Key account management in fragmented business market value chains: conceptual insights and exploratory findings from an electronics component supplier Open Access

Key account management (KAM), a relationship marketing (RM) program that aims at establishing and maintaining successful and mutually beneficial business relationships with their most important customers (McDonald et al., 1997; Wengler, 2006), is recognized as a value-creating approach (Bradford et al., 2012; Leone et al., 2021; Storbacka, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2012; Tzempelikos and Gounaris, 2015; Wengler et al., 2006). Even though KAM benefits both – the customer and the supplier (Gosselin and Bauwen, 2006; Pardo et al., 2006; Ryals and Rogers, 2007), KAM researchers have only recently started systematically identifying key value-creation activities and capabilities (Guesalaga et al., 2018; Hakanen, 2014; Herhausen et al., 2022; Ivens et al., 2015) and delineating it from other value-creating approaches like value-based selling or customer success management (Hochstein et al., 2023; Wengler et al., 2026). Despite notable advancements, scholars in RM and KAM still request a deeper exploration of the evolving literature on value creation and its integration into the KAM approach (Kumar et al., 2019; Sandesh et al., 2023; Sheth, 2017).

In this article, we respond to this call by advocating for a more rigorous incorporation of the literature on value creation in business markets (Eggert et al., 2019; Grönroos and Voima, 2013; Nenonen et al., 2019; Vargo and Lusch, 2008, 2016) within the context of KAM, which we believe is timely for two main reasons:

1. Value creation extends beyond direct business relationships and increasingly encompasses subsequent market stages along business market value chains (Anderson et al., 2008; Dahlquist and Griffith, 2014). Embracing a broader perspective of value creation through multi-stage marketing (Homburg et al., 2014; Wengler and Kolk, 2023) appears sensible, especially amidst the fragmentation of business market value chains (Timmer et al., 2021) and declining business resilience (Aven, 2001; Haimes, 2009).

2. Recent research on value creation in business markets suggests a novel approach to “value assessment” as organizations comprise multiple organizational units and individuals (Strikwerda and Stoelhorst, 2009). Customer-perceived value, derived from the resources and processes provided by the supplier (Grönroos, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2008, 2016), is no longer solely reliant on abstract benefit-cost calculations but is primarily evaluated based on how effectively individuals within organizations achieve their individual and collective goals (Macdonald et al., 2016). By highlighting individual and collective goals and their structure in the context of value creation, deliberate goal alignment emerges as a critical managerial task in business relationships, operating not only at an organizational level but predominantly at an individual level (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022).

In light of these research gaps, our paper aims to reassess KAM by incorporating recent insights on multi-stage marketing (Homburg et al., 2014; Wengler and Kolk, 2023) as well as value and value creation (Eggert et al., 2019; Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022). Our primary objective is to advance the conceptual understanding of KAM and to elucidate specific facets of our conceptual deliberations through an exploratory investigation in the electronics industry from the perspective of an electronics component supplier. Consequently, we seek to address the following research questions: What implications do fragmented business market value chains have for KAM? How should value-creation-oriented KAM adapt in business markets characterized by multiple market stages? With our paper, we thereby stay in the tradition of practice-oriented KAM literature (e.g. Belz et al., 2021; Cheverton, 2020; Woodburn and McDonald, 2011), which facilitates academic-practitioner exchange as well as provides answers and suggestions to recent managerial challenges.

This paper contributes to the KAM literature in two ways: Firstly, KAM’s expansion of perspective beyond the immediate customer realm through multistage marketing (MSM) carries significant implications for the selection of key accounts (KAs) and the KAM process along the business market value chain. Secondly, it introduces a novel value concept to KAM, thus enriching the ongoing research discourse on value creation within KAM. Initially, its contribution may seem somewhat constrained due to its focus on aligning goal structures across organizational boundaries. However, by distinguishing between individual and collective goals and goal structures, it enables more nuanced analyses and management insights for KAM, as demonstrated in the exploratory study.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the literature on KAM, value creation and MSM to establish the conceptual framework for a refined KAM approach and to outline the principal challenges that KAM must address. Section 3 delves into the case study conducted in the electronics industry, elucidating the exploratory research design and methodology, providing a detailed description of the case and discussing the findings of the analysis. In Section 4, we present the theoretical contributions and derive management implications. Section 5 concludes by addressing the study’s limitations and suggesting avenues for future research.

KAM focuses on developing successful and mutually beneficial business relationships with a company’s most important customers (Homburg et al., 2002; Wengler, 2006). It assumes a pivotal role at the interface between supplier and customer, facilitating their collaborative value creation process (Guesalaga et al., 2018; Hakanen, 2014; Ivens et al., 2018; Storbacka, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2012). Accordingly, KAM has been extensively studied (Bornemann and Hettich, 2022; Guesalaga and Johnston, 2010; Kumar et al., 2019; Lautenschlager and Tzempelikos, 2021; Sandesh et al., 2023; Weilbaker and Weeks, 1997; Wengler, 2006), exploring mainly the following seven KAM domains (see Table 1):

• KAs selection identifies the financial and nonfinancial classification criteria for determining a customer’s keyness (Bornemann and Hettich, 2022). While the financial criteria encompass aspects like sales volume, a customer’s profit contribution or the customer lifetime value (Boles et al., 1999; Napolitano, 1997; Wengler et al., 2006), the nonfinancial criteria relate to aspects like the complementarity of resources, the company’s strategic fit, a customer’s impact on the supplier’s image or their joint potential to develop new markets or products (Feste et al., 2020; Ivens et al., 2009; Millman and Wilson, 1999; Napolitano, 1997). As the relevance of selection criteria changes over time, a company’s KAs selection requires regular review and revision (Piercy and Lane, 2006; Ryals and Rogers, 2007).

• KAM structure is concerned with the implementation process and organizational design of KAM, which primarily depends on the assigned activities, involved actors, deployed resources as well as its formalization (Herhausen et al., 2022; Homburg et al., 2002; Leischnig et al., 2018). Due to its contextual dependence, organizational KAM designs vary considerably (McDonald et al., 1997; Wengler et al., 2006; Wilson and Woodburn, 2014), thus resulting in numerous configurations and making it one of “the most interesting and controversial part[s] of account management” (Kempeners and van der Hart, 1999, p. 312).

• KAM performance is primarily concerned with outcome variables like account revenue and profitability (growth), share-of-spend or customer retention (Sharma and Evanschitzky, 2016; Workman et al., 2003; Wengler et al., 2006) as specific performance drivers which are either organizational-related (Davies and Ryals, 2014; Guenzi and Storbacka, 2015), relational-related (Gounaris and Tzempelikos, 2014; Ivens and Pardo, 2016), capability-related (Guesalaga et al., 2018; Ivens et al., 2018), people-related (Hengstebeck et al., 2022; Peters et al., 2022; Lai and Gelb, 2015) or technology-related (Silva, 2025).

• KAM capabilities explores the operational KAM capabilities relevant for performing its day-to-day business in the form of planning, coordinating and controlling the KAM business relationships as well as the dynamic KAM capabilities relevant for modifying KAM processes, routines and even its resource base in a dynamic market environment (Guesalaga et al., 2018; Ivens et al., 2018), which are pertinent for gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage.

• KAM coordination and collaboration discusses the intraorganizational and interorganizational designs and mechanisms for coordinating as well as collaborating with multiple stakeholders across departmental and organizational boundaries (Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2014; Gounaris and Tzempelikos, 2014).

• KAM team studies the composition and delineation of various teams in the context of KAM (Ivens et al., 2016) as well as relevant success factors for their team performance (Lai and Gelb, 2015).

