This article was downloaded by: [Case Western Reserve University]

On: 23 November 2014, At: 21:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpss20

Sales Force Automation and Sales Performance: Do

Experience and Expertise Matter?
Dong-Gil Ko & Alan R. Dennis
Published online: 23 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Dong-Gil Ko & Alan R. Dennis (2004) Sales Force Automation and Sales Performance: Do Experience and
Expertise Matter?, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24:4, 311-322

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2004.10749040

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 SALES FORCE AUT
FORCE OMA
AUTOMA TION AND SALES PERFORMANCE:
OMATION
DO EXP ERIENCE AND EXP
EXPERIENCE ER
EXPERTISE MA
ERTISE TTER?
MAT
Dong-Gil K
ong-Gil o and Alan R. D
Ko
We examined the effect of using a knowledge management–based sales force automation (SFA) system on the sales
performance of 1,340 sales representatives. We found that SFA system use was directly related to performance—the more
knowledge documents that sales representatives read, the more likely they were to exceed their quota. Expertise moderated
this relationship. Sales representatives who exceeded their sales quota in the previous year derived significantly greater
benefit from SFA system use than did other sales representatives.
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
Firms implement sales force automation (SFA) tools to facili-
tate the customer–salesperson information exchange process
(Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999). Although there is little
consensus with the definition, SFA involves the use of vari-
ous hardware and software applications to convert manual
sales activities to electronic processes (Erffmeyer and Johnson
2001; Rivers and Dart 1999). For example, travel reimburse-
ment forms that typically would have been submitted either
by hand or mail are submitted using the SFA system. An-
other example includes creating and disseminating new com-
petitive and market information to sales representatives as they
become available as opposed to printing and mailing pam-
phlets. As the examples above illustrate, SFA systems aim (1)
to reduce time spent on support activities and thereby in-
crease time spent on sales activities and (2) to provide faster
access to timely information (Rivers and Dart 1999). How-
ever, these objectives often go unfulfilled because many SFA
projects fail (Block et al. 1996; Schafer 1997). Reasons for
the many unsuccessful SFA projects include lack of metrics
(Erffmeyer and Johnson 2001), information overload
(Beltramini 1988), increased monitoring (Sviokla 1996), in-
adequate training (Rasmussen 1999), and poor systems de-
sign (Beltramini 1988).
Nevertheless, technology has penetrated deeply into sales,
and use of SFA systems by salespeople has been increasing
(Widmier, Jackson, and McCabe 2002). However, there are
Dong-G
ong-Gilil K
Koo (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh), Assistant Professor
of Information Systems, Kelley School of Business, Indiana Univer-
sity, dgko@indiana.edu.
Alan R. D Dennis
ennis (Ph.D., University of Arizona), Professor of Infor-
mation Systems, John T. Chambers Chair of Internet Systems, Kelley
School of Business, Indiana University, ardennis@indiana.edu.
The authors thank the Special Issue Guest Editors and the three
reviewers for their helpful comments in crafting this paper. They
also thank Ray Burke for his helpful comments on previous ver-
sions of this paper.
ennis
Dennis
few studies of SFA system use in the field, prompting calls for
additional research on “actual” use (Jones, Sundaram, and
Chin 2002).
Recent research suggests that immediate and thorough ac-
cess to, and use of, SFA information is important to SFA
system success and performance (e.g., Erffmeyer and Johnson
2001). The information or knowledge available to sales rep-
resentatives (as well as to other organizational professionals)
is key to achieving and sustaining competitive advantage
(Shoemaker 2001). It can be challenging to provide relevant,
reusable, codified knowledge to sales representatives
(Beltramini 1988; Liu and Leach 2001).
A knowledge management (KM)–based SFA system is de-
fined as the use of hardware and software applications to pro-
vide knowledge that enhances learning and improves
performance (Day 2000; Spender and Grant 1996). Such SFA
systems carefully organize knowledge into reusable knowledge
assets that are stored in a formal SFA system and are shared
throughout the firm (Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney 1999).
However, there is little concrete evidence of SFA systems im-
proving performance. The formal codified knowledge in such
systems tends to be explicit knowledge, formal knowledge that
is articulated and communicated in symbolic form or natural
language (Alavi and Leidner 2001). For example, legal guide-
lines that sales representatives must follow contain knowledge
on the appropriate behaviors and actions of their selling ac-
tivities. Such knowledge is more likely to be of value to inex-
perienced sales representatives because much of the formal
codified knowledge should be well-known to those with long
work experience (Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney 1999).
However, there is no empirical evidence supporting the
notion that sales representatives with long work experience
benefit from the reuse of codified knowledge assets stored in
an SFA system differently than those who recently began their
career. Likewise, explicit codified knowledge may have less value
to high-expertise sales representatives (i.e., high-performing
sales representatives) because they have already internalized
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXIV, no. 4 (fall 2004), pp. 311–322.
© 2005 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0885-3134 / 2005 $9.50 + 0.00.
 312 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
the explicit best practices contained in the SFA system; such
