Custumer - Perceived Value in Industrial Contexts

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Customerperceived value in industrial contexts

Joze Lapierre
Article information:
To cite this document:
Joze Lapierre, (2000),"Customer#perceived value in industrial contexts", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 15 Iss
2/3 pp. 122 - 145
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620010316831
Downloaded on: 09 November 2014, At: 05:54 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7717 times since 2006*
Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Andreas Eggert, Wolfgang Ulaga, (2002),"Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets?", Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17 Iss 2/3 pp. 107-118
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 478306 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
An executive summary for

managers and executive
readers can be found at the
end of this issue
Customer-perceived value in
industrial contexts
Jozee Lapierre
Associate Professor, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Quebec,

Canada
Keywords Business-to-business marketing, Value, Consumer behaviour,

Information technology
Abstract Although customer-perceived value is discussed widely in the literature, few

empirical studies have been conducted due to an absence of operational measures.
Reports on the development of measures and tests two customer-perceived value
structures using data collected from industrial customers of the information technology
industry. The findings generally support both structures and provide empirical support
for a value proposition with 13 value drivers. Furthermore, results indicate that most of
the 13 drivers are assessed in a similar way by industrial customers of three service
sectors surveyed, ICE (information, communication, entertainment), distribution and
finance. Flexibility and responsiveness two service-related benefits are important
value drivers for all the business customers surveyed. Relationship value drivers are
assessed the most differently in two of the three sectors studied, finance and ICE
(information, communication, entertainment).
Introduction
Much attention in recent years has been given to value and its provision to
customers. However, remarkably few firms have the knowledge and
capability to actually assess value and gain an equitable return for the value
they deliver to customers (Anderson and Narus, 1999, p. 3). In business
markets, where knowledge of value is considered critical and can be thought
of as the cornerstone of business market management (Anderson et al., 1993),
it is critical for organizations to understand their offerings and learn how they
can be enhanced to provide value to their industrial customers. Organizations
therefore need to understand what drivers create value for customers in order
to build a competitive advantage (Lichtenthal et al., 1997).
Customer value measures
A major issue was therefore the development of customer value measures,

specifically in the business-to-business service marketing field
(Parasuraman, 1998) because activity in business (Reid and Plank, 1995)
service (Quinn, 1996) sectors continues to grow. An example is information
technology (IT). Expenditures in this business sector are now recognized as a
significant balance-sheet item (Sullivan-Trainor, 1989). During the last
decade, service investments in IT grew by $700 billion (Quinn, 1996) and,
over the past three years, business spending on IT has risen by almost 45
percent (Mandel, 1997). To conduct empirical studies in this economic
sector, measures of customer value were therefore required. Specially in the
IT business sector, measures were needed to demonstrate and justify the
value of IT providers to top management because two-thirds of Fortune 100
companies' chief executive officers believed that their firms were not getting
the most out of their IT investments (Rifkin, 1989).
The author thanks the anonymous reviewers and the special issue editor for their
constructive comments and useful suggestions.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
122
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 2/3 2000, pp. 122-140, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0885-8624
In view of the construct's complexity and richness, a research program on

customer-perceived value was set up. The first phase addressed the
measurement of the customer-perceived value construct in one industrial
area, that of information technology (IT). The importance of doing this was
emphasized in a special issue of the Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science (Woodruff, 1997; Parasuraman, 1997; Slater, 1997). Furthermore,
the huge, rapidly growing US service sector could not possibly have operated
at even a fraction of its current size, complexity, responsiveness and
reliability without modern IT systems (Quinn, 1996). Finally, the research
area of business-to-business marketing has also been declared to be highly
important, as evidenced in a special issue of the Journal of Business
Research (Woodside, 1997; LaPlaca, 1997; Johnston and Lewin, 1997;
Lichtental et al., 1997; Plank, 1997). The goal of the first phase was to
demonstrate the existence of customer value in the IT sector.
Primary objectives
The primary objectives of the second phase, from which the present article
derives, are to provide more information about customer-perceived value
structure and to test two structures with three segments of industrial service
customers that are big users of information technology (IT).
The article is divided into six sections. The first provides the theoretical
background of the customer value construct. In the second section, a
summary of the first phase of this research is presented and key drivers of
customer-perceived value are identified. The research method is presented in
the third section. The fourth section outlines the measurement properties of
the scale used to measure customer value. Finally, the last sections present
and discuss the results, and outline a set of managerial implications and
future research directions.
Theoretical background
The conceptual domain of customer-perceived value is delineated by
anchoring it with two theoretical issues central to this stream of research.
Domain
Domain
Should the domain of the customer-perceived value construct be restricted to
some parts or cover a broader perspective? As Mazumdar (1993) states:
``Today's value-conscious customers are neither impressed by the best
product nor persuaded by the lowest price alone. Instead, customer purchase
decisions are often guided by a careful assessment of what benefits they
obtain in exchange for the costs they incur to acquire and consume the
product.'' Customer-perceived value can, therefore, be defined as the
difference between the benefits and the sacrifices (e.g. the total costs, both
monetary and non-monetary) perceived by customers (Slater, 1997; Berry
and Yadav, 1996; Ravald and Gronroos, 1996; Slater, 1996; Haas, 1995;
Mazumdar, 1993; Slater and Narver, 1992; Narver and Slater, 1990; Day,
1990; Zeithaml, 1988) in terms of their expectations, i.e. needs and wants.
Customer sacrifices are the overall monetary and non-monetary costs the
customer invests or gives to the supplier in order to complete a transaction or
to maintain a relationship with a supplier. Non-monetary costs can be
defined as the time/effort/energy and conflict invested by the customer to
obtain the products or services or to establish a relationship with a supplier.
Non-monetary costs are important, since, as reported by Carothers and
Adams (1991): ``Many customers count time rather than dollar cost as their
most precious asset.'' Other researchers argue that perceived value is made
of only benefits (Hunt and Morgan, 1995; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). In this
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 2/3 2000
123
research, we concur with the majority of researchers who define customer

value in terms of get (benefit) and give (sacrifice) components.
Scope
Scope
Should customer value be defined for the different parts of an organization?
One critical aspect of the customer value theory that is not yet fully
developed concerns the sources from which customers may derive value
(Parasuraman, 1997). Much of the current theory focuses on attributes
related to product and service offerings and customer value is inherent in or
linked through the use of some products (Woodruff, 1997). In a hypercompetitive environment, where sources of both product-based and processbased competitive advantages are quickly imitated by competitors (Jacobson,
1992; Dickson, 1992; Ghemawat, 1986), a commitment to customer-value
innovation is essential to sustaining a competitive advantage. One way to
conceive of innovation in relation to customer value is to look at relational
value-based drivers in addition to product- and service-related drivers. This
idea has been brought to the forefront by Ravald and Gronroos (1996), who
argue that value may also be relationship related. Other authors support this
vision (Sheth and Sharma, 1997). Measuring the value of customer
relationships and how customers perceive the ``total'' value proposition (e.g.
products, services, channels, ideas) have been identified as two of the highest
priorities by The Marketing Science Institute for 1996-1998. We identify the
IT sector as an area where products and services do not adequately define the
range of resources and activities that appear to create customer value.
The two issues, domain and scope, serve to delineate the customer value
construct. The next task is to identify critical drivers within this domain.
The first phase
Key drivers of customer-perceived value

The objective of the first phase was to develop a scale to measure customerperceived value in a business-to-business context. Measures of the customerperceived value construct were developed in several stages. First, since the
information technology (IT) industry appeared to be a relevant sector to
study, the researcher met three vice-presidents of a large Canadian IT
enterprise. After a discussion about the objectives of the research, two
business sectors were chosen to study the value of IT suppliers. The sectors
identified were ICE (information, communication, entertainment) and
distribution because they account for a large part of business expenses
(Quinn, 1996). It was also decided that business customers from the two
sectors and managers from the supplier side should be interviewed.
Interviews were therefore conducted with 16 individuals, eight on the
supplier side and eight on the customer side. On the customer side, eight
individuals from four companies in the ICE sector and four companies in the
distribution sector were selected as follows: three broadcasters (two from
communication and one from entertainment), and one person from
information, wholesale, courier, retail and energy distribution. All the
customers hold the title of vice-president. On the supplier side, six sales
directors (three from ICE and three from distribution) and two assistant vicepresidents of the sectors were interviewed.
The interviews were conducted based on interview guidelines. First, the
interviewees were asked to talk broadly about customer value: about the
differences between suppliers' and customers' perceptions of customer
value; about the sources of customer value, about current strengths and
weaknesses; about how to provide more value to customers; about the
competition's offerings and customer needs and expectations. They were
124
also asked if customers expect more than products and services. Additional
questions were asked about each value-based driver identified by the
interviewees. For example, they were asked to define quality and trust. These
questions were asked to reaffirm the meaning of the drivers and associated
dimensions, i.e. benefit and sacrifice.
The second stage
In the second stage, 13 value-based drivers were selected based on an indepth analysis of the interviews and on an extensive review of the literature.
The 13 drivers are product, service and relationship related (Figure 1). Of
these, ten value-based drivers are identified as benefits:
(1)
alternative solutions product related;
(2)
product quality product related;
(3)
product customization product related;
(4)
responsiveness service related;
(5)
flexibility service related;
(6)
reliability service related;
(7)
technical competence service related;
(8)
supplier's image relationship related;
(9)
trust relationship related;
(10) supplier solidarity with customers relationship related.

Three value-based drivers are identified as sacrifices:
(1)
price product and service related;
(2)
time/effort/energy relationship related;
(3)
conflict relationship related.
See Appendix 1 for a detailed description of the 13 drivers.

