Omobono on ERM

DIGITAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES
For more information contact Francesca Brosan fran@omobono.com
Omobono Ltd +44 (0) 1223 307000 www.omobono.com
Exploring
the value of
Enterprise
Relationships.
A research project by Omobono Ltd
Autumn 2009

2© Omobono Ltd 2009
Exploring the value of Enterprise Relationships
Contents
Page
3 Executive summary
4 Key research conclusions
5 Introduction
6 Research origins
6 Summary of undertaking
7 Research findings
8 Why relationships matter
9 Relationship structures.
· Service firms
· Public sector
· Manufacturing
13 A mind shift to relationship marketing
14 From product to service, the need for change
· Service firms
· Public sector
· Manufacturing
16 Measurement techniques
17 Research implications
18 Effective knowledge management
20 A new marketing world order
21 A clear role for digital technologies
· Service firms
· Public sector
· Manufacturing
23 Putting Enterprise Relationship Management
into practice
25 Acknowledgements

Executive
summary.

Executive Summary
Enterprise Relationships are fundamental to business
success. The Judge research shows how they lead to long
term mutual advantage, in which value is largely created by
the quality of interaction between the parties. The overall
performance of a company will therefore depend on how
well it is able to manage its own Enterprise Relationships.
The research revealed that contemporary approaches to ERM and
upgrading its importance within the business leads to reductions and
cost saving elsewhere: in marketing department budgets.
Omobono argues that marketing communications have been making up
for weakness in the relationship between company and customer for the
last 40 years. As a result, the word “marketing” has become synonymous
with communication rather than keeping to its original definition of
profitably developing products or services that people want to buy. In
many cases, marketing is now a reactive responsibility on the periphery of
organisational structures.
The drive for value in business is shifting inexorably from product to
service. So, as the study also shows, the marketing emphasis needs to
shift from traditional ‘push’ (product) thinking to the idea of marketing
as customer service experience and improvement. This approach is
likely to reap more benefit in the current business environment, where
peer recommendations are amplified by social networks, and increasing
challenges come from board level on the value of marketing investment.
Marketing departments can play a pivotal role in this if they chose.
Or, they can continue to run dwindling marketing budgets until they
disappear completely.
This paper covers
the background
to the thinking in
more depth and
provides evidence
from the research
to support the case
for a new approach.
What’s now required of CMOs
is a broader role that realigns
marketing with the current
realities of customer decision
making.
McKinsey Quarterly 2009 Number 3

Introduction.

An Enterprise Relationship – “a dynamic
link between at least two parties operating
within a given industry and expecting mutual
benefits from each other... the quality and
nature of the relationship depends on the
quality of the interaction process.”
(Zineldin, 1995)
Introduction
In Summer 2009, Omobono partnered with the University of Cambridge’s
Judge Business School to investigate the theories surrounding Enterprise
Relationships and Enterprise Relationship Management (ERM): the ways
in which organisations in the commercial and public sectors interact with
their customers, partners and staff. The Judge Business School investigated
how Enterprise Relationships are used to achieve organisational goals, to
deliver to customers and create mutual value; and how that is measured.
The research focused on large, complex organisations whose business relies
on long term relationship building and decision-making.
The research
The research covered the following aspects:
• A summary of academic theory surrounding the management of
Enterprise Relationships
• Original research into the defining relationships in leading organisations in:
– Service sector
– Public sector
– Manufacturing
• An investigation into measurement techniques used in Enterprise
Relationship Management
• Discussion on future challenges in Enterprise Relationship Management
Interviewees were senior business leaders, including CEOs, Marketing,
Commercial and Customer Service Directors.

Research
findings.

