Impact of digital technology on velocity of B2B

buyer-supplier relationship development

Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
College of Business, University of Houston Downtown, Houston, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine how the widespread adoption of digital technology (DT) in business-to-business (B2B) markets affects and, in
particular, increases the velocity of relationship development over time.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature search was conducted to develop propositions concerning DT’s effect on the various stages of
an existing B2B buyer-seller relationship development model. A group of 55 experienced practitioners was used to obtain reactions to the
propositions.
Findings – DT affects buyer-seller relationship development by reducing the time needed to initiate and advance through sequential relationship
stages. Agility in the decision-making process fosters stronger inter-firm relationships and influences other important attributes of B2B relationships,
such as organizational commitment, organizational embeddedness, trust and value creation.
Research limitations/implications – A broader, more diverse sample of commercial buyers and sellers is required to permit testing the
generalizability of the study’s findings.
Practical implications – DT affects the speed and agility of B2B relationship formation regardless of stage. As DT evolves in the age of Industry 4.0,
an understanding of the effects of DT will aid managers in assessing ways to leverage its potential and apply appropriate DT strategies throughout
the B2B relationship process to capitalize on current and future business opportunities. Firms need to explore the positive and negative effects of the
digital revolution on managers within their supply chain networks.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that specifically addresses DT’s impact during the specific stages of
the relationship development process.
Keywords B2B buyer-seller relationships, Information technology, Digital technology, Trust, Commitment, Power balance, Information sharing,
Buyer-seller commitment
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction products and solutions. Considering that nearly everything

The use of digital technology (DT) or information technology
(IT) (these terms are used interchangeably in the paper) is
ubiquitous in today’s commercial settings (Forrester Research,
2019; Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2020). DT is said to have
created the newest industrial revolution referred to as Industry
4.0 (Gotz and Jankowska, 2020; Dobrescu et al., 2021). Several
scholars (Dobrescu et al., 2021; Hahn, 2020; Fatorachian and
Kazemi, 2021) characterize 4.0 as an ongoing process which
automates the SC and manufacturing practices using new and
developing digital (smart) technology. Such technology
encompasses a myriad of e-business tools to expand networks
between manufacturers, resellers and end users, and maximizes
organizational performance and value (Bello et al., 2002).
Among the many DT tools are social media, mobile
computing, robotics, analytics, automation, blockchain,
artificial intelligence (AI), enterprise resource planning, (ERP),
industrial internet of things, big data (Dobrescu et al., 2021;
Hahn, 2020). DT is a general term for computer-based
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0885-8624.htm
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
37/7 (2022) 1515–1529
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624]
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-07-2020-0326]
designed and developed today uses computers, it could be
called an “umbrella term.” Because of the wide variety of
methods and applications of DT in business, this study defines
DT broadly in a manner similar to that proposed by Iansiti and
Lakhani (2014) as “the digitization of previously analog
machine and service operations, organizational tasks, and
managerial processes.” Participants in the practitioner survey
part of this study were instructed to define DT in a similar
manner when responding to survey questions.
This study is not a study of DT itself but a study of the
impact of DT on the development of buyer-supplier
relationships regardless of the type or form of DT used.
Therefore, we do not discuss DT in detail but have included in
this section examples and references for DT technologies and
concepts.
The authors wish to thank Thomas Crimi for his help in conducting the
practitioner survey
Funding: The study was not funded by any institution or organization.
Received 10 July 2020
Revised 17 October 2020
17 February 2021
27 June 2021
12 September 2021
Accepted 21 September 2021