In the third stage, a pretest was conducted with eight target respondents: two
former vice-presidents from a large IT enterprise, one sales manager in the
entertainment area, one assistant vice-president in the distribution area, one
director for global solutions in the distribution area, and three professors
involved in the marketing and management of technology.
Value dimensions
The content validity of the proposed customer value dimensions (benefit and
sacrifice) may be justified by comparing them with models proposed in the
literature (e.g. Zeithaml, 1988). The proposed model represents a practical
and tenable starting point for empirical testing. The content validity of the
Figure 1. Total value proposition

125
measures for each driver, on the other hand, may be justified based on a close
adherence to guidelines for item generation (Loevinger, 1976): the pool must
be scrutinized for their logical relationship to the construct and the rationale
for selecting them must be made explicit. In choosing dimensions, drivers
and items, this study relied on 16 interviews with IT experts, customers and
suppliers on what they regard as typical trait manifestations as well as on
existing literature on value. Items from other studies were also adapted for
this study (Angleitner et al., 1986). These methods were all found to be
complementary and applicable because of the absence of the customer value
operational measures. The purpose was to ensure adequate coverage of the
conceptual domain for each dimension and conformity of the items to the
position taken in relation to the theoretical issues.
Questionnaire
Data collection procedure and sample characteristics

Empirical verification of the customer value construct was done using a
mailed questionnaire. Subjects were asked to assess the value of 13 drivers
(several items) identified a priori in terms of their expectations. Measures
were phrased on seven-point scales. The descriptors ranged from much
worse than expected, somewhat worse, slightly worse, as expected, slightly
better, somewhat better and much better than expected (Brown et al., 1993).
Even though there is some empirical evidence showing that a scale with
fewer response categories is considered easier to rate by subjects
(Diefenbach et al., 1993), a seven-point scale is a relevant choice given the
knowledge of the customers surveyed.
For the first phase, the questionnaire was sent to a sample of ICE and
distribution executives drawn randomly from the 1996 Dunn & Bradstreet
database in Canada (Quebec and Ontario). For the second phase, the same
questionnaire was sent to a sample of executives from the finance sector
drawn randomly from the 1998 Dunn & Bradstreet database in Canada
(Quebec and Ontario). Table I outlines information about the samples. The
unit of analysis is one executive on the customer side giving his/her own
perception of the value provided by his/her major IT supplier. Why
executives? They are key informants who are part of the decision-making
process in the buying center and have decision-making power. Moreover, IT
is strategic to organizations (Bharadwaj et al., 1993).
Primary focus
Because the primary focus of the study was to investigate customerperceived value, we had to collect data in an industry where value is a
primary concern. As shown above, the information technology (IT) sector
seems very relevant. The industrial service sectors chosen for the first phase
were ICE (information, communication, entertainment) and distribution, and
finance was chosen for the second phase. These choices were prompted by
the fact that firms in these service sectors depend heavily on technology
(Alic, 1994), specially on information technology, and most of these services
1996
1998
2,400 executives
Sectors: ICE (Information, communication and
entertainment) and distribution
Telephone contact
1184 (Knowledgeable/willing to participate)
Response rate
239 = 20.2% of 1,184
209 usable
1,397 executives
Sector: Finance
Telephone contact
801 (Knowledgeable/willing to participate)
Response rate
143 = 17.85% of 801
129 usable
Table I. Samples
126
account for about 74 percent of the Gross Domestic Product and about
79 percent of all national employment (Quinn, 1996). It is of great interest to
understand how service organizations perceive products and services
supplied by an IT supplier and, therefore, what creates value for them given
that the large, rapidly growing US service sector could not possibly have
operated without modern IT systems (Quinn, 1996). Picking which drivers to
improve should be driven by customers (Woodruff, 1997).
Assessment of measurement properties
According to Baggozzi (1980), the following measurement properties are
considered important for assessing the measures developed here: internal
consistency of operationalization (reliability and unidimensionality),
convergent validity and discriminant validity.
Results
The model
Results of the first phase indicate that in the area of information technology,
value, as perceived by industrial customers from the distribution and ICE
(information, communication, entertainment) industrial sectors, is
represented by the two dimensions benefit and sacrifice and 13 valuebased drivers that are product, service, and relationship related. The results
indicate that the operational measures are reliable and valid (Lapierre, 1999).
The model was therefore used to measure customer value in another business
area the finance sector. Since we used the same validation process for the
data obtained from customers in the finance sector as the one used in the first
phase of the study, we report on the results of the measurement properties for
the combined sample of the two phases.
Unidimensionality, convergent validity and reliability
Unidimensionality is defined as the existence of one latent construct
underlying a set of measures (Anderson, 1987). The model for unidimensionality
and convergent validity follows the work of Joreskog and Sorbom (1993)
and the convention of structural equation modeling. Table II outlines the
results of unidimensionality assessment for the 13 drivers. Based on columns
(3) to (8), that is, on the typical goodness-of-fit indices and on column (9), a
comparative goodness-of-fit index assessing t in relation to the fit of a more
restrictive model (Bentler, 1990), it can be concluded that each of the drivers
achieves unidimensionality and convergent validity. Reliability of the 13
value drivers is very good. All Cronbach alpha coefficients have a value
larger than 0.70 (Table II).
(1)
Dimensions
(2)
n
(3)
(4)
(5)
w2(df) p-level D
Alternative solutions
Product quality
Product customization
Responsiveness
Flexibility
Reliability
Technical competence
Image
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
301
309
287
306
308
309
298
310
302
301
291
304
295
0.03(1)
0.59(1)
1.85(1)
1.15(1)
0.29(1)
0.86(2)
5.33(4)
0.30(1)
4.18(3)
0.39(1)
1.18(4)
1.03(3)
0.02(1)
0.87
0.44
0.17
0.28
0.59
0.65
0.22
0.58
0.24
0.53
0.88
0.79
0.89
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
RMR GFI AGFI CFI
(10)
a
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.81
0.91
0.88
0.83
0.88
0.91
0.89
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.79
0.84
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.99
0.97
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Table II. Assessment of unidimensionality, convergent validity and reliability for

the three sectors
127
Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which measures of different
model dimensions are unique. Following Venkatraman (1989), discriminant
validity for customer value was assessed by testing if correlations between
pairs of drivers are significantly different from unity. A model in which this
correlation was constrained to one was compared with an unconstrained
model. A w2 difference value with an associated p-value of less than 0.05
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993) supports the discriminant validity criterion.
Results of the 78 pairwise tests among the 13 customer value drivers indicate
that all chi-square differences are significant at 0.001 level except the one
associated with `àlternative solutions'' and ``solidarity.'' It is significant at
0.01. Moreover, results indicate that the conflict driver correlates slightly
with all value-based drivers except for time/effort/energy. In general, there is
less correlation between the benefit and sacrifice value-based drivers than
between the benefit value-based drivers. The results of the 78 pairwise tests
among the 13 value-based drivers indicate strong support for the
discriminant validity criteria (see Appendix 2).
Primary objective
Exploration of the structure

The primary objective of the first phase of this research was to demonstrate
the existence of customer-perceived value instead of its exact structure. In
the present research, i.e. the second phase, the objective is to provide more
information with regard to structure. In order to do this, confirmatory factor
analyses are used to test two structures with different samples. The first
structure is associated with the domain of the construct, i.e. a solution with
two factors benefit and sacrifice. The second structure is associated with
the scope of the construct, i.e. a solution with three factors product, service
and relationship.
Two-factors structure
In order to test the first structure of the customer-perceived value construct,
i.e. the domain, the 13 value drivers were modeled as measure variables
determined by the two latent variables, benefit and sacrifice, the underlying
theory proposed by several authors (e.g. Slater, 1997; Berry and Yadav,
1996; Zeithaml, 1988) (Figure 2). An overall score for each driver was
computed taking into account its unidimensionality. Summated scales were
also used because of the large number of parameters to be estimated, which
in turn led to an increase in the sample size/parameter (Bagozzi and
Baumgartner, 1994).
Structure
128
The two-factors structure was tested with different samples given that
customer value is expected to be context specific (e.g. Bolton and Drew,
1991; Holbrook and Corfman, 1985). Three models with independent
samples and one with a combined sample were tested. The first three models
are associated with the three following industrial sectors: finance,
distribution and ICE (information, communication, entertainment), and the
fourth model is a combination of the three independent samples. Results of
the four models are summarized in Table III. The goodness-of-fit measure
indicates that MO1 (finance) and MO4 (3 sectors) have a very good fit; MO2
(distribution) has an acceptable fit and MO3 (ICE) does not have a good fit
when the usual w2 is used to assess the overall fit of a model[1]. With the
exception of the conflict driver in MO2 (distribution), the loading (l) for
each driver on its respective dimension is positive and significant. The two
latent dimensions, benefit and sacrifice, are not independent in any of the
four models. The strongest correlation is found in MO1 (finance).
Figure 2. First-order factor model for customer value (2 dimensions, 13 drivers)
MO1
Finance
(n = 125)
l
T-value
Benefit
l11 Alternative solutions
l21 Product quality
l31 Product customization
l41 Responsiveness
l51 Flexibility
l61 Reliability
l71 Technical competence
l81 Image
l91 Trust
l101 Solidarity
Sacrifice
l112 Price
l122 Time/effort/energy
l132 Conflict
f21 Benefit-sacrifice
0.79d (9.61)
0.50d (6.10)
0.65d (8.39)
1.02
0.96d (13.05)
0.60d (7.28)
0.70d (9.82)
0.64d (7.08)
0.68d (8.86)
0.89d (10.67)
0.77d
0.91
0.48c
MO2
Distribution
(n = 72)
l
T-value
MO3
MO1 + MO2 +
ICE
MO3 = MO4
(n = 85)
(n = 282)
l
T-value
l
T-value
0.76d
0.54d
0.76d
0.95
1.04d
0.91d
0.78d
0.77d
0.76d
0.83d
(5.80)
(4.76)
(5.57)
(7.61)
(6.27)
(6.29)
(5.41)
(6.14)
(6.86)
0.94d
0.66d
0.93d
1.13
0.97d
0.76d
0.90d
0.94d
0.97d
1.02d
(8.09)
(5.94)
(8.95)
(9.33)
(6.56)
(9.33)
(7.57)
(8.51)
(9.92)
0.82d
0.56d
0.79d
1.04
0.99d
0.73d
0.78d
0.77d
0.81d
0.91d
(13.55)
(9.73)
(13.59)
(17.42)
(11.74)
(14.69)
(11.67)
(13.86)
(15.78)
(5.23) 0.69d
0.68
(2.77) 0.11
(3.34)
(0.32)
0.87d
0.91
0.85c
(4.01)
(3.33)
0.79d
0.86
0.48c
(7.29)
(3.62)
0.62d (5.46)
w2 = 41.73(41)
p = 0.44
RMR = 0.03
D = 0.96
GFI = 0.95
AGFI = 0.89
CFI = 1.00
0.46c
w2 = 55.36(41)
p = 0.07
RMR = 0.05
D = 0.91
GFI = 0.90
AGFI = 0.78
CFI = 0.97
0.56d
w2 = 73.29(41)
p = 0.00
RMR = 0.06
D = 0.91
GFI = 0.89
AGFI = 0.76
CFI = 0.96
0.56d
(7.56)
w2 = 32.62(41)
p = 0.82
RMR 0.03
D = 0.99
GFI = 0.98
AGFI = 0.96
CFI = 1.00
Notes:
1
One lambda/latent variable was fixed at one
2
Standardized solutions
3 c
p 0.01, d p 0.001
Table III. First-order factor models independent samples123