Research findings
Relationships matter
Enterprise Relationships, or Business-to-Business (B2B) relationships
make the business world go round. An early outcome from the research
is that they are seen as creators of mutual value over the long term, not
simply as a means of transaction. This has significant implications for the
process of developing, managing and measuring Enterprise Relationships
and one which has generated stimulating thinking among the academic
community.
“A B2B Relationship is a dynamic link between at least two
parties operating within a given industry and expecting
mutual benefits from each other. The behaviour and
activities of one partner are always more or less dependent
on the outcome of those of others. It is a highly adapted
relationship and involves a complex pattern of interaction.
The interaction includes business and social exchange.
The quality and nature of the relationship depends on the
quality of the interaction process.1
” (Zineldin, 1995).
Enterprise Relationships are complex, encompassing not just customers
but suppliers, partners, employees and a wider stakeholder group; from
governments and shareholders to communities and academic institutes.
Not only are there multiple relationships, but the participants are now
able to easily relate to each other. A company may have a relationship
with a supplier, but all its suppliers now have relationships with each
other too. So there is now an acceptance that Enterprise Relationships
also consist of multiple interactive relationships both within and between
organisations, leading to Enterprise Networks. How strong a network
becomes is dependent on the personalities of the people involved and on
the individual experiences these people have from the interaction within
that network.
Value is created by the quality of the interaction
In this network theory2
, companies, or separate business units, are the
nodes and the relationships between them are the threads. Nodes and
threads carry the resources, knowledge and understanding in many
different forms which constitute the relationships. The depth of Enterprise
Relationships is the result of complex interactions, adaptations and
investments within and between companies over time.
As a result of this, managing Enterprise Relationships will have a direct
impact on driving value for the company.
The overall
performance of
a company will
depend on how
well they are able
to manage their
own relationships.3
Hakansson Ford (2002)

Relationship structures are similar but the emphasis
differs from industry to industry.
Morgan Hunt’s 1994 model4
(Fig.1) pulled together the ten key relational
exchanges in business, grouped under four different partnerships. All these
partnerships can and do have an impact on the overall effectiveness of the
organisation.
Customers
Intermediate customers
Final customers
Internal
Employees
Functional Departments
Internal Business Units
External
Governments
Shareholders
Interest Groups/Publics
Media
Alliances/Partnerships
Scientific Community
Financial Institutions
Competitors
Suppliers
Goods suppliers
Service suppliers
Focal ﬁrm
Fig. 1
The Judge Business School research showed that relationship structures
tend to be similar across industries, but their emphasis changes according
to industry and to the strategic intent of the organisation.
Internal structures also vary by sector, and are not always aligned
behind the strategic goal. This means that Enterprise Relationship
Management processes often have to compensate for disconnects within
the organisation itself. Given the shift in business from product to service,
and the current tight pressure on revenues and budgets, the alignment of
internal structures to deliver is itself under increasing pressure.
Some companies are better set up to cope with these pressures than
others – from the more flexible matrix organisations seen typically in
service businesses to smaller and newer players who, unhampered by
more formal organisational structures, can be fleeter of foot and quicker
to react to market needs.
Ironically one of the problems generated by the response of larger,
traditional, more formal organisations to change is the tendency to fall
back on ‘restructuring’ to reduce their costs, mainly workforce; thereby
cutting out exactly those people who may be contributing most to their
important business relationships.
Research findings

Services organisations
Service firms have a strong focus on sharing knowledge
amongst employees from different departments; equally,
heavy investment is made in key account management for
intermediary and corporate clients.
Customers
Intermediate customers
Final customers
Internal
Employees
Functional Departments
Internal Business Units
External
Suppliers
Service ﬁrm
Source: Omobono/JBS
In service firms (whether business, professional or financial) the most
relevant relationships are with internal and customer groups. Internal
relationships are important because different departments need to be
made aware of the interactions happening with clients on an ongoing
basis. Sales initiatives succeed best where there is open and intensive
internal communication across the whole matrix organisation. Customer
relationships are obviously also critical for service firms, not least because,
in many cases, key accounts have the potential to generate further
business opportunities when individual relationships are strengthened.
Many service firms aim to have a small but intensive pool of relationships,
whether with direct corporate clients or intermediaries, while increasing
the sales rate per stakeholder. In intermediary situations in particular the
importance of creating value for both ends of the relationship comes into
sharp focus; if a firm is only focused on its own benefit and one of its key
partners goes out of business, it will have a direct dramatic impact on the
firm’s own business as well.
Research findings