• KA managers discusses aspects like personality and motivation (Mahlamäki et al., 2019), identification (Peters et al., 2022), behavior (Guenzi et al., 2009; Murphy and Coughlan, 2018), global lateral collaborations and boundary spanning (Lacoste et al., 2022) and performance-drivers of KA managers (Hengstebeck et al., 2022; Marcos et al., 2025).

• KAM technologies explores the application of digital technologies like CRM (Peters, 2024; Salojärvi and Sainio, 2015; Salojärvi et al., 2010), social media marketing (Lacoste, 2016) or AI (Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2025) for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of KAM.

Conceptually, KAM is deeply rooted in the literature of RM, which gained prominence in the early 1980s (Berry, 1983; Dwyer et al., 1987; Grönroos, 1989; Gummesson, 1987) and reached widespread acceptance in the 1990s (Bagozzi, 1994; Grönroos, 1994, 1995; Kotler, 1997; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995, 2002). RM stands in contrast to the transactional marketing perspective (Bagozzi, 1974; Hunt, 1983; Kotler, 1972) with its arm’s length exchanges (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995) as it emphasizes a more integrated, relational business approach that acknowledges the intricate interdependencies among the involved parties (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Möller and Halinen, 2000). The continuum of exchange ranges from transactional to relational exchanges (Jackson, 1985; Anderson and Narus, 1991), with relational exchange epitomizing the highest form of RM, necessitating both relationship selling and relationship buying behaviors (Piercy and Lane, 2006; Wengler, 2006). For this ideal type of mutually beneficial business relationship, KAM literature also uses the term strategic account management (Bradford et al., 2012; Storbacka, 2012; Woodburn and Wilson, 2014), meaning that these kinds of business relationships are of strategic relevance for both parties, that intra- and inter-organizational aspects are strongly aligned with each other (Storbacka, 2012) and that they ensure both value capture (for the supplier) and value creation (for the KA) (Storbacka et al., 2009).

Even though the conceptual evolution of KAM has always been shaped by a close discussion and interaction between academia and business executives as reflected by KAM practitioner classics like Belz et al. (2021), Cheverton (2020) or Woodburn and McDonald (2011), it does not mean that all academic concepts were immediately implemented in business practice. These discrepancies became particularly evident in the late 1990s/early 2000s, when many KAM programs were implemented in response to the professionalization of buyer procurement practices (Capon and Senn, 2010; Wilson and Weilbaker, 2004). Particularly in the context of multinational corporations (MNCs), companies established centralized KAM units to keep their KAs at bay – often without considering whether these KAs operated under a transactional or relational buying approach. Hence, MNCs made use of their unique power position by further strengthening their (short-term) bargaining position and then exploiting it in a transaction-oriented procurement process. It is therefore no surprise that only a minority of companies achieved genuine success with their KAM programs (Capon and Senn, 2010; Piercy and Lane, 2006; Wilson and Woodburn, 2014; Yip and Bink, 2007) as establishing mutually beneficial strategic relationships hardly seemed to be a top priority for most KAs.

In recent years, the understanding of KAM has considerably changed in business practice to a value creation-oriented strategic customer management tool (Ivens et al., 2018; Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2025) – facilitating KAs’ reevaluation of their supply strategies: Increasing emphasis on core competences and shareholder-value-driven investment approaches has spurred global outsourcing (Quinn and Hilmer, 1994), leading to highly fragmented business market value chains (Timmer et al., 2021). Particularly the global electronics industry serves here as a prime example as depicted in Figure 1: Until the late 1980s/early 1990s component suppliers served original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) directly. In a globalizing market, electronics component suppliers were decreasingly able to serve the increasing number of internationally spread and growing customers directly. Instead, globally acting distributors took over parts of the suppliers’ warehousing, distribution and delivery activities to their small and medium-sized customers while the focal suppliers still tried to serve their globally growing OEMs directly. At the same time, OEMs increasingly outsourced parts or even all their production to contract manufacturers, in the electronics industry also called electronic manufacturing services (EMS) companies. Accordingly, distributors and contract manufacturers have assumed critical business functions within these business market value chains (Figure 1), which has resulted in more specialized yet complex business market value chains (The Economist, 2022) – gradually estranging the focal suppliers from their OEMs.

Coupled with looming trade tensions and recent disruptions in global supply chains, many KAs found themselves unable to adequately meet customer needs due to shortages of various materials, components or machinery. In response, KAs have reevaluated the benefits of RM (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Palmatier, 2008; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 2000), adjusted their sourcing strategies accordingly and reverted to a more strategic approach to relationship-based procurement (see Section 3.2). These market dynamics have prompted and continue to drive the adoption of strategic account management programs in business practice.

These shifts in business practices coincide with the academic discourse surrounding value and value creation in business markets (Eggert et al., 2019; Grönroos and Voima, 2013; Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022; Kumar and Reinartz, 2016; Nenonen et al., 2019; Vargo and Lusch, 2008, 2016; Woodruff, 1997), presenting significant implications for KAM (s. Table 2):

1. All value is co-created, i.e. hardly any actor can independently generate value but requires the involvement of at least one other party to contribute the necessary resources (Grönroos, 2011; Vargo and Lusch, 2008, 2016). Given that resource deployment in business markets often entails long-term planning and substantial investments, there is consensus within both the KAM and value creation literature that actors in business relationships engage in a joint value creation process only when mutual benefit is assured (Gosselin and Bauwen, 2006; Ritter and Walter, 2012).

2. Historically, value creation has predominantly been viewed from the supplier’s standpoint, focusing on how a supplier can extract maximum value from its customers (Reichheld, 1996; Kumar and Reinartz, 2016; Wengler, 2006). Consequently, companies have pursued self-centered, rent-seeking and value-capturing behaviors, such as increasing their share of wallet (Minerbo et al., 2021; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 2002).

This perspective has increasingly come under scrutiny as contemporary value creation primarily emphasizes the creation of customer-perceived value (Woodruff, 1997; Zeithaml et al., 2020), i.e. creating value for customers, where suppliers can only adopt the role of a “value-creation facilitator” (Grönroos, 2011). Accordingly, suppliers provide customers with the necessary resources and foster interactive processes that facilitate customer value creation (Grönroos and Voima, 2013), resulting in customer satisfaction (Shah et al., 2006) or even customer success (Gehring et al., 2025; Hilton et al., 2020; Hochstein et al., 2020; Prohl-Schwenke and Kleinaltenkamp, 2021). Therefore, suppliers must assess which technologies, products and services to invest in to unlock customers’ capabilities and business potential (Minerbo et al., 2021), all requiring a considerable shift in perspective, particularly in KAM research.

3Given that business markets often comprise multiple market stages (Anderson et al., 2008; Dahlquist and Griffith, 2014) rather than solely dyadic relationships, the concept of value creation requires expansion to encompass the various market stages along the business market value chain. This becomes crucial amidst the current market and environmental dynamics, which have significantly altered the landscape in which international businesses and consequently KAM programs operate: Global outsourcing (Quinn and Hilmer, 1994) has resulted in highly fragmented global business market value chains (Timmer et al., 2021), while environmental shifts increasingly compel companies to restructure their often globalized supply chains (Georgieva et al., 2022; The Economist, 2022). Although broadening the scope of KAM along the business market value chain undeniably adds complexity, if effectively managed, it could enhance business resilience (Aven, 2001; Haimes, 2009) or even unveil unexpected market-shaping opportunities (Pedersen and Ritter, 2022).

In this regard, the literature on value creation can draw from the MSM perspective (Homburg et al., 2014; Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012; Wengler and Kolk, 2023), which seeks to generate value for both the supplier and its end customers by recognizing and influencing the requirements and needs of the subsequent market stages, involving all relevant stakeholders and adapting products and services accordingly (Wengler and Kolk, 2023). This necessitates suppliers to comprehend the diverse interdependencies among actors within a business market value chain. Effectively targeting them requires leveraging dedicated marketing and sales channels to proactively engage with formerly indirect business relationships in the future.

