Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Internatiomd Business Review Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 245-270, 1997 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0969-5931/97 $17.00+0.00
Use of Export Marketing Research by Industrial Firms: an Application and Extension of Deshpande and Zaltman' s Model
Adamantios Diamantopoulos* and Stephen Horncastle?
*Professor of Marketing and Business Research, The Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough LEl l 3TU, England tPast Research Student and Graduate of European Business Management School, University of Wales - - Swansea, Singleton Park Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales
Abstract - - The issue of information utilisation within an export setting has been neglected in the literature as most studies focus on the acquisition of export marketing research information rather than its actual use. In this paper, an expanded version of Deshpande and Zaltman's wellknown model of information use is developed by incorporating export-specific variables, and subsequently applied to a sample of UK exporters. The analysis reveals that information use depends on the firm's internal structure, the degree of surprise in the research results, and the nature of the export market in question. The findings are placed in the context of previous evidence on marketing research information use and direclions for future studies identified. ~ 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Introduction
There is widespread consensus in the marketing literature that effective use of information is a source of competitive advantage (Parsons, 1983; Porter and Millar, 1985; Turner, 1991; Glazer, 1991, 1992) and a prerequisite for market orientation (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kohli et al., 1993; Dalgic, 1994; Cadogan and Diamantopoulos, 1995). The critical role of information was highlighted by the AMA Commission for the Effectiveness of Research and Development for Marketing Management, which urged researchers to study the process of knowledge creation and diffusion and develop ways in which information can be used more effectively in marketing management practice (Myers et al., 1979). Moreover, the issue of marketing knowledge utilisation provided the remit for the AMA's Task Force on the Development of Marketing Thought (AMA Task Force, 1988) and also featured as a key topic in the Marketing Science Institute's List of Research Priorities 1990-1992 (Marketing Science Institute, 1990). Thus T o o k e y ' s (Tookey, 1964: p. 59) early observation that "a marketing policy is only as good as the information on which it is based" has stood the test of time and, if anything, is more relevant in today's information age than it was 30 years ago.
6,3
247 international competitors... [and] are relatively light spenders in this area in Use of Export comparison with the budgets they reserve for the domestic market" (Gofton, Marketing 1994: p. 26); in fact, international research accounts for only 25.8% of total R e s e a r c h by marketing research expenditure by UK firms (AMSO, 1993). Thus the findings Industrial Firms of the present study should be beneficial not only to export managers and inhouse researchers seeking to promote effective use of information within their organisations, but also to information suppliers serving industrial exporters. Both marketing research agencies and export assistance bodies would benefit from an understanding of the factors which facilitate or hinder information use by their potential clients, resulting in better targeting of their services (Diamantopoulos et al., 1993).
Literature Review In a domestic setting, there is a well-established body of literature on the use of information in general and marketing research information in particular (for relevant reviews see Weiss, 1977; Deshpande, 1979; Larsen, 1980; Havelock, 1986; Menon and Varadarajan, 1992). Among the topics that have attracted detailed study, are managerial perceptions of the contribution of marketing research information (e.g. Holbert, 1974; Bellenger, 1979; Luck and Krum, 1981; Barabba and Zaltman, 1991), the environmental, organisational, and project-specific characteristics affecting information usage (e.g. Deshpande and Jeffries, 1981; Deshpande, 1982; Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982, 1987; Goldstein and Zack, 1989; Perkins and Rao, 1990; Sinkula, 1990; Raphael and Parket, 1991; Glazer and Weiss, 1993), the differences in information usage by public and private organisations (e.g. Deshpande, 1981; Deshpande and Zaltman, 1981), differences in perceptions between research providers and research users (e.g. Krum, 1978; Deshpande and Zaltman, 1984), the evaluation of research results by managers (e.g. Lee et al., 1987; Jobber and Elliott, 1992), the manager-researcher dialectic (e.g. Zaltman and Moorman, 1988; Moorman et al., 1992, 1993), the role of marketing research information in organisational politics (e.g. Piercy, 1979, 1989: Goodman, 1993), the link between market information processing and organisational learning (e.g. Sinkula, 1994; Day and Glazer, 1994), and cross-country differences in the implementation of marketing research (e.g. Schlegelmilch et al., 1986; Schlegelmilch and Therivel, 1988). In contrast to domestic marketing research where a substantial amount of conceptual and empirical knowledge has accumulated over the past fifteen years or so, surprisingly little is known about the factors affecting the use of export marketing research information. Most studies have investigated such issues as the information needs and preferences of exporters (e.g. Pointon, 1978; Wood and Goolsby, 1987), the sources of information used (e.g. Wakers, 1983; Cavusgil, 1985; Koh et al., 1993; McAuley, 1993), the types of research studies undertaken (e.g. Bodur and Cavusgil, 1985; Seringhaus, 1988), the organisation and execution of research activities (e.g. Cavusgil, 1984a; Koh, 1991; Diamantopoulos et al., 1991; Crick et al., 1994), the differences in export characteristics between users and non-users of export
249
