B2B - Lecture 5 - Forming - Business - Networks

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12

LECTURE 5:

FORMING BUSINESS
NETWORKS: BUSINESS
NETWORK PARTNERSHIP
ATTRACTION
B2B Marketing (BUSI4508)
Dr. Dilip S. Mutum
TODAY’S OBJECTIVES
To compare and contrast the network
perspective with the supply chain and
marketing channel concepts
To examine the value of a stakeholder
perspective and the embeddedness of firms
within networks.
To examine how and why firms are attracted
to each other to form networks.
To examine the role of characteristics such as
trust in their formation.
2
THE INTERACTION MODEL
SOURCE: HÅKANSSON (1982, P24)

Environment
Market structure
Dynamism
Internationalisation
Channel position
Social system
Atmosphere
Power/dependence
Co-operation
Closeness
Expectations
Organization Organization
Technology Long term relationships Technology
Structure Institutionalisation, Adaptations Structure
Strategy Strategy
Interaction Process
Individual Individual
Aims Aims
Experience
Short term exchange episodes Experience
Products/services
Skills Skills
Information
Financial
Social

3
IOR Marketing Supply/Demand Industrial Network
Channel Chain
Upstream
suppliers

Direct Supply
suppliers network

Manu-
facturers

Distributors
Distribution
network

Customers

FROM IOR TO CHANNEL TO CHAIN TO NETWORK


4
INDUSTRIAL NETWORKS
1. Supplier Networks: Example, Toyota
2. Distribution Networks: Example. IBM
3. Product Development Networks

5
IBM’S DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
SOURCE: FORD (ED) (2001)

Component Suppliers

Other suppliers
IBM
(competitors)

Joint venture Software


partners houses
Value added
distributors

Independent
Dedicated
distributors
partners Installers
(distributors)

Full service Value added Mail-order


retailers resellers firms

End Users

6
VERTICAL HORIZONTAL
Customer Supplier External Internal
Relationships Relationships Relationships Relationships
Buyer Supplier Lateral Internal
Morgan Partnerships Partnerships Partnerships Partnerships
& Hunt
(1994) Intermediaries Goods suppliers Competitors Business units
End consumers Service suppliers Non-profit orgs. Functional depts.
Government Employees

Christopher Customer Supplier Influence Market Internal Market


et al. (1991) Markets Markets incl. Shareholders
Referral Market Employee Market

Classic Market Relationships Mega Meta


Gummesson Dyad (customer/supplier Relationships Relationships
(1999) Triad (above plus competitor)
Selected Network (distribution channels) Personal/social Profit centres
‘30Rs’ relationships Quality
Special Market Relationships Mega relationships Employee
The service encounter (e.g. Government) Marketing services
Customer’s customer relationship Mega alliances Owner/financiers
Monopoly relationship (e.g. NAFTA)
Electronic relationship Mass media
Non-commercial relationship (etc.)

CLASSIFYING THE NETWORK RELATIONSHIPS OF THE FOCAL FIRM


SOURCE: EGAN (2001, P112)

7
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL NETWORK RELATIONSHIPS
SOURCE: EGAN (2001, P155)

Supplier A Supplier B Supplier C

Direct The Focal Indirect (or non)


Competition Firm Competition

Potential
Typical flow of goods Horizontal
Relationships
Potential Customer:
(Collaboration)
Vertical End User or Intermediary
Relationships
(Partnerships)
8
CONSIDERATIONS IN B2B MARKETING FROM A NETWORK PERSPECTIVE

Network Social capital


embeddedness

Defining the Complexity of


network networks
boundary

The ARA model


& network
positions

9
THE ARA MODEL

ARA Model is a framework which is


very useful in order to get some idea
of the relative positions of the
organisations making up a network.
Actor
References: bonds
Ford, D (1997). Understanding Business
Markets: Interaction, relationships and
networds, 2nd ed., Academic Press, London. ARA
connections
Wilkinson, I. F. (2006). The evolution of an
evolutionary perspective on B2B business.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
21(7), 458-465.
Resource Activity
Snehota, I., & Hakansson, H. (Eds.). (1995). ties links
Developing relationships in business networks.
London: Routledge.

10
ARA MODEL ANALYSIS
Begins at point of the focal firm and tries to identify the various
bonds.
Next, reveals the degree of centrality of the firm to the network –
does it function like a hub or is it on the periphery of the other actors
involved.
Will also show how the resources are used.
Would enable the firm to determine the degree to which it is reliant
on its network partner’s resources as well.
Overall, will allow managers to get a sense of whether their firm is in
a desirable position or needs to change some of the IORs it is involved
with.

11
THANK YOU
Any Questions?

12

You might also like