Knowledge from Customers. Definition and Research Areas

377HANDEL WEWNĘTRZNY 2018;4(375):377-389 (tom I)

Przemysław TomczykAkademia Leona Koźmińskiego – Warszawa

Knowledge from Customers. Definition and Research Areas

Summary

Customers provide different types of value to a firm. They pay for products or services, they recommend, share with friends, and provide knowledge. The litera-ture recognises various value streams customers represent, but knowledge is not treated as one of them. Knowledge from customers is the knowledge customers possess that can be used to make marketing decisions. The purpose of this article is to define knowledge from customer and classify it by finding the most com-monly studied areas. Based on the two-dimensional analysis, including the type of offer (product or service) and the characteristics of knowledge from customers (to know, to use, to create), the results reveal that the mostly explored area is to create products or services, the attribute examined by 73.2% of the papers. This implies that the theory of how to create a product or service with a customer is highly developed. This allows us to focus on the theory of new product/ser-vice development to extend future research on the segmentation and valuation of knowledge from customer.

Key words: customer relationship management, customer knowledge, knowledge from customers.

JEL codes: D83, M31

Introduction

Knowledge from the Customer (KfC) is a part of Customer Knowledge, which consists of three elements: Knowledge about Customers (KaC), Knowledge for Customers (KfoC) and Knowledge from Customers (KfC) (Gebert, Geib, Kolbe, & Brenner, 2003). Knowledge about customers is the knowledge a firm possesses that can be used for marketing pur-poses, and is accumulated to understand customers’ motivations and needs and to address them in a personalized way, e.g. knowledge about customer characteristics and preferences (Davenport, Harris, & Kohli, 2001). Knowledge for customers is knowledge a firm has that can be transferred to its customers as an additional value component to satisfy custom-ers’ knowledge needs, e.g. through customer education (García-Murillo & Annabi, 2002). Knowledge from customers is knowledge residing in customers which can be valuable for marketing purposes but is not easily accessible for the firm, e.g. knowledge about how to use products/services or how to create/modify them. Knowledge from customers becomes knowledge about customers in terms of their preferences, and then can be treated as part of this knowledge. The purpose of this article is to define knowledge from customer and clas-sify it by finding the most commonly studied areas.

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 377 13.08.2018 12:25:00

KNOWLEDGE FROM CUSTOMERS. DEFINITION AND RESEARCH AREAS 378

Theoretical background

Various concepts have been discussed in the literature to describe aspects of KfC from different theoretical angles, but the differences among those perspectives are not always clear-cut.

Table 1Knowledge from customer (KfC) theories

L.p. Theory name Source

1 Prosumerism Toffler, 19802 Team-based co-learning (Gibbert, Leibold, & Probst, 2002a)3 Mutual innovation (E.A. Von Hippel, 1978)4 Communities of creation and joint IP/ownership (Gibbert et al., 2002a)5 Communities of creation Sawhney, Prandelli, 20006 Innovative users and users’ entrepreneurship (Abrell, Pihlajamaa, Kanto, vom Brocke, &

Uebernickel, 2016)7 Value co-creation (Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008)8 Lead user innovation E. von Hippel, 19869 Co-production Etgar, 2008

10 New product development Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft, & Singh, 201011 New service development Alam, 200212 Crowdsourcing Whitla, 200913 Open innovation (Enkel, Gassmann, & Chesbrough, 2009)14 Collaborative product development (Eslami & Lakemond, 2016)15 Customer competence (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000)

Source: own elaboration.

The above theories assume customers’ participation in creating value. Some of these the-ories focus on value creation for the firm, e.g. new product development or lead user innova-tion; for others, the applicable theory depends on the context, e.g. crowdsourcing. However, knowledge derived from the customer is not explicitly expressed; it is mostly implied and undefined. Although it is widely used, there is no clear overall KfC theory, which could be a starting point to valuate it and identify its antecedents and consequences.

