AnewMarketingAuditToolforKnowledgeIntensiveBusiness

Services
EttoreBolisaniandEnricoScarso
DepartmentofManagementandEngineering,UniversityofPadua,Vicenza,Italy
ettore.bolisani@unipd.it
enrico.scarso@unipd.it

Abstract: The paper focuses on knowledge marketing in KnowledgeIntensive Business Services (KIBS) companies.
Marketing is a special challenge for KIBS, and requires a shift from traditional strategies generally applied to
manufacturingsectorsandmostlybasedontheclassicnotionofmarketingmix(i.e.,product,price,promotion,andplace)
to new approaches that stress the importance of customerprovider interactions. Since KIBS mainly deliver knowledge
(embedded in services, consulting activities, and problem solving capability), marketing activities must communicate the
companys ability to manage knowledge exchanges with customers effectively. Integral part to the implementation of an
appropriatemarketingstrategyistheneedforcompaniestoaudittheirmarketingactivities.Marketingaudithasitsplace
inthemanagementliteraturebutisgenerallytargetedtomanufacturingorretailingcompanies.Inlightofthis,thepaper
proposes a novel approach to marketing audit for knowledgebased companies that focuses on relational and cognitive
capabilities,andconsistsofaquestionnairebasedtoolsubdividedinsections,eachofwhichconsidersaparticularstageof
the customerprovider relationship. It is assumed that the effective delivery of these services requires intense and
continuous exchanges of knowledge between customer and provider, and must be connected to the specific business
environment(intermsofmarkets,competitors,etc.).Consequently,themarketingcapabilityofacompanyisseeninterms
of its ability to fruitfully interact with customers in the conditions of the particular operating environment. The
questionnaire can help executives of KIBS companies to self assess the marketing positioning of their firms. Due to its
easiness of use, it is particularly suitable for small companies. The paper describes the particular example of a
questionnairedevelopedforICTservicesfirms.Thistoolhasbeentestedwithtwosmallcompanies,andtheresultsofthis
assessmentarereported.

Keywords:knowledgemarketing,marketingaudit,knowledgeintensivebusinessservices,ICTcompanies,knowledge
exchanges
1. Introduction
The paper deals with marketing approaches adopted by KnowledgeIntensive Business Services (KIBS)
companies. According to the extant literature, unique features denote these companies (Strambach, 2008;
Muller and Doloreux, 2009; Landry et al, 2012): these strongly affect the effectiveness of their marketing
strategies. First, their main production input and output consist of knowledge, directly delivered under the
form of consulting, or embedded in artefacts and services. Second, their business is mostly based on the
exploitationofknowledgepossessedbytheiremployees.Third,theprovisionofknowledgeintensiveservices
requiresanindepthinteractionbetweensupplieranduser,whoarebothinvolvedincognitiveexchangesand
learning processes (Bettencourt et al, 2002). Fourth, services are generally delivered under the form of a
process of problem solving in which KIBS companies adapt their knowledge to the specific requirements of
individualclients.Fifth,theyoftenactasinterfacesbetweentheglobalsourcesofknowledgeandthecognitive
needsofendusers(Smedlund,2006).Sixth,theirinnovativecapabilityisdirectlyconnectedtotheacquisition,
processing,capitalisationanddeliveryofnewknowledge(Amaraetal.,2009).

As highlighted in previous studies (Bolisani and Scarso, 2012a; Bolisani et al, 2012), these features make
marketing a special challenge for KIBS, and call for a shift from traditional marketing strategies generally
appliedtomanufacturingsectorsandmostlybasedontheclassicnotionofmarketingmix(i.e.,product,price,
promotion,andplace)tonewapproachesthatstresstheimportanceofcustomerproviderinteractions(see
e.g. the new servicedominant paradigm of marketing proposed by Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Indeed, since
KIBSmainlydeliverknowledge(embeddedinservices,consultingactivities,andproblemsolvingcapability)to
their clients, marketing activities should communicate a companys ability to provide valuable knowledge to
customers.

