Degrees of separation: technological interactivity and account management

Abstract

PurposeThere has been an increasing application of remote technology to customer service. This research, from business‐to‐business financial services, seeks to gain insight and understanding into how the supplier/customer relationship and account management are impacted.Design/methodology/approachTaking a realism approach, the qualitative research in this study was based on gaining access to experts, suppliers and customers who had direct experience of the subject area.FindingsThree levels of account management are identified in the paper: transactional, operational and strategic. The service offered at all levels often requires close and intensive cooperation on both sides, but increasingly it has been centralised and automated. Key account management is practised as an integrative relationship function, but it has limitations and by definition it is not available to all customers.Research limitations/implicationsThis exploratory research suggests a number of factors that may impact on the effectiveness of remote servicing. Understanding the relationship impact of remote servicing may be enhanced by recognising the appropriate levels and types of service for each situation. Further research is needed in this area.Practical implicationsManagers need to carefully consider the transactional, operational and strategic implications of applying new technologies to managing interactions with customers. A better understanding of these may help in justifying the expense of relational efforts in account servicing.Originality/valueIn providing contextually rich data from a sector that is utilising technology as part of a strategy to centralise and automate many aspects of customer service this research explores some important aspects of remote servicing.

Understanding challenges of qualitative research: rhetorical issues and reality traps

“…They are largely based on authors' real-life experiences and aim to provide useful insights for the researchers aspiring to pursue qualitative research. (2007), Hughes et al (2007), Kelemen and Papasolomou (2007), Berg (2008), Branca (2008), Dawes Farquhar et al (2008), Stone (2009), Eriksson and Soderberg (2010) and Gilal et al (2011). Common rationale for interpretivist orientation in these studies was based on the desire to explore (at the time) less-known phenomena of relationship marketing, e-banking and online communications in depth, focusing on the particularities of context-bounded practices and seeking better understanding of these under-researched areas.…”

“…Common rationale for interpretivist orientation in these studies was based on the desire to explore (at the time) less-known phenomena of relationship marketing, e-banking and online communications in depth, focusing on the particularities of context-bounded practices and seeking better understanding of these under-researched areas. The most preferred qualitative methods in these studies were comparative case studies and direct interviews, seeking to obtain rich and detailed insights on the studied phenomena (Kapoulas et al, 2002(Kapoulas et al, , 2004O'Loughlin et al, 2004;Walsh et al, 2004;Argyriou et al, 2005;Hughes et al, 2007;Branca, 2008;Stone, 2009). Although each of these studies could undoubtedly offer interesting and valuable insights into the processes, reasoning and challenges of conducting qualitative research in the field of financial services marketing, the scope of this paper does not permit detailed analysis and projection of the experiences of these studies.…”

“…Nevertheless, there was a notable shift in the co‐relation between the works containing purely qualitative research and the mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (Hanson and Grimmer, 2007). Common motives for employing qualitative research in marketing referred to the quest for “more insight or a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation”, “exploration of experiences”, and “development of meaning” (commonly mentioned in the exemplary works by Carson et al , 2001; Kapoulas et al , 2002; Papasolomou and Vrontis, 2006; Hanson and Grimmer, 2007; Hughes et al , 2007; Priporas and Poimenidis, 2008; Priporas and Vangelinos, 2008; Andronikidis and Lambrianidou, 2010; Priporas and Kamenidou, 2011). Hanson and Grimmer (2007) finally suggested that there was a scope for greater efforts in qualitative research in the future, arguing that technological advances in qualitative analysis were likely to contribute to greater rigor and objectivity of new marketing insights and could further encourage interpretive‐fond researchers.…”

“…Interpretivist research paradigm and qualitative methodologies have been applied in numerous marketing domains, with special popularity among studies investigating marketing practices in financial services (bank marketing). Some of the examples of qualitative research efforts in this domain include studies by Kapoulas et al (2002, 2004), O'Loughlin et al (2004), Walsh et al (2004), Argyriou et al (2005), Howcroft et al (2007), Hughes et al (2007), Kelemen and Papasolomou (2007), Berg (2008), Branca (2008), Dawes Farquhar et al (2008), Stone (2009), Eriksson and Soderberg (2010) and Gilal et al (2011). Common rationale for interpretivist orientation in these studies was based on the desire to explore (at the time) less‐known phenomena of relationship marketing, e‐banking and online communications in depth, focusing on the particularities of context‐bounded practices and seeking better understanding of these under‐researched areas.…”

Integrating the value of salespeople and systems: Adapting the benefits dependency network

“…There is a danger of separating the relationship with the customer from day-to-day activities with the online service appearing remote and unresponsive to the needs of the customer ' s business. 25 On the other hand, the purchasing profession is extremely interested in achieving cost savings for commoditised products via e-channels to suppliers, or even e-auctions. B2B customers want time savings and effi ciency, 26 although technology-based service delivery systems must work well, or the customer will be dissatisfi ed.…”