Copyright 2006 Tapsell
All rights reserved.
The University of Manchester Manchester Business School
Philip C Tapsell
Key Determinants of Success in Selection and Management of
Overseas Agents and Distributors.
This project is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration.
ii
Statements and Declarations
Declaration This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and
is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.
Signed……………………………………………….(Candidate)
Date………………………………………………….
Statement 1 This dissertation is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Business Administration.
Signed……………………………………………….(Candidate)
Date………………………………………………….
Statement 2 This dissertation is the result of my own independent work and investigation,
except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit
references. A bibliography is appended.
Signed………………………………………………..(Candidate)
Date…………………………………………………...
Statement 3 I hereby give my consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for
photocopying, inter-library loans and for electronic access, and for the title and
summary to be made available to outside organisations.
Signed………………………………………………..(Candidate)
Date…………………………………………………..
iii
Abstract.
By identifying key success factors, this work develops a useful and practical
framework for small to medium sized enterprises (SME’s) in the selection and
management of overseas Agents and Distributors.
This is a most important and difficult decision taken by SME’s. It remains a
major source of costly managerial problems.
For UK SME’s these relationships are a common means of developing
international markets. They are a source of significant competitive advantage
and a major source of attractive profits. They secure and maintain market
leadership, and are a foundation for overall business success.
However, relying on a mediocre agent will place the SME manufacturer at a
serious competitive disadvantage at best. At worse, it could ruin an entire
business development strategy.
A logical and structured process of selection is a strategic imperative and a
precursor to a successful relationship. The role of the boundary-spanning
alliance manager and other key success factors in high performing
partnerships are also determined.
Two powerful and practical frameworks are presented:
• Agent Screening and Selection
• Relationship Health Check
iv
Acknowledgements.
First and foremost, I wish to thank my family and friends for their help and
support during my studies.
My thanks are also extended to the exceptional business people who I have
had the privilege of working with, and who helped with my research. In
particular, the late Duncan Philp, Ken Libby (USA), Bent Andreassen
(Denmark), Ola Schjei (Norway), Phil Graham (Australia), Alan O’Connor
(UK), Geert Jan van Hoogen and Roel De Borst (Holland), Bill Froggat and
Dennis Hicks (Canada), Scott Russell, Heath Jarrett and Steve Lamar (USA),
Bob Vermuelen (Holland), Tony Rumbold (New Zealand).
These gentlemen epitomize the meaning of trust, respect and partnership
through the manner in which they conduct their businesses day to day.
I would also like to thank my colleagues at Spectral Fusion Technologies,
Birmingham. In particular, Richard Farleigh, Jeff Archer and Kamran Munir.
Balancing study with work was difficult. But as a result of their support and
understanding, I believe that SFT has seen, and will continue to see, the
benefits of this undertaking.
Dr. Lynn Parkinson was a great source of help, advice and support as Project
Supervisor.
Lastly, to all my fellow students. In no particular order, people I had great fun
studying with, whose company I enjoyed and am proud to have been
associated with; Steve, John, Anurag, Darcy, Nakul, Trenley, Eric, Adrianne,
Mac, Patrik, Neil, Anvar and JD.
Phil Tapsell
Saturday, 21 October 2006.
Table of Contents Statements and Declarations…………………………………………………….
Abstract………………………………………………………………………..……
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………. 1. Introduction, Aims, Background and Problem Discussion……..……
1.1. Aim of this work………………………………………………………………. 1.2. Background……………………………………………………………………
1.2.1. Definitions 1.2.2. Core Principles - Agency Theory 1.2.3. The Internationalisation Process 1.2.4. Overseas Market Entry Mode Selection
1.3. Problem Discussion………………….……………………………………….1.4. General Methodology………………………………………………………...1.5. Structure of Dissertation…………………………………………………….. 1.6. Limitations and Delimitations………………………………………………..
2. Selection and Management – A Review of Literature…………………
2.1. Selection Process……………………………………………………………. 2.2. Management and Performance of Relationships………………………… 2.3. Conceptualisation and Emerged Frame of Reference……………………
3. Research Methodology and Data Collection……………………..……..
3.1. Research Philosophy 3.2. Research Purpose 3.3. Research Approach 3.4. Research Strategy 3.5. Background Study - Literature Search and Review 3.6. Primary Data Collection - Questionnaires 3.7. Determinants of Data Quality - Validity and Reliability 3.8. Critique of Methodology
4. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………… Support of hypothesis
4.1. Weighted Response Analysis 4.2. Agent Selection 4.3. High Performing Alliances 4.4. Alliance Managers
Research Survey Response 4.5. Agent Selection 4.6. High Performing Alliances 4.7. Alliance Managers
5. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations..……………….....
5.1. Agent Selection 5.2. Development of High Performing Alliances 5.3. Alliance Manager Capabilities
References and Bibliography………………………………………………...
ii
iii
iv 1 3 4
12 13 14 15
16 16 20 26
31 31 32 33 34 34 35 38 38
39
40 41 44 48
52 57 62
67 68 70 72
76
Appendices Appendix I - Research Questionnaire.
Appendix II - Sample of Research Target Companies.
Appendix III - Agent / Distributor Selection Framework.
Appendix IV - Relationship Health Check Framework.
Appendix V - Literature Search Methodology.
List of Tables Table 1.1 Classification of Motives for Internationalisation.
Table 1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Market Entry Modes.
Table 2.1 Agent Selection Criteria.
Table 2.2 Characteristics of High Performing Relationships
Table 2.3. Conceptualisation of Key Managerial Issues.
Table 4.1. Expected response to survey questions.
Table A3.1 Potential information sources during agent search process.
Table A3.2 Criteria for Agent Selection Framework.
Table A4.1 Characteristics of High Performing Relationships.
List of Figures Figure 1.1 Principal – Agency Model of Managerial Behaviour.
Figure 1.2 Market Entry and Development Strategy Selection.
Figure 2.1 Linking Resources, Capabilities and Competitive Advantage.
Figure 2.2 Revised Commitment Model.
Figure 2.3 Framework for High Performing Overseas Alliances.
Figure 3.1 Research Methodology and Data Collection Schematic.
Figure 4.1. Survey Questions: Weighted Scores.
Figure 4.2. Question 6 Survey Response.
Figure 4.3 Best Practice Survey Response: Agent Selection.
Figure 4.4 Question 8 & 12 Survey Response.
Figure 4.5 Best Practice Survey Response: Alliance Development.
Figure 4.6 Question 8 & 9 Survey Response.
Figure 4.7 Best Practice Survey Response: Alliance Manager.
List of Figures (cont.) Figure 4.8 Overall Survey Response: Agent Selection Process.
Figure 4.9 Question 1 Survey Response.
Figure 4.10 Question 3 Survey Response.
Figure 4.11 Question 4 Survey Response.
Figure 4.12 Question 5 Survey Response.
Figure 4.13 Question 7 Survey Response.
Figure 4.14 Overall Survey Response: Alliance Development.
Figure 4.15 Question 13 Survey Response.
Figure 4.16 Question 14 Survey Response.
Figure 4.17 Question 15 Survey Response.
Figure 4.18 Question 16 Survey Response.
Figure 4.19 Question 17 Survey Response.
Figure 4.20 Question 18 Survey Response.
Figure 4.21 Overall Survey Response: Alliance Manager.
Figure 4.22 Question 5 Survey Response.
Figure 4.23 Question 7 Survey Response.
Figure 4.24 Question 10 Survey Response.
Figure 4.25 Question 11 Survey Response.
Figure 4.26 Question 13 Survey Response.
Figure 4.27 Question 18 Survey Response.
Figure A3.2 Agent Search, Screening and Selection Model
Figure A4.1 Relationship Health Check Best Practice Profile
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
1
1. Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion. In the UK, small and medium sized businesses have a key role to play in our
economy, not least because they are more likely to develop radical and
disruptive innovations than larger businesses and they act as a seedbed of
product innovation. More and more, it is the smaller companies showing the
larger companies how to do it: they are the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the
creators of new jobs, of economic growth and wealth (Wynn Griffith 2005).
They should be formidable forces in international business. However, despite
these apparent advantages, British SME’s fail to fully develop and secure the
potential benefits of international trade. Many even refrain from exporting all
together.
This should not surprise us. The UK Government’s Department of Trade and
Industry, Small Business Service and Chambers’ of Commerce, appear to
offer little in practical terms to assist them in securing profitable new business
and competitive advantage overseas. Yet these organisations describe SME’s
as the “powerhouse of the UK economy”.
The majority of export sales are conducted through agents. Rosson (1986)
explains this preferred method of international market development as being
particularly important for companies who (1) are SME’s, (2) lack international
market experience, and (3) sell industrial goods.
Such alliances with overseas representatives are strategic in nature. They can
create new and significant value, but they require astute and careful
management. Problems arise from weak, inexperienced and incapable
‘Alliance Managers’.
In the Harvard Business Review, Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1994) referred to
Collaborative Advantage, ‘A well-developed ability to create and then sustain
fruitful collaborations that gives companies a significant competitive
advantage’.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
2
Overseas agents should be a key source of significant competitive advantage.
Key to business growth, when the relationships are high performing, they are
a major source of attractive profits, secure and maintain market leadership,
and are a foundation for overall business success.
The successful selection and management of these overseas representatives
is therefore a most important, influential and difficult area for SME’s. It remains
a major source of managerial problems.
As a result of poor selection, management, or both, relying on a mediocre
agent places the manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage at best. At
worse, it could ruin the entire business development strategy.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
3
1.1. Aim of this work This work examines the key determinants of successful selection and
management in high performing alliances with overseas agents. This is
considered in the context of the overall process of internationalisation and
choice of market entry mode. The literature review focuses on the subsequent
selection, motivation and management of agents by SME’s.
This section is sub-divided as follows:
1.1 Aim of the study.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Definitions.
1.2.2 Agency Theory.
1.2.3 Process of Internationalisation.
1.2.4 Market Entry Mode Selection.
1.3 Problem Discussion
1.4 General Methodology
1.5 Structure of this dissertation.
1.6 Limitations and delimitations.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
4
1.2. Background In this section we provide important definitions and discuss core principles,
before putting our study in context through a review of the process of
internationalisation and market entry mode selection.
1.2.1. Definitions Agent, distributor and principal are defined, compared and contrasted.
Thereafter, the terms agent and principal will be used.
1.2.1.1. Agent: a person or organisation working in the home market or
overseas on the principal’s behalf to find potential buyers for its products. The
agent acts as an intermediary between the principal and the buyer, working to
an agreed commission rate (Donaldson 1998; McKay 2006). 1.2.1.2. Distributor: a person or organisation situated in the territory,
allocated distribution rights (either exclusive or non exclusive). The distributor
will buy for own account at a discounted rate, gaining income from the resale
of the principals’ product at a market price (Donaldson 1998; McKay 2006). 1.2.1.3. Principal: Throughout this work, reference will be made to term
‘principal’. This is a company or organisation exporting the product or service
through the Agent or Distributor. 1.2.1.4. Alliance, partnership, collaborations and agreements. These terms are used and described variously by authors within the body of
literature studied. For example, Hill (2005) defines strategic alliances as those
existing between competitors or potential competitors. We consider that all
alliances, partnerships or collaborations with overseas agents are strategic in
nature, in that they are formed as part of a long-term plan or aim to achieve a
specific purpose. Therefore, unless otherwise specified, for the purpose of this
work the term alliance is used to refer to the strategic collaboration that exists
between Principal and Agent.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
5
1.2.2. Core Principles - Agency Theory. Manufacturer – distributor relationships embody the principal – agent model.
Two parties are interdependent and cooperative, yet may pursue different,
contradictory or conflicting goals (Lassar and Kerr 1996). Agency theory
places the selection and management of agents in context. However a review
of relevant literature reveals that few of the authors take this into
consideration.
Problems arise from information asymmetry, conflicting goals and risk
preferences of the two parties when one, the principal, delegates work and
authority to another, the agent (Jensen and Meckling 1976). The agent will be
more familiar with the specific tasks and details associated with the business,
and may have motive to maximise his own utility at the expense of the
principal. In addition, it is typical for overseas representatives to be agents for
a number of principal organisations (manufacturers), and in poor performing
relationships to transfer allegiance to a competitor. Typically, the principal
takes steps to reduce the likelihood of this happening. Monitoring and control,
motivations and incentives are structured in an attempt to align the agent’s
goals and objectives with his own (Ryan 2001). See Fig. 1.1.
Fig 1.1. The Principal – Agency Model of Managerial Behaviour. Source: Ryan. (2001)
Agent’s Compensation
Function
Principal
Agent
• Performance Criteria • Reward • Incentives / Perks
• Agreed services • Decision and control • Information
Principal’s Service
Function
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
6
However, many of the controlling efforts and contractual style of agreements
can result in misuse of power within the relationship, damaging trust, loyalty,
commitment and motivation. We shall show these factors to be the
foundations of success.
On this topic, Little (1970) states:
‘Because firms (comprising the marketing channel) are loosely arranged,
the advantages of central direction are missing. The absence of single
ownership, or close contractual agreements, means that the benefits of a
formal (superior – subordinate) base are not realised. The reward and
penalty system is not precise, and less easily affected. Similarly, overall
planning for the entire system is uncoordinated and the perspective
necessary to maximise total system effort is diffused. Less recognition of
common goals by member firms, as compared to formally structured
organisation is also probable’.
Clearly the challenge is to overcome these issues by closely aligning the aims
and objectives of agent and principal, through the process of selection and
management.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
7
1.2.3. Internationalisation Process Rosenbloom (1978a) recognises that prior to successful selection and
management of an agent, the principal must first define the reasons and
objectives of internationalisation and choice of entry mode.
Originally proposed by Douglas and Craig (1989), Czinkota and Ronkainen
(1995), and Hollensen (1998) also adopt the concept of internal and external
triggers to the process of internationalisation. Stewart and McAuly (1999)
extend this and classify triggers as proactive and reactive. Campbell (1996)
has also taken the internal / external – proactive / reactive perspective. See
Table 1.1.
Once the commitment to expand into overseas markets has been taken, the
next key decisions involve selection of which market to enter and how this
should be achieved. Macro and micro environmental issues influencing this
decision process include areas such as market attractiveness, competitive
positioning of firm and product and the resources and capabilities of the
exporting firm. Control, resources and risk will have been especially influential
in the decision to adopt a direct entry method through agents / distributors.
Albaum et al. (2005) although following these same generic lines, introduce
the concept of a principal having a unique and sought after product as being a
major trigger. This results from the principal receiving overseas enquiries from
customers and (potential) agents. In response to another’s request for the
product / service, and contrary to a strategic approach, market entry occurs in
an opportunistic and reactive fashion without prior planning and forethought.
Grant (2002) defines the decision to internationalise as a strategic one. Once
taken it must form part of a strategic business plan. The method of entry and
entry strategy will logically follow. Understanding why this method of entry was
chosen, the desired objectives and expectations, are crucial considerations at
the selection phase and throughout the period of representation.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
8
Internal External
Proactive
• Managerial Urge / Perception
• Unique product / competence
• Marketing advantage
• Economies of scale
• Over production
• Higher profit opportunity
• Foreign Market Opportunity
• Product life cycle
Reactive • Competitor activity.
• Risk Diversification
• Extended seasonal sales
• Enquiry from customer
• Enquiry from agent
• Reduction in domestic market
• Government incentives
Table 1.1 Classification of Triggers for Internationalisation. Author’s Construct. Adapted from Albaum et al. (2005), Campbell (1996), Czinkota and Ronkainen (1995),
Douglas and Craig (1989), Hollensen (1998), Stewart and McAuly (1999).
Much of the literature does not consider the influence of the
internationalisation process, as a whole, on subsequent relationships and their
outcome. Whilst most authors do not make the distinction between market
entry considerations, and subsequent distribution issues, Joseph et al. (1995)
do. They emphasize putting the relationship in context by understanding why
the principal has chosen to internationalise, why agents have been chosen as
the preferred mode of entry, and what is expected of the whole process. The
principal’s expectations prior to forming the alliance will significantly influence
the eventual outcome. The same distinction is made by Doole and Lowe
(2004).
We propose that these triggers, the nature of the process, reactive or
proactive, understanding why the move has been made, and objectives,
should be considered during entry method and agent selection. Not
understanding why the firm is expanding overseas and not having clearly
defined requirements and objectives will lead to confusion on the part of the
agent in understanding what he is required to do.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
9
1.2.4. Overseas Market Entry Mode Selection. We have shown that the triggers for internationalisation significantly influence
choice of entry mode and the selection of a particular agent.
Root (1987,1994) is extensively referenced by others for his studies and texts
on international trade and market entry strategies. He states that although a
mode of entry strategy may appear to be only for large organisations, the
critical nature of this choice is something SME’s can ill-afford not to do. The
chosen entry mode must be part of a systematic selection process.
Doyle (1994) reflects the overall consensus of the reviewed literature. Entry
mode selection is a long-term strategic one, and not easily reversed. Studies
have shown the length of such relationships to be between nine and thirteen
years (Bello and Lothia 1995).