Integralparttotheimplementationofanappropriatemarketingstrategyistheneedforcompaniestoadopt
proper procedures to audit all the aspects of their marketing activity. In light of this, the paper proposes a
novel approach to marketing audit for KIBS companies, which focuses on their peculiarities. Especially, it
considers their relational capabilities, i.e. the capabilities to provide valuable knowledge to customers
74

EttoreBolisaniandEnricoScarso
throughoutthewholetradingrelationship.Theapproachconsistsofaquestionnairebasedtoolsubdividedin
sections, each of which focuses on a particular stage of the typical customerprovider relationship. It is
assumed that the effective delivery of services requires an intense exchange of knowledge in repeated
interactions between customer and provider. Accordingly, the marketing capability of a KIBS company is
evaluated in terms of its capability to fruitfully interact with customers, in relation to the particular
environment (i.e., markets, competitors, etc.) in which it operates. The questionnaire can help company
executivestoselfassesstheirmarketingpositioning;duetoitseasinessofuse,itisparticularlysuitablefor
smallcompanies,asmanyKIBSare.

ThepaperpresentsaparticularversionofthemarketingaudittoolspecificallydevelopedforICTservices.The
toolhasbeentestedwithtwosmallcompanies.Theresultsofthisassessmentarereported,anditsapplication
prospectsarediscussed.

Thepaperarticulatesasfollows.Inthenextsection,themainnotionsandtoolsofmarketingauditarebriefly
recalled. The third section discusses the significance of a relational marketing approach for KIBS companies,
and how the adoption of this approach can influence the design of appropriate marketing audit tools. The
following sections describe the audit tooldeveloped in this study,how it has beenbuilt, and tested. The last
sectionproposesafinalevaluationoftheworkconductedsofar.
2. Marketingaudit
Marketingaudit(MA)isanestablishednotionthatdatesbacktolate1950s(Schuchman,1959),whenthefirst
definitions and elements (goals, issues, types and contents) were given. MA can be defined as a
comprehensive, systematic, independent and periodic examination of a companys marketing environment,
goals,strategiesandactivities,fordeterminingproblematicareasandopportunities,andforrecommendingan
action plan to improve the companys marketing performance (Kotler et al, 1977). This definition points out
thatMA:a)isbroad,coveringallmarketingaspectsofacompany;b)shouldbeconductedbyanindependent
person; c) is systematic, since it involves an orderly sequence of steps; d) should be performed periodically.
MA bases on a threestep procedure consisting of: a) setting its objective and scope; b) getting the data; c)
preparingandpresentingthereport.Thesecondstep,collectingthedata,isgenerallythemosttimespending.

Overtheyears,MAhasevolved,andhasassumedaprominentplaceinthemarketingmanagementliterature
(Rothe et al, 1997). However, even though evaluating the marketing effectiveness of an organisation can be
important both for manufacturing and service companies, the current state of the art of the marketing
discipline generally neglects the latter (Pimenta da Gama, 2011). Little attention is given to the peculiar
characteristics of services, with the only remarkable exception of Berry et al (1991) who developed an
integrativeauditframeworkforservicemarketing(i.e.,ISMEIndexofServicesMarketingExcellence).Beyond
any judgement on the usefulness of this framework, an unquestionable contribution of these authors is that
theyunderline the need fora novel approach to MA that takes intoaccount the distinctive characteristics of
services.
2.1 MAtools
Themostpopularmarketingaudittoolsconsistofachecklistofdiagnosisquestionsthataresubmittedtoone
orseveralkeypeopleinacompany.Thesequestionscanbeopenendedorclosedended(oftenLikerttype),
andrangefromafewdozentomorethan1,000(Wilson,2002).Questionsareoftengroupedintocategories
or topic areas, in relation to the main aspects on which one wants to focus the assessment. There is no
consensusabouttheseaspects,anddifferentauthorsproposedifferentdimensionsofanalysis(seee.g.,Berry
etal,1991;Kotleretal,1977;McDonald,1982;Wilson,2002).AswellunderlinedbyPimentadaGama(2012),
thelogicbehindthecreationofachecklististheefforttoofferacomprehensivesetofquestionscoveringall
the aspects of marketing that may need improving. In principle, the more detailed and complete a list of
question is, the more likely the relevant points are covered. However, too manyquestions can require much
timetobeanswered,andwhatsmoretheanalysisbecomescomplex.Atradeoffbetweeneasinessofuseand
completeness must be sought. In addition, it is extremely difficult to design a checklist that works well in all
situations,andlocaladaptationstothesinglecasemightbenecessary.Finally,itmustbenotedthatalmostall
the checklists that can be found in the literature are based on the traditional manufacturing marketing logic
thatreferstothewellestablished4Psapproach.

