See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266137688

Organizational Capabilities and Customer Value: A Dynamic Capability View

Chapter · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 1,626

3 authors:

Silvia Martelo-Landroguez Carmen Barroso

Universidad de Sevilla Universidad de Sevilla
26 PUBLICATIONS   682 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   3,561 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gabriel A Cepeda-Carrion
Universidad de Sevilla
100 PUBLICATIONS   5,700 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PLS papers View project

Mediation Analyses in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Guidelines and Empirical Examples View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Silvia Martelo-Landroguez on 28 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Organizational Capabilities and Customer Value: A
Dynamic Capability View
Silvia Martelo, Carmen Barroso and Gabriel Cepeda
University of Seville, Seville, Spain
smartelo@us.es
barroso@us.es
gabi@us.es
Abstract: Given the increasing intensity of competition in business and the strong trend towards globalization,
attitudes towards the customer are very important. A firm’s organizational capabilities are paramount for
increasing customer value creation. A firm should therefore focus on improving those capabilities that regard the
customer as a key component, in order to maximize the value created for them. We focus on three capabilities:
‘market orientation’, ‘knowledge management’ and ‘customer relationship management’. According to Sirmon,
Hitt and Ireland (2007), merely possessing valuable and rare resources and capabilities does not guarantee the
development of competitive advantage or the creation of value; firms must be able to manage them effectively. It
should be possible to reconfigure organizational capabilities so that the firm can be continually creating value,
and this is where dynamic capabilities (DC) come into play. Although Liyun, Keyi, Xiaoshu and Fangfang (2008)
suggest a possible relationship between these three organizational capabilities, we do not find their theoretical
justification to be sufficient. We have not come across any studies in the previous literature that look at the
relationship between the three proposed organizational capabilities, or any that consider their impact on customer
value. We will address this gap in the literature by stating that customer value will be increased if there is
interaction between the three proposed capabilities. Our aim is to see how these three proposed capabilities
jointly influence customer value. We will also state that the interaction between them can constitute a dynamic
capability (viewed as a “black box”) which allows a firm to maintain its competitive advantage. Specifically, our
research question is: If the customer demands superior value, how should a firm recombine its existing
capabilities to enable it to offer this superior value? In short, the aim of this paper is to contribute to the strategic
management literature by determining a possible interaction between the three capabilities and the potential
effects of this interaction, in order to see what happens inside the proposed “black box” for increasing customer
value (Barreto, 2010; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Newey and Zahra, 2009; Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997;
Zott, 2003).

Keywords: market orientation; knowledge management; customer relationship management; customer value;
dynamic capabilities

1. Introduction
Given the increasing intensity of competition in business and the strong trend towards globalization,
attitudes towards the customer are very important; their role has changed from that of a mere
consumer to one of consumer, co-operator, co-producer, co-creator of value and co-developer of
knowledge and competencies (Wang, Lo, Chi and Yang, 2004). Furthermore, the complex
competitive environment in which firms operate has led to increasing customer demand for superior
value (Sanchez, Iniesta and Holbrook, 2009). Therefore, more and more firms see customer value as
a key factor when looking for new ways to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage (Woodruff,
1997).

A firm’s organizational capabilities are paramount for increasing customer value creation. A firm
should therefore focus on improving those capabilities that view the customer as a key component, in
order to maximize the value created for them. We focus on three capabilities: ‘market orientation’
(MO), ‘knowledge management’ (KM) and ‘customer relationship management’ (CRM).

After reviewing the existing literature, it is clear that each of these three capabilities is linked to
customer value. The primary aim of market-oriented firms, firms that manage their knowledge or those
that manage customer relationships is to offer superior customer value. However, there is no single or
intermittent influence that is important, but rather, the effect of the three capabilities has to be global
and sustainable (i.e. permanent). According to Sirmon et al. (2007), merely possessing valuable and
rare resources and capabilities does not guarantee the development of competitive advantage or the
creation of value; firms must be able to manage them effectively. It follows therefore that value can
also be created by recombining existing resources and capabilities (Morrow, Sirmon, Hitt and
Holcomb, 2007). It should be possible to reconfigure organizational capabilities so that the firm can be
continually creating value, and this is where dynamic capabilities (DC) come into play.