best practices may have greater value to low-performing sales
representatives who do not understand the best practices of
their jobs.
The objective of the current study is therefore to empiri-
cally examine whether there is a relationship between SFA sys-
tem use, experience, expertise, and performance. The question
of this study is: Do employees with different work experience
and expertise benefit differently from the use of an SFA sys-
tem? In an attempt to answer this question, we worked with a
large multinational pharmaceutical firm in the United States
(herein called “Farmaco”) to examine the differential effects of
the use of their KM-based SFA system by employees with vary-
ing work experience and expertise on sales performance.
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
PRIOR RESEARCH
RESEARCH
There are many different approaches to managing knowledge
and building KM-based SFA systems to support sales and KM
processes (Earl 2001; Shoemaker 2001). One of the most fun-
damental dichotomies is the KM strategy adopted by the firm,
whether codification or personalization (Grover and Daven-
port 2001; Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney 1999). With a codi-
fication strategy, the primary focus is to store knowledge; the
firm’s knowledge is carefully organized into reusable knowl-
edge assets that are stored in a formal SFA system, and knowl-
edge is shared through the reuse of these assets. With a
personalization strategy (sometimes called a knowledge web),
the primary focus is to facilitate communication of knowl-
edge among sales representatives, not store it; knowledge is
shared through person-to-person contacts. Whereas a KM-
based SFA system might help knowledge-seekers find experts,
the SFA system itself plays a much smaller role in the person-
alization strategy than it does in the codification strategy.
A codification strategy is best suited to organizations that
reuse the same knowledge repeatedly. Such organizations have
a high demand for certain types of knowledge and therefore
require a scalable KM strategy. They are willing to invest sig-
nificant resources in the creation and packaging of knowl-
edge assets in return for a more efficient knowledge transfer
(Dixon 2000; Markus 2001; Zack 1999b). Hence, the role of
information technology (IT) and an SFA system in facilitat-
ing the transfer of knowledge is central to the success of a
codification KM strategy (Alavi and Leidner 2001; Miles et
al. 1998), whereas the role of IT and an SFA system may be
less central to the success of a personalization strategy (Brown
and Duguid 2000, 2001; Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney 1999;
McDermott 1999). Dell, for example, reused knowledge as-
sets an average of 275 times, which led to lower operational
costs and lower cost for consumers (Hansen, Nohria, and
Tierney 1999). Imagine, for example, the organizational cost
associated with transferring the same knowledge 275 times
using a personalization strategy. Therefore, we chose to focus
on an SFA system that follows a codification strategy.
A codification strategy is essentially a “people-to-docu-
ments” approach, in which the firm expects to derive perfor-
mance benefits through reusing knowledge assets (Teece 1998).
SFA systems can only add value to an organization when they
are used (Delone and McLean 1992, 2003; Devaraj and Kohli
2003; Seddon 1997). That is, SFA systems per se cannot add
value; they only provide value when their use changes behav-
ior. Usage is the key to link between SFA system investment
and performance (Dixon 2000; Doll and Torkzadeh 1998);
use is necessary, but not sufficient, to produce value (Delone
and McLean 2003; Doll and Torkzadeh 1998; Seddon 1997).
Value to individuals arises when use of the knowledge in the
SFA system (e.g., market research; Sujan, Weitz, and Sujan
1988) enables them to perform their work in ways that are
more efficient, more effective, or more satisfying. This im-
proved individual performance, then, may lead to improved
organizational performance (Delone and McLean 1992).
Because the goal is to reuse the sales knowledge as much as
possible (Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney 1999), the organiza-
tion is more likely to invest in acquiring and validating knowl-
edge with high applicability to many users. The 80–20 rule
usually applies (Craft and Leake 2002; Furman 1997), in that
the knowledge selected for the SFA system may be the most
common 20 percent of knowledge likely to be of value to 80
percent of the users. In other words, because collecting and
packaging knowledge are very expensive, the organization will
package a small proportion of their knowledge (i.e., 20 per-
cent of knowledge) that will likely benefit the majority of
their users (i.e., 80 percent of the users).
Whereas some authors have argued that codification-based
KM systems cannot improve performance because they pro-
vide routine knowledge often well-known to the target users
(e.g., McDermott 1999), others argue that the just-in-time
delivery of context-specific knowledge can significantly im-
prove performance (e.g., Davenport and Glaser 2002). In
order to improve performance, the knowledge provided to a
sales representative must be relevant to the task at hand and
must not be previously considered (Vinokur, Trope, and
Burnstein 1975). If this is true, and if the knowledge can be
successfully understood and reused, only then is performance
likely to improve.
Many sales force models suggest relationships between sales
representative activities and performance (see Churchill et al.
1985). In particular, the use of SFA systems, and IT in gen-
eral, to improve individual sales productivity and performance
is becoming widespread (e.g., Keillor, Bashaw, and Pettijohn
1997; Rubash, Sullivan, and Herzog 1987; Widmier, Jack-
son, and McCabe 2002). Thus, we respond to the need for
additional research investigating actual SFA system use (Jones,
Sundaram, and Chin 2002) and argue that, in general, when

