Business-to-business service operations:

a systematic literature review and content analysis

Daniel Auler and Rafael Teixeira

(danielauler@hotmail.com.br)
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil

Abstract
This paper explores the main topics under investigation about B2B service operations. We
developed a general model of B2B service operations to serve as a guide for our analysis. We
collected data from 106 papers and perform a content analysis. Results show a series of interrelated
topics and constructs.

Keywords: B2B Service Process, Systematic Review, Content Analysis

Introduction

Services are responsible for a significant amount of economic activity in the world (Chase and
Apte 2007). Approximately, two thirds of gross domestic product of most countries, which include
USA, Canada, and Brazil, results from activities of service sector. Similarly, about 75% of workers
are related to service activities (Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons 2008, Oliveira and Roth 2012).
This is one of the major reasons for growing attention placed by scholars in service operations and
supply chain management (Chase and Apte 2007, Heineke and Davis 2007).
In the last decades, the service operations management literature has been infused with
several models and frameworks attempting to organize and provide managerial insights regarding
the large variety of services existent in the real world. These models contributed to the literature
by providing managerial insights about how operations can handle participation of customers
during the production process (Chase 1978, Sampson 2000, Wynstra et al. 2006), organize
different forms of delivering services (Froehle and Roth 2004, Huete and Roth 1988), create new
services (Froehle and Roth 2007, Menor and Roth 2008), among other contributions.
These previous studies and models are characterized by (i) focusing on specific parts of
service provisions and (ii) on business-to-consumer (B2C) services, leaving room for further
contributions. By focusing on specific parts of service provision, most of these models and
frameworks do not provide a whole perspective of service operations, including formulation,
delivery, and control of service outputs as well as the relationship between business-to-business
(B2B) customer and service providers. By focusing exclusively on B2C, these models do not take
into consideration characteristics of B2B services and markets. For example, organizations buy
services in large quantities, while individuals buy services in small quantities. Organizations
involve many people during the decision making process, while individuals do not. Such

1
characteristics make the purchasing process longer and more complex for organizations than for
individuals (Cook et al. 1999, Oliveira and Roth 2012).
The objective of this paper is threefold. Firstly, we seek to provide a general B2B service
model that provides a comprehensive framework, which includes all stages of service operations
management, since definition of service strategy until management of relationship with B2B
customers. This model also provides a process view of service provision, including all major
processes existent in the provision of B2B services. Secondly, we make a systematic literature
review and analyze a sample of 106 papers. The major goal is to classify these papers according
to our framework and understand which topics have been most addressed by scholars investigating
B2B services. Such model and resulting analysis may serve as a guide for other researchers to
understand what has been done in the field of B2B services according to a process view framework.
Finally, we make a content analysis of constructs that were revealed during the systematic
literature review. Results show the constructs that were mostly studied and the relationship among
them providing a conceptual map of B2B service model constructs.
Our paper is organized as follow. First, we review the literature related to stages of our
B2B service model, in order to explain, in details, each part of the process. Secondly, we introduce
the methodology of systematic literature review and content analyses. Then, we show the results
of our research. Finally, we present some final considerations.

Literature review

In our paper, we developed a b2b service model in order to explain the process of providing
services in b2b marketplace. Our model consists of seven phases: strategy development,
negotiation process, inputs provision, service delivery, service output, control of outputs and
relationship between B2B buyer and seller. Figure 1 below shows our model and the relationship
between each one of the phases.

Figure 1 – Business-to-Business Service Model

The first stage of our model is the development of strategies. In this stage, both buyer and
seller have to develop their own strategies to achieve their own goals. In the case of a buyer
company, the service would be a component, a semi-manufactured item, an instrumental piece or
a consumption element in its own offer, but it will never be its core competence (Apte and Mason
1995; Jackson et al. 1995; Wynstra et al. 2006). The buyer has to develop its strategies in
accordance to the usage of service. On the other hand, the service itself is the seller’s core
competence and the seller has to develop it in terms of the service concept, the service delivery
system and the target market (Edvardsson and Olsson 1996; Froehle and Roth 2007; Heskett 1987).