1515
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
The terms “buyer-supplier” and “buyer-seller” are used
interchangeably throughout the paper. Additionally, the term
“supply chain” (SC) is used at times to indicate the overall
buyer-seller network in the business relationship development
process.
Many scholars have recognized the ability of DT to
transform industries, alter relationships within and between
organizations and create value (Harrison and Hair, 2017; Salo
and Wendelin, 2013; Zablah et al., 2005; Rohm et al., 2004;
Osmonbekov et al., 2002). Advances in IT can potentially
enable dynamic collaboration between members in an SC
(Fawcett et al., 2011). IT should be considered part of a firm’s
dynamic capabilities, which Chang (2019) defines as
“mechanisms firms developed to assist with sense-making and
deploying resources from inside and between firms within its
network.” Pagani and Pardo (2017) indicate that DT has had a
profound impact on the relationships within SC networks
because it provides immediate information. Ramaswamy and
Ozcan (2020) indicate that with newer DT platforms, business
interactions are quicker, multifaceted and more complex.
Although technology is being used, buyers and sellers are still
present in the systems; however, the amount of personal
interaction may be reduced. Fenton (2019) states that people are
at the heart of the SC management process and successful firms
must integrate humans with automation to succeed. Michel
(2019) posits that DTs like AI are useful but human actors are
necessary to configure the key elements of the systems. Pagani
and Pardo (2017) indicate that DT transforms the bonds
between actors in the SC by either strengthening current
relationships or creating connections with new actors, to enable
knowledge sharing. They also indicate that DT can facilitate
collaboration, reduce time and improve efficiency. Actors in an
SC can be either individuals or groups but they hold
multifunctional roles and are instrumental in co-creating value
(Park and Lee, 2018). In this study, we focus on how DT
resources facilitate the relationship development process, rather
than the actors’ contributions. Salo and Wendelin (2013)
recognized that DT efficiently integrates routine processes but
social interaction between managers is still needed.
Considering that relationships evolve over time, it is
important to investigate the effects of the diffusion of DT on the
components of buyer-seller relationship processes. A recent
study regarding digital marketing for business-to-business
(B2B) organizations found that future research should include
improved buyer-supplier relationships among areas to enhance
business performance (Pandey et al., 2020). When
investigating interpersonal trust development, Lewicki et al.
(2006) noted that trust, a major antecedent of relationship
development, evolves over time depending on the amount and
level of experience between parties.
An under-researched aspect of DT’s impact on B2B buyer-
supplier relationships is its effect on the velocity or speed of
relationship development. The need for more research on this
aspect was identified by Palmatier et al. (2013). The researchers
acknowledged the need for commitment as the beginning of
relationship development. Commitment speed increases when
organizations detect positive business opportunities. The
importance of velocity in relationship development was also
noted by Hussain et al. (2020). Cagliano et al. (2021) stated
that as digital supply chain technologies evolve, other issues
1516
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
related to the structure and behaviors of SCs should be studied.
Although the use and efficacy of DT has been widely studied,
there is less research on its impact on the relationship
development process.
This study is an attempt to conceptually identify and present
some of the significant ways in which DT affects the development
of commercial buyer-seller relationships and how it can be
beneficially used by B2B marketers. In particular, this study
examines the role of DT regarding the velocity with which
commitment and trust develop in buyer-supplier relationships.
This paper is a conceptual theory development study with
research propositions developed from the literature and then
submitted to practitioners to obtain their ratings and comments
for and on the concepts developed. It is not an empirical paper;
the practitioner sample was not large enough to enable
statistical analysis.
The paper is organized as follows: first, a slightly modified
version of an existing model of B2B buyer-seller relationship
development is introduced as a framework. Next, in the context
of the model, prior literature is reviewed to develop
propositions concerning the impact of DT on the B2B buyer-
seller relationship development process and its speed of
progression. To assess the practicality of the propositions, a
small sample of B2B buyers and sellers is surveyed. The survey
results are tied back to the research propositions and study
objectives. Finally, implications are discussed and conclusions
are drawn. The paper is conceptual; therefore, a practitioner
survey is used to obtain ratings and comments to assess the
realism of the research propositions.
Research objectives and research contribution
Many existing studies on the impact of DT on buyer-supplier
relationships focus on its effects on functional performance and
value, in static ways (Lindh and Nordman, 2017; Ryssel et al.,
2004). However, the impact of DT on other aspects of the
buyer-supplier relationship, in particular, the speed of the
formation of various stages of these relationships, has been
scarcely studied. The primary objective of this paper is not to
analyze DT itself, but to show how DT contributes to increasing
the speed of the buyer-seller relationship development process.
The study is novel in that it specifically analyzes the impact of
DT across various stages of relationship development. It shows
that DT affects the speed and agility of relationship formation
regardless of the relationship stage. It also implies that this is a
fluid process where constructs interact and change as
information flow increases.
In particular, commitment velocity (the rate and direction of
change in commitment) has been shown to have a strong
impact on performance beyond the level of commitment. Its
effect on sales performance is also greater than that of the level
of commitment (Palmatier et al., 2013). In their study of the
dynamic perspectives of buyer-seller relationships, Hussain
et al. (2020) identified the relationship velocity perspective.
They found that the velocity perspective of buyer-seller
relationship development can empower marketing managers to
devise appropriate strategies to increase performance as
relationships develop. Sahin et al. (2016) found that
commitment velocity has a significant influence on relationship
quality. In the context of research on inter-functional
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
coordination, Ruiz-Alba et al. (2020) found that an increase in
agility afforded by DT improves firms’ ability to respond to
customer problems, which increases firms’ customer
orientation. They also state that this agility makes it easier to
match a firm’s resources with changes in environmental factors,
thereby positively impacting a firm’s dynamic capabilities (the
ability of a firm to use its resources and coordinate tasks to
achieve results).
Palmatier et al. (2013), in referring to the meta-analysis in
Palmatier et al. (2006), note a research gap in studying the
importance of speed in the relationship development process:
“extant research often fails to account for the information
contained in a relationship’s trajectory. . .” (speed and
direction). In particular, they focus on the rate and direction of
change in commitment. Additional support for examining the
impact of DT on the speed of relationship development is
provided by psychological research, which indicates that people
project trends and make decisions based on them (Johnson
et al., 2005; Sahin et al., 2016; Hussain et al., 2020).
While studies on the velocity in buyer-seller relationship
development exist, this paper expands the extant knowledge by
examining the impact of DT in each stage of the B2B
relationship development process.
B2B marketing theory has evolved from an economic
foundation to one built on behavioral science (Hadjikhani and
LaPlaca, 2013). Behavioral science necessarily involves
relationships. A recent study identified the B2B customer
journey and relationship value as one area with potential for
future expansion of B2B marketing theory (Cortez and
Johnston, 2017). The study concluded that “understanding the
changes in organizational buying behavior will contribute to
closing the gap between B2B marketers’ challenges and
scientific research.” This study seeks to enhance B2B
marketing theory by adding to the understanding of how DT
affects and contributes to the development of relationships in
organizational buying behavior.
Methodology
This conceptual theory development study explores how DT
impacts the buyer-supplier relationship formation process,
using an existing model of buyer-supplier relationship
development (Khoja et al., 2010) as a framework. Literature
from prior research is reviewed to formulate propositions that
explain how each stage in the model is affected by DT. A group
of 55 buyers and sellers averaging 15–23 years of experience in
a major city in the southwest USA were surveyed to assess, rate
and comment on the practicality of the research propositions.
They responded to a questionnaire that included one or two
questions that addressed each proposition. The respondents
were asked to rate the questions on a Likert scale from 1–5 and
also provide additional comments. The comments were
analyzed in a manner similar to the process used by Pandey
et al. (2020). From the data, five themes emerged that were
then related to the propositions, and to the stages in the buyer-
seller relationship development model. The findings are
discussed and conclusions and management implications are
drawn.
1517
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
Theoretical buyer-supplier relationship
development model
The model used in this research is the temporal model of
vertical relationships between buyers and sellers, which was
originally proposed by Khoja et al. (2010) and empirically
tested and extended in Khoja et al. (2011) and Khoja et al.
(2015a, 2015b). The model is used only as a framework to
illustrate the steps and variables in the B2B relationship
development process and how DT affects the process. The
model indicates that buyer-supplier relationships develop in the
following three stages: pre-deal (t 1), deal (t) and post deal or
continuation stage (t 1 1). The key variables in the model are
buyer and supplier power and relative power, commitment,
trust, relational embeddedness, intellectual capital and
performance. The model used here adopts the three-stage
concept and the variables of the original model. It also includes
buyer engagement (Vivek et al., 2012) (see the Appendix for a
description of the model variables). Figure 1 shows the main
variables and dynamics of the model. Table 1 shows the key
variables and actions in the three stages of the model.
Model dynamics
Pre-deal stage (t21)
In the pre-deal, or (t 1) stage, buyers and sellers explore
alternative partners, become aware of each other and connect.
This is followed by interaction, negotiation – impacted by the
relative buyer and seller power – and, if expectations are met, trust
and input commitment.
Deal stage (t)
At this stage, both parties expand their knowledge of each other,
resulting in inter-organizational commitment and possibly internal
relational embeddedness, as well as increased levels of buyer
commitment, seller trust and intellectual capital. Buyer satisfaction
can be expected to lead to buyer retention and high-level buyer
engagement. If the relationship is for a one-time transaction, it
ends at this stage.
Deal continuation stage (t 1 1)
At this stage, buyer and seller trust increases as does overall
commitment, interpersonal relationships, relational embeddedness
and buyer engagement. Firm-level commitment can also lead to
high levels of internal relational embeddedness and buyer
engagement. Performance at this stage results in satisfaction and
retention and can result in high levels of external relational
embeddedness and buyer engagement.
Literature review and development of research
propositions
Based on the literature, this section develops research
propositions for some of the ways DT impacts the B2B
relationship development process, with particular attention to
its impact on the speed of relationship development. As
mentioned in the Research Objectives and Research
Contributions section of the paper, the objective of the paper is
the assessment of the impact of DT on the buyer-supplier
relationship development process and not to analyze DT itself.
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
Pre-deal stage (t21)
Digital technology impacts the speed of relationship
development at the pre-deal stage of a relationship
The beginning of deal negotiation activity is an indication of
input commitment by both parties, signaling that they expect to
proceed to a deal. To arrive at this point, buyers and sellers rely
on their mutual information. Digitization makes information
exchange easier and faster (Pagani and Pardo, 2017; Gezgin
et al., 2017; Fawcett et al., 2011).
Research shows that information flow affects the speed at which
relationships are established. Digitized information facilitates
quicker decision-making (Moharana et al., 2011). When SC
systems are integrated and information flows in real time, it is
visible sooner and the speed or agility of decision-making improves
(Jadhav, 2015; Chi et al., 2008). Under these conditions, the
“sensemaking” capability, which is a part of a firm’s dynamic
capability (Chang, 2019), will be faster at interpreting and
assimilating information (Ruiz-Alba et al., 2020).
Key (2017) states that DT facilitates quick global
information sharing and is a powerful tool to leverage
engagement and commoditize information. Newer DT is
allowing for increased visibility and traceability of information
in upstream and downstream SC operations (Dubey et al.,
2020). Quinton and Wilson (2016) report that LinkedIn
members can quickly assess the credentials of potential
partners. These studies support the role of DT in expediting the
initiation of the relationship and realizing input commitment.
Therefore, as follows:
P1. Faster availability of information via DT decreases the time
needed to reach input commitment by either or both parties.
P1a. DT can contribute to the faster determination of when
it is not advantageous for one or both parties to continue
developing a relationship, and therefore, terminate the
development process.
P1b. DT can contribute to the faster development of norms
and standards of conduct.
Figure 1 Simplified three-stage B2B relationship development
1518
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
Digital technology impacts the relative power of buyers
and sellers at the pre-deal stage of a relationship
DT has become the primary means for communication,
initiation and completion of transactions between organizations
in the supply channel (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). It creates what
Yadav and Pavlou (2014) refer to as a communication-
mediated environment, where information is freely shared
within a network of members either from within the firm or
outside the firm. Members derive efficiencies, create value, gain
competitive advantages and secure new business opportunities.
Using equity theory, Osmonbekov and Gruen (2013) find that,
depending on their position in the system, parties might be at a
strategic disadvantage because they must relinquish strategic
information. This may cause a power shift and perceived
inequity or power imbalances. However, the use of DT
produces massively connected environments that allow not
only for a higher level of information sharing but also increase
information risk, which may affect the power balance
(Colicchia et al., 2019). Thus, information possessed by both
buyers and sellers on each other and the market in which they
are operating can affect buyer and seller power, as noted by
Porter (1980). DT facilitates and expedites information
acquisition. These examples illustrate the potential of DT to
impact the balance of power between buyers and sellers.
Therefore, as follows:
P2. DT offers the potential to increase buyers’ power through
greater information accessibility and availability.
P2a. DT can provide the potential for sellers to increase power
through greater knowledge of existing and potential
buyers’ operations.
Impact of digital technology on buyer engagement at the
pre-deal stage of a relationship
Hakansson and Snehota (1995) report that DT helps in, and
reduces the time required for, coordination of activities. Gezgin
et al. (2017) state that “digital technology makes it possible to
transform SCs through analytics, artificial intelligence,
 Impact of digital technology Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529