4Recently, scholars focusing on value creation have begun to question our conventional understanding of “value.” Traditionally, “value” has been perceived from a classical economic standpoint, characterized by a trade-off between benefits and costs (Anderson and Narus, 1998; Holbrook, 1994; Kumar and Reinartz, 2016; Lindgreen et al., 2012; Zeithaml, 1988), stemming either from transactional market exchanges (Lindgreen and Wynstra, 2005; Plank and Ferrin, 2002) or from interorganizational business relationships (Eggert et al., 2019; Lindgreen et al., 2012; Palmatier, 2008; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006). Within this view, customer-perceived value emerged as a central construct, denoting the customer’s cognitive evaluation of the overall utility of a market offering based on perceptions of what is received versus what is given up (Zeithaml, 1988; Holbrook, 1994).

Building on this evolution, recent scholarly discourse distinguishes between customer-perceived value, expected value in use and experienced value in use, emphasizing their conceptual and temporal differences. “Customer-perceived value” represents an ex ante, comparative evaluation of an offering’s net worth relative to alternatives (Eggert and Ulaga, 2002; Zeithaml, 1988). In contrast, “expected value in use” reflects a predictive judgment concerning the potential benefits that may emerge when the offering is applied within the customer’s processes – a forward-looking anticipation of value as potential rather than realization (Grönroos, 2011; Payne et al., 2008; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Finally, “experienced value in use” refers to the realized and contextual outcome that materializes through actual usage, co-created as the customer integrates the supplier’s resources within their own operational environment (Grönroos and Voima, 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Accordingly, while customer-perceived value is comparative and belief-based, expected value in use is anticipatory and situational and experienced value in use is phenomenological and outcome-based, marking a paradigmatic shift from perceived worth at exchange to realized value in context. This transition toward contextual and experiential conceptualizations of value also highlights the increasing subjectivity of value assessments, which depend not only on individual cognition but on social and organizational contexts of evaluation.

Given that multiple individuals are involved in these value assessments within business markets (Webster and Wind, 1972; Huber and Kleinaltenkamp, 2020), there is increasing doubt regarding the possibility of an overall objective value assessment (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022), since literature concurs that all value assessments are highly subjective and context-specific (Corsaro et al., 2012), influenced by expectations and experiences derived from individual transactions or business relationships (Eggert et al., 2019).

In light of these insights, Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2022) propose a re-conceptualization of “value,” shifting away from classic economic terms of “benefit-cost” to viewing value through the lens of goal-directed behavior (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 1999; Epp and Price, 2011; Macdonald et al., 2016; Perugini and Bagozzi, 2001). This perspective transforms “value” into “a yardstick that buyers use to measure their proximity to goal achievement and, hence, can be defined as the perceived extent of goal achievement” (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022). Given the coexistence of individual and collective goals within business organizations (Macdonald et al., 2016), this implies that different individuals within the same organization may pursue alternative collective goals and possess distinct goal hierarchies, resulting in either self-enforcing or diverging goal structures (Epp and Price, 2011).

In our article, we adopt Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2022) reconceptualization of “value” for two reasons:

1. While the (prospective) achievement of individual and collective goals may initially seem more challenging and complex, it presents a more realistic approach, allowing for more detailed analyses and enabling companies to better manage the perceived value of all stakeholders involved.

2. Embracing this new value concept in KAM means that managerial attention will shift from abstract economic indicators to the identification of (individual) goals and goal structures of all actors involved. Aligning these structures within one’s own organization and across organizations becomes instrumental in creating customer-perceived value, achieved through developing customized solutions, providing adequate resources for customers and ensuring seamless value creation processes.

The aspect of alignment has always been integral to RM and KAM research. In contrast to the existing KAM literature, however, this article provides a more meaningful and nuanced perspective on the alignment discussion – by differentiating between various goal structures and integrating them into a coherent value concept.

Our discussion on value and value creation underscores the necessity for a thorough alignment of goals and goal structures within the value-creation process (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022; Macdonald et al., 2016). However, empirical evidence regarding comprehensive alignment in KAM remains limited (Brehmer and Rehme, 2009; Gosselin and Bauwen, 2006; Lacoste et al., 2022). This scarcity is unsurprising given the inherent complexities of KAM, particularly in the context of multinational enterprises (MNEs) (Schotter et al., 2025). KAM functions as a boundary-spanning entity, simultaneously managing intra- and inter-organizational aspects (Brehmer and Rehme, 2009; Guenzi and Storbacka, 2015; Ivens et al., 2018; Sleep et al., 2015; Storbacka, 2012). Positioned at the supplier–customer interface, KAM is tasked with coordinating all external stakeholders while representing the supplier’s interests. Concurrently, it must liaise with the supplier’s internal departments, advocating for the interests of customers and external stakeholders. Thus, within KAM, we delineate two primary alignment directions (Højbjerg Clarke et al., 2017; Sleep et al., 2015; Storbacka, 2012): intraorganizational alignment and interorganizational alignment.

Research on KAM has long emphasized the significance of internal coordination and alignment (Leischnig et al., 2018; Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2014; Pardo et al., 2013, 2014; Shapiro and Moriarty, 1984a, 1984b; Speakman and Ryals, 2012; Wengler et al., 2006; Workman et al., 2003) as KAM does generally not have any authority over the other organizational units (Pardo et al., 2014). For achieving a seamless value creation process, the alignment focus has mainly been on operational aspects like communication and cross-functional coordination (Storbacka, 2012; Workman et al., 2003), development of skills and capabilities (Guesalaga et al., 2018; Ivens et al., 2016) as well as organizational development (Jones et al., 2005; Kempeners and van der Hart, 1999).

Following Guesalaga and Johnston (2010)’s request for a more comprehensive understanding and theoretical conceptualization of internal alignment, Lacoste et al. (2022) discuss internal alignment in the context of Global Account Management in MNEs. As MNEs are characterized by complex matrix structures combined with strong divisions and independent (local) subsidiaries spread across the globe, MNE managers are forced into lateral collaboration and alignment, i.e. they interact “across organizational and other boundaries to develop joint solutions and actions, without going “up or down” the hierarchy” (Schotter et al., 2025). Lateral collaboration and alignment can thus be seen as a rather comprehensive form of internal alignment necessary in the context of complex organizations that require comprehensive and integrative leadership to navigate the intraorganizational tensions of an MNE’s global coordination demands and its local operational needs (Lacoste et al., 2022).

For advancing the discussion on intraorganizational alignment – and given KAM’s value-creation objective (Storbacka, 2012; Wengler et al., 2006), we propose a value-oriented conceptualization of alignment based on the most recent insights on value and value creation (Eggert et al., 2019; Macdonald et al., 2016), where “value” is “defined as the perceived extent of goal achievement” (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022). From this value perspective, internal alignment can be defined as the process of understanding, coordinating and harmonizing collective and individual goals and goal structures across all stakeholders involved – aiming for mutually beneficial value creation. Even though the existing KAM literature has proposed internal goal alignment for quite some time (e.g. Pardo et al., 2014; Workman et al., 2003), it has been primarily regarded as a general balancing of interests and objectives rather than a value-oriented goal achievement.

A value-oriented conceptualization of internal alignment needs to acknowledge that firms and their organizational units represent collectives guided by collective goals such as cost leadership, profitability and sustainable competitive advantage (Figure 2). These collective goals, however, stem from individuals and their perceptions of organizational desirability (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022). Simultaneously, individuals within these collectives pursue their individual goals (e.g. well-being, social stability, recognition), resulting in the coexistence of individual and collective goals within each organization and triggering interaction effects (Macdonald et al., 2016).