The KfC range includes two main dimensions (Tomczyk, working paper). The first di-mension refers to KfC’s objective character, based on the division of goods into products and services. This allows for the capture of KfC’s contribution in the context of the core business activity. The second dimension reflects the way in which KfC can be manifested; i.e. as an ability to know, to use or to create the products or services. Both allow for the capture of research studies with all the forms of KfC engagement.

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 378 13.08.2018 12:25:00

PRZEMYSŁAW TOMCZYK 379

Table 2 Knowledge from customers (KfC) dimensions framework

Type of offer

Type of knowledgeProduct Service

to know Customers know the product Customers know the service to use Customers are able to use the product Customers are able to use the service

to create/to modify Customers are able to create/modify the product

Customers are able to create/modify the service

Source: as in Table 1.

To know the offer means that customers know the product or service category; they know the variety of existing brands, their logos, jingles and claims (Basu & Vitharana, 2009; Brucks, 1985, Kumar, 2013). To use the offer means customers are able to use the product/service (Ghosh, Dutta, & Stremersch, 2006; Rao & Monroe, 1988). To create the product or service means to participate at different levels in the creation or modification of that product or service (Fang, Palmatier, & Evans, 2008; Fuchs et al., 2011; Joshi & Sharma, 2004).

Knowledge from customers represents a stream of potential value for a firm that can be considered part of customer engagement value (CEV). CEV includes customer lifetime value (CLV), customer referral value (CRV) and customer influence value (CIV), whereas the latter two are usually combined into the concept of customer social value (CSV). While these three components have been analyzed extensively in research in recent years, customer knowledge value (CKV) has received no such attention. This entails a need to define KfC and to identify and analyze its typology to evaluate it in the future.

Methodology

The methodology of the paper is twofold. The first part allows us to identify the KfC definition, and the second enables us to delve more deeply into related highly explored re-search areas.

Both were done on the basis of a systematic literature review in which I searched through electronic databases (EBSCO Business Searching Interface, EMERALD Insight, ProQuest, ScienceDirect and JSTOR). Search terms used included: customer knowledge, customer knowledge management or customer knowledge value in the title, abstract and keywords. In addition, I scanned through the reference lists of the found articles.

I analyzed publication trends over the past 40 years (Tomczyk, working paper). The research includes 184 papers specifically devoted to KfC and 51 general papers that in-vestigate customer knowledge management (CKM). The papers were published between January 1977 and March 2017 and cover the different KfC theories presented above. There are 16 KfC definition terms out of those 235 papers, which include a definition or descrip-tion of KfC.

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 379 13.08.2018 12:25:00


To identify the highly explored research areas among different KfC papers, this study analyzed 137 empirical works. This resulted in the identification of 25 papers, the content of which was inappropriate; i.e. they did not deal with KfC, despite the fact that they met the systematic literature review keywords criteria. The balance of papers (112) qualified for further analysis. All of them met two proposed criteria (type of offer and type of knowl-edge) and were coded <1;0>, depending on whether the criterion option was present or not in a multiple-choice dimension, e.g. product – to create or service – to know – to use. This means that the first paper examines product creation/modification and the second examines service familiarity and the ability to use it. Two-step cluster analysis allows for the clustering of nominal variables (Rószkiewicz, 2011), so it was used to classify the papers. This resulted in clusters that can be presented in a two-dimensional matrix, based on the theoretical frame-work (see Table 2).

Results

A content analysis shows that two groups of definitions exist. The first (12 out of 16 papers) refers to knowledge from the customer as a general knowledge customers possess without defining knowledge itself (definitions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16). The sec-ond group (four out of 16 papers) defines knowledge as “information”, “thoughts”, “ideas” or “needs pattern” (2, 12, 14, 15). Both types seem insufficient, since the first group of definitions does not deal with knowledge itself, while the second group identifies “knowl-edge” with “information”, when the latter is the earlier stage of the former (Ackoff, 1989) or “thoughts”, “ideas” or “needs patterns”, which are ways of expressing knowledge or the result of its use (Garcia-Murillo & Annabi, 2002).

