0019-8501/00/$–see front matterPII S0019-8501(00)00108-5

Industrial Marketing Management

29

, 317–326 (2000)© 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

A Framework for Analyzing

Interconnectedness of Relationships

Thomas Ritter

Relationships between organizations do not exist in isola-tion. Impacts of relationships on relationships are frequentlynoted but analytical tools to deconstruct this connectednessare still missing. In this paper the effects of inter-organiza-tional relationships on other inter-organizational relationshipsare analyzed in detail. A framework is developed which can beused as a tool to analyze interconnections in business networks.Some established managerial tools need to be revised to reflect in-terconnections between relationships. © 2000 Elsevier ScienceInc. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION

“No business is an island” [1]. Each firm is dependenton resources controlled by other firms. Thus, firms areinterdependent with each other through inter-organiza-tional relationships. A growing body of literature is deal-ing with describing, understanding and improving thoseinter-organizational relationships [2, 3].

Companies are not monogamous; they do not developonly one relationship with one other organization. “Eachcompany has a portfolio of buying and selling relation-ships in which it is enmeshed” [2]. Business markets be-come even more complex as “ . . . firms access resourcesnot only through suppliers and customers but alsothrough banks, shareholding institutions, government,distributors, consultants, associations, etc.” [4]. Thisleads to the notion that firms are part of a network of re-lationships.

Address correspondence to Dr. Thomas Ritter, School of Management,University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY United Kingdom. Tel.

1

44 (0)1225323319 Fax:

1

44 (0)1225 323902. e-mail: t.ritter@bath.ac.uk

318

Within those networks, relationships do not exist inde-pendent from each other—they are interconnected be-cause a given relationship does not only affect itself andthe two actors involved. A relationship may also have aneffect on other relationships. This has been called sec-ondary, indirect or network function of relationships [5,6]. The following examples illustrate interconnectednessof relationships:

•

System selling

: Within the process of system selling,heterogeneous contributions of more than one com-pany are brought together in order to provide a“complete” or “complex” solution to the customer.Taking computer systems as an example, hardware,software and installation as well as customizationsor adaptations will be offered in one package to thecustomer by different, but cooperating companies.

•

Combination advantages

: Combination advantagesoccur when companies allow access to, or pool, oneanother’s (homogenous) resources. By establishingthe Star Alliance, Air Canada, Lufthansa, SAS, Thai-Air, United Airlines and Varig were able to offer alarger variety of flights (through code sharing) and abetter ground service (through the joint use oflaunches and check-in facilities). The full potentialof this alliance was basically exploited by movingbeyond a dyad. We can observe the same logic inResearch & Development consortia where develop-ment projects can only be started when several com-panies commit resources to the project.

•

Exclusive rights

: The logic of exclusive rights canonly be understood if there is a third party to be ex-cluded. With that, the existence of an exchange (or a

relationship) between two organizations excludesthe exchange between those organizations and others(at least in particular areas). After developing ananti-blocking system (ABS) for cars, Bosch wasselling this system exclusively to Mercedes-Benz fortwo years while other car manufacturers were leftwithout the system.

•

Mediation

: Companies can mediate inter-organiza-tional relationships through actively promoting therelationship initiation process between two compa-nies (e.g., the European Commission pays mediatorswhich initiate inter-organizational cooperationswithin the SPRINT network). Also suppliers mightwish to establish relationships among their custom-ers and the customer’s customers in order to ensurethe supplier’s sales. Apart from those direct media-tions the reference function of a relationship cansupport other relationships.

•

Competition

: Competition can only be understoodwhen at least three parties are analyzed, in general,two parties competing for resources controlled by athird party. From a focal company’s perspective,competition can occur in different settings (e.g., pur-chasing a limited product, selling in a competitiveenvironment, or competing for technology or inno-vation partner).

•

Lobbyism

: Through lobbying, a group of actors triesto influence (political) decision making. Recent ex-amples include the U.S. tobacco industry and pro-ducers of genetic food. The European Program ES-PRIT (European Strategic Programme for Researchin Information Technology) is a result of the lobby-ism by major European information technologycompanies. Thus, the relationships between severalfirms affect the relationship(s) between these firmsand the European Commission.