2
 In the second phase, the buyer and the seller companies start to interact and they bring their
needs and offerings to the market (Day and Barksdale 2003; van der Valk and Rozemeijer 2009).
This stage is so difficult because the inherent characteristics of business services, like intangibility,
coproduction, risk management, buying centers, etc (Ellram et al 2007; File et al. 1994; Jackson
and Cooper 1988). In the negotiation process, seller and buyer act in different ways, as their nouns
predict. The seller has to sell its service through the process of preparing a favorable environment,
searching the buyer’s needs, capturing who is/are the decisor(s) in the buyer company and, finally,
showing its offer (Plank and Dempsey 1980). By contrast, the buyer company has to do the process
in accordance to its structure, identifying its needs, searching possible suppliers, asking proposals,
choosing one supplier and, finally, buying the service (Smeltzer and Ogden 2002; Stock and
Zinszer 1987). In the final moment of the negotiation process the buyer and the seller formalize a
contract which describes the responsibilities of each one of them in the provision of service
(Grover and Malhotra 2003; Xue and Field 2008).
After the negotiation process, both buyer and seller have to arrange their own bundle of
inputs in order to coproduce the service (Fließ and Kleinaltenkamp 2004). In B2B context, inputs
are discussed as resources and they can be categorized into three groups (Barney 1991; Froehle
and Roth 2007). Organizational inputs are those that put functionality in the firm like formal and
informal structures. Physical resources are tangible items like devices or buildings. Intellectual
resources, finally, are those linked to people such as experience and skills of employees.
In the fourth stage, the service is coproduced and delivered. In this phase, both buyer and
seller have to execute each role they assumed in the negotiation process in order to transform inputs
into outputs (Mills et al. 1983; Sampson and Froehle 2006). The process of delivering can be
standardized or customized depending on the offer negotiated (Goldstein et al. 2002; Schmenner
2004). Also, the process can be made in front of or behind the buyer’s visibility or, yet, it can be
made by the usage of technology (Buzacott 2000; Froehle and Roth 2004; Silvestro et al. 1992).
Here, there are many tools to help both buyer and seller in the execution of their own roles in the
delivering of service (Sampson 2012; Shostack 1984).
In a consequence of delivering, the fifth stage of the process are the outputs of service
(Karmarkar and Pitbladdo 1995; Sampson and Froehle 2006). Here, again, some characteristics of
services, like intangibility, put complexity in the seller’s and buyer’s point of view of outputs
(Fitzsimmons et al. 1998). Moreover, output is the core competence of the seller and, on the other
hand, it is a piece in the production process of the buyer company (Edvardsson and Olsson 1996;
Goldstein et al. 2002; Wynstra et al. 2006).
Outputs in a general way will be evaluated in the stage of control, which is the sixth part
of our model. However, the control phase includes comparison with standards, performance
measures and corrective actions in order to achieve goals (Chase and Tansik 1983; Karmarkar and
Pitbladdo 1995; Roth and Menor 2003). Although the control is a very difficult action in services,
it can be done based on what was discussed and contracted (Handley and Benton 2009; Xue and
Field 2008). The evaluation of inputs can be done in an operational or in a relational point of view
(Backhaus and Bauer 2000; Parasuraman et al. 1988; Stank et al. 1999). Otherwise, controlling
can be exercised in a formal or in an informal way, based on behaviors or in output, which depends
on the kind of service (Silvestro 1999; Stouthuysen et al. 2012).
The last stage of our model is the relationship between buyer and seller. The relationship
is established by both parts after the service is provided and it will be represented by repurchases.
Effective relationships provide many linkages between buyer and seller. Firstly operational
linkages are represented by systems, procedures and routines that can facilitate operations (Cannon

3
and Perreault 1999). Secondly, commitment is the degree of perception that buyer and seller are
plugged in a continuous businesses and is reflected in investments in the partnership and the
stability of relationship (Prahinski and Benton 2004). In third place, cooperation is the perception
that partners work together to achieve mutual goals and is related to market flexibility and conjunct
problem solving, for example (Cannon and Perreault 1999; Prahinski and Benton 2004). All of
this linkages can provide a strong relationship which will reduce costs and risks, and will increase
profitability for both parts and attitudinal loyalty by the buyer firm (Kumar 2002; Stank et al.
1999).