an individual uses an SFA system, he or she will increase his
or her knowledge, which, in turn, should lead to improved
performance. Therefore,
H1: SFA system use will improve individual sales repre-
sentative performance.
Experience
One major factor that affects performance in general is the
amount of experience one has (McDaniel, Schmidt, and
Hunter 1988; Schmidt, Hunter, and Outerbridge 1986). Prior
research has identified three major dimensions to “experi-
ence”—organizational tenure, the length of time with the or-
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
ganization; job tenure, the length of time in the current job in
the current organization; and job experience, the length of time
within the profession (McEnrue 1988). In her study of man-
agers working in a service environment, McEnrue (1988) ex-
amined all three dimensions of experience as potential
predictors of performance and found that job experience alone
predicted performance. Although some studies have also found
job experience—length of time in the profession—to be the
dominant experience-based predictor of job performance (e.g.,
McDaniel, Schmidt, and Hunter 1988; Schmidt, Hunter, and
Outerbridge 1986), others have not. For example, in a study
of software development projects, job experience improved
efficiency but had no effect on effectiveness (Faraj and Sproull
2000). Unfortunately, empirical results regarding job experi-
ence in nonsales contexts have not been consistently strong
and robust.
In the context of sales, substantial research attention has
been directed at job experience (e.g., Matsuo and Kusumi
2002) and, more commonly, at job tenure (see Naumann,
Widmier, and Jackson 2000, for a review of the literature). In
an industrial selling environment, unlike McEnrue’s (1988)
service environment, job tenure has been shown to influence
customer selling orientation (O’Hara, Boles, and Johnston
1991), which affects performance (Saxe and Weitz 1982).
Moreover, others speculate that job tenure may be related to
sales performance (Brown and Peterson 1993). Therefore, the
term experience, as used in the present study, identifies the
salesperson’s length of time in the current job in the current
organization—that is, job tenure.
As Markus (2001) points out, knowledge-seekers with dif-
ferent experience will have different needs and expectations.
Some users will be inexperienced seeking answers to immedi-
ate problems and seeking to improve their organizational,
contextual, and domain knowledge (e.g., company-specific
vocabulary, selling guidelines, promotions, legal guidelines
for conducting continuing medical education) in their job.
These users will have the greatest knowledge needs because
they lack the knowledge of their more experienced counter-
Fall 2004 313
parts (Markus 2001). They are likely to be the largest users of
the SFA system and the most likely to benefit from the 80–20
rule of providing routine knowledge.
Such users likely have little organizational, contextual, and
domain knowledge and may not be able to articulate the ques-
tion, internalize the knowledge, or successfully adapt it to
their individual contexts, which means that the burden of
making the knowledge intellectually accessible and easy to
apply falls on those creating and packaging the knowledge
(Markus 2001). Under such circumstances, inexperienced sales
representatives may rely on the SFA system to improve per-
formance by seeking organizational, contextual, and domain
knowledge that will assist them with their work (e.g., cus-
tomer types, sales situations). Thus, their short-term interest
may focus primarily on their profession (Brand 1998).
In contrast, experienced workers with extensive experience
will have a deep base of organizational, contextual, and do-
main knowledge. They will have seen and experienced most
of the different events that can occur in the job. They are
most likely to seek knowledge for challenging or unusual situ-
ations that they have not previously encountered (Markus
2001), such as best practices for handling rare questions. In
other words, it is less likely that the very organizational, con-
textual, and domain knowledge they need to conduct their
sales activity will be available in the SFA system (at least com-
pared to the routine knowledge sought by novices). Because
they will be less likely to find the knowledge they need in the
SFA system, they may find themselves more likely to contrib-
ute knowledge to the SFA system for others to benefit, rather
than use the SFA system to acquire knowledge. On the rare
occasions when the experienced sales representatives find the
knowledge they need, they may find it easier to apply and use
the knowledge because of their greater organizational, con-
textual, and domain knowledge (Markus 2001; Zack 1999a).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2: Highly experienced sales representatives will gain the
least performance benefits from SFA system use.
Expertise
xpertise
Another major factor that affects performance is the expertise
held by the sales representative: “in sales, experience alone
may not ensure expertise” (Shepherd and Rentz 1990, p. 57).
Several studies have defined expertise as a combination of
knowledge and ability, with the capability to achieve strong
results with this knowledge (e.g., Bedard 1991; Bonner,
Baumann, and Dalal 2002; Liu and Leach 2001). Other stud-
ies characterize expertise as an ability to leverage task-specific
knowledge and achieve superior performance in a given con-
text (e.g., Marchant 1989). However, one of the most no-
table expertise frameworks defines expert as an individual who
 314 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Figur
iguree 1
Research M
esearch odel
Model
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
displays special skill or task-specific knowledge in a specific
domain (Shanteau 1992; Shanteau and Stewart 1992). Col-
lectively, expertise can be defined as an individual’s ability to
use task-specific knowledge to achieve superior performance—
for example, situation-specific selling scripts (Leigh 1987),
“adaptive selling” (Blessing and Anderson 1996; Sonnentag
and Lange 2002; Spiro and Weitz 1990), chemical processes
by which drugs work, and side effects. A set of examples de-
picting knowledge of high-expertise salespeople have been
documented (Sujan, Weitz, and Sujan 1988, p. 15).
Sales representatives with less expertise (i.e., lower-perform-
ing sales representatives) may rely on the SFA system to im-
prove performance by seeking knowledge that will assist them
with their work. Because they have been less successful in the
past, they may be motivated to seek ways to improve their
knowledge and skills, and the SFA system may provide a
simple, face-saving way to seek knowledge. In this case, they
are seeking to substitute the knowledge and best practices in
the SFA system for their own knowledge (Conner and Prahalad
1996). SFA system use is likely to bring noticeable perfor-
mance benefits because low-performing sales representatives
have the greatest opportunity for performance improvement—
they have the greatest potential to gain from the knowledge
in the SFA system.
In contrast, high-performing sales representatives already
possess significant task-specific knowledge and, therefore, are
more likely to seek unique organizational and domain knowl-
edge as well as other “specialized knowledge” that will aug-
ment their existing skill set (Markus 2001). Because the SFA
systems using codification strategies are designed to provide
highly reusable knowledge, this specialized knowledge is less
likely to be in the SFA system because the organization is
more interested in making available knowledge with high
applicability to many users. They are less likely to benefit from
the general knowledge and best practices in the SFA system
because they are more likely to already know this knowledge
(or perhaps to have even contributed it to the SFA system in
the first place). Likewise, because they are already high per-
formers, there is less opportunity to improve their perfor-
mance relative to others. We hypothesize:
H3: Highly performing sales representatives will gain the
least performance benefits from SFA system use.
Summar
ummaryy
In summary, we argue that, in general, the more sales repre-
sentatives use an SFA system, the more knowledge they would
acquire, and the more likely they are to improve their perfor-
mance. However, some sales representatives are likely to ben-
efit to a greater or lesser extent from the knowledge in the
SFA system than others. Those with low experience are likely
to benefit more from use than those with high experience,
and lower-performing sales representatives are likely to ben-
efit more from use than higher-performing ones. In short, we
argue that current performance, the dependent variable, is
affected by SFA system use, and that the experience and ex-
pertise of sales representatives moderates this relationship
between SFA system use and performance (see Figure 1).
METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
We conducted a field study at a large multinational pharma-
ceutical firm, which we call Farmaco. Our focus is on the
KM-based SFA system used by Farmaco to support its U.S.
field sales representatives. We conducted ten semistructured
interviews with the team that developed and supported the
system, “shadowed” two associates for one day each, and held
numerous meetings over the course of one year. Our primary
focus, however, is quantitative; we were given access to inter-
nal log data on SFA system usage, time in position data on
each sales representative, and the sales performance of each
sales representative. Because Farmaco operates on a quarterly
basis, our analyses focused on quarterly sales and usage data.
The Firm
Firm
A leader in the pharmaceutical industry, Farmaco develops
and markets pharmaceutical products throughout the world
through application of the latest research from their own
worldwide laboratories. Farmaco also collaborates with other
scientific organizations to develop and market their products
on a global basis. Part of Farmaco’s aim is to respond to the
world’s medical needs for the purpose of saving and improv-
ing lives while also trying to reduce health-care costs.
Farmaco is organized by both functional business units and
geographic business units. Research and manufacturing are
organized in separate business units, but sales is organized by
geographic region. The largest individual sales business unit is