SBUs rather than export managers, all combine to place constraints on the extent to which the patterns observed are generalisable to exporting. The sections that follow describe a study designed specifically to examine the factors affecting the use of export marketing research information by industrial firms. First, a brief conceptual background is given to information use and the likely determinants of the latter; particular reference is made to Deshpande and Zaltman's (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987) model of information use by industrial firms in a domestic (US) setting, which is used as the starting point for the current investigation. Next, the methodology of the study is described, providing details of data collection and measure development procedures. This is followed by the presentation of the study's findings and a discussion of their implications in the context of previous efforts. The paper is concluded by considering the study's limitations and drawing up an agenda for future research.
251 was based on an extensive literature review coupled with careful theoretical Use of Export reasoning, "one may well question the sensibility of making important Marketing decisions on a theoretical formulation on the basis of a single test" (Henkel, Research by 1976: p. 22). A related point is that the utility of variables such as I n d u s t r i a l F i r m s centralisation and formalisation has been demonstrated in other similar studies (e.g. Deshpande, 1982; John and Martin, 1984) but has never been empirically investigated in the context of export information use; however, the question of how to best organise the international marketing research function has long been an issue of concern in the normative literature (e.g. Karstens, 1960; Alder, 1975; Douglas and Craig, 1983; Van Hamersveld, 1989). In addition to the six determinants of information use drawn from Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987, three additional influences were identified from the export literature as likely to have a direct or indirect impact on use. The first is export experience and reflects the familiarity of the company with the particular export market that is being researched, Export experience has been shown to affect both whether research will be conducted in the first place (Diamantopoulos et al., 1990; Schlegelmilch et al., 1993) and the information sources utilised (McAuley, 1993; Cavusgil, 1984b). In the present study, it is hypothesised that export experience will indirectly affect information use through (a) a negative link with exploratory research purpose, (b) a posilive link with confirmatory research purpose, and (c) a negative link with surprise. Clearly, the more familiar the firm is with a certain export market the less the need for exploratory-type research and the greater emphasis on confirmatory research; this view is consistent with Sood and Adams' (Sood and Adams, 1984) results who found that, as firms become more experienced, they acquire more specific market information. Regarding the expected impact on surprise, given that the latter reflects "the extent to which a particular result is unanticipated, counterintuitive, or unforeseen by managers" (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982: p. 19), the longer the firm has been operating in the market concerned, the less likely it is to be "surprised" by information relating to this market. A second variable expected to have a direct and positive impact on information use is the dependence of the firm an the export market under consideration for generating business. If the export market concerned is relatively unimportant in sales and/or profitability terms, then "managers prefer to make decisions on the basis of limited research aided by judgment calls" (Cavusgil, 1985: p. 28). In contrast, research results are likely to be taken more seriously and relied upon for decision-making purposes when there is a lot at stake; thus, all other things being equal, it would be expected that the greater the proportion of total export sales accounted for by a particular market, the greater the use of export marketing research information relating to that market. The final variable expected to directly affect information use is the relative profitability of the export market under consideration vis-a-vis the domestic market. The more attractive export opportunities are perceived in profitability terms, the higher the potential payback of research in terms of its impact on the decision-making process. Given that "the payoff period for evaluating the costs
252
International Business Review 6,3 associated with the conduct of international marketing research will need to be considerably longer than that in relation to comparable domestic research" (Douglas and Craig, 1983: p. 20), the greater the profit potential of the market concerned, the greater the use of information generated by export marketing research. Fig. 1 summarises the above discussion by providing a schematic representation of the direct (solid lines) and indirect (dashed lines) linkages between export marketing research information use (EMR USE) and the variables expected to impact upon it. The rationale for the signs of the paths linking formalisation (FORMAL), centralisation (CENTRAL), PLC stage (LIFECYCL), exploratory research purpose (EXPLOR), confirmatory research purpose (CONFIRM) and surprise (SURPRISE) to one another, has been discussed extensively in Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982 and need not be repeated here. As far as the signs of the paths linking these variables to EMR USE are concerned, these are partly based on Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987 following the estimation of their model (see the earlier discussion on formalisation, exploratory research purpose, and surprise) and partly on Deshpande, 1982 and Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982. Lastly, the expected effects of export experience (EXPERIENCE), export dependence (DEPEND) and export profitability (PROFITAB) have been just described above and no further comment is necessary.
