Essays /

1251549 Buying Center Bonoma Essay

Essay preview

The Buying Center: Structure and Interaction Patterns
Author(s): Wesley J. Johnston and Thomas V. Bonoma
Source: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Summer, 1981), pp. 143-156 Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251549 .
Accessed: 07/11/2014 06:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]

.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 112.133.201.254 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 06:38:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WESLEY
J.JOHNSTON
V.BONOMA
&THOMAS
This article reports a first step toward developing some
quantifiable dimensions of the industrial buying task group, called the buying center. Group composition and interaction
processes were examined for purchases of capital equipment
and industrial services in 31 firms. Data were analyzed to
test the soundness of a communications network perspective
on the buying center and the managerial implications of such a perspective. Equipment and service purchase measures
differed reliably across several indices suggested by our
theoretical orientation. Organizational structure and purchase situation attributes correlated in generally expected directions with the dimensions of the buying group.

THE
BUYING CENTER:
STRUCTURE
AND
INTERACTI
PATTERNS

Introduction
THE

concept of the buying center refers to all
those members of an organization who become
involved in the buying process for a particular
product or service (Robinson et al. 1967). While
the major buying roles (e.g., initiator, influencer)
remain constant over all purchases, the participants
can and do change over purchase types and categories. The buying center notion has been one of the most important conceptual contributions made
in the study of industrial buying behavior. Yet
progress in moving from the abstract buying center
concept toward a research topic or management
aid has been slow (Wind 1978b; Gronhaug and
Bonoma 1980).

Wesley J. Johnston is Assistant Professor of the Faculty
of Marketing, The Ohio State University. Thomas V.
Bonoma is Associate Professor, Graduate School of
Business Administration, Harvard University.
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 45 (Summer 1981), 143-156.

It has been argued that the best way to incorporate and understand all the complex interactions taking place in industrial buying is via a systems approach (e.g., von Bartanlanffy 1968, Johnston
1979, Nicosia and Wind 1977). However, systems
theory is currently considerably stronger on concept
than on method and has offered little to the industrial
marketing researcher or manager that is implementable. Nonetheless, the need to examine the group and other social aspects of the buying center
remains a central one:
* To the extent that the buying center includes
more than one member, any analysis . . .
should include an explicit examination of the
relevant characteristics of the group, i.e., the
cohesiveness of the buying center, the leadership pattern, and the formal and informal network of communications among the center's members (Wind 1978a). * The development of organizational (as distinct from individual) characteristics (such as

The Buying Center: Structure and Interaction Patterns

This content downloaded from 112.133.201.254 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 06:38:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

/ 143

group cohesiveness, autonomy, intimacy,
polarization, stability, flexibility, etc.) is the
least advanced area of organizationalstudies
(Wind 1978c).
Useful knowledge has been gained from studying
the purchasing manager as an individual (see Bonoma et al. 1977 for a review, and as he/she engages in selected (often simulated)interactions with salespeople, Tosi 1966 or Strauss 1962.) For the most part researchers have been unable to capture the

real life complexity of the buying interactions that
occur in a company, much less the influences coming
from selling representatives and the environment
(competitors, government). The stumblingblock has
been suitable interaction theory, and just as important, suitable methods. This paper develops some structuraland interaction-based system concepts to examine the functioning of corporate buying centers from a small group perspective, to develop compatible methods

that can be used to measure these relational concepts, and to conduct an investigation of the buying center as a small social system in a number of
organizations. The practical implicationsof this kind
of approach to the buying center are numerous from
an industrial marketer's perspective. They include
understanding the involvement and interaction of
organizational members in the buying decision
process, information transmission and processing
in the buying center, and the importance of purchasing management in the buying center. Previous Research on the Buying Center
Although the term buying center was first used by
Robinson et al. (1967), the first citation recognizing
that a numberof managersother than the purchasing
staff were regularly involved in buying decisions
was Cyert et al. (1956). Since then many articles
examining the buying center have appeared. For
example, Weigand (1968) showed that the industrial
buying process is complex and involves many people
at all levels in a firm. Later, Brand (1972) conducted
a study based on 232 semi-structured interviews
with managers involved in buying activities in 43
U.K. companies. He examined the participation of
key interviews with these managers and the participation of key departments and managers in the different stages of the buying process. He found
that general management and technical personnel
were perceived as equal or more important than
purchasing management in most of the buying
stages, and in all of the companies.
The frequency of buying involvement of different functional areas in the firm like engineering,