•

Surety

: Like the previous examples, surety can onlybe understood by analyzing at least three parties. Inan industrial setting, a surety can be given by one ac-tor for enabling two other actors to do business to-gether. For example, newly founded companies

THOMAS RITTER is a Lecturer in Marketing at the School of Management, University of Bath, United Kingdom. He received his Ph.D. in Business Administration at the University of Karlsruhe, Germany. His publications and interests center on the management of inter-organizational relationships and

networks.

Relationships do not exist independent from

each other—they are interconnected.

319

sometimes face the situation that a customer de-mands a surety for the warranty because the cus-tomer is convinced about the company’s technologi-cal competence but unsure about the long-termfuture of the company.

The examples illustrate that interconnections betweenrelationships exist. Given the importance of interconnect-edness in understanding business networks, tools for ana-lyzing effects of relationships on relationships need to bedeveloped. Conceptually, interconnections between rela-tionships have so far been analyzed in terms of activitypatterns, web of actors and resource constellation [5, 6].However, these studies refer to the outcome of intercon-nectedness and not to interconnectedness itself [7, 8]. Buthow can we describe interconnectedness between rela-tionships? Can we distinguish different cases of intercon-nectedness?

In this paper, a framework is developed which enablesthe analysis and classification of interconnectedness bydiscussing different constellations of interconnected-ness. The next section is dedicated to the development ofthe framework. The remainder of the paper addressesmanagerial implications and further questions.

INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

In order to address the issue of interconnectedness be-tween relationships it is sufficient to analyze triads be-cause every greater system (the network) can be decon-structed into triads for analytic purposes and networkeffects can be demonstrated using only a triad [9–11].Therefore, we will discuss a triad consisting of a focal or-ganization (F), two other organizations (A) and (B), andtheir (possible) relationships (x), (y), and (z). The follow-ing picture, Figure 1, illustrates this exemplary triad.

“Two exchange relations are connected to the degreethat exchange in one relation is contingent upon ex-change (or nonexchange) in the other relation” [12]. In aninter-organizational relationship perspective, the defini-tion can be phrased as follows: “Relationships are con-nected when a given relationship affects or is affected by

what is going on in certain other relationships” [5]. Thisinterconnectedness between two relationships can bepositive or negative [8, 12, 13]. But it is also known that“ . . . not all the relationships are connected” [6]. Thus,the impact of one relationship (x) on another relationship(y) can have three different features (see also Figure 2):

1. Relationship (x) has no impact on relationship (y);i.e., the existence of relationship (y) is independentfrom the existence of relationship (x).

2. Relationship (x) has an overall positive impact on re-lationship (y); i.e., the existence of relationship (x) issupporting, enabling or even enforcing the existenceof relationship (y). This positive impact can be causedby learning or enabling effects (e.g., when a newproduct collaboratively developed between organiza-tion (F) and (A), is sold to the (B) organization).

3. Relationship (x) has an overall negative impact on re-lationship (y); i.e., the existence of relationship (x) ishindering, disabling or even excluding the existenceof relationship (y). This negative impact can becaused by resource limitations (e.g., when a companyis only able to have one partner in new product devel-opment due to exclusive rights or R&D budget con-straints).

The definition of interconnectedness points out an-other important characteristic of interconnectedness. Be-tween any two relationships (x) and (y) there can be anaffect of (x) on (y): “a relationship affects other relation-ships.” At the same time there can be an effect of (y) on(x): “a relationship is affected by other relationships.”Thus, there are two affects at the same time which needto be taken into consideration. With that, we can developsix different cases of interconnectedness between anytwo relationships (see Figure 3).

1

In the following, casesare explained by taking the perspective of the focal com-pany (F).

Interconnectedness can go both ways.

1

We concentrate on effects between two relationships (so-called serial triad[14]) in this first step. This does not imply that impacts with other relationships(especially the third relationship) do not exist. We will analyze those additionaleffects later. In Figure 3, all those cases are left out which only capture changeof labels and thus, are replications of the discussed cases.

320

1. No interconnectedness between two relationshipsexists when the two relationships are totally indepen-dent from each other. Assume that organization (F) isa university and two departments working in totallydifferent areas have both a relationship with an in-dustry collaborator. In such a case there is no effectbetween the relationships. This case is named “neu-trality effect.”

2. A one-sided positive effect between two relation-ships can occur when experiences made in one rela-tionship can be used in the other. Those synergiesmay be based on collaboratively developed productsand processes (e.g., selling a new product to othercustomers) or managerial experiences in managingbusiness relationships (e.g., the use of new commu-nication technologies). This case is also typical forthe reference function: through the existence of rela-tionship (x), relationship (y) is initiated or supportedbut without any reverse effect. In those cases we talkabout an “

assistance effect.