676
 Silvia Martelo, Carmen Barroso and Gabriel Cepeda

We have not come across any studies in the previous literature that look at the relationship between
the three proposed organizational capabilities, or any that consider their impact on customer value.
We will address this gap in the literature by stating that customer value will be increased if there is
interaction between the three proposed capabilities (MO, KM and CRM). The idea is to see how these
three proposed capabilities jointly influence customer value. We will also state that the interaction
between them can constitute a dynamic capability (viewed as a “black box”) which allows a firm to
maintain its competitive advantage. Specifically, our research question is: If the customer demands
superior value, how should a firm recombine its existing capabilities to enable it to offer this superior
value?

In short, the aim of this paper is to contribute to the strategic management literature by identifying
empirically possible combinations of the three proposed organizational capabilities and to analyze
whether the possible interaction between them leads to the creation of superior customer value. We
aim to determine how the interaction between the three capabilities (MO, KM and CRM) is and the
potential effects of this relationship for increasing customer value.

We therefore propose the following model:

Figure 1: Conceptual model

As seen in Figure 1, our proposed model consists of two elements. As dependent variable we
propose ‘value creation’ (VC) from firms and as independent variable we propose ‘interaction’
collecting the opinion from firms about the presence of MO, KM and CRM in the firm. This model is
based on the relationship between the management of a firm’s resources and capabilities and value
creation, proposed by Sirmon et al. (2007).

There are proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: The interaction between MO, KM and CRM is positively related to customer value
creation.

In order to test this hypothesis, we model a triple interaction effect using an orthogonalizing approach
(Henseler and Chin, 2010; Little, Bovaird and Widaman, 2006) and using partial least squares (PLS).
The interaction term is composed of the impact on customer value creation of the three
aforementioned capabilities (MO, KM and CRM).
2. Methodology

2.1 Data collection

The research hypothesis was tested within the Spanish banking industry, including retail and
commercial banks and saving banks serving the general public; representing around 18 percent of the
national GDP.

We have chosen this industry because we consider banks to be the type of business that
simultaneously demonstrate the four organizational capabilities proposed in our model (MO, KM,
CRM and customer value creation). Banking is a very knowledge-intensive industry and therefore an
appropriate one in which to identify, analyze and evaluate these capabilities. The increasingly intense
competition within the financial service industry means that banks need to recognize the need to look
for new ways of creating customer value. Alongside the competitiveness of the industry, the relative

677
 Silvia Martelo, Carmen Barroso and Gabriel Cepeda

intangibility of their products/services creates the need to capture and retain customers by offering
them something extra, through MO, KM and CRM. These aspects indicate that this industry is best
suited to our study.

It is important to point out the significant crisis in the financial services industry, both now and at the
time we carried out the study. This crisis has forced many countries to apply severe measures to
reduce the impact on their financial services industry. Numerous banks and insurance companies
have been taken over or capitalized, company mergers as a rescue measure have multiplied and
crashes have increased. The full extent of this crisis is still unknown, since events have occurred at
an unusually high speed, leading to enormous changes within a short time, mainly subsequent to the
collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.

At the time of the study, there was a total of 85 banks operating in Spain; of which 40 were
commercial/retail banks and 45 were savings banks.

This low number of entities that comprise the banking industry in Spain can be viewed either as an
advantage or a disadvantage. On the one hand, it allows us to look at the whole population rather
than a particular sample of it. But, on the other hand, we are forced to work with a small sample size
that can lead to problems in the analysis of data.

The response rate was high, at around 90 percent, with 76 of the 85 bodies responding. It is important
to note that all of the completed questionnaires were valid.

Furthermore, because the data sample (76) is very close to the real population in Spanish banking
industry (85), we used the factor correction suggested by Malhotra and Birks (2006) to adapt the
standard error generated.