75

EttoreBolisaniandEnricoScarso

3. KIBS,knowledgemarketing,andimplicationsforMA
TodevelopachecklistthatcanbeappropriatetoKIBScompanies,itisfirstnecessarytorecallsomedistinctive
featuresofthosefirms.Firstofall,astheliteraturestresseswidely,deliveringaknowledgeintensivebusiness
service requires several interactions between client and provider, during which continuous knowledge
exchangesoccur(Figure1).Thenatureoftheseinteractionsisaffectedbytheknowledgeintensivenatureof
thoseservicesthatproducesinformationasymmetry,sothatclientscanbeunabletofullyevaluatethequality
ofservicedelivered.Thisraisesspecialchallengesformarketing.Inparticular,asBagdonieneetal(2007)and
AarikkaStenroos and Jaakkola (2012) affirm, KIBS companies should adopt a relationship marketing
approach. This means understanding the dynamics of suppliercustomer relationships, how they evolve, and
whatfactorsaffecttheirdevelopment,withtheultimatepurposeofreorganisingofthecompanysprocesses,
and reframing the traditional marketing approach based on the 4Ps. Secondly, many KIBS companies (and
particularly those considered in this paper) have a very small size, and this impacts significantly on their
marketingapproachesandactivities,includingauditing.

Figure1:KnowledgeexchangesbetweenKIBSandclients(from:MartinezFernandezandMiles,2006)
Useful suggestions to reframe the traditional marketing approach can be drawn from the recently proposed
servicedominant(SD) logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) that considers services (defined as the primary unit of
any economic exchange) as the application of specialized knowledge and skills for the benefit of clients. This
logic suggeststhat what a firm provides toclients is not simply manufacturedoutputs, but rather knowledge
inputsofacontinuingvaluecreationprocess(Luschetal,2008).Inviewofthat,thegoalofanycompanyisto
customize its offering and, by recognising that clients are always value producers, to maximise their
involvementinthecustomisationeffort,tobetterfittheirneeds.Conformingtothislogic,marketingismore
than just a functional area of a company: it represents a firms distinctive capability, whose functions are to
identify and develop the companys core competences, and deliver them as value propositions that offer
potential competitive advantage. Accordingly, building useful relationships with clients, where intense
knowledge exchanges occur, becomes vital. In the SD logic, all employees are involved in delivering services,
with the ultimate goal of satisfying the costumer, and this extends marketing well beyond the marketing
department(BallantyneandVarey,2008).

Ultimately, the proponents of the SD logic claim that the role of marketing should consist of managing
communicative interactions and facilitating key relationships and knowledge exchanges with clients.
Accordingly,companiesshouldfocusonthevalueinusethattheirproducts/servicescanhavefortheirclients
ratherthanjustontheirfeatures(Payneetal,2008).Thisrequiresunderstandingtheclientsvaluegenerating
process, and implies a reversal of the traditional making, selling and servicing approach, to a listening,
customising and cocreating approach, where encounter processes play a crucial role. To sum up, the
capabilitytoacquireandshareknowledgewithclientsbecomesintegraltoanymarketingprocess.