Rosson and Ford (1982) conclude that when a principal chooses to use an
agent, the role of the agent is crucial. The principal’s market development
policy is operationalized by the overseas partner. Such a decision is complex
and strategic in nature (Young et al.1989). According to the authors, this
choice should have arisen from an in depth evaluation. However they
recognise that many in depth, complex and academic approaches are typically
beyond the use of practitioners at SME’s, and many adopt an ad hoc selection
process. Recognising the limited resource and capability of such firms, the
authors present a more pragmatic approach that accounts for multiple (often
differing and conflicting) objectives, and the likely lack of resources. Fig 1.2.
Burca et al. (2004) establish an important link between company
characteristics and the chosen mode of entry. These are highlighted as key
selection criteria, and explain the preference for SME’s to use the agent route.
Agent organisations display many similar characteristics and cultures to those
of SME’s, and these are often seen as major advantages and influential
success factors. There is more likelihood of a ‘strategic fit’ between the
organisations (Grant 2002).
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
10
All Entry Modes
External Factors
Internal Factors
Rejected Entry Modes
All Feasible Entry Modes
Entry Mode Selection
Profit Contribution Analysis
Risk Analysis
Non Profit Objectives
Ranking
Right Mode
Target Country
Fig 1.2. Selecting Market Entry and Development Strategy Source: Young et al. (1989)
The approach used to select a method of overseas market entry will strongly
influence the choice of agent, defining many of the economic, commercial and
strategic selection criteria. Recognising these (often) conflicting multiple entry
objectives, Young et al. (1989) present a simple entry and development
selection framework. See Fig. 1.2. It incorporates consideration of all entry /
development objectives, the relative effectiveness and attractiveness of
alternate strategies in achieving those objectives, and an overall ranking of
modes prior to selection.
However, each mode of entry has advantages and disadvantages. Table 1.2.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
11
Entry Mode Advantages Disadvantages
Indirect Exporting (Export buying
agents, broker,
export management
company)
Less resource / investment required.
High degree of market diversification.
Access to internationalization
experience.
Minimal risk
No experience required.
Location / experience curve economies.
Transport costs.
Trade barriers.
Problems with local marketing.
Lack of control in overseas market
Lack of market contact.
Limited market knowledge.
Limited product experience.
Potential lower profits.
Direct Exporting (Agents &
Distributors)
Lower levels of overhead
Fast market penetration &
representation
Experienced, successful sales force
Access to local market experience
Shorter distribution chain
Market knowledge acquired
More control over marketing
Local sales and after sales support
Costs more closely related to sales
Reduced control over market
Lack of direct control
Investment in managerial roles
Cultural differences.
Communications issues.
Asymmetry of information
Representing multiple principals
Termination difficulties and costs
Conflicting objectives & goals
Turnkey Projects Ability to earn returns from process
technology skills in countries where FDI
is restricted.
Creating efficient competitors
Lack of long term market presence
Licensing Low development costs and risks
Control over technology
No location and experience
economies
No global strategy coordination
Franchising Low development costs and risks
Quality control
No location and experience
economies
No global strategy coordination
Joint Ventures Access to local partner’s knowledge
Sharing development costs and risks
Politically acceptable
Control over technology
No location and experience
economies
No global strategy coordination
Wholly owned subsidiaries
Protection of technology
Opportunity for global strategy
Location and experience economies
High costs and risks
Table 1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Market Entry Modes. Author’s Construct. Adapted from Donaldson (1998), Hill (2005), Hollensen (1998), Jobber
(2001), Rosenbloom (1978b), Rosson and Ford (1982), Shipley (1984), Shipley et al. (1989),
Stern and El-Ansary (1982), Walvoord (1983), Webster (1976).
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
12
1.3. Problem discussion. For SME’s, with limited resources, agents are a common means of developing
international markets. They are a source of significant competitive advantage
– both home and abroad, and represent a major barrier to entry. Key to
business growth, when the relationships are high performing they are a major
source of attractive profits, secure and maintain market leadership, and are a
foundation for overall business success.
This is therefore one of the most important choices a principal will make. A
systematic approach to selection is a strategic imperative. (Cavusgil et al.
1995).
Having made such a selection, whether or not the relationship is high
performing and successful will depend not just on the agent, but also the way
the relationship is managed, and by whom.
These critical factors define the basis and reason for our work: How to ensure
selection of an agent most likely to succeed, and management of the
relationship to deliver high performance.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
13
1.4. General Methodology. Full details of the methodology employed, including tools used, the rationale
behind their choice and resource limitations, is provided in Chapter 3.
We conducted a desktop review of relevant literature before undertaking
fieldwork, as a means of collecting data to determine whether or not
practitioners supported our hypothesis.
We limited the empirical study to overseas representatives of UK SME’s,
manufacturing industrial, capital equipment. These SME’s utilise the agent
method as their preferred and most common form of overseas market entry
and development.
The target group of agents was geographically located around the world, in
Europe, North America and Australia.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
14
1.5. Structure of this dissertation The structure of our work reflects the sequential process of our research,
analysis, evaluation and findings.
Chapter 2. Literature Review. A detailed and critical analysis of previously
published works in similar or related fields. We have shown the relationship
between these works and our own, demonstrating the appropriate contextual,
theoretical and background information to our own work.
Chapter 3. Research Methodology and Data Collection. This chapter
discusses, evaluates and justifies the detailed research methodology
employed. The selection of an appropriate methodology and choice of
techniques significantly influences the outcome of the project. This chapter
describes how the process was selected and undertaken to guarantee highest
quality data.
Chapter 4. Data Analysis. This chapter is a factual presentation of the results
obtained from our research. It includes a full analysis and interpretation of the
data.
Chapter 5. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations. Emerging from the data analysis, we summarise the findings, discuss the
implications for SME management and recommend a course of action as a
practical solution to what is a significant and widespread problem.
Introduction, aims, background and problem discussion
15
1.6. Limitations and Delimitations. Limits have been placed on the work undertaken by a number of factors. In
particular, it was necessary to consider completion within the time available
and the cost of undertaking research across national boundaries. The use of
questionnaires and structured telephone interviews overcame many of the
issues relating to geographic location of the agents. However, it was still
necessary to place a closing date on the submission of completed surveys in
order to allow sufficient time for data analysis and writing up of the final work.
The demands of full time employment, family commitments and word count
restrictions significantly influenced the scope and scale of the finished work.
Literature Review
16
2. Selection and Management of Agents - Literature Review. Chapter 1 established that the selection and management of overseas agents
should not be considered in isolation, but in context as part of the wider,
strategic process of internationalisation.
In this section we provide a detailed and critical analysis of key literature on
the selection, motivation and management of overseas agents by SME’s. We
begin with the process of agent selection, before looking at aspects of
management and development of the relationships. A summary is provided as
part of the identification of key managerial issues, and the conceptualisation
and emerged frame of reference which close the chapter.
2.1. Selection Process. The importance of a sagacious selection process gains unanimous support
throughout. There is consensus amongst authors’ works spanning thirty years,
and across national and cultural boundaries. (Abratt and Pitt 1989, Clasen
1991, Damon 1984, Mackay 2006, Majaro 1982, Moore 1987, Shipley 1984,
Shipley et al. 1989, Terpstra 1983, Webster 1976).
Shipley (1984) highlights the critical nature of the process of selecting
representatives. Such a relationship will be the basis of a manufacturer’s
competitive advantage and successful implementation of international
business strategy. He emphasises the two key areas of selection and
motivation. As a direct result of the limited control of such relationships, and
the potential for mismatch of objectives, the tendency of representatives in
their boundary-spanning role, is to favour the customers’ interests.
Arnold (2000) makes an obvious, but often overlooked point, that the principal
should select the agent – and not the other way around. However, many
opportunistic entries into overseas markets are as a result of a direct
approach from an agent, who then effectively selects himself.
Literature Review
17
2.1.1. Agent Selection Criteria. A logical, structured process of selection against pre-determined criteria is
therefore essential. A summation of these criteria is provided in Table 2.1.
This is one of the most important choices a principal will make. The agent will
implement the overseas market strategy, and a systematic approach to
selection is a strategic imperative. (Cavusgil et al. 1995).
Agent Selection Criteria Harder / Tangible
• Market knowledge & coverage.
• Product & applications knowledge.
• Track record and reputation.
• Full time product champion.
• Business development plan for principal.
• Experience with similar products.
• Enthusiasm for contract.
• No competing product lines.
• Fit with, and number of, other Principals.
• Location and facilities.
• Frequency and standard of sales calls.
• Financial control- cash flow, credit, etc.
• Technical and service support function.
• Communicate in local language.
Softer / Intangible
• Personal feel and strategic fit.
• Character and integrity.
• Trust, loyalty, commitment, motivation.
• Ethical considerations.
• Hunger to succeed; growth minded.
• Capability and quality of key personnel.
• National and cultural differences.
• Business development credentials.
• Planning, coordination, communication.
• Organisational / operational ability
• Quality of sales force.
• Experience with target customers
• Problem solver – solutions provider
Table 2.1 Agent Selection Criteria. Author’s Construct. Source: Abratt and Pitt (1989), Clasen (1991), Damon (1984), Majaro (1982) and Terpstra
(1983) in Shipley (1984), Moore (1987), Shipley (1984), Shipley et al. (1989), Webster (1976).
Within the reviewed literature many of these essential criteria are not defined
or discussed in terms of a qualitative, subjective or objective nature. There is,
in general, no detailed review of an agent’s initial ability or capability with
respect to each of these criteria, and whether or not the principal would be
able to (or want to) develop such capabilities. This links to the resources and
capabilities of both firms (Grant 2002), and the objectives and timescales of
the overseas market entry. Arnold (2000) makes a similar observation with
respect to the resources and capabilities of the agent. Those required for the
initial market entry and development will be different to the longer term.
Literature Review
18
Although the point is made about agent suitability changing over time, there is
no discussion in terms of an agent not being the ‘best’ choice at time of
selection, but one that could develop resources and capabilities and become
better than the ‘current best’, and a superior strategic fit, over time. This
emphasises that the agent selection process is significantly more complex and
requiring of knowledge and expertise. For many SME’s who face these issues,
they may not have the necessary market entry or agent selection /
management experience. It goes to the heart of both the principal and the
agents’ developing resources and capabilities over time.
Most of the authors whose work has been reviewed offer simple frameworks
and flow charts that, although helping to bring structure to the process, offer
little in terms of advice in practical and successful application. One example is
agent profiling, first mentioned by Damon (1984). Albaum et al. (2005) also
propose this concept. Having generated the profile of the most suitable agent,
evaluation of candidates can be undertaken in a structured and objective
manner. This is a useful and practical tool for screening of candidates, but
needs to be developed to incorporate additional key, qualitative dimensions
and the agent’s ability to develop resources and capabilities over time, in line
with strategic objectives.
Good examples of this are trust and loyalty, and their being the basis for
commitment and motivation. These feature heavily in the conclusions and
recommendations of the reviewed literature. It would seem logical therefore
that agent selection be based primarily on whether or not these critical
components within a relationship are likely to be forthcoming. But few authors
consider or discuss these key determinants as part of the selection process.
Other key components such as experience of similar products &
organisations, capabilities of boundary spanning managers, track record with
market and other principals are also neglected. These are critical success
factors, yet typically absent from the reviewed literature. In addition, many of
the authors do not distinguish between key selection criteria and
characteristics present in high performing and successful relationships.
Literature Review
19
A good example is Rosson & Ford (1982). Their list of critical selection criteria
is more akin to key characteristics in high performing relationships.
2.1.2. Agent Selection: Resources and capabilities. Recognising these criteria and characteristics, and how they need to be
developed, determines how the relationship should be managed, and by
whom. Grant (2002) links the resources and capabilities of a business to
competitive advantage.
The principal will have determined the industry / market key success factors
as part of the market entry strategy. Implementation of this strategy secures
competitive advantage. It is the resources of the agent, working together to
create organisational capability that implement the strategy and establishes
competitive advantage. In recognising what these resources need to be in
order to successfully implement the strategy, the principal is able to create a
profile of the most suitable agent. See Fig. 2.1.
Resources
Tangible • Financial
• Physical
Intangible • Reputation
• Culture
Human • Skills
• Know how
• Capacity for
communication and
collaboration
• Motivation
Competitive Advantage Strategy Market Key
Success Factors
OrganizationalCapabilities
Fig. 2.1. Resources, Capabilities and Competitive Advantage – Links. Source: Grant 2002.
Literature Review
20
In a more recent article, Narus and Andersen (1996) add to their extensive
studies of this topic with an article that considers relationships as strategic
alliances. Forward thinking managers view their agents as extensions to their
own resources and capabilities.
The prevalence and growing trend towards strategic alliances and
partnerships has resulted in the exploration and discovery of new modes of
operation. In a similar vein to that of Grant (2002) the potential benefits can be
best secured, they suggest, through leveraging the combined resources and
capabilities of both firms.
Literature Review
21
2.2. Management and Performance of Relationships. We have established the link between agent selection, the resources and
capabilities of the firm and managerial expertise. This will determine the initial
fit between partners and also the ability to develop a successful, high-
performing partnership as the relationship matures.
There is a general consensus that such high performing relationships exhibit
similar characteristics. See Table 2.2.
2.2.1. Boundary Spanning Alliance Managers. Agent agreements can be strong strategic alliances. Although they offer a
quick, and potentially powerful method of new market entry, according to
Spekman et al. (1996) 60% of them fail.
The authors state that this is due to leadership and management. The authors
go on to explore the unusual circumstances that surround these relationships,
and the need for unusual leadership. They describe managers of these
alliances as a ‘horse of a different colour’, and suggest that necessary
strengths are:
• Ability to create an environment of trust.
• A broad strategic vision
• Genuine empathy for others in the relationship.
• Ability to overcome a single company perspective.
• Outstanding communications skills – often across cultural boundaries.
These traits are essential in terms of successfully developing the relationship
as a whole, but especially for those softer, less tangible characteristics.
Whilst the majority of literature reviewed makes much of the various selection
criteria, and ways in which to motivate agents, predominantly from the
principal’s perspective, the importance and characteristics of the relationship
managers receives scant attention.
Literature Review
22
Donaldson (1998) highlights cultural differences. Export managers need to be
experienced in these most complicated of areas. Research on this topic, he
says, underlines the unstable nature of these relationships and that careful
selection and development of close personal relationships usually result in
high performance. This lies at the heart of the complex role of the alliance
manager. Spekman at al. (1996) add that acting in the best interests of the
alliance may not always appear to be in the best interests of the principal – the
alliance manager’s employer.
These are the fundamental issues confronting the boundary-spanning
managers (Rosson and Ford 1982). It is the successful and astute
management of these difficult areas that make for success in the
relationships. Communicating this to all parties is a key function. Acting as
diplomats and go betweens, explaining opposing views, building bridges and
reminding everyone to focus on the bigger picture. These managers create
and sustain an environment of trust. They are critical to the success of an
alliance (Kanter 1994). But such managers, displaying optimism, intelligence,
creativity, innovation, pragmatism, tenacity, vigilance and experience - are
hard to find.
Rosson and Ford (1982) also recognise the ‘boundary-spanners’ who will,
they suggest, shape the relationship itself. According to Morgan and Hunt
(1994), breakdown and termination of agreements, and performance well
below that expected at the outset, are a direct result of poor relationship
management. This results in lack of trust and commitment.
Frazier (1999) in his extensive review of works over the years suggests further
research. He identifies that much has been done in areas such as selection,
motivation, the impact of trust and commitment and also how relationships
develop.
In line with our own position, key managerial capability issues, he identifies,
have barely been touched.
Literature Review
23
Characteristics of High Performing Relationships Harder / Tangible
• Quality, reliability, suitability, saleability of product.
• Operationally effective, efficient and well-organised operations
• Rapid and decisive support when and where required.
• Exclusivity, and no blocked accounts. Agent has responsibility, authority and
confidence.
• Attractive financial reward and incentives package.
• Establish and adhere to a set of mutually agreed ground rules, guidelines, and
objectives.
• A well-defined strategic plan.
• Active, professional, structured, continuous programme of personnel training.
• Up to six principals as the optimal number for agents' representations.
Softer / Intangible
• Highly effective, professional and supportive alliance manager.
• Commitment and motivation secured through development of trust and loyalty.
• High degree of coordinated effort, joint planning and decision-making.
• Full sharing and trustworthy exchange of, sometimes sensitive, information
• Do not take advantage of partners. Share profits – and do not squeeze margins.
• View agent as valuable resource - achieves success in markets where principal alone
cannot.
• Take a holistic view of the whole partnership. Recognise and appreciate mutual
benefits.
• Understand each other’s stake and contributions.
• Gain a deep understanding of, and show genuine interest in, the agent's business.
• Work hard to sustain prosperity and profitability of both parties.
• High standards of corporate values and ethics, and agents of a similar standing.