”3. If one relationship is hindering the other and there is

no impact in the opposite direction, there is a one-sided negative effect. We can imagine a situationwhere a customer tries to get exclusive rights of pur-chasing a certain product from the focal company (F)but the other customer is not interested in such rights.This situation can be labeled “

hindrance effect

.”

4. A two-way positive effect means that both relation-ships support or even necessitate or presuppose eachother. In the case of new product development, thecombined resources of the focal company (F), a sup-plier (A), and a customer (B) may be needed in orderto successfully complete a development project. Asan extreme situation one party can insist on the exist-ence of the other relationship (compare to the exam-ple of Surety in the previous section). We call thiscase a “

synergy effect.

”5. Between two relationships a positive and a negative

impact can coexist. Imagine a case where new prod-ucts are collaboratively developed within relation-ship (y) which are also sold to customer (A). At thesame time customer (A) insists on becoming the ex-clusive development partner, thus weakening rela-tionship (y). This case might seem to be very unsta-ble at first glance but when customer (A) has noother choice but to buy those products by the focalcompany, this case can survive a considerable time.Based on the fact that it is only the lack of alterna-tives which keeps relationship (x) existing, this caseis called “

lack effect

.”6. Two relationships can also weaken or even exclude

each other. As companies are limited in terms oftheir resources, each relationship and potential rela-tionship competes with every other one for resources

Ten different cases of interconnectedness

can be distinguished.

FIGURE 1. A triad.

321

(e.g., personnel, time, budgets). Another scenariowould be when several research and developmentpartners compete for exclusive rights. This case isnamed “

competition effect

.” In order to complete theanalysis of a triad we need to turn our attention to theimpact of two relationships (x) and (y) on a third one(z). Hereby, we will only look at additional effectsbecause the impacts between relationships (x) and(y) are already discussed. Also, impacts of relation-ship (z) on the relationships (x) and (y) will not beincluded in the discussion because those effects canbe explained by the above discussion through chang-ing the labeling for the relationships or the organiza-tions. In “unitary triads” [15], four additional effectscan be seen (see Figure 4):

7. Relationship (z) is neither affected by relationship(x) nor by relationship (y). This case would be possi-ble when all three actors collaboratively undertakeresearch and development activities but within everyrelationship a totally different and unrelated area iscovered. Or all three organizations buy and sell prod-ucts to each other but no one is a competitor to theother. To put it simply, the three relationships justcoexist with no impact on each other. We call this a“

unitary neutrality effect

.”8. If organization (F) is introducing company (A) and

company (B) to each other, then the two relation-ships (x) and (y) positively affect relationship (z).This case illustrates a situation when a focal com-pany makes a word-of-mouth reference for (A) to(B) and relationship (z) will be initiated as an effect.

Sometimes the European Union uses a list of ap-proved consultants which need to be contacted forapplications for certain funds, thus initiating a rela-tionship between the consultant and the applicant.Automobile manufacturers sometimes insist on col-laboration between their suppliers even though thesuppliers would prefer not to do so. This situation iscalled “

initiation effect

.”9. It is also possible that one relationship supports the

third relationship whereas the other relationshipweakens it. If company (A) is a retailer of the focalcompany’s products, then relationship (x) enables re-lationship (z). At the same time, the focal companymight wish to deal directly with this customer (B).Thus, relationship (b) weakens relationship (z). Thiscase is labeled “

by-pass effect

” because company (F)bypasses retailer (A).

10. Relationships (x) and (z) can both have a negativeimpact on relationship (z). Think about a situationwhen the focal company (F) forbids a direct contactbetween innovative customers (A) and (B) in orderto get original ideas from both sides. The ban on di-rect contacts forces the two organizations (A) and(B) to interact via (F) which introduces some kind ofhierarchy into the information flow. Therefore, thiscase is named “

hierarchy effect

.”

We see that an inter-organizational relationship canhinder, weaken, strengthen, or enforce another relationship.We were able to identify 10 different cases describing thepossible impacts among inter-organizational relationships.

FIGURE 2. Notation of the impact of relationship (x) on relationship (y).

