Market orientation in the context of knowledge intensive high technology SMEs – operationalizing the concept in biotechnology
Track: Technology entrepreneurship
Maija Renko1 (Student) Alan Carsrud 2 1
Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Finland, and College of Business Administration, Florida International University 2
College of Business Administration, Florida International University
Contact address (1 and 2): Florida International University, College of Business Administration University Park, RB 228B 11200 S.W. 8th Street Miami, Florida 33199 Tel: 305348 1022 Fax: 305348 3891 E-mail 1:
[email protected] E-mail 2:
[email protected]
Abstract This paper reports on a qualitative research in which the main themes for understanding and operationalizing behavioural market orientation of technology based ventures in biotechnology have been identified. The research forms a basis for future quantitative research assessing the degree and performance implications of behavioural market orientation of knowledge intensive high technology SMEs. The research helps the managers of these firms in their attempts to develop more market oriented organizations.
Executive summary Small and new high technology ventures are often described as technology focused, as opposed to being market oriented, and there is a call for a more market oriented approach in technology based new ventures. However, the current understanding of market orientation of an organization is based on research mostly conducted in an era of mass production, increasing consumption, excess supply over demand, and branding which has an impact on the generalizability of the current theoretical constructs. This paper reports on a qualitative research in which the main themes for understanding and operationalizing behavioural market orientation of technology based ventures in biotechnology have been identified. These themes include (1) understanding the development stage of the firm as well as the multiple stakeholders that constitute the customers of a firm, (2) taking into account the informal contacts of the entrepreneur(s), links to universities, industry associations, and both vertical and horizontal links to partner firms as sources of market intelligence, (3) intelligence dissemination in small firm context should not be limited to dissemination within the boundaries of one firm but within a network of actors, and (4) responsiveness to market intelligence in this context is often an interfirm phenomenon as well.
Understanding these issues and operationalizing them in future research provides managers of small, knowledge intensive firms a better understanding of the nature and sources of market orientation in their organizations and helps them in developing more market oriented high technology ventures.
Introduction Market orientation There is a large and growing body of research addressing the concept of market orientation of a firm (For a summary, see e.g. Lafferty and Hult, 2001). It has been stressed that the nature of market orientation, i.e. its antecedents and “ingredients” varies depending on the type of business, market and company (Greenley, 1996; Harris and Piercy, 1999). Existing market orientation frameworks are, however, based mostly on studies of manufacturers in established industries. They are also predominantly based on the frameworks originally presented by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990). (Elg, 2001; Ottesen and Gronhaug, 2002) Both Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) drew heavily on previous marketing literature when delineating the domain of the market orientation construct. The contextual influences of previous research as well as the rootedness of the market orientation concepts of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) in an era of mass production, increasing consumption, excess supply over demand, and branding, have an impact on the generalizability of the current theoretical constructs (Ottesen and Gronhaug 2002; Helfert et al. 2002).
Helfert et al. (2002) question the applicability of market orientation measures in the context of relationship marketing. In today’s business world, instead of large scale mass manufacturing, there is increasing pressure towards customization, i.e. changing offerings so that they solve individual customers’ problems better. Consequently, there are no general markets towards which a firm can be oriented; firms have to understand what the individual customers want. (Helfert et al. 2002) Also Enright (2001) makes a notion that the market orientation stream of literature originated by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) has a tendency to set aside the possibility that other systems of marketing than the one based on more or less established markets and offerings might exist, and necessitate differing approaches to the market orientation question. The research at hand is an attempt to expand the extant research focusing on the extent and measurement of market orientation towards understanding the form and nature of market orientation. Biotechnology context The key sectors under the umbrella of biotechnology include pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, biomaterials, agriculture, food, and environment related applications of biotechnological knowledge. In biotechnology, a firm's internal knowledge base is not adequate in and of itself to remain at the competitive front. Consequently, collaboration with external actors who possess complementary skills becomes an attractive proposition and even a prerequisite for staying alive. One of the most common forms of alliances in biotechnology is an agreement between a smaller biotechnology company and a major pharmaceutical company to share the future profits of a new therapy in development by the junior partner in return for periodic cash infusions called milestone payments. (See e.g. Wolff, 2001, Powell et al. 1996) Appiah-Adu and Ranchhod (1998) conclude that “Through licensing arrangements and links with larger organizations,
biotechnology firms may become market oriented but not in the conventional sense. Conventional marketing relies on a good knowledge of the customer base, as well as soundly developed products. Often, biotechnology firms have neither. (…) The market orientation methodology, however, needs to be adapted better to this particular sector [biotechnology].” Knowledge intensive high technology SMEs The adaptation of the term “knowledge intensive high technology SMEs” (small- and medium sized enterprises) in the research emphasizes not only the technology intensive nature of entrepreneurship and business but also the knowledge intensity, which is the key to the development of new technologies. Knowledge intensive entrepreneurial firms, in addition to ever changing technology, must also adopt rapid and effective management of intensive knowledge assets as well as developing context knowledge which becomes fundamental to success (Nonaka et al, 2000).
