Mkt623 Pairing Assignment

UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MARA
SABAH BRANCH, KOTA KINABALU CAMPUS
FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT
BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (HONS) MARKETING
SALES FORCE MANAGEMENT (MKT623)
MKT6235G1
PAIR ASSIGNMENT 1: ARTICLE REVIEW
PREPARED BY:
1. NURRAIHANAH BINTI MOHD RALI (2019468486)

2. MOHD KHAIRIL EKHSAN BIN ABD RAHMAN (2019207736)
PREPARED FOR:
SIR MOHAMMAD FIRDAUS MOHAMAD
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
10 JANUARY 2022
ARTICLE REVIEW
Wengler, S., Hildmann, G., & Vossebein, U. (2021). Digital transformation in sales as
an evolving process. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 36/4 (2021)
599–614. doi : 10.1108/jbim-03-2020-0124
INTRODUCTION
Sales can be defined as an act of transaction that takes place between two parties,
namely the seller and the buyer, in which the buyer obtains a fraction of tangible or
intangible products for which they have made a financial contribution to the seller.
Since the advent of technology over the past few decades, sales have become
increasingly important in determining the success of a company's operations. As a
result, the digital transformation of a corporation can result in significant efficiency
benefits. Modern information technology (IT) considerably reduces the costs of
communication and coordination, allowing businesses to expand their present product
portfolios or even develop entirely new lines of business (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000).
In the article “Digital transformation in sales as an evolving process,” Wengler et al.
(2021) examined the current status-quo of “digital transformation in sales” in Germany.
As digital technologies continue to grow in prominence, we will examine how
technologies contribute to the sales process in the current business environment.
Despite its limitations, this article provides a significant contribution to the scientific
discussion of digital transformation in sales by introducing a comprehensive
management model that gives adequate direction in the context of digital
transformation in sales.
ARTICLE SUMMARY
To begin with, the author's purpose is to give readers a better understanding of

how to make the most of the tremendous advancements in digital technology occurring
in the sales sector while also taking into account all of the other components and
divisions inside a firm. There are more uncertainties in sales research in the future
because of the quick evolution of digital technology, despite the number of resources
and work companies are putting into digital transformation. The explanatory research
methodology was used in the study. After that, the literature review suggests that
theoretical methodologies should be used to provide a more thorough explanation of
the digital revolution in sales.
Furthermore, the research question is developed by referring to past studies as the

first step. Senior sales management researchers conducted an expert interview to
acquire the data. For example, the result has rather showed interesting for the first
question, despite the fact that it pertains to the sales department, has shown some
interest, with the Managing Director (MD) taking the lead and being closely followed
by the Information Transfer (IT) department. Furthermore, in terms of business-related
questions, the results indicated that "Market Analysis," which is a sales process phase,
has a higher significance in the product business (20%) than it does in the project
business (5%). To recapitulate, this article has demonstrated that the Managing
Director is truly in charge of digital transformation in sales, which demands their
undivided attention and assistance. Hence, this digital transformation cannot be
viewed as a project but rather as a continual process.
CRITICAL REFLECTION
The researchers discussed an important topic, as digital transformation is

fundamental in business-to-business sales. The conceptual framework provided by
the authors might be agreed upon for good guidance in the process of digital
transformation in sales for businesses and their personnel at all hierarchical levels in
order to bolster their effectiveness and efficiency. To accomplish the research's
ultimate purpose, the authors conducted an exploratory research study and developed
a research question. They want a more holistic approach that takes into account the
complexity and interdependence of sales processes, digital technology, and its
ecosystem.
To start, all of the authors' questions are pertinent to their research study, and the
outcome results are succinctly written and correspondingly fascinating. However,
Wengler et al. (2021) did not include a section on their discussion and findings,
specifically. This may cause readers to become confused and may cause them to
"drift" from the main topic while reading throughout the paper. As is well known, the
discussion section's objective is to interpret and characterize the authors' findings in
connection to what was previously known about the study problem under
consideration and explain any new understanding or insights gained as a result of the
research. Annesley (2010) asserts that the discussion will always be connected to the
introduction through the research questions. Thus, it demonstrates clearly how the
authors' study aided the audience's comprehension of the research problem.
Apart from that, it would be fantastic if the authors could incorporate hypotheses
into their research. A researcher's hypothesis is critical since it is connected to the
authors' forecast or postulate. It permits the researcher to connect rationally
established data with educated assumptions about unknown circumstances. The
purpose of developing hypotheses is to give the research direction and to create
relationships between variables. When developing a hypothesis, deductive reasoning
could be used to determine the validity of a theory or relationship (Binoy, 2019).
Correspondingly, the hypothesis assists in the discussion and conclusion of the
study's findings.
Furthermore, substantial findings were highlighted in this study's results, yet these
findings are subject to limitations. To start, the writers chose an exploratory research
study based on expert interviews. They interviewed 90 individuals from 30 German
medium-sized businesses with average yearly revenue of €250 million and
approximately 1,300 workers. This may be regarded as a small sample size. With such
a small sample size, determining whether an outcome is true is difficult, and in some
situations, a form of error may exist. As a result, the authors employed a key informant
approach based on a prior study conducted by Churchill (1979), who is an expert
source of information and possesses deeper insight into certain issues in this field.
However, as the pre-study revealed, using a single key informant for each company
would not result in trustworthy and valid results. Individual perspectives on the change
process vary greatly according to the interviewee's hierarchical level.
Subsequently, the authors used triangulation (Rindfleisch et al., 2008; Van Bruggen
et al., 2002) to increase the accuracy of their results. Thus, while the authors attempt
to mitigate the problem of biased information, they are still able to produce comparable
and comprehensible results by providing relevant statistical information to
comprehend. Although the 90 interviews were conducted individually and in one-on-
one scenarios, the authors emphasized that it is essential to consider that just 30
different companies were included in their study, implying that interdependence effects
may arise. In this case, we recommend that the authors consider expanding their
sample size in qualitative approach study designs that are closely similar to the journal
entitled "Digital transformation and value-based selling activities: seller and buyer
perspectives" by Alamäki and Korpela (2021) for their future research.
In this article, the authors also employed qualitative methodology to investigate the
digital revolution of business-to-business (B2B) sales and its implications for value-
based selling management but simply different. The data was gathered through
interviews with informants from both selling and buying groups. This is because they
agreed that purchasers represent a genuine target group of future or existing clients,
which contributes to the research's validity. According to their research, different
content marketing techniques correspond to distinct customer needs. For instance,
sharing fresh ideas and customer testimonies enables customers to identify latent
requirements, hence stimulating new demand among the client base. Customers can
evaluate and learn from the value propositions offered by businesses by utilizing online
calculators and evaluation tools (Alamäki & Korpela, 2021). To clarify, these tools can
assist businesses in determining their return on investment and business benefits.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this article addressed an important aspect of sales management.

The authors agreed that their research shows that several approaches to digital
transformation exist and that an expanding range of business kinds may eventually
complexity an organization's IT structure. Nonetheless, the research has a few flaws
in the way they write their research report. This study only provides a constant
framework. All the components of the model are continual flux which is only an
auxiliary structure to reduce management complexity. Furthermore, due to the small
sample size and lack of diversity among participants, these findings are not
generalizable. Apart from broadening the empirical base, significant further study must
be conducted on the individual success component, as well as testing and deploying
the entire concept. Wengler et al. (2021) also shared that "people," "process," and
"data" are critical success elements for achieving big productivity increases and need
to be developed in a unified manner throughout the various technological development
stages.
REFERENCES
Annesley, T. M. (2010). The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument. Clinical