129
Correlations are similar and moderate in MO3 (ICE) and MO4 (3 sectors).
MO2 (distribution) has the lowest correlation coefficient. All results
associated with the correlations between the benefit and sacrifice dimensions
show that they are not independent; they are actually quite dependent.
Value proposition
More specifically, results indicate that a value proposition implies much

more than a trade-off between product quality and price (Mazumdar, 1993).
With the exception of the conflict driver, which accounts for less variance
than the other drivers in MO1 (finance), MO2 (distribution) and MO4 (3
sectors), product quality is the driver that contributes the least to the value
proposition. This is true in the four models. The price driver, a monetary
cost, is an important value driver, especially in the ICE model. Therefore,
one cannot say that price is not taken into account in the assessment of the
value provided by major IT suppliers (Carothers and Adams, 1991). Even
though price is an important driver in the value proposition, other drivers are
more important. If we acknowledge that value is more than product quality
and price, it is of considerable interest for IT suppliers to be informed of
which driver is the most important in the eyes of the customers. Customers
from the three industrial sectors surveyed have their own specific first
choice. The responsiveness of IT suppliers is the most important value driver
in MO1 (finance), MO3 (ICE) and MO4 (3 sectors). The flexibility of IT
suppliers is the most important value driver in MO2 (distribution). The less
important contribution of the conflict driver in MO1 (finance) and MO2
(distribution) may be explained by the fact that this psychological sacrifice is
not always present. However, as confirmed by the answers of IT customers,
money, time/effort/energy are always spent and/or devoted. Overall, the
findings show that IT solutions are made up of what the customer gets, i.e.
all the benefits, and of what the customer gives, i.e. all monetary and nonmonetary costs associated with the sacrifice dimension.
The findings
What is noteworthy from the findings associated with the domain of

customer-perceived value in industrial contexts is that, at least for the three
sectors surveyed, IT customers do not act much differently when they assess
the value provided by their major IT supplier. The most important
differences in the evaluation of the value drivers are found between the
finance and ICE (information, communication, entertainment) sectors. These
drivers are product customization, technical competence, image, trust and
conflict. The loadings of each of these five drivers are larger for the ICE
customers. The only differences between the finance and distribution sectors
concern the reliability, time/effort/energy and conflict drivers. Of these,
reliability received a much better evaluation from the distribution customers.
Trust, time/effort/energy and conflict are drivers that contribute more to the
value proposition for ICE customers than for distribution customers. In
summary, the above results show the relevance of the first theoretical
structure. The domain of the customer value construct is correctly
represented by a two-factors structure benefit and sacrifice.
Three-factors structure
For the second structure of the customer value construct, i.e. the scope, the
same four samples were used to test for the relevance of product-, serviceand relationship-related value drivers (Figure 3).
First, the 13 value drivers were modeled as measure variables determined by
the following three latent variables: product, service and relationship. An
overall score for each driver was computed taking into account its
unidimensionality. Summated scales were also used because of the large
130
Figure 3. First-order factor model for customer value (3 dimensions, 13 drivers)
number of parameters to be estimated, which in turn led to an increase in the

sample size/parameter (Bagozzi and Baumgartner, 1994). Comparative
results of the standardized solutions are outlined in Table IV. Overall, the fit
of MO2 (distribution) and MO4 (3 sectors) is good. The solution of MO1
(finance) is acceptable. The solution of MO3 (ICE) has a good fit when the
Carmines and McIver's (1981) method is applied[2]. For the three industrial
sectors, almost all loadings (l) are significant at 0.001, except the ones
associated with the conflict driver, which is significant at 0.01 in MO1
(finance), MO3 (ICE) and MO4 (3 sectors); the loading is not significant in
MO2 (distribution). As expected, the three latent variables product, service
and relationship are not independent; all correlations are very high. This
indicates that product, service and relationship variables are dependent.
Value proposition
More specifically, this study reveals that a value proposition associated with
IT solutions is more than product only, more than service only, more than
relationship only. The findings suggest that IT solutions are made up of at
least three sources product, service, relationship at different levels
(Ravald and Gronroos, 1996; Bolton and Drew, 1991; Zeithaml, 1988). The
most striking result is that price, a value driver that is product and service
related, is not significant when it is associated with service and its
significance varies when it is associated with product. It is strongly
significant in MO1 (finance), moderately significant in MO4 (3 sectors),
slightly significant in MO2 (distribution) and not significant in MO3 (ICE).
Price is therefore the driver that differentiates the three industrial sectors
under study the most. In the eyes of IT customers, price, a monetary cost, is
not associated with service. A plausible explanation is that IT customers
perceive that a monetary cost, price, is only associated with tangible products
and not with the intangible service aspects.
The product quality driver is, with the exception of conflict and price
associated with service, the least important value driver in MO1 (finance).
Time/effort/energy, a relationship driver, is the one that contributes the least
131
MO1
Finance
(n = 125)
l
T-value
MO2
Distribution
(n = 72)
l
T-value
Product
l11 Alternative solutions
0.81d (8.13)
0.92d (5.72)
0.51d (5.59)
0.56d (4.56)
l21 Product quality
0.78
l31 Product customization 0.71

1.36d (2.06)
0.34b (2.10)
l111 Price
Service
1.02
0.94
l42 Responsiveness
0.97d (12.91)
1.07d (7.74)
l52 Flexibility
0.63d (7.94)
0.95d (6.77)
l62 Reliability
0.77d (6.25)
l72 Technical competence 0.70d (9.76)
0.95 (1.45)
0.03
(0.18)
l112 Price
Relationship
0.68d (6.93)
0.80d (6.37)
l83 Image
0.75
0.85
l93 Trust
0.97d (10.134) 0.91d (8.60)
l103 Solidarity
0.61d (7.53)
0.33d (4.23)
l123 Time/effort/energy
0.34c (2.99) 0.04 (0.25)
l133 Conflict
f21 Product-service
f31 Product-relationship
f32 Service-relationship
0.94d (5.73)
0.93d (5.90)
0.91d (5.94)
w2 = 64.32(48)
p = 0.06
RMR = 0.04
D = 0.93
GFI = 0.93
AGFI = 0.87
CFI = 0.98
0.78c (3.63)
0.81d (3.90)
0.90d (4.33)
w2 = 52.96(48)
p = 0.32
RMR = 0.06
D = 0.91
GFI = 0.90
AGFI = 0.82
CFI = 0.99
MO3
MO1 + MO2 +
ICE
MO3 = MO4
(n = 85)
(n = 282)
l
T-value
l
T-value
0.94d
0.68d
0.90
0.53
(7.75)
(5.90)
(1.53)
0.87d (12.75)
0.58d (9.45)
0.81
0.58c (3.53)
1.14
0.97d
0.83d
0.88d
0.06
1.05
(9.31) 1.00d
(7.50) 0.78d
(8.95) 0.77d
(0.17) 0.15
(17.50)
(13.18)
(14.35)
(0.92)
0.97d
1.06
1.05d
0.53d
0.48c
(8.10)
(11.33)
(5.77)
(3.12)
0.81d (12.51)
0.90
0.97d (17.32)
0.50d (10.31)
0.29c (3.62)
0.93d
(4.99)
0.98d
(5.48)
0.93d
(5.27)
w2 = 89.86(48)
p = 0.00
RMR = 0.07
D = 0.89
GFI = 0.87
AGFI = 0.76
CFI = 0.94
0.89d (8.49)
0.91d (9.01)
0.91d (9.13)
w2 = 53.88(48)
p = 0.26
RMR 0.03
D = 0.97
GFI = 0.97
AGFI = 0.95
CFI = 0.99
Notes:
1
One lambda/latent variable was fixed at one
2
Standardized solutions
3 b
p 0.05, c p 0.01, d p 0.001
Table IV. First-order factor models independent samples123
to the value proposition in MO2 (distribution) and MO3 (ICE). Price, a

monetary cost, and time/effort/energy, a non-monetary cost, do not
contribute much to the value proposition in MO2, MO3, MO4. The only
drivers that are less important are conflict and price related to service. Price,
as a product driver, is nonetheless the most important one only in MO1
(finance). Flexibility is the most important value driver in MO2
(distribution), and responsiveness is the most important value driver in MO3
(ICE). When the three samples are combined, flexibility is the most
important value driver.
Structures
132
Overall, this research shows that both structures associated with the domain
benefit and sacrifice, and with the scope product, service, relationship,
are relevant representations of the total value proposition studied here. For
the two-factors structure, the most important differences are between finance
and ICE customers and are mostly associated with relationship-related
drivers. For the three-factors structure, price is the driver that differentiates
the three industrial sectors studied here the most. The product quality, time/
effort/energy and conflict drivers account the least for the value provided by
IT suppliers in the three sectors studied. Globally, IT customers do not assess
the total proposition tested in the current research very differently; however,
they assess some of the drivers differently. Finally, value drivers that
differentiate the three service sectors studied are not the same when value is
conceptualized in terms of benefit and sacrifice and when it is conceptualized