Research questions This research aims at understanding the ways in which market intelligence is generated and disseminated in small- and medium sized medical biotechnology firms and also how these firms respond to the market intelligence. More specifically, the research questions can be formulated as follows: When market intelligence perspective (i.e. behavioral perspective) to market orientation is applied in the context of knowledge intensive, small biotechnology firms 1. What are the key ingredients of this market orientation and especially, how do they differ from the ingredients of market orientation in a larger, established firm?
2. What are the key issues that need to be taken into account when operationalizing the behavioral market orientation of a small biotechnology firm?
Market intelligence perspective (i.e. behavioral perspective) to market orientation. As representatives of the market intelligence perspective (Lafferty and Hult, 2001) to market orientation, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) proposed their formal definition for market orientation based on three key elements: (1) intelligence generation; (2) intelligence dissemination; and (3) responsiveness. Even though Lafferty and Hult (2001) choose to call this perspective market intelligence perspective, other authors have conceptualised the stream of market orientation research originated by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) as a behavioural perspective to market orientation (Becker & Homburg, 1999; Helfert et al., 2002). Within the context of this research, behavioral perspective to market orientation refers to this market intelligence perspective, the key aspects of which are based on Kohli and Jaworski (1990), and later researched e.g. by Jaworski and Kohli (1993); Kohli et al. (1993); Deng & Dart (1994) and Atuahene-Gima (1996). This discussion on market orientation is based on behavioral aspects, i.e. action is a central focus of market orientation.
Theoretical background Components of market orientation inside a firm According to Lafferty and Hult (2001), five major attempts to conceptualise the concept of market orientation have emerged: (1) the decision making perspective, (2) the market intelligence perspective, (3) the culturally based behavioural perspective, (4) the strategic focus
perspective, and (5) the customer perspective. This research focuses on the market intelligence perspective.
As representatives of the market intelligence perspective – i.e. behavioral perspective - to market orientation, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) proposed that the first key element in market orientation is the generation of market intelligence. In practice, this covers formal and informal mechanisms such as customer surveys, meetings and discussions with customers and trade partners, analysis of sales reports, formal market research and so on. (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Lafferty and Hult, 2001). Following intelligence generation, a market oriented organization communicates and disseminates market intelligence in the organization and acts based on this intelligence (responsiveness) (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990).
There are numerous published studies that have examined the association between market orientation and company performance. Market orientation is believed to be positively related to performance (e.g. Narver and Slater, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Pelham, 1999; Matsuno and Mentzer, 2000). Dawes (2000) completed a literature search on this topic of relevant journals from 1990 to early 1999 and his summary can be considered comprehensive enough to portray the general weight of evidence up to 2000. From the 36 studies listed, 30 found a direct positive association between market orientation and performance (Dawes, 2000). Market orientation in a networked entrepreneurial firm context The last decades have seen the emergence of a body of thinking in network theory (for reviews see e.g. Arajujo and Easton 1996, Gulati et. al. 2000, Möller and Halinen 2000). Although the
important role of networks especially for smaller firms has been recognized, surprisingly little interest has been devoted to networking and inter-firm aspects of market orientation (Elg, 2001).