• Expectation of, and commitment to, a long-term mutually beneficial business
relationship.
Table 2.2 Characteristics Of High Performing Relationships. Author’s Construct. Source: Albaum et al. (2005), Damon (1984), Etgar (1979), Hlavacek and McQuistion (1983),
Johnston and Lawrence (1988), Joseph et al. (1995), Narus & Anderson (1986), Reddy &
Marvin (1986), Rosenberg & Stern (1971), Rosenbloom (1978a), Sibley & Teas (1979),
Shipley (1987), Stern and El-Ansary (1982), Webster (1975 & 1976).
Literature Review
24
2.2.2. Trust, loyalty, commitment and motivation. As shown in Chapter 1, because of the nature of the principal-agent
relationship, and their mutual dependence, it is essential that manufacturer’s
build and sustain trust, loyalty, commitment and motivation with, and from,
their representatives (Morgan & Hunt 1994). However, most authors appear
unsure as to how these critical components in the relationship should be
achieved. Fewer still recognise or provide in-depth comment on the
dependence of one upon the other, and their inter-dependent nature. The vast
majority of the reviewed work promotes inter-dependence as pivotal in the
relationships. Mutual understanding, clearly defined expectations and ‘rules of
engagement’ are also shown to be key factors. Trust is at the core of most
models, along with open communications and cooperation.
In a similar, more recent work, Goodman and Dion (2001) attempted to
identify the determinants of commitment in an agent – principal relationship.
This paper differs from many published articles, having been written jointly by
an academic and a practitioner. Lester Goodman was at the time President of
Lion Controls. Winning and preserving the allegiance of industrial agents is,
they say, becoming more challenging, yet more vital. The agent is increasingly
acting like an independent business entity, with policies, procedures and goals
that seldom coincide with those of the principal.
The authors refer extensively to Morgan & Hunt (1994) for the basis and
importance of commitment. In contrasting the behavioural and marketing
determinants of commitment, they perhaps over emphasise the influence of
product factors and agent dependence on the principal, using the Morgan and
Hunt model as a basis before adding the product factors. However, in the
review of behavioural determinants, trust, power, continuity and
communications are the key variables, they posit. On the subject of marketing
determinants, dependence (of both parties), resource investment and product
saleability are considered. Saleability, they define, as having value, use, well
serviced and of good quality.
Literature Review
25
Their research concluded that trust, communication, resource investment and
product saleability are key determinants of commitment. The use of power by
the principal was shown to be a potentially significant negative influence. Their
commitment model is shown in Fig. 2.1.
In a deviation from established views on trust, they suggest a key determinant
is not trust, but its expectation and anticipation through the future actions and
recognition of long-term interests of the partnership. This is especially relevant
to our works. The frame of reference – Internationalisation Process, Market
Entry Mode Selection, Agent Route and Alliance Management - implies the
relationship is at an embryonic stage.
In these early days, it will be the ability of the alliance manager to create and
sustain the atmosphere of trust that will determine the eventual outcome
(Anderson and Weitz 1992).
Commitment
Dependence
& Power
Product Saleability
Ease of
Sale
Manufacturer’s
Strengths
Anticipation
of Trust Effective
Communication
Idiosyncratic Investments
Fig. 2.2 Revised Commitment Model. Source: Goodman and Dion (2001).
Literature Review
26
2.2.3. Exclusivity and financial reward. One potential source of weakness in this model is non-exclusivity in a territory.
This is a perennial source of tension. They conclude that product line
exclusivity is not the be all and end all it once was. This is at odds with the
general consensus, and seems to heavily favour the manufacturer’s
perspective. The wider view, of both academics and practitioners is that not
offering exclusivity implies a lack of trust in the ability of the agent to handle
the business.
Fundamentally, if the agent is not capable of handling all of the accounts in
the territory and requires the constant intervention of the principal, then you
have selected the wrong agent (Webster 1975).
Such actions will result in greater conflict, lack of motivation, poor
communications and poor performance.
There is general consensus in the literature concerning the issue of exclusivity
as a key determinant of agent commitment to the relationship. Although there
are risks inherent with this route, high performing principal agent relationships
exist when the agent has exclusivity, responsibility, and confidence in their
own authority and do not carry competing lines.
Throughout the literature, financial reward and gain is considered to be a key
component in the basis of a successful partnership. It is both predictable and
empirically proven (Bobrow 1976, Sibley and Teas 1979). However, financial
reward alone is not a guarantee for achieving the strategic objectives of the
manufacturer.
A longer term, mutually beneficial business relationship has been found to be
the most important motivator (Shipley 1984), and successful development and
anticipation of such a partnership comes directly from how it is managed and
by whom.
Conceptualisation and Emerged Frame of Reference
27
2.3. Conceptualisation and Emerged Frame of Reference. In this section we have drawn together and summarized the dominant models,
theories and concepts from our background study and literature review. The
conceptualisation of key managerial issues and the emergent frame of
reference has enabled us to better address the research questions and has
been used in determining the research methodology presented in Chapter 3.
2.3.1. Conceptualisation. The materials analysed as part of our literature review, enabled us to identify
key managerial issues as follows: Managerial
Issue Models, theories and concepts from literature review.
Agent Selection
Considered as part of wider, strategic process of internationalisation.
Sagacious selection against predetermined criteria is crucial.
Powerful influence on successful development of subsequent alliance.
Link to Research Question 2.
Authors: Abratt and Pitt 1989, Cavusgil et al. 1995, Clasen 1991, Damon
1984, Donaldson 1998, Mackay 2006, Majaro 1982, Moore 1987, Shipley
1984, Shipley et al. 1989, Terpstra 1983, Webster 1976.
Alliance Development
Not widely discussed in practical terms.
Trust leads to loyalty, commitment and motivation.
High performing alliances exhibit generic characteristics
Alliance managers build these essential prerequisites for success – Link
to Research Question 3.
Product factors, appropriate reward and incentives assumed.
Authors: Donaldson 1998, Goodman and Dion 2001, Rosson and Ford
1982, Morgan and Hunt 1994,
Managerial Capability
Not widely considered. Strong precursor to:
• Successful process of Internationalisation.
• Strategic plan for overseas market entry
• Market entry mode selection
• Agent selection process – Link to Research Question 1
• Alliance development – Link to Research Question 2
Authors: Spekman et al. 1996, Narus and Andersen 1999, Frazier 1999.
Table 2.3. Conceptualisation of Key Managerial Issues. Source: Author’s Construct.
Conceptualisation and Emerged Frame of Reference
28
For each of these managerial issues we have identified key points in order to
better focus the research, as follows:
Research Question 1 - Agent Selection. A structured and strategic selection process is pivotal, and a strong
precondition of a high performing alliance. Predetermined criteria should be
used to generate an Agent profile against which all are evaluated.
Do practitioners agree? Are potential Agents evaluated and selected in such a
manner? What are the implications for practitioners?
Research Question 2 - Development Of High Performing Alliances. A structured and strategic selection process is a powerful antecedent to a
successful and high performing alliance. These powerful, high performing
alliances exhibit many similar characteristics. A high level of coordinated
effort, joint planning, decision-making and communication will work to
establish these key characteristics.
Do practitioners agree? Do high levels of coordinated and joint activities exist?
What are the implications for practitioners?
Research Question 3 - Alliance Manager Capabilities. The building of trust, and its anticipation, will result in commitment to the
relationship, loyalty and a motivation to succeed. These characteristics are
essential prerequisites for success. They are the foundations built by alliance
managers who have a critical and difficult role to play.
Is this recognised and understood, and do current alliance managers measure
up? What are the implications for practitioners?
Conceptualisation and Emerged Frame of Reference
29
2.3.2. Emerged Frame of Reference. According to Miles and Hubermann (1994), this should clarify the main focus
of the study, graphically or in narrative form. The frame of reference that has
emerged from our conceptualisation helps determine and guide the research
methodology presented in the following chapter.
The framework for high performing overseas alliances presented in Fig 2.3.
shows:
• The selection and management of agents must be considered in context
as part of the wider, strategic process of internationalisation.
• Managerial capability is a strong influence on successful outcome across
all stages of the internationalisation and development process.
• A structured selection process is pivotal, and a strong precondition of high
performing alliances.
• Trust and loyalty are antecedents to motivation, commitment and
subsequent success.
• Powerful, high performing alliances exhibit many similar characteristics.
• Alliance manager capabilities will determine alliance outcome.
The assumptions are that a planned and strategic process of
internationalisation has been undertaken, a saleable and competitive product
exists, and the appropriate incentives and rewards package is in place for the
agent.
Conceptualisation and Emerged Frame of Reference
30
Internationalisation
Process
Managerial Capability & Commitment
Saleable / Competitive Product
Triggers to internationalisation
Strategic International Business Plan
Expectations and Objectives
Market Entry Mode Selection
Alliance Manager Capabilities
Agent Selection Alliance
Selection Criteria
Agent Profiling
Evaluation
Selection
Search
Selected Mode - Agents
Screening
Trust & Loyalty
Commitment & Motivation
Relational Success Factors
Coordinated Effort
Joint Planning & Decision Making
Communications
Figure 2.3 A Framework for High Performing Overseas Alliances. Source: Author’s Construct.
Research methodology and data collection
31
Research Methodology and Data Collection
Strategy & Implementation
Background study
Literature Review
Objectives
Questionnaires
Grounding
Research Philosophy
Research Purpose
Research Approach
Data Quality
Choice of Data Collection
Validity
Reliability
Critique Methodology
Evaluate Data
3. Research Methodology and Data Collection. This chapter discusses, evaluates and justifies the research methodology
employed. The selection of an appropriate methodology and choice of
techniques significantly influences the outcome of the project research phase.
It is essential to understand research and how it relates to business
management. Our research was undertaken in a logical, sequential,
systematic and focused manner. As a result, we believe our conclusions and
recommendations to be based on validated and reliable data and information.
Fig 3. 1. Research Methodology and Data Collection Schematic. Source: Author’s Construct.
3.1. Research Philosophy How we view knowledge development determines research philosophy. There
are three widely accepted views: positivism, interpretivist and realism
(Saunders et al. 2003). Positivism is based on observable social reality. The
use of structured methods allows replication producing law-like
generalisations. From a more subjective position, Interpretism recognises that
business situations are complex and a function of the participants. Realism
suggests there is an outside and objective reality influencing a person’s
perception and behaviour, without them realising it.
Research methodology and data collection
32
Any research that involves people, their relationships, interaction and
environment is complex - and not an exact science. In practice, it seldom falls
into one domain. The complex nature of business and management research
lies between interpretivist and positivist, probably more reflecting the realist
position.
3.1.1. Research Philosophy for this work. There are aspects of our work that adopt the positivist approach, through the
use of quantitative techniques and in determining the ‘harder’ aspects of agent
profiling. It is our belief and experience that businesses do benefit from
following law like ‘generalised’ practices and methods. However, this objective
viewpoint, for example generalising factors critical to the success of such
relationships, is inappropriate in researching the ‘softer’ aspects of the agent –
principal relationship. This reflects the complexity, richness and uniqueness of
business situations. The many different subjective interpretations of these
situations are more akin to the interpretivist viewpoint. Our research
recognises that ultimately agent and principal are people working together in
an environment they have created and upon which they both have influence.
This also reflects interpretivist and realist views.
3.2. Research Purpose Studies can be classified by means of purpose. Three such generally
accepted classifications are exploratory, descriptive and explanatory (Robson
2002).
Exploratory research ‘explores’ the subject, often initially from a broader
perspective before becoming increasingly focused. It is a way of gaining a
wider understanding of a topic or area of research in order to increase
knowledge and determine what is happening. Descriptive research produces a
clear and accurate representation of an event or situation. Saunders et al.
(2003) suggest it is a means to an end. Having described a situation,
evaluation, conclusion and recommendation will follow.
Research methodology and data collection
33
Explanatory research studies the managerial situation so as to understand
and explain relationships that exist and have influence on each other. It builds
on the foundations of recognition and previous knowledge of relationship or
managerial problem (often determined by exploratory and descriptive
research) in order to answer “reasons why”.
3.2.1. Research Purpose for this work. Having recognised and accepted this common managerial problem, and our
objective being to determine a practical solution, our perspective was initially
descriptive. The research undertaken enabled us to better describe the
situation and determine probable and “general” causes, as well as generic
characteristics of successful relationships.
The review of literature, and discovery of a wealth of research previously
undertaken, was exploratory. This helped identify key issues for later
development. Some of the research into grounded theory has been
explanatory.
The use of all three generally accepted methods is to better understand and
describe the managerial problem that exists based on previously published
research and theory. On that basis it can de described, determined and
explained. The conclusions drawn and implications / recommendations for
management are then more likely to offer a practical solution to this problem
that is built on solid, reliable research.
3.3. Research Approach Authors discuss inductive and deductive approaches, and how these relate
generally to research typologies. Saunders et al. (2003) suggest that such
descriptions are potentially misleading and that issues and data should be
questioned in as many ways as possible. This creates both an openness and
awareness in the research.
Research methodology and data collection
34
3.3.1. Research approach for this work. As a result of exploratory research (literature review and experiences) we
have deduced that the problem exists, described it and determined that a
solution to that problem exists in the form of a practical framework. Our
research strategy will test this deduction. There is much evidence and
literature to support our hypothesis, but an open minded and inductive
perspective must be kept in order to ensure the validity and reliability of our
interpretations, conclusions and recommendations.
3.4. Research Strategy. A research strategy, through clear objectives, seeks to answer the research
questions. It should also specify the sources from which data will be drawn.
3.4.1. Research strategy for this work. Our objective was to identify determinants of successful selection and
management of overseas agents. To achieve those objectives, guarantee
validity and reliability, conclude and recommend, we undertook a detailed
study of existing works and drew on the experiences of practitioners. For this
reason, of the eight research strategies available (Saunders et al. 2003, Yin
2003) we chose surveys, in the form of questionnaires. The rationale behind
this choice is provided in Section 3.6.2.
3.5. Background Study - Literature Search & Review As part of our exploratory research, an extensive review of literature was
undertaken. This enabled us to position this work with previously published
works. The aim was to put the work in context and identify theoretical
frameworks involved. Taken initially from the wider perspective of agents as a
means of overseas market entry for SME’s, the general problems and lack of
success experienced, the work then concentrated on what emerged as two
key determinants of the success or failure of such relationships: the selection
process and management.
Research methodology and data collection
35
3.6. Primary Data Collection – Questionnaires. The dominant models, theories and concepts from our background study and
literature review, combined with our own experiences of international
business, were used in developing the study questionnaire. Piloting was done
in the form of structured interviews with experienced practitioners. This section
is sub divided to discuss key areas, as follows: Confidentiality; Choice of data
collection method – questionnaire; Questionnaire design; Piloting - Structured
interviews; Sample Information – target, numbers, profiles; Survey Period;
Techniques employed to maximise response rates.
Each of these areas will now be examined.
3.6.1. Confidentiality of data. It was emphasised that all responses would be treated confidentially. We were
permitted to use company names as part of the sample information sub
section. However, specific details relating to how each person / company
responded would be kept confidential, and only used to determine who had
responded. Responses would be aggregated and not attributed to a specific
individual. This was explained in all verbal communications with respondents,
in the covering letter and also in the email used to distribute the
questionnaires.
3.6.2. Choice of data collection method – questionnaire. The rationale behind the choice of collection method was based on practical
and logical reasons. We considered and evaluated alternative methodological
tools and their respective advantages and limitations (Saunders et al. 2003,
White 2000, Neville 2005). Case Study and Interview were two options
seriously considered. However, the following key considerations influenced
the final choice of questionnaire:
• Sample Size – wanted to target agents and distributors worldwide.
• Sample Locations – international spread.
• Resource constraints – time, money.
• Willingness of sample to agree to alternative research methods.
Research methodology and data collection
36
3.6.3. Questionnaire design. We were aware that the design of the questionnaire would affect response
rates, reliability and validity of data. We had used questionnaires successfully
as the main data collection tool in a previous MBA Project (Dougherty et al.
2006). In order to ensure the design of this document would maximise
response, validity and reliability, we focused on:
• Design and construction of individual questions;
• Document Format and Layout;
• Purpose of the work clearly explained in the covering letter;
• Pilot Testing;
• Planning and implementation.
Design was simple, the aim being quick and easy to completion. Sections
were unlabeled and uninterrupted by page breaks. There were 18 questions,
each of similar word length. To quantify responses and compare perceptions
and experiences, and a Likert Scale of 1 (Never) to 7 (Always) was used.
In this way we established a coding scheme prior to collecting the data and
incorporated it as part of the questionnaire.
Overall, the document was very much in line with the recommendations of
Saunders et al (2003) and Morrel-Samuels (2002). We believe that the
questions addressed the specific challenges and issues that emerged from
the background study of related literature, and based on our research
questions were critical for the study. It was well received by respondents, and
the questionnaire is shown in Appendix I.