In response to the multidimensionality of organizations (Højbjerg Clarke et al., 2017) as well as these new insights on value assessment, KAM must extend the intraorganizational alignment dimension by proactively embracing the corporate level, the organizational unit level as well as the individual level. Although the alignment of the corporate level and selected organizational units has always been part of classic KAM intraorganizational alignment, a comprehensive goal-oriented alignment across all three levels, particularly across all organizational units and individuals has so far not been discussed. As depicted in Figure 2, a goal-oriented intraorganizational alignment involves four alignment areas: between the corporate level and the organizational unit level, between the various organizational units (not shown in the figure), between the organizational units and the individual actors working for it as well as between the corporate level and the individual level.

It is important to note that individual actors determine collective goals and assess the degree of goal achievement solely from their perspective. Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2022) cast doubt on the possibility of an overall objective value assessment. Different actors in the same organizational unit may have different perspectives on desired individual and collective goals, resulting in discordant goal structures (Epp and Price, 2011) and in contradictory actions (e.g. the discussion on home office vs returning to office and the subsequent impact on the organization).

One of KAM’s primary tasks is thus to understand the goal structures of the stakeholders within the supplier’s organization and align them organization-wide. Corporate goals such as customer satisfaction or customer success can thereby serve as unifying objectives, enabling KAM to manage and ensure a seamless value creation process.

Marketing scholars have long emphasized the importance of aligning corporate strategy and capabilities with market demands (Baden-Fuller and Teece, 2020; Day, 2006; Day, 2020; Moorman and Day, 2016; Piercy, 2009) to deliver superior value to customers. Such alignment efforts should encompass customer expectations and needs, involve all relevant stakeholders across the business market value chain (Højbjerg Clarke et al., 2017) and form an empathetic foundation for strategic decision-making and business development (Day, 2020).

KAM literature has consistently transcended marketing’s general alignment prescriptions at the corporate level. In striving to devise tailored solutions for their KAs, suppliers endeavor to establish robust interaction processes across all organizational levels with their customers (Esper et al., 2010; Flint and Mentzer, 2006; Højbjerg Clarke et al., 2017). This proximity aids in gaining deeper insights into customer requirements and needs, as well as pinpointing areas for enhancement (Capon and Senn, 2010; Gosselin and Bauwen, 2006; La Rocca et al., 2016). While KAM traditionally acts as a boundary spanner between the supplier and its customer (Piercy, 2009; Sleep et al., 2015; Storbacka et al., 2009), an efficient KAM program necessitates the coexistence of relationship selling and relationship buying behavior (Jackson, 1985).

Current environmental shifts have prompted KAs to perceive their key suppliers as value facilitators offering solutions and market-related expertise (Grönroos, 2011; Raddats et al., 2019; Ulaga and Reinartz, 2011). Accordingly, many KAs are reevaluating their interorganizational collaboration and are thus more inclined to forge mutually beneficial business relationships with strategic suppliers. This shift in perception represents a game changer in KAM as it facilitates its efforts to align the goals across the various stakeholders involved.

Recent research underscores the limitations of the traditional dyadic view of RM (Anderson et al., 2008; Dahlquist and Griffith, 2014; Højbjerg Clarke et al., 2017; Leone et al., 2021). Business markets encompass not only direct customers but also various indirect customers, including the end customer who drives primary demand (Wengler and Kolk, 2023). Consequently, KAM programs must embrace a broader, MSM perspective (Homburg et al., 2014; Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012; Wengler and Kolk, 2023). MSM focuses on creating value for both the supplier and its end customers by considering the requirements and needs of subsequent market stages, involving all relevant stakeholders and adjusting products and services accordingly (Wengler and Kolk, 2023). To identify their end customers, suppliers must discern the market stage where the value contribution of the product or service is ultimately evident and highly performance-relevant (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012).

In the realm of KAM, program managers face the daily challenge of navigating both intra- and inter-organizational alignment dynamics (Højbjerg Clarke et al., 2017). While they bear the responsibility for overarching alignment objectives, they often lack the authority to issue directives, especially across organizational boundaries. Achieving alignment thus demands that KAM managers understand the goals and challenges faced by all parties involved. To facilitate seamless value creation for KAs, they must engage in extensive communication efforts (Guesalaga and Johnston, 2010), collaborate on investment decision-making and jointly provide necessary resources (Ivens et al., 2018).

In the following, we want to highlight two managerial alignment challenges that stem from the interaction between extended intra- and inter-organizational alignment:

1. alignment of stakeholders’ goal structures; and

2. alignment of marketing and sales structures.

The alignment of stakeholders’ goal structures involves three key management activities:

1. identifying and understanding the goals;

2. ensuring alignment of goal structures; and

3. controlling their alignment.

• Identifying and understanding goals

Traditionally, KAM programs have centered on the direct customer, focusing on gathering market intelligence related to KAs and managing the immediate business relationship (McDonald et al., 1997; Millman, 1996; Yip and Madsen, 1996). While customer and competitor intelligence have been central to this market research approach, cross-cultural aspects are increasingly being considered in KAM (Kadam et al., 2023) too.

Conducting market research and integrating the findings into the KAM process pose significant challenges for companies, necessitating two important expansions:

1. In multistage business markets, it seems sensible to extend the scope beyond the direct customer and consider all indirect customers, including end customers and relevant third parties (Homburg et al., 2020). Beyond conventional market research topics like products, services, customers or competitors, market intelligence should also encompass stakeholders’ goals. KAM, therefore, needs to enhance its market sensing capabilities (Guesalaga et al., 2018) along the end-customer’s supply chain (Wengler and Kolk, 2023).

2. As companies in business markets are complex, multidimensional organizations (Strikwerda and Stoelhorst, 2009), suppliers must develop an internal goal matrix to clarify their own objectives at the corporate level as well as the organizational unit level. The matrix will thus provide an overview of overlapping and divergent goals, which will allow to derive and initiate subsequent alignment measures.

3. Ensuring alignment of goal structures.

Achieving alignment across an organization requires – due to its multidimensionality – a unifying objective on the corporate level. From a customer-centric perspective, prioritizing the (end) customer’s success emerges as the fitting goal for this purpose.

Although aiming for customer success seems to be highly desirable, business practice still struggles implementing it: Despite many suppliers claiming customer orientation, they have not fully embraced the notion of providing solutions and facilitating the customer’s value creation process (Grönroos, 2011). Rather, they exhibit traditional value-capturing behavior, focusing on negotiating their share of the jointly created value (Minerbo et al., 2021). This behavior involves capturing value through price adjustments, volume expansion or increasing the overall value within the relationship. However, due to their product-centered approach, suppliers often overlook their KA’s pain points, thus missing attractive growth opportunities.

While corporate-level goal alignment should prevail, allowing multifaceted goals at the organizational unit level can be beneficial. Each unit often follows its own goals for increasing its organizational efficiency and effectiveness, e.g. research & development (R&D) wants to integrate the latest technology into the supplier’s products, operations tries to avoid production downtimes or logistics tries to streamline logistics routing. As long as these goals do not contradict corporate objectives, management should even encourage “intrapreneurial” activities, such as providing additional resources or empowerment.

Nevertheless, ensuring goal alignment at the organizational unit level is crucial to prevent major conflicts from arising initially. For instance, the R&D department may identify market potential due to technological advancements, while the salesforce remains skeptical or vice versa. Allowing organizational units to pursue different paths while mandating support for others’ activities may foster intrapreneurship within the organization.