robotics, internet and other advanced technologies.” As a
result, firms gain improvements in cost, agility, operational
excellence and decision-making. The widespread addition of
mobile devices, such as phones and tablets to the DT mix
results in better connectivity between internal operations and
external partners. These results indicate that the adoption of
DT facilitates buyer engagement by increasing convenience,
reducing costs and generating higher efficiency and faster
information processing time (Salo, 2012).
Therefore, as follows:
P3. DT offers the potential for earlier and stronger buyer
engagement at this stage through greater and faster access
to information from seller websites, social media and
other digital resources.
Impact of digital technology on buyer-seller
negotiations at the pre-deal stage of a relationship
By providing immediate information, DT can decrease the time
for decision-making (Orlikowski, 1992). Time reduction has
the potential to change the sequences and complexity of the
components of a relationship (Baptista, 2013).
Kovacs (2004) states that members of the SC use a specific
communication process. This process expedites information
flows. Information is the link between different stages and firms
in the SC (Jadhav, 2015). Using information logistics
principles, he indicates that communication systems result in
efficient information flows that reduce decision-making time.
Chi et al. (2008) state that IT networks provide enhanced
knowledge-processing ability, which helps firms’ inter-
organizational systems act quicker because of the inherent
embeddedness of firms. Diverse organizations form
multifunctional, integrative centers to consolidate data from
firms within their networks to enable faster decision-making
and coordination of negotiation strategy and response
(Bharadwaj et al., 2013). All these aspects of DT contribute to a
faster pace of buyer-seller negotiations.
Therefore, as follows:
P4. Availability of a large amount of information with quick
access may lead to faster communication, and hence,
faster negotiations between both parties.
Deal stage (t)
Impact of digital technology on buyer and seller
commitment at the deal stage of a relationship
Forrester Research (2015) argue that supply chain
management partners’ technology and ecosystems must align,
to ensure good customer engagement and ongoing
relationships. Youssef et al. (2018) investigated customer
engagement in the B2B market and postulate that a positive
relationship exists between customer trust, customer
engagement, customer involvement and customer engagement.
Kim et al. (2013) attest to the ability of DT alignment to
positively impact relationship responsiveness and strategic
collaboration among SC members. DT alignment reduces
technological barriers and facilitates relationship-enabling
responsiveness. Yu et al. (2017) conclude that DT has a
significant effect on SC integration because it facilitates
collaboration and communication through information
sharing. Gotz and Jankowska (2020) posits that DT improves
SC operations because it modifies the intra- and inter-firm
logistics and facilitates the development of digital ecosystems
combining suppliers, manufactures and customers. “Digital
technology has improved the expediency of the contacts that
correspond between our internal teams and the prospective
suppliers” (Kim et al., 2013). These research results indicate
that DT can offer opportunities for greater and stronger ties
between seller and buyer. When these ties create internal
relational embeddedness, increased buyer commitment and
seller trust will develop and possibly lead to engagement.
Therefore, as follows:
P5. DT can contribute to faster attitudinal formation
regarding commitment and/or engagement or to facilitating
a sense of unity or disunity between seller and buyer.


Table 1 Key variables and actions in the buyer-seller relationship development model
Pre-deal (t21) stage Deal (t) stage Deal continuation (t 1 1) stage
**
Exploration Attitudinal commitment Temporal commitment
**
Awareness Expansion 1Buyer and seller trust
**
Connection 1Interpersonal relationships 1Interpersonal relationships
Interaction 1Individual trust –Perceived risk
Input commitment Inter-organizational commitment 1Firm-level commitment
Negotiation Formal agreement 1Intellectual capital
Relative power Performance Performance
Trust 1Commitment Satisfaction/value

Concessions 1Trust Relational embeddedness

Agreement type 1Intellectual capital Buyer (customer) engagement
Satisfaction/value Retention

Relational embeddedness

Buyer (customer) engagement
Retention
Notes: “1” = Increased; “ ” = Decreased.  Khoja et al. (2010).  Relationship precursors.  Modified from the original model