the U.S. affiliate, which is responsible for all sales within the
United States. The U.S. affiliate has marketing and other sup-
port functions, but its largest component is the dozen or so
principal sales divisions (the specific number of divisions is
not disclosed for the reason that this may reveal Farmaco’s iden-
tity), each focusing on a different set of disease states for which
the firm offers drugs, or types of physicians (e.g., primary care
physicians, specialist physicians, HMO administrators).
Because Farmaco focuses on prescription drugs, almost all
of its revenues come from a very small set of products. The
success in managing this select set of brands, each of which
has only a limited life before generics arrive, is extremely im-
portant to the firm’s success. Farmaco markets their products
primarily through the use of their sales representatives.
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
The SSales
ales Repr
Repr esentativ
epresentatives
esentatives
The pharmaceutical industry is a knowledge-intensive indus-
try. Medical research is inherently knowledge work, and the
relationship between the sales representatives and doctors is
intensely knowledge-based. Each sales representative markets
their product by interacting with physicians and informing
them about existing and newly released products. The role of
the sales representatives is constrained by government regula-
tion, so there are many rules that sales representatives must
follow when providing information.
Each sales representative is assigned to one, and only one,
division, and within that division, is responsible for the as-
signed doctors within his or her sales territory only for a given
set of drugs. The representatives within a sales division are
not competing for the same physicians. Instead, they work to
increase the knowledge of disease states and Farmaco’s prod-
ucts during their interactions with the physicians in their ter-
ritories. In this context, a sales representative’s role is not to
sell, per se; they cannot take orders that immediately translate
into a sale (e.g., door-to-door salesperson model). Rather,
Farmaco’s sales representatives inform and educate physicians
regarding their products that require multiple rounds of pre-
sentations (e.g., large system sales model). A physician’s pre-
scription of a drug that is purchased by a patient reflects a
“sale” for a sales representative responsible for such territory.
Thus, a sales representative’s performance is tied to the num-
ber of prescriptions that are filled, and his or her ability to
meet or exceed the preestablished quota for sales is tied closely
to his or her compensation.
Sales quotas are set annually based on the expected sales
from the representative’s sales territory independent of the
performance of the individual representative (the way in which
the quota is set is proprietary). Quotas are set on an annual
basis and have specific amounts for each quarter. Quota can
be adjusted mid-year based on market fluctuations. Because
career progression is directly related to an individual sales
Fall 2004 315
representative’s performance, there is a confluence of interest
between the firm and its representatives. Because sales repre-
sentatives do not directly compete with each other within a
sales division, there is no inherent conflict of interest in shar-
ing knowledge.
The SSales
ales For
Force A
orce utomation SSystem
Automation ystem
Farmaco’s SFA system was first launched in Lotus Notes in
1999, with a major version launched in 2001. The current
system, launched in 2002, was a major revision of the Lotus
Notes-based system that allows the highly mobile sales repre-
sentatives to work online or offline through a replicating pro-
cess. The ability to work offline is critical as most work occurs
in the field, and they can use the SFA system in their cars or
doctors’ offices (the SFA system can be used while waiting to
be seen by a doctor). Knowledge is posted in the system for
sales representatives to search (a “pull” system—e.g., lessons
learned, government regulations), but several times per month,
the brand team or the sales operations team will “push” criti-
cal knowledge (e.g., competitive knowledge, such as flashes
on how to respond to breaking news or competitor’s actions)
to sales representatives.
The SFA system contains three types of knowledge. The
first is knowledge about the drugs that representatives sell, pro-
vided by the brand team (or the medical organization through
brand team). This includes basic knowledge (e.g., chemical
processes by which drugs work, side effects) and competitive
sales information (e.g., analyses of competitors’ drugs, selling
messages against those competitors, process templates for han-
dling common questions). The second type of knowledge is
general sales knowledge developed by the sales operations man-
agement (e.g., selling techniques, rules for good promotional
practices, legal guidelines for conducting continuing medical
education). The third type of knowledge is the best practices,
lessons learned, and “stories” submitted by sales representa-
tives. All knowledge items submitted from the field are first
evaluated by a peer review panel of expert sales representatives
to ensure the submitted item is both relevant and new, and
then is reviewed by the legal department, sales management,
and the brand team before being added to the SFA system.
Each sales representative is assigned to a single division,
and each division has their own knowledge content, although
all sales divisions share the same SFA software. The general
sales knowledge is common to all divisions and constitutes
organizational and contextual knowledge, whereas the knowl-
edge about the drugs is customized for each division so that
sales representatives see only the knowledge they need, which
constitutes task-specific knowledge. For example, users can
only see knowledge about the drugs they sell. Although some
knowledge may be common across divisions that sell the same
drugs, many times the knowledge is different because it has
 316 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
been customized to better meet the needs of the doctors the
sales representatives serve (e.g., the knowledge needed to in-
teract with a primary care physician is different than that for a
specialist).
Such customization requires care and attention. Each brand
team and the sales operations group has one SFA associate
assigned (either full time or part time) to help it manage its
knowledge in the system. Each division receives one to two
new SFA system postings per day (excluding the unusual flurry
around the launch of a new drug). The SFA system delivers
60,000 to 75,000 knowledge documents per quarter to the
sales representatives (i.e., a total of 60,000 to 75,000 docu-
ments are displayed each quarter).
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
Data
We used three independent sources of data in this research—
time in position data for each sales representative, SFA sys-
tem usage data managed by the KM function, and sales
performance data managed by a third-party outside contrac-
tor. Our analyses are constrained by the data provided to us
by Farmaco. We have one dependent variable (current sales
performance) and five independent variables (SFA system use
and the interaction between experience and expertise with
SFA system use). Descriptive statistics and the correlations
among study variables are presented in Table 1.
Farmaco operates on a quarterly basis, and thus our data
and analyses are also on a quarterly basis. We selected the third
quarter of 2002 (i.e., July, August, and September 2002) as our
period of study because the rollout of the new system version
began in February 2002 and was completed by May 2002.
Performance
Our dependent variable was sales performance for 2002:3,
defined as an individual’s percent of sales quota achieved—
that is, how an individual’s actual quarterly sales compared to
the sales quota for his or her sales territory for that quarter. A
sales representative who exactly met his or her quota would
receive a 100, whereas a representative under quota by 1 per-
cent would receive a 99. Quotas are set by district, irrespec-
tive of the individual sales representative’s performance. Our
dependent variable is consistent with prior studies of sales
representatives (e.g., Engle and Barnes 2000) and is compa-
rable to other studies examining performance in the context
of sales force (e.g., VandeWalle et al. 1999).
SFA System Use
The first independent variable is SFA system use. Computer-
recorded measures of system use are generally preferred to
subjective measures such as self-reported measures (LeBlanc
and Kozar 1990; Straub, Limayem, and Karahanna-Evaristo
1995), so we used the number of knowledge documents dis-
played on an individual sales representative’s screen in the
quarter (2002:3). This excludes any navigation information
and simply counts the number of documents in the Notes
repository that each person opened. This suffers from the
common problems associated with computer-recorded metrics
(e.g., undercounting of use for those documents printed and
referred many times on paper, rather than in the system; and
the overcounting of documents displayed on the screen but
never read and absorbed). However, such issues are generally
believed to be outweighed by the greater accuracy that com-
puter recording brings over the use of perceptions (LeBlanc
and Kozar 1990; Straub, Limayem, and Karahanna-Evaristo
1995) because both undercounting and overcounting should
serve to weaken the relationship between observed use and
performance, making it more difficult to find a significant
relationship. In short, although counting the number of
knowledge documents displayed is an imperfect measure of
knowledge use, it is a conservative and reliable measure.
Experience
Experience is defined as the number of months an individual
has been employed by Farmaco as a field sales representative.
We eliminated all sales representatives with less than six
months experience at the start of the third quarter of 2002
because they are just beginning their sales careers and are still
in a formal training program. We also eliminated all sales
representatives who transferred between divisions during the
first two quarters of 2002, giving a total of 1,340 sales repre-
sentatives. In our sample, experience ranged from 11 months
up to 34 years, with an average of 56.26 months (std. dev. =
71.88 months).
Expertise
Although many prior researchers have operationalized exper-
tise by years of experience (e.g., Boshuizen and Schmidt 1992),
recent studies show that long years of experience do not nec-
essarily correlate with high performance (e.g., Ericsson and
Lehmann 1996). In fact, “expertise is usually gauged by per-
formance” (Scardamalia and Bereiter 1994, p. 266), and prior
empirical studies demonstrate a relationship between exper-
tise and performance (e.g., Sonnentag and Lange 2002).
Therefore, we adopt a performance-based view of expertise.
Rather than use an arbitrary prior performance cutoff to
define high and low performers, we chose to use a continu-
ous measure of expertise. We used an individual’s prior year’s
percent of sales quota achieved as a proxy for expertise—that
is, the percent of quota they sold in 2001. High performers
have higher prior performance, whereas low performers have
 Fall 2004 317