WhenitcomestoMA,threeaspectsshouldbeconsidered.Firstly,itisunlikelythatsmallcompanies(asKIBS
oftenare)canresorttoindependentexternalauditorsorconsultants.Hence,itisessentialthattheycanutilise

76

EttoreBolisaniandEnricoScarso
methods and tools directly on their own. Secondly (and consequently), a MA tool should be as simple as
possible,bothindatacollectionandinterpretation.So,itwouldbepreferabletohaveachecklistwithalimited
number of easytoanswer questions. Thirdly, the goal of MA should be not to push all marketing activities
towards a maximum score: as a matter of fact, and especially considering the small size of KIBS, it is not
alwaystruethatmoreisbetter.Onthecontrary,insomesituations,topushmarketingeffortsoveracertain
thresholdcanbeevencounterproductive,orinanycaseuselesslyexpensive.
4. BuildingaMAtoolforKIBS
Inthissection,wepresentaversionof
services. The MA tool illustrated her
thenewtoolthatwascompiledforaparticularcategoryofKIBS,i.e.ICT
e is based on the points previously discussed and in particular the
estagesisthereforeessential;
dtolearnfromcustomers(i.e.,toacquirefreshknowledgefrom
r requirements) but also to managerial or relational issues (for example: how clients assess the

s and knowledge exchanges during the typical relationships between ICT

ompanies and their clients that occur in the services delivery process; for this purpose, it was possible to
ly, the ICT delivery process was split into
ifferentstages,rangingfromtheearlyformulationofasalesstrategytotheaftersalesactivities;eachstageis
y and maturity of relational
arketingbyacompany;
sion of the MA checklist was ready, a test was run with two pilot companies. The
hecklist was tested by two smallsized ICT services firms. This helped to evaluate its easiness of use and
wasnamedAUTOMARK)wasthencompiled.
submitted to a company
xecutive (or to more executives) in a single company, and serves as a selfdiagnosis tool for ICT services
tools and
onsistsofmeasuringthematurityofacompanybycalculatinghowhighthemarksineachquestionand/or

following:
marketingisaprocessthatinvolvesallthestagesofaprovidercustomerrelationship;ananalysisofeach
ofthes
in each stage, providers must have the capability to deliver valuable knowledge inputs to customers (so
thattheycanutilisethemprofitably)an
them);
knowledge exchanged concerns not only technical aspects (e.g. features of the delivered services, or
custome
deliveredservices,howtheyselectproviders,howmuchtheyconsiderreputationasakeyelement,etc.).
Basedonthesepoints,achecklistofquestionswasprepared.Thepurposeofthischecklististoenableaself
assessment by companies for revealing weak areas and opportunities of improvement, and facilitating
adjustmentofmarketingstrategiestostrengthenprovidercustomerrelationships.ThedesignoftheMAtool
wasbasedonthefollowingsteps:

a) Building a model of interaction

c
exploittheresultsofpreviousstudies(BolisaniandScarso,2012b);

b) Identification of a number of critical areas for MA. Specifical

d
characterised by specific relational issues that call for appropriate marketing approaches, where the firm
needstoacquireknowledgefromthemarketandtodeliverknowledgetoclients;

c) For each stage, formulation of a number of questions that assess the capabilit
m

d) Once a preliminary ver

c
usefulness,andtocorrecterrors;

e)Afinalversionofthetool(which

AUTOMARK consists of a questionnaire with around 80 questions that can be

e
marketing.Actually,whenthedesignofAUTOMARKwasbeingconsidered,differentoptionsarose.

The first was to evaluate answers to questions in absolute terms. This approach is popular in MA
c
inallquestionsare.Inotherwords,itisassumedthatacompanycanbesuccessfulonlyifitexcelsinallareas.
Weconsideredthisapproachunsuitable.Firstofall,KIBSareoftensmallcompanies,soitisunlikelyordifficult
thattheycanreachtopranksinallareas:hence,thiswayofusingAUTOMARKcanbemisleading.Secondly,it
may be useless (and costly) to reach top marks in all marketing activities, because their usefulness and
effectivenessmaydependonpeculiarmarketconditionsorcompetitiveenvironments.Inotherwords,itisnot
alwaystruethatmoreisbetter.