1519
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
P5a. The potential to reach inter-organizational attitudinal
commitment, buyer engagement and formal agreement can
be enhanced by better collaboration resulting from DT.
Thus, these states of commitment and engagement will be
achieved more quickly.
Digital technology impacts buyer and seller relational
embeddedness, trust, value and intellectual capital at
the deal stage of a relationship
Iansiti and Lakhani (2014) state that DT allows for more
connectivity because discrete activities are integrated and
connected for continuous processing within systems. With DT,
information asymmetry decreases, information becomes
transparent and parties in an exchange relationship are equally
knowledgeable of the situation (Varadarajan and Yadav, 2002).
This provides opportunities for stronger ties and low-level
internal relational embeddedness between the seller and buyer.
Salo and Wendelin (2013) introduced the concept of digital
bonding, which represents the integration of buyer-seller
information systems to form an inter-organizational system.
This encourages future transactions and greater information
flows and promotes more social interaction between managers.
Firms may expand their value-creation process to transactions
with other customers and suppliers. Kim et al. (2013) indicate
that when relationships are enhanced through DT assignment,
customer value creation is improved. Successful performance
of the agreement by both parties will lead to more commitment,
increased performance and increased value in the form of
intellectual capital (Daskou and Mangina, 2003). De Olivera
et al. (2011) found that the intensity of internet utilization in
supplier and customer-oriented processes affects collaborative
practices involving suppliers and customers. Keillor et al.
(1997) state that technology enhances the development of trust
and shortens the time taken to build trust between buyers and
sellers by allowing salespeople to demonstrate the key attributes
necessary to build it, such as honesty, dependability and
competency. A firm’s willingness to share more sensitive and
strategic information and create stronger structural
mechanisms for sharing information through DT leads to
better performance, which builds innovative SC relationships
(Fawcett et al., 2011). These results of DT can all contribute to
increased trust, commitment, embeddedness, value and
intellectual capital for both firms.
Therefore, as follows:
P6. DT, by enhancing collaboration and cooperation
between buyers and sellers, offers opportunities for
stronger ties and low-level internal relational embeddedness
between seller and buyer.
P6a. DT can contribute to increased buyer commitment and
faster development of seller trust, supporting the
increased value and intellectual capital.
Impact of digital technology on buyers’ and sellers’
assessment of each other at the deal stage of a
relationship
Research shows that IT interactions can occur among many
members of a SC at one time and that IT improves the accuracy
1520
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
of the information, resulting in better information processes and
stronger inter-organization connectivity and collaboration (Yu
et al., 2017). Efficiencies of DT allow for the rapid diffusion of
information across functional areas within firms and facilitates
inter-organization communication and information flow (Gezgin
et al., 2017). Jadhav (2015) indicates that DT provides a zero-
latency messaging environment with real-time visibility, which
enables easier performance monitoring. Through the continual
exchange of information, parties in a network can evaluate the
information content for relevancy and accuracy, which builds
trust (Quinton and Wilson, 2016). Trust is based on the
expectation and confidence that one’s exchange partner will
perform as expected (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Sabel, 1993;
Shanka and Buvik, 2019). As firms interact, the strength of their
relationships is affected depending on whether expectations are
met. This performance assessment will determine whether there
will be future interactions or transactions. The DT-enabled
increased sharing of information allows both parties to assess
more quickly if the other party is living up to expectations.
Therefore, as follows:
P7. Performance metering: DT allows buyers and sellers to
assess whether expectations are being met.
Impact of digital technology on contacts and
communication at the deal stage of a relationship
Speier et al. (2008) theorize that in supply channel systems,
dyadic relationships expand to multi-partner relationships as
information integration expands the collaborative efforts of
these firms to others through sequential linkages. Chi et al.
(2008) imply that the application of DT can lead to inter-
organizational exploitation of shared complementary digital
assets, co-specialized processes and expertise, and increased
identification of external opportunities, which infers a level of
expanded relational embeddedness among partners in the
extended supply channel. These processes may increase the
likelihood of the development of external relational
embeddedness at this stage (Yu et al., 2017).
Pagani and Pardo (2017) state, “Digital technologies blur
boundaries between suppliers and customer companies, and
promote alliances between upstream and downstream actors in
channels where networks create places for growth and
innovation.” Digital resources provide additional opportunities
for external contact and communication outside a developing
or existing buyer-seller relationship (Hallikaninen et al., 2019).
Hallikaninen et al. (2019) also theorize that there is an
increased likelihood of the development of external relational
embeddedness at this stage and DT and resources provide a
means for expressing it. Evaluating the features of a
professional social networking system, Quinton and Wilson
(2016) state that the connectivity of such a system affords
members a platform for collaboration, information sharing and
value creation on a level that cannot be duplicated offline.
These results contribute to increased relational embeddedness
involving multiple partners and can result in increased benefits
from contacts with non-partner entities.
Therefore, as follows:
P8. DT can provide additional opportunities for external
contact and communication outside of a formal or
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
existing buyer-seller relationship, thereby increasing the
likelihood that external relational embeddedness will develop
at this stage. The resources of DT can provide means for
organizations to communicate more information that
may not be shared in a formal manner.
Deal continuation stage (t 1 1)
Digital technology impacts buyer and seller trust and
commitment at the deal continuation stage of a
relationship
Trust is a central antecedent for the beginning and
continuation of interactions between SC partners (Quinton
and Wilson, 2016; Johnson et al., 2004). Trust is built over time
and, with repeated interactions and personal experiences,
increases between parties (Narandas and Rangan, 2004).
Vogelgesang et al. (2020) posits that trust velocity defined as
the rate and direction of changes in trust over time, based on
information flows, is important to assessing the behavioral
integrity of leaders. Researchers continue to document a
positive relationship between trust and information sharing
(Newell et al., 2019). Shared information is used to assess
decisions and drive more interactions, and trust becomes a
natural byproduct of the relationship. While investigating the
trust-information sharing linkage, Newell et al. (2019)
conceptualize trust as either goodwill or competence trust.
They show that both goodwill and competence trust are
important antecedents to information sharing, but that
competence-based trust can lead to information sharing even
with low levels of goodwill trust.
Narandas and Rangan (2004) conclude that interpersonal
trust enhances inter-organizational commitment over time. Ekici
(2013) indicate that trust is an important antecedent of
relationship commitment. Daskou and Mangina (2003) posit
that partners’ dependence and trust are tied to communications
that are fostered by DT. While investigating the role of
technology in creating and maintaining relationships among
direct sellers within direct selling companies, Harrison and Hair
(2017) conceive trust and customer satisfaction as components
of customer relationship quality. They report technology as an
enabler of communication, and that trust and satisfaction are
important factors in managing relationships among independent
contractors. The application of DT enhances interaction and
communication between the buyer and seller, which suggests
increased trust, commitment and engagement.
Therefore, as follows:
P9. Continued positive digital support and communications
on both sides of the relationship should increase buyer
and seller trust and commitment and support the continued
development of interpersonal relationships between
buyers and sellers. These relationships foster
development/continuation of firm-level commitment and
continued buyer engagement.
Digital technology impacts relational embeddedness
and trust at the deal continuation stage of a relationship
DT is advocated as a mechanism to foster relationship
capability, where information is efficiently shared in an
1521
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
interconnected system. It becomes an enabler of cooperative
relationships between exchange partners by facilitating effective
and efficient access to and sharing of information (Fawcett
et al., 2011). Salo and Wendelin (2013) found that IT can
integrate routine processes but social interaction may be robust
and this facilitates the creation of new knowledge that can lead
to new opportunities. Constant feedback and monitoring in the
system allow participants to forge close partnerships, which can
lead to trust (Johnson et al., 2004). Applying the partnership
relationship management (PRM) paradigm. Ba and Pavlou
(2002) demonstrate that buyers form trust based on feedback
and interactions in the digital environment. Trust figures
prominently in buyer–seller relationships, but the perceptions
may differ depending on whether it is a vendor or buyer.
According to Ekici (2013), suppliers feel more socially
connected when involved in long-term relationships with
repeated interactions. They are more susceptible to emotional
damage compared to buyers whose trust level varies little
between long-term and short relationships. Fawcett et al.
(2011) report that DT promotes an information-sharing
culture, which is described as a valued capability that plays a
role in competitive differentiation strategies.
In their research on the use of PRM DT, Zablah et al. (2005)
state that DT gives dyadic partners in a channel an opportunity
for high levels of coordination and efficiency. Michel (2019)
reports not only on the importance of trust in relationship
development but also shows how the use of DT, such as block
chain (distributed ledger technology) which can build trust by
influencing social responsibility and radical transparency in SC
processes. Block chain’s main value is its ability to increase
sharing of certified information, increase visibility and traceability
among SC members and improve coordination and integration
(Cagliano et al., 2021). When reviewing the impact of Industry
4.0, Fatorachian and Kazemi (2021) indicate that DT is the
foundation for the creation of a fully integrated SC with a high
level of connectivity, transparency, autonomy and collaboration
and flexibility. These research results support increased buyer
trust and can result in a high degree of inter-organizational
dependency, engagement and/or embeddedness.
Therefore, as follows:
P.10. DT can foster/increase the development of high-level and
external relational embeddedness by making information
and communication more available and more valued.
P.10a. Additional shared information resulting from the use of
DT may cause the buyer to feel more connected to the
supplier and as a result, increase the buyer’s trust in the
seller (also applies at the Deal Stage [t]).
Practitioner survey
To elicit practitioner managers’ evaluation of the research
propositions, a small survey was conducted with a group of
managers (buyers and sellers) in 2019. A total of 55
respondents participated: 30 buyers and 25 sellers. All
respondents were working in either procurement or marketing/
sales functions at managerial or other level with decision-
making responsibilities. Refer to Table 2 for the distribution of
respondents across various industries. The questionnaire
 Impact of digital technology Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529

consisted of 18 questions related to the 16 research  Theme 2. Activities/states can be performed/reached