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive Statistics Correlations

SFA
Standard Sales System
Mean Deviation Range Performance Use Expertise Experience

Sales Performance 98.15 9.21 73–213 1 0.078** 0.191** –0.089**

SFA System Use 14.30 12.29 0–92.67 1 –0.003 –0.011
Expertise 100.52 7.72 76–203 1 0.066*
Experience 56.26 71.88 11–408 1

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014

lower performance. The prior year percent of sales quota
achieved ranged from 76 percent up to 203 percent with an
average of 100.52 percent (std. dev. = 7.72 percent).
Moderating Effects
Two 2-way, cross-product variables were created—SFA sys-
tem use and expertise and SFA system use and experience—
for inclusion in our final analysis. In other words, two 2-way,
cross-product variables were created by taking the product of
SFA system use and expertise and the product of SFA system
use and experience.
Division
In addition to the hypothesized antecedent and moderating
variables, a control variable, division, was entered into the
regression as a set of three dummy variables.
Multicollinearity
Sales Performance = β0 + β1 (Division 1)
+ β2 (Division 2 ) + β3 (Division 3)
(1)
+ β 4 (SFA System Use ) + ε.
Moderated regression analysis (MRA) was employed to test
SFA system use and the moderating effect of expertise and
experience on the dependent variable (Y) sales performance
(H2 and H3). With MRA, the independent variables (X),
including control variables, are entered in the first step of the
regression (i.e., Equation (1)). In the second step, appropri-
ate moderating variables (Z) are entered by adding the fol-
lowing terms to Equation (1):
+ β5 ( Expertise )
(2)
+ β 6 (Expertise ) .
In the third and final step, appropriate cross-product terms
(X * Z) are entered to test for interaction effects. In this case,
the following terms were added to Equation (2):

Variance inflation factors (VIF) were calculated for each of
the variables included in the study to examine the presence of
multicollinearity. Both cross-product variables exceeded the
recommended VIF value of 10 (Neter, Wasserman, and Kutner
1990), indicating that the variables under study are multi-
collinear. After transforming SFA system use, expertise, and
experience using z-scores, no variable exceeded the VIF rec-
ommended value of 10. Thus, no additional remedial actions
were necessary due to multicollinearity.
Analysis
Regression analysis was used for hypotheses testing using SPSS
v10.0.7 statistical software package. To test H1, multiple re-
gression was used with the following model:
+ β 7 (SFA System Use * Expertise )
(3)
+ β8 (SFA System Use * Expertise ) .
Analysis of MRA provides indications of the extent to which
a particular variable serves as a pure moderator, a quasi mod-
erator, or has no effect. Analysis of differences between corre-
lation coefficients among the three equations is used to test for
the moderating effects of expertise and experience (Z). If the
R-square change from Equation (1) to Equation (2) is statisti-
cally significant, Z is a predictor variable and cannot be a pure
moderator. If the R-square change from Equation (2) to Equa-
tion (3) is statistically significant, Z is a predictor variable and
has an interaction effect with X; thus, Z is a quasi moderator.
If the R-square change from Equation (1) to Equation (3) is
statistically significant, and the change from Equation (1) to
 318 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Equation (2) is not, Z has only an interaction effect and is a
pure moderator.
RESULTS
RESULT
Table 2 shows the results of the moderated regression analysis
with each step corresponding to its associated equation as
specified earlier (i.e., Step 1 coincides with Equation (1), and
so forth). The analysis examined the effect of SFA system use
and the interaction effect of expertise and experience on cur-
rent sales performance. As seen in Table 2, Step 1 is signifi-
cant, and current SFA system use is significant (supporting
H1), indicating that sales performance increased as SFA sys-
tem use increased (β4 = 0.058, t = 2.138, p < 0.033).
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
Step 2 indicates that SFA system use, expertise, and expe-
rience are significant (β4 = 0.054, t = 2.049, p < 0.041; β5 =
0.249, t = 9.143, p < 0.000; β6 = –0.094, t = –3.395, p <
0.001). Finally, Step 3 is significant with one of the two in-
teraction terms significant (in the opposite direction from
H3) (β7 = 0.229, t = 8.782, p < 0.000). In other words, high-
expertise sales representatives (i.e., high-performing sales rep-
resentatives) derived greater performance benefits from SFA
system use than representatives with average expertise. The
other remaining interaction term is not significant, suggest-
ing that experienced sales representatives benefit from SFA
system use just as much as representatives with average expe-
rience (not supporting H2) (β8 = 0.020, t = 0.790, p < 0.430).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study show that, in general, use of a KM-
based SFA system improved performance: the more SFA sys-
tem documents a sales representative read, the greater his or
her sales as a percent of quota. However, not all sales repre-
sentatives benefited equally from SFA system use. Sales repre-
sentatives with greater expertise (i.e., high-performing sales
representatives) benefited much more from SFA system use
than average sales representatives; the standardized betas sug-
gest that they derived significant benefit from SFA system use
(0.051 + 0.229). On the other hand, experienced sales repre-
sentatives (i.e., greater length of time in current position) ben-
efited from SFA system use just as much as sales representatives
with average experience.
Prior studies suggest that no single factor can explain a
large proportion of the variation in sales performance—the
dependent variable of this study (Churchill et al. 1985). The
model in this study is significant, and the results indicate an
adjusted R-square of 13.8 percent. Other analyses suggest
an increase in sales of about 2.5 percent due to the SFA
system, which translates into hundreds of millions of dol-
lars in revenue for Farmaco. SFA system use is a significant
influencer of sales performance, has different effects on dif-
ferent types of sales representatives, and has a major practical
value.
Our analyses are constrained by the data provided to us by
Farmaco. Hence, a limitation of this study is our use of one
quarter of data in one organization, which reduces generaliz-
ability. As a result, there could be other extraneous variations
affecting our model, such as “learning” effects (VandeWalle
et al. 1999). Further, we were constrained to “job tenure,”
although the vast majority of sales representatives are hired as
new college graduates, for whom “job tenure” is equivalent to
“experience” in this study. Finally, although we responded to
a call for additional research investigating “actual” use (Jones,
Sundaram, and Chin 2002), additional measures of system
use (e.g., self-report) could lead to a more complete model,
and future research could examine both actual and percep-
tual measures, if possible.
Effect on SSales
ales Per
Per formance
erformance
Our primary interest was whether there were differential ben-
efits from using the SFA system at different levels of experience
and expertise. We expected that sales representatives with greater
experience would benefit less from the use of the knowledge in
the SFA system than would an average sales representative; given
the same level of use, experienced sales representatives would
experience a lesser performance gain because they had less to
learn. Similarly, less knowledge in the SFA system would be
new to expert sales representatives, and thus they would ben-
efit less.
However, this was not the case (see Table 2). While the
majority of sales representatives, on average, experienced the
same performance benefit from the documents they read, the
sales representatives with high expertise (i.e., higher perform-
ers) benefited the most from the use of the SFA system—four
times that of an “average” sales representative. One interpre-
tation is that high-expertise sales representatives have assimi-
lated “enough” knowledge to allow them to better reuse and
effectively apply the new task-specific knowledge that is made
available through the SFA system. This suggests that the abil-
ity to recognize the value of “new knowledge” and assimilate
and effectively apply it in a short period of time is critical to
performance improvement (Cohen and Leventhal 1990).
An alternative explanation for the differential benefit may
lie in the ability of high-expertise sales representatives to ef-
fectively use the knowledge to boost current sales. Sales pro-
fessionals tend to be very results oriented because their
compensation is directly tied to their sales performance. It
could be that the high-expertise sales representatives are par-
ticularly good at seeking relevant knowledge when there is an
immediate potential to apply the knowledge and reap an im-
mediate performance benefit. They may be particularly good
at developing cognitive skills (e.g., the ability to identify ex-
 Fall 2004 319