77

EttoreBolisaniandEnricoScarso

similar characteristics (for example, in the case of ICT services, ERP

roducers in the same market). In this case, a company can assess its relative positioning and marketing
of
company compared to others, its usefulness is that it allows to measure the way a companys marketing
thatallowsasinglecompanytoassessitsrelationalmarketingcapabilitiescomparedtoits
wnexpectationsorperceptionsofwhatshouldbedoneinthatparticularenvironment.
marketing activities,
cterise the company, and particularly: the way knowledge is
knowledgeisusedtoimplementmarketingrelatedactivities
is omitted for reasons of space, the authors can becontacted for
rtherdetails):
marketing/commercialstrategy
aservice/product/solution
rdingthecompanysactualapproachesto
relationalmarketing
Questionsregardingtherelationalneedsinthe
market/environmentwherethecompanyoperates
Thesecondoptionwastoperformabenchmarkinganalysis.Thismeansthatthesamequestionnairehastobe
submitted to several companies with
p
capabilitiesincomparisonwithothers.Thisisapotentiallyinterestingapproach,butdifficulttoperform:itis,
infact,necessarythatseveralcompaniesaccepttousethesameMAtoolandthattheysharetheiranswers.

ThethirdoptionwastoapplyMAasastandalonetool,employedinthesinglecompany.Thismeansthatthe
questionnaireisusedasaselfdiagnosistool.Althoughitdoesnotassesstheabsoluteorrelativepositioning
a
activitiesarealignedtoitsownexpectationsorperceptionsofwhatshouldbedoneinaparticularmarketor
environment.

Forreasonsofconvenienceandsimplicity,thelastoptionwaspreferred.So,AUTOMARKcanbeseenasaself
diagnosisMAtool
o
5. AUTOMARK:Descriptionanduse
The questionnaire consists of two symmetric parts (Table 1). The first part regards the
tools, and approaches that currently chara
exchangedfromandtotheclients,thewaythis
andsellservices,thewaymarketingusefulness ismeasured,etc.Thesecondrelatestothewaymarketsand
competitive environments (and, consequently, marketing requirements deriving from the environment) are
currentlyseenbythecompanyexecutives.

Eachpartsplitsinto8sectionsthatfocusonthedifferentstagesofaprovidercustomerrelationship,namely
(see appendix; the complete questionnaire
fu
knowledgeaboutcompetitiveenvironment
marketsand
commercialimage
firstcontactwithclients
customerneeds
proposalformulation
implementationof
aftersales
Table1:StructureofAUTOMARK
Questionsrega
1.collectionofknowledgeaboutmarket/environment 1.complexityofknowledgeaboutenvironment
2.marketing/commercialstrategy 2.complexityofmarket
3.commercialima 3.r ge elevanceofimageinmarkets
4.managementoffirstcontactswithclients 4.importanceoffirstcontactswithclients
5.collectionofcustomerneeds 5.difficultyofcollectingcustomerneeds
6.proposalformulation n 6.difficultyofproposalformulatio
7.implementationofservice/product/solution s 7.complexityofservices/products/solution
8.aftersalesactivities 8.relevanceofaftersalesrelationships
The in a single d how its
relational e companys
percep veenvironment.Forexampl sectioncollection
questionnaire is designed to be selfused
s are actually implemented
company that is willing to understan
th marketing activitie
tionsofthecompetiti
and conducted, and how they match
e,theaveragemarksgiventothe
ofcustomersneedsinthefirstpartmeasurethewayknowledgeaboutcustomersneedsiscurrentlycollected
by the company: approaches used, tools implemented, procedures followed, etc.; conversely, the average
marks given to the corresponding section in the second part (difficulty of collecting customer needs)

78

EttoreBolisaniandEnricoScarso
measure how this issue is considered to be important given the particular environment where the company
operates.Ifthemarksarecomparable,thismeansthatthecompanysmarketingstrategyisalignedwiththe
requirements that come from the market; if marks of the first part are higher, the company has invested
toomuchintheseactivitiesthanitmightberequired;iftheyarelower,thecompanyshouldinvestmore.