Methodology

In our paper we utilized a systematic literature review as a major method and we used a content
analysis to analyze and to reduce the results of revision. Our aim with these two methodologies is
to find a lot of constructs and variables to explain in details our B2B Service Model presented
above.
The systematic literature review is an approach that permits to reduce many evidences in
an explicit and systematic way into an easy and short report that helps the reader to know and to
understand something that she/he has an interest in (Pittaway et al. 2004; Tranfield et al. 2003).
By using this approach, the researcher can reduce his/her own bias in the research in order to more
explicitly appreciate and synthesize his/her own findings (Akobeng 2005; Tranfield et al. 2003).
Then, based on the approach’s guidelines we developed the planning, the conducting and
the reporting of our research (Tranfield et al. 2003). Firstly, we revised a lot of papers in order to
get a better understanding about the question we want to solve. After this whole understanding
about the question, we define a lot of keywords in order to look for papers that can solve our
question. Then, we did a collect of papers in a database. To do this, we used a combination of the
words “service”, “b2b” and “business-to-business” in the Web of Science Database. With this
proceeding, we found a set of 1157 papers. Then, we reduced this set of papers using the options
provided by the database. We chose “articles” in the option “document type” and “Business”,
“Management” and “Operations Research Management Science” in the option “Web of Science
Categories”. After this proceeding, we excluded all papers published in marketing journals,
because we choose to use the point of view of operations in our research. Then, after all of these
proceedings we found a set of 115 papers, all of them published until 2012. In addition, we
exported the database to HistCite Software and we analyzed their titles and abstracts to confirm
their inclusions in our set of papers. By this way we, again, excluded 9 papers because they did
not discuss subjects related to our research question. Finally our sample of papers consists in a set
of 106 papers, divided into a set of 27 international journals (due the restrict space in this paper,
the total list of a 106 papers and respectively journals is available with these authors; please, email
us to receive this list).
So, in order to analyze our set of papers we developed a content analysis method. Firstly
we did a global analysis of each paper with the objective of classifying each one in each part of
our B2B service model (Flick 2009). This classification followed the process of thematic
categorization proposed by Grounded Theory (Corbin and Strauss 1990; Strauss and Corbin 1994).
In first place, we sorted 4 papers in the discussion about all process of service. After, in order to
categorize the papers we divided them according to co-production process. If the paper discusses
something prior the coproduction process, we classified it in the Negotiation Process. But if the
paper discusses some strategy to develop services, we included it in the stage of Development of

4
Strategies. Thus, the Negotiation Process accounts 18 papers and the Development of Strategies
accounts 25 papers. If the paper discusses the process of co-production itself, we classified it in
the Service Delivery stage, but if the paper discusses inputs or outputs we classified it in the
respectively stages. Thus in the Service Delivery phase we classified 13 papers, and, unfortunately,
there are no papers in the stages of Inputs Provision and Service Outputs. Finally, if the paper
discusses something post co-production, we classified it in the Relationship stage, unless if the
paper discusses methodologies of control. In this case, we classified the paper in the phase Control
of Outputs. As a result, by the last classification process we included 32 papers in the Relationship
stage and 14 papers in the Control of Outputs stage. The results of this process can be synthesized
and shown in the table 1, below.

