Table 1: Trustworthiness of the qualitative research process

Account portfolio definition

According to the case firms and the literature it is clear that selecting the right accounts for a SAMP portfolio is one of the keys to effectiveness (Woodburn and McDonald 2011). The opportunity costs of selecting the wrong accounts are considerable. Not only will the firm waste resources on the wrong account, but it may also lose the potential upside of deepening cooperation with a truly valuable account.

The case firms report that problems may arise if accounts are selected based only on a retrospective analysis, leading to increased resource allocations to accounts with a ‘brilliant past’. In account selection, firms should focus on indicators that depict the future performance potential of the account (Spencer 1999).

What makes a customer relationship strategic varies among the case firms, based on their strategy, competitive situation, structure of customer base, industry logic and geographical spread (Gosselin and Bauwen 2006; Homburg et al. 2002; McDonald et al. 1997; Piercy and Lane 2006; Workman et al. 2003). Strategic accounts are to be viewed as relationships that are of strategic importance both to firm and customer (Gosselin and Heene 2003), indicating that the collaborative element requires commitment also from the customer. This notion is echoed by research findings indicating that the configurational fit between firm and customer business models is a key variable to explain account management performance (Gosselin and Heene 2003; Homburg et al. 2002; Workman et al. 2003).

The final portfolio of accounts can, based on the interaction with the case firms, be analysed in terms of homogeneity, i.e. does the firm select customers that portray similar strategic characteristics, or does it acknowledge that customers can be valuable and strategic for many reasons? Yorke and Droussiotis (1994) suggest that a combination of customer share and customer perceived strength could be used to differentiate between accounts. Storbacka (2004, 2006) suggests that customers can be divided into capacity optimization, cash flow maintenance, and renewal and growth portfolios, based on their role in supporting the firm in improving its performance.

Based on the interaction it seems that managing the selection process can be more important than setting the selection criteria. The SAMP needs to establish a management process, on a programme level, that defines a goal for the number of strategic accounts it plans to manage, defines how to establish and apply the selection criteria, and defines a decision-making procedure.

The decision-making process relates both to selecting and de-selecting strategic accounts. As the account environment is dynamic and dependent on competitive action, accounts that have been viewed as strategic at one stage may later develop in ways that do not warrant the strategic account investment level. This raises two important questions: how often is the choice made, and who makes the decision? McDonald et al. (1997) suggest that it takes time to align and develop an account in such a way that its performance improves. A particularly important view advocated by several case firms is that the development work needs to be done according to a certain procedure that is driven by the annual planning process of the firm. In many cases, firms' decisions on selection and de-selection are taken once a year. A typical decision-making process is based on the executive committee making yearly decisions based on suggestions by the SAMP organization's analysis and consequent proposals.

Account business planning

The case firms view strategic account management as a long-term activity, building on resource allocations that should not be changed lightly or too frequently. SAMP could be viewed as an investment process, whereby the firm (and the customer) invests in their relationship in order to balance risks and return. There could, according to McDonald et al. (1997, p. 742), be a ten-year span from ‘identifying the attractiveness of an account to achieving the full potential of the relationship with that organization’. Decisions about such investments require an investment plan, called in this context an account business plan.

Based on the research we conclude that the plan and the planning process fulfil three roles. The account planning process is, first and foremost, a mechanism for enhancing organizational (Senge 1990) or network (Peters et al. 2010) learning by involving information acquisition, information dissemination and shared interpretation activities, often executed using a database that could be viewed as an organizational memory (Slater and Narver 1995). According to Abratt and Kelly (2002), the firms and the account teams need to acquire information that helps them to understand the customer and their main concerns, problems and strategic issues. The information and the conclusions drawn from it should be recorded in a database. The case firms report that the information acquisition is a team effort that crosses functional borders and involves top management.

Second, as all case firms establish, the account business plan is a tool to get commitment from firm management to assign the resources needed to develop the account in such a way that the identified potentials can be realized. Gosselin and Heene (2003) argue that in order to secure the performance of the account, a strategic account manager must be able to address all the existing competences of the company.