Research Method Variables In operationalising the conceptual framework of the study (see Fig. 1), an effort was made to use, wherever possible, established measures of the constructs involved. By using previously verified measures, it was hoped that the substantive relationships among the variables of interest would not be masked by measurement problems. A brief description of the individual measures is given below, while the sample details on which reliability estimates, etc are based are given in the next section. Export Marketing Research Information Use (EMR USE). A composite scale consisting of seven equally-weighted items in additive form, was used to operationalise use. The items comprise all those used by Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982, 1987 to reflect the dimensions of decision relevance, information surplus, recommendations implemented and general quality, plus two items capturing uncertainty reduction (Cavusgil, 1984a) and decision confidence (Lee et al., 1987). The internal consistency of the measure was very satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha=0.80) and, indeed, exceeded that of Deshpande and Zaltman's original measure (alpha=0.63).*
*However,it shouldbe born in mind that coefficientalpha is partly dependentupon the length of the scale (see, for example, DeVellis, 1991; Spector, 1992; Traub, 1994) and, therefore, comparisons shouldbe interpretedwith caution.
253
(+VE)
,
+VE EXPLOR
t ...............
+VE
(+VE)
(-VE)
il EMR
USE
r
(+VE) -VE
EXPERIENCE ""
-VE
SURPRISE I
I DEPEND
+VE
Figure 1. A Model of Export Marketing Research Information Use Among Industrial Firms. (Figures in parentheses 0 indicate expected effects not confirmed by Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987)
I PROFITAB
+VE
6,3
Confirmatory Research Purpose (CONFIRM). The eight-item composite index used by Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982, 1987 was initially employed to gauge the extent to which the research was "intended to affirm a predetermined direction or course of action" (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982: p. 18); however, three items in the original scale had to be excluded to improve poor initial reliability. Unfortunately, as was the case with EXPLOR, the scale's reliability remained poor despite all purification efforts (alpha=0.39). Product Life Cycle (LIFECYCL). Consistent with Deshpande and Zaltman,
1982, 1987, respondents were asked to place the product for which the specific research project was conducted in one of the following categories: Introduction (1), Growth (2), Maturity (3), and Decline (4).
Centralisation (CENTRAL). This dimension of organisational structure describes "the delegation of decision making authority throughout an organisation and the participation by managers in decision making" (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982: p. 18). Initially, a centralisation measure was formed by combining Deshpande's (Deshpande, 1982) five items indicating whether decision-making authority is confined to the upper levels in the organisation) with a single-item scale asking respondents to indicate how often they participate in decisions concerning the export market under consideration (4=always, l=never). However, the internal consistency of the combined measure indicated that the participation item be dropped. Thus, the final measure of centralisation is identical to Deshpande's (Deshpande, 1982) Hierarchy of Authority index (alpha=0.80). Export Experience, (EXPERIENCE). This was operationalised as the number of years the finn has been exporting to the specific export market for which the
research project concerned was undertaken. This measure of experience is thus quite distinct from the "overall" export experience of the firm, the latter
255
reflecting the total number of years a finn has been involved in exporting (note that the two measures are positively but only moderately correlated with one another; r = 0.49, P<0.001).