Goal alignment on the supplier-KA level is equally vital as the focus shifts toward customized solutions and facilitating the customer’s value creation process (Eggert et al., 2019; Grönroos and Voima, 2013; Vargo and Lusch, 2008, 2016). Suppliers must evaluate whether a long-term strategic fit can be established with potential KAs, encompassing alignment in strategies, resource allocation, value creation processes and future business potential. This assessment should include criteria relevant to both the corporation and various departments. A transparent decision-making process and broad internal KA selection involving affected departments can provide a solid foundation for subsequent operational alignment.

The discussion on MSM in interorganizational alignment underscores that not every strategic partnership necessitates direct sales. In markets with multiple stages and fragmented value chains, the end customer may fully recognize and value the strategic dimension of a long-term partnership (Wengler and Kolk, 2023). Even without direct purchases, fruitful business relationships can be established through intense R&D collaboration, technology exploration, product development and market access. The end customer’s influence on the supplier’s direct customers can lead to significant sales volume and profits, potentially prompting the supplier to grant KA status not only to selected direct customers but also to its most valuable end customers.

• Reviewing the degree of alignment and its impact:

Following Chandler’s (1962) concept of “structure follows strategy,” management should regularly review the aligned goal structure. Adopting a customer-centric approach (Shah et al., 2006; Sheth et al., 2000) will likely require organizational changes impacting the company’s value creation structure. Concurrently, adjustments to the incentive system are needed to ensure desired outcomes (Galan and Sanchez‐Bueno, 2009).

Aligning marketing and sales structures is concerned with implications arising from the application of a MSM perspective. As MSM extends a supplier’s perspective along the business market value chain up to the end customer, a supplier must establish appropriate marketing and sales structures, such as dedicated marketing and sales channels with respect to the various stakeholders (Højbjerg Clarke et al., 2017).

Research on MSM suggests that indirect customers, particularly end customers, value these additional efforts as they gain valuable market intelligence, extensive application knowledge and comprehensive R&D support, typically at no extra cost (Wengler and Kolk, 2023). Convincing customers to engage in business relationships spanning multiple market stages becomes less challenging when the supplier provides performance-relevant insights. The primary challenge lies in obtaining internal support to expand the scope of KAM by allocating comprehensive resources for additional customer management, sales and application engineering activities, as the benefits of MSM activities often manifest only indirectly (Wengler and Kolk, 2023).

While suppliers may have the power to compel their direct customers (via the end customer) to purchase specific products, it is advisable to closely coordinate all marketing and sales activities with those of the supplier’s direct customer to ensure a mutually beneficial business relationship. Failure to do so may lead to opportunistic behavior and resistance from direct customers, if they feel excessively pressured or constrained (Geiger et al., 2015).

Moreover, aligning KAM and the regular salesforce is essential, especially in the context of multistage business markets. As the literature points out, implementing KAM raises questions about its distinctiveness compared to regular sales management (Davies and Ryals, 2013; Homburg et al., 2002; Shapiro and Moriarty, 1980; Wengler et al., 2006) and how well these two functions can align (Guesalaga and Johnston, 2010; Pardo et al., 2013, 2014). Introducing KAM programs as separate entities alongside established, country-based sales organizations can induce competence and power struggles between KAM and sales teams. Local salespeople may fear losing job autonomy, account ownership and reduced bonus payments (Birkinshaw et al., 2001).

Aligning KAM and sales is challenging because they operate on different business logics (Ivens and Pardo, 2007; Wengler et al., 2026). Sales often deals with standardized or modular product/service portfolios, while KAM primarily pushes for customized and highly differentiated solutions for their KAs (Pardo et al., 2014). This necessitates a distinct approach to internal collaboration within the organization, involving coordination and alignment across various functions, including marketing, operations, supply-chain management and after-sales services (Ivens and Pardo, 2007; Piercy, 2009; Storbacka et al., 2009).

Our exploratory study was motivated by a component manufacturer in the electronics industry: Since the 1990s, MNCs’ supply chains have increasingly become globalized and fragmented. The component manufacturer responded to these developments by implementing dedicated KAM programs to coordinate its value creation activities with its lead customers.

In the light of the recent political, environmental and market dynamics, KAM as a boundary-spanning function has faced significant challenges in upholding its value propositions and ensuring supply chain resilience for customers. This prompts the following research question: What implications do fragmented business market value chains have for KAM? How should a value-creation-oriented KAM adapt in business markets characterized by multiple market stages?

Our paper centers on a single case study (Beverland and Lindgreen, 2010; Yin, 2018), which motivated this research paper and inspired our conceptual reflections (Siggelkow, 2007). To further verify and refine our conceptual considerations (Dubois and Araujo, 2004; Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Ridder, 2017), we draw upon exploratory insights to illustrate the impact of multistage business markets on KAM (Siggelkow, 2007). Using a single case study methodology allows for a thorough and comprehensive exploration of the company’s KAM practices across diverse industries (Beverland and Lindgreen, 2010). It facilitates an in-depth analysis of KAM design factors and their interrelationships from an MSM perspective. Our study aligns with three rationales proposed by Yin (2018):

1. The case study is critical to the existing conceptual framework as the case prompted the development of our research paper. Without this case, we may not have delved deeply into the adequacy of existing conceptual KAM approaches or embarked on the subsequent exploratory study to critically assess the newly developed framework.

2. The case study deviates from conventional KAM approaches. To the best of our knowledge, no other conceptual or empirical research study has examined the application of MSM in the context of KAM.

3. In light of recent political, environmental and market dynamics, the selected company has been compelled to reevaluate its KAM approach. This has led to the emergence of new insights stemming from the company’s recent adaptations.

The case study focuses on one of the world’s top electronics component manufacturers ^[1] specializing in discrete semiconductors and passives^[2]. It primarily operates in the business-to-business market as a TIER-1/2 supplier and is listed on the US stock market. The company serves global customers with its dedicated KAM function across four segments (automotive, industry, connectivity and Electronic Manufacturing Service [EMS]) both directly and indirectly. The KAM function is part of a corporate-wide salesforce, which is organized with respect to sales channels (KAM and Distributors) as well as global sales regions (Americas, Asia and Europe, Middle East and Africa).

We chose to study this company because it has implemented an MSM-oriented KAM approach for over a decade. The decision to extend its perspective along the business market value chain was prompted by the financial crisis in 2007/2008, during which the company recognized its diminishing influence within the increasingly fragmented business market value chains. Consequently, management opted to re-engage with decision-makers throughout the business market value chain to regain influence, often necessitating outreach beyond direct customers. Since then, the company has continuously refined its customer management structure to enhance interaction with indirect/end customers, e.g. by establishing parallel customer management entities targeting different stakeholders along the business market value chain. Still, the company continues to face post-COVID-19 pandemic challenges, including supply chain disruptions and shifts in market structure within certain customer segments.

Through a longstanding project collaboration, we obtained access to internal KAM data and conducted interviews with 13 experts (s. Table 3). These experts included the head of KAM Programs, segment heads, KA managers, sales and business marketing [business marketing (BM)] managers and field application engineers (FAEs). With an average tenure of 22 years with the company, these experts provided diverse perspectives and extensive experience. While the involvement of additional stakeholders positioned along the business market value chain was initially considered, it was later dismissed due to confidentiality concerns and nondisclosure agreements. Even though these circumstances limit the depth in perspective, it was later compensated by a comprehensive triangulation including insights into customer feedback and framework contracts with KAs.

The research process followed a multistep-procedure (Gummesson, 1987):

• Development of interview guide: Following an extensive review of the literature, an interview guide was formulated ( Appendix 1) and subsequently reviewed by two senior researchers and a representative from the company to ensure comprehensiveness.