Table 1 – Papers found by stage of B2B service model

Stage Number of papers % of the total
All Process 4 3.77%
Strategy Development 25 23.58%
Negotiation Process 18 16.98%
Provision of Inputs -
System Delivery 13 12.26%
Service Outputs -
Control of Results 14 13.21%
Relationship 32 30.19%
Total 106 100.00%

After the classification of all 106 papers, we developed a set of qualitative analyzes in
accordance to its content (Bardin 1979; Bauer and Gaskell 2008). Then, we used a sequence of
classifications, firstly into an open categorization using the construct’s and variables’ names, after
into axial categorization following the relationship between constructs and variables, and, lastly
into selective classification putting similar constructs and variables together (Flick 2009; Strauss
and Corbin 1994; Suddaby 2006). All of this process was provided with the help of the software
Atlas.ti, including the maps of constructs putting together into each stage (Flick 2009; Weitzman
2000). By the end of this process we found a big set of constructs and variables included in each
phase of our B2B service model. These sets we will present in the final stage of systematic
literature review: the report. The report will be presented in the next section since it is of great
importance for this study.

Results

The systematic literature review claims that the report of research can be made based on a
qualitative or a quantitative approach (Tranfield et al. 2003). In order to achieve the aims of this
study we used the qualitative approach because we want to explore the set of papers in a deep way.
So, a little group of 4 papers was included in the all process of service group. We divided
this group into three categories of constructs and variables. The first one put together the
approaches used by researchers in their discussions about service: the Nordic School, the Germany
and the American one. On another category, we included a set of roles the buyer company performs
into service process both in B2B and B2C context. Finally, we added in the last category the
discussions about the complex context of service systems, those entities that integrate resources to
achieve joint outcomes.

5
 In the point of view of strategy we sorted a set of 25 papers in seven categories. The first
one ranked the strategic options (cost or quality) that can be chosen by the firms. The second one
encompassed strategic contexts such as e-marketplace, brand management, relationship
management, networks of firms, internationalization process, or even servitization. The third
category sorted external, relational and internal aspects of strategies. The external aspects are
related to industry characteristics, supplier competition, target market and client preferences. In
the relational aspects, we included social capital and inter-relationship between firms. The internal
ones are considered the resources, the organizational structure, the service attributes and the
entrepreneurial attitude. The last four categories of strategy are related to call-center business
models, market orientation, new service development studies and internal strategies such as
internal services and service orientation to excellence, for example.
In the second stage of our B2B service model, we analyze a set of 18 papers, all of them
are linked to negotiation process. The papers were divided into five categories. The first one
considered e-marketplace as a very different context of negotiation process. In this category we
put together constructs and variables that discussed e-reverse auctions, e-procurement, success
factor and barriers in adopting e-commerce, and even, e-trust. The second category of this stage
gathered discussions about desired inputs in the point of view of both seller and buyer, such as
price, needs and specifications of service, among others. The third category sorted undesirable
inputs like wrong specifications, for example. In the fourth category we jointed undesirable outputs
like conflicts or dissolution of contract. Finally, in the fifth category we classified the desirable
outputs of negotiation process: contracting and a long term relationship.
Here we have to present a little explanation. We did not find any studies that discuss neither
the stage of input provision, nor the stage of service output. Then we relate, now, the stage of
service delivery. In this stage we found a lot of 13 papers and we categorized their constructs and
variables into three groups. The first category sorted discussions about the way service have to be
delivered, including characteristics and contingencies linked with the realization of the service
concept. The second category ranked the technological base of service, including constructs that
discuss trust seals, success factors and modelling of services. The third and last category of this
stage grouped discussions about how many channels are used in the service delivering process,
since firms can use face-to-face encounters, encounters realized by technology, or even a mix of
them.
The sixth stage of our model grouped a lot of 14 studies and their constructs and variables
that discussed control in the service process. Studies were gathered into six categories. The first
encompassed service failure and recovery. The second one gathered the measures of performance,
including those, which consider client in the center of measuring. Perceived value, satisfaction and
perceived quality were the subjects of our next three categories. Perceived value sorted constructs
and variables related to sacrifices and benefits that are perceived by the service clients. Satisfaction
in a more deeply way rated discussions about basic, facilitator and driver dimensions of
satisfaction, as well as the dynamic formation of satisfaction and instruments that can measure
satisfaction. On another way, the category of perceived quality sorted constructs about the form
buyer company build its quality, especially in terms of expectations and perceptions. Finally, the
last category nominated repurchase intention grouped the motivations to repurchase, especially
perceptions of quality, satisfaction and value.
The last stage of our B2B service model sorted constructs and variables about relationship
between buyer and seller companies. In this stage, we grouped 32 papers and we classified them
into 9 categories. The first one brought out the theoretical approach of the IMP Group that