Export Dependence (DEPEND). This was defined as the proportion of total export sales attributable to the export market concerned and indicates the "importance" of the latter to the firm's export operations. The proportion of total export profits accounted for the particular export market was also recorded as an alternative indicator of market importance. However, as the two measures were strongly intercorrelated (r=0.83, P<0.001) and given that the profitability dimension is also captured by the PROFITAB variable (see below), the sales measure was retained for use in further analysis. Export Profitability (PROFITAB). Drawing from Diamantopoulos et al., 1990 and Schlegelmilch et al., 1993, a five-point comparative rating scale (5=much more profitable, l=much less profitable) was used to indicate the degree to which the profitability of the particular export market under consideration was higher or lower than that of the domestic market.
The internal consistency of the central variable of interest (information use) is well-above recommended thresholds (e.g. Nunnally, 1978; DeVellis, 1991); the two organisation structure dimensions, also exhibit acceptable reliabilities (although less so for the formalisation variable). Particularly problematic appear to be the scales capturing the purpose of the research project (exploratory/confirmatory) and the nature of its findings (as reflected in the degree of surprise); despite the fact that measures for these variables were based on past studies and despite purification efforts, no improvement in reliability was forthcoming. This posed a dilemma: either eliminate these variables from the model in Fig. 1 altogether (and thus incur substantial specification error) or retain them on conceptual grounds. After much deliberation, it was decided to include these variables in the subsequent analysis on substantive considerations (i.e. in the light of their theoretical importance and repeated use in previous studies).
Sample Description A total of 700 finns randomly selected from SELL'S BRITISH EXPORTERS business directory were targeted by means of a mail questionnaire.* The latter
*Consistent with Deshpande and Zaltman (1987) the sample was not stratified by industry, as the main concern was with the examination of the influences on export information use in
general and not in making inter-industry comparisons (this is also clearly reflected in the broad nature of the variables included in the model). While it would have been desirable to exclude very small firms from the initial sample (since previous studies have shown that smaller exporters are unlikely to conduct any form of export marketing research - - see Cavusgil, 1984a; Diamantopoulos et al., 1990; Schlegelmilch et al., 1993), size information was, unfortunately, only sporadically given in the SELL'S directory.
*The firms for the telephone interviews were randomly selected from the 700 companies forming the initial sample.
257
incomplete or only partly completed without any explanation. This left a total Use of Export of 71 fully usable questionnaires for further analysis. Marketing While the above pattem of responses suggested that, in line with R e s e a r c h by expectations, non-eligibility was the main reason for non-response, it was I n d u s t r i a l F i r m s nevertheless based on those firms that did respond to the mailing; thus, inevitably, the response pattern reflects a self-selection effect. However, the telephone survey of randomly selected firms from the initial sample, painted an identical picture. Of the 100 firms contacted, no fewer than 60 (60%) tumed out to be ineligible because they had ceased trading, were no longer exporting, or did not conduct any form of export marketing research. Only 6 firms (6%) indicated lack of time or company policy for reasons for non-participation, while the rest indicated that they had already returned the questionnaire or were about to do so. From the above it can be safely concluded that the response rate achieved largely reflects a low incidence of eligible respondents rather than specific shortcomings in the study's design or implementation (on this point, see also Wiseman and McDonald, 1980). Indeed, if the results of the telephone survey are projected to the initial sample size, only about 280 out of the 700 firms originally targeted could be expected to participate in the study in the first place. Following CARSA's (CARSA, 1982) standard definition of response rate as the total number of fully-completed questionnaires (71) over the number of eligible responding units in the sample (280), the study's effective response rate comes to 25% which is in line with the response rates of previous UK studies of export marketing research practices (e.g. the 30% achieved by Hart et al., 1994). An analysis of the job titles of respondents revealed that 24% were chief executives/directors, another 35% were heads of export/international operations, and the remainder 41% consisted of marketing/sales managers. Since the current focus lies in industrial exporters, in the interests of maintaining comparability with the Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987 study, 21 firms were excluded from subsequent analysis as they were solely or mainly involved in exporting consumer goods. Among the remaining (industrial) companies, there was considerable variation in size, the smallest firm having total annual sales of 900,000, while the largest a sales turnover of 4.5 billion and 65,000 employees. However, the majority of the sample consisted of small and medium-sized firms, with median annual sales of 5 million and median employment levels of 100 full-time personnel. On average, the respondent firms had been exporting for some 40 years and derived just under 50% of their total sales from export markets. The mean number of employees specifically dealing with export operations was six, and two-thirds of the firms sampled had a separate export department. In terms of export destinations (i.e. countries served), these ranged from 1 to 102. European countries were served by more than 80% of the firms and some two-thirds exported to Asia and/or Africa. North America and Oceania were less popular destinations (52 and 44% of firms respectively), while South America was a target only for a minority of exporters in the sample (30%).