2.2 Measures
We would point out that all the constructs included in the questionnaires have been measured against
existing scales in the literature and we have therefore used instruments whose validity and reliability
has already been proven in other research.

To measure MO we used the Narver and Slater (1990) 15-item scale (the so-called MKTOR scale),
consisting of three dimensions: customer orientation (CO), competitor orientation (COO) and
interfunctional coordination (IC). We believe the MKTOR scale is appropriate for our study, with its
emphasis on customer orientation, since the customer is the main object of our study. We also
believe that it is appropriate to use the MKTOR scale because our study should have a strategic
perspective and we consider that the cultural focus of this scale is better suited to our study than the
behavioral focus of Jaworski and Kohli’s (1993) MARKOR scale. After cleaning the data, only 11
items were used.

We have created our own scale to measure KM, taking items from several scales used in previous
investigations. From our literature review, we identified four key dimensions that affect KM processes:
knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, knowledge application and knowledge storage/retrieval. To
measure knowledge creation, we have chosen an absorptive capacity (AC) scale proposed by
Jansen, Van den Bosch and Volberda (2005), since we believe this would add to the conceptual
richness of our study. We have used Gold, Malhotra and Segars’ (2001) scales to measure
knowledge transfer (KT) and knowledge application (KA) and, to measure knowledge
storage/retrieval, we have chosen a scale to measure organizational memory (OM) proposed by
Chou, Chang, Cheng and Tsai (2007). Organizational memory refers to the processing of saved
knowledge. This concept resembles our idea of knowledge storage and retrieval, which is why we
have chosen to use this scale in our study. The final cleaned scale consists of 9 items for the creation
dimension, 10 items for the transfer dimension, 10 items for the application dimension and 4 items for
the storage/retrieval dimension.

To measure CRM, we have used Reinartz, Krafft and Hoyer’s (2004) scale, which measures the
initiation, maintenance and termination phase of the CRM processes. We consider this to be a very
intuitive scale and easy to understand in practice. Due to the high number of items (the original scale
consists of 39 items), we have selected items closest to the concepts, ideas and objectives of our
study and have created a CRM scale consisting of 12 items (7, 4 and 1 items, respectively). A group

678
 Silvia Martelo, Carmen Barroso and Gabriel Cepeda

of experts, using a Delphi method, judged whether those 12 items were the most appropriate for the
objectives of the study. Following this process, the cleaned scale consists of 7 items.

In the case of the customer value creation capability, and after a review of the scales developed in
previous investigations, we have opted for the scale proposed by Hooley, Greenley, Cadogan and
Fahy (2005). The lack of measurement proposals connected with the creation of customer value
makes it more difficult to select the most appropriate instrument for this construct. We have used
Hooley et al.’s (2005) scale because we consider that it is complete and refers to the creation of value
for customers, as opposed to other proposals, which analyze value creation for all the stakeholders.

We then created the double interaction terms and the triple interaction term using Little’s et al., (2006)
orthogonalizing approach based on Lance’s (1988) residual centering regression approach. The
approach involves a three-step procedure in which the double interaction terms are first regressed on
their own components via ordinary least squares and then residuals of this regression are used
instead of the respective double interaction terms in tests of the structural model. The triple interaction
term is then also regressed on its three components and the double interaction components via
ordinary least squares and the residuals of this regression are also used instead of the respective
triple interaction term in tests of the structural model. Following the suggestion by Henseler and Chin
(2010) derived from Monte Carlo simulations, we chose the orthogonalizing approach over
alternatives such as product indicator, because the former delivers the most accurate point estimates
for interaction effects. Moreover, it has a high prediction accuracy, which is of focal interest for studies
using structural equation path models mainly for predication purposes, like customer value indexes
(e.g. Fornell, 1992).