The third role relates to inter- and intra-organizational alignment. The case firms use the account business plan as a tool for communicating about the account's business internally in the firm, in order to create awareness and promote an account-oriented culture, and within the customer organization in order to stimulate demand (cf. Millman and Wilson 1999).

The plans discussed with the case firms typically cover issues such as description of the strategic account (business environment, technical environment), extant offering and relationship process, analysis of the relationship (customer's value-creating process, value capture, future business potential), resource allocation and responsibilities between account manager and team, opportunity articulation, monetary and operational goals, action plan (generic, common actions, account-specific actions) and a contact matrix (describing the contact patterns between firm team members and customer representatives).

The resource allocations, defined in the case firms' account business plans, can be divided into ‘P&L investments’ (i.e. cost allocations from increased activity levels) and ‘balance sheet investments’ (i.e. actions that are visible in the balance sheet and influence the level of capital invested in the account). Examples of account investments are sales projects, joint R&D projects, product, service or customer service process adaptations and customizations, financing of inventory, distribution channel financing, investments into business process alignment initiatives, marketing support to channel companies, discounting schemes, and opportunity costs for the resource allocations made.

A strategic account business plan should be firmly rooted in corporate strategy as it taps into the firm's strategic resources. The case firms report that hence the planning process needs to be connected to the yearly planning cycle of the corporation, given that such a cycle exists. Corporate planning needs to give its input to strategic account planning, specifically focusing on the goal setting for the strategic accounts, and conversely, strategic account planning should feed corporate planning with investment needs and ideas for new offerings.

Account-specific value proposition

Homburg et al. (2002), McDonald et al. (1997), Millman and Wilson (1999), Sengupta et al. (1997b), Sherman et al. (2003) and Wengler et al. (2006) show that the key difference between account selling and strategic account management is that the value proposition for the selected strategic customers is ‘special’, specific to the account and different from what other customers are being offered. Literature discusses issues such as ‘outsourcing of non-core processes’, ‘moving downstream in the value chain’, ‘transitioning from products to services’ and moving ‘from selling products to selling solutions’ (Auguste et al. 2006; Oliva and Kallenberg 2003; Wise and Baumgartner 1999).

According to Vargo and Lusch (2008), firms can only make value propositions: since value is always determined by the customer (value-in-use), it cannot be embedded through manufacturing (value-in-exchange). A value proposition is defined as the firm's suggestion to the customer on how its resources and capabilities, expressed as artifacts (goods, service, information and processual components, such as experiences), can enable the customer to create value (Flint and Mentzer 2006). Anderson et al. (2006) suggest that a firm should identify all benefits customers receive from the offering, identify the favourable points of difference, and pinpoint the one or two aspects of difference whose improvement will deliver the greatest value to the customer.

The idea of a value proposition relates to the discussion about solutions referring to the practice of integration or adaptation of firm processes to create a better fit with the customer's processes (Brady et al. 2004; Davies et al. 2006; Miller et al. 2002) and ‘systems selling’ (Millman 1996). Millman (p. 632) sees systems selling as ‘delivering a comprehensive “package” or “bundle” of product/service attributes and benefits to selected customers. The package may comprise both standardized and customized components; including hardware, software, installation, product/process know-how, maintenance, consultancy, training, etc., normally promoted to customers as a “total solution” from a single source.’

The case firms pinpoint that from an operations management point of view, a firm has to do trade-offs in relation to its strategy. Siggelkow (2002) argues that flexible manufacturing systems and wide product variety reinforce each other: the wider the product variety, the more valuable are investments in increasing the flexibility of the manufacturing system, and conversely, the more flexible the manufacturing system, the greater the benefit (i.e. the lower the cost) of increasing product variety. However, a firm has to choose between various dimensions of operational performance as no plant or operations system can provide superior performance in all dimensions simultaneously (Heikkilä and Holmström 2006). A typical trade-off that needs to be discussed is the trade-off between standardization and customization: an increase in product variation increases the average unit cost if operating policies remain unchanged.