6
encompasses an interaction approach to explain B2B relationships. The most important category
in this phase grouped a set of non-contractual elements that antecedes the relationship. In one hand
there are elements linked to tasks in terms of operational linkages, such as technology investments,
quality of devices and equipments, processes, knowledge sharing, cooperation and collaboration
between firms. In another hand, the interaction elements encompass items building up with day-
by-day relationship, such as trust, commitment, flexibility and responsiveness. The interaction
elements help the stability of the relationship between firms. The third category of relationship
grouped discussions on systems used to manage the relationship. The fourth category sorted
constructs about ongoing relationship, like changes in offers, for example. The fifth category
ranked values that relationships can build over the years, such as financial, human, strategic or
knowledge values. In a sixth category, we grouped elements that can influence quality in the
relationship, like conflicts, external social linkages and historical performance among others. In
the last three categories, we classified constructs and variables on evaluation of relationship,
ending of relationship and loyalty. In evaluation, the set of constructs discussed effectiveness and
strength of relationship, as well as evaluation of actions and attitudes providing by both buyer and
seller. In ending of relationship, studies encompassed motivations and barriers that can move
partners to finish partnering. Finally, the category loyalty was built up on probability of repurchase
behavior, propensity to buy more and more, depending on time and, finally, word-of-mouth.

Conclusion

In this paper we attempted to introduce a B2B service model whose major constructs encompasses
all main steps from strategy formulation to evaluation of outcomes and relationship between the
buyer and the seller. Based on this model, we made a systematic literature review to identify papers
that were published about the constructs in our model. Finally, we made a content analysis to
understand the citation of various constructs related to our model and figure out how these
constructs are related to one another.
Our results provide some insights for scholars in the service operations management field.
First, our model provides an overall framework to understand how service provision in the context
of B2B services can be unique and distinct from the service models for provisions of B2C services.
The model introduced in this paper can serve as a guide to other scholars interested in developing
their own model and improving the literature about this topic.
Second, results provided by our systematic literature review provides a picture about what
other scholars have been done in B2B service provision. Our results showed that some constructs
have received more attention than others, which leads us to two conclusions. First, some constructs
are under investigated and could receive greater attention from scholars in order to advance the
knowledge in this field. Second, constructs in our model may not precisely adhere to the
perspective of other authors and, then, should be reviewed to better reflect the nature of B2B
services.
Finally, results from our content analysis reviewed a set of relationship that can be useful
for future research by portraying the constructs and their linkage with other constructs. In other
words, these results provide a comprehensive conceptual map that can help other scholars in
determining those relationships that are more relevant in their future research. In this regard, some
constructs have shown a more central role in B2B service provision, while other constructs have
less importance in this set of relationships.