production, and purchasing has been investigated
on a number of occasions (Buckner 1967, Scientific
American 1969). These studies typically employed
a large cross-sectional survey of industrial firms,
from which aggregatefrequencies of functional area
involvement were computed on an industry or
product basis. No attempt was made in any of these
studies to group or systematically investigate
characteristics of organizations or groups with similar buying involvement. Other researchers tried to discover what aspects
of an organization or the purchase situation draw
different participants into the buying process.
Gronhaug (1975) found that the number of buying
participantswas affected by the degree of routinization of the buying problem, the perceived product importance, and the resources availablefor handling
buying problems. Patchen (1974) examined the effects of the locus and basis of participants' organizational influences on the buying process. He found that the importance of a person's stake in the

decision had an effect on that person's participation
in the process.
More recent research has turned to the perceived
influence of various functional roles in the buying
process (Fortin and Ritchie 1980, Grashof and
Thomas 1976, McMillan 1973, Patchen 1974). The
results of these studies show that there are significant differences in the perceived influence of major participants in the buying process, but that every
participant or group reports that it is one of the
most important and central. Little or no consensus
on who is the most influential party has been
obtained (Silk and Kalwani 1979). However, when
the question is restricted to who participates in the
buying center, high consensus is achieved (Gronhaug 1977, Kelly 1974, Patchen 1974). Apparently, it is quite easy to identify buying center participants
in any given purchase situation, but quite difficult
to understand their dynamics and power relationships.
Power, politics, and influence may be central
social variables in the buying center. Strauss (1962)
found the work behavior of purchasing agents to
be strongly influenced by lateral negotiations, or
formal and informal interactions with peers to
influence the terms of purchases. In another study,
Pettigrew (1975) examined the communications entering and exiting the buying firm. He found that certain individualsacted as gate-keepers to structure
the outcome of the purchasingsituation in the buying
firms through control of information. Martilla(1971)
found that word-of-mouth communication within
firms is an important influence in the later stages
of the adoptionprocess. Opinion leaders were found

144 / Journal of Marketing, Summer 1981

This content downloaded from 112.133.201.254 on Fri, 7 Nov 2014 06:38:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to be more central to the verbal communication
network than were other buying influentials in the
firm.
The results of the research conducted to date
depicts the buying center as a complex, multiperson
group within the buying organization. The characteristics of this group, its structure, operation, and dynamics, remain largely unknown.
The Buying Center from a Systems Perspective
While researchers have conceptually examined the
buying center from a small group or systems perspective (Anyon 1963, Bonoma and Johnston 1978, Bonoma et al. 1977, Choffray and Lilien 1978, Cyert
and MacCrimmon 1968, Cyert and March 1963),
and others have called for work in the area (Nicosia
and Wind 1977), only a very limited amount of
empirical work has actually been done.
Only a few studies that actually take a system
or small group perspective could be found in the
industrial buying behavior area (Choffray 1977,
Corey 1978, Hillier 1975, Wind 1978b, Spekman
1978, Spekman and Stern 1979). Choffray found
that companies exhibited different vector involvement patterns in the purchase of industrial cooling systems. He had difficulty, however, in correlating
this involvement measure with any other easily
measurable variables. The vector involvement pattern is simply a list of departments within a firm with binary (yes or no) scoring for participation
in the buying decision process.
Wind (1978b) examined purchases of scientific
and technological informationby 171companies and
found that 274 persons were involved in these
purchases. He developed unidimensional scales that
graphically presented the relative importance of
various functional positions in each phase of the
purchase decision. He concluded that "recognition
of the complexity of the organizational buying
center, and empirical identification of its boundaries, can help. . . the entire purchasingprocess." (p. 29)
Spekman (1978) used a macrosociological approach to examine the decision making potential of 52 industrial buying centers in 20 manufacturing
firms. He examined the effect of perceived environmental uncertainty on four structural dimensions of the buying center: centralization, rules and
procedures, participation in decision making, and
division of labor. There was some support found
to indicate than an increase in environmental uncertainty leads to a decrease in the buying center's degree of division of labor and to an increase in
the level of participation in decision making.
Hillier (1975) developed a group model of the

purchasing process called the decision atom
viewpoi...