In many case firms the outcome of standardization/differentiation optimization would be to find a balance between standardized modules and a capability to efficiently assemble different module combinations in order to customize account-specific offerings (cf. Böttcher and Klingner 2011; Raddats 2011). In order to make sales and marketing of solutions more effective, some firms make predefined combinations or solutions. These give the customer the possibility to select a suitable module combination which is close to the ready-made solution. Predefined solution configurations make sales easier because there is less need for tailoring.

Account management process

Abratt and Kelly (2002) argue that strategic accounts have complex needs and require individual attention through a carefully established relationship process. Millman and Wilson (1999) argue that strategic account management processes are ‘those activities, mechanisms and procedures which facilitate the effective management of [strategic] accounts’ (p. 328).

Based on the research, the account management process has four roles, which can be interpreted as process steps. First, the process aims at generating knowledge and disseminating a shared interpretation of this knowledge as a foundation for value creation. This is called ‘customer knowledge competence’ by Campbell (2003). Knowledge flows can, based on Gebert et al. (2003), be classified into three categories: (1) knowledge for customers, i.e. knowledge of products, markets and suppliers; (2) knowledge about customers, i.e. customer histories, connections, requirements, expectations and purchasing activity; and (3) knowledge from customers, i.e. knowledge gathered to sustain continuous improvement or new product development (Nicolajsen and Scupola 2011).

Several of the case firms had invested in processes aimed at supporting all these knowledge flows simultaneously and reciprocally. These processes are related to lead customer involvement and customer value research. Involving lead customers was viewed as essential for the success of account management, especially if the value proposition is complex and developing. By conducting customer value research the firms aimed at mapping the customers' processes, identifying business concerns and opportunities, and understanding what is valuable for them. A particularly important aspect was to focus on untapped needs or proactively sense customer expectation and specifications that are not expressed explicitly. Another key issue was to analyse the customer's situation as a part of the complete value chain or network.

Second, the process involves the sales process, whereby value propositions are turned into orders. According to Tuli et al. (2007, p. 14), ‘selling solutions is a complex exercise that involves the consideration of conflicting requirements of multiple stakeholders in a customer organization and sales cycles lasting up to two years'. For the case firms, sales and sales management were, therefore, mostly seen as a sub-activity (although an essential one) of strategic account management. The total account management process aims at ensuring continuous business and generating business opportunities. The role of the sales process is to cultivate the opportunities for orders.

Third, the role of the process is to secure the delivery of the agreed value proposition. Tuli et al. (2007) report that customers view a solution as a set of customer–supplier relational processes comprising customer requirement definition, customization and integration of goods and/or services, their deployment, and post-deployment customer support. This highlights the role of the strategic account manager as the champion of value creation and not only as the salesperson. It also pinpoints the need for ‘after-sales’ support in the form of various services (Kowalkowski et al. 2011).

For the case firms, the account management process begins by establishing a view on the encounters necessary in order to deliver the value proposition. These encounters will be handled by different functions and on different organizational levels. In addition, encounters may be carried out in different channels.

Fourth, the process builds relationship strength and longevity, by attaining goal congruence and systematically constructing bonds, consisting of mutual resource dependencies with relationship-specific resource allocations or investments (Sengupta et al. 1997a). Hui Shi et al. (2004) discuss this in terms of achieving configurational fit in a global account management context. There are two specific types of fit to be achieved: standardization fit refers to the supplier standardizing its products to match the standardization demand of the strategic account, while coordination fit refers to the extent to which value-adding activities are planned and executed interdependently in a coordinated manner.

The case firms see the symmetry of relationships in terms of power and resources as a central tenet in managing relationships with strategic customers. Reciprocity has been shown to be important in symmetric relationships. Demonstrating flexibility to the customer shows that the firm is not exploiting the customer's commitment and creates the infrastructure of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationships: i.e. trust (Ganesan 1994).