Table 2
Results of Regression Analysis for Sales Performance

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

(Equation (1)) (Equation (2)) (Equation (3))
Independent Variable Moderating Variable Interaction Variable

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

Variables β Error β Error β Error

Constant Term 0.462 0.457 0.445

Division 1 0.146*** 0.648 0.144*** 0.661 0.147*** 0.643
Division 2 0.009 0.886 –0.060* 0.892 –0.038 0.871
Division 3 0.159*** 0.650 0.182*** 0.634 0.175*** 0.618
SFA System Use 0.058* 0.250 0.054* 0.242 0.051* 0.236
Expertise 0.249*** 0.251 0.199*** 0.250
Experience –0.094*** 0.256 –0.077** 0.250
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014

SFA System Use × Expertise 0.229*** 0.205

SFA System Use × Experience 0.020 0.247
Adjusted R2 0.028 0.089 0.138
F-Statistic 10.725***
Degrees of Freedom 4, 1335 2, 1333 2, 1331
Change in R2 0.062 0.050
F-Change 45.517*** 38.606***

Notes: n = 1,340, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

ceptions to rules and effectively work under stress), which are
an integral part of expertise (Liu and Leach 2001; Shanteau
and Stewart 1992).
Counter to our expectation, sales representatives with high
experience received no lesser benefit from using the SFA sys-
tem than did relatively new sales representatives. One inter-
pretation is that the organizational, contextual, or domain
knowledge required for conducting their sales activity may
not be packaged sufficiently well to allow these users to effec-
tively reuse the knowledge. Stated differently, inexperienced
sales representatives lacked the tacit or explicit knowledge to
effectively identify, recognize, and apply new knowledge re-
quired to conduct their sales activities (Cohen and Leventhal
1990). Moreover, with the SFA system delivering 60,000 to
75,000 knowledge documents per quarter, the staggering
number may create an “information overload” phenomenon
to the users. Accordingly, these users who lack tacit and ex-
plicit knowledge will have difficulty filtering and finding ap-
propriate knowledge.
Another explanation for the lack of benefit may lie in the
nature of the users. Sales representatives with long experience
may be less willing to adapt to new situations (e.g., an unusu-
ally militaristic doctor) or may lack in technical competen-
cies (e.g., computer laptop), general abilities (e.g., patience),
or mode of knowledge acquisition (e.g., diverse experience,
education) (Churchill et al. 1985; Nelson et al. 2000). While
these users may have the prerequisite tacit and explicit knowl-
edge required to effectively recognize and apply knowledge
assets, it may be that the KM-based SFA system does not
provide “challenging” or unusual knowledge that they have
not previously encountered. Hence, it is unlikely that organi-
zational, contextual, or domain knowledge they need to con-
duct their sales activity will be available in the SFA system.
Another plausible explanation for the insignificant find-
ing may be related to motivation and its important relation-
ship to expertise (Nelson et al. 2000). There are two
dimensions of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-
tion (Calder and Staw 1975). Intrinsic motivation is charac-
terized as the needs of individuals satisfied in the content of
the activity itself, or the activity “is valued for its own sake
and appears to be self sustained” (Calder and Staw 1975, p.
599). Extrinsic motivation is where the needs are indirectly
satisfied (e.g., pay for performance), or satisfaction does not
lie in the content of the activity itself. Calder and Staw sug-
gest that monetary compensation is a primary vehicle to ex-
trinsically motivating employees, and that money is a “goal
which provides satisfaction independent of the actual activ-
ity itself ” (Calder and Staw 1975, p. 599). Given their levels
of experience or expertise, it may be that experienced sales-
people are more extrinsically motivated and prefer to “coast”
with or without the use of an SFA system, whereas success-
ful high-expertise sales representatives are more intrinsically
motivated and prefer to use an SFA system to augment their
sales abilities.
 320 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Implications for Resear
Resear ch and P
esearch ractice
Practice
We believe that this study offers several implications for future
research and for practice. First, we believe our study extends
the traditionally held belief that SFA systems are primarily tools
to support the sales process. Instead, we investigated and re-
ported on the role of KM in SFA systems in creating value to
the firm—that is, adding value by integrating codified knowl-
edge with technologies that support the sales process. Addi-
tional research is needed to better understand the relationship
between KM-based SFA systems and performance.
Second, our study provides empirical evidence suggesting
that expertise moderates the relationship between system use
and performance; there are differential effects from system
use with varying levels of employees’ expertise on sales per-
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
formance. More research is needed to verify these relation-
ships and explain the differences.
Third, we need additional research to understand how
and why high-expertise individuals appear to gain more from
using KM-based SFA systems than do others. What aspects
of the way in which they use the system, the types of knowl-
edge they acquire, or the way in which they apply this new
knowledge to job situations create this additional value—a
value four times as high as the average SFA system user? Like-
wise, why do experienced individuals gain no more or less
value from using SFA systems? Perhaps we can create knowl-
edge around the use of SFA systems that can improve the
performance.
Fourth, we believe incorporating other prior research such
as psychological traits and cognitive skills (Shanteau and
Stewart 1992) and motivation (Nelson et al. 2000) may pro-
vide additional insight regarding the role of expertise on per-
formance. It may be that high-performing individuals are
simply more capable. However, lower performers are likely
more motivated and, therefore, are more active in cognitively
processing, understanding, and acting on the new knowledge
they gain from using SFA systems (see Cacioppo et al. 1986).
Finally, whereas our study suggests that the majority of
SFA system users experience performance benefits from SFA
system use, those responsible for packaging knowledge assets
must pay careful attention to how their experienced users can
better make use of the knowledge they acquire from the SFA
system. This would require careful assessment to improve the
packaging and organizing features of the KM process for the
nonbeneficiaries to benefit (e.g., novices) without losing sight
of the current beneficiaries (e.g., experts) who need to con-
tinue to benefit.
REFERENCES
Alavi, Maryam, and Dorothy E. Leidner (2001), “Knowledge
Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Con-
ceptual Foundations and Research Issues,” MIS Quarterly,
25 (1), 107–136.
Bedard, Jean (1991), “Expertise and Its Relation to Audit Deci-
sion Quality,” Contemporary Accounting Research, 8 (1),
198–222.
Beltramini, Richard F. (1988), “High Technology Salespeople’s
Information Acquisition Strategies,” Journal of Personal Sell-
ing & Sales Management, 8, 1 (May), 37–44.
Blessing, Stephen B., and John R. Anderson (1996), “How People
Learn to Skip Steps,” Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22 (3), 576–598.
Block, Jonathan, Jeff Golterman, Joel Wecksell, Karen J.
Scherburger, and Wendy S. Close (1996), “Building Blocks
for Technology Enabled Selling,” Gartner Group Research
Report R-100–104, Stamford, CT.
Bonner, Bryan L., Michael R. Baumann, and Reeshad S. Dalal
(2002), “The Effects of Member Expertise on Group Deci-
sion-Making and Performance,” Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 88 (2), 719–736.
Boshuizen, Henny P.A., and Henk G. Schmidt (1992), “On the
Role of Biomedical Knowledge in Clinical Reasoning by
Experts, Intermediates and Novices,” Cognitive Science, 16
(2), 153–184.
Brand, Adam (1998), “Knowledge Management and Innova-
tion at 3M,” Journal of Knowledge Management, 2 (1), 17–
22.
Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid (2000), “Balancing Act:
How to Capture Knowledge Without Killing It,” Harvard
Business Review, 78 (3), 73–80.
———, and ——— (2001), “Knowledge and Organization: A
Social Practice Perspective,” Organization Science, 12 (2),
198–213.
Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson (1993), “Antecedents
and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: Meta-
Analysis and Assessment of Causal Effects,” Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 30 (1), 63–77.
Cacioppo, John T., Chuan Feng Kao, Richard E. Petty, and Regina
Rodriguez (1986), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Per-
suasion: An Individual Difference Approach,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (5), 1032–1043.
Calder, Bobby J., and Barry M. Staw (1975), “Self-Perception of
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 31 (4), 599–605.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, and
Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1985), “The Determinants of Sales-
person Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Market-
ing Research, 22 (1), 103–118.
Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Leventhal (1990), “Absorp-
tive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innova-
tion,” Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 35 (1), 128–152.
Conner, Kathleen R., and C.K. Prahalad (1996), “A Resource-
Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportun-
ism,” Organization Science, 7 (5), 477–501.
Craft, Ralph C., and Charles Leake (2002), “The Pareto Prin-
ciple in Organizational Decision Making,” Management
Decision, 40 (7/8), 729–733.
Davenport, Thomas H., and John Glaser (2002), “Just-in-Time