Interpersonal and interorganizational relationships are viewed as the media through which actors gain access to a variety of resources held by other actors (Hoang & Antoncic, 2002). To gather reliable information on market conditions and opportunities, large in formal, personal networks of prospective entrepreneurs with many weak ties should stimulate organizational success. (Brüderl and Preisendörfer, 1998, 214-215). A small number of studies have looked at market orientation in a context of business relationships (Helfert et al.,2002; Siguaw et al., 1998; Baker et al., 1999; Elg, 2001; Hernández-Espallardoa & Arcas-Lariob, 2003).
According to Hernández-Espallardoa & Arcas-Lariob (2003, 139), in a channel partnership where the downstream firm is the leader, there are some reasons to believe that this company has superior market knowledge that can be transferred to its upstream partner. This can also believed to hold in other kinds of interorganizational relationships than channel partnerships. For example, a large pharmaceutical company with established distribution channels and marketing procedures is a downstream partner compared to its smaller technology partner firms. The larger firm is likely to have routines for data collection from markets and consumers as well as other stakeholders, for example regulatory authorities.
Empirical study The purpose of the empirical study was to investigate the ways in which market intelligence is generated and disseminated in small- and medium sized medical biotechnology firms and also how these firms respond to the market intelligence. This was done by applying a qualitative
research method. Several studies have developed and used quantitative instruments to measure market orientation of a firm in various contexts. However, humanism as an inquiry approach allowed us to explore the arguments entrepreneurs in small- and medium sized biotechnology firms themselves used in assessing the market orientation of their firm (see Hirschman 1986). Based on the results of this qualitative research and the comprehension of the phenomenon, future research will proceed to operationalizing the construct of market orientation in this context in a more structured way that allows measurement of this orientation in larger scale quantitative studies.
Data collection method. Data was collected by interviewing CEOs in small- and medium sized biotechnology firms in the Delaware Valley area in Pennsylvania, US. Six companies in the field of medical biotechnology (i.e. developing products / solutions for use in human health or other for use by other firms in the field of medical biotechnology) were chosen for interviews. A purposeful sampling approach was considered suitable: the selection of firms was based on the type of business (medical biotechnology), size of the firm (employing less than 200 people), and also the need to have data from companies representing various stages in company development (stage in lifecycle), various fields of medical biotechnology, and finally informant’s willingness to co-operate (Wallace 1984). All the interviewees were CEOs of their firms and apart from one firm (A in Table 1) they were also the entrepreneurs that had started the business. Face-to-face theme interviews were conducted in July 2003. Key characteristics of the firms are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Characteristics of companies included in the research. Firm A
Type of business Drug discovery and development Drug discovery, development, manufacturing, and marketing Drug discovery and development
Development stage Lead product to be commercialized in 2005 Lead product commercialized in 2003
Personnel 130
Key partnerships One big pharma
144
A number of technology partners but no partners in distribution & marketing.
Lead product to be commercialized in 2005
85
D
Technology company
License technology for use in drug discovery
10
E
Medical food development
7
F
Hybrid: (1) Technology platform, (2) drug discovery and development
Lead product to be commercialized in 2004 Lead product to be commercialized in 2008
A number of technology partners and two partners for commercialization (distribution & marketing) A number of technology partners and close relations to key licensors, i.e. customers No formal ties to other firms
26
One big pharma
B
C
platform
During the face-to-face thematic interviews, entrepreneurs were asked to evaluate and comment on the ways in which market intelligence is generated, disseminated, and responded to in their firm. The interview themes were developed based on understanding specific features of the industry as well as knowledge of the extent research in the field of market orientation (Kohli et al. 1993; Deng & Dart 1994; Selnes et al. 1996; Pelham 1999; Enright 2001; Harris 2001; Lai 2002; Hernández-Espallardoa & Arcas-Lario, 2003).
Data analysis. Data analysis begun by transcribing the tape-recorded interviews. The transcripts were coded, that is, divided into analysable units by creating categories with and from the data in order to characterize what each stretch of the interview was about in terms of general thematic content (Coffey & Atkinson 1996). These more general categories or themes were compared and linked together in order to identify similarities, deviances and recurring themes. However, the categories were not imposed upon the data arbitrarily; they reflected the data (Dey 1993).