The role of personal relationships as social bonds was debated during the research process. The trend seems to be towards matched systems and processes (Sharma 2006) instead of purely personal relationships. One particular viewpoint that the case firms highlighted was top-management involvement, which grows in importance as the accounts become more strategic. Senn (2006) reports that Siemens is experiencing success using a top executive relationship process that aims at ‘orchestrating contact among customers and Siemens executives; obtaining executive support for the contact planning; establishing a consistent process for executive meetings and actions; and systematically managing information gained from the executive engagement’ (p. 29).

Account team profile and skills

McDonald et al. (1997) conclude that in order to coordinate day-to-day interaction under the umbrella of a long-term relationship, selling companies typically form dedicated teams headed up by a strategic account manager. The strategic account manager can be defined as the custodian of the strategic customer relationship, orchestrating the deployment of firm-wide resources to provide the delivery of the value proposition.

A strategic account manager is a role that can be characterized as boundary spanning (Singh 1993; Singh and Rhoads 1991) and as such characterized by issues related to autonomy, authority and consideration (i.e. levels of support from superiors, co-workers and customer representatives). Millman and Wilson (1999) refer to an account manager as a ‘political entrepreneur’, highlighting the strategic, business management and relational requirements.

The experience backgrounds, competences and skills needed to perform the task of a strategic account manager are far beyond those of a salesperson (Gosselin and Heene 2003). As McDonald et al. (1997, p. 748) state: ‘A key account manager needs far more skills than a sales person. In fact, it is misleading to consider it as merely an extension of a sales career.’ In order to manage across firm–customer, functional and cultural boundaries they have to have knowledge and/or experience from sales, marketing, business development, strategy, control and operations, as well as command high levels of authority and status in both their own company and the customer's organization (Cespedes et al. 1989).

According to Gosselin and Heene (2003), the strategic account manager ‘must be positioned and viewed in the company as a senior executive, responsible for participating in shaping the business strategy through his competence and knowledge of key customers’ (p. 25). The case firm interaction indicates that the strategic account manager needs the credibility of seniority to be able to convincingly discuss strategic and financial issues with the customer (and firm) top management. The strategic account manager has to have the willingness to develop the account on a long-term basis. They are not necessarily the best salesperson, or the one with the longest experience of the customer, but the one who is best positioned to improve the performance of the account.

The skill sets are, hence, very close to those of a general manager. McDonald et al. (1997) report that typical account manager skills would be integrity, product/service knowledge, communication skills, understanding the customer's business and business environment, and selling/negotiating skills. Sherman et al. (2003) refer to a specific skill set for the strategic account manager: the ability and willingness to take initiative, commit time and effort to ensure success, provide proactive assistance/support, develop technical competencies and train others. Capon (2001) defines and differentiates between business management skills, boundary-spanning and relational skills, leadership and team-building skills.

The skill sets required to successfully manage strategic accounts are varied and usually require a team of individuals – sometimes on both the firm and the customer side (Narus and Anderson (1995) refer to this as ‘group-on-group sales’). Weitz and Bradford (1999) argue that cross-functional teams are necessary because the individual salesperson does not cover all the facets of firm resources and competences, nor will they by themselves possess enough intra-firm influence to propose and implement value propositions that create competitive advantage. Increasingly, managing the strategic account is a team effort involving sales, marketing, operations, finance/control and logistics (Jones et al. 2005; Kempeners and van der Hart 1999).

The number of team members and the formalization of the team effort in the case firms vary, based on SAMP goals and characteristics, between formal and informal teams; they may even involve representatives from the customer organization. There is surprisingly little research on factors influencing the effectiveness of team selling, although most researchers argue for a shift of focus in the unit of analysis from the individual sales person to the selling team (Workman et al. 2003).

