Towards an integrated framework of key

account management
Dirk Zupancic
University of St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to identify the elements of professional key account management programs, to understand the success factors
and to create an integrated framework.
Design/methodology/approach – The article is based on an analysis of the existing literature as well as on several qualitative research projects.
Existing content from around 30 years of KAM research and practice was reviewed. A total of 18 companies were analyzed using case study methods
and action research approaches. A total of 27 interviews with practitioners and 18 workshops were conducted to conceptualize the integrated KAM
framework.
Findings – Key account management is more complex than the existing literature suggests and companies believe. A professional KAM framework
addresses two different target groups: key account managers (and teams) and the company’s management (or someone the responsibility of the entire
program is delegated to). Both groups have to pay attention to five dimensions of KAM (named strategy, solution, people, management, screening) and
several aspects that are different for each group.
Practical implications – A full overview about all the necessary elements of a professional KAM program can be used to assess a company’s ways of
working with strategic customers and to conceptualize or optimize an entire KAM program.
Originality/value – The presented framework is the first that integrates the different views of the two most important target groups of KAM. It offers
a unique overview of all important elements.

Keywords Key accounts, Customers, Critical success factors

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Key accounts or strategic accounts are the most valuable
customers for a company. To put it simply: a company cannot
afford to lose these customers without getting into serious
difficulties. Without a systematic approach key account
management (KAM) becomes a process of trial and error
that may miss some necessary elements, creates additional
costs and offers no opportunity for corporate learning. Not
surprisingly KAM is one of the most significant marketing
trends of the past several decades (e.g. Conlon et al., 1997;
Abratt and Kelly, 2002). In practice strategic important
customers have been treated differently all times. Almost
every supplier in the business-to-business field realizes a kind
of KAM (Boles et al., 1994, p. 25). In addition even most of
the companies that do not have a formal KAM treat their
most important customers differently (Wengler et al., 2006).
Though KAM has a long tradition both in research (e.g.
Pegram, 1972; Shapiro and Moriarty, 1982) and practice
companies still struggle with the implementation of KAM
programs (Homburg et al., 2002).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
The intention of this paper is to introduce an integrated
framework of KAM, that covers the existing knowledge of key
account management from a research as well as from a
practice perspective. From our point of view the framework is
the first integrated one for managing key accounts and to
optimize the corporate setup that is necessary for a
professional KAM. It offers opportunities for further
research as well as a guideline for companies that want to
establish and optimize their way of working with their most
important customers. Firstly, we give an overview of the
existing literature according to the development of the topic
over time. Then we identify two addressees of KAM (key
account managers and the corporate management) with
different needs and tasks. These can be structured according
to five dimensions of KAM. We present a complete overview
and provide definitions for the elements that can be used for
research and practice. We conclude with practical
implications and an agenda for further research:
KAM can be understood as a relationship-oriented marketing management
approach focusing on dealing with major customers in the business-to-
business market (Ojasalo, 2001, p. 199).
To deal with the topic it has to be specified further. We
suggest the following definition:
Key account management means systematic selection, analysis and
management of the most important current and potential customers of a
company. In addition it also includes the systematic set up and maintenance
of necessary infrastructure.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

23/5 (2008) 323– 331 Received: October 2006
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] Revised: February 2007
[DOI 10.1108/08858620810881593] Accepted: March 2007

323
 Towards an integrated framework of key account management
Dirk Zupancic
Development of KAM from the 70th until today: a
literature review
Development of KAM over time
Serving the most important customers differently is based on
common sense of good sales people. Nevertheless for a
company KAM has to be more than a “lone wolf-approach”.
To set up a professional KAM organization a systematic
program is needed to develop the structures and processes as
well as the people. The idea of KAM is more than 30 years
old and the degree of professionalization both in research and
practice has risen over time. In this section we describe this
process with a literature review in a chronological way.
Pegram (1972) referred to KAM first and interviewed 250
managers from industrial and service companies. He explored
how to realize KAM as full- or a part-time job. By doing so he
gave first recommendations for the implementation and
started the KAM discussion. From our qualitative research
with companies we assume that there was always something
like KAM around before but it was not explicitly addressed as
a specific customer management approach.
The 80th can be characterized as a phase of
professionalization of KAM on a national basis. A variety of
different articles were published. Stevenson (1981) researched
the value of KAM and national account management (NAM)
programs. First job profiles were developed by Platzer (1984)
and organizational questions were discussed (Shapiro and
Moriarty, 1982). Coletti and Tubrity (1987) explored
reporting levels, time utilization, compensation and required
skills of account managers.