Delivery Comes to Knowledge Management,” Harvard
Business Review, 80 (7), 5–9.
Day, George S. (2000), “Managing Market Relationships,” Jour-
nal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 24–30.
Delone, William H., and Ephraim R. McLean (1992), “Infor-
mation Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Vari-
able,” Information Systems Research, 3 (1), 60–95.
———, and ——— (2003), “The Delone and McLean Model
of Information Systems Success: A 10-Year Update,” Jour-
nal of Management Information Systems, 19, 4 (Spring), 9–30.
Devaraj, Sarv, and Rajiv Kohli (2003), “Performance Impacts of
Information Technology: Is Actual Usage the Missing Link?”
Management Science, 49 (3), 273–289.
Dixon, Nancy M. (2000), Common Knowledge: How Companies
Thrive by Sharing What They Know, Boston: Harvard Busi-
ness School Press.
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
Doll, William J., and Gholamreza Torkzadeh (1998), “Develop-
ing a Multi-Dimensional Measure of System-Use in an
Organizational Context,” Information & Management, 33
(4), 171–185.
Earl, Michael J. (2001), “Knowledge Management Strategies:
Toward a Taxonomy,” Journal of Management Information
Systems, 18, 1 (Summer), 215–233.
Engle, Robert L., and Michael L. Barnes (2000), “Sales Force
Automation Usage, Effectiveness, and Cost-Benefit in Ger-
many, England and the United States,” Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, 15 (4), 216–241.
Erffmeyer, Robert C., and Dale A. Johnson (2001), “An Explor-
atory Study of Sales Force Automation Practices: Expecta-
tions and Realities,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 21, 2 (Spring), 167–175.
Ericsson, K.A., and A.C. Lehmann (1996), “Expert and Excep-
tional Performance: Evidence of Maximal Adaptation to Task
Constraints,” Annual Review of Psychology, 47 (1), 273–305.
Faraj, Samer, and Lee Sproull (2000), “Coordinating Expertise
in Software Development Teams,” Management Science, 46
(12), 1554–1568.
Furman, Mark E. (1997), “Reverse the 80–20 Rule,” Manage-
ment Review, 86 (1), 18–21.
Grover, Varun, and Thomas H. Davenport (2001), “General
Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Re-
search Agenda,” Journal of Management Information Systems,
18, 1 (Summer), 5–21.
Hansen, Morton T., Nitin Nohria, and Thomas Tierney (1999),
“What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?” Harvard
Business Review, 77 (3), 106–116.
Jones, Eli, Suresh Sundaram, and Wynne Chin (2002), “Factors
Leading to Sales Force Automation Use: A Longitudinal
Analysis,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
22, 3 (Summer), 145–156.
Keillor, Bruce D., R. Edward Bashaw, and Charles E. Pettijohn
(1997), “Salesforce Automation Issues Prior to Implemen-
tation: The Relationship Between Attitudes Toward Tech-
nology, Experience and Productivity,” Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 12 (3–4), 209–219.
LeBlanc, Louis A., and Kenneth A. Kozar (1990), “An Empirical
Investigation of the Relationship Between DSS Usage and
Fall 2004 321
System Performance: A Case Study of a Navigation Sup-
port System,” MIS Quarterly, 14 (3), 263–277.
Leigh, Thomas W. (1987), “Cognitive Selling Scripts and Sales
Training,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
7, 2 (August), 39–48.
Liu, Annie H., and Mark P. Leach (2001), “Developing Loyal
Customers with a Value-Adding Sales Force: Examining
Customer Satisfaction and the Perceived Credibility of
Consultative Salespeople,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 21, 2 (Spring), 147–156.
Marchant, Garry (1989), “Analogical Reasoning and Hypothesis
Generation in Auditing,” Accounting Review, 64 (3), 500–513.
Markus, M. Lynne (2001), “Toward a Theory of Knowledge
Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in
Reuse Success,” Journal of Management Information Systems,
18, 1 (Summer), 57–93.
Matsuo, Makoto, and Takashi Kusumi (2002), “Salesperson’s
Procedural Knowledge, Experience and Performance: An
Empirical Study in Japan,” European Journal of Marketing,
36 (7–8), 840–854.
McDaniel, Michael A., Frank L. Schmidt, and John E. Hunter
(1988), “Job Experience Correlates of Job Performance,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (2), 327–330.
McDermott, Richard (1999), “Why Information Technology
Inspired but Cannot Deliver Knowledge Management,”
California Management Review, 41 (4), 103–117.
McEnrue, Mary Pat (1988), “Length of Experience and the Per-
formance of Managers in the Establishment Phase of Their
Careers,” Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1), 175–184.
Miles, Grant, Raymond E. Miles, Vincenzo Perrone, and Leif
Edvinsson (1998), “Some Conceptual and Research Barri-
ers to the Utilization of Knowledge,” California Manage-
ment Review, 40 (3), 281–288.
Naumann, Earl, Scott M. Widmier, and Donald W. Jackson, Jr.
(2000), “Examining the Relationship Between Work Atti-
tudes and Propensity to Leave Among Expatriate Sales-
people,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
20, 4 (Fall), 227–241.
Nelson, Kay M., Sucheta Nadkarni, V.K. Narayanan, and Mehdi
