
extent the software firm was the way in which the customer increased competition, declining profits and a desire for compe-
information management strategy was conceived and integrated titive differentiation. This firm hoped to distinguish itself from
into the organization. In the exemplar company, strong middle the competition by understanding the customer better than the
management was responsible for the conception of the strategy competition and thus providing superior customer service. The
behind the “One Customer” concept, which involved integrating respondents from this firm stated that they needed to learn about
disparate databases to get one view of the customer in the the customer, instead of ignoring the customer, which is com-
organization. Middle management then brought the idea to top mon in boom times within the software industry. Although
management, who approved of the idea and refined it and gave middle management in the software firm was less active than
the concept back to middle management to implement, while at the exemplar in strategy formation, it was clear that the idea for
the same time staying deeply involved in the process. In the reorganizing customer information in the firm came from
exemplar, it was useful that top management had a sales and middle management. As with all firms in the software industry,
service background and understood the importance of the new systems and data integration issues were critical to success.
11. D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205 201
The software firm was aware that it needed to change certain ⇒ Gave dedicated project team time off their regular
aspects of its culture in order to achieve data integration and jobs to work on CIS effort.
therefore CIS management success. The software firm was also ⇒ Encouraged articulate middle management to
more willing to adopt a self-described ‘learn as you go’ culture take lead role with upper management in strategy
and was more willing to create what might be called a learning formation.
organization when compared to the insurance firms. Perhaps this ⇒ Struggled with inter-functional conflict, particu-
willingness to change, which is a common trait in entrepreneurs, larly with the sales force, data quality problems,
and to be open to learning comes from the desire to funda- systems/data integration.
mentally change from a product orientation to a customer- Software ⇒ Formed customer information strategy as result
orientation and to emphasize customer service. To make these of competitive pressure in a specific attempt to
changes it was necessary to learn about the customer more fully. form differentiation strategy in highly competi-
The software firm was the only firm that explicitly remarked that tive market.
the firm was moving from an undifferentiated marketing strategy ⇒ Had central data repository allowed for more
to a differentiated one based on customer service and looked to systems, data integration, although still struggled
its databases to support that process. with those issues.
On the other hand, the insurance firms were somewhat less ⇒ Struggled with inter-functional conflict, particu-
motivated by the outside environment when they had parti- larly with the sales force, data quality problems,
cipated in the previous study. Insurance companies interviewed systems/data integration.
were doing quite well financially during the qualitative inter- ⇒ Encouraged articulate middle management to
view process. The primary concerns of these firms in terms of take lead role with upper management in strategy
capturing customer information were to integrate disparate formation.
databases, to improve segmentation and to make better strategic Insurance ⇒ Formed customer information management strat-
decisions as a result, and not necessarily to provide a better egy as a result of changing business environment,
understanding of customer needs for improving service and the creating need to manage customer information for
customer experience. strategic purposes.
In both the insurance and software companies interviewed the ⇒ Sought to integrate databases primarily to
organizational structure allowed most department heads to be improve segmentation, improve operations.
co-located on the same floor of a particular building, allowing ⇒ Communication facilitated by co-location of fun-
for easier resolution of issues involving data sharing and ctional areas.
integration. Co-location, an issue often important in new product ⇒ Struggled with inter-functional conflict, particu-
development efforts, appears to be important in managing larly with the sales force, data quality problems,
customer information processes as well. This co-location was systems/data integration.
predicted in Proposition 7 and is outlined in Table 1; however,
the physical proximity of department heads appeared to be more 6. Discussion, future research and limitations
important for CIS management than for NPD.