A central theme related to the role of a strategic account manager, identified in the interaction with the case firms, is their ability to deal with conflicts (Atanasova and Senn 2011) and influence people both within and outside the firm. If the team-building is informal, strategic account managers exert influence without any formal authority. Helsing et al. (2003) provide the following model for creating impact without authority: establish personal credibility, build internal network, create customer advocates, determine organization feasibility, apply influence skills and involve senior management. Cohen and Bradford (2005) have identified five different types of organizational currencies that can be exchanged as a basis for exerting influence: inspiration (providing inspirational visionary goals), task (providing support, resources, assistance and knowledge), position (providing possibilities to enhance career and become recognized by higher-ups), relationship (providing closeness, emotional backing) and personal (providing learning and creation of self-esteem).

Formal account teams may perform more effectively in more complex relationships where the value proposition requires both input from many functions in the firm and ability to change elements of the customer's business model and value-creating process. In formal team arrangements, team members need to allocate time that they devote to their account. Team members spend less time in front of the customer than the strategic account manager, but they ensure that everything happens smoothly in each encounter. As McDonald et al. (1997) conclude, the strategic ‘account manager conducts the orchestra’ (p. 753).

The findings from the case firms emphasize the difficulty in finding individuals with the necessary skill sets required for strategic account management. Many of them are increasingly recruiting strategic account managers who do not have a sales background. Experience of managing teams or business units is perceived as more important than sales experience. The team set-up varies greatly. Most of the case firms report more interest in defining formal rather than informal account teams. The reasons seem to concur with the suggestions of Jones et al. (2005): increased complexity of the firm's offering, the need for a richer set of information exchange between firm and customer, and the relative size and inherent risks of the account.

Support capabilities

There are several ‘sub-capabilities’ needed in strategic account management programmes. Already in the research project on national account management, launched by the Marketing Science Institute in the early 1980s, it became evident that account management is an organizational process and that the account managers need support systems. Shapiro and Moriarty (1984) suggest that certain parts of the organization, beyond account managers, need to be integrated: information systems, administration, field and technical service, logistics, manufacturing/operations management, application engineering, development and product engineering, finance, legal, control and marketing. Based on the interaction with the case firms it can be concluded that all of these are true also today. The level and content of support are dependent on the firm's strategy, the SAMP content and roles, and the dynamic of the industry.

Effective organizations are configurations of management practices which facilitate the development of knowledge that becomes the basis of competitive advantage (Day 2011; Slater and Narver 1995). Gosselin and Heene (2003) claim that a SAMP is involved in the process of building competences. Hence, the role of information processing and sharing is key for effectiveness (Birkinshaw et al. 2001), and technology can be a central tool (Sharma 2006) in terms of sales force automation or CRM systems that facilitate a common database and support tools for encounters.

Based on Day (1994, 2003) and Sharma (2006), it can be suggested that the creation of environmental (market sensing, technology monitoring) and competitive scanning processes is important as inputs to the account business planning process (focusing on ‘customer scanning’). The case firms argue that customers are often conservative. Hence, investing only in ‘customer listening processes’ may become a barrier against renewal and innovation. Customer insight, therefore, has to be matched with business intelligence. Day (1994) argues that there needs to be a matching of outside-in processes and inside-out processes of technology, manufacturing and logistics.

The interaction with the case firms identified two specific capabilities, which usually reside outside the account management teams, that the teams need to be able to access. First, support in value quantification and account performance monitoring from business controllers is needed in order to show to firm and customer that the account performs according to the role and goal definitions. Second, account teams may need extensive support in contract management from legal departments – especially in cross-national contexts, involving cross-legal structures and/or changing earnings logics (for instance, long-term service contracts) – to manage the long-term legal risks.

Account performance management

Building on Workman et al. (2003), strategic account management effectiveness is defined as the extent to which account performance improves. The underlying assumption is that relationship goals – such as development of trust, increased information sharing, reduction of conflicts and commitment to maintain the relationship – lead to positions of advantage (Day 1994) and this in turn leads to improved performance in the market, such as revenue growth, market share, customer satisfaction and retention of customers.