Read more

Keywords

-10 -106 -115 -120 -156 -177 -178 -186 -19 -200 -211 -228 -23 -248 -271 -29 -31 -32 -349 -434 -44 -45 -529 -611 -64 -67 -84 /her /page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp /stable/1251549 0 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.24 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.41 0.58 0.63 0.82 0.92 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 07/11/2014 08 09 1 1.09 1.10 1.15 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.26 1.35 1.37 1.39 1.45 1.57 1.68 1.91 1.97 10 100 107779 11 111 112.133.201.254 12 12.04 1251549 13 14 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 15 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 16 161 163 17 171companies 173 18 19 193 195 1950 1956 1962 1963 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1978a 1978b 1978c 1979 1980 1981 1st 1summarizesthe 2 2.09 2.49 2.70 2.77 20 2014 207 21 22 224 23 232 237 24 241 25 26 265 27 274 29 2nd 3 3.22 3.41 3.55 3.628 30 300 31 32 33 344 36 38 39 4 4.47 4.558 4.77 4.99 41 42 420 43 439 44 45 48 48106 49 5 5.148 516 52 54 56 568 6 6.43 60 600 62 7 7.29 7.99 76 7ra 8 8.69 9 96 99 abil abl abstract accept access accomplish account accur achiev across act action activ actual ad adapt addison addison-wesley addit additionalinforrm administr adopt adoptionprocess advanc advertis advis advoc ae aerospac affect agenda agent aggreg aggregatefrequ aid al alik allyn also altern although alvin alway ama american among amount amountof analys analysi analyz and/or andrew ann annual anoth anyon appar appear applic approach april arbor architectur archiv area argu aronson articl ask aspect asphalt assess assist associ atom attempt attribut author automat automot autonom autonomi avail availablefor averag b bacon bagozzi bale band bar barg bartalanffi bartanlanffi base basi basic becom behav behavior believ bennett best beta better bicker binari board bobbi bonoma bore boston bought boundari brand brazil breed british broad buckner build builder bureaucraci busi buy buyer buyer-sel c calder calibr call cambridg capit capitalequip capitalgood captur care case categor categori cbi cell cement center central centralization-th ceo certain champion chang character characterist chase check chemic chicago choffray choos citat citi class clear cliff close cnl co cohes coke collabor collect combi come commerci communic communicationconcern communicationnet compani companion compartment compat competitor complet complex complexity-th compos composit comput concentr concept conceptu concern conclud conclus conclusionsand condit conduct configur confus connect connected consensus consid consider consist constant constraint construct consult consum contact contain content context continu contract contribut control convers cool corey corpor correl cost could counter counter-intuit crane creat creativ criteria criterion cross cross-sect current custom cut cvert cyert d data date deal decentr decentralized/combination decid decis decision-mak decreas defin definit degre deliber demand demonstr depart department departments/divisions depict dept deriv describ descript design desir desk detail deter determin develop diagram diagramatically.figure diagramoutlin dialogu differ differenti difficult difficulti digit digraph dimens direct director disciplin discourag discov discuss disregard dissert dissimilar distinct distributor district divers divis division divisions/subsidiaries divsub dministr dollar done down download draft draperyclean draw drill driver drop dryden dummi duncan dunn dyad dyadic dynam e e.g easi easili economi ed edit effect effici effort eight either electricalpart electron element empir employ employe engag engin england englewood enough enter entir environ environment equal equat equip especi et etc european evalu even eventu everi everyon evolv exact examin exampl exchang execut exert exhaust exhibit exist exit expand expect expectedcorrelatesof explicit explor exploratori express extend extens extent extern f fabric facil facilit fact factor faculti fail farri fascin fewer fie figur figure1 final find fire firm first five fixtur fledgl flexibl flow follow food for-profit foreman fork fork-lift fork-lifttruck form formal formalization-bas formalization-th fortin fortinand found foundat four framework francesco frequenc fri frontier function furnac furur futur g gain galvan gas gasolin gate gate-keep general generat georg gerald get give given go good govern graduat graph graphic grashof great greater greatest grid gronhaug gross group h hall hand handbook handl handledat hardlysurprisingthat harvard he/she headquart heat heavili help henc hierarchi high higher hill hillier him/her hinsdal his/her holbeck holbek holt home horizont hot hour howev human hutchinson hydraul hypothes hypothet i.e identif identifi il illustr illustratingwhich impact implement implic implicationsof import importancewhich importantfor imposs impress inc includ incorpor increas independ indic individu individualsact industri industrial-organiz industrialmarket industrialmarketerth industrialservic ineleg influenc influenti inform informationbi informationquick initi innov input insight instal instil institut instrument integr interact interacti interaction-bas