258
International Analysis A series of sequential regressions was performed to estimate the model of export marketing research use earlier described in Fig. 1. The results of the estimation procedure are shown in Fig. 2, while Table 1 provides summary statistics on the regression equations. Focusing initially on the ultimate criterion variable (EMR USE), out of the
-"-"
FORMAL
0.11 -0.07
Iii
-0.23
]?0
CONFIRM
"" '"1
-0.39'*
0.06
:
i 0.03 ~ SURPR1SE
EMR USE
1
-0.37**
DEPEND
0.25* PROFITAB
Figure2. ModelEstimation;
*P<0.10; **P<0.5.
* P< 0.10
** P < 0.05
259
Use of Export eight variables hypothesised to have a direct effect upon it, four were found to have a significant impact (CENTRAL, SURPRISE, DEPEND and PROFITMarketing AB). Centralisation has a negative influence upon use, which confirms Research by previous findings in a domestic context showing that "managers who see I n d u s t r i a l F i r m s themselves as operating in firms that are relatively decentralized.., are likely to make extensive use of market research information" (Deshpande, 1982: p. 98). Also in accordance with theoretical expectations, the greater the profitability of the export market concerned in comparison to the domestic market, the greater the use of research information. While this is in line with previous evidence showing that "dependence-on foreign markets as a source of profits...has a strong influence on the nature of international marketing research" (Cavusgil, 1984a: p. 273), the export dependence variable paints a rather different picture. Contrary to expectations, the latter is negatively related to information use, suggesting that more use is made of marketing research information relating to markets from which the firm draws a smaller proportion of its export sales. Although this counterintuitive finding seems to imply "irrational" behaviour by managers (since they apparently rely more on research when making decisions about their less important export markets), another intefipretation is that export marketing research is primarily used to identify/assess new markets (prior to entry) and/or investigate ways of improving export operations in markets in which the firm is currently not particularly strong/successful. In other words, the role of research is not so much intended to support the decision-making process in those markets in which the firm is already well-established but rather to generate new possibilities in heretofore unexplored (or underexplored) markets (particularly those with superior profit potential as the positive impact of the PROFITAB variable seems to suggest). This interpretation is consistent with the findings on the role of surprise (see below) as well as with previous evidence in the export literature concerning the nature of information used by exporters. Specifically, the type of information generated by marketing research (objective knowledge) tends to be used primarily at the early stages of export operations; as the firm becomes more established in an export market, it tends to rely more and more on experiential knowledge (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977; Sood, 1981). The results relating to the impact of surprise are also opposite to those expected. While significant, surprise is positively related to information use, indicating that the more unexpected or unanticipated the findings of the
Dependent Variable EMR USE SURPRISE EXPLOR CONFIRM NS=not significant. R2(adj.) 0.40 0.14 0.01 0.05 F-value 4.49 3.31 1.05 1.60 Significance 0.000 0.030 NS NS
R2
261
Variable SURPRISE EXPLOR CONFIRM LIFECYCL FORMAL CENTRAL EXPERIENCE DEPEND PROFITAB Direct effect 0.35 NS NS NS NS -0.39 n/a -0.37 0.25 Indirect effect n/a NS 0.12 NS NS NS -0.11 n/a n/a Total effect 0.35 NS 0.12 NS NS -0.39 -0.11 -0.37 0.25
Use of Export
Marketing
Research by Industrial Firms
EXPERIENCE to CONFIRM is significant. It seems that reasons other than the length of time for which the firm has been operating in the market determine the type of research that will be carried out. As a means for summarising the results, Table 2 shows the decomposition of effects on use based upon the significant paths displayed in Fig. 2. Centralisation has the highest relative influence on export marketing research information use, followed closely by export dependence and surprise; export experience and confirmatory research purpose have both more moderate (and opposite) overall effects on use.