The argument by Ulaga (2003) that measurement of value creation in buyer–seller relationships is still in its infancy seems to fit with the empirical reality. Flint and Mentzer (2006) argue that customer business value can be viewed in several ways. Pardo et al. (2006) have identified three categories of value in an account management context: exchange value, which is the value originating in activities by the firm and being consumed by the customer; proprietary value, being created and consumed only by the firm (or the customer) as it creates and operates its account activities for its efficiency or effectiveness exclusively; and relational value, the co-produced value (for firm and customer) that emanates from being party to a relational constellation embedded in collaborative and cooperative activities.

Account performance is defined as the total value formed during the interaction between firm and customer over time. According to Storbacka and Nenonen (2009), an essential managerial aspect of account performance is to define how the value is shared between the firm (value capture) and the customer (value creation). Blois and Ramirez (2006) argue that although firms exist to help customers and organizations to create value, they do so only in order to capture part of that value for themselves. However, it is important to note that long-term value capture is not possible if the customer does not perceive that the relationship creates value to the customer. Value creation is hence a prerequisite for value capture (e.g. Gosselin and Bauwen 2006).

Storbacka and Nenonen (2009) suggest that value capture can be measured by the discounted present value of all future economic profit that the customer relationship generates, and this can be used as a proxy for the shareholder value creation. Economic profit defines the net operating profit after tax (NOPAT) and subtracts the cost of capital for the economic book value of firms' assets used in the customer relationship under analysis. Thus, the key components of economic profit on a dyad level are revenue from the relationship, total cost incurred by the relationship and the capital invested in the relationship.

The case firms report that as strategic account management is a long-term investment, it is of particular importance not to rely on retrospective (lagging) indicators of value but also take a longitudinal view (developments over periods of analysis) and identify prospective (leading) indicators. Examples of leading indicators used are customer acquisition cost, customer retention or turnover of customer base, number of long-term contracts, order backlog, communication efficiency, advance payments, receivables turnover, inventory turnover, invested capital, automation rate of repetitive core tasks, make/buy ratio of non-core tasks, sales funnel size and new product development.

A value proposition should also involve the process of quantifying the effect of applying the proposition to the customer's value-creating process. Sherman et al. (2003) report that firms that quantify the value they deliver to customers tend to be more successful in their strategic account management programmes. Anderson et al. (2006) suggest that, based on case evidence, value propositions must be distinctive, measurable (quantifiable in monetary terms) and sustainable for a significant period of time. The quantification of value can be done for each account-specific value proposition using ‘value word equations’ (i.e. demonstrating the logic by which a feature turns into a benefit and how this can be measured), or based on long-term evidence from similar accounts, using ‘value case histories’ (i.e. to demonstrate the value generated in previous situations and use these as references).

Organizational integration

For the case firms, a SAMP was above all an organizational challenge. Most organizations tend to have a structure focusing on product and geography. Adding the ‘third dimension’, i.e. the customer or account viewpoint, raises questions relating to efficiency, complexity and flexibility. Within a product-focused organizational structure, salespeople are essentially product specialists (Homburg et al. 2000). The idea of a SAMP is to enable account managers to build value by understanding and responding to concerns and opportunities that customers encounter. This may require the ability to assess the whole value chain, including customers' customers and possible end-users. According to the case firms, the difficulty of an account management organization stems from the fact that the strategic account manager (and his team) does not only act as a liaison, or coordinator, but rather as the ‘single point of contact’ for the customer, interpreting the customer's situation, making value propositions and ensuring that the promised value is delivered.

The research shows that a firm wanting to succeed with a SAMP needs to design its structure and management process in order to be responsive to the strategic customers. Strategic account management cannot be confined to the sales functions, but rather it crosses the boundaries between several functions, product areas, geographical areas and hierarchical levels (Storbacka et al. 2009). Hannan et al. (1996, p. 506) suggest that an organizational element is part of the ‘organizational core if changing it requires adjustments in most other features of the enterprise … coreness means connectedness, elements in the core are linked in complicated webs of relations with each other and with peripheral elements'. Based on the research, we suggest that a SAMP is a core element of the organization for the firm that chooses to implement it (Piercy 2010).