in terms of product, service and relationship.
Discussion
This research has been directed at testing two structures domain and scope
of the customer value construct in three industrial service sectors. The data
analyzed in this study support the theory that the drivers are divided in terms
of benefit, i.e. what the customer gets, and sacrifice, i.e. what the customer
gives. The results refer to the first theoretical issue, the domain, and concurs
with the majority of researchers interested in the customer value construct
(e.g. Slater, 1997; Zeithaml, 1988). On the other hand, the data also support
the theory that value drivers are product, service and relationship related.
Specifically, the results outlined in this research indicate an extremely good
fit between the two theoretical issues scope and domain in explaining the
data. The results show that each driver loads on the expected dimension.
Finance and ICE
Even though not many differences were found, the finance and ICE
customers differ the most. Results indicate that flexibility and responsiveness
are important value drivers in the models associated with the two structures.
Flexibility and responsiveness are already recognized as highly important
service aspects. Specifically, Quinn (1996, p. 73) writes that ``that the huge
service sector could not possibly have operated at even a fraction of its
current size, complexity, responsiveness and reliability without IT systems.''
Again, Quinn (1996, p. 74) concurs that IT's most important quality gains
are, for example, greater safety, convenience, accuracy, flexibility, variety
and reliability. Finally, results are indicative that, relationship value drivers
act as important differentiators.
Implications
Given that, specifically in the service area, Bolton and Drew (1991) found
that the customer's assessment of value depends on the customer's frame of
reference, it was expected that customers from the three industrial sectors
would assess the value provided by their major IT supplier differently.
Results of this research show that customers in different actionable segments
assess most of the value drivers similarly. Globally, IT customers surveyed
act much more in concert than expected from the previous literature on
customer-perceived value.
Distinctions
Furthermore, managers should be interested in the two structures and in the

operational measures that allow distinctions to be made between the benefit
and the sacrifice dimensions (Slater, 1997; Berry and Yadav, 1996; Ravald
and Gronroos, 1996; Slater, 1996; Haas, 1995; Mazumdar, 1993; Slater and
Narver, 1992; Narver and Slater, 1990; Day, 1990; Zeithaml, 1988).
Managers should also recognize that a realistic view of customer value must
make a distinction between the products and the services offered by the
supplier (Woodruff, 1997) and the relationship (Sheth and Sharma, 1997;
Ravald and Gronroos, 1996) experienced with the major IT supplier. The
three sources are helpful for articulating more realistic customer strategies.
They offer some practical guidelines for designing value-based competitive
strategies. A realistic value proposition for IT providers is therefore made up
of several aspects that deserve specific attention in terms of customer value
dimensions and drivers (Woodruff, 1997). Results clearly show that the
value of IT systems depends not only on computer and telecommunications
hardware and software, but on the employees their responsiveness,
flexibility, reliability, competence, as well as on the relationship between the
133
customer and the supplier and on what is given up by the customer's

organization itself.
In our view, this article's most important contribution is to provide a broad
perspective and diversity of value drivers. This is important considering the
information and insights necessary to deal with the numerous issues and
problems in the world of business-to-business relations. We hope that this
research will convince service managers that a customer value proposition is
a complex one (Marketing Science Institute, 1996-1998). Rather than merely
providing an overall evaluation of XYZ organization's value, the two
conceptualizations provide rich insights into how customers perceive each
type of driver in the total value proposition. In this context, managers will be
better equipped to question their value strategy and improve it as necessary.
Research
Theoretical foundations
134
Future research
Given the complexity and the richness of the customer-perceived value
construct, several research avenues might be explored. First, as customer
value is a source of competitive advantage (Woodruff, 1997; Parasuraman,
1997), a relevant use of the scale developed in the first phase would be to
evaluate competitors' value drivers. An assessment of competitors based on
the 13 proposed drivers could reveal the reasons for their success. The results
can form the basis for improvements in IT products, services, relationships.
If the driver does not create value for customers, it should be eliminated; if
the driver is not a source of competitive advantage for the company, the
company should consider outsourcing the activity. Second, because there is a
rich literature pertaining to the situational character of customer-perceived
value (e.g. Bolton and Drew, 1991; Holbrook and Corfman, 1985), other
segmentation variables might be tested and other analyses performed.
Examples of segmentation variables are the size of the firm, its annual
revenue, IT expenses, managers and employees from different functions.
Third, other measures must be formulated and compared with the results of
this study to clarify the theoretical foundations of the construct[3]. An
interesting research avenue would be to increase the number of sacrifice
drivers. For example, we know that the costs can be broken down into cost of
use, cost of service, starting cost and other psychological costs such as
complexity. Specifically, it would be interesting to check for the relevance of
cost of service because the results indicate that the price driver is more
relevant for product than for service. More research is necessary, specially on
the conflict driver because of the number of different results compared to
other drivers and because, in some cases, it is perceived as a positive value
driver and, in other cases, it is perceived as a negative value driver. Fourth,
because the technologies of service industries and manufacturing draw from
the same storehouse of knowledge, particularly when it comes to information
technology (IT) systems (Alic, 1994), it would be of interest to replicate this
study in manufacturing sectors in order to discover similarities and
differences, if any. Fifth, customer value measures should also be
incorporated in a causal model to measure the impact of the antecedents of
customer value, market orientation (Kohli et al., 1993; Narver and Slater,
1990) and technological orientation (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997) and to
assess the impact of customer value on business performance (Narver and
Slater, 1990) because the increasingly competitive nature of many service
industries serves to emphasize the importance of a value orientation (Slater,
1997). Finally, as customer value is a dynamic concept, we should not expect
those value drivers to remain the same over time (Parasuraman, 1997). In
other words, the drivers that motivate a customer's initial purchase of a
service and/or product may differ from the criteria that connote value during
use right after purchase, which in turn may differ from the determinants of
value during long-term use (Parasuraman, 1997).
Notes
1. Because the chi-square test is sensitive to sample size, Carmines and McIver (1981)
provide another way to check for the overall goodness-of-fit measure. The calculation is
as follows: chi-square/degrees of freedom. If the value is smaller than 3, the fit is very
good, whereas if the value is between 3 and 5, the fit is acceptable. Then, in MO3, for a
chi-square of 73.29 and 41df, we obtain a value of 1.77, which demonstrates a very good
fit. Bentler and Bonnett (1980, pp. 599-600) suggested another index that is not
influenced by sample size. It refers to the D in Tables III and IV. A value close to one is
very good and a value greater than 0.90 is an acceptable value.
2. Chi-square/degree of freedom: 89.86/48 = 1.87.
3. This is particularly critical because the model was developed as well as tested using the
same data set (Sethi and King, 1994, p. 1618).
References
Alic, J.A. (1994), ``Technology in the service industries'', International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Anderson, J.C. (1987), `Àn approach for confirmatory measurement and structural modeling
of organizational properties'', Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 525-41.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1999), Business Market Management, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Anderson, J.C., Jain, D.C. and Chintagunta, P.K. (1993), ``Customer value assessment in
business markets: a state-of-practice study'', Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-29.
Angleitner, A., John, O.P. and Lahr, J. (1986), `Ìt's what you ask and how you ask it: an
intermetric analysis of personality questionnaires'', in Angleitner, A. and Wiggins, J.
(Eds), Personality Assessment via Questionnaire, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany,
pp. 61-108.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1980), Causal Models in Marketing, Wiley, NY, USA.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Baumgartner, H. (1994), ``The evaluation of structural equation models and
hypothesis testing'', in Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell,
Cambridge, MA, USA.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), ``Comparative fit indexes in structural models'', Psychological
Association, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 238-46.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnett, D.G. (1980), ``Significance tests and goodness of fit in analysis of
covariance structures'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.
Berry, L.L. and Yadav, M.S. (1996), ``Capture and communicate value in the pricing of
services'', Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 41-51.
Bharadwaj, S.G., Varadarajan, P.R. and Fahy, J. (1993), ``Sustainable competitive advantage in
service industries: a conceptual model and research propositions'', Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 83-99.
Bolton, R.W. and Drew, J.H. (1991), `À multistage model of customers' assessments of
service quality and value'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, March, pp. 375-84.
Brown, T.J., Peter, J.P. and Churchill, T.J. (1993), `Ìmproving the measurement of service
quality'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 1, Spring, pp. 127-39.
Carmines, E.G. and McIver, J.P. (1981), `Ànalysing models with unobservable variables'', in
Bohrnstedt, G.W. and Borgata, E.F. (Eds), Social Measurement, Current Issues, Beverly
Hills, Sage, pp. 65-115.
Carothers, G.H. and Adams, M. (1991), ``Competitive advantage through customer value: the
role of value-based strategies'', in Stahl, M. and Bounds, G.M. (Eds), Competing Globally
through Customer Value, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 32-66.
Day, G.S. (1990), Market Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value, The Free Press, New
York, NY.
Dickson, P.R. (1992), ``Toward a general theory of competitive rationality'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 69-83.
135
Diefenbach, M.A., Weinstein, N.D. and O'Reilly, J. (1993), ``Scales for assessing perception
of health hazard susceptibility'', Health-Education Research, Vol. 8, June, pp. 187-92.
Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997), ``Strategic orientation of the firm and new product
performance'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 77-90.
Ghemawat, P. (1986), ``Sustainable advantage'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 64,
September-October, pp. 53-8.
Haas, R.W. (1995), Business Marketing, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Holbrook, M.B. and Corfman, K.P. (1985), ``Quality and value in the consumption experience:
phaedrus rides again'', in Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. (Eds), Perceived Quality, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 31-57.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995), ``The competitive advantage theory of competition'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, April, pp. 1-15.
Jacobson, R. (1992), ``The Austrian school of strategy'', Academy of Management Review,
Lexington, MA, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 782-807.
Johnston, W.J. and Lewin, J.E. (1997), `Àdvances in industrial marketing theory and research
from the journal of business and industrial marketing'', Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 38, pp. 199-209.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), ``Lisrel 8: a guide to the program and applications'',
SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. (1993), ``MARKOR: a measure of market
orientation'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, November, pp. 467-77.
Lapierre, J. (1999), ``Development of measures to assess customer value in a business-tobusiness context'', in Woodside, A.G. (Ed.), Advances in Business Marketing and
Purchasing, Vol. 9.
LaPlaca, P.J. (1997), ``Contributions to marketing theory and practice from industrial
marketing management'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 38, pp. 179-98.
Lichtenthal, J.D., Wilson, D.T. and Long, M.M. (1997), ``Scientific contributions to the field
from the Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing'', Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 38, pp. 211-33.
Loevinger, J. (1976), `Òbjectives tests as instruments of psychological theory'', in Jackson,
D.N. and Messick, S. (Eds), Problems in Human Assessment, McGraw-Hill, NY, pp. 78123.
Mandel, M.J. (1997), ``The new business cycle'', Business Week, March 31, pp. 58-68.
Marketing Science Institute (1996-1998), Research Priorities. A Guide to MSI Research
Programs and Procedures.
Mazumdar, T. (1993), `À value-based orientation to new product planning!'', Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 28-41.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), ``The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, October, pp. 20-35.
Parasuraman, A. (1997), ``Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through customer
value'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 154-61.
Parasuraman, A. (1998), ``Customer service in business-to-business markets: an agenda for
research'', Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4-5, pp. 309-21.
Plank, R.E. (1997), ``Theory, practice and empirical development contributions'', Advances in
Business Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 38, pp. 235-41.
Quinn, J.B. (1996), ``The productivity paradox is false: information technology improves
services performance'', in Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. and Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in
Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 5, JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, pp. 71-84.
Ravald, A. and Gronroos, C. (1996), ``The value concept and relationship marketing'',
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 19-30.
Reid, J.A. and Plank, R.E. (1995), ``Has industrial marketing come of age?'', Working Paper,
College of Business Administration, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
Rifkin, G. (1989), ``CEOs give credit for today but expect more for tomorrow'', Computerworld, 239160, April 17, pp. 75-82.
136
Sethi, V. and King, W.R. (1994), ``Development of measures to assess the extent to which an
information technology application provides competitive advantage'', Management
Science, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 1601-27.
Sheth, J.N. and Sharma, A. (1997), ``Supplier relationships: emerging issues and challenges'',
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26, pp. 91-100.
Slater, S.F. (1996), ``The challenge of sustaining competitive advantage'', Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 79-86.
Slater, S.F. (1997), ``Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm'', Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 162-7.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1992), ``Superior customer value and business performance: the
strong evidence for a market-driven culture'', Report, Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 92-125.
Sullivan-Trainor, M. (1989), ``Building competitive advantage by extending information
systems'', Computerworld, Vol. 23 No. 41, SR/19.
Venkatraman, N. (1989), ``Strategic orientation of business enterprises and the construct,
dimensionality and measurement'', Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, August, pp. 94262.
Woodruff, R.B. (1997), ``Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage'', Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53.
Woodside, A.G. (1997), ``Contributions of business-to-business marketing journals:

introduction to the special issue'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 38, p. 178.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), ``Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, July, pp. 2-22.
Appendix 1
Alternative solutions
The range of alternatives offered by the supplier
The supplier's capability to tailor their offerings to match your needs
The supplier's helpfulness in terms of assisting you in solving your problems
Product quality
The
The
The
The
durability of products you buy

reliability of the products you buy over the years
performance of the products you buy
consistent improvement in product quality over the years
The customization of products for your firm
The ability to meet unique specifications for products not offered by your IT supplier's
competitors
The supplier's ability to offer different products from (not similar to) many of their customers
The ability to provide custom-built products for your firm
Responsiveness
Provide quick answers and solutions to your problems
Listen to your problems
Visit your locations to better understand your business
Flexibility
Their flexibility in responding to your requests
Their ability to adjust their products and services to meet unforeseen needs
The way they handle change
Their ability to provide emergency product and service deliveries
Reliability
The accuracy and clarity of the billing
Their ability to do things right the first time
The overall competence of employees with whom you do not have face-to-face contact
Their ability to keep promises
The accuracy of transactions
137
Their creativity
Their specialized expertise in your activity sector
Their ability to demonstrate comprehensive process knowledge of your business
The way they use new technology to generate solutions
Their ability to provide system solutions in response to your problems
Image
Its reputation
Its credibility
Trust
Your confidence that the supplier is telling the truth, even when your supplier gives you a
rather unlikely explanation
The accuracy of the information provided by your major supplier
The supplier's fulfillment of promises made to your organization
The judgment or advice on your business operations that your supplier is sharing with you
The sincerity of your supplier
Solidarity
The help provided by your major supplier when you run into problems
The supplier's problems sharing that arise in the course of your relationship with them
The supplier's commitment to improvements which may benefit your overall relationship with
them (not only of benefit for their own sakes)
The supplier's willingness to meet your needs beyond the contract terms
Price
Most prices of the products and services you buy
Most prices you pay in relation to your major IT supplier's profitability
The impact of competition on the prices you pay
The justification of your major IT supplier in the prices they charge
The fairness of most prices you pay
Time/effort/energy
The number of meetings with the supplier's staff
The bargaining effort with the supplier's staff in reaching an agreement
Your time and effort spent for training a number of your employees
Your time and effort spent in developing a working business relationship with your major IT supplier
Your energy invested with your major IT supplier
Conflict
The frequent arguments you have with your supplier about business issues
The controversial arguments you have with your supplier
The disagreements you have with your supplier about how you can best achieve your
respective goals
Appendix 2
Alternative solutions with

Product quality
Responsiveness
Flexibility
Reliability
Image
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
ML
estimated
Phi
t-value
w constrained
model
w2
unconstrained
model
0.42
0.67
0.65
0.71
0.49
0.61
0.55
0.64
0.63
0.54
0.48
7.82d
16.09d
14.89d
18.65d
9.95d
13.47d
11.55d
14.84d
3.20c
10.39d
8.25d
44.02
21.59
55.86
19.50
38.68
46.48
12.93
57.76
2.27
16.88
54.94
303.89
159.38
193.82
156.84
278.30
219.15
229.46
224.06
10.20
197.97
192.50
Dw2
259.87d
138.79d
137.95d
107.24d
239.61d
172.67d
216.53d
166.29d
7.92c
180.09d
137.71d
(Continued)
Table AI. Discriminant validity analysis for the three sectors

138
ML
estimated
Phi
w2 constrained
model
w2
unconstrained
model
Dw2
78.40
349.54
271.14d
t-value
Conflict
0.17
2.69
Product quality with

Responsiveness
Flexibility
Reliability
Image
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.39
0.43
0.37
0.51
0.46
0.56
0.50
0.40
0.33
0.28
0.02
7.22d
8.16d
6.97d
11.21d
9.20d
14.78d
10.50d
7.78d
5.54d
4.63d
0.39
69.70
41.69
56.95
47.51
62.73
37.68
57.76
63.27
38.91
59.05
58.38
517.15
404.60
395.45
484.81
786.05
356.99
463.40
392.07
303.47
317.84
388.87
447.45d
362.90d
338.50d
437.29d
423.32d
319.31d
405.64d
328.80d
264.55d
258.76d
330.49d
Product customization with

Responsiveness
Flexibility
Reliability
Image
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.62
0.74
0.52
0.72
0.50
0.55
0.61
0.55
0.39
0.13
14.15d
21.47d
11.00d
20.55d
10.01d
11.61d
13.73d
10.59d
6.34d
2.04b
21.44
45.68
17.39
24.46
14.00
41.22
20.97
31.47
44.17
58.95
243.31
166.31
371.36
225.96
33.49
353.32
247.59
214.41
210.36
349.86
224.87d
120.63d
353.96d
201.50d
359.49d
312.10d
226.62d
182.94d
166.19d
290.91d
Responsiveness with
Flexibility
Reliability
Image
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.80
0.64
0.68
0.58
0.71
0.72
0.40
0.50
0.15
27.04d
16.57d
17.41d
13.25d
20.20d
20.06d
6.86d
8.92d
2.32d
49.58
25.56
50.45
6.20
62.91
22.51
8.98
65.73
97.15
134.04
286.15
252.54
323.58
248.70
187.29
253.59
209.37
362.41
84.46d
260.59d
202.08d
317.37d
185.78d
164.77d
244.60d
143.64d
265.25d
Flexibility with
Reliability
Image
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.72
0.82
0.61
0.76
0.77
0.54
0.53
0.20
21.18d
29.11d
14.80d
23.43d
24.11d
10.89d
10.02d
3.38c
52.50
81.38
23.93
56.28
49.87
20.17
60.48
111.02
217.08
163.78
252.00
174.15
156.40
219.78
192.44
365.26
164.58d
82.39d
228.07d
117.87d
106.53d
199.61d
131.96d
254.24d
Reliability with
Image
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.67
0.69
0.77
0.63
0.50
0.37
0.14
17.73d
20.73d
27.05d
16.00d
9.88d
6.37d
2.25b
48.24
11.19
63.07
58.33
25.88
31.06
131.42
368.72
282.45
319.23
277.54
257.98
222.68
380.47
320.48d
293.64d
256.16d
219.21d
232.10d
191.62d
249.05d
Technical competence with

Image
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.59
0.68
0.72
0.47
0.44
0.19
13.46d
17.96d
20.34d
8.59d
7.51d
2.96b
22.04
66.69
37.22
28.80
65.55
80.66
329.92
337.02
209.84
248.69
225.52
350.63
307.86d
270.32d
172.62d
219.89d
159.97d
269.97d
Image with
Trust
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.67
0.60
0.45
0.40
0.12
18.34d
14.21d
8.19d
6.94d
1.89a
28.81
17.46
10.18
15.94
87.14
299.92
264.36
246.16
199.65
497.90
271.11d
247.89d
235.98d
183.71d
410.76d
(Continued)
Table AI. Discriminant validity analysis for the three sectors

139
t-value
w2 constrained
model
w2
unconstrained
model
Dw2
0.86
0.62
0.53
0.24
38.56d
13.95d
10.04d
4.04d
112.95
22.02
71.52
308.10
180.76
194.31
212.10
409.95
67.81d
172.29d
140.58d
101.85d
Solidarity with
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.58
0.60
0.23
11.77d
12.48d
3.90d
35.67
39.16
104.56
215.02
153.17
351.98
179.35d
114.01d
249.42d
Price with
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
0.28
0.07
4.18d
1.04
37.53
89.24
229.58
363.32
192.04d
274.08d
Time/effort/energy with
Conflict
0.51
9.83d
50.04
214.06
164.02d
ML
estimated
Phi
Trust with
Solidarity
Price
Time/effort/energy
Conflict
Notes: ap < 0.10; bp < 0.05; cp < 0.01; dp < 0.001
Table AI.
&
140
This article has been cited by:

1. Professor Andy Neely, Professor Irene C.L. Ng, Professor Rajkumar Roy, Maria kesson, Bo Edvardsson, Brd Tronvoll. 2014.
Customer experience from a self-service system perspective. Journal of Service Management 25:5, 677-698. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
2. Dag Fjeld, Sophie DAmours, Ljusk Ola Eriksson, Mikael Frisk, Sbastien Lemieux, Philippe Marier, Mikael Rnnqvist. 2014.
Developing training for industrial wood supply management. International Journal of Forest Engineering 1-12. [CrossRef]
3. Joan Rhodes, Peter Lok, Wilson Loh, Vincent Cheng. 2014. Critical success factors in relationship management for services
outsourcing. Service Business . [CrossRef]
4. Dr Kristina Heinonen, Noreen Byrne, Olive McCarthy. 2014. Value proposition preferences of credit union members and
patronage activity. International Journal of Bank Marketing 32:6, 567-589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Meysam Maleki, Virgilio Cruz-Machado. 2014. Integration of practices and customer values in a supply chain. International
Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management 1-11. [CrossRef]
6. Jaesu Kim, Kyung Hoon Kim, Tony C. Garrett, Heonsoo Jung. 2014. The Contributions of Firm Innovativeness to Customer
Value in Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
7. Stephanie Hirmer, Heather Cruickshank. 2014. The user-value of rural electrification: An analysis and adoption of existing models
and theories. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34, 145-154. [CrossRef]
8. Jess. A. Estrada-Ayub, Ramzy Kahhat. 2014. Decision factors for e-waste in Northern Mexico: To waste or trade. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 86, 93-106. [CrossRef]
9. Mahsa Ghandehary, Hojjat Harati, Javad Khazaei Pool. 2014. Identifying and ranking the effective factors on customer values.
Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 7:1, 57-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Ratchaneekorn Dansiricha, Opal Suwunnamek. 2014. A Comparison of Thai Consumers Purchasing Behaviour with the
Environmental Characteristics: Electric Appliances Market. Research Journal of Business Management 8, 338-352. [CrossRef]
11. Hanna Komulainen. 2014. The role of learning in value co-creation in new technological B2B services. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing 29:3, 238-252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Dr Daniel Kindstrm, Dr Christian Kowalkowski, Patricia Coutelle-Brillet, Arnaud Riviere, Vronique des Garets. 2014. Perceived
value of service innovation: a conceptual framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 29:2, 164-172. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
13. Mehmet Yrkolu, Glgn Kayakutlu, Sami Ercan. 2014. Tedarik zinciri ynetiminde bilgi sistemleri: havacilik yer hizmetlerinde
uu zamanlamasi iin bilgi paylaim modeli. Journal of Aeronautics and Space Technologies (Havacilik ve Uzay Teknolojileri Dergisi)
7. . [CrossRef]
14. Natalia Rubio, Nieves Villaseor, Mara Jess Yage. 2013. Perceived value of retail service and loyalty to the commercial chain:
the role of propensity to buy store brands. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 23, 493-510.
[CrossRef]
15. Emanuel Erlandsson. 2013. The Impact of Industrial Context on Procurement, Management and Development of Harvesting
Services: A Comparison of Two Swedish Forest Owners Associations. Forests 4, 1171-1198. [CrossRef]
16. Daniel D. Prior. 2013. Supplier representative activities and customer perceived value in complex industrial solutions. Industrial
Marketing Management 42, 1192-1201. [CrossRef]
17. Martin Hingley and Adam Lindgreen, Weiping Chen. 2013. Perceived value in community supported agriculture (CSA). British
Food Journal 115:10, 1428-1453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Jenni Hakola. 2013. Customer perceptions of the value of new packaging technologies. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
28:8, 649-659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Charles H. Schwepker. 2013. Improving Sales Performance Through Commitment to Superior Customer Value: The Role of
Psychological Ethical Climate. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 33, 389-402. [CrossRef]
20. Martti Lindman. 2013. How do SMEs bond to their retailers through value creation?. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship
26, 537-552. [CrossRef]
21. Young Wook Ha, Myeong Cheol Park. 2013. Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty for Emerging Devices in
the Initial Market of Korea: An Equity Framework. Psychology & Marketing 30:10.1002/mar.2013.30.issue-8, 676-689. [CrossRef]
22. Juan Carlos Fandos Roig, Marta Estrada Guilln, Santiago Forgas Coll, Ramon Palau i Saumell. 2013. Social value in retail banking.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 31:5, 348-367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. M. Soledad Janita, F. Javier Miranda. 2013. The antecedents of client loyalty in business-to-business (B2B) electronic marketplaces.
Industrial Marketing Management 42, 814-823. [CrossRef]
24. Silvia Martelo Landroguez, Carmen Barroso Castro, Gabriel CepedaCarrin. 2013. Developing an integrated vision of customer
value. Journal of Services Marketing 27:3, 234-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Won-Moo Hur, Yeonshin Kim, Kyungdo Park. 2013. Assessing the Effects of Perceived Value and Satisfaction on Customer
Loyalty: A Green Perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20:10.1002/csr.v20.3, 146-156.
[CrossRef]
26. Thomas Kilian, Kathrin Greuling, Nadine Hennigs. 2013. Communicating Competency in References: A Qualitative Analysis of
the Utilization of References in Mechanical Engineering. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 20, 65-79. [CrossRef]
27. Weiping Chen. 2013. Perceived value of a community supported agriculture (CSA) working share. The construct and its
dimensions. Appetite 62, 37-49. [CrossRef]
28. Elina Jaakkola, Taru Hakanen. 2013. Value co-creation in solution networks. Industrial Marketing Management 42, 47-58.
[CrossRef]
29. Tung-Ching Lin, Sheng Wu, Jack Shih-Chieh Hsu, Yi-Ching Chou. 2012. The integration of value-based adoption and
expectationconfirmation models: An example of IPTV continuance intention. Decision Support Systems 54, 63-75. [CrossRef]
30. Ana Isabel Polo Pea, Dolores Mara Fras Jamilena, Miguel ngel Rodrguez Molina. 2012. The perceived value of the rural
tourism stay and its effect on rural tourist behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20, 1045-1065. [CrossRef]
31. Nasreen Khan, Sharifah Latifah Sye Kadir, Muhammad Sabbir Rahman. 2012. An Empirical Research on Conceptualisation of
Relational Value. Trends in Applied Sciences Research 7, 829-844. [CrossRef]
32. Soonhong Min, Jeffrey W. Overby, Kun Shin Im. 2012. Relationships between desired attributes, consequences and purchase
frequency. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:6, 423-435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Ronald Sukwadi, Ching-Chow Yang, Liu Fan. 2012. Capturing customer value creation based on service experience a case study
on News Caf. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 29, 383-399. [CrossRef]
34. Thomas Brashear, Daniel Kindstrm, Christian Kowalkowski, Fredrik Nordin. 2012. Visualizing the value of servicebased
offerings: empirical findings from the manufacturing industry. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 27:7, 538-546. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
35. Tobias Schlager, Peter Maas. 2012. Reframing customer value from a dominant logics perspective. der markt 51, 101-113.
[CrossRef]
36. Monika Koller, Alexander Zauner, Arne Floh. 2012. Kundenwert in Produkt- und Dienstleistungsbndel: Eine qualitative
Betrachtung. der markt 51, 75-84. [CrossRef]
37. Sergio Biggemann, Francis Buttle. 2012. Intrinsic value of business-to-business relationships: An empirical taxonomy. Journal of
Business Research 65, 1132-1138. [CrossRef]
38. Anja Geigenmller, U. Zeynep Ata, Aysegul Toker. 2012. The effect of customer relationship management adoption in business
tobusiness markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 27:6, 497-507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Sara Parry, Jennifer Rowley, Rosalind Jones, Beata Kupiec-Teahan. 2012. Customer-perceived value in business-to-business
relationships: A study of software customers. Journal of Marketing Management 28, 887-911. [CrossRef]
40. Martin Voss. 2012. Impact of customer integration on project portfolio management and its successDeveloping a conceptual
framework. International Journal of Project Management 30, 567-581. [CrossRef]
41. Prof. Bob Howlett, Dr. Eva Maleviti, Ramendra Singh, Pramod Paliwal. 2012. Customers' value appraisalssuppliers' value
propositions interaction process in developing new services. International Journal of Energy Sector Management 6:2, 255-272.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Dr Harriette BettisOutland, Sriram Dorai, Sanjeev Varshney. 2012. A multistage behavioural and temporal analysis of CPV in
RM. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 27:5, 403-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Li-Chang Hsu, Chao-Hung Wang. 2012. Clarifying the Effect of Intellectual Capital on Performance: The Mediating Role of
Dynamic Capability. British Journal of Management 23:10.1111/bjom.2012.23.issue-2, 179-205. [CrossRef]
44. Wann-Yih Wu, Hsiao-Yun Lu, Ying-Yin Wu, Chen-Su Fu. 2012. The effects of product scarcity and consumers' need for
uniqueness on purchase intention. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:10.1111/ijc.2012.36.issue-3, 263-274. [CrossRef]
45. SUSANA NICOLA, EDUARDA PINTO FERREIRA, J. J. PINTO FERREIRA. 2012. A NOVEL FRAMEWORK FOR
MODELING VALUE FOR THE CUSTOMER, AN ESSAY ON NEGOTIATION. International Journal of Information
Technology & Decision Making 11, 661-703. [CrossRef]
46. Ritva Marketta Toivonen. 2012. Product quality and value from consumer perspectiveAn application to wooden products.
Journal of Forest Economics 18, 157-173. [CrossRef]
47. Nataa Golik Klanac. 2012. Types of linkages between service characteristics and customer consequences. European Journal of
Marketing 46:3/4, 313-330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Jennifer D. Chandler, Wes JohnstonChapter 3 The Organizational Buying Center as a Framework for Emergent Topics in
Business-to-Business Marketing 41-87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
49. Frank F. Faroughian, Stavros P. Kalafatis, Lesley Ledden, Phillip Samouel, Markos H. Tsogas. 2012. Value and risk in businessto-business e-banking. Industrial Marketing Management 41, 68-81. [CrossRef]
50. Hana Lostakova, Marketa CurdovaPreference of Forms of Customer Loyalty Programs by Clients of Internet Pharmacies 856-863.
[CrossRef]
51. Ingmar Geiger, Aurlia Durand, Samy Saab, Michael Kleinaltenkamp, Roger Baxter, Yeonhee Lee. 2012. The bonding effects
of relationship value and switching costs in industrial buyerseller relationships: An investigation into role differences. Industrial
52. Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, Elina Jaakkola. 2012. Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: A dyadic perspective
on the joint problem solving process. Industrial Marketing Management 41, 15-26. [CrossRef]
53. Thomas Ritter, Achim Walter. 2012. More is not always better: The impact of relationship functions on customer-perceived
relationship value. Industrial Marketing Management 41, 136-144. [CrossRef]
54. Nina Helander, Pauliina Ulkuniemi. 2012. Customer perceived value in the software business. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research 23, 26-35. [CrossRef]
55. Voicu Cosmin Nistor, Mircea Andrei Scridon. 2012. Value in Romania-based SME organizations. Procedia Economics and Finance
3, 837-842. [CrossRef]
56. Dario Miocevic. 2011. Organizational buying effectiveness in supply chain context: Conceptualization and empirical assessment.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 17, 246-255. [CrossRef]
57. Kiane Goudarzi, Sylvie Llosa, Chiara Orsingher, Brd Tronvoll, Stephen W. Brown, Dwayne D. Gremler, Bo Edvardsson. 2011.
Paradigms in service research. Journal of Service Management 22:5, 560-585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Lesley Ledden, Stavros P. Kalafatis, Alex Mathioudakis. 2011. The idiosyncratic behaviour of service quality, value, satisfaction,
and intention to recommend in higher education: An empirical examination. Journal of Marketing Management 27, 1232-1260.
[CrossRef]
59. Wolfgang Ulaga. 2011. Investigating customer value in global business markets: Commentary essay. Journal of Business Research
64, 928-930. [CrossRef]
60. Kuei-Feng Chang, Hao-Wei Yang. 2011. An Effective Approach to Construct Value-Based Decision Model for Positioning
Strategy. Information Technology Journal 10, 1402-1408. [CrossRef]
61. . 2011. A Study on the Causal Model of Service Satisfaction, Repatronage Intention and Employment by Perceived Customer
Value of Employer. Jounal of Korea Service Management Society 12, 51-73. [CrossRef]
62. Christopher P. Blocker. 2011. Modeling customer value perceptions in cross-cultural business markets. Journal of Business Research
64, 533-540. [CrossRef]
63. Michael Bourlakis, T.C. Melewar, Egle Songailiene, Heidi Winklhofer, Sally McKechnie. 2011. A conceptualisation of supplier
perceived value. European Journal of Marketing 45:3, 383-418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Christopher P. Blocker, Daniel J. Flint, Matthew B. Myers, Stanley F. Slater. 2011. Proactive customer orientation and its role
for creating customer value in global markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39, 216-233. [CrossRef]
65. David Hutchinson, William J. Wellington, Mohammed Saad, Phillip Cox. 2011. Refining value-based differentiation in business
relationships: A study of the higher order relationship building blocks that influence behavioural intentions. Industrial Marketing
Management 40, 465-478. [CrossRef]
66. Karri Mikkonen. 2011. Exploring the creation of systemic value for the customer in Advanced Multi-Play. Telecommunications
Policy 35, 185-201. [CrossRef]
67. Luis J. Callarisa Fiol, Miguel A. Moliner Tena, Javier Snchez Garca. 2011. Multidimensional perspective of perceived value in
industrial clusters. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:2, 132-145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Daniel J. Flint, Christopher P. Blocker, Philip J. Boutin. 2011. Customer value anticipation, customer satisfaction and loyalty:
An empirical examination. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 219-230. [CrossRef]
69. Vesna Babi-Hodovi, Eldin Mehi, Maja Arslanagi. 2011. Influence of Banks Corporate Reputation on Organizational Buyers
Perceived Value. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 24, 351-360. [CrossRef]