2.3 Results
The means, standard deviations, internal consistency and reliability estimates, and the paired
correlation coefficients of all constructs appear in Table 1. The scale reliability of all reflective
measures is satisfactory, with composite reliability (CR) ranging from 0.82 to 0.88.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and discriminant validity
Mean S.D AVE CR 1 2 3 4
1. Market Orientation 5.519 0.936 0.65 0.883 0.806
2. Knowledge Management 5.334 0.883 0.796 0.876 0.803 0.892
3. Customer Relationship Managementa 5.479 1.326 n.a n.a 0.512 0.456 n.a
4. Customer value creation 5.246 1.213 0.630 0.816 0.289 0.419 0.230 0.793
a
Formative scales.

n.a. = not applicable because they are formative measures. Mean = the average score for all of the
items included in this measure; SD = Standard Deviation; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; the
bold numbers on the diagonal are the square root of the Average Variance Extracted, Shared
Variances are given in the lower triangle of the matrix; CR = Composite Reliability.

In all the measurements, Bagozzi and Yi’s (1988) composite reliability index and Fornell and Larcker’s
(1981) average variance extracted index are higher than the evaluation criteria of 0.7 for composite
reliability and 0.5 for the average variance extracted.

Discriminant validity was determined by calculating the shared variance between pairs of constructs
(i.e., the lower triangle of the matrix in Table 1) and verifying that it was lower than the average
variances extracted for the individual construct (i.e., the diagonals in Table 1). The shared variances
between pairs of all possible scale combinations indicated that the variances extracted were higher
than the associated shared variances in all cases (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In the interest of
thorough discriminant validity, an additional test was undertaken, which supports this assumption,
since the confidence interval (± 2 standard errors) around the estimated correlation between any two
latent indicators never includes 1.0 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The shared variances, means and
standard deviations are shown in Table 1.

We also sought formative dimensions by examining the weights (Mathieson, Peacock and Chin,
2001), which provide information on the contribution of each indicator to its respective construct.

679
 Silvia Martelo, Carmen Barroso and Gabriel Cepeda

Weights do not need to exceed any particular benchmark because a census of indicators is required
for a formative specification (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). The concern with regard to
formative dimensions is the potential multicolinearity with overlapping dimensions, which might
produce unstable estimates (Mathieson et al., 2001). Results of a colinearity test show that the
variance inflation factor (VIF) scores of each second-order construct for all dimensions are far below
the commonly accepted cut-off of 3 (< 1.92).

Finally, common method bias might influence some of the relationships formulated in our model. To
rule out the existence of such a bias, we used methods suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and
Podsakoff (2003), who recommend procedural remedies when including formative constructs. We
therefore applied these to protect respondent anonymity and reduce evaluation apprehension by
assuring subjects that there were no right or wrong answers; to improve the scale items with a pre-
test to a set of experts; and to counterbalance question order.

Once the psychometric properties of the measures had been checked, the next step was to evaluate
the hypothesised relationship developed from our consideration of the relevant literature (see Figure
1), discussed in the text as H1.

We tested this hypothesis using partial least squares (PLS), a structural equation modelling technique
employing a principal component-based estimation approach (Chin, 1998). PLS was selected due to
the characteristics of our model and sample. The model uses formative indicators, the sample size is
relatively small (76 cases), and the data are non-normal. Other techniques of structural equation
models (e.g. covariance based model performed by LISREL or AMOS) make it impossible to run
these models (e.g., Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). For hypothesis testing, we use the
bootstrapping procedure recommended by Chin (1998) with 500 resamples with 76 cases each. We
used SmartPLS (Version 2.3, Ringle, Wende, and Will, 2005) in order to test the hypotheses. The
structural model contains the three organizational capabilities (OM, KM, and CRM), and the customer
value creation capability.