Key issues in operationalizing market orientation of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms Understanding the life cycle of a biotechnology firm According to e.g. Kazanjian (1988), during the very early stages of development virtually all ventures go through a period during which the primary focus of the entrepreneur and others is on the invention and the development of a product or a technology (Technology and product focus). Over the organizational life cycle (Kimberly 1980) technology based firms have been found to evolve toward market orientation with less emphasis on engineering (Roberts 1990; see also Kazanjian 1988). The interviews conducted for this study support previous literature in that the firms included in this study all developed from a mere technology focus towards focus on multiple stakeholders. This development is illustrated in Figure 1 below.
2a. Technology and market focus. Tech R&D within the focal firm and together with one dedicated partner (big pharma) Joint marketing committee
1. Technology focus. Tech R&D within the firm and together with technology partners and universities. Informal contacts
2b. Technology and market focus. Tech R&D within the focal firm and together wit h multiple partners. Joint sourcing of market intelligence
”Sanity check”
3a. Technology, market and sales focus. Distribution and marketing through other fi rm(s) (big pharma) Market research and secondary sources
3b. Technology, market and sales focus. Own sales. Market research and secondary sources
Product launch Time
Figure 1: Development of a biotechnology firm.
Typically, a biotechnology firm starts as a spin-off or start-up company with heavy focus on technology (Arrow 1 in Figure 1). At the early stage the predominant source of market related data for these firms seems to be informal contacts, i.e. the social network of the entrepreneur(s).
When the specific technology that the company is developing is proven to work, there is a “sanity check” stage. Basically, this stage refers to the time when there is a need to answer the “so what” question; what are the potential markets and application areas of the technology. From the point of view of market orientation research, this stage in the company development is a very interesting one; a firm that has typically very limited information on potential markets makes critical decisions on its future direction. When a small firm finds a dedicated large firm partner at this point it can become very dependent on the links to this one large firm and actually there is potentially a decrease in the number of link s to other partners. If a small biotechnology firm follows this path of development, it is very likely that in terms of market orientation, its market intelligence generation, dissemination, and responsiveness is very much linked to the processes in the larger, typically downstream partner firm (Arrow 2a in Figure 1).
On the other hand, if a firm at this point continues to operate without links to major licensing partners and large corporations, it typically seems to have a growing set of links to other firms in the same field of technology (Arrow 2b in Figure 1). The complementarity of offerings and R&D with these horizontal partners provides the basis for “joint” market orientation development as well; companies can source market related data together and this intelligence gets distributed not only within boundaries of one firm but within a network of firms.
For the commercialization, distribution, and marketing of the final product most small firms rely on larger, international partner firms with established distribution channels, sales force etc in place (Arrow 3a in Figure 1). However, entering these deals with large partners means that a substantial share of profits from the market is channelled to the larger firms that take care of distribution and marketing. Consequently, there are smaller biotechnology firms that go through the commercialization and marketing stage more or less by themselves – at least within a limited geographical area (Arrow 3b in Figure 1). For these firms and at this stage (after the launch of the initial product) the more traditional measures of market orientation become more relevant; these firms collect data on the end markets, they have a network of physicians (in the case of prescription drugs) that give feedback for product development purposes, they have a sales force that also collects feedback from the field, and they also survey the end users (patients). For those firms that enter the end markets through deals with larger companies (3a), however, these direct sources of market intelligence may remain less important if the downstream partner takes care of these activities. Components of MO Intelligence generation According to Kohli and Jaworski (1990), the first key element in market orientation is the generation of market intelligence. The networked nature and multiple stakeholders involved in the R&D and commercialization processes present biotechnology firms with a challenging task in defining the concepts of “customers” and “markets”. Small firms in the industry typically operate in the “technology platforms” category and are, consequently, not in direct contact with
the end users of the products or services they discover and develop. A number of “markets” for these kinds of firms can be identified.