• Data generation: The authors conducted personal interviews lasting between 60 and 150 minutes each. Given the geographical dispersion of the interviewees, nine interviews were conducted via Zoom. All interviews were recorded and later transcribed for analysis.

• Data analysis: The authors conducted individual content analyses using the method outlined by Gioia et al. (2013).

Initially, all statements provided by the experts were compiled, compared and any duplicate statements were merged. Subsequently, a list of 1st order concepts was developed using the terms provided by the experts, followed by their assignment to 2nd order themes, which follow a research-centered logic or existing concepts. These themes were then further categorized into aggregate dimensions ( Appendix 2).

For ensuring content reliability, all relevant statements and major insights were reviewed in two additional focus group discussions (Morgan, 1996), with 11 out of the 13 interview participants taking part. One group predominantly comprised individuals associated with the automotive and industrial segments, with most participants attending in person, while the second group was composed of individuals linked to the connectivity and EMS segments (conducting an online meeting). Over the course of the two discussion sessions, lasting approximately 120 min each, the initial findings were presented, structured according to the interview guide and supplemented with selected quotes. Any unclear or counterintuitive aspects were thoroughly discussed, such as differences in KAM across the four market segments or the involvement of interviewees in the KA selection process. Although the group discussions provided some clarifications and minor additions, no significant contradictions were identified or major revisions required.

Furthermore, intercoder reliability was assessed (Rust and Cooil, 1994) by enlisting two independent coders to categorize exemplary statements under the 2nd order themes. The PRL statistics yielded a score of 0.88, well exceeding the 0.7 threshold recommended by Rust and Cooil (1994).

As part of the triangulation process aimed at cross-validating interview and focus group findings (Beverland and Lindgreen, 2010; Farquhar et al., 2020; Silverman, 2010, 2015), the company was approached to provide additional data pertaining to specific KA development plans, historical business records and visit reports. This request was granted, thereby confirming the consistency of the interview data with the internal documentation (e.g. KAM planning documents, exemplary internal communication).

In the forthcoming subsections, we will delve into the insights gleaned from expert interviews and group discussions regarding the practices of the electronics component manufacturer in managing its KAM. Our focus will be on elucidating how the company conducts its KAM operations, with specific attention to the five aggregate dimensions identified through our content analysis, namely, the selection of KAs, KAM program design, external coordination/collaboration in KAM, internal coordination/collaboration in KAM and KAM controlling (see  Appendix 2).

During the late 1990s, the company experienced an increasing globalization of its key customers, accompanied by rising customer expectations. Major accounts prioritized efficiency in procurement, requiring global supply and logistics solutions, particularly in Asia. Faced with growing competition from Asia, the company initiated a KAM program for key customers, which has since evolved and expanded successfully. Today, the company’s KAM program encompasses over 20 KAs, contributing to approximately one-third of its revenues.

The selection of KAs in KAM is a matter of paramount importance. The company places considerable emphasis on aligning its KAs with its overarching business strategy. Currently, the decision to grant KA status to major accounts is a collaborative effort between the Executive Vice President Sales and the Senior Vice President (SVP) KAM Programs:

The centralized purchasing approach appears to be an essential prerequisite for an effective KAM strategy. It facilitates centralized negotiations and decision-making concerning general trade terms, service levels and pricing. Whether the KA followed a transactional or relational buying approach seemed to have been of lesser importance for a long time.

In recent years the electronics component manufacturer has observed a growing willingness among certain KAs to strategically align their procurement strategy with the supplier’s sales strategy:

The changing perspective of KAs has simplified KAM for selected suppliers. KAs are now taking on a more proactive stance in identifying strategic focus areas and fostering close collaboration with their chosen suppliers to enhance the competitiveness of their core products. This entails a willingness to incur higher costs for bolstering supply chain resilience, negotiating fixed prices, securing production capacities and participating in annual business meetings with C-level executives to address forthcoming strategic matters.

Regarding the current selection procedure, some experts express reservations about its efficacy. They question the suitability of the existing number of KAs and advocate for the adoption of new criteria and the enhancement of differentiation between KAs and non-KAs:

The expert interviews revealed that the company’s KAM approach is more varied than initially anticipated. Evidently, different market segments such as automotive and connectivity demand distinct sales and KAM approaches:

Even more unexpectedly, within identical market segments – or even within the confines of the same KAM program, e.g. customers in the consumer electronics industry – the company might adopt different business models and strategies for various product categories. These include “designed by OEM,” where the supplier’s FAE expertise is highly valued during the design phase, fostering a close relationship between application engineering and the OEMs’ design teams. On the other hand, there’s “ODM” (own design manufacturing), where OEMs outsource standard products entirely to an Electronics Manufacturing Services (EMS) company, and the OEM does not require additional assistance.

The OEMs’ increasing outsourcing of production to contract manufacturers have had significant consequences for the electronic component manufacturer, as it started losing direct contact with the actual decision-makers. While OEMs remained in control of the overall process, they became less accessible for the component manufacturer compared to the previously prevalent direct business relationship model:

In response, the company endeavored to enhance transparency throughout its component value chains. As part of this effort, it introduced distinctions between the Point of Acquisition (PoA), the Point of Sales (PoS) and the Point of Purchase (PoP) – and thus recognized three different decision-makers (s. Figure 3): At PoP, the OEM takes the main purchasing decision by deciding regarding the component type. At PoS, the contract manufacturer decides regarding the preferred purchasing channel, i.e. if the component is purchased from different distributors, directly from the supplier – or about the proportions from both channels at the same time. At PoA, distributors decide which components they add to their product portfolio/assortment and offer to their contract manufacturers and OEMs.

Given the multifaceted nature of business markets, the company uses various interaction channels simultaneously, accommodating both direct and indirect customer management. Central to this structure is the KAMentity, tasked with serving strategic accounts on a global scale. Operating alongside is the regular salesforce, which functions on a geographical basis, catering to local and regional accounts while also providing support for local aspects of KAM programs. These customer management entities are further augmented and reinforced by:

• Business Marketing (BM) (responsible for pricing, profit margins and rudimentary application know-how), which is part of the corporate business development unit;

• Product Marketing (PM) (responsible for the strategic planning and development of the company’s product portfolio as well as detailed product knowledge), which is an integral organizational part of the 18 production divisions; and

• Field Application Engineer (FAE) (responsible for detailed product application know-how), which is part of the sales organization.

The company places significant importance on its FAEs, recognizing them as pivotal in fostering strong business relationships due to their extensive application knowledge provided to customers:

This does not only reinforce the organizational connection between the supplier and its customers but also allows FAEs to gain insights into customers’ future projects, application concepts and even competitor solutions.

Customer organizations have become increasingly complex and challenging to manage, involving numerous entities worldwide and countless individuals in the purchasing and design processes. To navigate growing complexities on the buyer’s side, it is crucial for the company to ensure that its KAM primarily focuses on a single “center of gravity” within the KAs, enabling the company to leverage synergies effectively. Otherwise, local or regional sales structures may be preferable to serve customers:

In managing business relationships, suppliers place strong emphasis on cultivating both organizational and personal connections with their KAs. Personal relationships remain crucial for accessing vital information, as companies tend to be vague about new development projects and operate within globally dispersed corporate networks. The high rates of employee turnover and promotions within the buying organizations present a challenge in maintaining and building long-lasting personal relationships:

The electronic component manufacturer’s status as a preferred supplier is proof for its innovations, technological expertise, quality, predictability and reliability throughout its KA value chain. To strengthen organizational bonds, the company continually strives to secure acceptance for its latest products on the Approved Vendor List to maintain and even enhance attractiveness to KAs. Timing is thereby of paramount importance in KAM: When launching a new product, a KA manager must adeptly coordinate internal stakeholders (including BM, Product Marketing, Business Development, Production Divisions) and FAEs to persuasively engage the customer:

Despite the increased complexity stemming from extending the perspective beyond direct customers, the company has successfully moved closer to end customers and decision-makers:

Meanwhile, customers who were previously indirect now appreciate the enhanced interaction and services, particularly the knowledge transfer and R&D support facilitated by product managers and FAEs. These customers actively involve the electronic component manufacturer in design projects, placing greater reliance on its R&D and production capabilities. Consequently, the company has granted KA status to certain OEMs in acknowledgment of their growing importance to long-term innovation and business strategy, notwithstanding the absence of direct sales revenues.