3.6.4. Survey Period The pilot study by way of structured interviews took place between 24th and
31st July 2006. The questionnaire was then distributed by email over a period
of five days, 2nd to 6th August 2006. Respondents were requested to complete
and return by 18th August 2006. Although not communicated to respondents,
project planning allowed for delays in receiving an adequate % of returns. As
such, the cut off date was actually 31st August 2006.
Research methodology and data collection
37
3.6.5. Piloting the Questionnaire - Structured Interviews. Due to the personal relationship of the author with experienced practitioners,
the opportunity to pilot the questionnaire in the form of three structured
interviews did present itself. In addition to the piloting itself, this offered
significant additional benefits:
1. The chance to include interviews as part of our research, and gain more in
depth understanding and knowledge of the practitioners’ perspective and
thought process in answering the questions posed.
2. This pilot sample also allowed for a ‘Test re-test’. The questionnaire was
administered to them a second time, after editing. This allowed us to
correlate data collected from them under similar conditions, as
recommended by Mitchell (1996).
3.6.6. Sample Information – target, numbers, profiles. In order to ensure reliability and consistency, honesty of response and
sufficient data from which analysis could accurately draw conclusion, we
selected a sample of organisations acting as overseas agents for UK SME’s.
The sample consisted of companies from USA, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Germany, Israel
and Brazil. A number of these companies were also manufacturers of
equipment and exporters in their own right. Details of these companies are
given in Appendix II.
3.6.7. Response Rate. The questionnaire was designed to maximise response (see Section 3.6.3)
and respondents were chased proactively by use of email and, in some cases,
direct phone calls. Respondents were initially requested to complete and
return by 18th August 2006. Follow up emails reminding respondents of the
closing date were sent on 15th August. Subsequent to this follow up emails
were also sent on 21st and 28th August.
120 questionnaires were distributed and respondents asked to return them by
email. A 34% response rate was achieved and 41 completed questionnaires
returned.
Research methodology and data collection
38
3.7. Determinants of Data Quality – Validity and Reliability. These are vital concepts built into our research. Validity ensures that design
addresses the research questions and objectives. Reliability relates to
consistency. Interpretation and conclusions are subjective, and although
another researcher would possibly interpret our results differently, they would
be able to adopt the methodology and obtain similar findings. Throughout, we
remained wary of threats to reliability and validity (Robson 2002, in Saunders
et al. 2003).
3.8. Critique of methodology. We believe that the conclusions drawn are reliable and valid. This is based on
an extensive review of literature, the experiences of the author and the
consistency of response from a wide group of experienced, senior,
international business executives. This critique was included to review our
research methodology. Has it proved successful, reliable and valid? If
resources permitted, would we undertake the research in the same manner in
order to establish determinants and answer the research questions?
Data Analysis
39
4. Data Analysis. In this Chapter we present an analysis and interpretation of the survey data
collected, which then provides the basis for the conclusions, implications and
recommendations that follow in Chapter 5. The analysis is conducted in
relation to the three research questions and the emerged frame of reference
(Fig 2.3.) that form the basis for the study.
Our analysis followed a logical and structured process. One hundred and
twenty surveys were distributed. A 34% response rate was achieved. We had
forty one sets of pre-coded answers to eighteen questions. In addition, five
‘best practice’ surveys were also submitted.
This chapter is structured in the following manner:
Our initial analysis calculates and compares the weighted responses to each
question to what we could expect if the hypothesis is generally supported.
We then extend this in more detail through analysis and interpretation of
responses to certain questions, and “Best Practice” Surveys completed by five
specifically targeted individuals.
These two initial areas of analysis will confirm whether or not there is support
for our hypothesis, as defined in the research questions.
Having established this position, we then identify and analyse survey
responses to specific questions and reveal if general business practice is in
accordance with what has been previously determined as key to the
successful selection and management of overseas agents.
Data Analysis
40
4.1. Weighted response. To assess general support for our hypothesis, the following weighting has
been used, and applied to each of the survey questions: 1 = -3; 2 = -2; 3 = -1;
4 = 0; 5 = 1; 6 = 2; 7 = 3. The weighted scores for each question are as
shown in Fig 4.1.
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
8 6 12 9 17 14 2 15 13 10 5 11 16 3 1 7 4 18
Question no.
Scor
e
Fig 4.1. Survey Questions: Weighted Scores.
Table 4.1 details expected and actual responses to survey questions. This
initial analysis of the results demonstrates support for our hypothesis, with
strong positives relating to key survey questions 6, 8, 9 and 12. Question Expected
Response Actual
Response Question Expected
Response Actual
Response
1 - ve - 16 10 - ve - 6 2 + ve + 9 11 - ve - 10 3 - ve - 13 12 + ve + 71 4 - ve - 24 13 - ve - 5 5 - ve - 7 14 Neutral + 12 6 + ve + 77 15 Neutral - 4 7 - ve - 20 16 - ve - 12 8 + ve + 82 17 - ve + 30 9 + ve + 53 18 - ve - 36
Table 4.1. Expected response to survey questions.
Data Analysis
41
4.2. Agent Selection Hypothesis. A structured and strategic selection process is pivotal, and a strong
precondition of a high performing alliance. Predetermined criteria should be
used to generate an Agent profile against which all candidates are evaluated.
4.2.1. Agent Selection – Analysis of research data. The results from the research survey show that the hypothesis presented in
research question one is supported by practitioners. The response to survey
question 6 shows a very strong positive response. All results are either 4
(neutral) or higher. The median and mode are both 6. One in four answered
“always”, and 95% scored five and above.
Standard error, deviation and variation highlight the overall consensus that the
agent selection process is pivotal, and a strong precondition of a high
performing alliance.
This stance is reflected in the response to our ‘Best Practice’ profile questions,
submitted to five specific agents.
These agents were chosen based on their relative experience, standing in
their respective markets and geographical spread.
Best Practice Profiler - Agent 1: USA. 20 years.
Best Practice Profiler - Agent 2: Canada. 42 years.
Best Practice Profiler - Agent 3: Australia. 16 years.
Best Practice Profiler - Agent 4: Denmark. 7 years.
Best Practice Profiler - Agent 5: Israel. 13 years.
They were each asked to score the same survey based on what would be the
best case scenario. The results show strong support to our hypothesis with all
respondents scoring six or higher and 70% scoring “always”.
The response to survey questions relating to the selection process is now
presented.
Data Analysis
42
4.2.2. Response to Agent Selection Survey Question 6. ‘A logical and structured process of selection will significantly improve the
likelihood of a successful and high performing relationship’. The response to
this question is summarised in tabular and graphical format in Fig 4.2 below.
Fig 4.2.Survey Question 6 Response Profile.
Score No. of
Responses % of
response
Mean 5.88 1 0 0% Standard Error 0.13 2 0 0% Median 6 3 0 0% Mode 6 4 2 5% Standard Deviation 0.84 5 11 27% Sample Variance 0.71 6 18 44% Range 3 7 10 24% Minimum 4
Total 41 100% Maximum 7
0%
0%
0%
5%
27%
44%
24%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
43
4.2.3. Best Profile Survey Response – Questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Q1.An agent is chosen following professional and structured selection
process.
Q3.Predetermined criteria are used in agent evaluation.
Q4.A profile of the ‘most suitable agent’ is generated and used to aid
selection.
Q5.Manufacturer controls the selection process, in a structured and
knowledgeable manner.
Q7.Agents are evaluated and selected by manufacturers using a logical and
structured selection process.
The response to these questions is summarised in Fig 4.3 below.
Score No. of
Responses % of
response 1 0 0% 2 0 0% 3 0 0% 4 0 0% 5 0 0% 6 9 30% 7 21 70%
Total 30 100%
Fig 4.3 Best Profile Survey Questions 1,3,4,5,7 Response.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
70%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
44
4.3. High Performing Alliances Hypothesis. A structured and strategic selection process is a powerful antecedent to a
successful and high performing alliance. These powerful, high performing
alliances exhibit many similar characteristics. A high level of coordinated
effort, joint planning, decision-making and communication will work to
establish these key characteristics.
4.3.1. High Performing Alliance – Analysis of research data. The research results show that the hypothesis in research question two is
supported by practitioners. The response to survey questions 8 and 12 shows
a strong positive response. All results are either 4 or higher. The median and
mode are both 6.
One in three respondents answered “always”, and 93% scored five and
above. The overall consensus is then that high performing alliances do
exhibit similar characteristics. Coordinated effort, planning, decision-making
and excellent communications should be in place to create an environment
in which these key success characteristics can be established.
This is reflected in Best Practice’ profile question response, with results
showing strong support for our hypothesis. 43% scored “always” and nine out
of ten, six or higher. The second phase of our analysis will determine if this is
reflected in the way in which business operations are conducted.
The response to survey questions relating to the development of alliances is
now presented.
Data Analysis
45
4.3.2. Response to Alliance Development Survey Questions 8 and 12. Q8: ‘Mutual trust and loyalty are essential prerequisites for commitment,
motivation and development of high performing partnerships’.
Q12: ‘Powerful, high performing partnerships exhibit many similar
characteristics’.
The response to these questions is summarised below in Fig 4.4.
4.3.3. Best Profile Survey response to Question’s 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18. Question 8.Mutual trust and loyalty are essential prerequisites for
commitment, motivation and development of high performing partnerships Question 12.Powerful, high performing partnerships exhibit many similar
characteristics Question 13.High level of coordinated effort, joint planning, decision-making
and communication exists between partners.
Question 16.Manufacturer knows, understands and recognises the
importance of characteristics in high performing relationships
Question 17.Agent knows, understands and recognises the importance of
characteristics in high performing relationships
Question 18.Regular “relationship audits” are undertaken together to improve
overall performance and conditions for success.
The response to these questions is summarised below in Fig 4.5.
Data Analysis
46
Q8 Q12
Mean 6 Mean 5.7Standard Error 0.14 Standard Error 0.13Median 6 Median 6Mode 6 Mode 6Standard Deviation 0.89 Standard Deviation 0.84Sample Variance 0.80 Sample Variance 0.70Minimum 4 Minimum 4Maximum 7 Maximum 7Count 41 Count 41
Question 8 & 12 Response Data.
Q8 Surv ey Response.
Q12 Survey Response.
Fig 4.4 Survey Question 8 & 12 Response Profile.
0%
0%
0%
5%
24%
37%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0%
0%
0%
7%
29%
46%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
47
Score No. of
Responses % of
response 1 0 0% 2 0 0% 3 0 0% 4 0 0% 5 3 10% 6 14 47% 7 13 43%
Total 30 100%
Fig 4.5 Best Profile Response: Questions 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18.
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
47%
43%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
48
4.4. Alliance Manager Hypothesis. The building of trust, and its anticipation, will result in commitment to the
relationship, loyalty and a motivation to succeed. These characteristics are
essential prerequisites for success. They are the foundations built by alliance
managers who have a critical and difficult role to play.
4.4.1. Alliance Manager – Analysis of research data. We believe the survey questions chosen have enabled us to determine
alliance manager capabilities. We establish from this if practitioners agree with
the hypothesis relating to mutual trust, loyalty and the key role of the alliance
manage. Phase two analysis of the response to these questions will show
whether or not the alliance manager demonstrates the required capabilities in
practice.
The overall survey results show that the hypothesis presented in research
question three is strongly supported. The response to survey questions 8
and 9 show a high positive response. One in five scored the questions
“always”, and nine out of ten scored five or higher.
This is reflected in Best Practice’ profile question response, with results also
showing strong support for our hypothesis. Over half of those surveyed
answered with the highest rating of seven (always), and all responses were
five or higher.
The slightly lower scores and wider spread of response to question 9 is
understandable. Agents agree that the alliance manager is a key role and that
trust, and its anticipation, will result in commitment to the relationship, loyalty
and a motivation to succeed. However, they also believe that these essential
prerequisites are not just built by the alliance managers but also by the
agents. The response to survey questions relating to the alliance manager is now
presented.
Data Analysis
49
4.4.2. Response to Alliance Manager Survey Questions 8 and 9. Q8: ‘Mutual trust and loyalty are essential prerequisites for commitment,
motivation and development of high performing partnerships’.
Q9: ‘Trust and loyalty should be created by the alliance managers’.
The response to these questions is summarised below in Fig 4.6
4.4.3. Best Profile Response – Q5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Question 5. Manufacturer controls the selection process, in a structured and
knowledgeable manner.
Question 7. Agents are evaluated and selected by manufacturers using a
logical and structured selection process.
Question 8. Mutual trust and loyalty are essential prerequisites for
commitment, motivation and development of high performing partnerships.
Question 9. Trust and loyalty should be created by the alliance managers.
Question 10. Alliance managers are effective, professional, supportive and
capable.
Question 11. Manufacturer recognises critical role of alliance manager, key
requirements of position and appoints person accordingly.
The response to these questions is summarised below in Fig 4.7
Data Analysis
50
Q8 Q9
Mean 6.00 Mean 5.29 Standard Error 0.14 Standard Error 0.15 Median 6.00 Median 5.00 Mode 6.00 Mode 5.00 Standard Deviation 0.89 Standard Deviation 0.98 Sample Variance 0.80 Sample Variance 0.96 Minimum 4 Minimum 3 Maximum 7 Maximum 7 Count 41 Count 41
Question 8 & 9 Response Data. Q8 Survey Response
Q9 Survey Response
Fig 4.6 Questions 8 & 9 Response Profile.
0%
0%
0%
5%
24%
37%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0%
0%
5%
12%
41%
32%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
51
Score No. of
Responses % of
response 1 0 0%2 0 0%3 0 0%4 0 0%5 4 13%6 10 33%7 16 53%
Total 30 100%
Fig 4.7 Best Profile Response: Questions 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
33%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
52
4.5. Research Question 1 – Agent Selection. We have determined above, with some degree of confidence, that
practitioners agree with the hypothesis outlined in Research Question 1. In
this second phase of our analysis we will determine from the analysis of our
survey results if this accepted best practice is reflected in the way in which
business is conducted.
4.5.1. Agent selection - Research data analysis. The survey questions analysed in this section are direct and specific to the
issue of the agent selection process. The shift in response from the positive
best practice responses, to the negative ‘how it is’, is immediately apparent.
There is a good distribution of response but all means, medians and modes
are 4 or less. Only one in five gave a positive response to any of the selection
process questions. Eight out of ten responses were four or less.
Only one in ten gave a strong positive response to very clear and direct
questions. There is no ambiguity in what each survey question was asking
and addressing.
It is very apparent from these results, that even though practitioners are aware
of how and why the process should be undertaken this is not reflected in the
manner in which relationships are established and managed in practice.
The response to survey questions relating to the agent selection process is
now presented.
Data Analysis
53
4.5.2. Survey Response – Questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7. The response to these questions, both overall and individually, is presented in
tabular and graphical format in Fig 4.8 to 4.13 below.
Score No. of
Responses % of
response Overall
Response No. of
Responses % of
response
1 5 2% 5 or higher 44 21% 2 34 17% 4 or less 161 79% 3 66 32% 4 56 27% 5 23 11% 6 17 8% 7 4 2%
Total 205 100%
Fig 4.8 Overall Survey Response. Questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7. – Agent Selection Process.
2%
17%
32%
27%
11%
8%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
54
Question1. An agent is chosen following professional and structured
selection process.
0%
22%
29%
27%
12%
7%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.9 Question 1 Survey Response.
Question3. Predetermined criteria are used in agent evaluation.
2%
20%
34%
17%
7%
17%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.10 Question 3 Survey Response.
Data Analysis
55
Question4. A profile of the ‘most suitable agent’ is generated and used to aid
selection.
7%15
%34
%27
%10
%5%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.11 Question 4 Survey Response.
Question5. Manufacturer controls the selection process, in a structured and
knowledgeable manner.
0%12
%29
%34
%15
%7%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.12 Question 5 Survey Response.
Data Analysis
56
Question7. Agents are evaluated and selected by manufacturers using a
logical and structured selection process.
2%
15%
34%
32%
12%
5%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.13 Question 7 Survey Response.
Data Analysis
57
4.6. Research Question 2 – Development of High Performing Alliances. We determined above, with some degree of confidence, that practitioners
agree with the hypothesis outlined in Research Question 2. In this second
phase of our analysis we will determine from the analysis of our survey results
if this accepted best practice is reflected in the way in which business is
conducted.
4.6.1. Alliance development - Research data analysis. Although the shift to the negative is again apparent, the spread of results with
some individual positive’s, is an indication that agents believe they recognise
the critical issues within the development of these alliances more than the
principals do. For example, the response to questions 14 and 17 generated
an overall positive spread of results, with overall one in two giving a five or
higher response.
However, from the response to question 15, we can see that agents do not
proactively address the issues that they are aware of. 70% scored four or less
to in response to whether or not they selected their own in house product
champion accordingly.
There is a good spread of response and distribution. Means, medians and
modes are less than 4 in all but two questions, where the figure still achieves
a score of less than 5.
Overall, 68% of the response showed a neutral or negative response to the
alliance development questions. In line with the survey results to research
question one, these results suggest that although practitioners are generally
aware of what makes strong and successful alliances, common practice does
not reflect this.