Individuals in most companies interviewed had an ex- Just as information management in the NPD process extends
tremely well-rounded understanding of each functional area. far beyond incorporating customer wants and needs information
This understanding was helped in part by the fact that the into the project, the picture of the management of customer
companies visited were either small firms or smaller divisions information that emerges is of a complex process that involves a
of larger companies. In the insurance firms in particular, number of different organizational and strategic factors (Fig. 2
communication and information-sharing appeared to be faci- and Table 1). This article's contribution is not only to identify the
litated not just by co-location of the project team but by co- organizational factors important in customer information
location of the various functional areas. Co-location of under- management, but also to highlight the strategic process by
writing, sales, accounting and control functions appeared to which companies change their orientation and attitude toward
facilitate information sharing. customer information. Using the extreme example of the ex-
Details that capture these different levels of sophistication as emplar firm and its directed vision of how to manage customer
described above include the following: information to support its strategic goals highlighted the contrast
between that firm and the rest. Most of the firms interviewed
Exemplar ⇒ Formed customer information strategy as result of were at a more preliminary level of sophistication in managing
declining profits. not just customer information, but information of all types.
⇒ Spoke the ‘language of CIS,’ communicate well Interestingly, as suspected, there are striking similarities
but use specific language differently than other between the cross-functional new product development process
firms interviewed. and the process of implementing an effective customer infor-
⇒ Had central data repository which allowed for mation management system in an organization. It is therefore
more systems, data integration, although still not surprising that to be successful both processes require
struggled with those issues, used ‘mini-marts’ to communication, functional and systems integration, teamwork,
create illusion of data integration when necessary. co-location, top management involvement and minimal inter-
12. 202 D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205
organizational conflict. However, there are also differences top management and middle management. Middle management
between managing a CIS and an NPD effort. translates the detailed need for CIS management in the form
Overall, The CIS seems to require a higher degree of of an easy to understand message, i.e., the “One Customer”
systems/data integration than the NPD effort. A single new concept used by the exemplar. In this scenario, top manage-
product development effort might involve collecting data across ment interacts with middle management to build a shared
the organization for a single set of customers. However, a vision. The traditional view is that strategic management is
typical CIS involves collecting, moving and using information controlled by upper management, with middle management
throughout the entire organization for all sets of customers. involved in implementation. This research supports the
Whereas in NPD the proximity of the project team members emerging line of thought that addresses the notion of bottom-
to each other is important, with the CIS it seems also that the up management approaches to strategic decision-making and
proximity of the operational and functional areas aids infor- suggests that a bottom-up approach involving an entrepreneur-
mation collection and sharing. As noted in Table 1, middle ial middle management team is more effective than a
management also plays a more important role in translating the hierarchical approach where customer data management issues
organization's needs for managing customer information to are involved.
upper management. Effective CIS management requires a role
for middle managers as those who interpret and explain to upper Appendix A. Interview Questions
managers what needs to be done within the organization for the
firm to reach its strategic goals. Think back to a major change you have made recently in
Additionally, whereas NPD requires strong communication, strategy. Describe the process by which you make strategic
language is seen as a barrier to success (Griffin & Hauser, decisions.
1996), not a facilitator. In contrast, CIS management requires
not only communication but an entirely differently language to ⇒ Which information is the most useful in this decision?
be spoken throughout the organization. Communication is Where did you get it?
facilitated by developing a data dictionary of CIS terms that is ⇒ What customer information do you need to make your
shared and understood throughout the organization. strategic/marketing/financial/underwriting decisions?
Given these findings, quantitative research is needed that ⇒ How do you determine if you have enough customer
investigates organizational and strategic factors related to information to make your strategic decisions?
successful customer information management practices, in- ⇒ Let's work through an example by thinking back to the
cluding multiple performance variables. The ability to most recent product you have introduced. What was it?
communicate within the organization, particularly using a ⇒ What prompted the change? Did it represent a major
detailed ‘language of CIS,’ is expected to predict success in change in strategy or an incremental one?
the management of customer information systems. In addition, ⇒ What information (about customers, competitors, suppli-
systems/data integration as well as overall functional integra- ers) did you need to make the decision?
tion and organization-wide data quality management processes ⇒ Did you have to gather new information or change the
also are predicted to be important in successfully managing way you process information to make the decision?
customer information. Finally, a dedicated project team, ⇒ Which information is the most useful?
teamwork and co-location of the functional areas as well as ⇒ Which information do you lack?
the co-location of a dedicated project team will facilitate CIS ⇒ How do you know when you have enough?
management. Inter-functional conflict, by contrast, is predicted ⇒ How do you share such information in your organization?
to have a negative impact on customer information manage- ⇒ How do you ensure its quality?
ment success (Fig. 2). ⇒ Where is it stored? What system?