First of all, from the point of view of small firms active in technology R&D, the larger businesses with a potential and interest to commercialize and market their innovations compose “a market”. Secondly, in the case of medical care, the physician has the ultimate responsibility for choosing which therapy to use or which drug to prescribe. These kinds of stakeholders have been named as “surrogate consumers” or “surrogate shoppers” in previous research (Solomon 1986; Turnbull & Parsons 1993; Hollander and Rassuli 1999). Third, even in the prescription medicine markets, it is misleading to assume that doctors alone make drug choice decisions; within recent decades, the focus on preventive health care and self care coupled with the public’s improved access to health care information via e.g. the Internet has pushed patient empowerment to the forefront, emphasising the patient’s role in treatment decision-making (Ouschan et al. 2000). Finally, in many cases, the products or services developed by small biotechnology firms are not developed for use by consumers (patients) but for e.g. use in laboratories or product development processes of other firms. In this case, customers of the small firms are other companies in the biotechnology or related industries (business to business markets).
Monitoring identified competitors and their actions is rather easy in the pharmaceutical industry, where all the drug development projects that proceed beyond the discovery stage to preclinical and clinical development are well documented by various regulators and global, regularly updated databases on the progression of these projects exist. Because of the documentation requirements as well as due to the long time scales typical for pharmaceutical R&D, it is rather
exceptional that a new competitor that has not been identified as rival “surprises” a firm. The long time scales of pharmaceutical R&D are also reflected in the reactiveness vs. proactiveness of competitor orientation; if another drug discovery company has proceeded to preclinical or clinical trials with an interesting new therapy there is no use and actually also no possibility to respond to this with a similar action. At this stage there are already numerous patents and probably years of scientific work behind the new therapy and rapid, reactive responses are simply impossible.
Roughly, the “traditional” sources of market data for biotechnology SMEs can be divided into two categories. Firstly, in the highly regulated industry there are a number of constantly updated databases available that contain information on world wide markets for various indications and on companies (competitors, licensors) active in each field. Secondly, even during the very early phases of the development process of a product companies consult opinion leaders like leading physicians to assess their views on the feasibility of the innovation.
Informal contacts. Social relations and social contacts, i.e. informal contacts, are important channels for gaining access to information. All of the CEOs interviewed for the research emphasised the importance of informal contacts as a source of market related intelligence for their firms. The role of informal contacts was considered to be most important at the very early stages of firm start-up and development. Industry associations. There are a number of international, national, and regional organizations that represent biotechnology industries as a whole or some part of them - like the pharmaceutical
industry – to the public. These organizations also promote networking within the industry and – based on the interviews conducted – act as a source of market intelligence for participating firms. Universities. Perhaps surprisingly, one source of market intelligence for a biotechnology firm especially during its early days can be university. The most senior researchers at universities that collaborate with start-up firms are typically key figures in their respective areas of research interests. Because of their valuable contacts, they can be key figures in bringing in market related data - on technologies, competitors, as well as customers - to a small biotechnology firm. Horizontal alliances. A small biotechnology typically has a number of horizontal alliances to other firms in the industry. Typically, these alliances are formed for the purposes of collaboration in technology development, but these partnerships also have a role as a source of market related information. Because the products or services offered by these collaborating firms are typically more complementary than competing, there is also complementarity in terms of sharing information on markets. Often the key individuals of horizontally networked firms also sit in boards of each other’s companies, which further motivates sharing of information between the firms. Vertical alliances. For a small or medium sized biotechnology firm vertical alliances are typically formed through licensing- or joint commercialization and distribution deals with larger firms operating closer to the end customers. In this kind of a case, this larger firm is typically the one that excels in marketing and consequently, the one with more to offer in terms of market intelligence. In practice, information between the two companies is exchanged in everyday settings as well as e.g. through a joint marketing committee, which involves people from both companies. Finally, also suppliers of solutions that are central for a small firm’s operations can act as a source of market intelligence for a small firm.