Suppliers have reacted to the demand of international and
global customers with a systematic coordinated approach
since the 90th. “Different companies use different terms to
refer to this coordination activity, such as ‘parent account
management’, ‘international account management’ or
‘worldwide account management’, but the most common
denomination for it seems to be ‘global account
management’” (Montgomery et al., 1998, p. 1).
From our point-of-view Verra (1994) was the first who
conducted a broad survey concerning international key
account management. He identified the specific
characteristics and offers organizational solutions. Basically
international KAM (IKAM) or global account management
(GAM) is based on the same principles as KAM but there are
some differences that make the international approach
specific.
Yip and Madsen (1996) identified the drivers of GAM, the
necessary organizational responses and supporting aspects of
a global strategy and the implementation. Their work is based
on qualitative case study research. Millman (1996) combined
GAM and systems selling approaches. Montgomery et al.
(1998) developed a model of the extent to which
multinational companies use global account management,
its determinants, and its effect on performance. A study of
165 companies showed that use and performance effects are
positively related to customers’ demand for it, which is in turn
related to the degree of globalization of customers. Millman
and Wilson (1999) identified cultural diversity and
complexity as the most challenging aspects of GAM.
Birkinshaw et al. (2001) used two theoretical perspectives,
information processing and resource dependency, to examine
GAM. Wilson and Weilbaker (2004) offered a conceptual
model of GAM based on literature reviews.
324
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 5 · 2008 · 323 –331
After a period of developing wide facets of KAM and GAM
research has become more specific. Kempeners and van der
Hart (1999) concentrate on developing and implementing
KAM organizations. Spencer (1999) uses network and
interaction theory to manage the strategic complexity of
business relations with key accounts. Millman and Wilson
(1999) focused on processes of KAM to contribute to the
discussion about coordination. Mermey (1999) gave hints
about incentive systems to improve key account management
performance. Arnold et al. (2001) focused their empirical
study on knowledge management in GAM. Wilson and
Millman (2003) outlined the importance of the role of the
people for example in their function as global account
managers. Other examples of specific focuses can be found.
Next to specialized research topics integration has become
an important trend in KAM. The aim is to integrate the
existing KAM knowledge into frameworks that offer support
for the realization of KAM programs in practice as well as
further research of the topic. Senn (1999) offered a
framework that was originally designed for national KAM
programs. The structure based on nine elements was
transferred into a GAM approach. Workman et al. (2003)
identified four topics (activities, actors, resources and
formalization) and developed on this basis an intra-
organizational structure for a KAM program. Birkinshaw
et al. (2001) focused on aspects concerning information
processing capacity and the bargaining power of the vendor.
Ojasalo (2001) identified four important elements of KAM:
identifying the key accounts, analyzing key accounts, selecting
suitable strategies for key accounts and developing operational
level capabilities to build, grow, and maintain profitable and
long-lasting relationships with key accounts.
Synthesis
Key accounts or strategic accounts are arguably a company’s
strong sometimes the strongest assets. KAM is a challenging
task. Because key accounts are that important for suppliers,
companies need a systematic approach. As shown KAM has a
long tradition both in theory and practice (see Figure 1).
Up to now a lot of content and solutions were developed.
Nevertheless from our point-of-view a clear and complete
structure is still missing. Following this perception we have
developed an integrated framework. It provides companies
with a guideline for structuring and implementing a key
account management program and individual key account
managers’ tasks.
Research approach
Research objectives
Given the fact that a lot of elements of KAM were developed
already it becomes necessary to integrate these elements into a
coherent framework. Therefore the goals of our approach can
be described as follows:
. to identify the necessary elements of KAM-programs;
.
to understand the success factors and their linkages; and
.
to structure the elements in order to create a stable
framework.
Methodology
Our research is based on literature reviews of KAM to
combine insights into an integrative conceptualization of
KAM. In addition we use ongoing qualitative research to
 Towards an integrated framework of key account management
Dirk Zupancic
Figure 1 Development of KAM in theory and practice
explore the theory-based elements as well as to identify
further aspects that were not researched already. Qualitative
research was conducted since 1998 by using action research
approaches in case studies, inhouse and open workshops. The
companies that participated in our research can be
characterized as typical business-to-business companies. We
have specified their industries and the number of companies
in each group according to the SIC Code in the table below.
Interviews with senior managers responsible for KAM were
conducted in addition.
Due to this approach we are able to contribute both to the
rising demand for substantial support in practice as well as to
guide for further research. Table I summarizes the empirical
sources of our research.
Integrative conceptualization of KAM
Levels of KAM and addressees in the company
Homburg et al. (2002, p. 39) divided existing KAM literature
in three groups: The first one describes the dyadic
relationships between key accounts and their suppliers (e.g.