Finally, as relevant as all these organizational factors appear ⇒ Who is responsible for collecting it?
to be in the prediction of success customer information
management, it might be the interactive strategy-formation A.1. For Upper management
processes that truly distinguish those firms that manage
customer information well from those that do not, as indicated To summarize, describe the overall process whereby you
by the last row of Table 1. In addition to the top management make strategic decisions
involvement and a commitment to an overriding vision, the
customer information management strategy as formed in the ⇒ What customer information do you need to make your
exemplar and software firm emanated primarily from the strategic/marketing/financial/underwriting decisions?
‘middle.’ A strong middle management took a leadership role, ⇒ To the extent that you have information about the custo-
interacting with upper management and employees below them mer, how do you incorporate this information into your
to create an ‘interactive strategy’ for customer information strategic/marketing/financial/underwriting?
management success. ⇒ How do you determine if you have enough customer
Most importantly, the strategic process in CIS management information to make your strategic decisions?
is interactive. Success involves not only top management ⇒ What impedes your ability to make good strategic decisions?
vision and support, as in NPD, but a close connection between ⇒ What facilitates your ability to do so?
13. D.L. Zahay, J. Peltier / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 191–205 203
References Fredericks, E. (2005). Infusing flexibility into business-to-business firms: A
contingency theory and resource-based view perspective and practical
implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(6), 555−565.
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ganesan, S., Malter, A., & Rindfleisch, A. (2005, October). Does distance still
Agün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences matter? Geographic proximity and new product development. Journal of
of unlearning in new product development teams. Journal of Product Marketing, 69, 44−60.
Innovation Management, 23(1), 73−88. Garcia, R. (2005). Uses of agent-based modeling on innovation/new product
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). development research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(5),
Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive 380−398.
memory perspective. Information Management, 42(8), 1105−1120. Gartner (author: Hochberg, A.). Changing IT priorities in the year 2000. as noted
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Top management team diversity and innova- at http://www.knightsbridge.com/big_data3.html#sources
tiveness: The moderating role of interfunctional coordination. Industrial Gartner Research Study. (2004). Management update: CRM sales predictions
Marketing Management, 34(3), 249−261. for 2003, evaluated for 2004. Gartner, Inc.
Avlonitis, G. J., & Panagopoulos, N. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of Graber, D. R. (1996). How to manage a global product development process.
CRM technology acceptance in the sales force. Industrial Marketing Industrial Marketing Management, 25(6), 483−489.
Management, 34(4), 355−368. Grant, R. M. (1991). The Resource-based theory of competitive advantage:
Ayers, D., Dahlstrom, R., & Skinner, S. (1997, February). An exploratory Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33
investigation of organization antecedents to new product success. Journal of (3), 114−135.
Marketing Research, 34, 107−116. Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices:
Bain & Company Study (2005). Management tools: Bain and Company, Inc. Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal Innovation Management, 14(6), 429−458.
of Management, 17(1), 99−120. Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: A review
Bond, E. U., & Houston, M. B. (2003, March). Barriers to matching new and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
technologies and market opportunities in established firms. Journal of 13(3), 191−215.
