4t
6-
ــ∗E
thInternati
-7Decembe
ATypol
Assistant
Assistant Pro
Fut
Abstract The import
become mor
attention to
which occur
literature re
relationship
network the
namely, reli
Keywords: Bu
ـــــــــــــــE-mail: aheidary
ionalConfe
er2016
logyofStr
Prof., Produ
of., Human R
tures Studies
ance of netw
re and more e
the applicatio
r inside, i.e. c
eview and a r
s in the contex
ory by propos
gious tourism
usiness Networ
ـــــــــــــــ[email protected]
renceonSt
rategicR
Busin
uction and Op
University
HamResource Ma
Mohams, Faculty of
working in th
evident to tour
on of network
ompetition, c
resource-based
xt of religious
sing the applic
m.
rks, Religious T
ـــــــــــــــ
trategicMan
Relationsh
nessNetw
Ali Heidariperation Man
of Tehran, T
mid Reza Yazanagement, U
Tehran, Iran
mmad Reza JManagemen
PP: 559-572
he area of in
rism scholars.
king in a relig
oopetition and
d view, this
s tourism netw
cability of the
Tourism, Strate
ــــــــــــــــ
nagement,
hipsinRe
works
∗ nagement, Fa
Tehran, Iran
zdani University of
n
Jalilvand nt, University
2
nter-organizati
However, pri
gious setting,
d cooperation
paper present
working. This
e networking p
egic Relationsh
ـــــــــــــــ Co
eligiousT
aculty of Ma
f Tehran, Far
y of Tehran, I
ional network
ior literature h
particularly t
n. Drawing on
ts a typology
research contr
processes in a
hip.
ـــــــــــــــorresponding Au
Tourism
anagement,
rabi Campus
Iran
k theory has
has paid little
the processes
n an extended
y of strategic
ributes to the
a new setting;
ـــــــــــــــuthor: Ali Heid
s,
ــــdary
560 4thInternationalConferenceonStrategicManagement
Introduction Understanding the strategic relationships among tourism businesses in a certain
destination is an inevitable issue for success in the tourism industry. Tourism
involves the development of informal and formal partnerships, collaboration and
networks. Such inter-organizational networks contain independent suppliers (in
private or public sector) linked to deliver an overall product (Scott, Cooper and
Baggio, 2008). According to Industrial Network Approach (INA), tourism
organizations should not be seen as independent entities acting on their own
interest in the market and in order to develop their activities, they need to interact
with other organizations. This system of independent organizations then forms an
industrial network which in turn, creates value as a network. Destination
management organizations (DMOs) can be considered as coordinating
mechanisms in tourism business networks, including agents performing activities
in collaboration with other agents and controlling resources (Lemmetyinen, 2010).
A recent trend in tourism industry is the loosely formed alliance of tourism
organizations, such as local or regional tourism associations and other alliances
initiated and organized by local destination management organizations. A
typological description of the relationships among organizations in the tourism
industry helps to understand how tourism businesses perceive their relationships
with their peers and how they shift from one existing relationship mode to another
(Watkins and Bell, 2002). Identifying the driving factors that form the dynamic
configuration of the business relationships provides theoretical contribution and
offers practical directions to the successful operation of destination alliances.
Furthermore, the fragmented nature of tourism industry and the complexity of
destination management require a collective approach to destination management.
How DMOs in a destination keep a balance between competition and cooperation,
determines the effectiveness of their destination management efforts as well as the
competitiveness and destination success in the long term. Although previous
research has paid attention to the importance of working relationships in tourism
business networks, a review of the related literature indicates that answers to the
above issues are too indefinite in the context of religious tourism to provide
theoretical contributions or practical guidelines. Identifying the importance of the
issue in the new setting of religious tourism, this paper aims to achieve the
following two objectives:
ATypologyofStrategicRelationshipsinReligiousTourismBusinessNetworks 561
• introduce the types of business relationships (competition, cooperation,
coopetition) among stakeholders of tourism industry in a religious
destination; • identify a configuration of cooperative business relationship in a religious
destination.