Table I Empirical sources of qualitative research
Methods Participants/company
Case studies Engines and turbines (1x), construction machinery and
equip. (2x), metal forgings and stampings (1x), special
industry machinery (2x), finance services (2x),
commercial printing (1x), chemicals and allied products
(1x)
Inhouse Pumps and pumping equipment (1x), special industry
workshops machinery (1x), pharmaceutical preparations (1x),
electric and other services combined (5x)
Open workshopsMix of various business to business industries (18x)
Interviews From various business to business industries (27x)
325
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 5 · 2008 · 323 –331
Lambe and Spekman, 1997; McDonald et al., 1997; Shama,
1997; Sengupta et al., 1997). The second group focuses on
individual managers and their tasks (e.g. Platzer, 1984; Boles
et al., 1996; Wilson and Millman, 2003). It is strongly
connected to personal selling (Homburg et al., 2002, p. 39).
Key account management starts with an analysis of the
customer, the supplier’s own situation and also the
competitors’ situation. These activities are labeled
“analyze”. Starting from there a plan has to be developed
and put into practice, i.e. the management of the key account.
This can be described as “realize” KAM. Analyzing and
realizing are tasks that should be done by the key account
manager and usually a team. Content and knowledge of the
first two groups are named “operational KAM” in our
framework. Next to the research resources covering that field
a lot of practical oriented guidelines were published during
the last years (e.g. Capon, 2001). This part addresses the key
account manager and his or her team. The third group covers
the KAM program from a company’s point-of-view
(Homburg et al., 2002, p. 39). Most of the existing research
is focused on this aspect (e.g. Coletti and Tubrity, 1987;
Dishman and Nitse, 1998; Montgomery and Yip, 2000, for a
full overview see Homburg et al., 2002, pp. 40-41). KAM
requires specific conditions on corporate level. Firstly, key
account management is not a stand-alone activity in a
company. Instead it has to be integrated into the organization
(“integrate”). Secondly, it is necessary to consider a
company’s strategy, structure and culture that often can
only be changed in the long term (“align” corporate strategy,
structure and culture). Content and knowledge of these two
areas is named “corporate KAM” in our framework.
According to our qualitative research companies often do
not give enough attention to the necessary organizational pre-
requisites. Pardo stated that this may be the most important
area for improvements in KAM (Pardo, 1999, p. 286):
“today, key account experts on both sides of the Atlantic agree
on . . . the problem of key account management is being an
 Towards an integrated framework of key account management
Dirk Zupancic
organizational one.” Topics dedicated to corporate KAM are
not the key account managers core tasks though in practice
they are often involved. The corporate management, the head
of sales/KAM or a dedicated project manager should be in
charge for this. The more authority he or she has within the
company the better it is.
Our approach to differentiate between operational and
corporate KAM meets also the work of Ojasalo (2001, p. 199):
“Thus, successful KAM requires appropriate handling at both
the organizational and the individual level.” We strongly
support this perception. With operational KAM and
corporate KAM and the levels analyze, realize, integrate, and
align we form the backbone of our framework (see Figure 2).
Dimensions of KAM
By analyzing the existing literature it becomes clear that a
number of dimensions can be identified that affect companies
KAM approaches:
1 “Strategy” is of importance. It covers specific strategies
for the selected key accounts (e.g. Ojasalo, 2001, p. 204)
and the strategic focus on KAM within the overall
corporate strategy (e.g. Senn and Arnold, 1999, p. 2;
Spencer, 1999, p. 308).
2 A basic explanation about the needs of global account
management indicates that “solution” plays an important
role. Katzen, former Xerox-manager, stated: “More and
more customers require business solutions that can be
implemented and managed consistently across their
worldwide locations. They want that consistency to
apply in all areas of their supplier relationship, from
programs and support services to contracts and pricing.”
(e.g. Senn and Arnold, 1999, p. 2). This citation is also
true for national account management programs.
3 “People” are undoubtedly key factors for the success of
KAM-programs (e.g. Weeks and Stevens, 1997). This
dimension deals with skills, personal development
programs, career-paths etc.
4 Under “management” we subsume aspects like structures
(e.g. Coletti and Tubrity, 1987), processes (e.g. Senn,
1999) and coordination (Millman and Wilson, 1999) as
the fourth dimension.
5 The last dimension deals with knowledge, information
and data (Arnold et al., 2001). We call it “screening”.
Though success is researched more as a result of KAM
approaches (e.g. Workman et al., 2003, p. 7) it is at the
same time an enabler for managing key accounts.