A specific challenge occurs in KAM, when OEMs transition from “OEM designs” to “ODM” (own-design manufacturing), where the contract manufacturer or EMS has autonomy over the electronic components selection. The electronic component manufacturer’s influence diminishes further, even if it has a strong relationship with the OEM. In response, KAM necessitates a new business approach, which KAM managers label internally “chase and capture business” as it differs from the opportunity-seeking approach traditionally practiced in KAM. This approach aligns more with classic transaction-oriented sales. Nonetheless, as EMS companies are advancing their business models to more sophisticated products and services, they will require in future similar levels of support and assistance as OEMs:

Internal coordination within the various KA segments and individual KAM programs appears to follow a similar pattern. KAM managers engage in regular communication, often on a daily or bi-daily basis, with their FAEs, their KA program director and various local salespeople to identify, discuss and collaborate on new sales opportunities. In this scenario, local sales representatives commonly provide support in addition to their other duties, as numerous designs are still developed locally – even within KAs:

The successful customer management and sales process hinges on extensive collaboration across departments, encompassing different phases with various teams and individuals involved: In the “opportunity phase,” there are intensive discussions involving KAM, PM, FAEs and customer’s design teams. During the “negotiation & contracting phase,” the KAM manager must coordinate closely with BM, responsible for balancing market demand and supply, setting prices and organizing production capacities, as well as with the legal department. In the “fulfillment phase,” the KAM manager’s involvement decreases and the focus shifts to the legal department, BM, customer service and logistics:

The most critical task for KAM managers is shaping the transition from the “opportunity phase” to the “negotiation & contracting phase.” Once a sales opportunity has been identified and properly specified with the assistance of FAEs, KAM managers must secure internal agreement from BM for competitive pricing and convince the divisions to provide sufficient production capacity within the required timeframe. This is a challenging task, considering the breadth and depth of the company’s product portfolio and the strong position of the production divisions:

Managing one of the supplier’s KAM programs is becoming difficult in such complex and diverse organizations as not all KAs hold the same level of strategic importance for all divisions:

In the case of the electronic component manufacturer, it seems that the production divisions play a significant role in deciding which opportunities are pursued and how extensively each customer is served. Consequently, KAM managers rely heavily on the approval of the production division, as they lack adequate support from C-level executives:

Due to the company’s product and production orientation, KAM managers are mainly tasked with channeling KAs’ orders into the company’s existing production capabilities: Instead of prioritizing customer requirements, KAM managers and local sales seek for sales opportunities that align with the company divisions’ production capacities and schedules:

For effective budgeting, each KAM manager develops a “KA development plan” that outlines the company’s business objectives and the most critical projects with its KAs. These plans undergo annual revisions involving key decision-makers from various departments to ensure alignment of perspectives. In addition, KAM managers update the KA development plans quarterly:

Controlling KAs along their business market value chain involves novel managerial tasks: After designs are confirmed with OEMs, KAM managers must ensure that contract manufacturers and EMS companies adhere to these designs and contractual commitments. This task presents challenges as contract manufacturers may occasionally make deliberate modifications to the bill of materials (BOM) to reduce costs or procure components from distributors rather than directly from the component manufacturer. Consequently, obtaining sales data is delayed by three to four months, often inadequate for effective KAM monitoring and control:

Regarding the conceptual framework outlined in Section 2.3, the insights gained from the expert interviews offer illustrative examples to discuss the interplay between intraorganizational and interorganizational alignment:

Intraorganizational alignment of goals poses a major challenge to KAM. As illustrated by the case study, the goal structure of the component manufacturer remains rooted in a traditional product- and production-centric mindset, focusing on maximizing value capture. This contrasts sharply with the more contemporary, customer-centric viewpoint outlined in Section 2.2: We would have expected that corporate goals such as customer satisfaction or customer success would take precedence (see Section 2.3.3), dominating the goal structure of all other organizational units.

While the need for a shift in mindset is not a new concept at all in the marketing literature, the case study, with its emphasis on goal-oriented value creation, highlights where change must begin to successfully transition organizations from traditional to customer-centric entities. While the annual planning session serves to temporarily reconcile the divergent goals existing with the supplier’s organization, it alone seems to be insufficient without a robust goal structure in place, which should originate at the highest level.

Recently, the SVP KAM Programs started to develop a comprehensive matrix trying to gather collective goals across the internal departments and divisions, differentiated with respect to corporate and organizational units goals. After three months of relentlessly collecting this information, he was shocked about the many holes and blank spaces in the supplier’s own strategy to contribute to its corporate and organizational unit goal achievement.

The case study highlights that a uniform KAM approach across the entire company is impractical, as KAs require highly tailored programs that align with their industry and corporate nuances. While these specifics may vary, certain similarities across various organizational levels are apparent:

• Both the supplier and customer companies necessitate centralized organizational units, serving as their “center of gravity,” which coordinate the customer organization’s procurement and the supplier organization’s overall KAM program.

• KAM would be significantly constrained without a local salesforce. Its close collaboration with the regular salesforce, acting as its local eyes and ears and taking over the selling responsibilities, therefore appears indispensable.

• Direct and end customers value KAM’s support, particularly through its FAEs. Offering application consultancy to potential customers free of charge, in exchange for including the component manufacturer’s products and solutions in the product BOM, serves as a prime means of differentiation from competitors.

Using multiple direct and indirect customer management entities may be costly, but it represents a strategic move for gathering comprehensive market intelligence and aligning across corporate boundaries. However, it is crucial for KAM program managers to effectively channel the customer management activities toward a unified goal.

In addition, the case study indicates that KAs increasingly recognize the significance of strategic alignment while adopting a relational buying behavior. This shift appears to be long-term, as major KAs are entering into multiyear contracts to secure pricing and production capacity. Although these commitments entail additional costs, such as establishing dedicated production sites or expanding the FAE force, they significantly mitigate financial risks.

In the realm of multi-stage business markets, KAM gets an additional spin: End customers emerge as influential decision-makers despite not engaging in direct sales relationships. Their decisions regarding the components included in the BOM wield significant influence over upstream market stages. Given that end customers often drive a substantial portion of suppliers’ business, companies like the component manufacturer must adjust their KA selection process and criteria to prioritize “business market value chain influence” over direct sales numbers.

Beyond the selection process, KAM management undergoes changes. Alongside engaging with end customers, KAM must intensively coordinate with distributors and contract manufacturers. Despite clear BOM specifications from end customers, some EMS and distributors may attempt to circumvent compliance to cut costs. Therefore, securing a multiyear contract with an end customer does not guarantee profitability but demands concerted efforts to persuade other stakeholders along the business market value chain that collaboration will yield benefits.

Finally, shifts in OEMs’ business models present new business opportunities. As EMS increasingly undertake the design of more sophisticated products alongside manufacturing, they require additional support in application engineering from the component manufacturer’s FAE force. In some cases, certain EMS may even qualify as KAs in future.