Religious tourism Religious tourism is a type of tourism in which visitors are motivated, either in
part or exclusively, for religious reasons. Rinschede (1992) proposed two different
forms of religious tourism including short-term without an overnight stay and
long-term with overnight stay of at least one day. Short-term religious tourism is
characterized by spatially limited travel over short distances. The goal of this
tourism is to go to a religious center with local, regional, or pilgrimage sites or to
participate in a religious celebration, a religious conference, or a church meeting.
Long-term religious tourism includes visits to religious centers for several days or
weeks. It does not limit itself to the visitation of national and international
pilgrimage sites; rather, it includes the visitation of other national and
international religious centers. Compared to other types of tourism, religious
tourism has several distinct characteristics, including the number of participants,
means of transportation, seasonal pattern, and social structure. Firstly, in terms of
the number of participants, the person traveling alone in religious tourism
(individual tourism) represents a minority. In fact, the majority of visitors travel
with family members (family tourism) or with organized groups (group tourism)
to a religious destination. Secondly, until the middle of the nineteenth century,
pilgrims traveled on foot. Today, foot pilgrimage still exists in all regions and
cultures. Thirdly, religious tourism is bound to a certain season, even when some
religious sites can be visited throughout the year. Finally, the stream of religious
tourism can be differentiated by aspects of its social structure. The distribution of
the sexes among pilgrims in various world religions differs widely. For example,
in Mecca, the predominance of men is more pronounced. In contrast, in Lourdes,
there is a strong stream of women visitors. Similar differences can be observed in
the age of the pilgrims (Rinschede, 1992). Religious tourism sites such as
562 4thInternationalConferenceonStrategicManagement
mosques, cathedrals, and temples are recently attracting an increasing number of
visitors worldwide, not only because of their spiritual significance but also
because of the educational, recreational, and cultural purposes they fulfill
(Francis, Williams, Annis, and Robbins, 2008). Not all religious sites are
conceived as religious-tourism sites but may evolve as tourism attractions. As a
result, religious-tourism is considered as visits to the sites of current and/or past
religious significance (Hughes, Bond, and Ballantyne, 2013) and as the visitation
of religious settings considered relevant to one’s own faith or the faith of others
(Raj and Morpeth, 2007).
Religious tourism business networks (RTBN) A network is a composite of a large number of agents and the pattern of
relationships that link them together. A business network has been defined as a set
of two or more interconnected relationships, in which each exchange relationship
is between firms that are conceptualized as collective agents. Business networks
are regarded as sets of connected firms or alternatively as sets of connected
relationships between firms (Aureli and Forlani, 2016). In tourism industry,
innovations are promoted through network relationships and alliances for multiple
reasons but mainly in order to improve communications among firms. Hence, an
RTBN can be defined as a value-creating, intentional or strategic network of
firms, organizations, and facilities set up to serve the specific needs and desires of
religious tourists which consists of actors engaged in activities as well as controls
resources in relation to other actors (Lemmetyinen, 2010). The major businesses
operating under tourism industry include hotels and accommodation, airlines,
ferry and cruise operators, restaurants, travel agencies and tour operators, tourist
attractions and car rental agencies (Seaton and Bennett, 2004: 4). Business
networks provide religious destinations with four competitive advantages
including (1) adaptation (refers to the act of modifying the strategy, stance,
posture, or resources in order to enhance complementarity with partners); (2)
knowledge (collaboration helps firms to utilize alliances better as vehicles for
learning new technologies and skills from alliance partners); (3) control (leads to
greater access over information and resources); and (4) resources (networks lead
to access to resources, more than what a firm could access individually) (Pillai,
ATypologyofStrategicRelationshipsinReligiousTourismBusinessNetworks 563
2006). The influence of DMO in the structure of collaboration in RTBN is
inevitable given its role as a catalyst linking all the other networks involved in
tourism, such as transport, accommodation and attractions. Firms in an RTBN
develop a network of relationships through connected activities, linked resources
and related actors, all of which are interconnected and interdependent. Efficiency
will be achieved through the interlinking of activities, creative leveraging of
resource heterogeneity and mutuality based on self-interest of actors. Through
exchange relationship processes with other firms’ activities and resources, bonds
are created and developed (Osarenkhoe, 2010).