Figure 2 The backbone of the KAM framework
326
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 5 · 2008 · 323 –331
Synthesis of levels and dimensions: creating the basic
structure of the content
In the two former sections the levels and dimensions were
introduced. During our research we found that both
operational and corporate KAM could be clearly linked to
these dimensions. Furthermore also the details, i.e. analyze,
realize, integrate and align, could be connected to the five
dimensions. Therefore a combination of both lead us to the
basic structure of our framework as shown in Figure 3.
Each of the dimensions can be crossed with the elements of
the operational and corporate KAM. Because operational and
corporate KAM addresses different target groups (key
account managers/teams and the corporate management)
both can be provided with substantial support for their task.
Key account managers and their teams will be supported with
a kind of management process that covers the analysis of the
relationship and the realization of a management process for
KAM. The top management on the other side will be
supported with a full overview of the levers a company can use
to implement and optimize KAM.
Basic definitions of the dimensions of operational KAM
To conceptualize the dimensions (strategy, solution, people,
management and screening) on the operational KAM level we
refer to literature and our own qualitative research. Following
an explorative approach we define the details as shown in
Table II.
This part of the framework addresses clearly the key
account manager and the team. They have to manage the key
account and the relationship operationally. They should do
that by following a management process. The starting point of
that process is the analysis that contains content concerning
the key account and competitors, customer needs and existing
solutions, resources and competencies, processes and ways of
working as well as possibilities of success measurement. All
these elements are labeled “analyze” in Table II.
Based on that key account managers and teams have to
“realize” the operational KAM. That means they have to
decide upon a strategy with the individual customer. This
defines the range of products and services that should be
offered as a solution according to the customer’s needs. To
realize and deliver this solution a team approach is necessary.
Therefore the team members have to be identified and
Figure 3 The synthesis of backbone and dimensions
 Towards an integrated framework of key account management Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Dirk Zupancic Volume 23 · Number 5 · 2008 · 323 –331

Table II Operational KAM

Level
Dimension (operational KAM) Definition Source (next to own qualitative research)
Strategy Analyze Information the key account manager and his/her team Campbell and Cunningham (1983); Ojasalo (2001);
should know about the key account Montgomery and Yip (2000); Fiocca (1982)
Information the key account manager and his/her team Fiocca (1982); Porter (1980); Shi et al. (2004)
should know about the competitors serving the same key
account
Realize The strategy how the company should serve the key account Campbell and Cunningham (1983); Krapfel et al.
(1991); McDonald et al. (1996); Ojasalo (2001);
Wilson and Weilbaker (2004); Fiocca (1982)
Solutions Analyze Special needs of the key account concerning the own range of Ojasalo (2001)
products and services
Products and services that are delivered to the key account Ojasalo (2001)
currently
Realize Customizing a solution (products, services etc.) that will be Ojasalo (2001); Grönroos (1990)
offered to the key account to add value and to realize the
chosen strategy
The degree to which innovations are developed in close Campbell and Cooper (1999)
cooperation with the key account
People Analyze Competencies that are necessary to realize and deliver the Ojasalo (2001)
solutions for the key account
The existing people being involved in the relationship with Webster and Wind (1972); Webster (1984); Grönroos
the key account and their individual needs (1990); Ford and McDowell (1999); Hakansson
(1982); Walter (1999)
Realize Nomination of members and forming of the KAM team Araujo et al. (1999); McDonald et al. (1997); Helfert
and Vith (1990); Möller and Rajala (1999); Cespedes
et al. (1989); Harvey et al. (2003)
Management Analyze The current ways of working with the account Spencer (1999)
The current targets and leadership approaches of the people Mermey (1999)
being involved in the relationship with the key account
Realize Definition and realization of processes that are necessary to Wilson and Weilbaker (2004); Brady (2004); Spencer
serve the key account (1999)
Coordination of interfaces and resources within the own Harvey et al. (2003)
company
Screening Analyze Existing approaches to measure the success of the KAM Harvey et al. (2003)
activities
Existing tools to support the KAM process Harvey et al. (2003)
Realize Measuring the KAM success by various criteria Harvey et al. (2003)
Safeguarding knowledge management and corporate McDonald et al. (1996); Ballantyne, 2000; Harvey
learning based on the KAM experiences et al. (2003)

coordinated. The last element of the management process is
controlling of the success.
Basic definitions of the dimensions of corporate KAM
Also for corporate KAM level we refer to literature and our
own qualitative research. Differently to the operational KAM
corporate KAM refers not to single business relations with
individual customers. It covers the entire KAM program for
all strategic accounts. We define the details as shown in Table
III.
Though most of the existing KAM research focuses on the
organizational aspects our own research shows that company’s
do not spend enough attention to it. Our KAM framework
therefore is the first integrated model that combines key
account managers and team member’s task with the working
environment a company is responsible for. The table gives a
full overview of these elements.