Chemistry, Vol. 56 No.11, pp. 1671–1674.
Alamäki, A., & Korpela, P. (2021). Digital transformation and value-based selling
activities: seller and buyer perspectives. Baltic Journal of Management, ahead-
of-print(ahead-of-print). Vol. 16 No. 2, 2021 pp. 298-317.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond Computation: Information Technology,
Organizational Transformation and Business Performance. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14 No.4, 23–48.
Binoy, S. (2019). Significance of Hypothesis in Research. Indian Journal of Holistic
Nursing, Vol. 10 No. 01, pp. 31–33.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S. and Moorman, C. (2008), “Cross-sectional
versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 261-279.
Van Bruggen, G.H., Lilien, G.L. and Kacker, M. (2002), “Informants in organizational
marketing research: why use multiple informants and how to aggregate
responses”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 469-478.
Digital transformation in sales
as an evolving process
Stefan Wengler
Hof University, Hof, Germany
Gabriele Hildmann
KAIROS GmbH, Kronberg, Germany, and
Ulrich Vossebein
Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Friedberg, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – The majority of business-to-business companies are working on their digital transformation in sales. Despite enormous transformation
efforts, the expected productivity gains are often missing in most companies. Based on empirical research, this paper aims to develop a new market-
oriented transformation model. Management implications as well as future research directions are derived for a more focused digital transformation
process in sales.
Design/methodology/approach – Within the exploratory research study, 90 key informants were interviewed to provide better insights in the
context of digital transformation in sales. The accuracy of the research results was safeguarded by triangulation.
Findings – As this research paper will show, the reasons for the missing productivity gains caused by a limited knowledge about the main success
factors of digital transformation as well as a lack of understanding of digital transformation as an evolving process.
Originality/value – Based on the empirical research, a new market-oriented transformation model is developed and management implications as
well as future research directions are derived for a more focused digital transformation process in sales.
Keywords Business type, Capacity building, Data, Digital technoligies, Digital transformation, Ecosystem, Key performance indicators (KPI),
Market intelligence (MI), Market-oriented transformation model (MTM), People, Process, Sales
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction Srivastava et al., 1999; Tanner et al., 2005). Since the 2010s,
sales research has increasingly included additional digital
A company’s digital transformation can lead to substantial tools such as social media, mobile marketing (Lamberton and
productivity gains (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1998, 2000): Stephen, 2016; Kumar et al., 2020) and only recently also
modern information technology (IT) reduces communication artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (Singh et al., 2019).
and coordination costs significantly and/or allows companies to Despite the companies’ enormous efforts and investments in
improve their existing product portfolio or even create new their digital transformation, the scientific discussion revolving
products. Thus: around the “productivity paradox” (Gordon, 2016; Saniee et al.,
[. . .] the business value of computers is limited less by computational 2017; Solow, 1987) has never really stopped as the expected
capability and more by the ability of managers to invent new processes, productivity gains have hardly materialized (Acemoglu et al.,
procedures and organizational structures that leverage this capability
2014; Buttle et al., 2006) or the transformation projects have
(Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000).
even failed (Davenport and Westerman, 2018). Consequently,
Accordingly, most business-to-business companies have companies are uncertain about the future direction of their digital
started their digital transformation projects to further ensure transformation process.
their competitiveness (Tabrizi et al., 2019). This research paper aims to provide a conceptual framework
Sales is making its own effort in contributing to the on how to engage more adequately in the digital transformation
productivity gains of the company: since the 1980s sales
researchers have been particularly concerned with the
© Stefan Wengler, Gabriele Hildmann and Ulrich Vossebein. Published by
implementation of digital technologies in the form of customer Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative
relationship management (CRM) systems or sales force Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,
automation (SFA) (Buttle et al., 2006; Honeycutt, 2002; distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both
commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the
original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0885-8624.htm The authors are gratefull to the two anonymous reviews for their
valuable comments and suggestions, which have helped in finalizing the
manuscript.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
36/4 (2021) 599–614 Received 1 March 2020
Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] Revised 31 July 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-03-2020-0124] Accepted 11 September 2020
599
Sales as an evolving process Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Stefan Wengler, Gabriele Hildmann and Ulrich Vossebein Volume 36 · Number 4 · 2021 · 599–614
process in sales by identifying the key management areas of business models (Loebbecke and Picot, 2015; Ritter and
digital transformation as well as by taking interdependencies Pedersen, 2020) as well as the working behavior of people
across the company’s departments and the company’s (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016). All these changes need to be managed
ecosystem into account. In the following sections, the paper in a way that improves a company’s competitiveness, i.e.
reviews the literature on digital transformation in sales, explains increasing its effectiveness as well as its efficiency (Hunt and
the design of the exploratory research study, highlights its major Duhan, 2002). We therefore suggest defining the term “digital
findings and derives a market-oriented model for digital transformation” as “[. . .] the modification of processes,
transformation. Based on these insights, management products, business models as well as human behaviors by digital
implications for companies as well as directions for future technologies, which aims at designing the companies’ business
research will be derived. activities more efficiently and effectively.” Thereby, we
consciously leave the term “digital technologies” ambiguous,
2. Literature review on the digital transformation because the width and breadth of the existing and upcoming
digital technologies can hardly be defined from today’s point of
in sales
view (Lamberton and Stephen, 2016; Singh et al., 2019), but
Despite the impression that the phenomenon of digital they are anyway just means to improve a company’s
transformation must have been exhaustively discussed from a competitiveness.
theoretical and practical point of view (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; In addition, the term “digital transformation” captures much
Hess et al., 2016; Matt et al., 2015; Ross, 2019; Westerman better the strategic dimension as well as the value-creation
et al., 2011), it still has to be considered as a rather young objective of current developments: When researchers discussed
research domain (Vial, 2019; Singh et al., 2019). Based on a the issue of “IT-enabled transformation” in the 1980s and
comprehensive research study using grounded theory 1990s (Ginzberg, 1981; Hill and Swenson, 1994; Zuboff,
(Wolfswinkel et al., 2013), Vial (2019) shows in his paper that 1988), they were primarily focusing on the technological
researchers are still not clear about the definition of “digital dimensions, rather than on the business or even societal
transformation,” its scale and scope as well as the differences implications of using and implementing information
between “digital transformation” and “IT-enabled technologies (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). The perspective has
transformation.” changed considerably, as companies increasingly understand
The term “digital transformation” is primarily discussed in the fundamental impact of digital technologies on people’ daily
the research domain of “Information Systems” (Vial, 2019), life and companies’ processes (Shapiro and Varian, 1999; Picot
but increasingly also in sales (Singh et al., 2019), and et al., 2008) as well as the relevance of corporate’s ecosystems
encompasses profound organizational (Hess et al., 2016) as (Aarikka-Stenroos and Ritala, 2017) within the companies’
well as societal changes (Agarwal et al., 2010; Majchrzak et al., value creation process (Anderson and Narus, 1998; Slater,
2016). However, many of the proposed definitions use unclear 1997; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006; Woodruff, 1997). Particularly,
terms, are circular and conflate the concept and its impact the companies’ slow shift toward the concept of value creation
(Vial, 2019). Instead, definitions on “digital transformation” (Kumar and Reinartz, 2016; Terho et al., 2012; Wirtz and
should clearly state the unit of analysis, the transformation’s Ehret, 2017) implies their increasing awareness of and
scope, the means of the transformation as well as the expected requirement for a more sophisticated market intelligence (MI).
outcome. Although we principally agree with Vial’s approach, Even though the required data collection can be perfectly
his suggested definition of “digital transformation as a process facilitated by the diverse digital technologies (Brynjolfsson and
that aims to improve an entity by triggering significant changes Kahin, 2002; Iansiti and Lakhani, 2014; Tanner et al., 2005),
to its properties through combinations of information, the company’s business logic as well as the required processes
computing, communication, and connectivity technologies” and data need to be defined before hand (Brynjolfsson and
(Vial, 2019) as a synthesis of his research does not really Hitt, 2000; Buttle et al., 2006; Loebbecke and Picot, 2015).
provide more clarity from a management’s perspective. Beyond the challenges of defining “digital transformation,” it
In contrast to Vial, the unit of analysis should not be an is still unclear how digital transformation works properly (Matt
undefined “entity,” but the company itself. Marketing and sales et al., 2015). Various approaches are suggested [see Vial (2019)
are not interested in transformation in general (e.g. across for an overview] but are mainly technology driven, even though
corporations, industries and society), but in a manageable, i.e. the customer experience should be the prime focus in the
influenceable and controllable, transformation process, which transformation process (Steward et al., 2019; Tabrizi et al.,
can only take place within a company. This does not neglect the 2019). Already since the 1990s, but more intensely since the
companies’ ecosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Aarikka- 2000s (Honeycutt, 2002; Speier and Venkatesh, 2002;
Stenroos and Ritala, 2017), whose interdependencies have to be Srivastava et al., 1999), sales researchers have been concerned
clearly acknowledged; but the ecosystem needs to be considered with the impact of the internet, new communication
more as a company’s strategic framework rather than a technologies as well as CRM systems on selling and sales
manageable unit. Also, the terms “process” or “triggering management. By using CRM systems:
significant changes” neither describe the scale and the scope nor [. . .] these customer data provide a complete record of the customer’s
interactions in a timely and readily accessible format to drive the analytic
the outcome of digital transformation adequately. Reflecting on
CRM process, the development of marketing strategies, and feedback (or
the impact of digital technologies, changes occur regarding the suggestion prompts) to the sales force and channels. As a consequence, the
design of processes (Denner et al., 2018; Picot et al., 2008; firm is more likely to settle on a “holistic” view of the customer that will
enable enterprise-level marketing, sales, and channel decisions that drive
Shapiro and Varian, 1999), the development of smart products customer satisfaction through more timely, relevant, and personalized
and services (Chowdhury et al., 2018), the creation of new products/service offers, messages, and interactions (Tanner et al., 2005).
600
Despite the great opportunities and further intense research 3. Design of the exploratory research study
(Lamberton and Stephen, 2016; Obal and Lancioni, 2013;
Considering the results of the literature review and Buttle
Singh et al., 2019; Steel et al., 2013; Stein et al., 2013), the
et al.’s (2006) request for a more theoretical approach toward
application of digital technologies never really did meet these
explaining digital transformation in sales, an exploratory
huge expectations, neither for CRM systems nor for SFA
research study was initiated to provide more insights in the
(Buttle et al., 2006; Cascio et al., 2010; Choa and Chang, 2008; context of digital transformation in sales. In the following
Honeycutt, 2005; Speier and Venkatesh, 2002; Stein et al., section, the research questions will be developed, then the
2013). Speier and Venkatesh (2002) identified a mismatch setup of the research sample and the data collection will be
between the design of the implemented tools and salespeople’s described, and the procedure of the expert interviews will be
competencies as the tools did not “play to the strengths” of the explained.
salespeople. Buttle et al. (2006) are convinced that the major
reason for failures regarding the implementation and 3.1 Development of research questions
application of digital technologies in sales is the companies’ Although companies have already started to transform their
current prime focus on “people” and “technology,” even businesses using digital technologies to increase their
though “process” is at least as important as the other two competitiveness (Tabrizi et al., 2019), it is still unclear in the
factors (Buttle, 2004; Wright and Donaldson, 2002). During a sales research literature who really is or who should be in charge
company’s digital transformation, designing or re-engineering of the whole process and who/what is driving the digital
its selling processes will be key to enabling its sales organization transformation in sales (Matt et al., 2015). The same is true for
to fulfill the customers’ needs even more efficiently and the barriers to the transformation process as well as the
effectively than before (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000; company’s know-how of and readiness for the digital
Loebbecke and Picot, 2015). On top, companies take on a too transformation in sales (Vial, 2019). The following three
myopic view as they neglect their customers as well as their questions were therefore derived regarding the perception of
business context, especially their partners and/or their the digital transformation process in sales within the
competitors, when designing their digital transformation companies:
strategies (Buttle et al., 2006).
Regardless of these unsolved issues, more recent research Q1. Who should be responsible for the digital transformation
is focusing on the application of “Big Data” (Chierici et al., in sales?
2019; Elia et al., 2020; Hajlia et al., 2020; Hallikainen et al., Q2. Who/what are the major drivers of digital transformation
2020; Wang and Wang, 2020), social media and other in sales and who/what are the major barriers?
digital tools (Ancillai et al., 2019; Lamberton and Stephen,
2016; Nunan et al., 2018; Pascucci et al., 2018; Wang et al., Q3. Do you think that your company has the necessary
2017) or even AI (Singh et al., 2019) in business-to-business know-how to succeed in its effort of digital
transactions. Notwithstanding, the increasing amount of transformation in sales?
literature on digital transformation in sales and research in
Reviewing the business-to-business sales management
this domain is highly fragmented and primarily focuses on
literature shows a long history, but also a wide variety of sales
specific stakeholders of the sales transformation process,
management approaches (Anderson et al., 2008; Bohlig and
which Buttle et al. (2006) already pointed out almost
Care, 1975; Cuevas et al., 2015; Guenzi and Geiger, 2011;
15 years ago and which is still valid today. The high value of
Ingram et al., 2015; Johnston and Marshall, 2013; Wotruba,
this research in the domain of “sales profession” and “sales
1981). Researchers more or less agree on the sales process
professionals” (Singh et al., 2019) is unquestionable, but it
consisting basically of the five sales process steps, market
will only partly be able to answer why companies’ digital analysis, selection of target customers and lead generation,
transformation projects (in sales) succeed or fail. The sales negotiation, business transaction and after sales. But, the concept
people and sales organization are interdependent with the of business types is rather unknown in business-to-business
rest of the company’s departments and the company to think sales management research (outside of Germany), even though
and act fully market oriented (Day, 1994; Narver and Slater, it builds upon a sound theoretical theory, i.e. transaction cost
1990; Slater and Narver, 1995). Thus, it is necessary to economics (TCE). However, the acknowledgment of business
widen the research perspective, take the company with all its types is key for better explaining as well as understanding the
departments as well as its ecosystem into account and build wide variety of sales approaches as there is a fundamental
a model for “digital transformation” on theoretical grounds difference if a company sells copy machines, office supplies,
(Buttle et al., 2006). Only then, can we derive explicit power plants or high-tech components for the automobile
management recommendations for the digital industry. Already in the late 1970s/early 1980s researchers
transformation in sales, and thereby include the more developed the idea of business types (Backhaus and Guenter,
specific research on “sales profession” and “sales 1976) based on TCE (Williamson, 1975) and since then
professionals” again. researchers distinguish the following three business types with
With the following exploratory research study, we therefore respect to their degree of asset specificity (Backhaus and
aim for a more comprehensive approach capturing the Muehlfeld, 2005), i.e. to which degree the company can only
complexity and interdependencies of the sales processes, digital make use of its assets in a specific bilateral transaction context:
(sales) technologies and its ecosystem. the product business (low asset specificity);
601
the project business (medium asset specificity); and 3.2 Sample and data collection
the relational business (high asset specificity). Because of the width and breadth of the topic of “digital
transformation in sales,” we decided to conduct an exploratory
While in the product business companies produce
research study based on expert interviews. Therefore, the
standardized products in advance and wait for orders, which
authors used the methodology of key informant (Churchill,
are then primarily served from stock, companies active in the
1979), who is an expert source of information and has more
project business and the relational business only start producing
insights into specific topics than others because of its personal
their products after the negotiation has successfully been
skills or position within an organization. Using single key
completed, because these products are highly customized.
informants for each company, however, would not lead to
The main difference between the project business and the
relational business is that in the project business, it is a one- reliable and valid results as our own pre-study indicated. The
time project (e.g. building a bridge or a power plant), individual perspective on the transformation process varies
whereas in the relational business, the customer is served on significantly depending on the hierarchical level of the
a regular basis with the same product (e.g. component/ interviewed person. Trying to contain the problem of
system supplier in the automobile industry). The more “informant bias” (Bagozzi et al., 1991), triangulation
customized the company’s products are, the more dedicated (Rindfleisch et al., 2008; Van Bruggen et al., 2002) was applied
are its machine park, its human resources etc. to that to improve the accuracy of the key informant approach
transaction design – and thus the higher is its asset (Homburg et al., 2012). In the exploratory study, which took
specificity. As each of these business types requires a place from January to November 2017 in Germany, we
different sales approach for safeguarding against therefore interviewed 90 persons from 30 German medium-
opportunistic behavior (Williamson, 1975), the design of sized companies with an average annual turnover of e250m and
the five general sales process steps will change considerably. around 1,300 employees. Each company allowed us to
Consequently, the application of digital sales technologies interview three people, one managing director (MD)/member
as well as the design of the digital sales technologies’ of the board of management, one sales director (SD) and one
functions/features will also differ with respect to the chosen sales representative. We were thus able to make the results
business type. more comparable and meaningful. All interviews were
To allow a better comparison between the different business conducted personally or via telephone and took between 90
types, we applied in the research study a unified sales process in and 180 min.
all three cases, but asked the interviewed persons for an The expert interviews were only conducted by senior sales
individual evaluation of each sales process step (market analysis, management researchers. Based on a semi-standardized
selection of target customers and lead generation, negotiation, business questionnaire, the arguments and assessments of the
transaction and after sales) within the specific business type. In interviewees were documented in a written form and later
addition, the maximum digitization potential, the current degree analyzed using in-depth text analysis method. The text analysis
of digitization and the subsequent future digitization potential of was conducted by two independent researchers and their
each single sales process step was assessed. Based on these results were later compared to ensure correct comprehension.
considerations, the following four questions were asked for better After the analysis, the results were verified by the interviewees
understanding the differences between business types with in a separate follow-up-meeting.
respect to the digital transformation in sales:
4. Results of the exploratory research study
Q4. In which business type(s) are you active?
The results of the first research question regarding the
Q5. Assess the relevance of each sales process step within individual perception of the digital transformation process are
your business type (by distributing 100 points across all 5 rather interesting. Undisputed by all three hierarchical levels is
sales process steps). the fact that the main responsibility for the digital
transformation in sales lies with the MD – and that the MD
Q6. Given all activities within each sales process step, how is also the major driver of the whole process. While the MDs
much can be digitally processed (in percentage)? agree that besides the MD also the IT department as well as
marketing is driving the transformation process, SDs
Q7. How much of the sales process steps’ activities have your acknowledge primarily their customers as well as the IT
company already digitized, which can be digitized at all department as additional drivers. The sales representatives,
(in percentage)? however, see the competitors as well as the marketing
Besides these aspects of individual perception of the department as the second and third top drivers.
transformation process as well as the relevance of the business Most interesting of course is the driver not mentioned as a
type, we also asked the interviewees in an open question for top driver: even though the topic of the research study was on
additional aspects, which were relevant from their point of view “digital transformation in sales” and it was explicitly stated to
to master the digital transformation in sales on an operational all interviewees, none of the three groups sees the SD as a top
level successfully. The final research question therefore is: driver in this process – not even the SDs themselves. It is
therefore not surprising that transformation projects in sales
Q8. Which aspect(s) do you think are also essential to master often lack the necessary momentum (Figure 1).
the digital transformation in sales on an operational level Regarding the barriers, the two leadership positions, the MD
successfully? as well as the SD, agreed fully on the two major barriers, i.e.
602
Figure 1 Top three drivers and barriers of digital transformation in sales from the perspective of different hierarchical levels
Top-3- Top-3-
Drivers Barriers
Managing Director 90% Time constraints 65%