Knowledge possessed by customers refers to two elements that need to be defined – knowledge itself and its contribution. Based on the highly-cited, classic knowledge man-agement work by Davenport and Prusak1, “knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluat-ing and incorporating new experiences and information” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). So, knowledge here is defined by the prism of experience, information and context, which con-stitute its meaning. Since knowledge from customers exists within customers, it could be stated that knowledge from customers is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert insight. Knowledge exists within people and is a mixture of vari-ous elements, so it is difficult to operationalize. “To have knowledge” means “to know”, so knowledge from customers is all that customer knows and what can be extracted in different forms.

KfC manifests in various forms. The well-established classification includes knowledge of facts (know-what), skills (know-how) and causal relationships (know-why) (Garud, 1997),

1 21089 according to Google Scholar, 27.10.2017, which gives the work second place in GS ranking after I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi (1995) The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford (40,127 according to Google Scholar, 27.10.2017).

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 380 13.08.2018 12:25:00


supplemented by knowledge of people (know-who) and opinions (know-like), which en-riches the typology by the elements of people’s relationships and evaluation of the facts. The latter allows for the inclusion of the element of the customer’s experience by presenting the customer’s reflections on what he/she actually knows. This reflection, expressed in personal feelings, offers experience, the context of consumption, often plays a significant role in the modification of offers (Dobiegała-Korona, 2010).

The second part of the definition refers to the contribution of that knowledge. Desouza and Awazu state that KfC “(…) helps the firm to improve its products/services or design new products/services to better address customers” (Desouza & Awazu, 2005). It is easy to imagine that KfC contributes to the improvement of products/services to increase value for a firm. A overall definition of KfC would be:

Knowledge derived from customers is identifiable customer knowledge of facts (know-what) or skills (know-how) or causal relationships (know-why) or people (know-who) or opinions (know-like), which facilitates management decision making

This definition, which is more operational than the one by Davenport and Prusak, covers all the possible areas in which knowledge occurs (see Appendix 1). Identifiable means it can be obtained through observation, interviews or experiment. If knowledge is not observable, then it cannot be proved; therefore, from the scientific point of view, it does not exist. A firm can identify knowledge in one or more of the above activities. The non-exclusive disjunc-tion allows for the inclusion of all possible knowledge forms or limits the analysis to one. Decision making requirements determine the purpose of extracting knowledge to enhance value for a firm, which is consistent with the customer value theory standing behind the CEV concept (Kumar et al., 2010).

A two-step cluster analysis with silhouette measure of cohesion and separation > 0.5 identified three clusters of articles which reflect the most exploited research fields in the KfC domain.

The analysis revealed three clusters, where uses is the predictor that differentiates clus-ters to the highest extent, and “product” to the lowest. The first and largest cluster (47.3% of the papers) explores the product-creation field, where KfC supports the product-creation process and all the observations are create and product ones. The cluster purity (100% for both) and its share in the population indicate that the area of the product-creating process supported by customers has covered the biggest part of KfC research for 40 years. This re-flects the popularity of the concept of new product development, which focuses on custom-ers’ knowledge sharing in the promotion of new product development.

The second cluster (26.8%) includes articles where KfC concerns the use of products. It is not as explicitly identified as the first one (93,3% of the whole are use papers, and 70% are product ones) and reflects a research domain that is supported by prosumerism and value co-creation theory. The knowledge allows customers to use the product but does not provide new ideas for the firm.

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 381 13.08.2018 12:25:00


The third cluster (25.9%) explores the service-creation field, where KfC supports the service-creation process. Its size is similar to the second one, but is theoretically much closer to the first. It reflects the new service development concept and is clearly extracted (100% of papers for both service and create).

Table 4Knowledge from customer typology

Dimensions Product Service

to know Not identified with silhouette > 0.5 Not identified with silhouette > 0.5to use Product usage (26,8%; 30) Not identified with silhouette > 0.5to create/to modify Product creation (47,3%; 53) Service creation (25,9%; 29)


The results show that 73,2% of all KfC empirical papers concern new idea creation or the modification of current ideas. This means researchers focus on the creative aspect of KfC that contributes new ideas and supports the supply side of the market. I can call this approach classic. The demand side represents the uses-product dimension, which, consequently, rep-resents the non-classic approach, which concentrates on knowledge that does not refer to the creation of new ideas.