Product Innovation Management, 20, 120−135. Gulati, R., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2005). The quest for customer focus. Harvard
Bond, E. U., Walker, B. A., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (2004). Reputational Business Review, 83(4), 92−101.
effectiveness in cross-functional working relationships. Journal of Product Gupta, S., Cadeaux, J., & Woodside, A. (2005). Mapping network champion
Innovation Management, 21(1), 44−60. behavior in B2B electronic venturing. Industrial Marketing Management,
Bonner, J. M. (2005). The influence of formal controls on customer interactivity in 34(5), 495−503.
new product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(1), 63−69. Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., & Wilemon, D. (1985). The R&D–marketing interface
Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker Jr., O. C. (2002). Upper management in high-technology firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2(1),
control of new product development projects and project performance. 12−24.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(3), 233−245. Gupta, A. K., Raj, SP., & Wilemon, D. (1986, April). A model for studying
Boulding, W., Staelin, R., Ehret, M., & Johnston, W. J. (2005). A customer R&D–marketing interface in the product innovation process. Journal of
relationship management roadmap: What is known, potential pitfalls, and Marketing, 50, 7−17.
where to go. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 155−166. Hayton, J. (2005). Competing in the new economy: The effect of intellectual
Bower, J. L. (1986). Managing the resource allocation process (pp. 16). Boston: capital on corporate entrepreneurship in high-technology new ventures.
Harvard Business School Press. R&D Management, 35(2), 137−155.
Bstieler, L. (2006). Trust formation in collaborative new product development. Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 56−72. successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 375.
Buehrer, R. E., Senecal, S., & Pullins, E. B. (2005). Sales force technology usage— Holland, S., Gaston, K., & Gomes, J. (2000). Critical success factors for cross-
Reasons, barriers, and support: An exploratory investigation. Industrial functional teamwork in new product development. International Journal of
Marketing Management, 34(4), 389−398. Management Reviews, 2(3), 231−249.
Calantone, R., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm Howell, J., & Shea, C. (2001). Individual differences, environmental scanning,
innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, innovation framing, and champion behavior: Key predictors of project
21(6), 515−524. performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(1), 15−27.
Dahan, E., & Hauser, J. R. (2001). Managing a dispersed product development Hutt, M. D., Reingen, P. H., & Ronchetto, J. R. (1988). Tracing emergent
process. In B. Weitz & R. Wensley (Eds.), Handbook of marketing New processes in marketing strategy formation. Journal of Marketing, 52(1),
York: Sage Publications. 4−19.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge Imai, K., Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1985). Managing the new product
management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43−57. development process: How Japanese4 companies learn and unlearn. In R. H.
Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E. (1993). Corporate culture, Hays, K. B. Clark, & C. Lorenz (Eds.), The uneasy alliance: Managing the
customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad productivity–technology dilemma (pp. 337−375). Boston: Harvard Business
analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23−37. School Press.
di Benedetto, A. C. (1999). Identifying the key success factors in new product Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. (1998). An examination of collaboration in
launch. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(6), 530−544. high-technology new product development processes. Journal of Product
Fisher, R. J., Maltz, E., & Jaworski, B. (1997). Enhancing communication Innovation Management, 15(3), 237−254.
between marketing and engineering: The moderating role of relative Jayacharndran, S., Sharma, S., Kaufman, P., & Raman, P. (2005). The role of
functional identification. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 54−70. relational information processes and technology use in customer relationship
Fleiss, S., & Becker, U. (2006). Supplier integration—Controlling of co-develop- management. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 177−192.
ment processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(1), 28−44. Jelinek, M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). The innovation marathon: Lessons
Floyd, S. W., & Woodridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing from high technology firms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
middle management's strategic role. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4), Kahn, K. B. (1996). Interdepartmental integration: A definition with implica-
47−57. tions for product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation
Forrester Research Study (2002). Future: Humble growth through 2007: Forrester Management, 13(2), 137−151.
Research, Inc. Kahn, K. B., & McDonough, E. F., III (1997). An empirical study of the
Forrester Research Study (2004). Trends 2005: Customer relationship manage- relationships among co-location, integration, performance, and satisfaction.
ment: Forrester Research, Inc. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 161−178.