interactionpattern interactivedimens interest intern interrel interrelationship interview intimaci introduct intuit investig involv involve.25 issu item ize j j.johnston jain jame janitori januari job job-shop john johnston joint journal jr jstor june k kalwani keeper kelli key kind know knowledg l lab label labor lack lamb larg largest later law lawrenc layer lead leader leadership least led legend less level life lift lifttruck light like lilien lillien limit lindsey line link list literatur littl load local locomot locus london longest look loui low lower ludwig m ma maccrimmon machin machineri macro macro-sociolog macrosociolog made main mainten major make manag managementhierarchyar manageri manageron managersoth mani manufactur map march market martilla martin marvin massachusett materi matter may mcgraw mcmillan mcmillen mean measur medic member membership ment metal method methodfor methodolog mi might mill mine minimum mirror mission mix ml model moder modi modifi mohr month mortim mouth move much multiperson must name narrow nation natur necessari necessarili need negat negoti neither network new nicosia nj none nonetheless nonpurchas north northholland not-for-profit notion nov novel novelti novemb nuclear nucleus null number numberof numer o observ obtain occas occur octob offer offic often ohio oil one oper operation opinion opportun oppos optim orbitingth order orderto organ organiz organizationalauthor organizationalfactor organizationalmemb organizationalstructur organizationalstructurevari organizationalstudi organizationand organizationor organizationthat orgprch orient other ought outcom outlin outsid oven overal overhead overrul ownership p p.r paper paradigm parkinson part parti partial particip participantswa participation-th particular past patchen patrick pattern peer peopl perceiv percentag percept perform perhap period permit person personnel perspect persuad petroleum pettigrew ph.d phase phenomenon pick pictur piercer pipe pittsburgh place plan plant plasma plate plausibl play pleas polar polici polit poor posit possibl potenti power pp practic predict predictor preliminari prentic prescrib present preserv presid presidentin press prevent preview previous primari print privat probabl problem problem-solv procedur proceed process processor procur product profession professor profit progress project promis properti propos proposit protect protocol prove provid psycholog publish pump pur purchas purchasesituationattribut purchasingmanagerhi purchasingprocess purchasingsitu purcl purpos pursu push putblic q qualit qualiti quantifi quarter question quit r r2 radic random rang rare rather reach readili real rebuy recal receiv recent recess recogn recognit reconstruct record recoveri reduc refer reflect refractori refus regard regress regular relat relationship releas relev reliabl remain rememb remov repair report repres represent requir requisit research resistor resolv resourc respons restrict result revenu review rig rinehart ritchi river road robert robinson role rough routin rule run safeti sale salespeopl sampl scale scholar scholarship school schroder scienc scientif score second section sector secur see seem select self sell seller semi semi-structur semistructuredinterview send senior sens sensibl sent separ septemb seri serv servic set seventeen sever shape shaw shelv sheth ship shop shortest show shown sign sign-off signific silk similar simon simpli simul sinc singl site situa situat situationcategor six size size-organiz slap slight slow sludg small snowbal social social/organizational sociolog solv someth somewhat son sort sound sourc special specialti specif specifi spekman spent spring stabil stabl staff stage stake standbi start state statist status steel step stern still stock storag straight strategi strauss street stress streufert strong stronger strongerpredictor structur structuraland structuralvari structuralvariablesof structureand student studi stumblingblock subhash subject subsequ success suffici suggest suitabl sum summari summer superintend superior supervisor support [email protected] sure surfac surpris survey system systemat tabl table2 tactic take talk tank tar task team technic techniqu technolog temporari tend tentat term test theoret theoretical/methodological theori therefor thoma thought three three-year througha throughout thus time tion togeth tonnag took tool top topic tosi total tow toward tradit traditionalstructuralcharacterist traffic train transmiss transport treatment tri trow truck truli trust turn two two-person type typewrit typic typolog u u.k u.s.a unabl uncertainti under understand understandingof unexpect unidimension unit univers universitymicrofili unknown unpublish unsystemat upon upper url use usual v v.bonoma valid valu valuabl vari variabl varianc variat various vector vend verbal versus vertic vessel vest via viabl vice view viewpoint visual vol von vp vs w want wants-without wast water way week weigand weight well wesley whose wide wiley win wind winston wire within without woodsid word word-of-mouth work work/clerical would would-b wrap written www.jstor.org www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp www.jstor.org/stable/1251549 x y year yes yet yoram york zaltman zeeb zero zip