Fewer than one in six gave a strong positive response to any of the questions
relating to how these alliances should be developed in practice.
Data Analysis
58
4.6.2. Survey Response – Q13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. The response to these questions, both overall and individually, is presented in
tabular and graphical format in Fig 4.14 to 4.20 below.
Score No. of
Responses % of
response Overall
Response No. of
Responses % of
response1 5 2% 5 or higher 79 32% 2 30 12% 4 or less 167 68% 3 63 26% 4 69 28% 5 44 18% 6 26 11% 7 9 4%
Total 246 100%
Fig 4.14 Overall Response: Questions 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 – Alliance Development.
2%
12%
26%28
%18
%11
%4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
59
Q13.High level of coordinated effort, joint planning, decision-making and
communication exists between partners.
2%10
%32
%29
%12
%10
%5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.15 Question 13 Survey Response.
Q14.Agent appoints in house product champion to coordinate business
activities with manufacturer.
0%10
%17
%32
%27
%5%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.16 Question 14 Survey Response.
Data Analysis
60
Q15.Agent’s Product champion is actually selected based on capability.
0%15
%20
%37
%20
%10
%0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.17 Question 15 Survey Response.
Q16.Manufacturer knows, understands and recognises the importance of
characteristics in high performing relationships.
0%10
%39
%32
%10
%10
%0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.18 Question 16 Survey Response.
Data Analysis
61
Q17. Agent knows, understands and recognises the importance of
characteristics in high performing relationships.
0%
2%15
%24
%29
%24
%5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.19 Question 17 Survey Response.
Q18. Regular “relationship audits” are undertaken together to improve overall
performance and conditions for success.
10%
27%
32%
15%
10%
5%2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.20 Question 18 Survey Response.
Data Analysis
62
4.7. Research Question 3 – Alliance Manager Capabilities. From an analysis of key survey questions, we were able to determine with
some degree of confidence, that practitioners agree with the hypothesis
outlined in Research Question 3. In this second phase of our analysis we will
determine from the analysis of our survey results if this accepted best practice
is reflected in the way in which business is conducted.
4.7.1. Alliance Manager - Research data analysis. The survey questions selected for analysis enabled us to determine the
agents' perception of alliance manager capabilities with some certainty. The
contrast between the response given in the best practice profiling and these
results indicates with some degree of certainty the gap that exists between
the required and the actual level of alliance manager capability.
There is a good spread of response and distribution. Nevertheless, all means,
medians and modes are 4 or less, and fewer than one in ten gave a strong
positive response to any of the questions. Only 20% of scores were positive.
Overall, 79% of the response showed a neutral or negative response to the
agent selection questions. Individual questions showed neutral or negative
responses varying from 73% to 85%, along with minimal error, variance and
deviation.
The initial phase of our analysis determined that practitioners did agree with
the hypothesis relating to mutual trust, loyalty and the key role of the alliance
manage in establishing that trust, and in managing a strong and successful
partnership.
However, from these results it is clear that, for whatever reason, alliance
managers are not of a level of competency expected or required in managing
the development of string and successful overseas alliances.
Data Analysis
63
4.7.2. Survey Response – Q5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 18. The response to these questions, both overall and individually, is presented in
tabular and graphical format in Fig 4.21 to 4.27 below.
Score No. of
Responses % of
response Overall
Response No. of
Responses % of
response1 6 2% 5 or higher 52 21% 2 31 13% 4 or less 194 79% 3 81 33% 4 76 31% 5 31 13% 6 17 7% 7 4 2%
Total 246 100%
Fig 4.21 Overall Response: Questions 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 18 – Alliance Manager.
Q5.Manufacturer controls the selection process, in a structured and
knowledgeable manner.
2%
13%
33%
31%
13%
7%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Data Analysis
64
0%12
%29
%34
%15
%7%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.22 Question 5 Survey Response.
Q7.Agents are evaluated and selected by manufacturers using a logical and
structured selection process.
2%
15%
34%
32%
12%
5%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.23 Question 7 Survey Response.
Data Analysis
65
Q10.Alliance managers are effective, professional, supportive and capable.
0%
10%
34%
29%
15%
12%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.24 Question 10 Survey Response.
Q11.Manufacturer recognises critical role of alliance manager, key
requirements of position and appoints person accordingly.
0%
2%37
%46
%12
%2%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.25 Question 11 Survey Response.
Data Analysis
66
Q13.High level of coordinated effort, joint planning, decision-making and
communication exists between partners.
2%10
%32
%29
%12
%10
%5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.26 Question 13 Survey Response.
Q18.Regular “relationship audits” are undertaken together to improve overall
performance and conditions for success.
10%
27%
32%
15%
10%
5%2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig 4.27 Question 18 Survey Response.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
67
5. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations. The objective of this project was to identify key success factors in the
selection, development and management of high performing overseas Agents
and Distributors and through research determine the gaps that exist between
what should be – and what is.
For UK SME’s these relationships are a common means of developing
international markets. They are a major source of significant competitive
advantage and attractive profits. They help secure and maintain market
leadership, and are a foundation for overall business success. However,
incorrect agent selection and poor relationship management (or both) places
the SME at a serious competitive disadvantage. At worse, it could ruin the
entire business development strategy.
This chapter summarises our work based upon the background study,
research findings and analysis. In each of the following sections, we draw
conclusions from the work, discuss implications for management, and
recommend a package of management actions and initiatives as a practical
solution. Directions and recommendations for further research are also
prescribed.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
68
5.1. Research Question 1 - Agent Selection. A structured and strategic selection process is pivotal, and a strong
precondition of a high performing alliance. Predetermined criteria should be
used to generate an Agent profile against which all are evaluated. Do
practitioners agree? Are potential Agents evaluated and selected in such a
way? What are the implications for practitioners?
5.1.1. Conclusions. Our background study and research results strongly support the essential
prerequisite of sagacious selection of agents and distributors. However, the
research results show that in the majority if cases this is not implemented. It
has also been identified from the research that if done at all, it is often in an
opportunistic or ad hoc fashion. In many cases the process of selection is
undertaken by inexperienced and poorly qualified managers.
In addition, our research has shown that a strategic business plan for the
development of the overseas market is missing or incomplete and there is a
general lack of understanding as to what is involved in a successful process
and what is expected of the agent.
5.1.2. Implications. The failure to implement a structured and strategic selection process, results
in the principal selecting the wrong agent, one that is incapable or ineffective
in implementing the overseas business development plan. Expectations are
not realised and objectives not achieved. As a result, performance is poor and
well below what is possible and required. Business opportunities are lost,
resulting in lost sales and substantial loss of earnings. The principal will
undoubtedly spend considerably more management time attempting to
resolve the issues. This is a scarce and valuable resource for SME’s and has
a significant knock on opportunity cost.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
69
Eventually the relationship between the principal and agent will fail. This then
means that the principal will face costly and damaging termination of the
agreement.
Reputation of the principal, the product and the agent is damaged, potentially
permanently. Opportunities will likely have fallen to the competition, and lost
Customers will have started relationships with other suppliers.
5.1.3. Recommendations. Based on our study of the literature and the survey results it is our
recommendation that the principal search for, and select, Agents and
Distributors utilising a structured selection process. This should be part of a
wider framework for developing high performing overseas alliances.
We present such a framework in Appendix 3, one that incorporates such key
areas as:
• Capable alliance / business development manager.
• Profile the preferred agent against predetermined criteria.
• Profiling Canvas.
• Screening process.
A principal must remember that it is better not to appoint an agent than to
appoint one incorrectly. Legislation is complex and termination very costly.
Therefore, reacting to advances from overseas and appointing agents in an
ad hoc and reactive manner must be avoided. An open and honest appraisal
of why the overseas entry is being considered and what is expected must be
undertaken along with a review of the company’s resources and capabilities in
embarking on the market development.
If the organisational capabilities do not meet the requirements of the strategy,
then those capabilities must first be developed before the strategy is
implemented. This process of developing the resources of the firm was
discussed and shown graphically in Fig. 2.1 on Page 19.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
70
5.2. Research Question 2 - High Performing Alliances. Our background study and research determined that a structured and
strategic selection process is a powerful antecedent to a successful and
high performing alliance. These powerful, high performing alliances
commonly exhibit many similar characteristics. A high level of coordinated
effort, joint planning, decision-making and communication will work to
establish these key characteristics. Do practitioners agree? Do high levels of
coordinated and joint activities exist? What are the implications for
practitioners?
5.2.1. Conclusions. Respondent practitioners recognised and agreed with the prerequisites for
successful high performing alliances. However, the results also demonstrated
that the recognised and acknowledged ‘best practice’ is not reflected in the
way in which these key principal – agent relationships are established and
managed.
The following key prerequisites for success, that should be competitive
strengths, are in fact significant weakness. This will have serious implications
for alliance development. As with selection, few appeared to be actually
attempting to implement them, or due to resource and capability limitations
were unable to do so.
• Selection of the correct agent
• Effective, professional, capable, supportive alliance manager.
• Creation of mutual trust and loyalty leading to commitment and
motivation to succeed.
• Regular relationship audits or health checks.
• A high level of coordinated effort, joint planning, decision-making and
two way communication.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
71
5.2.2. Implications. Even with the correct agent in place, the relationship will be damaged and will
not develop as it should. There is a disconnect between what should be
happening and what needs to be done to make it happen. This will be due to
either selection of the wrong agent, the capabilities of the alliance manager or
both. Characterised by poor communications, poor planning and
implementation, the partners are not working together to develop a strong and
high performing alliance.
It is likely that they will have differing views and objectives (if any) and there
will be significant misunderstanding. Poor sales performance and lower profits
result, along with loss of first mover advantage. Competitors gain the initiative
and competitive advantage from a superior agent selection and management
programme. The reputation of the principal, the product and the agent is
damaged, potentially permanently. Opportunities will likely have fallen to the
competition, and lost Customers will have started relationships with other
suppliers.
5.2.3. Recommendations. Agent selection and management cannot be considered in isolation. It must
be taken in context, as part of the overall strategy of internationalisation and
choice of market entry mode. That requires, first and foremost, a commitment
from senior management and the necessary resources and capabilities to
implement the overseas business development strategy. With this in place,
essential prerequisites to success are:
• A capable alliance manager.
• The correct agent.
• Strategic joint business development plan.
• Coordinated effort, joint planning and decision-making.
• Regular relationship health checks.
We present a Relationship Health Check Framework at Appendix IV.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
72
5.3. Research Question 3 - Alliance Manager Capabilities. The building of trust, and its anticipation, will result in commitment to the
relationship, loyalty and a motivation to succeed. These characteristics are
essential prerequisites for success. They are the foundations built by alliance
managers who have a critical and difficult role to play. Is this recognised and
understood, and do current alliance managers measure up? What are the
implications for practitioners?
5.3.1. Conclusions. The survey questions selected for analysis enabled us to determine the
agents' perception of alliance manager capabilities with some certainty.
Practitioners did agree with the hypothesis relating to mutual trust, loyalty and
the key role of the alliance manage in establishing that trust, and in managing
a strong and successful partnership. It was also very clear that commonly
recognised and acknowledged best practice was not reflected in the
capabilities of the alliance managers.
Generally, alliance managers do not demonstrate the required capabilities,
either through a lack of competency, training and / or experience. Although
respondents did agree that the alliance manager is a key role and that trust,
and its anticipation, will result in commitment to the relationship, loyalty and a
motivation to succeed, the conclusion was that these essential prerequisites
are not just built by the alliance managers, but also by the agents themselves.
Our background study and research results show strong support for the
essential precondition of trust in the relationship, and how it commonly leads
to loyalty and commitment. These characteristics are essential prerequisites
for success, built by alliance managers, who have a critical and difficult role to
play. These complicated principal - agent relationships call for unusual
leadership and management.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
73
As we noted in Chapter 2, these leaders are a rare ‘horse of a different
colour’, who should be equipped with a wide range of strengths and
experience, including:
• Experience and confidence in the international business arena.
• Ability to create an environment of trust.
• A broad strategic vision.
• Genuine empathy for others in the relationship.
• Ability to overcome a single company perspective.
• Outstanding communications skills – often across cultural boundaries.
5.3.2. Implications. This is a resource and capabilities issue. The firm must have the capabilities
to implement, and manage the implementation of, the business strategy.
The best product, strategy and agent will mean little if boundary spanning
managers are not of the required standard and capability.
What results is lack of strategic direction, poor agent selection process and
disconnect between strategy and implementation. The manager will have
difficulty in establishing trust and loyalty, both of which are essential for
developing commitment and motivation in the relationship with the agent.
Eventually the relationship between the principal and agent will fail and the
principal will be faced with those costly and damaging termination issues.
Reputation will be damaged, potentially permanently. Opportunities will have
been lost and recovering the initiative and competitive advantage
considerably harder.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
74
5.3.3. Recommendations. Based on our study of the literature and the survey results it is apparent that
both principal and agent must recognised and learn to understand the
complicated nature of the alliance and boundary spanning roles. It is
necessary to provide sufficient resource to undertake a professional and
effective search, selection, recruitment and training to ensure a qualified and
capable manager is in place. The correct rewards and incentives package will
also be required to secure such managers.
This is a resource and capabilities issue. A competent and capable business
manager is required for this role. It is a senior management position. As such
they need to not only be involved in, but to determine and drive the overall
process of market entry and planning, search, evaluation and selection of the
agent.
In addition, these key alliance managers in such pivotal positions must be
given the tools and resources necessary to make overseas market entries
successful.
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations
75
5.4. Directions and recommendations for further research SME’s play a key role in the UK economy. They are the innovators, the
entrepreneurs, the creators of new jobs, of economic growth and wealth. They
should be formidable forces in international business, but the majority fail to
fully develop and secure the potential benefits of international trade.
In consideration of this and the benefits that would accrue to businesses and
the economy, further research is recommended, with funding provided by
central and local government organisations (Department of Trade and
Industry, UK Small Business Service and Chambers' of Commerce).
Research across a wider range of businesses is required to determine the full
extent of the problem and identify existing methods of operation that are the
cause of poor performance. The research will also help to determine a best
practice profile.
Based on the research, a generic plan can be drawn up and implemented to
help improve overall performance of UK SME’S in these key areas.
This further research should lead to nationwide initiatives that tackle the
issues and offer a practical solution to SME Management, with subsequent
significant benefits to small business and the UK economy as a whole.
References and Bibliography
76
References and Bibliography.
ABELL, D.F., 1999. ‘Competing Today While Preparing for Tomorrow’. Sloan
Management Review, Spring, 73-81.
ALBAUM, G., STRANDSKOV, J. AND DUERR, E., 2005. International
marketing and export management, 5th Edn. London: Kogan Page.
ANDERSON, E. AND WEITZ, B., 1989. ‘Determinants of Continuity in
Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads’. Marketing Science, Vol. 8, Fall,
310–323.
ANDERSON, J.C., 1995. ‘Relationships in Business Markets: Exchange
Episodes, Value Creation, and Their Empirical Assessment’. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, 346–350.
ABRATT, R. AND PITT, L.F., 1989. ‘Selection and motivation of industrial
distributors: A comparative analysis’. European journal of marketing, Vol.
23, Issue 2, 144-153.
ARNOLD, D., 2000. ‘Seven Rules of International Distribution’. Harvard
Business Review, November – December, 131 – 137.
BELLO, D. AND LOTHIA, R., 1995. ‘Export Channel Design: The Use of
Foreign Distributors and Agents’. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 23, Issue 2, 83 – 94.
BOWERS, D.G. AND FRANKLIN, J.L., n.d. ‘Basic concepts of Survey
Feedback’. Not Known, Not Known.
BURCA, S.D., FLETCHER, R., AND BROWN, L., 2004. International
Marketing: An SME perspective, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
References and Bibliography
77
CAMERON, S., 2001. The MBA Handbook. Study skills for postgraduate
management study, 4th Edn. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd.
CAMPBELL, A.J., 1996. ‘The effects of internal firm barriers on the export
behaviour of small firms in a free trade environment’. Journal of small
business management, 34 (3), 50 – 58.
CAVUSGIL, S.T., YEOH, P.L., AND MITRI, M., 1995. ‘Selecting Foreign
Distributors: An expert systems approach’. Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 24, 297 – 304.
CLASEN, T.F., 1991. ‘An exporter’s guide to selecting foreign agents and
distributors’. The Journal of European Business, Vol. 3, No. 2, 28 – 32.
CZINKOTA, M.R. AND RONKAINEN, I.A., 1995. International Marketing,
USA: Dryden Press.
DAMON, S.W., 1984. ‘Establishing a Foreign Distributor and Agent Network’.
Business America. Washington: June, Vol. 7, Iss. 13, 12.
DENSCOMBE, M., 1998. The good research guide for small social research
projects. Buckingham: Open University Press.
DONALDSON, W., 1998. Sales Management Theory and Practice. 2nd Edn.
