Main projects 2006-2009

Center for Marketing

Center for Strategic Marketing

Professor S. Kouchtch, Director,Institute of Strategy, Leadership and Innovations

30.10.2008

Main aims of research activities

Mission Statement

The Center for Strategic Marketing is dedicated to creation of new knowledge on concepts and approaches to marketing strategy and tactics in both consumer and industrial markets with particular emphasis on contribution to understanding of marketing in transition markets through applied research and comparative studies.

Main research directions– Strategic marketing (markets in transition), – Industrial marketing and purchasing,– Hi-tech marketing ,– Integrated marketing communications.

Our research partners

Our research partner include:

• State University Higher School of Economics (Moscow)

• Lappeenranta University of Technology (Finland)

• IMP Group

– Manchester Business School (UK)

– University of Bath (UK)

– Helsinki School of Economics (Finland)

– Norwegian School of Management

– Copenhagen Business School

• Dortmund University (Germany)

• Dresden Technical University (Germany)

Value creation in Russian markets:

marketing perspectives2006-2008

National Project

Innovativeness in Russian markets

2007-2009

Center for

Marketing

Partners: LUT, MBS,IMP Group

Main results:

• 3 surveys on Russian firms (2006-2007) (quantitative & qualitative)

• 1 monograph; 12 conference papers; 1 journal paper in progress; 1 text book in progress (by Dec 2007)

• 1 conference organized (Oct 2007) (IMP Group)

• 1 round table organized (June 2007)

• 8 research seminars (at GSOM, MBS (UK), LUT)

RHF grant

Partners: LUT – NORDI

research center

Main results:• 1 round table planned (Dec 2007)

• 2 conference papers planned on results by Dec 2007

Main projects 2006-2008

Main projects

Projects planned for 2008-2009

• Innovativeness in Russian markets (2007-2009, in partnership with Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT))

• Russian market entry strategies of international companies (2008-2009, in cooperation with Dortmund University, Manchester Business School (MBS), chambers of commerce and research organizations)

– Including writing of case studies for new Ph. Kotler Marketing textbook 2009

• Value creation in Russian markets: marketing perspectives (2008-2009 – series of in-depth interviews planned to interpret results of surveys 2006-2007) (in cooperation with LUT, MBS, IMP Group)

• Consumer behavior towards ecological products in Russia (in cooperation with Dresden University (Germany)

Value creation in Russian markets: marketing perspectives 2006-2008

Main conferences overview (12 conference papers):• European Marketing Academy conference (EMAC 2006, 2007,2008) • Academy of Marketing (AM 2006, 2007) • Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group Conference (IMP 2006, 2007,2008) • INFORMS Marketing Science Conference 2007

Main activities 2006-2008:• Round table on Supply Chain Management in Russia (June 2007)

– With participation of industry experts, businessmen and researchers

• International Research Conference on Marketing Strategies of Russian Companies (Oct 2007)

– Main sessions on Marketing Effectiveness, Marketing and Innovations, Relationships and Interaction

– Participants from several Russian regions; – Conference is organized with support of IMP Group – research centers in the UK,

Denmark, Finland, Sweden)

Purchasing as Strategy and Strategic Thinking - Opportunities and Challenges

(empirical evidence from Russian companies)

S. Kouchtch & M. Smirnova

Research idea

• How can we study buyer-supplier relationships in Russian economy?

• What is different?

– Is this specifics determined by cultural or managerial factors?

• What can be the theoretical and managerial implications of this research?

– How can we ensure that this research will contribute both to theory and practice?

How can we classify buyer-seller relationships?What are the factors, influencing interaction?Are the relationship styles different?How the governance (coordinating) mechanism is formed?How can we evaluate relationship performance?

How should we approach the problem of buyer-supplier relational patterns analysis from conceptual perspective?How should the methodology be developed?How should the study be conducted?How could the results be disseminated?

Object Methodology

The IMP Model (1982)

BuyerSupplier

Characteristics of dyadic

interaction process

Environment

Atmosphere of interaction

Strategic Supplier Wheel (Cousins, 1999)

Corporate strategy and

supply strategy

Organization Structure

Performance Measurement

Skills and Capabilities

Costs and benefits analysis

Relationship Portfolio

Environmental factors(competition, technological changes, etc)

Skills and

capabilities

Status of purchasing

Purchasing Strategy(Cousins, Spekman, 2000,

Carr, Smeltzer, 1997)

Purchasing performance measurement

Goalsand

strategic orientation

Relationship portfolio

Dyadic (key) supplier-customer interaction

Interaction style(Ivens, 2002) Governance

mechanism(Williamson,

1985, Campbell, 1985, etc)

Costs-benefits analysis

(Ulaga, Eggert, 2002, Walter et

al, 2003)

Conceptual Research Model

2nd stage

1st stage

Methodology

• 2 waves of research:– Purchasing strategy analysis– Key-supplier interaction analysis

• Personal fully structured interviews– access problems (Hallen&Johanson, 2004) – closeness and low readiness to share knowledge and information