Strategic account management usually entails quite a lot of conflicts (Atanasova and Senn 2011) as there may be poor goal congruence both across functions in the firm and across organizational boundaries. Some of these cannot be solved structurally; instead management may need to focus less on solving conflicts and more on reconciliation of dilemmas (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998). What is required is contextual ambidexterity, defined by Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004, p. 209) as ‘the behavioural capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across an entire business unit’. Furthermore, Workman et al. (2003, p. 10) show that esprit de corps – defined as the ‘extent to which people involved in the management of [strategic] accounts feel obligated to common goals and to each other’ – is a key determinant of effectiveness.

The above analysis puts emphasis on the firm's top management (Workman et al. 2003). Based on the interaction with the case firms it is evident that strategic integration needs to happen in the executive committee. Senior management need to steer a balance between driving innovation together with customers and improving firm efficiency by standardizing, being centralized and decentralized, and focusing on short-term and long-term simultaneously (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004).

With a few exceptions (generally very large global accounts that are organized as separate business units), the case firms' SAMPs are structurally organized in some matrix with regard to the prevailing product and/or geographical structure. This creates a need for transparency – solving issues related to measurement, remuneration and management of strategic account managers is essential to succeed. The matrix leads to a situation where strategic account managers have a solid line to a specific business unit and a dotted line to the account (sometimes semi-formal) team. In addition, there usually is a dotted line to a SAMP office or a senior manager in charge of the SAMP. McDonald et al. (1997) claim there is need for a steering committee at top management level, where the strategic account team and functional teams can troubleshoot implementation. Gosselin and Heene (2003) claim that the strategic account manager must be a part of the firm's executive decision process. The case firms pinpoint that being part of the process may mean there are rules for escalation, i.e. when there is need to secure access to resources (such as production capacity) in order to deliver the value proposition promised to the strategic account, the account management team needs to have access to functional or business unit decision-making.

Alignment, configurational fit, equifinality and formalization

As the research aimed at developing an inclusive and comprehensive framework, the paper covers and summarizes a wide variety of literature pertinent to the adaptation of an effective SAMP. The discussion of the design elements illustrates the complexity of the task: alignment requires the simultaneous and cross-functional development of a multitude of capabilities and management practices.

A central contribution to the strategic account management literature, and specifically to the alignment issue, is the argument for a configurational approach. Miller (1996, p. 511) argues that ‘the fit among the elements of an organization may be evidenced by the degree to which strategy, structure and systems complement one another’. Elements are said to interact if the value of one element depends on the presence of the other element; to reinforce each other if the value of each element is increased by the presence of the other element; and to be independent if the value of an element is independent of the presence of another element. A firm with many elements that reinforce each other is said to have a high degree of internal fit (Siggelkow 2002). Creating a successful configuration implies that the core elements are reinforcing, such that the overall system is in a state of coherence or consistency (Siggelkow 2002), or as Miller and Friesen (1984, p. 21) argue, ‘configuration, in essence, means harmony’.

This is depicted in the framework (Figure 1) by the circle that illustrates that alignment starts with a clearly articulated raison d'être for the SAMP, and pinpoints the interconnectedness between all design elements: change of one element may require change of several others. Hence, the contribution of this research is not so much in the identification of any specific new aspect of strategic account management; the contribution centres on describing how effectiveness in a SAMP is achieved by securing configurational fit between the various design elements and management practices. The research suggests that the vulnerabilities and risks of strategic account management (Piercy and Lane 2006) can be decreased and controlled by creating a SAMP with high levels of configurational fit.

Homburg et al. (2002) report that several approaches to strategic account management are equally successful. This supports the argument often discussed in the configurational approach (Meyer et al. 1993; Miller 1996): the idea of equifinality. Equifinality implies that different configurations can be effective as long as they are configured in such a way that there is internal fit or congruence between the elements. The SAMP elements discussed in the paper are likely to be present in all configurations of programmes; elements will interact, be reinforcing and independent, but they will be configured differently in different contexts. As a result of the research method used in this paper, it was not possible to systematically compare the SAMP configurations of the participating case firms. Based on the interactions during the process it is clear, however, that the configurational set-ups were quite different, due not only to the development stage of the SAMP but also to differences in strategies and industry logics. This constitutes a very interesting area for further research, as discussed in the next section.