Resource Based View (RBV) and RTBN According to RBV, the inter-organizational networks are strategic assets
generating a longitudinal competitive advantage for business firms. RBV theory
supposes that economic interest and competitive advantage or the survival of a
firm highly depends on the strategic resources (such as tangible assets, financial
resources, human resources and information resources) it owns, it controls or to
which it has access (Lakshman, 2012). Interestingly, in today’s business
environment more and more firms suffer from resource gaps. The growing
resource scarcities turn firms’ attention to the creation of inter-organizational
relationships and becoming actors of inter-organizational networks. Furthermore,
the inter-organizational networks are considered as a source of substantial added
value providing key competencies. In the context of religious tourism, in order to
gain access to the resources and competencies available inside the network held
by other actors, the tourism firms should be able to develop and use inter-
organizational relationships. An RTBN is established by at least three relatively
independent and self-contained firms involved in long-term, non-incidental
relationships aimed at achieving common goals. Therefore, an RTBN is a form of
organized activity taking the form of a complex system of nodes connected by
different types of relationships (Gulati, 2007). The number and configuration of
these two network components (i.e. ties and nodes) determines its structure.
Nodes (labeled as actors or partners) are different firms making the network.
Nodes are diversified in terms of size, maturity, and type or profile of business.
Actors of the network are both commercial and non-commercial organizations
such as religious attractions, hotels and restaurants, tour operators, travel agencies,
564 4thInternationalConferenceonStrategicManagement
and airlines. Additionally, nodes are diversified in terms of the location they
reside in (periphery or centre) within the network and the roles they play. A set of
inter-organizational ties (labeled as relationships or links) is the other component
of networks. Nodes are interconnected by long-term inter-organizational
relationships that facilitate the exchange of assets, human resources, energy and
information. Ties are unsolicited and established to achieve common objectives;
however, they do not necessarily improve business competitive advantage. The
collocation of ties is determined by the number of nodes (network size) and the
strength of the nodes’ involvement (network density). The number of nodes and
ties as well as their location relative to each other is important for communication
processes, transfer of ideas, information, knowledge and technology, and flow of
goods and capital within the network (Gargiulo and Benassi, 2000).
Relationships in an RTBN Watkins and Bell (2002) proposed three different categories reflecting tourism
managers’ experiences of business relationships that can be true in the context of
religious tourism. These were labeled as competition, cooperation, and
coopetition. In Figure 1, three different types of business relationships are
identified.
Figure1.Differenttypesofrelationshipsbetweenbusinesses(AdaptedfromBengtsonandKock,2000)
ATypologyofStrategicRelationshipsinReligiousTourismBusinessNetworks 565
Competition Competition is a process of rivalry between interacting agents. It can be defined as
a dynamic state that happens when several actors in a specific area (market)
struggle for scarce resources, and/or produce and market similar products or
services that meet the same tourist need. Competitive approach implies on firms’
interdependence both horizontally and vertically. Competition is described as the
exchange relationships between existing and unchanging economic agents.
However, Schumpeter relates competition to internal industrial efficiency and to
the development of new sources of supply, new technology, and new types of
organization. In the long term, competition may lead to a monopolistic position of
a firm within a particular industry, instead of ‘perfect competition’ (Bengtsson
and Kock, 2000). Referring to horizontal interdependence, the competitive
approach emphasizes the search for above-normal profits realized through gaining
an advantageous position in an industry or by developing resources and distinctive
competences that enable a firm to offer superior products in relation to its
competitors. In vertical interdependence, the competitive approach implies on the
search for value in economic exchange. Interaction within a network is simple and
direct, and power and dependence are equally distributed among competitors
based on their positions in the network (Hunt, 2007). Hence, the business’s
structural position within the network becomes important. A business with a
superior position in a certain network would learn about competitive opportunities
sooner and use that knowledge in planning and executing competitive actions.