Managing IT department 75% Know-how 39%
Director
Markeng department 54% Customers 39%

Sales Customers 64% Know-how 48%
Director
IT department 46% Processes 45%

Sales Competors 55% Customers 53%
Representave
Markeng department 46% Budget constraints 37%
time constraints as well as a lack of necessary digitization know- The results for the business-type related research questions
how. In this context, the third barrier of the SDs, who often see are explained exemplary for each sales process step shown in
their sales processes not properly defined and designed to Figure 2: as it becomes immediately evident in Figure 2, the
proceed with the digital transformation process is very sales process step “Market Analysis” has a much higher
important. Given these insights, the general hesitation of the relevance in the product business (20%) than in the project
SDs becomes thus more understandable. Interestingly, the SD business (5%) or the relational business (5%). This result can
thus raised similar concerns as other researchers (Buttle et al., be explained by the fact that the product business is
2006; Denner et al., 2018; Picot et al., 2008; Wright and characterized by focusing on a rather anonymous mass market
Donaldson, 2002), who agree that a proper process design will and that the customer is hardly involved in the product
be key for a successful digital transformation. development process. In contrast, the project business as well
The sales representative provide a very interesting viewpoint as as the relational business are much more focused on individual
they agree with the other two regarding time constraints and with customers – and the business transaction takes place in
the MD regarding customers, who often do not seem to be markets, which are rather small and manageable in size. As one
sufficiently prepared – or who are using different systems. SD of a tier-2 automobile supplier put it (following a relational
Instead, they see budget constraints as a major issue, but are fully business approach): “We got them [customers] all [. . .]! Why
convinced that the companies have the necessary know-how at do we need to do an extra market analysis?”
hand for transforming sales properly. This misperception is fatal: The maximum digitization potential of this sales process step
it highlights the sales representatives’ exaggerated trust in the is assumed by companies in the product business at around
companies’ leadership teams (and thus puts a lot of burden on 60% of the totally required activities of “Market Analysis.” In
them), and also the sales representatives’ lack of recognition of the case of the project business, companies assume a
their own responsibility in the whole transformation process and proportion of around 35% of all activities – and in the relational
of the necessity to acquire the missing digitization know-how business even below that, at around 20%. Asked for the current
themselves. digitization degree of the sales process step, the results are
Figure 2 Sales process step “Market Analysis” across all three business types
Product Business Project Business Relaonal Business
20% 5% 5%
Market
60% 35% 20%
Analysis
10% 15% 10%
Relevance of the Sales Process Step within the Sales Process of the selected Business Type
Explanaon:
max. Digizaon Potenal of the Sales Process Step
current Digizaon Degree of the Sales Process Step
Potenal for further Digizaon of the Sales Process Step
603
Figure 3 The complete sales process across all three business types
Product Business Project Business Relaonal Business
20% 5% 5%
Market
60% 35% 20%
Analysis
10% 15% 10%
30% 10% 5%
Selecon of
Target Customers & 70% 45% 85%
Lead Generaon
40% 30% 40%
10% 30% 35%
(Preparaon of) 90% 35% 25%

Negoaon
30% 50% 70%
20% 40% 50%
Processing of
40% 60% 20%
Business Transacon
80% 10% 90%
20% 15% 5%
Aer Sales 70% 50% 80%
30% 40% 60%
Relevance of the Sales Process Step within the Sales Process of the selected Business Type
Explanaon:
max. Digizaon Potenal of the Sales Process Step
current Digizaon Degree of the Sales Process Step
Potenal for further Digizaon of the Sales Process Step
rather similar across all business types – varying between 10 and attractive target customers and a proper lead generation. In
15%, i.e. much room for improvement is still given with respect contrast, the development and production of the service
to the digital transformation of this sales process step. offering in the project business only starts after signing the
An assessment of the complete sales process as shown in contract as it includes e.g. power plants, buildings or consulting
Figure 3 confirms in a rather convincing way the substantial services. A similar situation occurs in the relational business,
influence of the business type on the digital transformation in where companies only start their (joint) product development
business-to-business sales. The relevance of the individual sales process after signing the contract.
process steps as well as the maximal digitization degree deviate The digitization degrees of the different sales process steps
significantly between the three business types. While the show considerable differences across the business types, too.
selection of target customers and the generation of customer The highest value of up to 90% can be found in the “Processing
leads are of major importance for successful sales in the product of Business Transaction” in the relational business type.
business, the focus in the project business as well as the Because of close supplier–customer relationships in this
relational business lays on the processing of the business predominantly original equipment manufacturer business,
transaction. The different focuses can be explained because of companies are not only process-wise, but also (increasingly)
the business types’ characteristics: in the product business, the IT-wise closely interlinked with each other – and allow a
product already exists – and might already be in stock. An continuous stream and exchange of various data. In second
electronic order processing and a fast delivery process can easily place follows the product business also in the sales process step
be implemented; the more challenging task is the selection of “Processing of Business Transaction” with around 80%, which
604
can be explained by the use of electronic market places or other Another aspect raised in R8 concerns digital tools and
e-commerce tools. technologies. In this context, management boards feel like
An important result of the interviews is the insight that in “being caught in the fog.” Much is said about the great
many sales process steps, the “manual” or “analogue” sales potential for business by using digital technologies [for an
activities are still indispensable. Particularly the “(Preparation overview, see Singh et al. (2019) and Vial (2019)], but
of) Negotiation” as well as “Processing of Business researchers are still surprisingly silent about when to use which
Transaction” in the relational business show low digitalization digital tool and how it should be designed properly.
potential of just 25% or even 20%, respectively. Also, the high Considering that hundreds of alternative digital tools exist,
digitization degree in the “Processing of Business Transaction” management’s uncertainty in the context of business types is
at around 80% in the product business should not cover up the even more understandable.
fact that the process step’s digitalization potential is just at Closely related to the new digital tools and technologies is
around 40% – because of the (still) high degree of manual labor the aspect of key performance indicators (KPIs). Interviewees
in many warehouses such as at Amazon. repeatedly requested more information and ideas on KPIs,
Another essential outcome of the exploratory research was because new tools require new KPIs. Although a limited
the fact that many companies are not only following one (20%), amount of new KPIs are suggested in the literature
but sometimes two (47%) or even all three business types (Brynjolfsson and Kahin, 2002), hardly any of them have
(33%) at the same time. These situations are rather challenging been introduced so far. Instead, managers still follow “old-
for most small and medium-sized companies as they will try to school” KPIs, which might not be applicable anymore like
follow one standardized digitalization approach regarding their many years or even decades ago. Without suitable KPIs,
IT systems, which will cause severe problems in their business however, it will be very difficult to manage a company
processes – particularly with respect to their customers. As one properly in the digital era.
interviewee put it: “Digitization ranges in this process step from Given these uncertainties and misconceptions within the
20–80%.” Asking for the reason behind this variance, he companies, it is in fact not surprising that most medium-sized
explained that since the implementation of a CRM system, the companies are hesitant about their digital transformation in
product business is covered 80% digitally, while for the project sales. A clearer direction for the transformation process and
business, his colleagues have started to work again with paper more specific ideas are required to move forward faster and
and pencil as their old system was shut down after the CRM’s with more confidence. Based on the literature review and on
implementation and the new CRM system does not fit at all to the empirical findings, the authors develop a conceptual
transformation model, which will provide companies and its
the existing workflow of the project business. Therefore,
employees, on all hierarchical levels, proper guidance in the
companies with two and three business types will have to accept
process of digital transformation in sales.
the fact that each business type requires not only its own sales
process design, but also its own IT templates (Figure 4).
The issue of capacity building (Schilke et al., 2018; Teece, 5. Concept of the market-oriented transformation
2007; Teece, 2014), i.e. building up know-how concerning model
“digital transformation in sales,” played a major role in research For conceptualizing a market-oriented transformation model
question R8. Most companies felt helpless regarding the aspect properly, it is important to understand that a company’s
of “data,” even though they are seen to be key in mastering the ecosystem is deterministic for its value creation process – and
digital transformation (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018). Neither thus also for digital transformation: while in the 1970s a more
do they really feel prepared to collect the correct data, nor do transactional perspective on business transactions dominated
they know how to properly analyze and later use these data, (Bagozzi, 1974; Kotler, 1972; Hunt, 1983), leading researchers
results which are confirmed by similar research studies (Wright took on a more relational perspective in the late 1980s/early
and Donaldson, 2002). In this context, the topic of MI, 1990s (Bagozzi, 1994; Kotler, 1997; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
complementary to the more internally oriented business The change in research direction culminated in a rich stream of
intelligence systems currently set up in most companies based relationship marketing research (Day and Montgomery, 1999;
on their finance and accounting data, came up very frequently, Grönroos, 1994; Gummesson, 1994; Sheth and Parvatiyar,
although none of the interviewed companies had any idea what 1995). However, even the bilateral relationship perspective did
a comprehensive MI should look like. Despite the awareness of not seem to suffice as companies became increasingly unable to
the relevance of MI systems, companies are rather inactive create and deliver all the customer value by themselves, because
regarding this topic, most probably because of insufficient of the growing complexity of their products. The research focus
knowledge of how to develop and implement it. therefore shifted to value creation networks (Achrol, 1997;
Figure 4 Companies doing business in one or more business types
One 20%
Number of Two 47%
Business Types
Three 33%
605
Achrol and Kotler, 1999; de Man, 2004; Möller and Rajala, the transformation model starts out on the basis of the
2007). But again, it appears necessary to extend researchers’ company’s existing business and resources.
perspective as digital technologies span not only across Derived from the insights of the interviews, “people,”
company and network boundaries, but increasingly also across “processes” and “data” constitute the core of the market-
industries and affect various other stakeholders as well because oriented transformation model and have to be recognized as the
of the growing economic interdependencies. Thus, the network main success factors of digital transformation as they can be
perspective needs to be extended to the more comprehensive directly influenced by and are under the direct control of the
ecosystem perspective of value creation (Aarikka-Stenroos and management team.
Ritala, 2017) as neither company nor industry boundaries In accordance with the literature (Hess et al., 2016; Ross,
should constrain the process of (innovative) value creation for 2019), the research study’s findings back the key role of
the customer in times of digital transformation (Picot et al., “people” in the context of “digital transformation in sales” as
2008). Even though the company’s ecosystem consists of more well as the need for additional capacity building in
than its customers, partners and competitors, the authors transformational times (Schilke et al., 2018; Teece, 2014).
restricted their model to these three major stakeholders as they Thereby, the success factor “people” includes the company’s
are constituent for the required market-oriented perspective management, its employees and the range of competencies
(Day, 1994; Narver and Slater, 1990; Slater and Narver, 1995) across the company. Larger digital transformation projects will
within the company’s value-creation process (Anderson and only succeed if the company’s top management is actively
Narus, 1998; Slater, 1997; Woodruff, 1997) as well as to keep involved and explicitly supports these projects (Ross, 2019),
the market-oriented transformation model simple.
which was already recognized by the interviewed MDs.
Whereas customers, partners and competitors represent the
Understanding, accepting and taking on their leadership role
company’s ecosystem and thus its external framework, the
becomes even more important as the employees’ trust in their
business model, the business type as well as the company’s
MDs’ digitization capabilities and know-how is surprisingly
resources constitute its internal framework (Figure 5). Since
high. At the same time it is reasonable: the whole
Abell’s (1980) approach of defining the business, the strategic
transformation process is about changing existing workflows
importance of defining the relevant market and thus of the
company’s business model (Tikkanen et al., 2005) is (fundamentally), eliminating traditional sales tasks or even
undisputed in the marketing and sales literature. It has been implementing new business models to become a more market-
explained in detail before that a company in business-to- oriented corporation. Therefore, employees need to have faith,
business markets can thereby follow up to three different that the transformation process will succeed and that in the
business types (Backhaus and Guenter, 1976; Backhaus and long run they will also be part of the organization despite these
Muehlfeld, 2005) in delivering customer value (using many fundamental changes; otherwise, the evolving job uncertainty
more sales channels). Its resource endowment determines the would result in negative employee motivation. Another vital
company’s scale and scope as well as its management flexibility. aspect in this context is the development of digital
For complexity reasons, the authors assume the business competencies at all levels [see also the discussion in Vial
model, the business type as well as the company’s resources as (2019)], especially dealing with data. More professional,
given. Even though we see enormous opportunities for new market-oriented data management will be indispensable for the
business models built upon evolving digital technologies as well company’s survival, which requires knowledge about searching,
as “Big Data” (Loebbecke and Picot, 2015), we assume that collecting and processing data as well as a stronger
collaboration and teamwork within the sales team, but also
across the company’s various departments. Major adaptations
Figure 5 The market-oriented transformation model
Customers
Business Model/Business Type/Resources