Eachsectioniscompoundedbyanumberofquestions(between4and7).Toeachquestion,respondentsare
requested to express the number (ranging from 1 to 7 in a Likert scale)that best represents the appropriate
nswer.Thequestionnairecanbesubmittedtojustonecompanyexecutive(forexample,thesalesdirectoror a
the marketing director), or to different executives in the same company (for example, part 1 of the
questionnaire can be submitted to the sales director, and part 2 to the CEO, etc.). Average marks are then
calculatedforeachsubsection,andcomparedtooneanotheraspreviouslydescribed.Thetooleasilyallows
tobuildaradarchart,whichisapowerfulwaytodisplaytheresultsoftheanalysis(asanexample,seeFigure
2).TheradarchartpresentstheaveragemarksforeachsectionlistedinTable1:itispossibletocomparethe
assessments of the internal relational marketing activities with those of the perception of the external
environment, point by point. These results can be used by executives to verify the alignment of marketing
strategiestotheperceivedexternalenvironment,andtotakecorrectiveactions.Itcanalsobeusedasatool
to promote self awareness in thecompany, and can more generally be seen as an opportunity fordiscussing
thestateofthecompanywithemployees.

Keyofquestionnairesections:
1 = knowledge about environment
2 = markets & commercial strategy
service/product/solution
rnal activities
3 = commercial image
4 = first contact with clients
5 = customer needs
6 = proposal formulation
7 = implementation of a
8 = after-sales

Plain line = companys inte
Dotted line= perception of the environment
Figure2:ExampleofradarchartresultingfromatestofAUTOMARKselfassessment
6. Testingandresults
questions that may have
by a typical ICT executive. Since the questionnaire should be used by company
itisimportantthatquestionsareclearlyunderstood.Fromthediscussion,italso
rs. After that,
UTOMARK was revised and submitted to a second company, where 3 executives (CEO, marketing director
their
relationalmarketingcapabilitiesinordertosuccessfullyplacetheirknowledgebasedservicesonthemarket.
ImplementingrelationalmarketinginanSDlogicimpliesthatcompanieshavetodevelopcapabilitiesandtools
The questionnaire was initially discussed with a consultant that highlighted critical
been difficult to understand
executiveswithnoassistance,
emergedthatquestionsinthequestionnaireshouldberandomlymixed,inordertoreducethepossibilitythat
theanswergiventoaquestioninfluencestheanswertothefollowingoneofthesamesection.

The first complete version of AUTOMARK was then tested with an ICT services company, but in presence of
one of the researchers. This highlighted residual understanding difficulties and minor erro
A
andcommunicationsdirector)compiledthequestionnaireindependentlyfromoneanother.Theresultsmade
itpossibletocorrectminormistakesandtoreviseanentiresectionthatprovidedcontrastingresults.
7. Conclusion
The assumption on which AUTOMARK is based is that KIBS companies must necessarily enhance

79

EttoreBolisaniandEnricoScarso

ledge with customers effectively during the various stages that generally compound the
deliveryprocess.
addition,thetoolhasbeentestedwithtwocompaniessofar.Thereisthereforetheneedformoretesting
different companies effectively has to be
emonstrated.
tiesoftheircompanies.
to exchange know
service

ComparedtootherMAtools,AUTOMARKisstillaquestionnaire,butitssettingisdifferent.Insteadofafocus
on the classic 4Ps and, more generally, the typical activities that characterise marketing in manufacturing,
AUTOMARKtakesintoaccountthespecificknowledgebasedinteractionsthatoccurbetweenaKIBScompany
anditsclients.

Having said that, the tool has some limitations. First of all, it is designed for ICT services specifically: other
categories of KIBS need different questionnaires. In any case, AUTOMARK can represent a model for the
developmentofotherversions,allbasedonthesameguidelines.

In
toverifyifitrepresentthetruestateofaffairsandtoimprovethetoolaccordingly.Inparticular,althoughwe
are talking about ICT companies, nonetheless these can be very different to one another, and so can be
marketing approaches. The capability of AUTOMARK to assess
d