Practical implications for the use of the
framework
In this article the necessary elements of KAM-programs were
identified and structured. The proposed structure based on
levels and dimensions shows the success factors and their
linkages. The presented entire framework was already used
several times for implementing or optimizing KAM programs
of companies. Based on this action research oriented
approach we will describe some implications for using the
framework in practice.
The KAM framework as a tool for assessing companies
Firstly, the entire framework can be used to assess existing
ways of working with strategic important customers. By doing
that a company will gain a complete overview of the relevant

327
 Towards an integrated framework of key account management Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Dirk Zupancic Volume 23 · Number 5 · 2008 · 323 –331

Table III Corporate KAM

Level (corporate
Dimension KAM) Definition Source (next to own qualitative research)
Strategy Align Top management support for KAM by word and action Wilson (1999); Homburg et al. (2002); Francis (2004);
Wilson and Weilbaker (2004); Brady (2004)
Integration of KAM in the corporate strategy Yip and Madsen (1996); Wilson (1999); Senn and
Arnold (1999); Spencer (1999)
Integrate Definition of a number of criteria (qualitative and Ojasalo (2001); Spencer (1999); Campbell and
quantitative) to select key accounts Cunningham (1983); Boles et al. (1999)
Use of the selection criteria in a systematic process to define Spencer (1999); Campbell and Cunningham (1983);
the key accounts Wilson and Weilbaker (2004)
Solution Align Willingness of the entire company to fulfill special needs of Millman (1996); Yip and Madsen (1996)
key accounts by itself or by business partners
Extend to which key accounts influence the company’s Millman (1996)
product and service range
Integrate Transfer of innovative products and services that were Cahill (1998)
developed for key accounts into it’s general product and
service range
Development of innovative products and services initiated by Cahill (1998)
key accounts
People Align Recognition of the importance of excellent staff on the Yip and Madsen (1996); Weeks and Stevens (1997);
success of KAM Ojasalo (2001); Wilson and Millman (2003); Grant
(1990); Rosenbröijer (1998)
Recruitment of key account managers from within the own Yip and Madsen (1996); Weeks and Stevens (1997);
organization Ojasalo (2001); McDonald et al. (1996)
Integrate Systematic analysis of the staff’s competencies and match Weeks and Stevens (1997); Ojasalo (2001); Wilson
with the requirements of KAM and Millman (2003); Montgomery and Yip (2000)
Special training and development packages for the staff being Yip and Madsen (1996); Weeks and Stevens (1997);
involved in KAM Ojasalo (2001); Spencer (1999); Montgomery and Yip
(2000)
Management Align Support of KAM by corporate culture Yip and Madsen (1996); Millman and Wilson (1999);
Wilson (1999); Homburg et al. (2002); Brady (2004);
Abratt and Kelly (2002)
Formal organization of KAM Yip and Madsen (1996); Homburg et al. (2002);
Kempeners and van der Hart (1999); Wengler et al.
(2006)
Integrate Acceptance of KAM-processes and structures by the entire Wilson (1999); Senn (1999); Millman and Wilson
organization (1999); McDonald et al. (1997)
Remuneration plans as well as MbOs for key account Weilbaker (1999); Arnold et al. (2001); John and Reve
managers and team members (1982)
Screening Align Corporate reporting and controlling systems that easily Ojasalo (2001); Birkinshaw et al. (2001)
allows to determine the KAM success
Integrate Integration of KAM specific controlling measures in the Ojasalo (2001); Birkinshaw et al. (2001); Brady
corporate’s general IT system (2004); Montgomery and Yip (2000)
Coverage of qualitative and quantitative measures in Ojasalo (2001); Montgomery and Yip (2000)
corporate controlling systems

aspects and can identify rooms for improvements as well as
existing best practices.
The KAM framework as a guide for conceptualizing
KAM programs
Secondly, the framework can be used to conceptualize an
individual KAM program of a company. For each of the
elements in the framework there are tools and guidelines
available that could not be described here in detail. On
operational KAM level all elements are relevant. They should
be transformed into a management process that guides key
account managers through their work. On corporate KAM
level all elements are relevant for an assessment. After that a
company should set priorities. From our experience there is
no “one fits all solution” in KAM and every company has to
define their own approach. But we recommend to start with
elements of dimensions a company is already strong in or can
achieve “quick wins.”