propositions developed from the literature review. Responses
were reported using a 5-part Likert scale ranging from (1)
“completely agree” to (5) “completely disagree.” The
questionnaire was organized into three sections,
corresponding to the three stages of buyer-supplier relationship
development: pre-deal, deal and deal continuation.
Respondents were encouraged to comment on the questions
and their responses.
As Table 3 shows, the overall responses to all questions had a
mean Likert value of 1.88 for buyers, 2.11 for sellers and 1.96
overall. This indicated overall support for the propositions in
the area of “completely agree” (1) and “mostly agree” (2).
Mean Likert scores for the 18 individual questions from all
respondents ranged from a minimum of 1.48 to a maximum of
2.39. Again, this indicates relatively strong support for the
research propositions.
Review of respondents’ comments resulted in five themes
that support the research propositions and indicate the impact
of DT on the model variables at the three stages of relationship
development. The themes are as follows:
Themes by model relationship stage:
1 Pre-deal stage (t 1):
 Theme 1. DT can contribute to better coordination
and collaboration between the parties involved.
 Theme 2. Activities/states can be performed/reached
faster with DT rather than without.
 Theme 5. Impact of greater availability and
accessibility of information on relative buyer-seller
power.
2 Deal stage (t):
 Theme 1. DT can contribute to better coordination and
collaboration between the parties involved.
faster with DT rather than without.
 Theme 3. New internal and external connections
between the parties involved are facilitated.
 Theme 4. DTs potentially contribute to increased
value for the parties involved, particularly the benefits
of embeddedness.
3 Deal continuation stage (t11):
 Theme 1. DT can contribute to better coordination
and collaboration between the parties involved.
 Theme 3. New internal and external connections
between the parties involved are facilitated.
 Theme 4. DTs potentially contribute to increased value
for the parties involved, particularly the benefits of
embeddedness.
Findings from research propositions and
practitioner survey
The themes’ relationships with the propositions and effects are
summarized in Table 4. The effect of DT on the buyer-supplier
relationship development process is indicated in the column
“Proposition effect,” which shows that DT affects the
commercial buyer-seller relationship development process as
follows:
1 Providing information to both parties faster.
2 Providing more information to both parties.
3 Making information more accessible.
These results are evident throughout the three stages of buyer-
supplier relationship development and in all five themes that
emerged from the practitioner survey.
Additional indications from the propositions and survey are:

Table 2 Industries representeda and experience of survey respondentsb

Buyers Sellers
Number of respondents 35 Number of respondents 20
Average years in the role 23.2 Average years in the role 15.3
Industries represented 16 Industries represented 14
Buyer industries and respondents Seller industries and respondents
Industry Number of respondents Industry Number of respondents
Process automation 1 Industrial distribution 2
Nuclear energy 1 Industrial sales 3
Energy development 3 Industrial products 1
Building components 1 Construction materials 1
Petrochemicals 2 Industrial supplies 2
Health care 3 Oilfield equipment 1
Professional consulting 3 Industrial maintenance, repair, and operating supplies 1
Energy production 3 Financial services 2
Chemical manufacturing 2 Meeting and convention services 1
Process equipment manufacturing 3 Professional consulting 1
Oil and gas production 4 Professional services 1
Public utilities 1 Capital project management 1
Oil and gas drilling 2 Chemicals 2
Food wholesale 1 Pharmaceuticals 1
Oil and gas operations 3
Equipment wholesale 2
a
Notes: Industries as reported on survey questionnaires. bRespondents were all in managerial or other decision-making positions

1522
 Impact of digital technology Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529

1 DT enables better coordination and collaboration
between buyer and seller.
2 There are increased opportunities for contact and
communication, and recognition of value-creation
opportunities between buyer and seller.
These last two indications are evident at the deal and deal-
continuation stages of relationship development and are present
in all but one of the five themes from the practitioner survey.
The impacts of these effects are shown in the column “Impact
of proposition effect.” The five themes were identified in the
preceding section.
Overall, these results support the achievement of the research
objectives of this study: identify the effects of DT on variables
and relationship progression in the development of commercial
buyer-seller relationships. In particular, we assess the impact of
DT on the speed of relationship development.

Table 3 Buyer and seller ratings of conceptual propositions

Buyers’ mean Suppliers’ mean Total
Questions and associated proposition(s) response response mean

1. DT makes information available faster and decreases time to reach input commitment (Prop. P1) 1.48 2.00 1.67
2. DT enables faster determination of advantages for parties to continue the development of a
relationship or terminate the development process (Prop. P1a) 1.88 2.22 2.00
3. DT enables faster development of norms and standards (Prop. P1b, P6) 2.09 2.17 2.12
4. Greater information accessibility and availability through DT potentially increases buyer’s power
(Prop. P2) 1.61 1.83 1.69
5. Greater knowledge of existing and potential buyers’ operations through DT potentially increases
seller’s power (Prop. P2a) 2.03 2.28 2.12
6. More and faster access to information from seller websites and social media through DT and
availability of other digital resources enables earlier and stronger low-level buyer engagement at this
stage (Prop. P3) 1.88 2.22 2.00
7. Larger amount of and quicker access to information, through faster communication capabilities of DT
shorten the time to reach negotiated agreements (Prop. P4) 2.00 2.39 2.14
8. More information and faster access through DT results in faster formation of attitudinal commitment
and/or facilitates a sense of unity or disunity (Prop. P5) 2.21 2.39 2.27
9. More information and faster access through DT improves the likelihood of achievement of inter-
organizational commitment, buyer engagement and formal agreement and reduce the time to reach
these states (Prop. P5a) 2.12 2.33 2.20
10. Use of DT for communication/coordination allows stronger ties and improve the potential for low-
and high-level internal relational embeddedness (Prop. P6) 2.15 2.28 2.20
11. Use of DT for communication/coordination enables increased buyer commitment and faster
development of seller trust, increased development of intellectual capital and low-and high-level
internal relational embeddedness (Prop. P6a) 2.21 2.33 2.25
12. Use of DT enables performance metering, facilitates faster buyer and seller assessment of
expectations being met and contributes to the development of low- and high-level internal relational
embeddedness (Prop. P7) 1.79 2.11 1.90
13. DT enables organizations to informally communicate more information outside of a formal or
existing business relationship. – increases the likelihood of low-level external relational embeddedness
quickly (Prop. P8) 1.73 2.00 1.82
14. DT can foster/increase the development of low- and high-level internal and external relational
embeddedness by making information and communications more available and efficient (Prop. P10) 1.88 2.00 1.92
15. Additional shared information as a result of relational embeddedness may reduce the buyer’s
perceived risk (would also apply at the Deal Stage (t) (Prop. P10a) 1.82 2.00 1.88
16. Temporal (continuing) commitment must exist in seller and buyer to get to this stage. Continued
positive digital support and communications on both sides of the relationship should increase buyer
and seller trust and commitment, and support the continued development of interpersonal
relationships between buyer and seller. These relationships foster development/continuation of firm-
level commitment and continued buyer engagement (Prop. P9) 1.76 2.00 1.84
17. Relational embeddedness, buyer engagement and buyer and seller commitment, all contribute to
the development of value, intellectual capital, improved performance in buyer-seller relationships
(Prop. P9) 1.48 1.50 1.49
18. DT can enhance and shorten the processes necessary to achieve/create relational embeddedness,
buyer engagement and buyer and seller commitment (Prop. P10) 1.73 1.89 1.78
Total N 30 25 55
Notes: Values from five-part Likert scale: 1 = completely agree and 5 = completely disagree

1523
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
Table 4 Effects of DT on buyer-supplier relationship development
Summary of conceptual propositions and practitioner survey theme indications
Proposition Proposition effect
1 More and faster information accessibility
1a More and faster information accessibility
1b Faster information exchange
2 More and faster information accessibility
2a More and faster information accessibility
3 More and faster information accessibility
4 More and faster information accessibility
5 More and faster information accessibility
5a Better coordination/collaboration
6 Better coordination/collaboration
6a Better coordination/collaboration
7 More and faster information accessibility
8 Increased opportunities for contacts and
communication
9 Digital support for communication/coordination/
collaboration
10 More and faster information accessibility
10a More and faster information accessibility