Intelligence dissemination Following market intelligence generation, a market oriented organization communicates and disseminates market intelligence in the organization and acts based on this intelligence (responsiveness) (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). Growth. A typical feature for the companies included in this empirical research has been fast growth in terms of the number of employees. Apparently, this is a typical feature for most of the start-up biotechnology firms provided that they are able to attract funding for their R&D. Rapid growth presents problems in terms of communication within a firm. R&D and marketing interface. Previous research on market orientation has devoted a lot of interest to the interface between marketing and R&D and the flow of information and ideas between these two departments. Half of the firms included in this research did have a separate marketing / sales department – typically employing 2-10 people – whereas the other half of the firms did not. In the firms where there was a separate department for marketing and / or sales, the interface between this department on the one hand and people working in the R&D on the other was recognized as a possible bottleneck where information does not get disseminated in the optimal way. Dissemination in a network. Based on the interviews conducted, it can be concluded that within a small firm network context, market intelligence gets disseminated not only within the boundaries of an individual firm but also within a network of firms. Naturally, in the case of competing firms this is not true, but when firms are collaborating and e.g. developing or offering complementary products to same markets they share market intelligence over company borders. The dissemination of this intelligence takes place even more through informal than formal
channels. In addition to informal, social contacts, industry associations and attending industry seminars provide the “infrastructure” for intelligence dissemination over company borders. Responsiveness to market intelligence New product development in the pharmaceutical industry is a lengthy and costly endeavour. As mentioned already above, because of the long time scales typical for pharmaceutical R&D, a reactive approach to competitors’ actions is rather impossible. Finally, joint responsiveness to the intelligence generated and disseminated within a network of small biotechnology firms needs to be taken into account when operationalizing the construct of market orientation in this context. This joint responsiveness takes place when multiple organizations from the network come together to offer a holistic solution for a potential customer (collaborative R&D).
Conclusions and implications for future research Based on the qualitative research reported in this paper, a number of issues have emerged that need to be taken into account when striving to understand and measure the concept of market orientation of a small, knowledge intensive high technology – here, especially biotechnology – firm. These issues include understanding the development stage of the firm as well as the multiple stakeholders that constitute the customers of a firm. Subscription to industry databases as well as contacts to opinion leaders in the field are sources of market data for the firms. However, even more importantly the informal contacts of the entrepreneur(s), links to universities, industry associations, and both vertical and horizontal links to partner firms are sources of market intelligence for small biotechnology firms. In terms of intelligence dissemination, the rapid growth of these small firms as well as their heavy internal reliance on scientific personnel present challenges. Studying intelligence dissemination in small firm context
should not be limited to dissemination within the boundaries of one firm but within a network of actors. Finally responsiveness to market intelligence in this context is often an interfirm phenomenon as well. Understanding these issues and operationalizing them in future research provides managers of small, knowledge intensive firms a better understanding of the nature and sources of market orientation in their organizations and helps them in developing more market oriented high technology ventures.
References Ahuja G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly, 45. Aldrich, H., Rosen, B., Woodward, W., 1987. The impact of social networks on business foundings and profit: a longitudinal study. In: Churchill, N.S., et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 154–168. Appiah-Adu, K. & Ranchhod, A. 1998. Market orientation and performance in the biotechnology industry: an exploratory empirical analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, June 1998: 197-210. Araujo, L. & Easton, G. 1996. Networks in Socioeconomic Systems: A Critical Review. In: Networks in Marketing, Ed. D. Iacobucci, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 63-107. Atuahene-Gima, K. 1996. Marketing orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35, pp. 93-103. Baker, T.L., Simpson P.M. and Siguaw, J.A. 1999. The impact of suppliers’ perceptions of reseller market orientation on key relationship constructs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27: 50-7. Baum Joel A. C., Calabrese, T. & Silverman, B.S. 2000. Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3): 267-294. Becker, J. & Homburg, C. 1999. Market-oriented management: a system-based perspective. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4: 17-41. Brüderl J.& Preisendörfer P. 1998. Network Support and the Success of Newly Founded Business. Small Business Economics, Vol 10, Issue 3, pp. 213-225. Butler, J.E., Phan, P., Hansen, G.S., 1990. Strategic alliances through interorganizational networks: a path to entrepreneurial success? In: Churchill, N.S., et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 525–538. Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications Collinson, S. 2000. Knowledge networks for innovation in small Scottish software firms, Entrepreneurship and regional development, 12.