Competors
Partners
Processes People Data
IT Systems
606
in the company’s incentive structure will support the digital digital technologies do not deliver value by themselves, but can
transformation – following Chandler’s insight of “structure provide useful data or facilitate processes. Consequently,
follows strategy” (Chandler, 1962). companies should only decide on the structure of their IT
The second success factor “processes” is regularly systems, after they are clear about the design of their three
mentioned in the literature (Denner et al., 2018; Picot et al., success factors. Unfortunately, in most companies, it is the
2008), but does not receive the attention it deserves (Buttle other way around, but managers are afterwards taken by
et al., 2006). In his research on the most relevant factors surprise that their digital transformation project failed
influencing a successful CRM implementation, Buttle (2004) (Davenport and Westerman, 2018) and that their people show
identifies – besides people and technology – in particular strong resistance against the implied changes (Vial, 2019).
“processes.” In our interviews, particularly the SDs pointed the Even though the newly developed market-oriented
relevance of processes out and stressed the need to define them transformation model takes on a rather inclusive perspective by
much more in detail, before digital transformation should take describing a comprehensive external and internal framework as
place at all. They seem to have understood that the well as identifying three success factors for the digital
management focus must shift from a currently onedimensional, transformation process, a dynamic component, characteristic for a
department-oriented perspective toward a more customer- transformation process, is so far missing. In accordance with Kane
centric, cross-departmental and – in selected cases – even a (2017), companies should view digital transformation not simply
cross-company perspective (Storbacka et al., 2009). In future, as a project, but as a continuous process. Thereby, companies
thinking in terms of a corporate ecosystem has to become should not simply pass time, but reach higher development stages
natural during the digital transformation process, while process because of digital transformation. As “digital transformation”
mapping must primarily take place on the company level to implies primarily technological advancements supporting existing
avoid redundancies and inefficient processes (Steward et al., processes (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Vial, 2019), six technological
2019). Otherwise, the following three risks will arise: development stages can be distinguished in the context of digital
1 No proper review of whether the existing, analogue transformation in sales:
processes are contributing positively to the customers’ value 1 stage 0: manual (data held in an analogue format in diverse
proposition. Subsequently, a non-value-adding process will places);
be digitized at great expense, even though it is useless. 2 stage 1: digitization (availability of data in a digitized
2 Fail to recognize that many processes must be completely format);
re-designed. Because of the increasing use of digital 3 stage 2: data integration (possibility to integrate available
technologies entirely new and so far, unknown data in one data base);
opportunities can arise in the context of the human– 4 stage 3: process automation (processing of available data
machine interface (HMI). in automized procedures);
3 Process-relevant interfaces to other departments (e.g. 5 stage 4: system integration (usage of available data across
marketing, customer service or accounting) are not various IT systems); and
considered, which will imply limited productivity gains in 6 stage 5: AI (implementation and application of self-
sales, and thus lower than expected customer benefits. learning systems).
The third success factor “data” will culminate in a well- Stage 0 represents the classical situation in sales: customer and
functioning data integration as well as a powerful and efficient competitor data as well as internal data are available, but only in an
database (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000; Loebbecke and Picot, analogue format as well as widespread across the company. The
2015). Eventually, the mapping and digitization of processes chances to ever bring these data together and analyze them
depends on data availability and data quality (Lemon and systematically are nil because of prohibitive high costs. In stage 1,
Verhoef, 2016). Nowadays, digital technologies provide the available data are transformed from an analogue into a digital
potential access to a multitude of internal and external data format, which people and departments do individually, but do not
sources, which offer the great opportunity of analyzing markets, consider the difficulties of the diverse formats. The need to
customers and competitors more precisely than ever before integrate data is recognized in stage 2, where all formats are
(Tanner et al., 2005). Particularly customer requirements can standardized to allow for more systematic analyses by integrating
be identified more systematically, and the company’s product them – at least virtually – into one database. Based on these
portfolio adapted accordingly. Such a sophisticated MI system synchronized data, process automation can take place at stage 3,
supports especially high-expertise salespersons, who profit up i.e. simple, but repeating procedures can be taken over by digital
to four times as much as average salespersons from such a MI technologies to automate these routines. Because companies
system (Ko and Dennis, 2004). Consequently, more effort is operate various IT systems at the same time, it is of utmost
required in building up sophisticated MI systems, which importance that even these IT systems are enabled to exchange
require in-depth knowledge about data generation, data data and analytical results – if possible in real-time. Therefore, in
analysis and data preparation within the company – capabilities stage 4, system integration takes place and will allow for the first
that most of the interviewed companies still miss in the time comprehensive data analyses across the company or even
necessary quality and quantity. across company boundaries. The goal of most management
In contrast to the more technology-driven literature on boards is to achieve stage 5 by implementing AI. Although
digital transformation [for an overview, see Vial (2019)] as well currently still in its infancy (Singh et al., 2019), self-learning
as to Buttle’s (2004) key factors, we do not recognize systems will undoubtedly be the future and will take on a central
technology itself as success factor, but more as a facilitator. The role in sales.
607
Assessed from a productivity perspective, digital development stage. If this is not the case, digital transformation
transformation will only result in productivity gains from stage 3 will only take place on the lowest development stage of all three
onwards; stage 1 (digitization) and stage 2 (data integration) are success factors, which is often frustrating for management and
just basic requirements to enable the IT infrastructure to employees. Investing further in success factors, which are already
provide the necessary content for in-depth analyses (Figure 6). the most advanced ones, will therefore be a waste of resources
Productivity gains expected by researchers since the late (e.g. in the form of capital, time and/or management attention).
1970s (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 1998, 2000) because of the Instead, the company’s management should focus more on the
increasing use of digital technologies were exaggerated as these less-developed factor(s) for catching up fast with the already
development steps were neither considered in a systematic way more-developed factor(s).
nor across the whole company. Instead, most companies
worked primarily on digitization and process automation, but
were surprised about their limited productivity gains 6. Management implications
(Acemoglu et al., 2014; Davenport and Westerman, 2018). Implementing a proper digital transformation process poses a
What they did not recognize is that relevant aspects such as data challenging management task, but is essential to increase a
integration or system integration were not properly included in
company’s productivity. Various valuable management
their digitization strategies – and thus, the expected
implications can be derived from the presented research results as
productivity gains did not materialize.
well as the newly developed market-oriented transformation model:
Complementing the market-oriented transformation model Understand digital transformation as an evolving process:
with the dynamic perspective on digital transformation allows
companies to better understand, how the internal success Digital transformation is not a project, but a continuous
factors need to be designed in the respective development process. This requires a change of mindset in the companies’
stage. As Figure 7 shows, the range of people’s competencies, board of management as IT-related projects can no longer be
process designs or data requirements varies considerably with “just” outsourced to external service providers or delegated
respect to the technological development of the company. to the IT department. Personal involvement of the top
However, the individual suggestions in the matrix of Figure 7 management as well as a continuous supply of sufficient
are still subject to further refinement and empirical testing. human as well as financial resources will be required. Also, a
Taking the results of the empirical research study as well as the company’s digital transformation takes its time to pass
poor outcome of many digital transformation processes through all five development stages. As one MD put it: “In
(Acemoglu et al., 2014; Buttle et al., 2006; Davenport and digital transformation, there will be no short-cut.”
Westerman, 2018) into account, the market-oriented Create a company’s “Digital Transformation Masterplan”:
transformation model provides a new perspective and a
comprehensive explanation: for a company’s successful digital The management’s responsibilities are growing in the
transformation, it is of utmost importance that all three success digital era. Besides an increasing personal involvement in
factors are aligned with each other, even though this alignment the transformation process, particularly MDs, but also team
will not happen by chance, but needs to be managed. In most leaders need to provide better direction to their employees,
cases, the company’s recent competencies of these internal who are putting a lot of faith in their proper guidance.
factors are differently developed. For example, a company can Because of the expected fundamental changes within as
already work in the area of processes on an advanced “system well as across the company, an open communication of the
integration,” but its people are not sufficiently trained to use company’s digital strategies and operational measures in
these systems, or the data are not available in the required quality the form of a “Digital Transformation Masterplan” seem to
and/or format. Within the process of digital transformation, it is be advisable to keep employees and team members
however key that all categories are aligned with respect to their mentally “on board” with the transformation process.
Figure 6 Technology-oriented development stage in digital transformation and the resulting productivity effects
Development Stages of Digital Transformaon

