Developing key account management competences

Abstract

Argues that key account management (KAM) in industrial and business‐to‐business markets has its roots in sales management where it has long been recognized that customers of strategic importance require special treatment. Explains that, more recently, growing interest among academics and practitioners in relationship marketing has forced KAM centre stage as one of the few seemingly tried and tested approaches to customer retention and development, but that this trend has exposed three interrelated problems for the adoption of KAM systems. Maintains that: first, many companies have merely extended their traditional approaches to major account selling, rather than transforming their internal processes to accommodate the wider relational aspects of KAM; second, there has been a rush to define managerial competences and best practice, with little theoretical or empirical underpinning; and third, despite parallel developments in purchasing and supply‐chain management, there has been a tendency for the sellers’ perspective to dominate implementation issues. Addresses these problems by operationalizing the relational development model outlined in an earlier article entitled “From key account selling to key account management” (JMP, Vol. 1 No. 1). Draws on the findings from ongoing empirical research which takes the buyer/seller dyadic relationship as the unit of analysis to provide a critique of the relative neglect of KAM processes in preference to outputs in the form of managerial competences.

The Role of a Key Account Management' s Code of Conduct in Improving Learning Culture of the Account Managers : The Case of VICTORI Code of Conduct at TELKOM Indonesia

“…By using the ecosystem approach, the customer's business will benefit not only in fulfilling their requirement but also their stakeholders requirement (mainly their suppliers, partners and customers). Millman and Wilson [8] describe this fulfillment of customers' needs in key account management as product need, process need, and facilitation need (the way in which business is done, rooted in joint problem solving and mutual adaptation).…”

“…shortening learning curve, avoiding formal tenders, and improving forecasting) [2]. There are three orders of customer need that have to be fulfilled in KAM: Product need, Process need, and Facilitation need [8].…”

Marketing of Voluntary Organizations as Contract Providers of National and Local Government Welfare Services in the UK

“…Madill et al (2007) posited that ''flexibility'' vis-à-vis an organization's willingness to modify its core operations and outlooks in order to better suit a key client was a critical element of successful SAM. Adaptations can occur in relation to the range and content of the services provided (Ojasalo 2001), internal organization structure (Millman and Wilson 1996), communication methods, or management style (McDonald et al 1997). Wallis and Dollery (2006) observed how the government (especially local government) was obliged ''to provide welfare services on a universal and uniform basis,'' regardless of the service preferences of contracted suppliers (p. 493).…”

“…A survey completed by Feiock and Jang (2007) of 1,512 VOs with local government contracts in the USA revealed that more than half had attempted to change their management style to be more outcome-orientated in consequence of undertaking local government contract work. Critics have suggested that servicing government contracts distracts VOs from their true missions, prevents VOs from satisfying the needs of other stakeholders, and causes resentment among nongovernmental funders about the fact that a government body is receiving special attention (Millman and Wilson 1996). Managers of VOs frequently worry, it has been alleged, that ''simply taking public money'' makes them ''susceptible to political control, censure or government influence that diminishes their autonomy'' (Chau andHuysentruyt 2006, p. 1912).…”

“…3) were based on prior work by Oliver (1993) and Ojasalo (2001). Items concerning the application of SAM were derived from inventories developed by Millman and Wilson (1996), Ojasalo (2001), and Ivens and Pardo (2007). Table 1 lists the items, which were selected from the three previously developed inventories on the basis of their relevance to VO-government relations and how prominently the underlying constructs they represented featured in the general SAM literature.…”