Notes: PD = pre-deal stage; D = deal stage; DC = deal continuation stage
Discussion and conclusions
The development and continuation of many relationships between
buyers and sellers is affected by DT. DT has enabled SCs to be
managed as complete systems that foster the development of
stronger inter-firm relationships, through faster availability and
accessibility of more reliable information. The availability and
accessibility of information has also allowed firms to find new ways
to create value and improve competitive advantages in the process
of developing relationships. Managers have reported that
interactions are faster, more accurate, complete and useful. The
accessibility and availability of information improves the speed of
decision-making because it enables a higher level of trust and
commitment to be established earlier in relationships. The
application of DT helps expand networks by facilitating the
addition of new members to networks, to increase value and
opportunities. The availability and accessibility of information
affects how such relationships develop and are maintained. This
study clarifies some of the ways in which DT affects the
development and maintenance of these relationships. The five
themes that emerged from the practitioner survey indicate
particular impacts of DT on the development and maintenance of
buyer-supplier relationships. In conclusion, DT has improved SC
management agility because it has increased the velocity of trust
formation, commitment and relationship development. In
particular, DT enables the more rapid formation of various stages
and states in the buyer-seller relationship.
Although the practitioner survey was conducted before the
COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of the pandemic likely did
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
Theme Relation-
from ship