Table 3Two-step cluster analysis results


handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 382 13.08.2018 12:25:00


Conclusions and future recommendations

The aim of the article was to define and classify knowledge from customers. The analysis shows that the current definitions of KfC are not sufficient, and the literature does not cover all KfC dimensions. The newly created definition covers all the KfC aspects and is consist-ent with knowledge management theory. Three identified research areas indicate the direc-tion for future research. This does not mean that other research fields relating to knowing a product or a service do not exist. Rather, this means that these three identified clusters have strong enough theory to proceed with further research.

It is easy to observe that two criteria are not the only ones used to describe the KfC phe-nomenon. The literature shows that many different KfC-related categories can be used, such as tacit and explicit knowledge, social and individual, subjective and objective etc. The next step could be to deepen the above segmentation using additional criteria that allow for the operationalization of different KfC types such as to use – service – tacit or to create – prod-uct – explicit through a literature analysis and/or exploratory research.

Secondly, it would be interesting to identify a relationship between KfC dimensions and CLV determinants such as revenues derived from customer or customer cost. Observing whether a particular dimension of KfC affects the determinants would be a significant con-tribution to KfC theory.

Thirdly, KfC valuation could open a new CEV area. A multiple case study chosen on the basis of in-depth KfC segmentation could break through the wall of KfC value absence in the literature and ambiguity in business practice. This could create different CKV models for different KfC dimensions.

Finally, the above findings could help with CKV and CLV, CIV and CRV relationship identification. Additionally, there could be a need to create scales to operationalize CKV in terms of rough data inaccessibility.

Bibliography

Abrell T., Pihlajamaa M., Kanto L., vom Brocke J., Uebernickel F. (2016), The role of users and customers in digital innovation: Insights from B2B manufacturing firms, “Information & Mana-gement”, No. 53(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.12.005.

Aghamirian B., Dorri B., Aghamirian B. (2015), Customer Knowledge Management Application in Gaining Organization’s Competitive Advantage in Electronic Commerce, “Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research”, No. 10(1), http://search.proquest.com/docview/1617929235?accountid=48005 [access: 10.01.2018].

Alam I. (2002), An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service development, “Jour-nal of the Academy of Marketing Science”.

Basu A., Vitharana P. (2009), Impact of Customer Knowledge Heterogeneity on Bundling Strategy, “Marketing Science”, No. 28(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0445

Brucks M. (1985), The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior*, “Jour-nal of Consumer Research”, No. 12(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/209031

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 383 13.08.2018 12:25:00


Chen Y.-H., Su C.-T. (2006), A Kano-CKM model for customer knowledge discovery, “Total Quality Management & Business Excellence”, No. 17(5), http://10.0.4.56/14783360600588158 [access: 10.01.2018].

Daghfous A., Ashill N.J., Rod M.R. (2013), Transferring knowledge for organisational customers by knowledge intensive business service marketing firms: An exploratory study, “Marketing Intelli-gence & Planning, No.31(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501311324889

Davenport T.H., Harris J.G., Kohli A.K. (2001), How Do They Know Their Customers So Well?, “MIT Sloan Management Review”, No. 42(2), http://search.proquest.com/docview/224964028?accountid=48005 [access: 10.01.2018].

Davenport T., Prusak L. (1998), Working Knowledge How Organization Manage What They Know, “Harvard Business School Press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/348772.348775

Desouza K.C., Awazu Y. (2005), What do they Know?, “Business Strategy Review”, No. 16(1), http://10.0.4.87/j.0955-6419.2005.00351.x [access: 10.01.2018].