Drawing from an in-depth case study and extensive literature review, this paper offers two significant theoretical contributions to the KAM research field:

• The paper proposes a fresh perspective on KAM, advocating for a broader approach along the business market value chain, thus supporting and extending research done by Højbjerg Clarke et al. (2017) and Leone et al. (2021). In multistage business markets, suppliers are urged to expand their KAM programs to encompass not only their direct customers but also end customers. This shift, informed by research from Homburg et al. (2020), Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2012) and Wengler and Kolk (2023), fundamentally transforms the traditional KAM framework from a bilateral to a multistakeholder perspective. By doing so, suppliers gain deeper insights into the diverse requirements of subsequent market stages and a better understanding of complex decision-making processes within the business market value chain. This shift may even lead suppliers to engage closely with end customers, extending KA status to them without necessitating direct selling transactions.

• The paper illustrates how recent insights on value and value creation significantly impact the KAM framework. Value is now understood not only in economic terms but also as the customer’s “perceived extent of goal achievement” (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2022). Consequently, KAM must prioritize aligning stakeholders’ goal structures along the business market chain in a customer-centric manner.

While goal alignment is not a new concept in KAM literature, having been discussed in the context of both internal (Guesalaga, 2014; Pardo et al., 2013/2014) and external goal alignment (Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2014; Storbacka, 2012), the novelty lies in the proposed value-oriented conceptualization of alignment, which elevates alignment from an operational aspect (among many others) to a strategic management objective in KAM (Højbjerg Clarke et al., 2017). By acknowledging the existence of numerous individual and organizational goals within and across organizations, this new concept of value widens the scope of value creation in business relationships, enabling more nuanced analyses of goal structures and the pursuit of multiple individual and collective goals. Instead of solely focusing on simplistic value-capturing objectives such as price increases or volume growth, KAM’s new role is to harmonize these goals and establish an acceptable goal structure with a focus on end customers.

As multiple goals will be pursued simultaneously in future, decentralized interaction between suppliers and customers may increase. This can unlock cross-selling opportunities within and beyond specific business relationships and empower departments and employees, potentially leading to motivational intrapreneurial effects on the business relationship itself.

Three key management implications can be drawn from this paper:

• Globalized business market value chains often exhibit high fragmentation, posing a risk for companies like electronic component manufacturers to lose touch with critical market stages influencing product and service purchases. KAM managers should thus contemplate broadening their program perspective beyond direct customers. By placing greater emphasis on end customers, suppliers can delve deeper into market dynamics, identify relevant stakeholders along the business market value chain, understand their pain points, transform them into new business opportunities and consequently enhance (end) customers’ satisfaction.

This shift in perspective typically requires substantial resource investments, including the addition of human resources (e.g. establishing specialized customer management entities like “application engineering”), organizational adjustments and the development of new customer–supplier interaction processes (as discussed in Wengler and Kolk, 2023).

• KAM has always emphasized treating strategic accounts in a highly tailored manner. Our case study underscores this approach, demonstrating that KAM strategies may vary concerning customer/market segments, industries or product categories. To ensure seamless integration processes, KA managers should be cognizant of the customer’s specific requirements and needs. Customer-journey analyses (Homburg et al., 2020; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Witell et al., 2020) can aid in elucidating the necessary differences in supplier–customer processes.

• Traditionally, organizational alignment across corporate boundaries and internal departments has primarily focused on achieving economic corporate goals. However, recent insights into value creation have steered the alignment process in a new direction: Besides collective corporate goals, organizational unit goals and perhaps even individual goals need to be considered in future.

We, therefore, recommend KAM program managers to develop a comprehensive goal structure matrix across the company’s various organizational units. This matrix will facilitate the identification of individual and collective goals, making them transparent to all stakeholders involved. Drawing from the gathered data, managers can evaluate the effects of goal interdependency, uncover divergent goal structures and devise strategies for an overarching alignment process. Despite the coexistence of various goals at the individual and organizational unit levels, KAM managers are well advised to unite all stakeholders under widely accepted corporate-level goals.

A key limitation of this study is the lack of data along the supply chain, which prevented the inclusion of perspectives from other stakeholders that could have balanced and contextualized the insights derived from the focal company. Consequently, the empirical findings primarily reflect the case company’s internal viewpoint rather than a multi-actor understanding of the KAM context.

A second limitation concerns the absence of a cross-case comparison. No other company with a comparable context was known to the authors at the time of the research, which precluded broader validation of the findings across different organizational settings. The research design therefore focused on a single case; however, the case company comprised four distinct customer segments that were treated as embedded units of analysis, allowing for a degree of internal differentiation.

Third, suitable secondary data were not available to support external data triangulation. Both cross-case evidence and secondary data could have mitigated the first limitation by providing additional perspectives and comparative insights; however, from the authors’ point of view, neither was accessible within the study’s scope and timeframe.

Despite these constraints, the study ensured methodological rigor through comprehensive primary data collection and internal validation measures. In particular, access to customer feedback, insights from framework contracts with strategic accounts and cross-verified findings from focus-group discussions provided valuable triangulation within the single-case framework. These measures helped strengthen the credibility, depth and contextual richness of the findings. While the limitations restrict the extent of external generalization, the study offers a robust foundation for future research incorporating multistakeholder, comparative or secondary data perspectives.

The paper delineates several avenues for future research. We wish to highlight three of them:

1. The newly proposed value-oriented conceptualization of intra- and interorganizational alignment in KAM requires refinement: Additional research is needed regarding the core alignment activities briefly outlined above to learn more about the subsequent tasks and challenges KAM might experience. Academics also need to better comprehend the implications of a value-oriented alignment concept on the design of a KAM program’s communication, interaction, management and organization. Moreover, the integration of Højbjerg Clarke et al. (2017)’s as well as Lacoste et al. (2022)’s research in our proposed alignment space would provide an even more differentiated perspective on intra- and inter-organizational alignment.

2. Apart from investigating other KAM programs operating in multistage markets, researchers can delve deeper into elucidating how a goal structure matrix should be structured and assessed, how alignment processes can be derived from these matrices and how organizational units and individuals respond to enhanced alignment efforts.

3. Research on customer success management is currently gaining momentum (Hilton et al., 2020; Hochstein et al., 2020; Porter and Heppelmann, 2015; Prohl-Schwenke and Kleinaltenkamp, 2021). While KAM programs have the potential to significantly contribute to the corporate-level goal of “customer success” (Wengler et al., 2026), the organizational integration of CSM and KAM remains a question, particularly in the presence of multistage markets. A comprehensive discussion on the relationship and collaboration between KAM and CSM is imperative, warranting further research exploration.

1. About Interview Partner

   • Name

   • Educational background

   • Work experience

   • Work position

2. About Company

   • Describe company in own words

   • What are the company’s unique competencies? What do customers value most?

3. About Key Account Management

   • intraorganizational aspects of KAM

     • How is KAM organized? (Organizational Chart, Tasks)

     • How does collaboration within KAM-Team work?

     • What is the role of the KAM manager?

     • How do you control/reward the KAM-Team effort?

   • interorganizational aspects of KAM

     • How does coordination with KA work?

     • How does account planning/development work?

     • How do you connect sensibly historical data and forward-looking data (market sensing)?

     • What are your major challenges in the context of your global accounts? Why?

4. About the multistage nature of Key Account Management

   • Are you confronted with the situation that PoS and PoP are distinct? In which context?

   • What are the implications for sales when PoS and PoP are distinct?

   • How have you designed your Market Intelligence Generation Process across these multiple market stages?

   • How have you organized your salesforce to serve all market stages properly?

   • How do you control your sales effort across the PoP and PoS properly?

   • How do you sustain a powerful position in between the PoP and PoS?

   • Can “point of purchase” customers be KA? Why? How do you treat them? Resources?

   • Which challenges do you see when point of purchase customers are KAs?