Producvity Effects
Data Process System Self-Learning

Digizaon
Integraon Automaon Integraon Systems
1 2 3 4 5
608
Figure 7 Market-oriented transformation matrix
Data Process System Self-learing

Digizaon
Integraon Automaon Integraon Systems
know their processes ability to work in teams experts in their field of digital learning (e.g. WBT) specialist in IT
can handle simple IT programs willingness to change team worker digital interacon high ability to adapt
involve themselves in the comprehensive understanding understanding customer ability to solve problems tech translaon
digizaon process of “their” of market interdependencies requirements creavity agile working
data strong customer focus derive acvies from analyses self-reliant high self-confidence
People give gradually their analogue
data up
key account management
mentality
willingness to give up assigned
tasks and to take on new ones

complex data analyses
cross-departmental

agile organizaonal structure
very self-reliant
parcipates acvely in the data literacy global access to experts collaboraon entrepreneurial mentality
discussion about the next
owner of cross-departmental allocaon of coordinators disnct adaptability
digizaon steps high problem solving
processes chat-video-communicaon full support for digital competence
no silo mentality processes and procedures
isolated processes cross-departmental process valid & updated processes linking of automated processes self-learning processes
internal focus opmizaon clearly defined process owner cross-departmental and cross- Tracking and controlling of all
standard processes clearly defined interfaces emergency procedures in the company coordinaon and process changes
process adaptaons case of IT problems definion of processes connuous monitoring on
low process transparency
process transparency Clearly defined human- process integraon ethical compliance
first digized processes
Processes
machine-interfaces
Transparency regarding
intensive process opmizaon
(from customers’ perspecve)
automated processes
early-warning-system in the
case of disturbances
data are available in digital integraon of diverse data quality ensured clearly defined data strategy flow of data ensured
format databases data stability ensured connuous data controlling permanent data analysis
diverse data bases in use plaorms only homogenous data intense collaboraon with indicaon of anomalies
individually determined data unified data formats connuous error roune customers and partners special AI programs
formats interface definion (API´s) clearly communicated
well-ensured up-to-dateness IT equipment with sufficient
Data