Enkel E., Gassmann O., Chesbrough H. (2009), Open R & D and open innovation : exploring the phenomenon, “R&D Management”, No. 39(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x

Eslami M.H., Lakemond N. (2016), Knowledge integration with customers in collaborative product development projects, “Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing”, No. 31(7), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2014-0099

Etgar M. (2008), A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process, “Journal of the Acade-my of Marketing Science”, No. 36(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0061-1

Fang E., Palmatier R.W., Evans K.R. (2008), Influence of customer participation on creating and sharing of new product value, “Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science”, No. 36(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0082-9

Fuchs C., Schreier M., Jong A. De, Huijgen C., Ates A., Bloemhof J., Wynstra F. (2011), Custo-mer empowerment in new product development, “Journal of Product Innovation Management”, No. 28.

Garcia-Murillo M., Annabi H. (2002), Customer knowledge management, “The Journal of the Opera-tional Research Society”, No. 53(8), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601365

Gebert H., Geib M., Kolbe L., Brenner W. (2003), Knowledge-enabled customer relationship mana-gement: integrating customer relationship management and knowledge management concepts, “Journal of Knowledge Management, NO. 7(5), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310505421

Ghosh M., Dutta S., Stremersch S. (2006), Customizing Complex Products: When Should the Vendor Take Control?, “Journal of Marketing Research”, No. 43(4).

Gibbert M., Leibold M., Probst G. (2002a), Five Styles of Customer Knowledge Management, and How Smart Companies Use Them To Create Value, “European Management Journal”, No. 20(5), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00101-9

Gibbert M., Leibold M., Probst G. (2002b), Five Styles of Customer Knowledge Management, and How Smart Companies Use Them To Create Value, “European Management Journal”, No. 20(5), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00101-9

Hamzah M.I., Othman A.K., Hassan F., Razak N.A., Yunus N.A.M. (2016), Conceptualizing a Sche-matic Grid View of Customer Knowledge from the Johari Window’s Perspective, The Fifth Inter-national Conference on Marketing and Retailing (5th INCOMaR), No. 37, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30154-X

Hippel E.A. Von. (1978), Has a Customer Already Developed Your Next Product?, “IEEE Engine-ering Management Review”, No. 6(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.1978.4306672

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 384 13.08.2018 12:25:00


Hoyer W.D., Chandy R., Dorotic M., Krafft M., Singh S.S. (2010), Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development, “Journal of Service Research”, No.13(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375604

Joshi A.W., Sharma S. (2004), Customer knowledge development: Antecendents and impact on new product performance, “Journal of Marketing”, No. 68(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.47.42722

Khankaew C., Ussahawanitichakit P., Raksong S. (2015), A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF AL-TERNATIVE MARKETING STRATEGY AND MARKETING OUTCOMES, “Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Marketing Studies. Proceedings”, No. 20(2).

Khodakarami F., Chan Y.E. (2014), Exploring the role of customer relationship management (CRM) systems in customer knowledge creation, “Information & Management”, No. 51(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.09.001

Kumar V., Aksoy L., Donkers B., Venkatesan R., Wiesel T., Tillmanns S. (2010), Undervalued or Overvalued Customers: Capturing Total Customer Engagement Value, “Journal of Service Rese-arch”, No. 13(3).

Peng J., Lawrence A., Koo T. (2009), Customer knowledge management in international project: a case study, “Journal of Technology Management in China”, No. 4(2), DOI: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17468770910965000

Prahalad C.K., Ramaswamy V. (2000), Co-Opting Customer Competence, “Harvard Business Re-view”, No. 78(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/250095

Rao A.R., Monroe K.B. (1988), The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations, “Journal of Consumer Research”, No. 15(2), DOI: https://doi.org/Doi 10.1086/209162

Rowley J. (2002), Eight questions for customer knowledge management in e-business, “Journal of Knowledge Management”, No. 6(5).