Cooperation Cooperation has been defined as a relationship in which individuals, groups and
organizations interact through the sharing of complementary capabilities and
resources, or leveraging these for the purpose of mutual benefit. From a supply
chain perspective, cooperation is considered as similar, complementary,
coordinated activities performed by firms in a business relationship to produce
superior mutual outcomes (Canegallo, Ortona, Ottone, Ponzano, and Scacciati,
2008). Successful cooperation is built on trust, commitment, and voluntary and
mutual agreement that can be established in a formal and documented contract or
an informal contract aimed at achieving common objectives. Thorgren, Wincent,
and Öttqvist (2009) examined the cause-effect relationships between inter-
566 4thInternationalConferenceonStrategicManagement
organizational trust, relationship diversity and knowledge transfer, and corporate
entrepreneurship among networking firms. They showed a causal influence of
knowledge transfer and relational diversity on corporate entrepreneurship. The
main stimulus for cooperation is to adopt collective strategies for value creation.
Firms cooperate for achieving a common objective, sharing resources with other
competing actors, and learning or sharing organizational expertise (Tanghe,
Wisse, and vander Flier, 2010).
Coopetition Coopetition implies the simultaneous presence of both competition and
cooperation. Coopetition is the most mutually advantageous relationship for
competitors. Coopetition goes beyond the conventional rules of competition and
cooperation, in order to achieve the advantages of both. Literature suggested that
the majority of all new cooperative arrangements are between competitors (Luo,
2007). For example, multinational firms involve in complex and simultaneous
competitive cooperative relationships with global rivals. Through cooperative
relationships, global rivals work together to collectively enhance performance by
sharing resources and committing to common goals in value chain activities, at
the same time as they compete in other domains to improve their performance
(Chin, Chan, and Lam, 2008). Resource asymmetry among competitors
contributes more to cooperation. Coopetition creates value through cooperation
between competing organizations, aligning different interests toward a common
objective and helping to create opportunities for competitive advantage by
removing external obstacles and neutralizing threats. Coopetition strategy is a
multidimensional and multifaceted concept that supposes a number of different
forms and requires multiple levels of analysis. Coopetition encompasses both
social and economic issues related to inter-organizational interdependence. It
implies that firms can interact in rivalry owing to conflicting interests and at the
same time cooperate due to common interests (Tsai, 2002). To better compare such relationships, we provided a snapshot of attitudes to
cooperation, competition and coopetition. The attitudes are illustrated in Figure 2.
ATypologyofStrategicRelationshipsinReligiousTourismBusinessNetworks 567
Figure2.Asnapshotofattitudestowardscooperation,competitionandcompetitionin(AdoptedfromLiu,2013)
In the context of religious tourism industry, the competitive behavior is
observed when individual tourism businesses try to maximize their own interests
and do not participate in collective action. The different self-interests are usually
in conflict with each other, and as a result, tourism businesses compete against
each other to best fulfill their own self-interests. The cooperative behavior is
based on an opposite rationale, that is, individual tourism businesses participate in
collective actions to achieve common goals. The coopetition relationships are
complex as they consist of two different logics of interaction. Tourism businesses
involved in coopetition are involved in a relationship that, on the one hand,
consists of competition due to conflicting interests and on the other hand, consists
Cooperation Positives:
-Complementary resources
-Faster innovation
Negatives:
-Issue of trust and commitment
-Fear of short-term opportunistic
behavior
Competition Positives:
Induces better innovation - -Dilutes anti-trust and anti-monopoly
Negatives:
-Loss of important sources
-Undermines the long-term viability
Multiple approaches in value chain
Coopetition Positives:
-A single approach is insufficient in
today’s business world
-Increases firm competitive advantage
Negatives:
Superficial and unpractical form - -Remains naming or evoking
568 4thInternationalConferenceonStrategicManagement
of cooperation due to common interests. Compared to competition or coopetition,
cooperation is considered as the central stage for managing a religious tourism
destination. The cooperative relationships among the tourism organizations in
destination management exist at different levels with different forms. These
alternatives can be ranged from loosely connected relationships to those that are
very formal and integrated. Many times tourism organizations find no need for
them to enter into a formal and complex relationship if they intend to exchange
information about a particular issue or client. According to Wang and Krakover
(2008), the configurations of relationships can be manifested in four forms in a
continuum defined by various degrees of formalization, integration, and structural
complexity. These four forms of business relationships can be termed as:
affiliation, collaboration, coordination, and strategic networks (Figure 3). The four
forms of relationships follow a logical order of low to high formalization,
integration and structural complexity. 1. Affiliation is the most informal linkage among the tourism organizations,
and can be used most easily. It indicates an initial level of trust and
commitment among the tourism organizations and is better maintained
when linkages between tourism organizations are made person-to-person
rather than organization-to-organization. In other words, tourism
organizations affiliated with each other continue to operate independently
while supporting one another through the exchange of information,
endorsements, and making referrals, usually on an informal and ad-hoc
basis. 2. Coordination allows otherwise autonomous tourism organizations to align
their activities to support events or services by implementing common
tasks. The integration of staffs or activities is minimal and tied to the
accomplishment of certain tasks. Policies and procedures are relatively
informal. Coordination focuses on the ability of stakeholders to pursue
their individual organizational objectives better by arranging their
activities with the activities of other compatible organizations and by
aligning self-interest with others’ interests. An example of coordination
relationships in a destination is events at which tourism businesses
coordinate their activities and contribute to the common activities in
different forms such as ideas, manpower, and even financial contributions.