Impact of proposition effect survey stage
Reduced time to reach commitment 2 PD
Reduced time to reach go/no go decision 2 PD
Faster development of norms/standards 2 PD
May increase buyer’s relative power 5 PD
May increase seller’s relative power 5 PD
Earlier/stronger buyer engagement 1 PD
Faster pace of negotiations 2 PD
Faster achievement of commitment 2 D
Faster achievement of commitment/engagement/agreement 1 D
Stronger ties and relational embeddedness 3 D
Increased and faster achievement of commitment, trust and 2, 4 D
mutual development of intellectual capital
Easier/faster ability to assess if performance expectations are 4 D
being met
Expanded opportunities for external relational embeddedness 3 D
Increased buyer and seller trust, commitment, engagement 3 DC
Expanded opportunities and mechanisms for relational 3 DC
embeddedness
Reduced buyer’s perceived risk and increased buyer trust 1, 4 DC
not change the effect of DT on increasing the velocity of buyer-
supplier relationship development but may have contributed to
an overall increase of these effects in the general marketplace.
That is, the constrictions on in-person contact during the
pandemic likely had at least three effects as follows:
1 More firms used DT to develop and maintain buyer-seller
relationships.
2 Among all firms DT was used much more intensely for
relationship building and maintenance.
3 New and innovative uses of DT for relationship
development and maintenance were devised and applied.
Management implications
The results indicate that the velocity of relationship development
is of particular importance in buyer-seller relationship
development. Managers can use the findings to leverage DT
throughout their B2B relationships to increase the velocity of
relationship development and maximize organizational efficiency
and performance.
As discussed earlier, the velocity of relationship commitment
development is a leading indicator of future sales growth
(Palmatier et al., 2013) and can empower managers to devise
appropriate strategies to capture value from current and future
relationships (Hussain et al., 2020). Furthermore, commitment
velocity has a significant influence on relationship quality, as it
acts as a mediator between perceived relationship investment and
relationship quality (Sahin et al., 2016). In addition to integrating
routine processes, DT can also improve social interactions
1524
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
between managers, which may result in the recognition of new
business opportunities. Therefore, it is important for marketing
managers to facilitate the pace of relationship development in
their buyer-seller relationships.
As the application of DT to business in general, and
buyer-seller relationships in particular, increases,
information is needed by management on both sides of the
buying-selling table. Buyers and sellers both must be aware
of and familiar with the various tools provided by DT so they
can use them to improve their individual relationship/
engagement processes. A few additional implications are as
follows:
 DT:
– Is not an elective decision but a necessary tool that
must be aligned and transparently applied to meet
buyers and sellers’ information needs.
– Improves the ease and speed of information accessibility
by increasing parties’ sensemaking capabilities and
facilitating faster buyer-seller interactions.
– Facilitates new internal and external connections and
contributes to better coordination and collaboration
and quicker detection of new opportunities.
Research implications, limitations and future
research
This paper is an initial attempt to analyze how DT impacts the
B2B customer buyer-seller relationship development process.
The propositions developed can serve as a framework for
additional conceptual and theoretical research on the impact of
DT on B2B buyer-supplier relationship development, as
relationships keep developing throughout the life of a particular
buyer-seller dyad. As Industry 4.0 evolves and the use of DT
expands, firms must explore the negative and positive effects of
it on the emotions and performance of managers within the SC.
This study examined the impacts of DT (broadly defined) on
buyer-supplier relationship development. Another-related area
for future research could include studying the impacts of
specific forms of DT on the relationship development process
and perhaps comparing and contrasting the impacts of different
forms of DT. Still, another area for future research could be a
study of the development of DT in its different forms over time
and identifying how DT impacted buyer-supplier relationship
development at different points over the same time span.
Another issue that was not addressed in this study and can be
analyzed in future work is whether the use of DT affects
managers’ psychological or emotional variables. For example,
does managerial anxiety increase or decrease in the relationship
development process? Further, studies can also examine
whether techno stress, a term introduced by Brod (1984), is a
factor in the relationship building process.
The combination of the literature review and practitioner
survey in this study provides relatively strong support for the
research propositions; however, the relatively small size of the
practitioner survey prohibits generalization of the survey
results. Therefore, a future study with a practitioner survey
large enough to statistically analyze should indicate to what
extent the results of this study are generalizable.
1525
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
References
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992), “The use of pledges to
build and sustain commitment in distribution channels”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 18-34.
Ba, S. and Pavlou, P.A. (2002), “Evidence of the effect of trust
building technology in electronic markets: price premiums
and buyer behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-26.
Baptista, C. (2013), “Interaction processes in long-term
relationships in the metal mining industry: longitudinal case
studies of Capital equipment buying”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 969-982.
Bello, D.C., Osmonbekov, T., Tian Xie, F. and Gilliland, D.I.
(2002), “E-business technological innovations: impact on
channel processes and structure”, Journal of Marketing
Channels, Vol. 9 No. 3-4, pp. 3-25.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman,
N. (2013), “Digital business strategy: toward a next
generation of insights”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 471-482.
Brass, D., Galaskiewicz, J. and Tsai, W. (2004), “Taking stock
of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 795-817.
Brod, C. (1984), Technostress: The Human Cost of the Computer
Revolution, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, MA.
Cagliano, A.C., Mangano, G. and Rafele, C. (2021),
“Determinants of digital technology adoption in supply
chain: an exploratory analysis”, Supply Chain Forum: An
International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 100-114.
Cannon, J. and Perrault, W. (1999), “Buyer-supplier
relationships in business markets”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 439-460.
Chang, Y. (2019), “Bonding ties, bridging ties, and firm
performance: the moderating role of dynamic capabilities in
networks”, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 159-176., doi: 10.1080/1051712X.2019.1603395.
Chi, L., Holsapple, C.W. and Srinivasan, C. (2008), “Digital
systems, partnership networks, and competition: the co-
evolution of IOS use and network position as antecedents of
competitive action”, Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 61-94., doi: 10.1080/
10919390701807350.
Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., Noe, C. and Strozzi, F. (2019),
“Information sharing in supply chains: a review of risks and
opportunities using the systematic literature network analysis
(SLNA)”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Cortez, R.M. and Johnston, W.J. (2017), “The future of B2B
marketing theory: a historical and prospective analysis”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 66, pp. 90-102.
Daskou, S. and Mangina, E. (2003), “Artificial intelligence in
managing market relationships”, Journal of Relationship
Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1-2, pp. 85-102.
De Olivera, M.P.V., McCormack, K., Ladeira, M.B., Trkman,
P. and Van den Bergh, J. (2011), “Supply chain process
collaboration and internet utilization: an international
perspective of business to business relationships”, Economic
and Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 203-226.
Dobrescu, R., Mocanu, S., Chenaru, O., Nicolae, M. and
Florea, G. (2021), “Versatile edge gateway for improving
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
manufacturing supply chain management via collaborative
networks”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 407-421.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Bryde, D.J., Dwivedi, Y.K. and
Papadopoulos, T. (2020), “Blockchain technology for
enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a
humanitarian supply chain setting”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 11, pp. 3381-3398.
Dwyer, R., Schurr, P. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing buyer-
supplier relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 11-27.
Ekici, A. (2013), “Temporal dynamics of trust in ongoing
inter-organizational relationships”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 932-949.
Fatorachian, H. and Kazemi, H. (2021), “Impact of industry
4.0 on supply chain performance”, Production Planning &
Control, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 63-81.
Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A.M. and
Magnan, G.M. (2011), “Information technology as an
enabler of supply chain collaboration: a dynamic-capabilities
perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47
No. 1, pp. 38-59.
Fenton, C. (2019), “Transportation leaders’ drive for
digitization”, Motor Transport, 4 June.
Forrester Consulting (2008), “How engaged are your
customers?”, available at: www.adobe.com/engagement/
pdfs/Forrester_TLP_How_Engaged_Are_Your_Customers.
pdf (accessed 28 October 2019).
Forrester Research (2015), “Mastering omni-channel B2B
customer engagement”, available at: www.accenture.com/
_acnmedia/accenture/conversion-assets/dotcom/documents/
global/pdf/digital_3/accenture-mastering-omni-channel-b2b-
customer-engagement-report.pdf (accessed 28 October
2019).
Forrester Research (2019), “US B2B commerce will hit
$1.8 trillion by 2023”, available at: www.forrester.com/
report/US1B2B1ecommerce1will1hit18trillion12023/-/
E-RES136173# (accessed 28 October 2019).
Gezgin, E., Huang, X., Samal, P. and Silva, I. (2017), “Digital
transformation: raising supply-chain performance to new
levels”, November 2017, McKinsey & company”, available
at: www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-
insights/digital-transformation-raising-supply-chain-performance-
to-new-levels (accessed 15 October 2019).
Gotz, M. and Jankowska, B. (2020), “Adoption of industry 4.0
technologies and company competitiveness: case studies
from a Post-Transition economy”, Foresight and STI
Governance, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 61-78.
Gulati, R. (1998), “Alliances and networks”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 293-317.
Gundlach, G., Achrol, R. and Mentzer, J. (1995), “The
structure of commitment in exchange”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 78-92.
Hadjikhani, A. and LaPlaca, P. (2013), “Development of B2B
marketing theory”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 294-305.
Hahn, G. (2020), “Industry 4.0: a supply chain innovation
perspective”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 1425-1441.
1526
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships
in Business Networks, Routledge, London.
Hallikaninen, H., Hirvonen, S. and Laukkanen, T. (2019),
“Perceived trustworthiness in using B2B digital service”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 120 No. 3,
pp. 587-607.
Harrison, D.E. and Hair, J.F. (2017), “The use of technology
in direct-selling marketing channels: digital avenues for
dynamic growth”, Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 24
Nos 1/2, pp. 39-50.
Hussain, K., Jing, F., Junaid, M., Shi, H. and Baig, U. (2020),
“The buyer-seller relationship: a literature synthesis on
dynamic perspectives”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 669-684.
Iansiti, M. and Lakhani, K.R. (2014), “Digital ubiquity: how
connections, sensors and data are revolutionizing business”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92 No. 11, pp. 91-99.
Jadhav, V.V. (2015), “Role of information technology in supply
chain management”, International Journal of Management
Research & Review, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 369-379.
Johnson, J.L., Sohi, R.S. and Grewal, R. (2004), “The role of
relational knowledge stores in interfirm partnering”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 21-36.
Johnson, J., Tellis, G. and MacInnis, D. (2005), “Losers,
winners, and biased trades”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 324-329.
Keillor, B.D., Bashaw, R.E. and Pettijohn, C.E. (1997),
“Salesforce automation issues prior to implementation: the
relationship between attitudes toward technology,
experience and productivity”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3/4, pp. 209-219.
Key, T.M. (2017), “Domains of digital marketing channels in
the sharing economy”, Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 24
No. 1-2, pp. 27-38.
Khoja, F., Adams, J. and Kauffman, R. (2010), “A temporal
model of vertical relationships”, Journal of Business-to-
Business Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 279-307.
Khoja, F., Adams, J. and Kauffman, R. (2011), “The inside
story of relationship development: power asymmetry in a
buyer-supplier relationship”, International Journal of
Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 73-91.
Khoja, F., Adams, J. and Kauffman, R. (2015b), “Buyers’
perspective of buyer-supplier relationship development:
interaction of key variables”, Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1-21.
Khoja, F., Adams, J., Coy, S. and Kauffman, R. (2015a), “A
path analytic approach using partial least square technique to
explain the effects of power imbalance in buyer-supplier
relationships”, International Journal of Management Theory