Su C.-T., Chen Y.-H., Sha D.Y. (2006), Linking innovative product development with customer know-ledge: a data-mining approach, “Technovation”, No. 26(7), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.05.005

Taherparvar N., Esmaeilpour R., Dostar M. (2014), Customer knowledge management, innovation ca-pability and business performance: a case study of the banking industry, “Journal of Knowledge Management”, No. 18(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2013-0446

Vargo S.L., Maglio P.P., Akaka M.A. (2008), On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective, “European Management Journal”, No. 26(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003

von Hippel E. (1986), Lead users: a source of novel product concepts, “Management Science”, No. 32(7), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Whitla P. (2009), Crowdsourcing and Its Application in Marketing Activities, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.cmr-journal.org/article/viewFile/1145/2641 [access: 10.01.2018].

Wu J., Guo B., Shi Y. (2013), Customer knowledge management and IT-enabled business model inno-vation: A conceptual framework and a case study from China, “European Management Journal”, No. 31(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.02.001

Zanjani M.S., Rouzbehani R., Dabbagh H. (2008), Proposing a Conceptual Model of Customer Knowledge Management: A Study of CKM Tools in British Dotcoms, “International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering”, Vol. 2.

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 385 13.08.2018 12:25:00

KNOWLEDGE FROM CUSTOMERS. DEFINITION AND RESEARCH AREAS 386Za

łącz

nik

1

Kno

wle

dge

from

cus

tom

er d

efini

tion

Sour

ce

1is

the

know

ledg

e th

e cu

stom

ers h

ave

abou

t pro

duct

s, su

pplie

rs a

nd m

arke

ts.

Agh

amiri

an, D

orri,

& A

gham

irian

, 201

5,

p. 6

52

Kno

wle

dge

from

cus

tom

ers

to u

nder

stan

d cu

stom

ers’

usag

e pa

ttern

s or

con

sum

ptio

n ex

peri

ence

s of

pr

oduc

ts o

r ser

vice

s.C

hen

& S

u, 2

006,

p. 5

92

3K

now

ledg

e fro

m c

usto

mer

s is k

now

ledg

e th

at c

an b

e ex

trac

ted

from

cus

tom

ers t

hrou

gh in

tera

ctio

n to

hi

ghlig

ht th

eir b

uyin

g ne

eds a

nd p

refe

renc

es.

Dag

hfou

s, A

shill

, & R

od, 2

013,

p.2

42

4(…

) the

know

ledg

e tha

t the

cust

omer

has

abo

ut is

sues

rela

ted

to th

e pro

duct

or s

ervi

ces h

e is i

nter

este

d in

buy

ing.

Gar

cia-

Mur

illo

& A

nnab

i, 20

02, p

. 876

5K

now

ledg

e fro

m c

usto

mer

s is

cus

tom

ers’

know

ledg

e of

pro

duct

s, su

pplie

rs a

nd m

arke

ts. T

hrou

gh

inte

ract

ions

with

cus

tom

ers,

this

kno

wle

dge

can

be g

athe

red

to su

stai

n co

ntin

uous

impr

ovem

ent,

e.g.

se

rvic

e im

prov

emen

ts o

r new

pro

duct

dev

elop

men

t.

Geb

ert,

Gei

b, K

olbe

, & B

renn

er, 2

003,

p.

109

in: (

Gar

cia-

Mur

illo

& A

nnab

i, 20

02, p

. 878

).6

(…) k

now

ledg

e re

sidi

ng in

cus

tom

ers.

In o

ther

wor

ds, s

mar

t com

pani

es re

aliz

e co

rpor

ate

cust

omer

s ar

e m

ore

know

ledg

eabl

e th

an o

ne m

ight

thi

nk, a

nd c

onse

quen

tly s

eek

know

ledg

e th

roug

h di

rect

in

tera

ctio

n w

ith c

usto

mer

s, in

add

ition

to

seek

ing

know

ledg

e ab

out

cust

omer

s fr

om t

heir

sale

s re

pres

enta

tives

.