Not for profit firm
Public sector organisations have a traditional focus on
building strong relationships with regional and national
governmental bodies. In addition, building extensive
partnerships with a wide variety of stakeholders for
delivery purposes will become increasingly important.
Customers
Internal External
Governments
Shareholders
Media
Scientific community
Competitors
Suppliers
Not for
profit ﬁrm
Source: Omobono/JBS
In the not-for-profit world, the span of relationships is becoming bigger,
particularly in the area of alliances with commercial firms. National and
regional governmental bodies are increasingly collaborating with the
commercial sector, as well as with each other, in order to provide a simple
and easy accessible service for each stakeholder.
In the public sector where partnerships with external organisations (both
commercial and governmental) deliver services to external customers
(the public), building the concept of mutual advantage is a key challenge.
Without commercial partners, public sector organisations cannot deliver,
but historically they have often been in competition with the very
commercial organisations they need to partner. Changing these partners’
attitudes externally to the prospect of a relationship with a public sector
organisation (and all the attendant hoops which need to be jumped
through) is a significant relationship bridge which needs to be built in
order to deliver an outstanding service to the customer.
Research findings

Manufacturing firm
Manufacturing firms are more focused on supplier and
alliance relationships, leaving internal engagement as a
lower priority.
Customers
Internal External
Governments
Shareholders
Media
Scientific Community
Competitors
Suppliers
Goods suppliers
Service suppliers
Manufacturing
ﬁrm
Source: Omobono/JBS
Manufacturers focus on strong supplier relationships, although not all
are equal. As well as the typical breakdown between goods and service
suppliers, differentiation is also made between simple procurement
relationships and those suppliers who are strategic partners. Relationships
with government in publicly-procured or regulated sectors also have
major significance, whilst other alliance partners are increasingly coming
to the fore.
Whilst service firms manage their relationships through dedicated
account teams and relationship managers who visit clients, manufacturing
firms are still in the process of changing their relationship management
processes towards a more customer-centric approach.
This is a significant challenge which will have to be addressed by
manufacturing firms as they strive to compete in a service orientated
world.
Research findings

A Mind Shift
Relationship Marketing is marketing based on relationships,
networks and interaction, recognising that marketing is
embedded in the total management of the networks of the
selling organisation, the market and society. It is directed to
long term win-win relationships with individual customers,
and value is jointly created between the parties involved. It
transcends the boundaries between specialist functions and
disciplines.5
(Gummesson, 2008)
Relationship Marketing is a theory developed in the academic world in
the late 90’s, when it was pioneered by Professor Evert Gummesson of
Stockholm Business School. It focuses on customers who are moving
towards a closer relationship with a supplier in a series of stages over
time. It is most suited to customers who have a long-term perspective, in
markets where there are high costs for switching.
One of the reasons that Relationship Marketing is particularly effective in
business markets is because it is based on interactions, unlike traditional
marketing which is based on announcements.
The key tenets of Relationship Marketing are:
1 It recognises that a company should build long-term sustainable
relationships not only with customers, but also with suppliers,
partners, employees and other stakeholders.
2 It focuses on creating mutual value for everyone in the relationship.
3 The concept of value co-creation means that all parties in the
network of relationships are active.
4 Every single employee in the organisation plays an important role in
creating, sustaining, and strengthening relationships with any person
either inside or outside the company.
This echoes one of the most important shifts in marketing in recent
years, where with the rise of social influence marketing, the job of
communicating has been devolved from the marketing department out
to the edges of the organisation. Social Media has increased the pace of
social influence markedly, and is playing a significant role in accelerating
the transition of marketing from a “department” to a pervasive
organisational “culture”. Gummesson breaks the contributors down
into FTMs (full time marketers) and PTMs (part time marketers). So if
relationship marketing is not just a job for the marketing department, but
for the rest of the organisation, success lies in the ability of the former to
harness the power of the latter.
The key point
is that it’s the
relationship which
does the marketing,
not the marketing
department.
Research findings

The need for change
As all business is now moving towards the concept of
service as the key discriminator, Enterprise Relationships
are being driven higher in importance.
This concept demands a new set of behaviours and a new marketing
approach; not pushing a product but co-creating value by sharing
knowledge, service systems and networks.
High degree of contact
Service
Product
Pure product self service
Relationship marketing Traditional marketing
Service – Product Spectrum6
Insurance Nursing Restaurant Computing Cars Television Baked Beans
Each of the sectors surveyed had specific issues which they needed to
address in terms of how their relationship focus would need to change in
response to this market shift.
The need to share knowledge across the organisation in order to deliver
an improved experience to customers, staff and other key strategic
partners, is common to all organisations. But, since knowledge resides in
pockets across the organisation, the more traditional structures are finding
themselves set up in the wrong way to respond.
What is also key is the need to work in partnership to deliver to the end
customer; the boundaries between an organisation and its environment
are becoming increasingly blurred as internal functions are outsourced,
expertise is shared across several companies and service delivery relies
on intermediaries.
Service organisations
For service organisations, knowledge is the fundamental source of
competitive advantage. The need to share information across the
organisation is paramount. But knowledge is not simply knowing about
something, it is also having the application skills to put action into practice.
A number of specific challenges therefore face service organisations:
• Proprietary knowledge building
• Knowledge sharing
• Knowledge/service standardisation
• Service flexibility - in response to customer needs, not
organisational structures
Knowledge can
be defined as
the result of the
application of
specialised skills
and knowledge
about certain
deeds, processes
and performances.7
(Vargo and Lusch 2004)
Research findings