and Practices, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-30.
Kim, D., Cavusgil, S.T. and Cavusgil, E. (2013), “Does IT
alignment between supply chain partners enhance customer
value creation: an empirical investigation”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 880-889.
Kovacs, G. (2004), “Digital asset management in marketing
communications logistics”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 208-218.
Kraatz, M. (1998), “Learning by association? Inter-
organizational networks and adaption to environmental
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 6,
pp. 621-643.
Krajewski, L., Wei, J. and Tang, L. (2005), “Responding to
schedule changes in build-to order supply chains”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 452-469.
Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C. and Gillespie, N. (2006),
“Models of interpersonal trust development: theoretical
approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 991-1022.
Lindh, C. and Nordman, E.R. (2017), “Information
technology and performance in industrial business
relationships: the mediating effect of business development”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 7,
pp. 998-1008.
McEvily, B. and Zaheer, A. (1999), “Bridging ties: a source of
firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 12, pp. 1133-1156.
McGaughey, S. (2002), “Strategic interventions in intellectual
asset flows”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 248-274.
McKnight, D. and Chervany, N. (2001), “What trust means in
e-commerce relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual
typology”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 35-59.
McKnight, D., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002), “The
impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with
a web site: a trust building model”, The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 3-4, pp. 297-323.
Mandjak, T., Belaid, S. and Naude, P. (2019), “The
development of trust over time in an emerging market
context: the case of the tunisian automotive sector”, Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 1210-1222.
Michel, R. (2019), “The digital supply chain takes shape”,
Logistics Management, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 20-24.
Miyamoto, T. and Rexha, N. (2004), “Determinants of three
facets of customer trust: a marketing model of japanese
buyer-supplier relationships”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 312-319.
Moharana, H.S., Murty, J.S., Senapati, S.K. and Khuntia, K.
(2011), “Importance of information technology for effective
supply chain management”, International Journal of Modern
Engineering Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 747-751.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), “The commitment trust
theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital,
intellectual capital and the organizational advantage”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Narandas, D. and Rangan, V.K. (2004), “Building and
sustaining buyer-seller relationships in mature industrial
markets”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 63-77.
Newell, W.J., Ellegaard, C. and Esbjerg, L. (2019), “Effects of
goodwill and competence trust on strategic information
sharing in buyer-supplier relationships”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 389-400.
Nicolaou, N. and Birley, S. (2003), “Social networks in
organizational emergence: the university spinout
phenomenon”, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 12,
pp. 1702-1725.
1527
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
Orlikowski, W. (1992), “The duality of technology: rethinking
the concept of technology in organizations”, INFORMS
Pubs Online, available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/
doi/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398 (accessed 15 September 2019).
Osmonbekov, T. and Gruen, T. (2013), “Manufacturer-
reseller e-business arrangements: the impact of inequity on
relationship performance and the moderating role of
dependence”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42
No. 6, pp. 872-879.
Osmonbekov, T., Bello, D.C. and Gilliland, D.I. (2002),
“Adoption of electronic commerce tools in business
procurement: enhanced buying center structure and
processes”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 17 No. 2/3, pp. 151-166.
Pagani, M. and Pardo, C. (2017), “The impact of DT on
relationships in a business network”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 67, pp. 185-192.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R.
(2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship
marketing: a Meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70
No. 4, pp. 136-153.
Palmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B., Dant, R.P. and Grewal, D.
(2013), “Relationship velocity: toward a theory of
relationship dynamics”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 1,
pp. 13-30.
Pandey, N., Nayal, P. and Rathore, A.S. (2020), “Digital
marketing for B2B organizations: structured literature review
and future research directions”, Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1191-1209.
Park, C. and Lee, H. (2018), “Early stage value co-creation
network – business relationships connecting high-tech B2B
actors and resources: Taiwan semiconductor business
network case”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 478-494.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New
York, NY.
Quinton, S. and Wilson, D. (2016), “Tensions and ties in
social media networks: towards a model of understanding
business relationship development and business
performance enhancement through the use of LinkedIn”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 54, pp. 15-24.
Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2020), “The “interacted”
actor in platformed networks: theorizing practices of
managerial experience value co-creation”, Journal of Business
and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1165-1178.
Rohm, A.J., Kashyap, V., Brashear, T.G. and Milne, G.R.
(2004), “The use of online marketplaces for competitive
advantage: a Latin American perspective”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 372-385.
Rowley, T., Behrens, D. and Krackhardt, D. (2000),
“Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural
and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor
industries”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 369-386.
Ruiz-Alba, J.L., Guesalaga, R., Ayestaran, R. and Mediano, J.
M. (2020), “Interfunctional coordination: the role of
digitalization”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 404-419.
Ryssel, R., Ritter, T. and Gemunden, H.G. (2004), “The
impact of information technology deployment on trust,
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
commitment and value creation in business relationships”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 197-207.
Sabel, C. (1993), “Studied trust: building new forms of
cooperation in a volatile economy”, Human Relations, Vol. 46
No. 9, pp. 1133-1170.
Sahin, A., Kitapci, H., Sahin, A., Cigerim, E. and Bayhan,
K. (2016), “Perceived relationship investment and
relationship quality; the mediating role of commitment
velocity”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 235, pp. 288-295.
Salo, J. (2012), “The role of mobile technology in a buyer-
supplier relationship: a case study from the steel industry”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 554-563.
Salo, J. and Wendelin, R. (2013), “Longitudinal analysis of
digital bonding in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-19., doi:
10.1080/1051712X.2012.719179.
Sashi, C.M. (2012), “Customer engagement, buyer-seller
relationships, and social media”, Management Decision,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 253-272.
Shanka, M.S. and Buvik, A. (2019), “When does relational
exchange matters? Social bond, trust and satisfaction”,
Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/1051712X.2019.1566137.
Siebert, S., Kraimer, M. and Liden, R. (2002), “A social
Capital theory of career success”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 219-237.
Sirius Decisions (2019), “Defining and measuring buyer
engagement”, Sirius Decisions July 2019 Newsletter, 31
July, available at: www.siriusdecisions.com/newsletters/july-
2019-newsletter (accessed 15 September 2019).
Skarmeas, D., Katsikeas, C. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (2002),
“Drivers of commitment and its impact on performance in
cross-cultural buyer-seller relationships: the importer’s
perspective”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 757-783.
Speier, C., Mollenkopf, D. and Stank, T.P. (2008), “The role
of information integration in facilitating 21st century supply
chains: a theory-based perspective”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 21-38.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D.,
Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer engagement
behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Varadarajan, P.R. and Yadav, M.S. (2002), “Marketing
strategy and the internet: an organizing framework”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 296-312.
Vivek, S., Beatty, S. and Morgan, R. (2012), “Customer
engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond
purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20
No. 2.
Vogelgesang, G.R., Crossley, C., Simons, T. and Avolio, B.
(2020), “Behavioral integrity: examining the effects of trust
velocity and psychological contract breach”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 172 No. 1, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-020-04497-2
1528
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
Yadav, M.S. and Pavlou, P.A. (2014), “Marketing in a
computer-mediated environment: research synthesis and
new directions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 1,
pp. 20-40.
Youssef, Y.M.A., Johnston, W.J., Abdelhamid, T.A., Dakrory,
M.I., Galal, M. and Seddick, S. (2018), “A customer
engagement framework for a B2B context”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 145-152.
Yu, W., Jacobs, M.A., Chavez, R. and Feng, M. (2017), “The
impacts of IT capability and marketing capability on supply
chain integration: a resource-based perspective”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 14,
pp. 4196-4211.
Zablah, A.R., Johnston, W.J. and Bellenger, D.N. (2005),
“Transforming partner relationships through technological
innovation”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 356-400.
Appendix. Key variables
Description of key variables in the B2B buyer-seller
relationship development model.
Buyer power
Exists when buyers have the option of choosing from different
suppliers, particularly when switching costs are low (Cannon
and Perrault, 1999).
Seller power
Exists when there are few suppliers of certain products, a large
number of buyers, few substitutes and high switching costs. It
can also exist when there is market dominance by one or a few
suppliers (Krajewski et al., 2005).
Relative buyer-seller power
Indicates that in a particular exchange situation, buyer power
may be higher than seller power or vice versa, or the partners
may have equal power relative to each other (Porter, 1980).
Commitment
“An implicit or explicit pledge of relational continuity with exchange
partners” (Dwyer et al., 1987).
Three types of commitment:
1 Input or behavioral: Action taken by partners to justify a
self-interest stake in the relationship.
2 Attitudinal or affective: Indicates a sense of unity among
partners through goal congruence and operational
linkages.
3 Temporal or continuance: Indicates an enduring long-term
relationship, for example, investment in assets specific to
the transaction.
(Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
Skarmeas et al., 2002; Gundlach et al., 1995).
 Impact of digital technology
Ralph Kauffman and Lucille Pointer
Trust
One’s confidence in another that the other behaves in a
predictable and mutually acceptable manner (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994; Sabel, 1993).
Three dimensions of trust:
1 Contractual trust: Partners’ expectation that contracts will
be fulfilled;
2 Competence trust: Partners’ expectation that contracts will
be professionally fulfilled; and
3 Goodwill trust: Partners’ confidence in each other to
continue a long-term relationship (Miyamoto and Rexha,
2004).
A somewhat parallel three-phase model of trust
development was proposed by Mandjak et al. (2019),
consisting of perceived trust, perceived trust transforming into
experienced trust and perceived trust and experienced trust together.
McKnight and Chervany (2001) and McKnight et al.
(2002) develop a detailed typology and trust-building model
in business to consumer internet settings. Although trust
development in B2B settings may follow similar details, B2B
partners are likely to proceed with some form of the three
dimensions in the preceding two references.
Embeddedness (high or low level depending on the
degree of tie strength and/or knowledge shared)
“Direct cohesive ties as a mechanism for gaining fine-grained
information” (Gulati, 1998).
Two types:
1 Internal: relationship between exchange partners.
2 External: exchange involving entities in addition to
exchange partners.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1529
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 37 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1515–1529
(Brass et al., 2004; McEvily and Zaheer, 1999; Rowley et al.,
2000; Kraatz, 1998; Siebert et al., 2002; Nicolaou and Birley,
2003).
Intellectual capital
The creative, technical and collaborative knowledge and
“knowing capabilities” of a firm (McGaughey, 2002;
Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
Performance
The result of a buyer-supplier exchange manifested in the
impact of the exchange on the financial or operational results
of the buyer or supplier organization.
Buyer engagement (high or low level depending on
extent of engagement)
Two types:
1 Internal.
2 External.
Buyer engagement can be defined as: “Creating deep
connections with customers that drive purchase decisions,
interaction, and participation over time” (Sashi, 2012,
attributed to Forrester Consulting, 2008; van Doorn et al.,
2010). It also includes the degree to which buyers (individuals
and groups) detectably and deliberately interact with a brand
(Sirius Decisions, 2019).
Corresponding author
Ralph Kauffman can be contacted at: kauffmanr@uhd.edu