Gib

bert,

Lei

bold

, & P

robs

t, 20

02, p

. 461

7K

now

ledg

e fro

m cu

stom

ers i

s cus

tom

ers’

know

ledg

e of t

he fi

rm’s

prod

ucts

and

the m

arke

t sur

roun

ding

.H

amza

h, O

thm

an, H

assa

n, R

azak

, &

Yunu

s, 20

16, p

. 472

.8

Kno

wle

dge

from

cus

tom

ers

is k

now

ledg

e ob

tain

ed f

rom

int

erac

tions

with

cus

tom

ers

rega

rdin

g pr

oduc

ts, m

arke

ts a

nd su

pplie

rs.

Kha

nkae

w, U

ssah

awan

itich

akit,

&

Rak

song

, 201

5, p

. 69

Kno

wle

dge

from

cus

tom

ers,

whi

ch is

the

know

ledg

e cu

stom

ers p

osse

ss th

at o

rgan

izat

ions

can

obt

ain

by in

tera

ctin

g w

ith th

em.

Kho

daka

ram

i & C

han,

201

4, p

. 27.

10 is

cus

tom

ers’

know

ledg

e of

pro

duct

s, su

pplie

rs a

nd m

arke

ts. K

now

ledg

e po

sses

sed

by c

usto

mer

s ab

out p

rodu

ct ra

nges

, suc

h as

com

patib

ility

bet

wee

n co

mpu

ter h

ardw

are

com

pone

nts,

and

abou

t the

w

ider

con

text

and

mar

ketp

lace

into

whi

ch p

rodu

cts a

nd se

rvic

es a

re d

eliv

ered

.

Peng

, Law

renc

e, &

Koo

, 200

9, p

. 146

.

11K

now

ledg

e po

sses

sed

by c

usto

mer

s ab

out p

rodu

ct r

ange

s, su

ch a

s co

mpa

tibili

ty b

etw

een

com

pute

r ha

rdw

are

com

pone

nts

or th

e effi

cacy

of s

peci

fic d

rugs

in tr

eatin

g co

mpl

aint

s, an

d ab

out a

wid

er

cont

ext a

nd m

arke

tpla

ce in

to w

hich

pro

duct

s and

serv

ices

are

del

iver

ed

Row

ley,

200

2, p

. 501

.

12K

now

ledg

e ‘fr

om’ c

usto

mer

s und

erst

ands

cus

tom

ers’

need

s pat

tern

s and

/or c

onsu

mpt

ion

expe

rien

ces

of p

rodu

cts a

nd/o

r ser

vice

s.Su

, Che

n, &

Sha

, 200

6, p

. 786

.

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 386 13.08.2018 12:25:00


By a

cqui

ring

, sh

arin

g, t

rans

ferr

ing

and

utili

zing

inf

orm

atio

n, k

now

ledg

e an

d id

eas

rela

ted

to

cust

omer

s, C

KM

effe

ctiv

ely

man

ages

kno

wle

dge

from

the

cus

tom

ers’

pers

pect

ive

and

prov

ides

im

port

ant s

ourc

es fo

r nov

el id

eas.

Tahe

rpar

var e

t al.,

201

4, p

. 593

14K

now

ledg

e fro

m c

usto

mer

s is c

usto

mer

s’ in

form

atio

n ab

out p

rodu

cts,

com

petit

ors a

nd m

arke

ts w

hich

is

acq

uire

d fro

m c

usto

mer

s to

unde

rsta

nd th

e ex

tern

al e

nviro

nmen

t.G

arci

a-M

urill

o an

d A

nnab

i, 20

02

15K

now

ledg

e fro

m c

usto

mer

s re

fers

to th

e kn

owle

dge

feed

back

or

cont

ribu

ted

by c

usto

mer

s (e

.g.,

the

idea

s, th

ough

ts,

and

info

rmat

ion

a fir

m r

ecei

ves

from

its

cus

tom

ers

rega

rdin

g th

eir

pref

eren

ces,

crea

tivity

or c

onsu

mpt

ion

expe

rien

ce o

f spe

cific

pro

duct

s or s

ervi

ces)

, whi

ch h

elps

the fi

rm to

impr

ove

its p

rodu

cts/

serv

ices

or d

esig

n ne

w p

rodu

cts/

serv

ices

to b

ette

r add

ress

cus

tom

ers’

need

s.