Public sector
Not-for-profit organisations typically have a functional structure where
each department is specialised in a particular service that can be provided
for companies or individuals. The key problem with this structure is
that different departments hardly interact with each other. Customers
on the other hand, want a one-stop shop from which they can receive
all the services they require. As a result, public sector organisations are
having to reorganise, seeking to structure the organisation according
to the processes which will deliver to customer needs, not according to
government funding or legacy structures.
In addition, not-for-profit organisations, like governmental bodies, act
on a local and regional level whilst businesses increasingly act on an
international level or even without any physical location at all (e.g. through
a virtual presence on the internet). As this geographical structure proves to
be less and less efficient, organisations that provide not-for-profit services
are beginning to explore online service opportunities which match their
customer requirements, through websites, platforms, blogs, social networks
and other social media, as well as delivery through mobile devices.
Manufacturing
As goods themselves have become commoditised, manufacturers are
constantly in search of new value propositions in a highly competitive
global market. Already many manufacturers have an offering that
combines both goods and services. In order to be distinctive in the
marketplace of the future however, manufacturers are moving towards a
more service-oriented offering.
Where manufacturers have traditionally focused on transforming
materials as the key value proposition, in the services arena the key value
proposition is all about transforming information and customer behaviour.
Moving towards a more service-oriented operation, manufacturing
firms need to understand how to change their operating model and
organisational design into a shape where information is shared in order to
maximise customer service.
In the future, manufacturers will need not just to search for the best
benefit for their own firms, but should look to maximise the liberation of
value out of the complete business network of partners that are involved
in a particular service contract.
The pace of change
is such that product
differentiation is
hard to achieve
and even harder
to sustain. Not
surprising then
that buyers are
increasingly making
choices based
on their feelings
about the company
they are doing
business with. The
so called ‘soft’
aspects of business
will become just
as critical as the
hard facts on the
balance sheet.
Omobono Manifesto –
January 2001
Research findings

Measurement techniques are incomplete
Customer value in B2C enterprises is often measured through the term
Customer Lifetime Value (CLV), meaning ‘the net worth of a customer’s
purchase of a particular product or service over his/her lifetime’ (Godson,
2009)6
. In the B2B world numerous factors play a role in measuring
overall value, based on the depth and quality of the relationship. Mutual
intellectual capital, mutual benefit and peer group referral all matter in
addition to the monetary value of the exchange.
The organisation therefore needs to monitor both ‘hard’ measures
(retention rates, customer revenue contribution or length of relationship)
and ‘soft’ (commitment, trust, loyalty).
Work by Biggemann and Buttle (2005)8
corrals Enterprise Relationship
value usefully into four different forms:
• Personal value, indicated in customer retention and referral;
• Financial value, expressed through increases in efficiency, share of
business/wallet, share of market, and received price;
• Knowledge value, expressed through market intelligence, idea generation
and innovation;
• Strategic value, experienced through gains in long term planning and
access to extended networks
Gummesson (2008) strongly advocates Return on Relationship (ROR)
being included as an integral part of the organisation’s PL5
. But although
companies look at the individual aspects of each of these criteria
through processes such as the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton
1996)9
there is yet to be a comprehensive measurement technique which
effectively measures ROR – ‘the long term financial outcome caused
by the establishment and maintenance of an organisation’s network of
relationships’.
Further work needs to be done on how relationship strength in each area
relates to successful delivery in terms of bottom line profits or other
strategic objectives. For instance, in transactional situations, relationship
strength can be relatively weak and still deliver the goods whilst in more
complex, high value situations, the relationship may be very strong at
senior level, but may not have an impact on day-to-day decision making.
One of the measures which has gained support in recent years which many
believe addresses this is the Harvard Net Promoter Index10
– which is based
on the idea that the ultimate measure of relationship value is whether the
relationship partner will recommend the organisation. Companies which
have a higher number of promoters than detractors have been proven in the
Harvard study to outperform companies whose net promoter score is lower.
In view of the ongoing need to connect profitability to specific relationship
actions, the NPI assessment is a useful tool.
Research findings
If growth is what
you’re after, you
won’t learn much
from complex
measurements
of customer
satisfaction or
retention. You
simply need to
know what your
customers tell their
friends about you.
Frederick F. Reichheld
(2003)10

Implications.