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
DOOLE, I., AND LOWE, R., 2004. International Marketing Strategy: Analysis,
Development and Implementation. 4th Edn. London: Thomson Learning.
DOYLE, P., 1994. Marketing Management and Strategy. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall.
References and Bibliography
78
DOUGHERTY, S., TAPSELL, P.C., BHARGAVA, A., THEWLIS, J.,
SIMONELLI, D., AND AYUBA, D., 2006. ‘Qbase: The Management of
Organisational Change’, MBA Group Dissertation, The University of
Manchester, Manchester Business School.
DOUGLAS, S.P., AND CRAIG, C.S., 1989. ‘Evolution of Global Marketing
Strategy: Scale, Scope and Synergy’. Columbia Journal of World
Business: Fall, 47 – 59.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, Export Section, UK.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/index.html [Accessed August 30th 2006].
ETGAR, M., 1979. ‘Sources and types of inter channel conflict’. Journal of
retailing, 55, 61-78.
FRAM, E.H. AND AJAMI, R.A., 1994. ‘International distributor and the role of
US top management: A requirement for export competitiveness’. The
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. Santa Barbara, Vol. 9, Iss. 4,
33 – 41.
FRAZIER, G.L., 1999. ‘Organizing and Managing Channels of Distribution’.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 27, 226–240.
GOODMAN, L.E. AND DION, P.A., 2001. ‘The determinants of commitment in
the distributor–manufacturer relationship’. Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 30, 287–300.
GRANT, R.M., 2002. Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Concepts, Techniques,
Applications. 4th Edn. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.
GREINER, L.E., 1972. ‘Evolution & Revolution as Organisations Grow’.
Harvard Business Review, July – August.
References and Bibliography
79
GUMMESSON, E., 2000. Qualitative Methods in Management Research. 2nd
Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
HARRIGAN, K.R., 1985. Strategies for Joint Ventures. Free Press.
HICKSON, D.J., AND PUGH, D.S., 2001. Management Worldwide: Distinctive
Styles Amid Globalization. 2nd Edn. London: Penguin Group.
HILL, C.W.L., 2005. International Business: Competing in the Global
Marketplace. 5th Edn. New York: McGraw – Hill.
HLAVACEK, J.D., AND MCQUISTION, T.J., 1983. ‘Industrial Distributors –
when, who and how?’. Harvard Business Review, March – April.
HOFSTEDE, G., 1981. ‘Culture and organisations’. International Studies of
Management and Organizations, Vol. X, No. 4, 15-41.
HOLLENSEN, S., 1998. Global Marketing: a market responsive approach.
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
HUCZYNSKI, A., AND BUCHANAN, D., 2001. Organisational Behaviour; An
Introductory Text. 4th Edn. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: FT Prentice
Hall.
JENSEN, M.C., AND MECKLING, W.H., 1976. ‘Theory of the firm: Managerial
behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure’. Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 3, 305 – 360.
JOBBER, J., 2001. Principles and Practice of Marketing. Berkshire, England:
McGraw Hill.
References and Bibliography
80
JOHNSTON, R., AND LAWRENCE, P.R., 1988. ‘Beyond Vertical Integration-
The Rise of the Value-Adding Partnership’. Harvard Business Review 88,
94-108.
JOSEPH, B.W., GARDNER, J.T., THACH, S., AND VERNON, F., 1995. ‘How
industrial distributors view distributor – supplier partnership
arrangements’. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 24, 27 – 36.
KANTER, R.M., 1979. ‘Power failure in management circuits’. Harvard
Business Review, July-August, 65-75.
KANTER, R.M., 1994. ‘Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances’.
Harvard Business Review, Jul/Aug, Vol. 72 Issue 4, 96 – 109.
KAPLAN, R.S., AND NORTON, D.P., 1992. ‘The Balanced Scorecard –
Measures that Drive Performance’. Harvard Business Review, January –
February.
KAPLAN, R.S., AND NORTON, D.P., 2001. The Strategy Focused
Organization. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, USA.
KOTLER, P., AND ARMSTRONG, G., 1994. Principles or Marketing. New
Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
LASSAR, W.M., AND KERR, J.L., 1996. ‘Strategy and control in supplier –
distributor relationships: An agency perspective’. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, 613 – 632.
LITTLE, R., 1970. ‘The marketing channel: Who should lead this extra-
corporate organisation’. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, January.
LONDON, S., 2006. ‘Little time for management theory’. Financial Times, 17
January.
References and Bibliography
81
MAJARO, S., 1982. International Marketing: A Strategic Approach to World
Markets. Revised Edition. London: George Allen & Unwin.
MASON, J., 1996. Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications.
MCKAY, R., 2006. ‘Appointment and management of agents and distributors’.
Proceedings of North East Chamber of Commerce Conference on
Development of Overseas Markets by SME’s. Delivered 5th July 2006.
MCQUISTION, S.H., 2001. ‘A conceptual model for building and maintaining
relationships between manufacturers' representatives and their
principals’. Industrial Marketing Management Vol 30. 165–181.
MILES, M.B., AND HUBERMANN, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An
expanded source book. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications Inc.
MITCHELL, V., 1996. ‘Assessing the reliability and validity of questionnaires:
an empirical example’. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 5:2,
199-207.
MOORE, R.A., 1987. ‘The selection of agents and distributors: A descriptive
model’. Quarterly review of marketing, Vol 13 1, 12 – 16.
MORGAN, R.M., AND HUNT, S.D., 1994. ‘The Commitment-Trust Theory of
Relationship Marketing’. Journal of Marketing, Vol.58 July, 20-38.
MORREL – SAMUELS, P., 2002. ‘Getting the truth into workplace surveys’.
Harvard Business Review, February.
NARUS, J.A., AND ANDERSON, J.C., 1986. ‘Turn Your Industrial Distributors
into Partners’. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 66-71.
References and Bibliography
82
NARUS, J.A., AND ANDERSON, J.C., 1987. ‘Distributor contributions to
partnerships with manufacturers’. Business Horizons, September -
October, 34-42.
NARUS, J.A., AND ANDERSON, J.C., 1988. ‘Strengthen distributor
performance through channel positioning’. Sloan Management Review,
Winter.
NARUS, J.A., AND ANDERSON, J.C., 1990. ‘A Model of Distributor Firm and
Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships’. Journal of Marketing 54, 42-
58.
NARUS, J.A., AND ANDERSON, J.C., 1996. ‘Rethinking Distribution:
Adaptive Channels’. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 112-120.
NEVILLE, C., 2005. Introduction to Research and Research Methods.
University of Bradford, School of Management, Bradford. Retrieved July
1st 2005.
NICHOLSON, I., DR., 2000. ‘Harvard Referencing 3rd Edn.’ Moreton Institute
of TAFE, Brisbane, Qld.
PORTER, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing
Industries and Competitors. New York: Macmillan / Free Press.
PORTER, M.E., 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press.
REDDY, N.M., AND MARVIN, M.P., 1986. ‘Developing a Manufacturer
Distributor Information Partnership’. Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 15, 157-163.
REYNOLDS, P.D., 1971. A Primer in Theory Construction. New York:
MacMillan Publishing Company.
References and Bibliography
83
ROBSON, C., 2002. Real world research. 2nd Edn. Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
ROOT, F.R., 1987. Entry Strategies for International Markets. Lexington, USA:
Lexington Books.
ROOT, F.R., 1994. International Trade and Investment. USA: South Western
Publishing.
ROSENBERG, L.J., AND STERN, L.W., 1971. ‘Conflict measurement in the
distribution channel’. Journal of marketing research, November, 8, 437–
442.
ROSENBLOOM, B., 1978a. ‘Motivating independent distribution channel
members’. Industrial Marketing Management, 7, 275 – 281.
ROSENBLOOM, B., 1978b. Marketing channels: A management view.
Hinsdale, Illinois: Dryden Press.
ROSSON, P.J., 1986. ‘Time passages: The changing nature of manufacturers
– distributor overseas relationships in exporting’. Industrial marketing and
purchase, Vol. 1, No. 2.
ROSSON, P.J., AND FORD, D.I., 1982. ‘Manufacturer-Overseas Distributor
Relations and Export Performance’. Journal of international business
studies, Fall, Vol. 13, 57 – 72.
SAUNDERS, M., LEWIS, P., AND THORNHILL, A., 2003. Research Methods
for Business Students. 3rd Edn. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd.
SHIPLEY, D.D., 1984. ‘Selection and motivation of distribution intermediaries’.
Industrial Marketing Management, 13, 249 - 256.
References and Bibliography
84
SHIPLEY, D.D., 1987. What British distributors dislike about manufacturers‘.
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 16, 153-162.
SHIPLEY, D., COOK, D., AND BARNETT, E., 1989. ‘Recruitment, Motivation,
Training and Evaluation of Overseas Distributors. European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 23 Issue 2, 79-93.
SIBLEY, S.D., AND TEAS, R.K., 1979. ‘The Manufacturer’s Agent in Industrial
Distribution’. Industrial Marketing Management Vol. 8, 286 – 292.
SPEKMAN, R.E., ISABELLA, L.A., MACAVOY, T.G. AND FORBES III.,T.,
1996. ‘Creating Strategic Alliances which Endure’. Long Range Planning,
Jun, Vol. 29, Issue 3, 346-357.
STERN, L.W., AND EL-ANSARY, A.I., 1982. Marketing channels. 2nd Edn.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
STEWART, D.B., AND MCAULY, A., 1999. ‘The effects of export stimulations:
implications for export performance’. Journal of marketing management,
15 (6), 505 – 518.
TERPSTRA, V., 1983. International Marketing. 3rd Edn. New York: CBS
College Publishing.
WALVOORD, R.W., 1983. ‘Foreign Market Entry Strategies’. Advanced
Management Journal, Spring.
WEBSTER F.E., 1975. ‘Perceptions of the industrial distributor’. Industrial
marketing management, 4, 257 – 264.
WEBSTER F.E., 1976. ‘The Role of the Industrial Distributor in Marketing
Strategy’. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, Issue 3.
References and Bibliography
85
WHITE, B., 2000. Dissertation Skills: For Business and Management
Students. London: Thomson Learning.
WYNN GRIFFITH, M., 2005. ‘Promoting SME Development; National
Dialogue for Entrepreneurship’, Small Business Committee, House of
Representatives, Capitol Hill, Washington DC. 14th February 2005.
YIN, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Edn.
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications Inc.
YOUNG, S., HAMILL, J., WHEELER, C., AND DAVIES, R.J., 1989.
International Market Entry and Development: Strategies and
Management. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, England: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
ZHANG, C., CAVUSGIL, S.T., AND ROATH, A.S., 2003. ‘Manufacturer
governance of foreign distributor relationships: do relational norms
enhance competitiveness in the export market?’. Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 34, 550–566.
Appendix I
A1 -
1
Appendix I Research Questionnaire.
Appendix I
A1 -
2
Dear Colleague, Thank you very much for your time, help and support with this study. My name is Phil Tapsell and I am completing a dissertation as part of an MBA with Manchester Business School, UK. The aim of this work is to identify key determinants of successful selection and management in high performing partnerships with overseas agents and distributors. For many British manufacturers of capital equipment, this is a common method of entering and developing international markets. When these relationships are high performing, they are a major source of attractive profits, securing market leadership and business success. The study focuses on three key areas.
1. A logical and structured process of selection significantly improves the likelihood of a successful and high performing relationship.
2. These high performing relationships exhibit general key characteristics.
3. The role of the relationship manager is pivotal. Their ability and characteristics will be key to a successful outcome.
The questionnaire is quick and easy. There are only 18 questions, which should take less than 30 minutes. In addition:
• All completed questionnaires will be confidential. • The term Agent is used for all forms of overseas representation. • Alliance manager is used for the distributor / relationship manager. • A saleable / suitable / competitive product is assumed. • Attractive financial reward and incentives package is also assumed. • Examples of Agent Selection Criteria and Characteristics of high
performing relationships are provided in Tables 1 and 2. • A section is also provided for the addition of any further comments
and observations you care to make. Please return the completed questionnaires to me by whatever method is easiest; email to [email protected] or fax on +44 1675 467111. Many thanks in advance for your help and cooperation. It is much appreciated. Very best regards Phil Tapsell +44 7979 693242 [email protected]
Appendix I
A1 -
3
1. An agent is chosen following professional and structured selection process.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
2. Manufacturer chooses agent rather than agent choosing manufacturer.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
3. Predetermined criteria are used in agent evaluation – see examples Table 1.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
4. A profile of the ‘most suitable agent’ is generated and used to aid selection.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
5. Manufacturer controls the selection process, in a structured and knowledgeable manner.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
6. A logical and structured process of selection will significantly improve the likelihood of a successful and high performing relationship.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
Appendix I
A1 -
4
7. Agents are evaluated and selected by manufacturers using a logical and structured selection process.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
8. Mutual trust and loyalty are essential prerequisites for commitment, motivation and development of high performing partnerships.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
9. Trust and loyalty should be created by the alliance managers.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
10. Alliance managers are effective, professional, supportive and capable.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
11. Manufacturer recognises critical role of alliance manager, key requirements of position and appoints person accordingly.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
12. Powerful, high performing partnerships exhibit many similar characteristics. See examples Table 2.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
Appendix I
A1 -
5
13. High level of coordinated effort, joint planning, decision-making and communication exists between partners to establish these key characteristics.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
14. Agent appoints in house product champion to coordinate business activities with manufacturer.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
15. Agent’s Product champion is actually selected based on capability.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
16. Manufacturer knows, understands and recognises the importance of characteristics in high performing relationships (Table 2).
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
17. Agent knows, understands and recognises the importance of characteristics in high performing relationships (Table 2).
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
18. Regular “relationship audits” are undertaken together to improve overall performance and conditions for success.
1
Never 2 3 4 5 6
7
Always
Don’t know
Appendix I
A1 -
6
Table 1. Agent Selection Criteria
• Market knowledge & coverage
• Product & applications knowledge
• Technical advice and service
• Enthusiasm, hunger to succeed, growth minded
• Separate marketing plan for principal.
• Will appoint full time product champion.
• Significant resources committed to develop principal’s business.
• Quality of the management team.
• Ability to formulate and implement longer-term marketing plans.
• Quality of sales force, experience / track record with target customers.
• Frequency of sales calls
• Personal feel, match, strategic fit.
• Character, reputation, integrity
• Market share & standing.
• Number of other principals.
• Quality & type of other representations.
• Financial control – cash flow and customer credit etc.
• Track record with other principals
• No competing product lines.
• Suitably located within territory
• National and cultural differences can be overcome
• Suitable physical facilities.
• Organisational / operational ability
• Business development credentials
• Relationships with competitors – potential competitors.
• Communicate in local language
• Problem solver – solutions provider
Appendix I
A1 -
7
Table 2. Characteristics of high performing relationships
• Quality, reliability, suitability, saleability of product.
• Highly effective, professional and supportive alliance manager.
• Commitment and motivation secured through creation of trust and loyalty.
• Operationally effective, efficient and well-organised operations
• Rapid and decisive support when and where required.
• Exclusivity, and no blocked accounts.
• Give most complete responsibility, authority and confidence to agent.
• Attractive financial reward and incentives package.
• Establish and adhere to set of agreed rules, guidelines, and objectives.
• A well-defined strategic plan.
• High degree of coordinated effort, joint planning and decision-making.
• Full sharing and trustworthy exchange of, sometimes sensitive,
information
• Active, professional, structured, continuous programme of personnel
training.
• View agent as valuable resource - success in market where principal
cannot.
• Up to six principals as the optimal number for agents' representations.
• Do not take advantage of partners.
• Share profits – and do not squeeze margins.
• Take a holistic view of the whole partnership
• Recognise and appreciate mutual benefits.
• Understand each other’s stake and contributions.
• Deep understanding, and show genuine interest in, the agent's business.
• Work hard to sustain prosperity and profitability of both parties.
• High standards of corporate values and ethics; agents of a similar
standing.
• Expectation of, and commitment to, long-term mutually beneficial
business relationship.
Appendix II
A2 -
1
Appendix II Sample of Research Target Companies.
CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix II Target Research Sample
Name Address Country RespondedI.M.S. LLC 2504 Abbey Court, USA Yes
Alpharetta,Georgia,GA30004Tel: 770 751 6009Fax: 770 772 0915
Slice Pack Australia Pty. Ltd. 18 Fairway Drive Australia YesSafety Beach Vic 3936Tel [61] [email protected]
Pemberton & Associates Inc. 3610 Nashua Drive Canada Yes Mississauga
OntarioL4V 1X9 [1] 905-678-8900[1] 905-678-8989www.pemcom.com
Meyn Food Processing Technology Noordeinde 68 Netherlands Yes1511 AE OostzaanTel: 00 31 75684 3355Web: www.meyn.nl
HJM Denmark Sylvestervej 36 Danmark YesDK - 6710Esbjerg VTel: +45 70 22 35 85
HJM AB Sweden Akerivagen 6 Sweden NoSE - 24138EslovTel: +46 413 16000
HJM Norway Makeveien 12 Norway YesN - 7650 VerdalTel: +47 74 07 14 15Fax:+47 74 07 97 17www.hjmnorge.com
Scanz Technologies Ltd PO Box 26 - 148 New Zealand YesEpsomAuckland 3Tel: 64 9 520 2544Fax:64 9 520 4023
R.A.Y. Buechler 38 Ha'Bannay Street Israel NoHolonTel: [972] 3550 8788E Mail: [email protected]
Appendix II Target Research Sample
ScreenTec Inspection & Systems Bosschebaan 66 Netherlands No5384 VZ Heesch00 31 412 47 52 [email protected]
SB Impianti Milan Italy [email protected]
Havel Ges mbh Haupstrabe 4 Austria NoA-2540Bad VoslauTel: +43-2252-73581Fax: +43-2252-73583
PVBA Ergonomy SPRL Zoning Iindustriel Belgium NoAvenue Du Commerce 47850 EngheinTel: 00-32-2-395-3558Fax: 00-322-395-5859
S.G. Nieminen Box 15 Finland NoNihtisillankuja 6Fin 02631EspooTel: +358-9-502-811
Elcowa S.A. 16. Rue Jules Siegfried France NoBP 2476F-68057 Mulhouse CedexTel: 00-33-89-435458Fax: 00-33-89-428550
A.Fredslund Pedesen L.S. P.O. Box 229 Denmark YesTopstykket 7Dk-3460 BirkerodTel: 0045-45-822800Fax: 0045-45-822050
Tecno Europa Elettromeccancia S.R.L. Italy YesVia Campanini 11/A43100 ParmaTel: +39-0521-78861Fax: +39-0521-272914
Svenska Allen Box 2031, Sweden NoSE-128 21 SkarpnackBesok: Flygfaltsgatan 8 ATel: +46-8-724-01-95
ProcessTek a.s Storgaten 2 Norway NoN-3210 SandefjordTel: +47-33-45-24-37
Appendix II Target Research Sample
AnyPack Packaging Machinery Inc. 3610 Bonneville Place Canada YesUnit #8Vancouver, British ColumbiaV3N 4T7Tel: (604) 421-8008Fax: (604) 421-8260
Pro Pack 2345 Wyecroft Road Canada YesUnit 2 & 3Oakville, OntarioL6L 6L8Tel: (905) 469-3337
Techno Pak 2150, Rue Bombardier Canada NoSaint-Julie, QuebecJ3E 2J9Tel: (450) 922-3122Fax: (450) 922-3422
Union Wrap Cep 05588-001 Brazil NoSao Paulo SP BrazilTel: 55-11-3735-2155Fax: 55-11-3735-2155
J L Lennard Pty Ltd 937 - 941 Victoria Road Australia YesWest RydeNSW 2114AustraliaTel: 61-2-9807-7200Fax: 61-2-9807-7300
KSL Packaging 47 A Kenepuru Drive New Zealand YesP.O. Box 50 595PoriruaTel: 64-4-237-9387Fax: 64-4-237-5905
Israpack Ltd. 19 Tchernikowski Str. Israel NoPO Box 9810Haifa 31097Tel: +972-4-8338306Fax: +972-4-8336136
CBS Engineering Group 48 Wharf Road New Zealand No(PO Box 45032)Te Atatu PeninsulaAuckland
Mundipak BV P.O. Box 18 Holland Yes2180 AA Hillegom00 31 252 531030
Appendix II Target Research Sample
Profcon APS Osterbro 6 Denmark No5000 Odense CTel00 45 65 912013Fax00 45 66 133950
Thomeko OY Post Box 36 Finland NoAsentajankatus 5SF 00881 Helsinki00 358 9 584 200
Nicolas Prompt 120, rue Jean Jaures France Yes92300 Levallois-PerretTel00 33 147 562017
Klaus-Friedl Salein Vahrenwalder Str. 269A Germany YesD-30179 HanoverTel0049 511 9666811
Europack S.P. 351 Patission Street Greece NoGR 11141 AthensTel00 30 1 2025575
Mundipak BV P.O. Box 18 Holland No2180 AA HillegomTel00 31 252 531030
Sew Access (Far East) Ltd Unit 1226A Hong Kong No1 Trademart DriveKowloon BayKowloonTel00 852 2345 6780
Peter Miller Limited Western Parkway Business Ireland YesLower Ballymount RoadDublin 12EireTel00 353 1 456 7855
Elpack Packaging Systems Ltd 37 Haela St industrial Zone Israel YesEven Yehuda 40500Tel00 972 9 8998490
Appendix II Target Research Sample
Cicrespi Spa Via Trieste 11 Italy Yes20060 [email protected] 3902 957541
CBM Co Ltd 3 29 16 Waseda Japan NoMisato CitySaitama 341Tel00 81 489 59 1561
Mundipak BV P.O. Box 18 Luxembourg No2180 AA HillegomHollandTel00 31 252 531030
Pesaje Y Control S.A. de C.V. (IPC) Carlos Septien Garcia No. 29 Mexico NoCol. Cimatario C.P. 76030Queretaro, QRO.Tel00 52 4214 1142
CBS Engineering Group 48 Wharf Road New Zealand No(PO Box 45032)Te Atatu PeninsulaAucklandTel00 632 634 2506
Dynatec AS Lovestad Industrifelt Norway No1820 SpydebergTel00 4769 8380 10
Systempack Inc Unit 1905 Philippines NoGalleria Corporate CentreEdsa CornerOrtigas AveQuezon CityTel00 64 (649) 834 7139
Food Machines Z.o.o. UL. Ustanow Poland No05-540 Zalesie GorneTel00 48 22 757 88 37
Appendix II Target Research Sample
Comexpo Calc De tapada 129 Portugal NoR/C DTO1300 LisboaTel00 351 1 361 6450
JPAK PO Box 14221 South Africa YesWadeville1422Tel00 27 11 827 5703
L E Jackson S.L. Traversa De Garcia Spain Yes18-2060-2A Box 50308021 BarcelonaTel00 34 93 2003966
Witronic Sarl 24 Ch. Des Plateires Switzerland YesCase Postale 1421009 PullyTel00 41 21 7298646
Atomika Saglik Sok 19/14 Turkey NoSihhiyaAnkara
Johann Laska U. Söhne GmbH & Co Holzstraße 4 Austria NoLinz A-4021Tel: +43 (0) 732 7732 110
Loma Systems s.r.o. U Lomy 1069, 334 41 Czech RepublicNoDobranyTel: +420 377 183811
DAVI Thomas Helsteds Vej 9 Denmark Yes8660 SkanderborgDenmarkTel: +45 (0) 8652 1411Fax: +45 (0) 8652 1488Email: [email protected]: www.davi1.dk
Loma Systems 120 rue Jean Jaurès France No92300 Levallois PerretTel: +33 1 55 69 57 78
Sermatec F-50290 Coudeville France NoMancheTel: +33 (0) 2 33 91 12 00Fax: +33 (0) 2 33 51 51 84
Appendix II Target Research Sample
Vahren Walder Straße 269 A Germany Yes30179 HannoverTel: +49 (0) 511 9666 811Fax: +49 (0) 511 9666 812
Geopack Ltd. 5 Irinis Ave, & Psarron Greece Yes182 33 Agios Ioannis RentisAthensTel: +30 (0) 210 341 8300Fax: +30 (0) 210 341 8301
PEAMI 47 Naxou St. Greece NoGalatsi111 46 AthensTel: +30 (0) 210 2135 690Fax: +30 (0) 210 2920 709
PM Tech NahrungsmittelindustriebedarfAustria NoVertriebs GmbH & Co KG.Schoeffelgasse 60/8Tel: +43 1 470 79 59Fax: +43 1 470 81 28
Buklin Kft. Timar u.34 Hungary NoBudapest H-1034Tel: +36 (0)1 387 6087Fax: +36 (0)1 388 1550
Victus Hungaria Elelmiszeripari Kft. Jedlik Anyos utca 24 Hungary NoDunaharaszti H-2330Tel: +36 (0)24 520 194Fax: +36 (0)24 520 191
Eltak Limited Sídumúla 13 Iceland No108 ReykjavikTel: +354 (0) 5882122Fax: +354 (0) 5889839Email: [email protected]: www.eltak.is
QPM Ltd. Robinhood Business Park Ireland NoRobinhood RoadDublin 22Tel: +353 (0) 1 450 2421
A.M.D. Electronic S.R.L. Piazzale Martesana, 10 Italy No20128 MilanoTel: +39 022 600 5314Fax: +39 022 570 6777
Ruud Gruijters Panovenweg 22 Netherlands Yes5708 HR HelmondTel: +31 (0) 492 573573Fax: +31 (0) 492 573570
Appendix II Target Research Sample
Nordic Supply System AS 6260 Skodje/Aalesund Norway NoTel: +47 70 24 45 00Fax: +47 70 24 45 19
AURUM Food Processing Equipment ul. Malej Laki 1 m.8 Poland No02-793 WarsawTel: +48 22 649 06 08Fax: +48 22 649 06 08
J M Alvarinho Sociedade Unipessoal Travessa de Macau, LT4, 2oEPortugal NoMurtal2775 - 120 ParedeTel: +351 214 536 158Fax: +351 214 531 309
FILUET CIS - Engineering Division 5 Bolshoi Rezevsky Pr. Russia NoMoscow 121069Tel: 7-095-202-25-57
Varpe Control De Peso S.A. C/. Osona, 21 Spain YesPol. Can Casablancas08192 Sant Quirze Del VallesBarcelonaTel: +34 93 721 52 51Fax: + 34 93 721 66 14
AB Broderne Herrmann Tjarhovsgatan 8A Sweden YesS-11621 StockholmTel: +46 8 34 98 40Fax: +46 8 34 60 71
Bruno Gubler GmbH Industriestr 23 Switzerland NoOberentfeldenCH-5036Tel: +41 62 737 17 00Fax: +41 62 737 17 07
Tamay Dis Ticaret Ltd Sirketi Bayer Caddesi Gulbahar Turkey NoPerdemsac Plaza Kat 2KozyatagiIstanbulTel: +90 (0)216 380 3010Fax: +90 (0)216 380 0600
Appendix III
A3 -
1
Appendix III Agent Selection Framework
Appendix III
A3 -
2
Internationalisation
Process
Managerial Capability & Commitment
Saleable / Competitive Product
Triggers to internationalisation
Strategic International Business Plan
Expectations and Objectives
Market Entry Mode Selection
Alliance Manager Capabilities
Agent Selection Alliance
Selection Criteria
Agent Profiling
Evaluation
Selection
Search
Selected Mode - Agents
Screening
Trust & Loyalty
Commitment & Motivation
Relational Success Factors
Coordinated Effort
Joint Planning & Decision Making
Communications
Introduction. It is essential that the correct agent be identified and appointed.
Regardless of the size of the market, the agent or distributor will be
responsible for developing that market and in achieving the objectives set
as part of the market entry strategy.
The agent selection process is a difficult, complex and resource
consuming task. Getting it right for the organisation will pay dividends in
the future.
The whole process of selection must be considered within the context of
the wider strategic business plan and internationalisation process. See Fig
A3.1. A Framework for High Performing Overseas Alliances.
Figure A3.1 A Framework for High Performing Overseas Alliances. Source: Author’s Construct.
Appendix III
A3 -
3
Agent Search, Screening and Selection Model. The aim of the screening process is to reduce the initial listing of
companies to a shortlist of up to five with whom discussions can be
opened. The second screening would take place in the territory itself. See
Fig A3.2
Evaluation and screening of candidates must be undertaken in a
structured manner. The use of an Agent Profile is an excellent tool as part
of this process.
Search. The key to selecting the best agent for a market is having a quality list of
potential candidates. The internet now offers such a simplistic mode of
search for potential candidates that structure and logic are even more
important than before. There are numerous methods of search, and the
internet has made the process easier and harder at the same time. It is
easier to find potential candidates. Unfortunately it is now often a case of
too much information and unless a structured process is used in the
search you run the risk of being overwhelmed with numbers of candidates.
Potential information sources are listed in Table A3.1.
Agent Profiling. The agent profile will detail the outline of the “most suitable agent”. This
profile will be based on a number of key selection and strategic criteria. A
list of agent selection criteria is provided in Table A3. 2.
By creating a profile that consists of (for example) ten key points, each
potential candidate can be evaluated and compared in an objective
manner. This adds much needed structure and speed to the initial search
and screening process.
Appendix III
A3 -
4
Information sources for potential agents. Government (DTI) Sources
National and local business
organisations
European Government / business
sources
Other exporters of non competing
products
Competitor web sites - agent listings.
Exhibitions / Trade shows / Conferences
Catalogues.
Internet / WWW
Yellow Pages / Telephone Directories.
Country files from Government web sites.
Consultants
Trade Missions
Personal recommendation from
customers.
Country visits and local searches.
Trade Associations
Chambers of Commerce
Table A3.1. Potential information sources during agent search process. Source: Author’s Construct.
Agent Selection Criteria Harder / Tangible
• Market knowledge & coverage.
• Product & applications knowledge.
• Track record and reputation.
• Full time product champion.
• Business development plan for
principal.
• Experience with similar products.
• Enthusiasm for contract.
• No competing product lines.
• Fit with, and number of, other
Principals.
• Location and facilities.
• Frequency and standard of sales calls.
• Financial control- cash flow, credit, etc.
• Technical and service support
function.
• Communicate in local language.
Softer / Intangible
• Personal feel and strategic fit.
• Character and integrity.
• Trust, loyalty, commitment,
motivation.
• Ethical considerations.
• Hunger to succeed; growth minded.
• Capability and quality of key
personnel.
• National and cultural differences.
• Business development credentials.
• Planning, coordination,
communication.
• Organisational / operational ability
• Quality of sales force.
• Experience with target customers
• Problem solver – solutions provider
Table A3.2 Agent Selection Criteria. Source: Author’s Construct.
Appendix III
A3 -
5
Agent Search, Screening and Selection Model
First Screening Desk Based Research
Determine best fitswith profile
Investigate Key Criteria
Candidate Short-list
Search Desk Based Research
List of candidate companies
Agent / Distributor Company
Information sources. Table 2
Predetermined Key Selection Criteria
Table 1
Evaluate candidates. Rating against criteria
Scoring system Rankings
Generate Agent Profile
Second Screening Visit to Candidates
Evaluation & Selection
Impressions Facilities
Key Personnel
Satisfy criteria? Fit Profile?
Key success factors? Table 3
References Reputation Activities
First Screening The objective of this first screening process is to generate a short list of up
to five candidates with whom discussions can be started. During this
evaluation, attention should be given to the agent profile and selection
criteria as previously determined.
At this stage the objective is more to identify agents who most closely fit
the best profile, rather than eliminating those that don’t.
Other areas worthy of consideration are:
• Financial status
• Number of principals – beware agency collectors!
• Reputation and performance with other principals’ products.
• Candidate’s current product range – any similarities with your own.
You are searching for the top five outstanding candidates.
Fig A3.2 Agent Search, Screening and Selection Model. Source: Author’s Construct.
Appendix III
A3 -
6
Second Screening This second process should take place in the territory, preferably during
visits to the candidates’ premises.
It is often useful to go back and review scoring and evaluation. Also, take
into account the key determinants of success in Table A4.1 and the impact
of trust, loyalty, etc. Now that you have met the key people and had a
chance to spend some time with them, would this relationship work? How
does it feel? What is the dynamic like?
Many of these aspects are very intangible and you may rely on feel and
“gut” to a large extent. However, the key selection criteria and ratings
against each of these can still help bring structure and objectivity to the
process.
Key aspects drawn from research data that determined success or failure
concerned:
• Trust and Loyalty – can this be created in the relationship?
• Agent’s product champion – will they have one and what is he like?
• Strategic market development plan – is this agent capable of
successfully implementing such a plan?
Other areas worth considering:
• How long have they been established.
• What are the physical facilities like – offices, warehouses.
• What is the size of staff – how many sales people.
• Do they have other British principals. What type of principals are these.
• What back up and technical services are offered.
• How do they promote the product ranges.
• Will they put together sales and marketing plan for your product.
• How do they sell products.
• What training will be required.
Appendix III
A3 -
7
• How extensive is candidates knowledge of market and customers.
• How extensive is candidate’s knowledge of competitors.
• What is their relationship with your competitors.
• What is the forecast for growth.
• Do they have ideas for product development.
Final Thoughts:
• Make an informed choice.
• Prepare for meetings.
• Avoid making a rash decision.
• Reflect and consider before making a decision.
Appendix IV
A.4 -
1
Appendix IV Relationship Health Check Framework
Appendix IV
A.4 -
2
Introduction. The health check tool can be utilised at any time to highlight areas of the
relationship that are not being managed in a manner most likely to result
in strong performance and success.
Our research survey highlighted clear gaps between the way practitioners
felt relationships should be managed, and the way in which they
commonly were managed. The simplest and most effective way to identify
the key areas that need to be addressed is through visualisation using a
profiling canvas. We propose a two stage analysis.