7
Bibliography

Akobeng, A. K. 2005. Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood,
90(8), 845–848.
Apte, U. M., Mason, R. O. 1995. Global disaggregation of information-intensive services. Management Science,
41(7), 1250–1262.
Backhaus, K., Bauer, M. 2000. The Impact of Critical Incidents on Customer Satisfaction in Business-to-Business
Relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 8(1), 25–55.
Bardin, L. 1979. Análise de Conteúdo. (L. A. Reto & A. Pinheiro, Trans.). Edições 70, Lisboa.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Bauer, M. W., Gaskell, G. (Eds.). 2008. Pesquisa qualitativa com texto, imagem e som: um manual prático. (P. A.
Guareschi, Trans.) (7th ed., p. 516). Vozes, Petrópolis.
Buzacott, J. A. 2000. Service system structure. International Journal of Production Economics, 68(1), 15–27.
Cannon, J. P., Perreault, W. D. J. 1999. Buyer-Seller Relationships in Business Markets. Journal of Marketing
Research, 36(4), 439–460.
Chase, R. B. 1978. Where does the customer fit in a service operation? Harvard Business Review, 56(6), 137–42.
Chase, R. B., Apte, U. M. 2007. A history of research in service operations: What’s the big idea? Journal of
Operations Management, 25, 375–386.
Chase, R. B., Tansik, D. A. 1983. The Customer Contact Model for Organization Design. Management Science,
29(9), 1037–1050.
Cook, D. P., Goh, C.-H., Chung, C. H. 1999. Service Typologies: a State of the Art Survey. Production and
Operations Management, 8(3), 318–338.
Corbin, J. M., Strauss, A. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative
Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
Day, E., Barksdale, H. C. 2003. Selecting a professional service provider from the short list. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 18(6), 564–579.
Edvardsson, B., Olsson, J. 1996. Key Concepts for New Service Development. Service Industries Journal, 16(2),
140–164.
Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., Billington, C. 2007. Services supply management: the next frontier for improved
organizational performance. California Management Review, 49(4), 44–66.
File, K. M., Cermak, D. S. P., Prince, R. A. 1994. Word-of-Mouth Effects in Professional Services Buyer
Behaviour. Service Industries Journal, 14(3), 301–314.
Fitzsimmons, J. A., Fitzsimmons, M. J. 2008. Service Management: operations, strategy, information technology
(6th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
Fitzsimmons, J. A., Noh, J., Thies, E. 1998. Purchasing business services. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 13(4), 370–380.
Flick, U. 2009. Introdução à Pesquisa Qualitativa. (J. E. Costa, Trans.) (3rd ed.). Artmed, Porto Alegre.
Fließ, S., Kleinaltenkamp, M. 2004. Blueprinting the service company managing service processes efficiently.
Journal of Business Research, 57(4), 392–404.
Froehle, C. M. 2006. Service Personnel, Technology, and Their Interaction in Influencing Customer Satisfaction.
Decision Sciences, 37(1), 5–39.
Froehle, C. M., Roth, A. V. 2004. New measurement scales for evaluating perceptions of the technology-mediated
customer service experience. Journal of Operations Management, 22(1), 1–21.
Froehle, C. M., Roth, A. V. 2007. A Resource-Process Framework of New Service Development. Production and
Operations Management, 16(2), 169–188.
Goldstein, S. M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., Rao, J. 2002. The service concept: the missing link in service design
research? Journal of Operations Management, 20, 121–134.
Grover, V., Malhotra, M. K. 2003. Transaction cost framework in operations and supply chain management
research: theory and measurement. Journal of Operations Management, 21, 457–473.
Handley, S. M., Benton, W. C. J. 2009. Unlocking the business outsourcing process model. Journal of Operations
Management, 27(5), 344–361.
Heineke, J., Davis, M. M. 2007. The emergence of service operations management as an academic discipline.
Journal of Operations Management, 25, 364–374.
Heskett, J. L. 1987. Lessons in the service sector. Harvard Business Review, (March-April), 118–127.