systemac collecon of data
product- and departmental-

data cleansing
idea for a “centralized”
ensured data availability/ data
access
interface requirements (API´s)
IT security ensured
resources
oriented, but not customer- database (e.g. CRM system) Full compliance of data
fully data access granted
oriented data storage protecon regulaon
data protecon data protecon ensured
single sign-on
Focus management attention on the configuration and A major issue for the interviewed companies was a lacking
development of the success factors: knowledge of handling data. Even though data and information
have always been key to business success, digital technologies
During the development of our model, we focus primarily
provide nowadays more data sources, easier access to these data
on the three success factors and set the external and internal
sources as well as real-time data. By providing in-depth
framework constant, although the authors are aware that in
knowledge in data handling and turning them into meaningful
business practice, all components of the model are in
information, a company can build up sophisticated as well as
continuous flux. However, it is only an auxiliary structure to
integrated MI systems. The more comprehensive the insights on
reduce management complexity in the first place and to
the customers, competitors and markets are, the more likely are
facilitate companies in getting started with their digital
positive productivity effects – if MI systems are complemented
transformation process.
Regarding the configuration of the three success factors, the with excellent salespersons (Ko and Dennis, 2004).
Digital transformation is currently keeping all companies
management board has to ensure that they are designed in a
busy as processes, products, business models as well as human
market-oriented manner. As mentioned before, companies
will have to transform themselves into market-oriented behaviors are modified by digital technologies. Despite these
organizations – facilitated by sales and suitable digital changes, companies should not lose track of their most
technologies. important objective, i.e. generating profit.
The management boards’ main task will be to find out about
the current development stage of each of the three success 7. Theoretical contribution, limitations and future
factors and harmonize them accordingly. Otherwise, resources research directions
are wasted. As soon as the success factors have reached similar The newly developed market-oriented transformation model
development stages, managers have to advance them contributes to the already wide-ranging scientific discussion on
simultaneously. digital transformation and sales management in various ways:
Re-design business and sales processes: Currently available definitions on “digital transformation”
A specific focus should be put on the process design of are mainly technology-oriented, which is inadequate in a
companies. Besides the need to implement a more market- management and sales context. Based on a rather
oriented approach, all business and sales processes need to comprehensive literature review, a management-oriented
be re-designed. Existing, but also upcoming digital definition on “digital transformation” was derived, clarifying
technologies will require their conscious integration into the unit of analysis, the transformation’s scope, the means of
current processes. Thus, the number of HMIs will the transformation as well as the expected outcome.
significantly increase, but need to be purposefully handled The derived and conceptualized market-oriented
by the management to ensure as well as increase the transformation model captures, in a rather intuitive way,
company’s future competitiveness. This requires the external and internal framework of a company’s digital
considerable adaptations of “people” and “processes” as transformation process as well as provides with respect to
well as a flexible IT structure. the various technological development stages rather
Develop new data capabilities and build up an integrated MI specific recommendations regarding the management of
system: the three success factors. While the relevance of people as
609
well as the need to re-design processes in digital factor as well as testing and applying the whole model. In this
transformation are repeatedly discussed in the academic context, the comprehensive literature on dynamic capabilities
literature, data do not receive the necessary attention they (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018; Schilke et al., 2018; Teece,
deserve. Even though data’s contribution to a successful 2007, 2014) will provide interesting insights on the topic of
digital transformation is essential, existing models capacity building – with respect to the transformation process
concerned with digital transformation highlight instead in general as well as to the aspect of data handling. The
“technology” as a major success factor (Buttle, 2004). challenge of re-designing processes and especially the
However, in the course of this article, digital technologies organization and management of the newly created HMI
have been qualified with regard to their relevance in the require additional research attention. The increasing focus on
digital transformation process: although indispensable in mapping customer journeys and customer touchpoints
the transformation process, digital technologies just take (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016) is a promising step toward
on the role of a “facilitator” or a “sales enabler” rather transforming companies into more market-oriented
than providing value by themselves. The choice and organizations. However, the identification of customer
design of the digital technology thus depend primarily on touchpoints might also help in identifying as well as creating
the company’s framework and development stage of the valuable customer and market data. These data can support
success factors – not vice versa. building up sophisticated MI systems and thus turn digital
Even though theoretically based on TCE, the idea of tools into smart “business/sales enablers.” Also, the influence
business types has hardly resonated in the academic of the company’s ecosystem (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Aarikka-
literature outside Germany. This is surprising as the Stenroos and Ritala, 2017) and internal framework must be
concept of business types is rather intriguing and provides analyzed in further studies and how they impact the choice as
important insights regarding the proper design and well as the design of applied digital technologies. Another
management of the sales process. Developed almost 50 research focus should be on the development of new KPIs for
years ago, its validity has been empirically proven over and the newly applied digital technologies. Without them, a
over again as well as in the current research study. Because proper management process aiming for productivity gains
of its theoretical foundation, it meets the increasing will be impossible.
requests for more theory-based research (Buttle et al.,
2006). On top of this, it helps to understand and explain 8. Conclusion
the varieties as well as the sometimes contradicting
“Digital transformation” can currently be considered as one of
requirements on IT structure – not only within the same
the most researched topics in sales management. Contributing
company, but even within the same strategic business
to the growing number of scientific articles, the authors also
unit. Thus, our research demonstrates that various
conducted an exploratory research study on the current status-
approaches toward digital transformation are possible and
quo of “digital transformation in sales” in Germany. Based on
that an increasing number of served business types will
the results of 90 expert interviews in 30 medium-sized
subsequently increase the complexity of a company’s IT
companies, an evolving transformation model was inductively
structure.
derived trying to capture the most relevant success factors in
For the first time, the sales process steps were assessed
the context of digital transformation and trying to provide the
regarding their digitalization potential. Even though the
companies’ management boards proper direction for their
assessment is based on self-reporting data, it provides
transformation process.
some interesting insights: the results varied depending on
As the results of the research study clearly indicate, digital
the process steps as well as the business types, but also
transformation is a MD’s topic, which requires their full
highlighted that some activities within the sales process
management attention and support. In contrast to earlier days,
might be better handled manually – today as well as in the
digital transformation (in sales) cannot be considered a project
future. Even though the proportion of automized activities
anymore, but has to be recognized as a continuous
will most probably increase with respect to technological
transformation process keeping the company awake for the
progress, complex and customized business transactions
next decade(s).
will always require manual activities, because in these
Within this process, the company’s employees will play a
cases, it will be too costly to program new procedures or
significant role, because they will be the ones who have to
AI algorithms.
initiate and implement the transformation process. External
As the introduction of the market-oriented transformation help can only be a temporary solution, because if companies
model has made clear, the conceptual model itself cannot be think about establishing and maintaining (new) competitive
considered mature and requires considerable further advantages, the development of internal (digital)
refinement. Although the 90 interviews were conducted competencies will be required. For really achieving
individually and in one-to-one interview situations, it is substantial productivity gains, particularly the success factors
important to acknowledge that only 30 different companies “people,” “process” and “data” require increasing
were included in the study, i.e. interdependency effects might management attention and need to be developed in a
be possible. As the study took exclusively place in Germany, the harmonized manner across the various technological
studies limitations are fully evident. development stages. The development and alignment of the
Besides broadening the empirical base, particularly more three success factors will not be an easy management task, but
research has to be done in detailing the individual success essential for its company’s success.
610
Despite various limitations, the newly developed concept will generation of insights”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2,
contribute substantially to the scientific discussion of digital pp. 471-482.
transformation in sales as it provides for the first time a Bohlig, A. and Care, J. (1975), Mastering Technical Sales: The
comprehensive management model giving proper direction in Sales Engineer’s Handbook, 3rd ed., Artech House Publishers,
the context of “digital transformation in sales” for managers London.
and employees alike. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979), The Ecology of Human
Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. (1998), “Beyond the productivity
References paradox”, Communications of the Acm, Vol. 41 No. 8,
Aarikka-Stenroos, L. and Ritala, P. (2017), “Network pp. 49-55.
management in the era of ecosystems: systematic review and Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. (2000), “Beyond computation:
management framework”, Industrial Marketing Management, information technology, organizational transformation and
Vol. 67, pp. 23-36. business performance”, Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Abell, D.F. (1980), Defining the Business: The Starting Point of Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 23-48.
Strategic Planning, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Brynjolfsson, E. and Kahin, B. (2002), Understanding the
Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G. and Price, B. Digital Economy: Data, Tools, and Research, The MIT Press,
(2014), “Return of the Solow paradox? IT, productivity, and Cambridge, MA.
employment in US manufacturing”, American Economic Buttle, F. (2004), Customer Relationship Management: Concepts
Review, Vol. 104 No. 5, pp. 394-399. and Tools, Elsevier, Oxford.
Achrol, R.S. (1997), “Changes in the theory of Buttle, F., Ang, L. and Iriana, R. (2006), “Sales force
interorganizational relations in marketing: toward a network automation: review, critique, research agenda”, International
paradigm”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 213-231.
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 56-71. Cascio, R., Mariadoss, B.J. and Mouri, N. (2010), “The
Achrol, R.S. and Kotler, P. (1999), “Marketing in the network impact of management commitment alignment on
economy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 146-163. salespersons’ adoption of sales force automation
Agarwal, R., Guodong, G., DesRoches, C. and Jha, A.K. technologies: an empirical investigation”, Industrial
(2010), “The digital transformation of healthcare: current Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1088-1096.
status and the road ahead”, Information Systems Research, Chandler, A.D. (1962), Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 796-809. History of the American Industrial Enterprise, Beard Group Inc,
Ancillai, C., Terho, H., Cardinali, S. and Pascucci, F. (2019), Frederick, MD.
“Advancing social media driven sales research: establishing Chierici, R., Mazzucchelli, A., Garcia-Perez, A. and Vrontis,
conceptual foundations for B-to-B social selling”, Industrial D. (2019), “Transforming big data into knowledge: the role
Marketing Management, Vol. 82, pp. 293-308. of knowledge management practice”, Management Decision,
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1998), “Business marketing:
Vol. 57 No. 8, pp. 1902-1922.
understand what customers value”, Harvard Business Review,
Choa, S.D. and Chang, D.R. (2008), “Salesperson’s
November-December 1998, pp. 5-15.
innovation resistance and job satisfaction in intra-
Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A. and Narayandas, D. (2008),
organizational diffusion of sales force automation
“Business market management: understanding”, Creating,
technologies: the case of South Korea”, Industrial Marketing
and Delivering Value, 3rd ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River,
Management, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 841-847.
NJ.
Chowdhury, S., Haftor, D. and Pashkevich, N. (2018), “Smart
Backhaus, K. and Guenter, B. (1976), “A phase-differentiated
Product-Service systems (smart PSS) in industry firms: a
interaction approach to industrial marketing decisions”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 255-270. literature review”, Procedia CIRP 73 of 10th CIRP Conference
Backhaus, K. and Muehlfeld, K. (2005), “Strategy dynamics in on Industrial Product-Service Systems (IPS2), Linköping,
industrial marketing: a business types perspective”, Sweden, 29-31 May 2018, pp. 26-31.
Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 38-55. Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
Bagozzi, R.P. (1974), “Marketing as an organized behavioral measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing
system of exchange: a comprehensive and analytic structure Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
for interpreting behavior in marketing relationships”, Journal Cuevas, J.M., Donaldson, B. and Lemmens, R. (2015), Sales