Agenda for further research
Though research in KAM has made tremendous progresses
during the last years we still find a lot of white spots. The

328
 Towards an integrated framework of key account management
Dirk Zupancic
following topics are part of a future research agenda from our
point-of-view
Gaps in the KAM framework to be closed
On operational level there is a solid fundament and a
consensus about the tools and practices for managing key
accounts. On the other hand one has to accept that managing
key accounts also has to do with managing relations and
human beings. Therefore we see a great demand for research
with focus on the soft factors like trust, harmony, sympathy,
etc. These aspects cannot replace all the systematic customer
management work. They complement them.
On corporate KAM level we have identified several
elements. But there is no deep understanding about the
options and the linkages between the elements. We have
identified five dimensions and up to now we can argue. The
better a company fulfills each of the elements the better the
performance of their KAM program. What is still missing is
an understanding about minimum criteria for a successful
KAM program on corporate level. Next to that it would be of
importance to know which of the dimensions and their
elements has the strongest impact, which ones does support
others and which ones excludes others.
Further topics with strong connections to KAM
Very often KAM is discussed as an archipelago phenomenon.
But there are other customer segments which are also of
importance for the corporate well being. In addition the
available resources are limited. Therefore it would be
interesting to understand how companies can integrate
KAM and other customer management approaches.
Very often we found that KAM is a topic to deal with
internal complexity and coordination. Adding value for
customers is not seldom secondary. We think KAM should
integrate the customer perspective more clearly. By doing that
we expect to find differences if a supplier supplies products
and services of strategic importance or not. Individual
supplier – key account relations have to be explored.
Last but not least we did not know much about the risks of
serving key accounts. Therefore we suggest to investigate that
topic also.
References
Abratt, R. and Kelly, P.M. (2002), “Customer-supplier
partnerships: perceptions of a successful key account
management program”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 467-76.
Araujo, L., Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (1999), “Managing
interfaces with suppliers”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 28, pp. 497-506.
Arnold, M.P., Belz, C. and Senn, C. (2001), Leveraging
Knowledge in Global Key Account Management, St Gallen,
Thexis.
Ballantyne, D. (2000), “Internal relationship marketing: a
strategy for knowledge renewal”, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 274-86.
Birkinshaw, J., Toulan, O. and Arnold, D. (2001), “Global
account management in multinational cooperations: theory
and evidence”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 32, pp. 231-48.
Boles, J.S., Barksdale, H.C. and Johnston, J.T. (1996), “What
national account decision makers would tell salespeople
329
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 5 · 2008 · 323 –331
about building relationships”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 6-19.
Boles, J.S., Johnston, W. and Gardner, A. (1999), “The
selection and organization of national accounts: a North-
American perspective”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 14, July-August, pp. 264-75.
Boles, J.S., Pilling, B.K. and Goodwyn, G.W. (1994),
“Revitalizing your national account management
program”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 24-33.
Brady, N. (2004), “In search of market orientation: an
experiment in key account management”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 144-59.
Cahill, D.J. (1998), “Using key accounts as partners to get the
learning organization”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 205-14.
Campbell, A.J. and Cooper, R.G. (1999), “Do customer
partnerships improve new product success rates?”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 28, pp. 507-19.
Campbell, N.C.G. and Cunningham, M.T. (1983),
“Customer analysis for strategy development in industrial
markets”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 369-80.
Capon, N. (2001), Key Account Management and Planning,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Cespedes, F.V., Doyle, S.X. and Freedman, R.J. (1989),
“Teamwork for today’s selling”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 67, March-April, pp. 44-54.
Coletti, J.A. and Tubrity, G.S. (1987), “Effective major
account sales management”, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, Vol. 7, August, pp. 1-10.
Conlon, G.L., Napolitano, L. and Pusateri, M. (1997),
Unlocking Profits, Harper Case, New York, NY.
Dishman, P. and Nitse, P.S. (1998), “National accounts
revisited: new lessons from recent investigations”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 27, January, pp. 1-9.
Fiocca, R. (1982), “Account portfolio analysis for strategy
development”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 11,
pp. 53-62.
Ford, D. and McDowell, R. (1999), “Managing relationships
by analyzing the effects and value of different actions”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 28, pp. 429-42.
Francis, K. (2004), “Should senior managers be actively
involved in sales account management”, Management
Services, Vol. 48 No. 11, pp. 20-1.
Grant, R.M. (1990), “The resource-based theory of
competitive advantage”, California Management Review,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.
Grönroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing:
Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Hakansson, H. (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing
of Industrial Goods: An Interaction Approach, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester.
Harvey, M.G., Novicevic, M.M., Hench, T. and Myers, M.
(2003), “Global account management: a supply-side
managerial view”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 32, pp. 563-71.
Helfert, G. and Vith, K. (1990), “Relationship marketing
teams: improving the utilization of customer relationship
potentials through a high team design quality”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 28, pp. 553-64.