Phase One – Actual Relationship Profile v Best Practice. Analysis of research data identified that the response to the following
survey questions (inputs) showed a tight correlation to high performing
partnerships (output):
• Alliance managers are effective, professional, supportive and
capable.
• Manufacturer recognises critical role of alliance manager, key
requirements of position and appoints person accordingly.
• High level of coordinated effort, joint planning, decision-making and
communication exists between partners.
• Agent appoints in house product champion to coordinate business
activities with manufacturer.
• Agent’s Product champion is actually selected based on capability.
• Manufacturer knows, understands and recognises the importance of
characteristics in high performing relationships.
• Agent knows, understands and recognises the importance of
characteristics in high performing relationships.
• Regular “relationship audits” are undertaken together to improve
overall performance and conditions for success.
Appendix IV
A.4 -
3
Using the ranking of 1 (Never) to 7 (Always), the best practice profile
generated during our research is shown in Fig A4.1. Against this the
actual scores can be compared, gaps identified and analysed, and actions
taken to close them.
This requires both partners to take a realistic and objective view of the
relationship and be prepared to recognise and address issues.
In many cases due to the close personal relationships that may have
developed, this is not an easy task to undertake and often requires the
involvement of outside observers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18
Key Criteria
Scor
e
Best Practice Profile Actual Score Figure A4.1 Best Practice Profile Source: Author’s Construct.
Appendix IV
A.4 -
4
Phase Two - Characteristics of High Performing Relationships. Table A4.1 lists key characteristics of successful partnerships between
manufacturer and overseas representatives. In analysing the relationship
against these key determinants of success, phase 2 of the process
considers the potential creators of the gaps identified during profiling
phase 1. The same profiling technique should be used to identify areas of
weaknesses in the partnership. This is best achieved by gathering all key
personnel in the relationship together, discussing each point in the table
before agreeing a prioritised action plan to address areas of weakness.
Characteristics of High Performing Relationships • Quality, reliability, suitability, saleability of product.
• Operationally effective, efficient and well-organised operations
• Rapid and decisive support when and where required.
• Exclusivity. No blocked accounts. Agent has responsibility, authority and
confidence.
• Attractive financial reward and incentives package.
• Establish / adhere to set of mutually agreed ground rules, guidelines, and
objectives.
• A well-defined strategic plan.
• Active, professional, structured, continuous programme of personnel training.
• Up to six principals as the optimal number for agents' representations.
• Highly effective, professional and supportive alliance manager.
• Commitment and motivation secured through development of trust and loyalty.
• High degree of coordinated effort, joint planning and decision-making.
• Full sharing and trustworthy exchange of, sometimes sensitive, information
• Do not take advantage of partners. Share profits – and do not squeeze margins.
• View agent as valuable resource, achieving success where principal alone cannot.
• Take a holistic view of the partnership. Recognise and appreciate mutual benefits.
• Understand each other’s stake and contributions.
• Gain a deep understanding of, and show genuine interest in, the agent's business.
• Work hard to sustain prosperity and profitability of both parties.
• High standards of corporate values and ethics, and agents of a similar standing.
• Expectation of, and commitment to, long-term mutually beneficial relationship.
Table A4.1. Characteristics of High Performing Relationships. Source: Author’s Construct.
Appendix V
A5 -
1
Appendix V Literature Search Methodology.
Appendix V
A5 -
2
As part of our exploratory research, an extensive review of literature was
undertaken. This enabled us to position this work with previously published
works. The aim was to put the work in context and identify theoretical
frameworks involved. Taken initially from the wider perspective of agents as a
means of overseas market entry for SME’s, the general problems and lack of
success experienced, the work then concentrated on what emerged as two
key determinants of the success or failure of such relationships: the selection
process and management.
Text books covering the wider subject areas of sales, marketing, international
business, strategy, business strategy, management skills, human resource
management and implications of managing across national, international and
cultural boundaries were reviewed (Donaldson 1998,Grant 2002, Hickson and
Pugh 2001, Hill 2005, Huczynski and Buchanan 2001, Jobber 2001, Kanter
1994, Porter 1985).
Additional sources referenced within these texts were accessed using on line
and electronic student resources, such as Athens / WWW./ ABI / INFORM /
EBSCO host.
Internationally renowned business management journals were searched;
Harvard Business Review; Sloan Management Review; Journal of personal
selling and sales management; Industrial Marketing Management; Journal of
international business studies; Industrial marketing; Journal of marketing;
European journal of marketing; Quarterly review of marketing; Industrial
marketing digest. These were searched using site search engines; typically
"search within this publication".
Key words: distributor, agents, selection of, management of, overseas
representation, selection of, management of, export; internationalisation;
overseas market entry / methods; SME; distribution channel.
Appendix V
A5 -
3
The extensive listing of works was sorted by relevance, the determination of
which was based on a review of abstract, introduction and executive
summary. Many of these works contained useful and relevant references.
These were also reviewed to identify common themes and referenced
authors. The full literature listing is attached with this Appendix.
White (2000) discusses primary and secondary sources of business and
management information, as part of the literature review. We have used such
documentary secondary data sources as academic journals, textbooks,
bibliographies, government publications (DTI), theses and trade literature.
Non-book primary sources of data, in the form of people and organisations,
proved to be of significant value in this work. Kotler and Armstrong (1994)
posit that primary data is collected to answer the specific research questions.
For us this was through use of questionnaires, personal and telephone
interviews. The benefits of interviewing were extensive. Interviewees
contributed with knowledge, experience, interaction, memories, thoughts,
ideas and feelings. (Mason 1996).
Appendix V Literature Listing
Title Author Year File LinkSelection and motivation of industrial distributors: A comparative analysis Abratt & Pitt 1989 PAPERS\Abratt & Pitt.PDFLittle time for management theory London 2006 PAPERS\FT article.doc
A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firn Working PartnershipsAnderson and
Narus 1990 PAPERS\Anderson & Narus.pdf
Internationalisation of SME'sGustavsson and
Lundgren 2006 sme internationalisation.pdfEstablishing a Foreign Distributor and Agent Network Damon 1984 PAPERS\Damon.pdfThe Internationalisation Process. SME case study Goldkuhl 2000 PAPERS\Goldkuhl.pdfAn Exporter's Guide to Selecting Foreign Sales Agents and Distributors Clasen 1991 PAPERS\Klasen.docJoint effects of factors affecting exchanges between exporters and their foreign intermediaries: An exploratory study Lee 2003 PAPERS\Lee.pdf
Rethinking Distribution: Adaptive ChannelsAnderson and
Narus 1996 PAPERS\Anderson & Narus 3.pdf
Strengthen distributor performance through channel positioningAnderson and
Narus 1998 PAPERS\Anderson & Narus 4.pdf
Distributior contributions to partnerships with manufacturers.Anderson and
Narus 1987 PAPERS\Anderson & Narus 5.pdf
Turn your industrial distributors into partnersAnderson and
Narus 1986 PAPERS\Anderson & Narus 7.PDFSeven rules of international distribution Arnold 2000 PAPERS\Arnold.pdf
Trust And Performance In Cross-Border Marketing Partnerships: A Behavioural Approach
Aulakh, Preet S. and Masaaki
Kotabe 1996 PAPERS\Aulakh, Kotabe & Sahay.pdfAgency relationships in marketing: a review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories
Bergen, Dutta and Walker 1992 PAPERS\Bergen, Dutta & Walker.pdf
Selecting foreign distributors. An expert systems approach.Carvusgil, Yeoh &
Mitri 1995 PAPERS\Cavusgil, Yeoh & Mitri.pdf
Between Trust And Control: Developing Confidence In Partner Cooperation in Alliances Das and Teng 1998 PAPERS\Das & Bing-Sheng.pdfExploring Strategies for Companies that Use Manufacturers’ Representatives As Their Sales Force Dishman 1999 PAPERS\Dishman P.pdfMaking strategic aliances succeed. The importance of trust Ellis 1996 PAPERS\Ellis.pdfMake Your Dealers Your Partners Fites 1996 PAPERS\Fites.pdfInternational distributor and the role of US top management: a requirement for export com Fram and Ajami 1994 PAPERS\Fram & Ajami.pdf
Appendix V Literature Listing
Organizing and Managing Channels of Distribution Frazier 1999 PAPERS\Frazier.pdf
The determinants of commitment in the distributor–manufacturer relationshipGoodman and
Dion 2001 PAPERS\Goodman & Dion.pdf
Industrial distridutors - when, who and how?Hlavacek & McCuistion 1983 PAPERS\Hlavacek & McCuistion.PDF
Business networks and cooperation in international business relationships.Holm, Eriksson &
Johanson 1996 PAPERS\Holm, Eriksson & Johanson.pdf
Industrial Performance Group (2004a), “Executive Summary 1
Industrial Performance
Group 2004 PAPERS\execsum1.pdf
Industrial Performance Group (2004b), “Executive Summary 2
Industrial Performance
Group 2004 PAPERS\execsum2.pdf
Industrial Performance Group (2004c), “Executive Summary 3
Industrial Performance
Group 2004 PAPERS\execsum3.pdf
Industrial Performance Group (2004c), “Executive Summary 4
Industrial Performance
Group 2004 PAPERS\execsum4.pdf
Beyond Vertical Integration-The Rise of the Value-Adding PartnershipJohnston and
Lawrence 1998 PAPERS\Johnston & Lawrence.pdf
How industrial distributors view distributor - supplier partnership arrangements.Joseph, Gardner, Tharch & Vernon 1995
PAPERS\Joseph, Gardner, Tharch & Vernon.pdf
Distribution channel relationships in diverse cultures Kale & McIntyre 1991Collaborative advantage Kanter 1994 PAPERS\Kanter.pdfOn distributor commitment in marketing channels for industrial products: contrast between the United States and Japan Keysuk & Changho 2002 PAPERS\Kim & Oh.pdfSuccessful Export Marketing Management: Some empirical evidence. Koed Madsen 1988 PAPERS\Koed Madsen.pdfThe Power of Trust in Manufacturer-Retailer Relationships Kumar 1996 PAPERS\Kumar.pdfStrategy and control in supplier-distributor relationships: An agencyperspective. Lassar & Kerr 1996 PAPERS\Lassar & Kerr.pdfA conceptual model for building and maintaining relationships between manufacturers' representatives and their principals. McQuiston 2001 PAPERS\McQuiston.pdfThe Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing Morgan and Hunt 1994 PAPERS\Morgan & Hunt.pdf
Sales management as an entrepreneurial activityMorris, Avila,
Teeple 1990 PAPERS\Morris, Avila, Teeple.pdf
Appendix V Literature Listing
Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels: Exploring Fundamental Issues Nevin 1995 PAPERS\Nevin.pdfMotivating independent distribution channel members Rosenbloom 1978 PAPERS\Rosenbloom.pdfManufacturer-Overseas Distributor Relations and Export Performance Rosson & Ford 1982 PAPERS\Rosson & Ford.pdf
Selection and motivation of distribution intermediaries Shipley 1984
PAPERS\Shipley Selection and motivation of distribution intermediaries.pdf
What British distributors dislike about manufacturers Shipley 1987
PAPERS\Shipley, What British distributors dislike about manufacturers.pdf
Recruitment, motivation, training and evaluation of overseas distributors.Shipley, Cook,
Barnett PAPERS\Shipley, Cook, Barnett.pdfThe manufacturer's agent in industrial distribution Sibley & Teas 1979 PAPERS\Sibley & Teas.pdf
Drivers of superior importer performance in cross-cultural supplier–reseller relationshipsSkarmeas and
Katsikeas 2001 PAPERS\Skarmeas & Katsikeas.pdf
An analysis of the significance of trust and trust developing drivers for more effectively managing industrial distribution channels in Germany, Italy, Netherlands and the UK
Sturman & Hanmer-Lloyd 2004 PAPERS\Sturman & Hanmer-Lloyd.pdf
The Role of the Industrial Distributor Webster 1976Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels Weitz & Jap 1995 PAPERS\Weitz & Jap.pdfManufacturer governance of foreign distributor relationships: do relational norms enhance competitiveness in the export market?
Zhang, Cavusgil & Roath 2003 PAPERS\Zhang, Cavusgil & Roath.pdf
Industrial distributor selling: The roles of outside and inside salesAnderson and
Narus 1986 PAPERS\Anderson & Narus 6.pdf‘The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantages Dyer and Singh 1998 PAPERS\Dyer & Singh.pdfDeveloping a manufacturer - distributor information partnership Reddy & Marvin 1986 PAPERS\Reddy & Marvin.pdf
Foreign market entry strategies Walvoord 1983 PAPERS\Walvoord Market selection.pdfPerceptions of the industrial distributor Webster 1975 PAPERS\Webster.pdf
Business Mating; Who chooses whom and gets chosen?Wilkinson, Freytag,
Young & Chery 2003PAPERS\Wilkinson, Freytag, Young & Chery.pdf
Partnering as a focused market strategyAnderson and
Narus 1991 PAPERS\Anderson & Narus 2.pdf
The Dynamics of Long-Term Business-to-Business Exchange RelationshipsDabolkar, Johnson
& Cathay 1994PAPERS\Dabolkar, Johnson & Cathay.pdf
Appendix V Literature Listing
Collaborate with your competitors - and winHamel, Doz &
Prahalad 1989 PAPERS\Hamel, Doz & Prahalad.pdfSmall Businesses and Exporting: A literature review Miesenbock PAPERS\Miesenbock.pdf
Industrial distributors. Can they survive in the new economy?Mudambi & Aggarwal 2001 PAPERS\Mudambi & Aggarwal.pdf
The global logic of strategic alliances Ohmae 1989 PAPERS\Ohmae.pdf
A conceptual framework of relational governance in foreign distributor relationshipsRoath, Miller and
Cavusgil 2002Problems confronting British Industrial Distributors Shipley 1986 PAPERS\Shipley.pdfInternational Market entry and expansion via independent or integrated channels of distribution.
Anderson & Coughlan 1987 PAPERS\Anderson & Coughlan.pdf
The impact of export strategy on export sales performanceCooper &
Kleinschmidt 1985 PAPERS\Cooper & Kleinschmidt.pdf
An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode.Hill, Hwang &
Chan Kim 1990 PAPERS\Hill, Hwang & Chan Kim.pdfThe impact of level of company export development on exercised power in relationships between manufacturers and overseas distributors.
Kaleka, Piercy, Katsikeas 1997 PAPERS\Kaleka, Piercy, Katsikeas.PDF
International marketing effectiveness of technology oriented small firmsKirpalani & Macintosh 1980 PAPERS\Kirpalani & Macintosh.pdf
Key problems facing industrial distributorsNarus, Reddy,
Pinchak 1984 PAPERS\Narus, Reddy, Pinchak.pdf
Market entry modes and channels of distribution in the UK machine tool industryWheeler, Jones,
Young 1995 PAPERS\Wheeler, Jones, Young.pdfIndustrial buying in high tech markets Abratt 1986 PAPERS\Abratt.pdfAn attempted integration of the literature on the export behaviour of firms Bilkey 1976 PAPERS\Bilkey.pdfNew Selling Methods Are Changing Industrial Sales Management Cardozo & Shipp 1987 PAPERS\Cardozo & Shipp.pdfSpecialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from the auto industry Dyer 1996 PAPERS\Dyer.pdfOrganizing the overseas salesforce: How Multinationals do it. Hill & Still 1990 PAPERS\Hill & Still.pdfDifferences between small and medium sized exporting and non exporting firms: Nature or nurture. Keng & Jiuan 1988 PAPERS\Keng & Jiuan.pdfSalesforce performance and behaviour-based management processes in business to business sales organizations.
Piercy, Cravens, Morgan 1996 PAPERS\Piercy, Cravens, Morgan.pdf
Industrial salesforce motivation and herzberg's dual factor theory: A UK perspective Shipley & Kiely 1986 PAPERS\Shipley & Kiely 2.pdfMotivation and dissatisfaction of industrial salespeople - how relevant is Herzberg's theory? Shipley & Kiely 1988 PAPERS\Shipley & Kiely.pdf
Appendix V Literature Listing
How to design sales territories Talley 1961 PAPERS\Talley.pdfIndustrial salespeople's views on motivation Winer & Schiff 1980 PAPERS\Winer & Schiff.pdfA empirical study of the differences between small exporting and non exporting US firms. Yaprak 1985 PAPERS\Yaprak.pdf
The adoption of export as an innovative strategyYoung-Lee &
Brasch 1978 PAPERS\Young-Lee & Brasch.pdfThe MBA Handbook. Study skills for post graduate management study Cameron 2001Sales Management Theory and Practice Donaldson 1998Contemporary Strategy Analysis Grant 2002Management Worldwide: Distinctive Styles Amid Globalization Hickson & Pugh 2001International Business: Competing in the Global Marketplace Hill 2005Principles and Practice of Marketing Jobber 2001
Research Methods for Business StudentsSaunders, Lewis &
Thornhill 2002Dissertation Skills: For Business and Management Students White 2003
Recommended