Des

ouza

& A

waz

u, 2

005

Wu,

Guo

, &

Shi,

2013

, p. 3

60-3

61

16K

now

ledg

e fro

m c

usto

mer

s is

a k

ind

of k

now

ledg

e (a

lso

data

or

info

rmat

ion

that

whi

ch c

an b

e an

alyz

ed, i

nter

pret

ed a

nd e

vent

ually

con

vert

ed to

kno

wle

dge)

that

the

com

pany

atta

ins

in o

rder

to

enha

nce

its p

rodu

cts a

nd se

rvic

es.

Zanj

ani,

Rou

zbeh

ani,

& D

abba

gh, 2

008,

p.

52

sour

ce: o

wn

elab

orat

ion.

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 387 13.08.2018 12:25:00


Wiedza od klientów. Definicja i obszary badawcze

Streszczenie

Klienci dostarczają firmie różnych wartości. Płacą za produkty lub usługi, reko-mendują ofertę, dzielą się nią z przyjaciółmi i dostarczają firmie wiedzę. W litera-turze rozpoznane są różne strumienie wartości dostarczanych przez klientów, lecz wiedza nie jest traktowana jako jeden z nich. Wiedza od klientów to wiedza, którą posiadają klienci; to wiedza, dzięki której można podejmować decyzje marketin-gowe. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zdefiniowanie wiedzy od klienta i sklasyfi-kowanie jej przez identyfikację jej najczęściej badanych obszarów. Wyniki analizy dwuwymiarowej, obejmującej rodzaj oferty (produkt lub usługę) oraz charaktery-stykę wiedzy od klientów (to know, to use, to create) wskazują, że najczęściej bada-nym obszarem jest to create, czyli tworzenie produktów lub usług. Obszarowi temu poświęcono 73,2% artykułów. Oznacza to, że teoria dotycząca tworzenia produktu lub usługi wspólnie z klientem, jest stosunkowo dobrze rozwinięta. To pozwala sprecyzować obszar przyszłych badań nad segmentacją i wyceną wiedzy od klienta.

Słowa kluczowe: zarządzanie relacjami z klientami, wiedza klienta, wiedza od klientów.

Kody JEL: M31, D83

Знания, поступающие от клиентов. Дефиниция и сферы изучения

Резюме

Клиенты предоставляют фирме разные ценности. Они платят за продукты или услуги, рекомендуют предложение, сообщают его друзьям и поставляют фирме знания. В литературе изучили разные потоки ценностей, поставляемых клиентами, но знания не считаются одним из них. Знания, поступающие от клиентов, – это знания, которыми обладают клиенты, это знания, благодаря которым можно принимать маркетинговые решения. Цель статьи – опреде-лить знания, поступающие от клиента, и провести классификацию их путем выявления чаще всего изучаемых областей знаний. Результаты двухмерного анализа, охватывающего собой вид предложения (продукт или услугу), а так-же характеристику знаний клиентов (по принципу: знать, использовать, сози-дать), указывают, что чаще всего изучаемой областью является созидать, т.е. создание продуктов или услуг. Этой области отвели 73,2% статей. Это обозна-чает, что теория, касающаяся создания продукта или услуги совместно с кли-ентом, относительно хорошо развита. Это позволяет уточнить круг будущего изучения сегментации и оценки знаний, поступающих от клиента.

Ключевые слова: система управления взаимоотношениями с клиентами; зна-ния клиента; знания, поступающие от клиентов.

Коды JEL: M31, D83

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 388 13.08.2018 12:25:00


Artykuł zaakceptowany do druku w kwietniu 2018 roku

Afiliacja:dr Przemysław TomczykAkademia Leona KoźmińskiegoKolegium Zarządzania i FinansówKatedra Marketinguul. Jagiellońska 57/5903-301 Warszawae-mail: [email protected]

handel_wew_4-1-2018.indd 389 13.08.2018 12:25:00

Documents

Knowledge from Customers. Definition and Research Areas