Discussion Contrasting the present findings with those of Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987, more similarities exist in terms of absence of relationships rather than in terms of consistent significant influences. Specifically, other than the negative link between confirmatory research purpose and surprise, all other significant links in the two studies either involve different variables (as is the case with the organisational structure scales) or different directional effects of the same variable (as is the case with the surprise scale). This divergence in results suggests that the determinants of information use are very much contextspecific, differing not only across consumer and industrial good settings (as Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982, 1987 clearly demonstrate), but also across domestic versus export operations. For example, with reference to the role of organisational structure, while formalisation and centralisation both have a negative effect on information use in a consumer setting (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982), formalisation has a positive and centralisation has no effect on use in an industrial setting (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987), and centralisation (but not formalisation) has a negative effect on information use in an export setting (this study). It goes without saying, that the differences highlighted above should be seen in the light of methodological differences between the current study and that by Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987. Some of these relate to the measurement of the various variables and were pointed out in the methodology section.
263
Use of Export making. Although the present study cannot offer any direct evidence on this, one such source is likely to be export intelligence which "is gathered in the Marketing course of business transactions abroad through intermediaries, such as, Research by international banking services, freight forwarders and other export middlemen, I n d u s t r i a l F i r m s or by participating in events such as international fairs and business missions whose focus is not so much on information gathering as facilitating exchange or promotion" (Denis and Depelteau, 1985: p. 79). The type of knowledge generated by export intelligence is largely experiential, unlike market research information which generates objective market knowledge (Sood, 1981); in this context, "objective information is that which can be learned from others. This represents the approach to gaining knowledge through communication, research and instruction. On the other hand, experiential knowledge is that which can only be learned through experiencing the actual situation, and cannot be transferred from one individual to another" (Sood and Adams, 1984: p. 170, emphasis added). From a managerial perspective, the findings have several implications. Firstly, it seems that a centralised organisational structure can inhibit information use. Thus, the recommendation that "to the extent that an organisation does or could make frequent use of research, an alternative design (i.e. decentralized responsibility) which enhances research use might be considered" (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982: p. 26) also seems to apply in an industrial export setting. Delegation of decision-making authority on export matters is one way of improving export information use within an organisation. Secondly, an atmosphere that encourages open-mindedness rather than a "status quo" interpretation of research results is also likely to facilitate information use. The latter finding should be good news for researchers offering their services to industrial exporters, as their search for creative directions and new avenues for the client firm are unlikely to be met with the same degree of scepticism as when similar research relates to the domestic market. Of course, in-house research staff should also be encouraged by the fact that surprising results will not simply be tolerated but actively taken into account by export managers. This should reduce any fears among in-house researchers that the quality of their efforts will be mainly judged according to "political" considerations (i.e. whether they "rock the boat" or not) and encourage inclusion of more creative research avenues within their research briefs. Thirdly, in offering export market research services, both internal and external research suppliers would do well to emphasise markets in which the firm does not currently derive a major proportion of its export sales but which are, nevertheless, attractive in terms of profit potential. In other words, instead of only highlighting the importance of research for those markets in which the firm is well-established, a more future-oriented outlook on the need for export marketing research is also recommended. In particular, the longer-term benefits of researching potentially attractive markets for further development and/or expansion should be stressed, as these are the kinds of markets for which export marketing research information is most likely to be relied upon
265
of export marketing research information by industrial firms by including export-specific variables to a well-known model of information use and applying it to UK data. In doing so, the investigation sailed through rather uncharted waters due to the absence of previous similar studies in an export setting. To draw a navigation chart, several issues need addressing in future research. Firstly, given that the present findings apply to industrial exporters only, it would be to conduct a similar investigation on a sample of consumer goods exporters. While, in a domestic setting, important differences exist between consumer and industrial goods companies with respect to the factors affecting information use (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1982, 1987), it remains to be seen whether this is also the case in exporting. Secondly, closer attention needs to be paid to the characteristics of the research project itself in terms of its purpose and the degree of surprise in the findings; the measurement problems mentioned in the methodology section, imply that the results on these variables are by no means conclusive and, thus, in need of further analysis (ideally with a larger sample). Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, export marketing research has to be placed in the context of the entire export marketing information system of the firm; this means that its use needs to be looked at relatively to the use of other information provision mechanisms (such as export intelligence and export assistance services). Marketing research, marketing intelligence and export marketing assistance have largely been looked at independently in previous studies and a more integrative look would be worthwhile (Souchon and Diamantopoulos, 1994). For example, are particular types of export decisions associated with the use of export research, intelligence and assistance respectively? Under what circumstances does the firm rely upon each mechanism and how are they combined? What organisational and/or environmental factors facilitate/hinder employment of these mechanisms? Answers to such questions would go along way towards explaining actual information usage and generate empirically-based guidelines for more effective and efficient use of information among exporting firms. References
Alder, L. (1975) Managing marketing research in the diversified muhinational corporation. In Marketing in Turbulent Times and marketing: The Challenges and opportunities, Combined Proceedings, ed. M. M. Edward, pp. 305-308, American Marketing Association, Chicago. The Association of Market Survey Organisations (AMSO) /1993), Research, Market Research Society, May. Barabba, V. P. and Zaltman, G. (1991) Hearing the Voice ~f the Market. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. Bellenger, D. N. (1979) The marketing manager's view of marketing research. Business Horizons, 22 June, 59~o5. Bodur, M. and Cavusgil, S. T. (1985) Export market research orientation of Turkish firms. European Journal of Marketing 9(2), 5-16. Cadogan, J. W. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1995) Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski and the market orientation construct: integration and internationalization. Journal of Strategic Marketing 3( 1), 41-60.
267
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B. and Tse, K. (1993) Understanding the role of export marketing assistance: empirical evidence and research needs. European Journal of Marketing 27(4), 5-18. Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H. (1996) Differences in the export profiles among users of export marketing research: evidence from two European countries. In Europe's Challenges: Economic Efficiency and Social Solidarit3', ed. S. Urban. Gabler, Wiesbaden. Douglas, S. P. and Craig, S. M. (1983) International Marketing Research. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Dunn, W. N. (1986) Conceptualizing knowledge use. In Knowledge Generation, Exchange, and Utilization, eds Beal et al. Westview Press Inc. Fletcher, K. and Wheeler, C. (1989) Market intelligence for international markets. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 7(5/6), 30-34. Garrett, K. and Hart, S. (1993) An investigation of market research activities of multinational SBUs. In marketing for the New Europe: Dealing With Complexity, eds J. Chiar and J. Sureda, Vol. 1, pp. 519-542. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Marketing Academy. Glazer, R. (1991) Marketing in an information-intensiveenvironment: strategic implications of knowledge as an asset. Journal of Marketing 55, 1-19. Glazer, R. and Weiss, A. M. (1993) Marketing in turbulent environments: decision processes and the time-sensitivity of information. Journal of Marketing Research 30(November), 509521. Glazer, R., Steckel, J. H. and Winer, R. S. (1992) Locally rational decision making: the distracting effect of information on managerial performance. Management Science 38(February), 212-226. Gofton, K. (1994) Moving in on more Markets. Marketing 10, March, 26-27. Goldstein, D. K. and Zack, M. H. (1989) The impact of marketing information supply on product managers: an organizational information perspective. Office: Technology and People 4(Winter), 313-336. Goodman, S. K. (1993) Information needs for management decision-making. Records Management Quarterly 27(4), 12-23. Hart, S. J., Webb, J. R and Jones, M. V. (1994) Export marketing research and the effect of export experience in industrial SMEs. International Marketing Review, 11(6), 4-22. Havelock, R. G. (1986) The knowledge perspective: definition and scope of a new study domain. In Knowledge Generation, Exchange, and Utilization, eds Beal et al. Westview Press Inc. Henkel, R. E. (1976) Tests of Significance. Sage, London and Beverly Hills. Holbert, N. A. (1974) How managers see marketing research. Journal of Advertising Research 14(December), 41-46. Jaworski, B. J. and Kohli, A. J. (1993) Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing 57(July), 53-70. Jobber, D. and Elliott, R. H. (1992) The evaluation and use of marketing research information: a behavioural simulation. Marketing information Group Conference Proceedings, 256-266. John, G. and Martin, J. (1984) Effects of organizational structure of marketing planning on credibility and utilization output. Journal of Marketing Research 21, 170-183. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J. (1977) Internationalization process of the firm I a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies 8, 23-32. Karstens, M. L. (1960) Organizing, planning, and staffing market research activities in an international corporation. Maketing Research in International Operations 53, Management Report, American Management Association, NY. Keegan, W. J. (1984) Multinational Marketing Management, 3rd Edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L. and Muller, K. E. (1988) Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable methods, 2nd Edn. PWS-Kent, Boston.