To test hypothesis 1, we provide three models: (1) the direct model, which includes the main effects of
the three organizational capabilities (MO, KM, and CRM) on customer value creation; (2) the second
model shows the effect on customer value creation of the interaction between each of the three
organizational capabilities (MOxKM; MOxCRM; KMxCRM); and (3) the theoretical model, which
includes the interaction of the three organizational capabilities (MOxKMxCRM). The PLS results for
the three models are shown in Table 2.
a
Table 2: Summary of results from Partial Least Squares Analyses
Direct model 2nd model Theoretical
model
Path from To Path Path Path
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
(t)b (t)b (t)b
MO Customer Value
-0.17*(-2.54) -0.16*(-2.30) -0.16*(-2.53)
Creation
KM Customer Value
0.52***(9.33) 0.51***(7.95) 0.51***(8.94)
Creation
CRM Customer Value *
0.08 (2.05) 0.07(1.56) 0.08(1.63)
Creation
MOxKM Customer Value
0.07(1.58) 0.07(1.37)
Creation
KMxCRM Customer Value
0.00(0.04) 0.00(0.02)
Creation
MOxCRM Customer Value
-0.05(-0.80) -0.06(-0.85)
Creation
MOxKMxCRM Customer Value ***
0.28 (7.77)
Creation
R2, Customer Value
0.19 0.19 0.27
Creation
a
values of t were calculated through bootstrapping with 500 resamples with 76 cases per sample

b t values adapted by correction factor

680
 Silvia Martelo, Carmen Barroso and Gabriel Cepeda

*** p < 0.001 **p < 0.01 *p <0. 05

According to Table 2, we find a significant link between the triple interaction construct (MOxKMxCRM)
and “value creation” (β = 0 .28, p < .001), which supports hypothesis 1, but the path between the
three double interaction terms is not significant, as shown in Table 2. This provides more arguments
to support the impact of the triple interaction on customer value creation, using empirical arguments to
prove that the triple interaction is the best way for these organizational capabilities to create value for
customers.

With regard to variance explanation, we find that the theoretical model that contains the triple
interaction term explains 27% of value creation. Both the direct model (which only includes the direct
link between the three individual organizational capabilities and value creation) and the second model
(which includes the three organizational capabilities, the three double interaction terms and value
creation) explain 19% of the variance of value creation. We therefore conclude that the 8% difference
in the variance explanation can be attributed to the simultaneous interaction of the three capabilities.
2
We also estimated the ratio F suggested by Chin (1998), to provide the level of significance of the
improvement. When F is greater than 0.02, the improvement is significant. In our case F2 was 0.11.
2

3. Conclusion and implications for researchers

In recent years, customers have become the focus of attention, and every firm seeks to satisfy them
in one way or another. Some firms are market-oriented to create superior customer value through the
culture and behaviors that this orientation promotes. Other firms prefer to manage their knowledge,
while others focus on creating and maintaining long-term relationships with their customers.

Understanding what it is that customers value in an offer, creating value for them and then managing
it over time, have long been recognized as essential elements of a firm’s business strategy. Customer
value emerged in the 1990s as an area of increasing interest for firms, both at an academic and a
professional level. On the one hand, service marketing literature focuses on the demand perspective
of value; customer value and its perception. On the other hand, service management literature
considers that the distinctive competence is value creation and the firm’s capabilities for it.

Organizational capabilities are currently viewed as highly valuable attributes for firms. Therefore, firms
want to be perceived as entities with an outstanding set of capabilities (Schreyögg and Kliesch-Eberl,
2007). Firms usually invest heavily in resources and capabilities; but not enough in the capabilities
required to select, develop and deploy them efficiently (Maklan and Knox, 2009). These authors claim
that firms do not pay enough attention to the development of the DC required to make these
investments successful. If a firm possesses VRIN resources but does not use its DC, it cannot
maintain its superior performance (Ambrosini and Bowman, 2009). Firms’ competitive advantages in
the current environment does not simply come from their distinctive resources and capabilities, but
also from the way they are put to use (Luo, 2000).

We argue that the three proposed capabilities form a distinctive competence for firms; and, when they
interact a series of changes take place which transform this distinctive competence into a DC for the
firm. The high speed of change in the environment and the increasing competition demand that firms
(e.g., banks) employ combinations of resources and capabilities that are difficult to imitate.