Such coordination may include two tourism organizations sharing
ATypologyofStrategicRelationshipsinReligiousTourismBusinessNetworks 569
information about the activities of a program, deciding to change their
program content in order to better serve their common customers. Hotels
may provide meeting space and accommodation services; attractions may
provide sightseeing opportunities; restaurants may provide complementary
dining experiences; and transportation companies may offer easy access to
various locations in the destination for the tour group. Hence, all the
stakeholders coordinate with each other to achieve the common goal:
selling the destination. 3. In collaboration, tourism organizations need to go beyond coordinating
their operations around a certain event or practical goal. They want to
develop a joint strategy or common set of strategies for working
collectively toward a shared purpose. They develop a formal plan for
working together. These relationships are defined through contracts or
other formal agreements. In fact, collaboration is considered as a
formalized arrangement between two or more complementary entities for
the purpose of securing a longer-term business advantage. Collaboration is
more formalized and requires a longer-term commitment. In a
collaborative relationship, each organization wants to help not only
themselves but also their partners to become better at what they do. 4. Strategic networks are more formal structures that integrate the shared
vision of all tourism organizations involved and take a system orientation
in destination management. There are two kinds of networks in a certain
destination, and they vary based on the types of participating organizations
in the network. Horizontal networks involve organizations that provide
similar services such as the local hotels and motel associations, and
vertical networks involve organizations offering different services such as
the marketing campaigns. Strategic networks are integrated management
systems that seek to improve service delivery by broadening or deepening
the scope of services available in the destination to the tourists. Strategic
networks emphasize the importance of the network itself in successfully
managing the destination. In sum, affiliation, coordination, collaboration and strategic networks are
considered as the cooperative processes that happen in tourism destination
management. These different forms of cooperative relationships are built upon
each other along a continuum, that is, when the continuum of the cooperative
570 4thInternationalConferenceonStrategicManagement
relationship moves from affiliation to strategic networks, it also moves from a low
level to a high level of organizational integration which requires a more formal
and complex relationship with each other.
Figure 3. Relationships among businesses in tourism industry (AdoptedfromWangandKrakover,2008)
Discussion This paper has emphasized the importance of effective networking in the religious
tourism businesses. A competitive advantage is achieved by merging the
overlapping products and services of local businesses. It is necessary to develop
business networks in the religious tourism in order to create a coherent
experience, accommodation and restaurant services around religious tourist
attractions. The literature review suggested that three types of business
Low High Formality
Complexity
Integration
Strategic networks Seeking long-term shared vision or strategy for the destination; system approach for achieving destination success
Collaboration Keeping a long-term advantage through developing joint strategies toward shared purposes; strong commitment to destination management efforts
Coordination Tracking individual business goals through coordinating activities with other compatible businesses; aligning self-interests with other’s interests
Affiliation Supporting one another through informal exchange of information, endorsements and referrals; personal relationship importance
Coopetition
Competition
Cooperation
ATypologyofStrategicRelationshipsinReligiousTourismBusinessNetworks 571
relationships may be found in an RTBN, namely, cooperation, competition, and
coopetition. A tourism business may involve in these different relationships at the
same time in order to defend its position in a business network. However,
literature asserted that cooperation generates more business efficiency in using a
destination’s limited resources, while coopetition is efficient in handling both
cooperation and competition between businesses. In this framework, four
cooperative processes can be observed. These processes are affiliation,
coordination, collaboration and strategic networks which differ from each other in
terms of formality, complexity and integration. On a continuum starting from
affiliation, the level of formality, complexity and integration is low. On the other
side of the continuum, there are strategic networks with high level of formality,
complexity and integration. In affiliation, two or more tourism businesses are
loosely connected with each other, usually informally, because of their similar
interests. In coordination, autonomous tourism businesses align activities, sponsor
certain events, or deliver tourism services in pursuit of compatible goals. In
collaboration, businesses work collectively through common strategies. In
strategic networks, all the tourism businesses engaged in the network have a
shared vision and take a system orientation to achieving group objectives through
consistent strategy and concerted efforts. These processes reflect the extent to
which tourism businesses work together to achieve their objectives and explain
much of the inter-organizational activities taking place in a religious tourism
destination.