of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 77-81. Management: strategy, Process and Practice, 4th ed., Red
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994), “Interactions in small groups: the social Globe Press, London.
relations model”, Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (Eds), Davenport, T.H. and Westerman, G. (2018), “Why so many
Relationship Marketing: Theory, Methods and Applications, high-profile digital transformations fail”, Harvard Business
Center of Relationship Marketing, Emory University, Review, Cambridge.
Atlanta, GA. Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4,
construct validity in organizational research”, Administrative pp. 37-52.
Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458. Day, G.S. and Montgomery, D.B. (1999), “Charting new
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman, directions for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63
N. (2013), “Digital business strategy: toward a next No. 4, pp. 3-13.
611
de Man, A.P. (2004), The Network Economy, Edward Elgar Hunt, S.D. and Duhan, D.F. (2002), “Competition in the
Publishing, Cheltenham. third millennium: efficiency or effectiveness?”, Journal of
Denner, M.-S., Püschel, L.C. and Röglinger, M. (2018), Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 97-102.
“How to exploit the digitalization potential of business Iansiti, M. and Lakhani, K.R. (2014), “Digital ubiquity: how
processes”, Business & Information Systems Engineering, connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business”,
Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 331-349. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92 No. 11.
Elia, G., Polimeno, G., Solazzo, G. and Passiante, G. (2020), Ingram, T.N., LaForge, R.W., Schwepker, C.H. and Williams,
“A multi-dimension framework for value creation through M.R. (2015), Sales Management: Analysis and Decision
big data”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 90, Article Making, 8th ed., Routledge, Abingdon.
in Press. Johnston, M.W. and Marshall, G.W. (2013), Sales Force
Ginzberg, M.J. (1981), “Early diagnosis of MIS Management, 11th ed., Routledge, Abingdon.
implementation failure: promising results and unanswered Kane, G.C. (2017), “Digital maturity, not digital
questions”, Management Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 459-478. transformation”, MIT Sloan Management Review, available
Gordon, R.J. (2016), Rise and Fall of American Growth – The at: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/digital-maturity-not-
U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War, Princeton digitaltransformation/, (published: 4th April 2017).
University Press, Princeton, NJ. Ko, D.-G. and Dennis, A.R. (2004), “Sales force automation
Grönroos, C. (1994), “Quo vadis, marketing? Toward a and sales performance: do experience and expertise matter?”,
relationship marketing paradigm”, Journal of Marketing Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, pp. 311-322.
Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 347-360. Kotler, P. (1972), “A generic concept of marketing”, Journal of
Guenzi, P. and Geiger, S. (2011), Sales Management: A Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 46-54.
Multinational Perspective, Red Globe Press, London. Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management – Analysis, Planning,
Gummesson, E. (1994), “Making relationship marketing Implementation and Control, 9th ed., Prentice Hall,
operational”, International Journal of Service Industry Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 5-20. Kumar, V. and Reinartz, W. (2016), “Creating enduring
Hajlia, N., Tajvidi, M., Gbadamosi, A. and Nadeem, W. customer value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 6,
(2020), “Understanding market agility for new product pp. 36-68.
success with big data analytics”, Industrial Marketing Kumar, B., Sharma, A., Vatavwala, S. and Kumar, C. (2020),
Management, Vol. 86, Article in Press. “Digital mediation in business-to-business marketing: a
Hallikainen, H., Savimäki, E. and Laukkanen, T. (2020), bibliometric analysis”, Industrial Marketing Management,
“Fostering B2B sales with customer big data analytics”, Vol. 85, Article in Press.
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 86, Article in Lamberton, C. and Stephen, A.T. (2016), “A thematic
press. exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing:
Helfat, C.E. and Raubitschek, R.S. (2018), “Dynamic and research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for
integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital future inquiry”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 6,
platform-based ecosystems”, Research Policy, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 146-172.
pp. 1391-1399. Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2016), “Understanding
Hess, T., Matt, S., Benlian, A. and Wiesböck, F. (2016), customer experience throughout the customer journey”,
“Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 69-96.
MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 123-139. Loebbecke, C. and Picot, A. (2015), “Reflections on societal
Hill, N.C. and Swenson, M.J. (1994), “Sales technology and business model transformation arising from digitization
applications: the impact of electronic data interchange on the and big data analytics: a research agenda”, The Journal of
sales function”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 149-157.
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 79-87. Majchrzak, A., Markus, M.L. and Wareham, J. (2016),
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2016), “Digitization of industrial work: “Designing for digital transformation: lessons for
development paths and prospects”, Journal for Labour Market information systems research from the study of ICT and
Research, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-14. societal challenges”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2,
Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Reimann, M. and Schilke, O. pp. 267-277.
(2012), “What drives key informant accuracy?”, Journal of Matt, C., Hess, T. and Benlian, A. (2015), “Digital
Marketing Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 594-608. transformation strategies”, Business & Information Systems
Honeycutt, E.D. (2005), “Technology improves sales Engineering, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 339-343.
performance – doesn’t it? An introduction to the special issue Möller, K. and Rajala, A. (2007), “Rise of strategic nets – new
on selling and sales technology”, Industrial Marketing modes of value creation”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 301-304. Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 895-908.
Honeycutt, E.D. (2002), “Sales management in the new Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
millennium: an introduction”, Industrial Marketing trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 555-558. Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Hunt, S.D. (1983), “General theories and the fundamental Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market
explananda of marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 orientation on business profitability”, Journal of Marketing,
No. 4, pp. 9-17. Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
612
Nunan, D., Sibai, O., Schivinski, B. and Christodoulides, G. Srivastava, R.K., Shervani, T.A. and Fahey, L. (1999),
(2018), “Reflections on ‘social media: influencing customer “Marketing, business processes, and shareholder value: an
satisfaction in B2B sales’ and a research agenda”, Industrial organizationally embedded view of marketing activities and
Marketing Management, Vol. 75, pp. 31-36. the discipline of marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63
Obal, M. and Lancioni, R.A. (2013), “Maximizing buyer- No. 4, pp. 168-179.
supplier relationships in the digital era: concept and research Steel, M., Dubelaar, C. and Ewing, M.T. (2013), “Developing
agenda”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, customized CRM projects: the role of industry norms,
pp. 851-854. organizational context and customer expectations on CRM
Pascucci, F., Ancillai, C. and Cardinali, S. (2018), “Exploring implementation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42
antecedents of social media usage in B2B: a systematic No. 8, pp. 1328-1344.
review”, Management Research Review, Vol. 41 No. 6, Stein, A., Smith, M.F. and Lancioni, R.A. (2013), “The
pp. 629-656. development and diffusion of customer relationship
Picot, A., Reichwald, R. and Wigand, R. (2008), Information, management (CRM) intelligence in business-to-business
Organization and Management, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg. environments”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S. and Moorman, C. No. 6, pp. 855-861.
(2008), “Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Steward, M.D., Narus, J.A., Roehm, M.L. and Ritz, W.
concepts, findings, and guidelines”, Journal of Marketing (2019), “From transactions to journeys and beyond: the
Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 261-279. evolution of B2B buying process modeling”, Industrial
Ritter, T. and Pedersen, C.L. (2020), “Digitization capability Marketing Management, Vol. 83, pp. 288-300.
and the digitalization of business models in business-to- Storbacka, K., Ryals, L., Davies, I. and Nenonen, S. (2009),
business firms: past, present, and future”, Industrial “The changing role of sales: viewing sales as a strategic,
Marketing Management, Vol. 86, pp. 180-190. cross-functional process”, European Journal of Marketing,
Ross, J. (2019), “Don’t confuse digital with digitization”, in: Vol. 43 Nos 7/8, pp. 890-906.
who wins in a digital world?: Strategies to make your Tabrizi, B., Lam, E., Girard, K. and Irvin, V. (2019), “Digital
transformation is not about technology”, Harvard Business
organization fit for the future”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Issue March 2019, Cambridge.
Review, pp. 3-7.
Tanner, J.F., Ahearne, M., Leigh, T.W., Mason, C.H. and
Saniee, I., Kamat, S., Prakash, S. and Weldon, M. (2017),
Moncrief, W.C. (2005), “CRM in sales-intensive
“Will productivity growth return in the new digital era? An
organizations: a review, and future directions”, Journal of
analysis of the potential impact on productivity of the fourth
Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
industrial revolution”, Bell Labs Technical Journal, Vol. 22,
pp. 169-180.
pp. 1-18.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the
Schilke, O., Hu, S. and Helfat, C.E. (2018), “Quo vadis,
nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise
dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13,
current state of knowledge and recommendations for future
pp. 1319-1350.
research”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 12 No. 1, Teece, D.J. (2014), “The foundations of enterprise
pp. 390-439. performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an
Shapiro, C. and Varian, H. (1999), Information Rules: A (economic) theory of firms”, Academy of Management
Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Harvard Business Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 328-352.
School Press, Boston, MA. Terho, H., Haas, A., Eggert, A. and Ulaga, W. (2012), “It’s
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “The evolution of almost like taking the sales out of selling’ – towards a
relationship marketing”, International Business Review, Vol. 4 conceptualization of value-based selling in business
No. 4, pp. 397-418. markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41 No. 1,
Singh, J., Flaherty, K., Sohi, R.S., Deeter-Schmelz, D., Habel, pp. 174-185.
J., Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., Malshe, A., Mullins, R. and Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J.-A., Parvinen, P. and Kallunki, J.-P.
Onyemah, V. (2019), “Sales profession and professionals in (2005), “Managerial cognition, action and the business
the age of digitization and artificial intelligence technologies: model of the firm”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 6,
concepts, priorities, and questions”, Journal of Personal pp. 789-809.
Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-21. Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006), “Value-based
Slater, S.F. (1997), “Developing a customer value-based differentiation in business relationships: gaining and
theory of marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing sustaining key supplier status”, Journal of Marketing,
Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 162-167. Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 119-136.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and Van Bruggen, G.H., Lilien, G.L. and Kacker, M. (2002),
the learning orientation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 “Informants in organizational marketing research: why
No. 3, pp. 63-74. use multiple informants and how to aggregate
Solow, R. (1987), “We’d better watch out”, New York Times responses”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 4,
Book Review, The New York Times, published: 12th July 1987. pp. 469-478.
Speier, C. and Venkatesh, V. (2002), “The hidden minefields Vial, G. (2019), “Understanding digital transformation: a
in the adoption of sales force automation technologies”, review and a research agenda”, The Journal of Strategic
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 98-111. Information Systems, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 118-144.
613
Wang, W.Y.C. and Wang, Y. (2020), “Analytics in the era of reviewing literature”, European Journal of Information
big data: the digital transformations and value creation in Systems, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
industrial marketing”, Industrial Marketing Management, Woodruff, R.W. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for
Article in Press. competitive advantage”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Wang, Y., Rod, M., Ji, S. and Deng, Q. (2017), “Social media Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-153.
capability in B2B marketing: toward a definition and a Wotruba, T.R. (1981), Sales Management: Concepts, Practice
research model”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, and Cases, Goodyear Publishing Co.
Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1125-1135. Wright, G. and Donaldson, B. (2002), “Sales information
Westerman, G., Calméjane, C., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P. and systems in the UK financial services industry: an analysis of
McAfee, A. (2011), Digital Transformation: A Roadmap for sophistication of use and perceived barriers to adoption”,
Billion-Dollar Organizations, MIT Center for Digital Business International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 22
and Capgemini Consulting, Cambridge. No. 6, pp. 405-419.
Williamson, O.E. (1975), “Markets and hierarchies – analysis Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of
and antitrust implications”, London 1975. Work and Power, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Wirtz, J. and Ehret, M. (2017), “Capturing value in the service
economy”, Journal of Service Management Research, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 22-38. Corresponding author
Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E. and Wilderom, C.P.M. Stefan Wengler can be contacted at: stefan.wengler@hof-
(2013), “Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously university.de
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
614