Managing relationships effectively depends on the
ability to share information internally and open up the
channels of communication.
With the emergence of CRM tools and technologies, company/customer
relationships have improved dramatically, with immediate effect on the
bottom line. Supply Chain Management solutions have also contributed to
the optimisation of relationships between a firm and it suppliers. However,
these are only two of the relationships with which an organisation deals on
a daily basis. In practice, organisations work with many more stakeholder
groups, where each particular relationship with a stakeholder may have an
immediate impact on the firm’s operations.
Relationship management approaches are therefore often compensating
for the inadequacies in corporate structure. In many cases, and across all
industries, connectivity between organisation and customer audiences is
limited to the sales or project teams, with an internal disconnect with the
parts of the organisation which talk to internal or stakeholder audiences.
At the point at which the organisation needs to be sharing goals and
information in support of those goals, many organisations are simply not set
up to do so.
Some of the internal operational structures around Key Account
Management are strangling, not liberating, the internal and external
information flow, which needs to be opened up to improve the ability
to share knowledge with key partners, as demonstrated in the two
illustrations below. Opening up these channels is particularly relevant if
organisational change is not an option.
Existing Structure
Relationship
Manager
Organization X
Relationship
Manager
Stakeholder Y
Function 1 Function 1
Function 2
Function 3
Function 4
Function 2
Function 3
Function 4
Implications
Relationship
Management
is handled by
organisational silos,
rather than being
viewed across the
entire enterprise.

Preferred Structure
Relationship
Manager
Organization X
Relationship
Manager
Stakeholder Y
Function 1 Function 1
Function 2
Function 3
Function 4
Function 2
Function 3
Function 4
Source: Omobono/JBS based on McDonald, Millman Rogers (1996)11
So, in the current environment, managing Enterprise Relationships
effectively depends on the ability to share information internally and open
the channels to the customer. The digital environment has a powerful role
to play in this, connecting the technology infrastructure which has been
laid down over the past 5 – 10 years with the personal interactions which
continue to drive business relationships.
Implications

A new marketing world order
The Chartered Institute of Marketing defines marketing as:
“The management process responsible for identifying,
anticipating and satisfying customer requirements
profitably.”
Described in this way, it is practically synonymous with running a
business properly. In this context, managing a relationship well is in
effect marketing well: a firm builds a belief among stakeholders (be it end
customer, intermediary or supplier) that it is a good company with which
they like to do business, offering something better than other companies
who offer similar things. In an ideal world, where all relationships are well-
managed, marketing would not be required. But it’s not an ideal world.
Relationships are not always managed with organisational good in mind,
some are not managed at all; so we use marketing to compensate for
weak, negative or non-existent relationships.
Marketing communications has been making up for the
lack of a relationship between company and customer for
the last 40 years.
As a result, marketing has become synonymous with communication (or
even advertising or PR) rather than keeping to its original definition. It is
now a reactive responsibility on the periphery of organisational structures
with its entire output focused on spending money in order to entice
people to buy; increasingly struggling to justify its budgets and explain
ROI to the board.
In a world which is moving towards service as the key discriminator,
traditional push marketing is no longer appropriate. The change from
the transactional push (buy this) to peer assist (who do you know that
provides what I’m looking for?) which has happened in B2C markets is
echoed in B2B.
The time is right to focus on Enterprise Relationships, which provide a
structure to guide marketing practice – from the services provided to how
people learn about them. It is as applicable to internal relationships as it is
to external ones.
Indeed, critical to the success of this approach is the necessity of sharing
knowledge across the organisation, connecting marketing with sales, key
account teams or HR, and allowing budgets to be used to best effect.
Implications
Enterprise
Relationships put
the marketing
department
back in the job
of creating value
for the company
by improving
service delivery,
not spending
money in order to
compensate for
the absence of a
relationship.