ReferencesAureli, S. and Forlani, F. (2016), The importance of brand architecture in business networks,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(2), 133-155.
Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S. (2000), Coopetition in business networks-To cooperate and compete simultaneously, Industrial Marketing Management 29 (5), 411-426.
Canegallo, C., Ortona, G., Ottone, S., Ponzano, F . and Scacciati, F. (2008), Competition versus co-operation: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37 (1), 18-30.
Chin, K. S., Chan, B. L. and Lam, P.T. (2008), Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for co-opetition strategy. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108 (4), 437-454.
Francis, L. J., Williams, E., Annis, J., and Robbins,M. (2008). Understanding cathedral visitors: Psychological type and individual differences in experience and appreciation. Tourism Analysis, 13(1), 71-80.
Gargiulo, M. and Benassi, M. (2000), Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital, Organization Science, 11(2), 183-196.
572 4thInternationalConferenceonStrategicManagement
Gulati, R. (2007), Managing Network Resources. Alliances, Affiliations and Other Relational
Assets. Oxford University Press.
Hughes, K., Bond, N. and Ballantyne, R. (2013), Designing and managing interpretive experiences at religious-tourism sites: Visitors' perceptions of Canterbury Cathedral. Tourism Management, 36, 210-220.
Hunt, S. D. (2007), Economic growth: Should policy focus on investment or dynamic competition? European Business Review, 19 (4), 274-291.
Lakshman, C. (2012), Attributional Assumptions of Organizational Schools of Thought: Classification, Evaluation and Managerially Relevant Knowledge, European Management Review, 9, 153-167.
Lemmetyinen, A. (2010), The coordination of cooperation in tourism business networks, Turku School of Economics.
Liu, R. (2013) Cooperation, competition and coopetition in innovation communities, Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 31(2), 91-105.
Luo, Y. (2007), A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World Business, 42 (2), 129-144 .
Osarenkhoe, A. (2010), A study of inter-firm dynamics between competition and cooperation-A coopetition strategy, Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(3/4), 201-221.
Pillai, K. G. (2006), Networks and competitive advantage: a synthesis and extension, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14 (2), 129-145.
Raj, R., and Morpeth, N. D. (2007). Religious-tourism and pilgrimage festivals management: An international perspective. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.
Rinschede, G. (1992), Forms of religious tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 51-67.
Scott, N., Cooper, C. and Baggio, R. (2008), Destination networks, Four Australian cases, Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 169-188.
Seaton, A. V. and Bennett, M. M. (2004), The marketing of tourism products: concepts, issues, and cases, Thomson Publications: London.
Tanghe, J., Wisse, B. and vander Flier, H. (2010), The role of group member affect in the relationship between trust and cooperation, British Journal of Management, 21 (2): 359-374.
Thorgren, S., Wincent, J. and Öttqvist, D. (2009), A cause-effect study of inter-firm networking and corporate entrepreneurship: Initial evidence of self-enforcing spirals. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 14 (4), 355-373.
Tsai, W. (2002), Social structure of coopetition within a multiunit organisation: Coordination, competition and intra-organisational knowledge sharing, Organisation Science, 13 (2), 179-190.
Wang, Y. and Krakover, S. (2008), Destination marketing: competition, cooperation or coopetition?, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(2), 126-141.
Watkins, M. and Bell, B. (2002), The experience of forming business relationships in tourism, International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 15-28.