Ghods (2000), “Understanding Software Operations Sup-
port Expertise: A Revealed Causal Mapping Approach,” MIS
Quarterly, 24 (3), 475–507.
Neter, John, William Wasserman, and Michael H. Kutner (1990),
Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3d ed., Burr Ridge, IL:
Irwin.
O’Hara, Bradley S., James S. Boles, and Mark W. Johnston
(1991), “The Influence of Personal Variables on Salesper-
son Selling Orientation,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 11, 1 (Winter), 61–67.
Rasmusson, Erika (1999), “The Five Steps to Successful Sales
Force Automation,” Sales & Marketing Management, 151
(3), 34–40.
Rivers, L. Mark, and Jack Dart (1999), “The Acquisition and
Use of Sales Force Automation by Mid-Sized Manufactur-
ers,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19, 2
(Spring), 59–73.
Rubash, Arlyn R., Rawlie R. Sullivan, and Paul H. Herzog (1987),
 322 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
“The Use of an ‘Expert’ to Train Salespeople,” Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 7, 2 (August), 49–55.
Saxe, Robert, and Barton A. Weitz (1982), “The SOCO Scale:
A Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (3), 343–351.
Scardamalia, Marlene, and Carl Bereiter (1994), “Computer
Support for Knowledge-Building Communities,” Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3), 265–283.
Schafer, Sarah (1997), “Supercharged Sell,” Inc., 19, Technology
Supplement (June 17), 42–51.
Schmidt, Frank L., John E. Hunter, and Alice N. Outerbridge
(1986), “Impact of Job Experience and Ability on Job
Knowledge, Work Sample Performance, and Supervisory
Ratings of Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71
(3), 432–439.
Seddon, Peter B. (1997), “A Response Location and Extension
Downloaded by [Case Western Reserve University] at 21:25 23 November 2014
of the Delone and McLean Model of IS Success,” Informa-
tion Systems Research, 8 (3), 240–253.
Shanteau, James (1992), “Competence in Experts: The Role of
Task Characteristics,” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 53 (2), 252–266.
———, and Thomas R. Stewart (1992), “Why Study Expert
Decision Making? Some Historical Perspectives and Com-
ments,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 53 (2), 95–106.
Shepherd, C. David, and Joseph O. Rentz (1990), “A Method
for Investigating the Cognitive Processes and Knowledge
Structures of Expert Salespeople,” Journal of Personal Sell-
ing & Sales Management, 10, 4 (Fall), 55–70.
Shoemaker, Mary E. (2001), “A Framework for Examining IT-
Enabled Market Relationships,” Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 21, 2 (Spring), 177–185.
Sonnentag, Sabine, and Ilka Lange (2002), “The Relationship
Between High Performance and Knowledge About How to
Master Cooperation Situations,” Applied Cognitive Psychol-
ogy, 16 (5), 491–508.
Spender, J.-C., and Robert M. Grant (1996), “Knowledge and
the Firm: Overview,” Strategic Management Journal, 17,
Special Issue (Winter), 5–9.
Spiro, Rosann L., and Barton A. Weitz (1990), “Adaptive Sell-
ing: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological
Validity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (1), 61–69.
Srivastava, Rajendra K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Liam Fahey
(1999), “Marketing, Business Processes, and Shareholder
Value: An Organizationally Embedded View of Marketing
Activities and the Discipline of Marketing,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 63 (Special Issue), 168–179.
Straub, Detmar, Moez Limayem, and Elena Karahanna-Evaristo
(1995), “Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS
Theory Testing,” Management Science, 41 (8), 1328–1342.
Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Mita Sujan (1988), “In-
creasing Sales Productivity by Getting Salespeople to Work
Smarter,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
8, 2 (August), 9–19.
Sviokla, John J. (1996), “Knowledge Workers and Radically New
Technologies,” Sloan Management Review, 37 (Summer),
25–40.
Teece, David J. (1998), “Capturing Value from Knowledge As-
sets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and In-
tangible Assets,” California Management Review, 40 (3),
55–79.
VandeWalle, Don, Steven P. Brown, William L. Cron, and John
W. Slocum, Jr. (1999), “The Influence of Goal Orientation
and Self-Regulation Tactics on Sales Performance: A Lon-
gitudinal Field Test,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (2),
249–259.
Vinokur, Amiram, Yaacov Trope, and Eugene Burnstein (1975),
“A Decision Making Analysis of Persuasive Argumentation
and the Choice Shift Effect,” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 11 (2), 127–148.
Widmier, Scott M., Donald W. Jackson, Jr., and Deborah Brown
McCabe (2002), “Infusing Technology into Personal Sell-
ing,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 3
(Summer), 189–198.
Zack, Michael H. (1999a), “Developing a Knowledge Strategy,”
California Management Review, 41 (3), 125–145.
——— (1999b), “Managing Codified Knowledge,” Sloan Man-
agement Review, 40 (4), 45–58.