Finally, it should be remembered that AUTOMARK is a selfdiagnosis tool. Hence, its results have not a value
inabsolute,butcanonlybeintendedasalarmsignalsthatmustinspireadiscussioninthecompany.More
than number themselves, it is this discussion that can provide managers with ideas for improving relational
marketingactivi
Appendix:DetailsofAUTOMARKquestions
Questionsregardingthecompanyscurrentapproachestorelationalmarketing
collectionofknowledgeaboutmarket/environment
sevenquestionsaboutthecapabilityofcompaniestocollectknowledgeofthecompetitiveenvironment,theresources
knowledgeisemployed usedforthat,andhowthis
marketing/commercialstrategy
fiveque forthis stionsaboutthecentralityofmarketinginthecompany,andtheresourcesused
commercialimage
fourquestionsabouthowthecommercialimageofthecompanyismadeexplicit,andhowthisknowledgeis
transmittedtoclients
man nts agementoffirstcontactswithclie
sevenquestionsabouthowthecompanyseeksandmanagescontactswithnewclients
colle eds ctionofcustomerne
sixquestionsabouthowknowledgeaboutcustomerneedsiscollectedandcapitalisedinternally
proposalformulation
fivequestionsabouthowtheelement intoaformallystructured sofknowledgeofmarketsandclientsaretransferred
commercialproposalthatmustbeunderstandablebyclients
implem lution
fourque onand
del ct
entationofservice/product/so
stionsabouthowcompanyandclientsinteractandexchangeknowledgeduringtheimplementati
iveryofaservice/produ
aftersalesactivities
companycollectspreciousknowledgeforimprovingservices,by sixquestionsabouthowthe exploitingtheinteractions
inaftersalesactivities

Questionsregardingtherelational entwherethecompanyoperates needsinthemarket/environm

complexityo vironment
environmentthem tomanageit
fknowledgeabouten
fivequestionsaboutthecomplexityofthecompetitiveenvironment,byassumingthatthemorecomplexisthe
oreknowledgeisnecessary
complexityofmarket
sixqu
knowledgehas ketingstrategy
estionsaboutthecomplexityofthemarkets,byassumingthatthemorecomplexisthemarketthemore
tobecollectedtoestablishanappropriatemar
relevanceofimageinmarkets
entsconsidertheimageofaproviderasasubstitutionofac fourquestionsabouthowcli hievingdetailedknowledge
ofit
importanceoffirstcontactswithclients
sixquestionsabouthowcriticalthefirstcontactisforclients

80

EttoreBolisaniandEnricoScarso

diffic eds ultyincollectionofcustomerne

sixquestionsabouttheneedforproviderclientknowledgeexchangesfordefiningcustomerneeds
difficultyinpr lformulation
fivequestionsaboutthecapabilityof acommercialproposalandhowthis
oposa
clientstoacquireusefulknowledgefrom
enablesthemtodecideproperly
comp ution
sixquest getheir
lexityofimplementingservice/product/sol
ionsaboutthecomplexityofservices/productsandtheneedforproviderclientinteractionstomana
delivery
relevanceofaftersalesrelationships
aftersalesisintheparticularmark sixquestionsabouthowrelevant etwherethecompanyoperates
Re
AarikkaStenroos,A.andJaakkola,E.(2012) nsivebusinessservices:Adyadic
perspective 26.
Amara,N., The
ustriesJournal,Vol29,No.4,pp407430.
D.andJakstaite,R.(2007)RelationshipMarketingasfactorforCompetitivenessof
,1315
of
rnalof
Bette A.L.,Brown,S.W.andRoundtree,R.I.,(2002),ClientCoProductioninKnowledgeIntensive
Bolisa arketing:IssuesandProspects,inCegarra,J.G.(ed.),Proceedingsofthe
Bolisa management:Amultiplecasestudyoflocalcomputer
Bolisa Services:EvidencefromtheICT
Kotle .
Landr dtheirclients,The
Lusch,
Mart z,M.C.andMiles,I.(2006)Insidethesoftwarefirm:coproductionofknowledgeandKISAinthe
Mulle knowledgeintensivebusinessservices,Technologyin
Mcdo lanning,EnglewoodCliff,NJ.