70. Ramendra Singh, Abraham Koshy. 2011. Does salesperson's customer orientation create value in B2B relationships? Empirical
evidence from India. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 78-85. [CrossRef]
71. Irene Gil-Saura, Maria-Eugenia Ruiz-Molina, Hayde Caldern-Garca. 2010. Retail IT and customer loyalty: The moderating
role of customer age. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property 9, 357-371. [CrossRef]
72. Aurlia Lefaix-Durand, Robert Kozak. 2010. Comparing Customer and Supplier Perceptions of Value Offerings: An Exploratory
Assessment. Journal of Business Market Management 4, 129-150. [CrossRef]
73. Daniela Corsaro, Ivan Snehota. 2010. Searching for Relationship Value in Business Markets: Are We Missing Something?.
Industrial Marketing Management 39, 986-995. [CrossRef]
74. Johanna Kokkomki, Tommi Laukkanen, Raija Komppula. 2010. Determinants affecting the use of an intermediary when buying
meeting services. Tourism Review 65:2, 21-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Mara Eugenia Ruiz Molina, Irene Gil Saura, Haydee Caldern Garca. 2010. El efecto moderador de la edad en la relacin entre el
valor percibido, las TIC del minorista y la lealtad del cliente. Cuadernos de Economa y Direccin de la Empresa 13, 65-91. [CrossRef]
76. Jos ngel Lpez Snchez, Mara Leticia Santos Vijande, Juan Antonio Trespalacios Gutirrez. 2010. The Impact of Relational
Variables on Value Creation in BuyerSeller Business Relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 17, 62-94. [CrossRef]
77. Sumeet Gupta, Hee-Woong Kim. 2010. Value-driven Internet shopping: The mental accounting theory perspective. Psychology
and Marketing 27:10.1002/mar.v27:1, 13-35. [CrossRef]
78. Raquel Snchez-Fernndez, M. ngeles Iniesta-Bonillo. 2009. Efficiency and quality as economic dimensions of perceived value:
Conceptualization, measurement, and effect on satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16, 425-433. [CrossRef]
79. sa Rnnbck, Lars Witell, Bo Enquist. 2009. Quality management systems and value creation. International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences 1:3, 241-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
80. Luis J. Callarisa Fiol, Enrique Bigne Alcaiz, Miguel A. Moliner Tena, Javier Snchez Garca. 2009. Customer Loyalty in Clusters:
Perceived Value and Satisfaction as Antecedents. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 16, 276-316. [CrossRef]
81. sa Rnnbck, Lars Witell. 2009. Value creation in outsourced service provision in public transportation. The TQM Journal
82. Nelson Oly Ndubisi, Margaret Jekanyika Matanda, Nelson Oly Ndubisi. 2009. Market orientation, supplier perceived value and
business performance of SMEs in a SubSaharan African nation. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 22:4, 384-407.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Jaqueline Pels, Aurelia LefaixDurand, Robert Kozak, Robert Beauregard, Diane Poulin. 2009. Extending relationship value:
observations from a case study of the Canadian structural wood products industry. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
24:5/6, 389-407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Juan Carlos Fandos Roig, Javier Snchez Garca, Miguel ngel Moliner Tena. 2009. Perceived value and customer loyalty in
financial services. The Service Industries Journal 29, 775-789. [CrossRef]
85. Steve Baron, Anthony Patterson, Steve Oakes, Kim Harris, Daniel Kindstrm, Christian Kowalkowski. 2009. Development of
industrial service offerings: a process framework. Journal of Service Management 20:2, 156-172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Irene GilSaura, MariaEugenia RuizMolina. 2009. Customer segmentation based on commitment and ICT use. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 109:2, 206-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Julian MingSung Cheng, Edward ShihTse Wang, Julia YingChao Lin, Shiri D. Vivek. 2009. Why do customers utilize the
internet as a retailing platform?. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 21:1, 144-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. Anca E. Cretu, Roderick J. BrodieChapter 7 Brand image, corporate reputation, and customer value 263-387. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
89. David Martn Ruiz, Dwayne D. Gremler, Judith H. Washburn, Gabriel Cepeda Carrin. 2008. Service value revisited: Specifying
a higher-order, formative measure. Journal of Business Research 61, 1278-1291. [CrossRef]
90. Narissa Gipp, Stavros P. Kalafatis, Lesley Ledden. 2008. Perceived value of corporate donations: an empirical investigation.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 13:10.1002/nvsm.v13:4, 327-346. [CrossRef]
91. Doina Olaru, Sharon Purchase, Nathan Peterson. 2008. From customer value to repurchase intentions and recommendations.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 23:8, 554-565. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. Ross Brennan, Stephan C. Henneberg. 2008. Does political marketing need the concept of customer value?. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning 26:6, 559-572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. N. Golik Klanac. 2008. Dimensions of Customer Value of Website Communication in Business-to-Business Relationships. Journal
of business market management 2, 153-165. [CrossRef]
94. Nattavud Pimpa. 2008. Relationship Value in Thai Business-to-Business Marketing. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 9, 235-247.
[CrossRef]
95. Joze Lapierre, Alexandre Tran-Khanh, Jimmy Skelling. 2008. Antecedents of Customers' Desired Value Change in a Businessto-Business Context: Theoretical Model and Empirical Assessment. Services Marketing Quarterly 29, 114-148. [CrossRef]
96. Mika Westerlund, Senja Svahn. 2008. A relationship value perspective of social capital in networks of software SMEs. Industrial
97. Jeffrey Lewin, James Barry, Tamara S. Terry. 2008. Empirical study of relationship value in industrial services. Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing 23:4, 228-241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. Jeffrey Lewin, Tracy R. Harmon, Merlyn A. Griffiths. 2008. Franchisee perceived relationship value. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 23:4, 256-263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. Albert Graf, Peter Maas. 2008. Customer value from acustomer perspective: acomprehensive review. Journal fr Betriebswirtschaft
58, 1-20. [CrossRef]
100. Stephan C. Henneberg, Stefanos MouzasFinal customers value in business networks 99-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
101. Roger BaxterIntangible value in buyerseller relationships 27-98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
102. Tuomas Ahola, Eino Laitinen, Jaakko Kujala, Kim Wikstrm. 2008. Purchasing strategies and value creation in industrial turnkey
projects. International Journal of Project Management 26, 87-94. [CrossRef]
103. J.A. Lpez Snchez, M.L. Santos Vijande, J.A. Trespalacios Gutirrez. 2008. LA INFLUENCIA DE LA CONFIANZA Y EL
COMPROMISO SOBRE LAS FUNCIONES CREADORAS DE VALOR EN LAS RELACIONES COMERCIALES ENTRE
EMPRESAS. Investigaciones Europeas de Direccin y Economa de la Empresa 14, 177-196. [CrossRef]
104. Miguel A. Moliner, Javier Snchez, Rosa M. Rodrguez, Lus Callarisa. 2007. Perceived relationship quality and postpurchase
perceived value. European Journal of Marketing 41:11/12, 1392-1422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. Jillian C. Sweeney, David A. Webb. 2007. How functional, psychological, and social relationship benefits influence individual and
firm commitment to the relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 22:7, 474-488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. Lesley Ledden, Stavros P. Kalafatis, Phillip Samouel. 2007. The relationship between personal values and perceived value of
education. Journal of Business Research 60, 965-974. [CrossRef]
107. Hanna Komulainen, Tuija Mainela, Jaana Thtinen, Pauliina Ulkuniemi. 2007. Retailers' different value perceptions of mobile
advertising service. International Journal of Service Industry Management 18:4, 368-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
108. Katherine Tyler, Mark Patton, Marco Mongiello, Derek Meyer, Graham Whittaker, Lesley Ledden, Stavros P. Kalafatis. 2007.
A reexamination of the relationship between value, satisfaction and intention in business services. Journal of Services Marketing
109. Christopher P. Blocker, Daniel J. Flint. 2007. Customer segments as moving targets: Integrating customer value dynamism into
segment instability logic. Industrial Marketing Management 36, 810-822. [CrossRef]
110. Christopher P. Blocker, Daniel J. Flint. 2007. Exploring the dynamics of customer value in crosscultural business relationships.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 22:4, 249-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
111. Djoko Setijono, Jens J. Dahlgaard. 2007. The AddedValue Metric A Complementary Performance Measure for Six Sigma and
Lean Production. Asian Journal on Quality 8:1, 1-14. [Abstract] [PDF]
112. Javier Snchez-Garcia, Miguel A. Moliner-Tena, Lus Callarisa-Fiol, Rosa M. Rodrguez-Artola. 2007. Relationship Quality of
an Establishment and Perceived Value of a Purchase. The Service Industries Journal 27, 151-174. [CrossRef]
113. Paolo Guenzi, Gabriele Troilo. 2007. The joint contribution of marketing and sales to the creation of superior customer value.
Journal of Business Research 60, 98-107. [CrossRef]
114. Ofir Turel, Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis. 2007. User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: Deconstructing perceived
value. Information & Management 44, 63-73. [CrossRef]
115. Shun Cai, Yunjie Xu. 2006. Effects of outcome, process and shopping enjoyment on online consumer behaviour. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications 5, 272-281. [CrossRef]
116. Paolo Guenzi, Gabriele Troilo. 2006. Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation through MarketingSales
integration. Industrial Marketing Management 35, 974-988. [CrossRef]
117. Juan Carlos Fandos Roig, Javier Sanchez Garcia, Miguel Angel Moliner Tena, Jaume Llorens Monzonis. 2006. Customer perceived
value in banking services. International Journal of Bank Marketing 24:5, 266-283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Marianna Sigala, Evangelos Christou, Marianna Sigala. 2006. Mass customisation implementation models and customer value in
mobile phones services. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 16:4, 395-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
119. Javier Snchez, Lus Callarisa, Rosa M. Rodrguez, Miguel A. Moliner. 2006. Perceived value of the purchase of a tourism product.
Tourism Management 27, 394-409. [CrossRef]
120. Tracy G. Harwood. 2006. Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships Through Face-to-Face Negotiations. Journal of Relationship
Marketing 4, 105-122. [CrossRef]
121. Yonggui Wang, HingPo Lo, Quan Zhang, Youzhi Xue. 2006. How technological capability influences business performance.
Journal of Technology Management in China 1:1, 27-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
122. Andreas Eggert, Wolfgang Ulaga, Franziska Schultz. 2006. Value creation in the relationship life cycle: A quasi-longitudinal
analysis. Industrial Marketing Management 35, 20-27. [CrossRef]
123. Wolfgang Ulaga, Andreas Eggert. 2006. Value-Based Differentiation in Business Relationships: Gaining and Sustaining Key
Supplier Status. Journal of Marketing 70, 119-136. [CrossRef]
124. ChienHsin Lin, Peter J. Sher, HsinYu Shih. 2005. Past progress and future directions in conceptualizing customer perceived
value. International Journal of Service Industry Management 16:4, 318-336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
125. Steven A. Taylor, Stephen Goodwin, Kevin Celuch. 2005. An Exploratory Investigation into the Question of Direct Selling via
the Internet in Industrial Equipment Markets. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 12, 39-72. [CrossRef]
126. Ajay Menon, Christian Homburg, Nikolas Beutin. 2005. Understanding Customer Value in Business-to-Business Relationships.
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 12, 1-38. [CrossRef]
127. Wolfgang Ulaga, Andreas Eggert. 2005. Relationship Value in Business Markets: The Construct and Its Dimensions. Journal of
Business-to-Business Marketing 12, 73-99. [CrossRef]
128. Amit K. Ghosh, W. Benoy Joseph, John T. Gardner, Sharon V. Thach. 2004. Understanding industrial distributors' expectations of
benefits from relationships with suppliers. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 19:7, 433-443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
129. John Noonan, Michael Wallace. 2004. Building responsive contract manufacturers through valuefocused strategies. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 9:4, 295-302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
130. Yonggui Wang, Hing Po Lo, Renyong Chi, Yongheng Yang. 2004. An integrated framework for customer value and customer
relationshipmanagement performance: a customerbased perspective from China. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal 14:2/3, 169-182. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
131. Yonggui Wang, HingPo Lo. 2004. CUSTOMERFOCUSED PERFORMANCE AND ITS KEY RESOURCEBASED
DETERMINANTS: AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK. Competitiveness Review 14:1/2, 34-59. [Abstract] [PDF]
132. Daniel J. Flint. 2004. Strategic marketing in global supply chains: Four challenges. Industrial Marketing Management 33, 45-50.
[CrossRef]
133. Wolfgang Ulaga. 2003. Capturing value creation in business relationships: A customer perspective. Industrial Marketing
Management 32, 677-693. [CrossRef]
134. Nuran Acur, Frank Gertsen, Hongyi Sun, Jan Frick. 2003. The formalisation of manufacturing strategy and its influence on the
relationship between competitive objectives, improvement goals, and action plans. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 23:10, 1114-1141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
135. Yonggui Wang, HingPo Lo. 2003. Customerfocused performance and the dynamic model for competence building and
leveraging. Journal of Management Development 22:6, 483-526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
136. Yonggui Wang, HingPo Lo. 2002. Service quality, customer satisfaction and behavior intentions. info 4:6, 50-60. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
137. Daniel J. Flint, Robert B. Woodruff, Sarah Fisher Gardial. 2002. Exploring the Phenomenon of Customers Desired Value Change
in a Business-to-Business Context. Journal of Marketing 66, 102-117. [CrossRef]
138. Wesley J. Johnston, Hanna Komulainen, Annu Ristola, Pauliina UlkuniemiMobile Advertising in Small Retailer Firms 283-298.
[CrossRef]
139. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Brand Loyalty on CRM Performance: 252-284. [CrossRef]