One of the main limitations of our study is that the investigation was carried out at a single point in
time. Our study was carried out in a single industry (the Spanish banking industry), which does not
allow us to generalize the results attained to other economic industries. Furthermore, our model
focuses on three capabilities that we consider to be the most important for customer value creation.
We have chosen these capabilities (MO, KM and CRM) because they are the organizational
capabilities mentioned most often in the existing literature as having the greatest influence on
customer value (McNaughton, Osborne, Morgan and Kutwaroo, 2001; Vorakulpipat and Rezgui,
2008; Wang et al., 2004). We would point out that it is of course possible to include other capabilities
to include in our model. The explanatory power is therefore limited to the variables we have
considered.

Finally, it is important to stress the situation that the industry was in at the time of the study. Although
we believe that this situation provided an ideal opportunity for our study, it also created problems
when collecting data for the empirical investigation. Because of the high degree of turbulence in the

681
 Silvia Martelo, Carmen Barroso and Gabriel Cepeda

industry at that time and the fact that the industry and its problems and uncertainties were the subject
of much discussion, some managers were wary of giving out data.

We consider that this investigation provides a starting point for future investigations relating to
customer value creation or maintenance in the current environment, where the customer is daily more
demanding and the competition is stronger. Possible future investigations might be an extension of
the timescale of our study and an expansion into other economic industries, in order to be able to
generalize the results; and an extension of the model to introduce, for example, other capabilities that
a firm possesses that might influence customer value creation.
References
Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2009) “What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic
management?”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp 29-49.
Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988) “Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp 411-423.
Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y. (1988) “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp 74-94.
Barreto, I. (2010) “Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp 256-280.
Chin, W. W. (1998) “Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp 1–12.
Chou, T.-C., Chang, P.-L., Cheng, Y.-P. and Tsai, C.-T. (2007) “A path model linking organizational knowledge
attributes, information processing capabilities, and perceived usability”, Information & Management, Vol. 44,
No. 4, pp 408-417.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H. (2001) “Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to
scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp 269-277.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Martin, J. A. (2000) “Dynamic capabilities: What are they?”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21, No. 10/11, pp 1105-1121.
Fornell, C. (1992) “A national customer satisfaction barometer: The swedish experience”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56, No. 1, pp 6–21.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp 39-50.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A. H. (2001) “Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities
perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp 185-214.
Henseler, J. and Chin, W. W. (2010) “A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between
latent variables using partial least squares path modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp
82-109.
Hooley, G. J., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J. W. and Fahy, J. (2005) “The performance impact of marketing
resources”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp 18-27.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. (2005) “Managing potential and realized absorptive
capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp
999-1015.
Jaworski, B. J. and Kohli, A. K. (1993) “Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp 53-70.
Lance, C. E. (1988) “Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of
effects in path models containing interactions”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp 163–
175.
Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A. and Widaman, K. F. (2006) “On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product
terms: Implications for modeling interactions among latent variables”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 13,
No. 4, pp 497–519.
Liyun, Q., Keyi, W., Xiaoshu, W. and Fangfang, Z. (2008) “Research on the relationship among market
orientation, customer relationship management, customer knowledge management and business
performance”, Management Science and Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp 31-37.
Luo, Y. (2000) “Dynamic capabilities in international expansion”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp
355-378.
Maklan, S. and Knox, S. (2009) “Dynamic capabilities: The missing link in CRM investments”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 43, No. 11/12, pp 1392-1410.
Malhotra, N. K. and Birks D. F. (2006) Marketing research, an applied approach. Updated Secondary European
Edition. Pearson Education, Harlow, UK.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E. and Chin, W. W. (2001) “Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence
of perceived user resources”, Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp 86–112.
McNaughton, R. B., Osborne, P., Morgan, R. E. and Kutwaroo, G. (2001) “Market orientation and firm value”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17, No. 5/6, pp 521-542.
Morrow, J. L., Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A. and Holcomb, T. R. (2007) “Creating value in the face of declining
performance: Firm strategies and organizational recovery”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3,
pp 271-283.

682

View publication stats