Mkt623 Pairing Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mkt623 Pairing Assignment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mkt623 Pairing Assignment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MARA

SABAH BRANCH, KOTA KINABALU CAMPUS

FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (HONS) MARKETING

SALES FORCE MANAGEMENT (MKT623)

PAIR ASSIGNMENT 1: ARTICLE REVIEW

1. NURRAIHANAH BINTI MOHD RALI (2019468486)

SIR MOHAMMAD FIRDAUS MOHAMAD

To begin with, the author's purpose is to give readers a better understanding of

Furthermore, the research question is developed by referring to past studies as the

The researchers discussed an important topic, as digital transformation is

In conclusion, this article addressed an important aspect of sales management.

Annesley, T. M. (2010). The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument. Clinical

Managing Director 90% Time constraints 65%

Managing Director 75% Time constraints 50%

Managing Director 79% Time constraints 78%

Product Business Project Business Relaonal Business

current Digizaon Degree of the Sales Process Step

Potenal for further Digizaon of the Sales Process Step

Product Business Project Business Relaonal Business

10% 30% 35%

(Preparaon of) 90% 35% 25%

20% 40% 50%

Aer Sales 70% 50% 80%

30% 40% 60%

current Digizaon Degree of the Sales Process Step

Potenal for further Digizaon of the Sales Process Step

Figure 4 Companies doing business in one or more business types

Figure 5 The market-oriented transformation model

Business Model/Business Type/Resources

Processes People Data

Development Stages of Digital Transformaon

Data Process System Self-Learning

Figure 7 Market-oriented transformation matrix

Data Process System Self-learing

You might also like