322

“Generalized connectedness of business relationshipsimplies existence of an aggregate structure, a form of or-ganization we have chosen to qualify as a network” [5,also 12]. A company within such an industrial network“ . . . can be viewed as a node in an ever-changing patternof interactions” [15]. The following figure (Figure 5) il-

lustrates an industrial network as connected relationships[16]. Case studies have shown that in business networkswhole sequences of change can take place due to inter-connectedness. Changes in a relationship impact step-by-step into a wider network. This has been labeled “dominoeffects” [17].

A relationship’s performance can be

changed by managing other relationships.

FIGURE 3. Effects between two inter-organizational relationship.

323

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

Before we can develop some managerial implicationsit is important to stress that “ . . . it is a false picture to seea company as the master of its own destiny, building itsindependent strategy and trying to get favorable reactionfrom the market” [18]. Firms are dependent on whatother firms do. With that “ . . . both the consciousness ofthe actor and the random factor are integrated aspects ofthe network” [19]. But the existence of a random factordoes not mean that managers do not have to care abouttheir interconnected relationships.

The interconnectedness of relationships adds anotherdimension to the task of managing in business markets. Itmakes this task even more complex. “Nevertheless, de-spite this complexity, managers have to take decisionswithin relationships ...” [2]. “There is no ‘invisible hand’creating a situation of efficiency and health. Instead thereare several ‘visible hands’ that try to create situations thatare beneficial to themselves” [19]. The management ofrelationships can be seen as those “visible hands” withwhich a company tries to influence other actors and is in-fluenced at the same time.

Many phenomena in business markets can only be un-derstood when interconnections are taken into consider-ation. Therefore, a firm has to be aware of the effects of

its relationship with any one firm on its other relation-ships. Furthermore, a firm’s relationships can be influ-enced by relationships in which the firm is not directlyinvolved. Nevertheless, these interconnections are of par-amount importance for understanding business marketsand relationship profitability [7, 8]. We can even expandthis notion to the extent that the performance in a givenrelationship can be improved by managing other con-nected relationships.

This notion stresses the point that relationships cannotbe managed in isolation—a network approach is needed.I am not claiming “the death of the dyad.” A dyadic pointof view offers rich insights into the management of singlerelationships, e.g., the understanding of the developmentof relationships, trust, commitment, and adaptations. But,in addition, to analyze single relationships, we need tounderstand their interconnectedness. The developedframework guides the analysis of these interconnections.

The presented approach is a way of

looking into theblack-box of interconnectedness

by deconstruction of thegeneral notion of interconnectedness into different cases.This can guide decision makers to a more realistic pictureof their current situation. Analyzing interconnectednessalso forces managers to think about particular situationsand explain and justify their perception of the businessnetwork the company is embedded into. Sometimes in-

Network management can change

interconnectedness between relationships.

FIGURE 4. Effects of two inter-organizational relationships on a third relationship.

324

terconnectedness is overestimated (“We can never sellour products to (B) when we lose customer (A).”) with-out any kind of reason. But the more frequent situation isan underestimation of interconnectedness as companiesoften try to manage relationships in isolation.

There are no normative strategies to be developed withthe 10 cases, as the objectives of strategic action may dif-fer among companies. Sometimes the aim of a companyis to decrease the level of interconnectedness between re-lationships in order to be able to manage them in isola-tion from each other (e.g., when a company wishes to ter-minate a relationship with a particular partner, it mighttry to decrease the positive interconnections of this rela-tionship on others in order to prevent negative effectsfrom the termination on the other relationships). In othercases, companies might try to establish a positive inter-

connection in order to strengthen a particular relationshipeven when there is no rational reason for a positive impact(e.g., a manufacturer highlights product development resultsout of relationships with suppliers in order to strengthen acustomer relationship apart from the fact that this cus-tomer is not buying this new product). Thus, manipu-lation of interconnectedness between relationships be-comes an element of strategic network management.

In addition to the use of the framework, interconnec-tedness of relationships suggests the

modification of rela-tionship portfolio approaches

which were developed inthe past [20]. All approaches have their merits and offerguidance for decision makers but at the same time mostof the proposed approaches fall short in addressing inter-connectedness: relationships are placed in the matrixesisolated from each other. Given the possible interconnec-

Interconnectedness of relationships must be mirrored by interconnectedness of

internal units.

FIGURE 5. Illustration of an industrial network.

325

tions interpretation of those portfolios and strategy devel-opment are difficult because a very central element is notincluded. An effective solution would be to introduce theinterconnections into the portfolio by adding arrows intothe portfolios.