8
Huete, L. M., Roth, A. V. 1988. The Industrialisation and Span of Retail Banks’ Delivery Systems. Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 8(3), 46–66.
Jackson, R. W., Cooper, P. D. 1988. Unique Aspects of Marketing Industrial Services. Industrial Marketing
Management, 17, 111–118.
Jackson, R. W., Neidell, L. A., Lunsford, D. A. 1995. An empirical investigation of the differences in goods and
services as perceived by organizational buyers. Industrial Marketing Management, 24(2), 99–108.
Karmarkar, U. S., Pitbladdo, R. 1995. Service markets and competition. Journal of Operations Management, 12,
397–411.
Kumar, P. 2002. The Impact of Performance, Cost, and Competitive Considerations on the Relationship between
Satisfaction and Repurchase Intent in Business Markets. Journal of Service Research, 5(1), 55–68.
Larsson, R., Bowen, D. E. 1989. Organization and customer: managing design and coordination of services.
Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 213–233.
Menor, L. J., Roth, A. V. 2008. New Service Development Competence and Performance: An Empirical
Investigation in Retail Banking. Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 267–284.
Mills, P. K., Chase, R. B., Margulies, N. 1983. Motivating the Client/Employee System as a Service Production
Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 301–310.
Oliveira, P., Roth, A. V. 2012. The Influence of Service Orientation on B2B e-Service Capabilities: An Empirical
Investigation B. Production and Operations Management, 21(3), 423–443.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. 1988. SERVQUAL : A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., Neely, A. 2004. Networking and innovation: a systematic
review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5-6(3-4), 137–168.
Plank, R. E., Dempsey, W. A. 1980. A framework for personal selling to organizations. Industrial Marketing
Management, 9(2), 143–149.
Prahinski, C., Benton, W. C. J. 2004. Supplier evaluations: communication strategies to improve supplier
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(1), 39–62.
Roth, A. V, Menor, L. J. 2003. Insights into Service Operations Management: a Research Agenda. Production and
Operations Management, 12(2), 145–165.
Sampson, S. E. 2000. Customer-supplier duality and bidirectional supply chains in service organizations.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(4), 348–364.
Sampson, S. E. 2012. Visualizing service operations. Journal of Service Research, 15(2), 182–198.
Sampson, S. E., Froehle, C. M. 2006. Foundations and Implications of a Proposed Unified Services Theory.
Production and Operations Management, 15(2), 329–343.
Schmenner, R. W. 2004. Service Businesses and Productivity. Decision Sciences, 35(3), 333–347.
Shostack, G. L. 1984. Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, 133–139.
Silvestro, R. 1999. Positioning services along the volume-variety diagonal The contingencies of service design,
control an improvement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(4), 399–421.
Silvestro, R., Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., Voss, C. A. 1992. Towards a Classification of Service Processes.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 3(3), 62–75.
Smeltzer, L. R., Ogden, J. A. 2002. Purchasing Professionals’ Perceived Differences between Purchasing Materials
and Purchasing Services. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38(1), 54–70.
Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., Vickery, S. K. 1999. Effect of service supplier performance on satisfaction and loyalty
of store managers in the fast food industry. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 429–447.
Stock, J. R., Zinszer, P. H. 1987. The Industrial Purchase Decision for Professional Services. Journal of Business
Research, 15(1), 1–16.
Stouthuysen, K., Slabbinck, H., Roodhooft, F. 2012. Controls, service type and perceived supplier performance in
interfirm service exchanges. Journal of Operations Management, 30(5), 423–435.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J. M. 1994. Grounded theory methodology: An Overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, (pp. 273–285).
Suddaby, R. 2006. What Grounded Theory Is Not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management
Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Van der Valk, W., Rozemeijer, F. 2009. Buying business services: towards a structured service purchasing process.
Journal of Services Marketing, 23(1), 3–10.
Weitzman, E. A. 2000. Software and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, (2nd ed., pp. 803–820).

9
Wynstra, F., Axelsson, B., Van der Valk, W. 2006. An application-based classification to understand buyer-supplier
interaction in business services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(5), 474–496.
Xue, M., Field, J. M. 2008. Service Coproduction with Information Stickiness and Incomplete Contracts:
Implications for Consulting Services Design. Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 357–372.

10