The role of digital technologies is strong
When assessing the role digital marketing and attendant
techniques play in the marketing function it is clear that the
discipline is particularly suited to improving the strength
and value of internal and external relationships.
1 B2B relationships are dynamic links, creating mutual benefits, in which
the quality and nature of the relationship depends on the quality of the
interaction process (both business and social). Digital tools mirror this
two-way interaction and are therefore uniquely placed as relationship
building devices; using the opportunity for exploration and knowledge
exchange to create engagement.
2 The concept of businesses relationships as nodes connected by
threads is exactly mirrored by digital tools. The strength of the
connecting threads depends on the amount people use it, how it
responds to audience needs and how much is invested in it. Marketers
can therefore now allocate budgets on the basis of the importance
of each thread and its potential value to both ends of the Enterprise
Relationship.
With regard to the specific industries investigated, our research
highlighted the ways in which digital tools and techniques can add value
to each of the Enterprise Relationships discussed.
Service organisations
Service firms seek to create matrix structures where the level of
knowledge sharing can be maximised. Each individual Enterprise
Relationship has its own particular requirements and the service firm
aims to combine the right expertise and industry experience to offer
the best value proposition for its clients. Digital can enhance knowledge
sharing both across the organisation and with clients. At the same time
private knowledge networks which harness the skills and knowledge of
the orgnaisation can address the challenge professional service firms face
on how to deliver proprietary knowledge as a service differentiator whilst
avoiding the knowledge being copied by the receiver.
Internal Customer deliveryKnowledge
Implications

Public sector organisations
Not-for-profit firms increasingly aim to become the incubator of a large
business network where they can offer a platform for other stakeholders
to meet, interact and do business. Relationships are not built for blatant
commercial gain, they are built to leverage the entire business network.
The opportunity provided by digital is therefore to develop an environment
which encourages people to come to the table and provide a platform to
create mutual advantage.
Partnerships Customer deliveryService
Manufacturing firms
Manufacturing firms see their value proposition changing towards a
service operation strategy. Where manufacturers used to aim for vertical
integration in the value chain, they now strive for large partnerships with
suppliers and deliver for clients against service level agreements. Digital
connectivity has the ability to span internal and external cultures to bring
people to the table. Mutual benefit is gained from developing a service
delivery partnership which includes the end customer.
Partnerships PartnershipsService
Implications

Into practice.

ERM®
is a proprietary technique developed by Omobono
Ltd which maps the relationships which drive value for
an organisation. The outcome of the ERM process is to
deliver service improvements in the digital environment,
connecting the powerful technology infrastructure which
has been laid down over the past 5–10 years with the
personal interactions which continue to drive business
relationships.
The focus on Enterprise Relationship Management enables
us to think about marketing differently, to put it back to
its original place; where marketing has a meaning and
purpose beyond communication and becomes a business
essential, not a business expense.
www.omobono.co.uk
Into practice
We welcome your comments on this article or attendant
issues. Please email fran@omobono.co.uk

Acknowledgements.

Acknowledgements
The Judge Business School Research was conducted by MBA graduate Gijs
Kragt as part of a project for Omobono Limited, the digital services firm.
1. Zineldin, M. (1995) “Bank-company interactions and relationships: some
empirical evidence”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 13 No.
2, pp. 30-40.
2. Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995) Developing Relationships in Business
Networks, Routledge, London
3. Hakansson, H. and Ford, D. (2002)“How should companies interact in
business networks?” Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 133
4. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, D.H. (1994) “The Commitment-Trust Theory of
Relationship Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.58 (July 1994), 20-38.
5. Gummesson, E. (2008) Total Relationship Marketing, Elsevier Ltd Oxford
6. Godson, M (2009) Relationship Marketing, Oxford University Press
7. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch R.F. (2004) “Evolving to a new Dominant Logic for
Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17
8. Biggemann, S. and Buttle. F., (2005)Conceptualising Business-to-Business
Relationship Value, White Paper of the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing
(IMP) Group
9. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton D.P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press
10. Reichheld, F.,(2003) The one number you need to grow, Harvard Business
Review,(December 2003).
11. McDonald, M. ,Millman , A.F., Rogers, B. (1996) Key Account Management:
Learning from supplier and customer perspectives, Cranfield University
School of Management

Omobono on ERM

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Omobono on ERM

More from Omobono

Omobono on ERM