Homburg, C., Workman, J.P. and Jenson, O. (2002), “A
configurational perspective on key account management”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 38-60.
John, G. and Reve, T. (1982), “Salesforce compensation: an
empirical investigation of factors related to use of salary
 Towards an integrated framework of key account management
Dirk Zupancic
versus incentive compensation”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 26, February, pp. 1-14.
Kempeners, M.A. and van der Hart, H.W. (1999),
“Designing account management organizations”, Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 310-7.
Krapfel, R.R., Salmond, D. and Spekman, R. (1991), “A
strategic approach to managing buyer-seller relationships”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 310-27.
Lambe, J.C. and Spekman, R.E. (1997), “National account
management: large account selling or buyer-supplier
alliance?”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 61-74.
McDonald, M., Millman, T. and Rogers, B. (1996), Key
Account Management – Learning from Supplier and Customer
Perspectives, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield.
McDonald, M., Millman, T. and Rogers, B. (1997), “Key
account management: theory, practice and challenges”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, November,
pp. 737-57.
Mermey, S. (1999), “Using compensation to improve
strategic account performance”, Velocity, Spring, pp. 38-40.
Millman, T.F. (1996), “Global account management and
systems selling”, International Business Review, Vol. 5 No. 6,
pp. 631-45.
Millman, T.F. and Wilson, K. (1999), “Processual issues in
key account management: underpinning the customer-
facing organization”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 328-37.
Möller, K. and Rajala, A. (1999), “The role of internal
marketing relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 28, pp. 521-35.
Montgomery, D.B. and Yip, G.S. (2000), “The challenge of
global customer management”, Marketing Management,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 22-9.
Montgomery, D.B., Yip, G.S. and Villalonga, B. (1998),
“The use and performance effect of global account
management: an empirical analysis using structural
equations modelling”, Research paper No. 1481, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Ojasalo, J. (2001), “Key account management at company
and individual levels in business-to-business relationships”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 199-218.
Pardo, C. (1999), “Key account management in the business
to business field: the key account’s point of view”, Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 17-26.
Pegram, R. (1972), “Selling and servicing the national
account”, Report No. 557, The Conference Board, New
York, NY.
Platzer, L. (1984), “Managing national accounts”, Report
No. 850, The Conference Board, New York, NY.
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategies, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Rosenbröijer, C.J. (1998), Capability Development in Business
Networks, School of Economics and Business
Administration, Helsinki.
Sengupta, S., Krapfel, R.E. and Pusateri, M.A. (1997), “The
strategic sales force”, Marketing Management, Vol. 6,
Summer, pp. 29-34.
Senn, C. (1999), “Implementing global account
management: a process oriented approach”, Journal of
Selling and Major Account Management, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 10-19.
Senn, C. and Arnold, M. (1999), “Global account
management in industrial companies”, paper presented at
330
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 5 · 2008 · 323 –331
15th Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Conference,
Dublin.
Shama, A. (1997), “Who prefers key account management
programs? An investigation of business buying behavior and
buying firm characteristics”, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 27-39.
Shapiro, B.P. and Moriarty, R.T. (1982), “National
account management: emerging insights”, Working
Paper No. 82-100, Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA.
Shi, L.H., Zou, S. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2004), “A conceptual
framework of global account management capabilities and
firm performance”, International Business Review, Vol. 13,
pp. 539-53.
Spencer, R. (1999), “Key accounts: effectively managing
strategic complexity”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 291-309.
Stevenson, Th.H. (1981), “Payoffs from national account
management”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 119-24.
Verra, G.J. (1994), International Account Management: An
Organizational Dilemma: An Explorative Study Within the
Field of International Business to Business Marketing,
Nijenrode University Press, Breukelen.
Walter, A. (1999), “Relationship promoters: driving forces for
successful customer relationships”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 28, pp. 537-51.
Webster, F.E. (1984), Industrial Marketing Strategy, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Webster, F.E. and Wind, Y. (1972), “A general model of
organizational buying behavior”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 36, April, pp. 12-19.
Weeks, W.A. and Stevens, C.G. (1997), “National account
management sales training and directions for
improvement”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26,
September, pp. 423-31.
Weilbaker, D.C. (1999), “Global account management and
compensation: lessons to be learned”, research report,
Northern Illinois University, De Kalb, IL.
Wengler, S., Ehret, M. and Saab, S. (2006), “Implementation
of key account management: who, why and how? An
exploratory study on the current implementation of key
account management programs”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 35, pp. 103-12.
Wilson, K. (1999), “Developing global account management
programmes: observations from a GAM panel
presentation”, Thexis, Vol. 4, pp. 30-5.