2

In Figure 6, two approaches [21, 22] areused.

These portfolios offer additional insights through theinclusion of interconnections. In the “carriage trade” or“partner” quadrant, we not only see two relationships (D)and (E) which are of high interest for the focal companybut we also have a potential problem indicated there—thenegative interconnection between the two. A possiblestrategy might be to reduce this interconnection in orderto be able to maintain both relationships. Taking also theenabling relationship (A) in the “bargaining basement” or“acquaintance” quadrant into consideration, relationship(E) appears more problematic because the company hasto maintain relationship (A) on a low netprice/low com-monality level. There might be a trade off between keep-ing those two positively interconnected relationships (A)and (E) and weaken relationship (D) or may terminate theacquaintance one (A) and may lose one partner (E). Atthis stage we can only illustrate the value of analyzing in-terconnects briefly. However, the benefits from modify-ing portfolios can be seen.

Finally,

organizational issues

arise out of intercon-nectedness. We know from empirical studies that teamsrather than individuals are involved in managing a singlerelationship [22]. This led to the notion that inter-depart-mental communication and cooperation are essential inorder to manage a single relationship. Interconnectednessadds another perspective to this issue: in order to capture,cope and manage interconnected relationships, informa-tion must flow inside the company. The network outsideneeds to be mirrored by the internal organizational de-sign. Companies are well advised to implement effectivecommunication structures, e.g., through new informationtechnology or through promoting information exchangebetween personnel. It has been shown that a high integra-tion of the internal communication structure, and theavailability of resources, are driving forces for the devel-opment of a company’s network competence which inturn leads to a higher degree of inter-organizational inter-action [16].

To summarize, three managerial implications can bederived. First, the developed framework should be usedin order to gain a better understanding of a firm’s inter-connected relationships. Second, portfolio approaches (aswell as other management tools) need to be modified toinclude interconnectedness of relationships. With that,those models can illustrate a particular situation more re-alistically and can be more effective in management ofnetworks. Third, companies need to design themselvesfor coping with interconnectedness in a way that they im-plement the preconditions for network competence.There is a need to shift from managing single relation-

FIGURE 6. Relationship portfolio including interconnections between relationships.

2

Even though customer and supplier portfolios are helpful to an extent, itcould be argued that portfolios were basically developed to vizualize unrelatedsubjects. Thus, the notion of interdependence is problematic in portfolios. Thiswould question the suitability of portfolios for rellationship analysis in general.The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewer for this insight.

326

ships toward analyzing, coping and managing a com-pany’s network as a whole.

OUTLOOK

In this paper, the interconnectedness of relationshipswas addressed. Although this issue has been widely rec-ognized, only a few attempts have been made in order toderive managerial implications. The paper tries to fill inthis gap by developing a framework for structuring andanalyzing relationship interconnectedness. The frame-work allows a manager to analyze the “black-box” of in-terconnectedness. Further research is needed in order todevelop managerial tools which could help alliance man-agers and relationship promoters [24] in their decisionmaking. The potential benefits of inclusion of intercon-nectedness were briefly outlined in this paper. However,this is a conceptual paper and awaits empirical tests. Theproposed framework needs to be tested in firms and ad-justments may be necessary.

The developed 10 cases are drawn upon from a staticbackground since the time dimension is missing. If the timedimension is added, additional effects can be analyzed[25]. This leads into the field of network dynamics. Mostcompanies operate in a changing environment and thereis a need to manage change within and through relation-ships. It is a challenging topic to analyze the developmentsof interconnectedness between relationships over time.

REFERENCES

1. Håkasson, Håkan, and Snehota, Ivan: No Business is an Island: The Net-work Concept of Business Strategy.

Scandinavian Journal of ManagementStudies

4,

187–200 (1989).

2. Ford, David:

Understanding Business Markets, 2nd edition

. The DrydenPress, London, 1997.

3. Gemünden, Hans Georg: The Development of IMP—An Analysis of theConference Proceeding 1984–96, in

Relationships and Networks in Inter-national Markets

, Hans Georg Gemünden, Thomas Ritter and AchimWalter, eds., Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford, 1997.

4. Easton, Geoff: Industrial Networks: A Review, in

Industrial Networks: ANew View of Reality

, Björn Axelsson and Geoff Easton, eds., Routledge,London & New York, 1992.

5. Håkansson, Håkan and Snehota, Ivan:

Developing Relationships in Busi-ness Networks

. International Thomson Press, Boston, 1995.