The research results can be viewed to contradict some of the earlier findings by Workman et al. (2003) on whether strategic account management needs to be formalized in order for it to be effective. Workman et al. (2003) define formalization as the ‘extent to which an organization has established policies and procedures for handling its most important set of customers' (p. 11). Surprisingly, they do not find a positive correlation between formalization and effectiveness and conclude that ‘activities and resources are more important than actors and formalization’ (p. 16).

Rather than a formalized programme they claim that firms need to do differential things for their strategic accounts, they need to do them proactively, and align their organization in order to provide the support needed to deliver on the promises made to strategic accounts. This prescription, however, easily sounds like a prescription of formalization – creating an interesting conflict in the interpretation of their research. They also conclude – in a footnote – that powerful, and maybe therefore not so profitable, customers demand highly formalized programmes and that this has had an impact on their empirical results.

Building on Wengler et al. (2006), this research suggests another explanation. Wengler et al. suggest that there is a difference between ‘strategic account management’ and ‘key/major account selling’ (cf. Piercy and Lane 2006; Sherman et al. 2003). If the organizations are focusing only on the latter, they often feel that there is no need for formalization outside the marketing/sales organization. As a SAMP requires cross-functional alignment, our research suggests that it benefits from a formalized configuration.

Further research avenues

There are several possible avenues for further research. First, the management practices identified can be developed into measures for a quantitative study, aimed at comparing capabilities and management practices between firms. This assessment should be combined with firm performance measures, in order to create more understanding of how effective SAMPs can support firm performance.

Second, more understanding should be created of different types of SAMP configurations; are there possibly generic configurations? This can be viewed as a limitation of the present research as it does not investigate how the differences in firm strategies, industry characteristics or business logics influence the configurational set-up of a SAMP. Several attempts have been made to classify strategic account management configurations. Millman and Wilson (1995) developed a typology for the different (life cycle) stages of development of strategic account relationships. This typology was developed by McDonald et al. (1997) and finally by McDonald and Woodburn (1999) into a continuum from exploratory to integrated. Piercy and Lane (2006) distinguish between major accounts and strategic accounts. Homburg et al. (2002) arrive at a taxonomy of eight approaches or configurations of [key] account management, ranging from ‘No KAM’ and ‘Country club KAM’, to ‘Cross-functional, dominant KAM’ and ‘Top-management KAM’. Gosselin and Bauwen (2006) have created a typology of accounts (transactional, captive, key and strategic accounts) and claim that there are only two types of relationships that will be possible in the long run: the partnership-based strategic accounts and transactional sales-based accounts. Arnold et al. (2001), Birkinshaw et al. (2001), Gosselin and Bauwen (2006), Harvey et al. (2003), Millman (1996), Montgomery and Yip (2000), Senn (1999), Wilson and Weilbaker (2004) and Yip and Madsen (1996) pinpoint the fact that the geographical dimension drives both intra- and inter-organization complexity, which warrants for the distinction between key account and global account management. Finally, Al-Hasan and Brennan (2009) argue that there are cultural issues to consider when applying key account management practices in developing countries.

In addition to the above proposed categorizations, efficient configurations of the SAMP elements can be dependent on a number of internal issues, for example whether the programme focuses on innovation and exploration or on efficiency and exploitation. Configurations can also be determined based on relationship characteristics such as customer buying behaviour (Bensaou 1999; Kaario et al. 2004; Kraljic 1983), customer asset management portfolios (Storbacka 2004, 2006) and relationship patterns (Anderson and Narus 1991; Ford et al. 2003).

Finally, configurations can also be determined based on industry characteristics and business logics. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) explore differences between moderately dynamic and high-velocity environments. The research process suggest that firms operating with an installed base of captive equipment (Oliva and Kallenberg 2003) adapt different configurations compared with process industry firms supplying offerings that function as inputs to the customer's manufacturing process.