(Mikhailova&Husted, 2003)

• Partly replication of previous studies (Carr & Smeltzer, 1997; Ivens, 2002; Walter et al, 2003; Ulaga & Eggert, 2002; Jumpponen, Kouchtch, Lintukangas, Smirnova, Virolainen, 2006)

• Questionnaire pre-test (6 in-depth interviews to check understanding of questions, structure, logic)

• Back-translation

Methodology (2) • N=162 (16 regions) • 6 industry groups

– (machinery – 14,2%, pulp and woodworking industry – 32,9%,retailing and wholesale – 16,1,metallurgy – 5,8%, ICT – 16,1%, light and food industries - 23,9%)

• Number of employees – (70-250 – 44,4%, 250-500 – 20,6%, 500-1000 -

11,9%; 1000-2000 – 11,9%, 5000 and more – 4,4%) • Market share differences

– (до 5% - 18,8%, 5-15% - 25%, 16-25% - 20%, 26-50% - 14,9%, 51-75% - 8,1%, 76-100% - 3,1%)

• Year and way of foundation – (49% of companies were founded after 1991, 51% -

privatized)

Study sample: regions involved

19,4%

13,1%

Status of purchasing and strategic orientations

• Strategy developed – 83,9%• Strategy documented – 60,2%• Long-term documented plan for 5-10 years – 15,6%

• Future development of supply chain:– supplier relationships development (88,3%), – operative effectiveness improvement (63%),– business processes development (48,1%), – personnel management improvement (44,4%),– time management improvement (27,8%), – participation in R&D (18,5%), – outsourcing (8%)

Strategic priorities in purchasing

Rank Share of firms

Compared rank*

Costs reductionCosts reduction 1 87% 1

Long-term supplier relationships 2 79,5% 3

Lead-time reduction 3 74,5% 4

Quality improvement 4 72,7% 2

Purchasing and sales activities alignment 5 50,3% -

Just-in-time system creation 6 47,2% -

Improved time-to-market 7 41,6% 7

Firm’s flexibility improvement 8 39,8% -

Stock reductions 9 32,9% -

Integrated supply chain creation 10 21,1% -

Supplier base reduction 11 16,8% 5

Joint R&D 12 16,8% 10

Outsourcing 13 12,4% 8

Priorities in supplier relationships (Håkansson, 1982 )

Rank Share of firms

Trust 1 86,6%

Profit 2 86,4%

Satisfaction 3 82,8%

Quality of goods supplied 4 82,7%

Quality of services provided 5 79,6%

Cost reduction 6 78,8%

Quality of interaction coordination 7 78,4%

Joint problem solving 8 75,3%

Supplier’s problem solving ability 9 74,7%

Effectiveness of communications 10 73,5%

Strategic perspectives of interaction 11 73,4%

Trust between Russian companies

Please, give your evaluation to the following statements concerning interactions with the supplier:

Average

•This supplier meets the commitments given to our company 4,20

•This supplier is not always honest with us 1,97

•We trust the information given by this supplier 4,10

•This supplier is worth trusting 4,30

•We consider that we should be cautious while interacting with this supplier 2,43

•This supplier appreciates our opinion while taking important decisions 3,82

•We can share the confident information concerning our firm with this supplier

2,83

•We are sure about this supplier’s professionalism 4,36

Investments in the interaction with the supplier: russian context

•Our company has made considerable investments in the collaboration with this supplier 2,43

•In case we stop the collaboration with this supplier, these investments will lose the importance and value for our company 2,40

•We have considerably adopted our business processes to interact more effectively with this supplier 2,38

•Training our personnel how to interact more effectively with this supplier took a lot of time and financial costs 1,86

•We have considerably adopted the characteristics of our products to collaborate with this supplier 2,00

•We have substantially adopted our production process to interact with this supplier2,15

•We have adopted our production plans to collaborate with this supplier 2,25

•We have adopted our logistic system to interact with this supplier 2,37

•To work with this supplier we have spent a lot of time to get to know supplier’s procedures and requirements of documents’ circulation

2,15

The level of adaptation in relationships between Russian companies

Can you assert that while interacting with your firm, this supplier: Average

• suggests to your company the ideas of new product development

2,45

• takes part in developing existing products and services of your company

2,49

• makes suggestions on developing and optimizing the product processes of your company

2,37

• suggests technological know-how for your company2,37

Conclusions and implications

theoretical implications unpredictable variations in the role

of factors methodological uncertainty

topics for analysis• Asymmetry in relationships• Value creating mechanisms

and determinants • Governance mechanisms• Dyadic perspective • Industry-specific investigation

– Industry group based– Longitudinal analysis– Comparative studies

managerial implications• strategic thinking? No.• strategic priorities

benchmarking• emphasis on capabilities

development• goals alignment importance

Further research directions

Survey(Finland)

2005

Survey(Russia)

2006

Dyadic qualitative research

Survey(Russia)

2008

Interviews

region А

region B region D

region C