269
Raphael, J. and Parket, I. R. (1991) The need for market research in executive decision making. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 6(1-2), 15-21. Rich, R. F. (1977) Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In Using Social Research in Public Policy making, ed. C. H. Weiss. D. C. Heath and Company. Rich, R. F. (1979), The Power of Social Science Information and Public Policy Making. JosseyBass, San Francisco. Ricks, D. A. (1983) Big Business Blunders. Dow-Jones Irwin, Homewood, IL. Schlegelmilch, B., Boyle, K. and Therivel, S. (1986) Marketing research in medium-sized U.K. and U.S. firms. Industrial Marketing Management 15, 117-182. Schlegelmilch, B., Diamantopoulos, A. and Tse, K. (1993) Determinants of export marketing research usage: testing some hypotheses on U.K. exporters. In Perspectives on Marketing Management II1, ed. M. Baker, pp. 119-139. Wiley. Schlegelmilch, B. and Therivel, S. (1988) The use of marketing research in engineering companies: empirical evidence from the U.S. and the U.K. In Advances in Business Marketing, ed. A. G. Woodside, Vol. 3, pp. 249-291. Jai Press, Greenwich, CT. Seringhaus, R. F. H. (1985) Private-public sector interaction: how effective is export assistance by government. Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, Bielefeld, Germany, pp. 119-128. Seringhaus, R. F. H. (1986) The role of information assistance in small firms' export involvement. International Small Business Journal 5(2), 26-36. Seringhaus, R. F. H. (1987) Export promotion: the role and impact of government services. Irish Marketing Review 2, 106-116. Seringhaus, R. F. H. (1988) Export knowledge, strategy and performance. Developments in Marketing Science 10, 97-101. Sinkula, J. M. (1990) Perceived characteristics, organizational factors, and the utilization of external market research supplies. Journal of Business Research, 18, August, 1-17. Sinkula, J. M. (1994) Market information processing and organisational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58, January, 1-21. Sinkula, J. M. and Hampton, R. D. (1988) Centralization and information acquisition by inhouse market research departments. Journal of Business Research, 16, June, 337-349. Sood, J. H. (1981), The international market information model of export behaviour: an empirical investigation based on the size of the exporting firm. Proceedings of the European Academy of Advanced Research in Marketing, Copenhagen, March. Sood, J. H. and Adams, P. (1984) Model of management learning styles as a predictor of export behaviour and performance. Journal of Business Research 12, 169-182. Souchon, A-L. and Diamantopoulos, A. (1994) Export marketing information use: a review of the literature and a conceptual framework. In Marketing: Uni~' in Diversity, eds Bell et al., Vol. 2, pp. 854-863. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Marketing Education Group, Coleraine. Spector, P. E. (1992) Summated Rating Scale Constrtlction: An Introduction. Sage Publications, London and Beverly Hills. Speed, R. (1994) Regression type techniques and small samples: a guide to good practice. In Quantitative methods in Marketing, eds G. J. Hooley and M. K. Hussey, pp. 89-104. Academic Press, London. Terpstra, V. and Sarathy, V. R. (1994) International Marketing, 6th Edn. Dryden Press, Fort Worth. Tookey, D. (1964) Factors associated with success in exporting. Journal of Management Studies 20( I ), 48-66. Traub, R. E. (1994) Reliability for the Social Sciences: Theory and Applications. Sage Publications, London. Turner, P. (1991) Using information to enhance competitive advantage - - the marketing options. European Journal of Marketing 25(6), 55-64. Van Hamersveld, M. (1989) Marketing research - - local, multidomestic or international? Marketing and Research Today, 17(3), August, 132-138.