6. Laage-Hellman, Jens: Relationship Effects in Industrial Networks, in

Interaction, Relationships and Networks in Business Markets

, FlorenceMazet, Robert Salle and Jean-Paul Valla, eds., Proceedings of the 13

th

Conference on Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, Lyon, France, 1997.

7. Blankenburg Holm, Désirée, Eriksson, Kent and Johanson, Jan: Business

Networks and Cooperation in International Business Relationships.

Jour-nal of International Business Studies

27(5)

, 1033–1053 (1996).

8. Blankenburg, Désirée and Johanson, Jan: Managing Network Connectionsin International Business.

Scandinavian International Business Review

1(1),

5–19 (1992).

9. Hummel, Hans J., and Sodeur, Wolfgang: Triaden- und Triplettzenzus alsMittel der Strukturbeschreibung, in

Techniken der empirischen Sozialfor-schung, Band 1: Methoden der Netzwerkanalyse

, Jürgen van Koolwijk andMaria Wieken-Mayser, eds., Oldenbourg Verlag, München, 1987.

10. Kappelhoff, Peter: Die Triade als System dichotomer Variablen, in

Tech-niken der empirischen Sozialforschung, Band 1: Methoden der Netzwer-kanalyse

, Jürgen van Koolwijk and Maria Wieken-Mayser, eds.,Oldenbourg Verlag, München, 1987.

11. Smith, P. C., and Laage-Hellman, Jens: Small Group Analysis in IndustrialNetworks, in

Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality

, Björn Axelssonand Geoff Easton, eds., Routledge, London & New York, 1992.

12. Cook, Caren S., and Emerson, Richard M.: Power, Equity and Commit-ment in Exchange Networks,

American Sociological Review

43,

721–739(1978).

13. Anderson, James C., Håkansson, Håkan, and Johanson, Jan: Dyadic Busi-ness Relationships within a Business Network Context.

Journal of Mar-keting

58(4),

1–15 (1994).

14. Havila, Virpi: International Business-Relationship Triads: A Study of theChanging Role of the Intermediating Actor. Uppsala University, Uppsala,Sweden (1996).

15. Ford, David, Håkansson, Håkan, and Johanson, Jan: How Do CompaniesInteract?

Industrial Marketing and Purchasing

1(1),

25–41 (1986).

16. Ritter, Thomas: The Networking Company: Antecedents for Coping withRelationships and Networks Effectively.

Industrial Marketing Manage-ment

28,

467–479 (1999).

17. Hertz, Susanne: Domino Effects in International Networks.

Journal ofBusiness-to-Business Marketing

5(3),

3–31 (1998).

18. Ford, David, and Saren, Mike:

Technology Strategy for Business

. Interna-tional Thomson Business Press, London, 1996.

19. Håkansson, Håkan:

Industrial Technological Development: A NetworkApproach

. Croom Helm, London et al., 1987.

20. Turnbull, Peter, and Zolkiewski, Judy M.: Profibility in Customer Portfo-lio Planning, in

Understanding Business Markets, 2nd edition

. DavidFord, ed., The Dryden Press, London et al., 1997.

21. Shapiro, Benson P., Rangan, V. Kasturi, Moriarty, Rowland T., and RossE. B.: Manage Customers for Profits (Not Just Sales).

Harvard BusinessReview

65(5),

101–108 (1987).

22. Krapfel, Robert E. Jr., Salmond, Deborah, and Speakman, Robert: A Stra-tegic Approach to Managing Buyer–Seller Relationship.

European Jour-nal of Marketing

25(9),

22–37 (1991).

23. Helfert, Gabriele, and Vith, Katharina: Relationship Marketing Teams:Improving the Utilization of Customer Relationship Potentials Through aHigh Team Design Quality.

Industrial Marketing Management

28,

553–564 (1999).

24. Walter, Achim: Relationship Promoters: Driving Forces for Successful Cus-tomer Relationships.

Industrial Marketing Management

28,

537–551 (1999).

25. Wilkinson, Ian F., Easton, Geoff, and Hibbert, Brynn: On the Edge ofChaos II: Industrial Network Interpretation of Boolean Functions in NKModels, in

Interaction, Relationships and Networks in Business Markets

,Florence Mazet, Robert Salle and Jean-Paul Valla, eds., Proceedings of the13

th

Conference on Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP-Group), 4–6. September 1997, Lyon, (1997).