Dawes, J. 2000. Market Orientation and Company Profitability: Further Evidence Incorporating Longitudinal Data. Australian Journal of Management, 25 (2): 173. Deeds, D.L., Hill, C.W.L., 1996. Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 11: 41–55. Deng, S. & Dart, J. 1994. Measuring market orientation: a multi-factor, multi-item approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 10: 725-42. Dey, I. 1993. Qualitative data analysis: a user-friendly guide for social scientists, London, Routlegde Enright, M. 2001. Approaches to market orientation and new product development in smaller enterprises: a proposal for a context-rich interpretive framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 9, 301–313. Elg U. 2001. Market Orientation in Retailing: An Approach Based on Inter- and Intra-Firm Activities. Institute of economic Research Working Paper Series 2001/6, Lund University, Sweden. Greenley, G.E. 1996. Forms of market orientation in UK companies. Journal of Management Studies. vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 47-66. Gulati, R., Nohria, N. & Zaheer, A. 2000. Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21(, No. 3): pp. 203-215. Harris L. 2001. Market orientation and performance: objective and subjective empoirical evidence from UK companies. Journal of Management Studies, 38:1, 17Harris L.C. & Piercy N.F. 1999. Management behaviour and the barriers to market orientation. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 2. Helfert, G., Ritter, T. & Walter, A. 2002. Redefining market orientation from a relationship perspective. Theoretical considerations and empirical results. European Journal of Marketing, 36 (9/10): 1119-1139. Hernández-Espallardoa M. & Arcas-Lario N. 2003. The effects of authoritative mechanisms of coordination on market orientation in asymmetrical channel partnerships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 133–152. Hirschman, E. C. 1986. Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method, and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 237-249 Hoang H. & Antoncic, B. 2002. Network-based research in entrepreneurship. A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, in press. Hollander, S. C. & Rassuli, K. M. 1999. Shopping with other people’s money: The marketing management implications of surrogate-mediated consumer decision making. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 102-118 Jaworski, B.J. & Kohli, A.K. 1993. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, July: 53-70. Kazanjian, R.K. 1988. Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 257-279. Kimberly, J. R. 1980. The organizational life cycle: issues in the creation, transformation, and decline of organizations, San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass Kohli, A.K. & Jaworski, B.J. 1990. Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, Vol.54, April 1990, pp. 1-18. Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. 1993. MARKOR: a measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXX, November: 467-77.
Lafferty, B.A. & Hult G. 2001. A synthesis of contemporary market orientation perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (1/ 2): 92-109. Lai Kee-Hung. 2002. Market orientation in quality-oriented organizations and its impact on their performance. International journal of production economics. In press. Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. 2000. The effects of strategy type on the market orientation– performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64: 1–16. Möller, K. & Halinen, A. 2000. Relationship Marketing Theory: Its Roots and Direction. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 16(, No. 1-3): pp. 29-54. Narver, J.C. & Slater, S. F. 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability, Journal of Marketing, 54, October: 20-35. Nonaka, I., R. Toyama & N. Konno. 2000. SECI, Ba and Leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33: 5-34. Ottesen, G.G. & Grønhaug, K. 2002. Market orientation and uncertain supply in upstream markets: an exploratory study, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 8 (4): 209-219. Ouschan, R., Sweeney, J. & Johnson, L. 2000. Dimensions of patient empowerment: implications for professional services marketing. Health Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 1-2, pp. 99-114 Pelham, A. M. 1999. Influence of environment, strategy, and market orientation on performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Business Research, 45(1): 33–46. Pisano Gary P. (1990) “The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 153-176. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145. Roberts, E. B. 1990. Evolving toward product and market-orientation: the early years of technology-based firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.7, pp. 274-287. Selnes, Jaworski, Kohli 1996. Market orientation in United States and Scandinavian companies. A cross-cultural study. Scand. J. Mgmt, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 139-157. Schweitzer, S.O. 1997. Pharmaceutical economics and policy, New York, Oxford University Press Siguaw, J.A., Simpson, P.M. & Baker, T.L. 1998. Effects of supplier market orientation in distributor market orientation and the channel relationship: the distributor perspective. Journal of Marketing, 62, July: 99-111. Solomon, M. R. 1986. The Missing link: Surrogate consumers in the marketing chain. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 208-218 Turnbull, P.W. & Parsons, N.E. 1993. Generic prescribing in general medical practice: An attitudinal study of general practitioners. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 30-40 Wallace, K.M. 1984. The use and value of qualitative research studies. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 181-185 Wolff, G. 2001. The biotech investor’s bible. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, USA.