Measurement
Rothe (1997)TheMarketingAudit:FiveDecadesLater,JournalofMarketingTheory
Schuc eMarketingAudit:itsNature,Purposes,andProblems,inNewgarden,A.andBailey,E.R(eds.),
.
19.
Vargo forMarketing,JournalofMarketing,Vol68,No.1,
Wilso rketingAuditHandbookTools,TechniquesandCheckliststoExploitYourMarketingResources,
ferences
ationink Valuecocre nowledgeinte
ingprocess,IndustrialMarketingMan onthejointproblemsolv agement,Vol41,No.1,pp15
Landry,R.andDoloreux,D.(2009)Patternsofinnovationsinknowledgeintensivebusinessservices,
ServiceInd
Bagdoniene,L.,Kunigeliene,
KnowledgeIntensiveBusinessServicesProviders,XVIIInternationalConferenceofRESER,Tampere,Finland
September.
Ballantyne,D.andVarey,R.J.,(2008)Theservicedominantlogicandthefutureofmarketing,JournaloftheAcademy
MarketingScience,Vol36,No.1,pp1114
Berry,L.L.,Conant,J.S.andParasumaran,A.(1991)AFrameworkforConductingaServicesMarketingAudit,Jou
theAcademyofMarketingScience,vol.19,n.3,pp255268.
ncourt,L.A.,Ostrom,
BusinessServices,CaliforniaManagementReview,Vol.44,No.4,pp.100128.
ni,E.andScarso,E.(2012a)KnowledgeM
13thEuropeanConferenceonKnowledgeManagement,AcademicConferencesLimited,Reading,UK,pp100107.
ni,E.andScarso,E.(2012b)Knowledgeintensiveinnovation
servicescompanies,AfricanJournalofBusinessManagement,Vol6,No.51,pp1205212067.
ni,E.,Don,A.andScarso,E.(2012)MarketingofKnowledgeintensiveBusiness
sector,inSchiuma,G.,Yigitcanlar,T.andSpender,J.(eds.),ProceedingsofIFKADKCWS2012,pp12561274.
r,P.,Gregor,W.andRogers,W.(1977)TheMarketingAuditComesofAge,SloanManagementReview,Vol18,No
2,pp2543.
y,R.,Amara,N.andDoloreux,D.,(2012)KnowledgeexchangestrategiesbetweenKIBSfirmsan
ServiceIndustriesJournal,Vol32,No.2,pp291320.
R.F.,Vargo,S.L.andWessels,G.(2008),Towardaconceptualfoundationforservicescience:Contributionfrom
servicedominantlogic,IBMSystemsJournal,Vol47,No.1,pp514.
inezFernande
innovationprocess,InternationalJournalofServicesTechnologyandManagement,Vol7,No.2,pp115125.
r,E.andDoloreux,D.(2009)Whatweshouldknowabout
Society,Vol31,No.1,pp6472.
naldC.(1982)TheMarketingAuditWorkbook,InstituteforBusinessP
Payne,A.F.,Storbacka,K.andFrow,P.(2008)Managingthecocreationvalue,JournaloftheAcademyofMarketing
Science,Vol36,No.1,pp8396.
PimentadaGama,A.(2011)Arenewedapproachtoservicesmarketingeffectiveness,MeasuringBusinessExcellence,Vol
15,No.2,pp317.
PimentadaGama,A.(2012)Marketingaudits:Theforgottensideofmanagement,JournalofTargeting,
andAnalysisforMarketing,Vol20,No.3/4,pp212222.
,J.T.,Harvey,M.G.andJackson,C.E.
andPractice,Vol5,No.3,pp116.
hman,A.(1959)Th
AnalyzingandImprovingMarketingPerformance:MarketingAuditinTheoryandPractice,ManagementReportn
32,AmericanManagementAssociation,NewYork,pp11
Smedlund,A.(2006)Therolesofintermediariesinaregionalknowledgesystems,JournalofIntellectualCapital,Vol7,
No.2,pp204220.
Strambach,S.(2008)KnowledgeIntensiveBusinessServices(KIBS)asriversofmultilevelknowledgedynamics,
InternationalJournalofServicesTechnologyandManagement,Vol10,No.2/3/4,pp152174.
,S.L.andLusch,R.F.(2004)EvolvingtoaNewDominantLogic
pp117.
n,A.(2002)TheMa
KoganPage,London.
81