Wilson, K. and Millman, T. (2003), “The global account
manager as political entrepreneur”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 151-8.
Wilson, K. and Weilbaker, D. (2004), “Global account
management: a literature based conceptual model”, Mid-
American Journal of Business, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 13-21.
Workman, J.P., Homburg, C. and Jensen, O. (2003),
“Intraorganizational determinants of key account
management effectiveness”, Journal of the Academy of
marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Yip, G.S. and Madsen, T.L. (1996), “Global account
management: the new frontier in relationship marketing”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 24-42.
Corresponding author
Dirk Zupancic can be contacted at: dirk.zupancic@unisg.ch
 Towards an integrated framework of key account management
Dirk Zupancic
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
Key accounts or strategic accounts are arguably a company’s
strongest assets. Consequently key account management
(KAM) is not just a challenge for an organization, but vital for
its competitiveness. So vital that some companies may be
risking their very long-term existence by neglecting a
structured, systematic approach to it.
Taking the view that, despite 30 or more years of experience
afforded by both literature and practice, a clear and complete
structure in this important aspect of business-to-business
relationships is still missing, Zupancic presents an integrated
framework providing companies with a guideline for
structuring and implementing a key account management
program and individual key account managers’ tasks.
Serving the most important customers differently is based
on the common sense of good sales people and it is always
been done, even before being categorized as a specific
customer management strategy. However, KAM has to be
more than a “lone wolf-approach”. To set up a professional
KAM organization a systematic program is needed to develop
the structures and processes as well as the people. Top
management support, both by word and action, is needed
with integration of KAM in the corporate strategy and
definition of criteria (both qualitative and quantitative) to
select key accounts.
Given that many elements of KAM may already be well-
developed within the organization, it is necessary to integrate
them into a coherent framework, with goals of:
.
identifying the necessary elements of KAM programs;
.
understanding the success factors and what links them;
and
.
structuring the elements in order to create a stable
framework.
KAM requires specific conditions on a corporate level. As key
account management is not a stand-alone activity, it has to be
integrated into the organization. Secondly, a company’s
strategy, structure and culture can often only be changed in
the long term, and so KAM must be aligned. Understanding
these two areas (together labeled “corporate KAM”) is not
always given enough attention by companies, with many key
account experts agreeing that the main problem in
implementing successful KAM is an organizational one.
Topics dedicated to corporate KAM are not the key account
managers’ core tasks, though in practice they are often
involved. The corporate management, the head of sales/KAM
or a dedicated project manager should be in charge of this.
And the more authority he or she has within the company, the
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
331
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 5 · 2008 · 323 –331
better. To be used successfully, KAM needs appropriate
handling at both the individual and the organizational level.
Key account management starts with an analysis of the
customer, the supplier’s and also the competitors’ situation.
These activities are labeled “analyze”. Starting from there a
plan has to be developed and put into practice, i.e. the
management of the key account. This can be described as
“realize KAM”. Analyzing and realizing are tasks that should
be done by the key account manager and usually a team.
Content and knowledge about the dyadic relationships
between key accounts and their suppliers, and about
individual managers and their tasks, are named “operational
KAM” in this framework.
A number of dimensions can be identified that affect
companies’ KAM approaches:
.
“Strategy” covers specific strategies for the selected key
accounts and the strategic focus on KAM within the
overall corporate strategy.
.
“Solution”. More and more customers need business
solutions that can be implemented and managed
consistently (for instance, across their worldwide
locations). This consistency should apply in all areas of
their supplier relationship.
.
“People” are undoubtedly key factors for the success of
KAM-programs. This dimension deals with skills,
personal development programs, career-paths etc.
.
“Management” includes aspects such as structures,
processes, and coordination.
.
“Screening” covers knowledge, information and data
which combine as an enabler for managing key accounts.
The key account manager and the team have to manage the
key account and the relationship operationally and should do
so by following a management process. The starting point is
the analysis of the key account and competitors, customer
needs and existing solutions, resources and competencies,
processes and ways of working as well as possibilities of
success measurement – all elements in the “analyze”
dimension.
Based on that, key account managers and teams have to
“realize” the operational KAM. That means they have to
decide on a strategy with the individual customer. This
defines the range of products and services that should be
offered as a solution according to the customer’s needs. To
realize and deliver this solution a team approach is necessary.
Therefore the team members have to be identified und
coordinated. The last element of the management process is
controlling of the success.
On an operational level, KAM elements should be
transformed into a management process that guides key
account managers through their work. There is no “one fits all
solution” in KAM and every company has to define their own
approach.
(A précis of the article “Towards an integrated framework of key
account management”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for
Emerald.)