Custumer - Perceived Value in Industrial Contexts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Custumer - Perceived Value in Industrial Contexts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Customerperceived value in industrial contexts

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

An executive summary for

Associate Professor, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Quebec,

Keywords Business-to-business marketing, Value, Consumer behaviour,

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Abstract Although customer-perceived value is discussed widely in the literature, few

A major issue was therefore the development of customer value measures,

In view of the construct's complexity and richness, a research program on

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 2/3 2000

research, we concur with the majority of researchers who define customer

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

The first phase

Key drivers of customer-perceived value

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 2/3 2000

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

The second stage

alternative solutions product related;

product quality product related;

product customization product related;

responsiveness service related;

flexibility service related;

reliability service related;

technical competence service related;

supplier's image relationship related;

trust relationship related;

(10) supplier solidarity with customers relationship related.

price product and service related;

time/effort/energy relationship related;

conflict relationship related.

See Appendix 1 for a detailed description of the 13 drivers.

Figure 1. Total value proposition

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Data collection procedure and sample characteristics

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 2/3 2000

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Table II. Assessment of unidimensionality, convergent validity and reliability for

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Exploration of the structure

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Figure 2. First-order factor model for customer value (2 dimensions, 13 drivers)

Table III. First-order factor models independent samples123

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

More specifically, results indicate that a value proposition implies much

What is noteworthy from the findings associated with the domain of

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 2/3 2000

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Figure 3. First-order factor model for customer value (3 dimensions, 13 drivers)

number of parameters to be estimated, which in turn led to an increase in the

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 2/3 2000

l31 Product customization 0.71

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Table IV. First-order factor models independent samples123

to the value proposition in MO2 (distribution) and MO3 (ICE). Price, a

conceptualized in terms of benefit and sacrifice and when it is conceptualized

Downloaded by UFPB At 05:54 09 November 2014 (PT)

Finance and ICE

Furthermore, managers should be interested in the two structures and in the

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 15 NO. 2/3 2000