The Impact of Customer Intensity in Firm Performance: Tech Capabilities as A Moderating Variable
Abstract
Entrepreneurial marketing “EM” is considered to be suitable for small businesses. However, since the perspective has shifted from product and sales to a market orientation, interest in the creation of customer value has grown and has been the subject of intense discussion. Thus, in this study, we aim to investigate and describe the significant relationship between Customer intensity “CI” and firm performance “FP” in SMEs operating in Khartoum-Sudan, by utilizing technological capabilities “TCPs” as a moderating variable. The resource-based view “RBV” provides the theoretical foundation for this study regarding the effect of CI on FP among TCPs. Regarding the study objective, we assumed the following hypothesis: H1: Customer intensity has a significant relationship with firm performance dimensions: {profitability, sustainability, and customer satisfaction}. H2: We assume that TCPs can positively moderate the relationship between CI and FP. Accordingly, this study is quantitative. Reliable with the purpose of this study. Furthermore, our study relied on the “Positivism philosophy”, a deductive approach to theory development. Therefore, overall, 255 responses were received from the community of SMEs in Khartoum. To analyze the data firstly the following principal component analysis PCA, Correlation, and Rotation matrix were utilized to test the appropriateness of the study structure “the pre-model” and check the validity of the questionnaire items. secondly, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) Path analysis to analyze and examine the significant relationships between all variables. The analysis revealed that customer intensity has a positive effect on profitability (p = 0.000), Customer intensity has also a positive effect on customer satisfaction (p = 0.001). Unlike, customer intensity has negative effects on sustainability (p = 0.216). Finally, the results show that technological capabilities positively moderate the relationship between Customer intensity and profitability (p = 0.000), sustainability (p = 0.007), and customer satisfaction (p = 0.000). Anyhow, these results confirmed the partial support for the first hypothesis and full support for the second hypothesis.
Downloads
Metrics
References
2. Asikhia, O. (2010). Customer orientation and firm performance among Nigerian small and medium scale businesses. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(1), 197.
3. Bachmann, J. T., Ohlies, I., & Flatten, T. (2021). Effects of entrepreneurial marketing on new ventures' exploitative and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of competitive intensity and firm size. Industrial Marketing Management, 92, 87-100.
4. Biesok, & Wyród-Wróbel, J. (2011). Customer satisfaction-Meaning and methods of measuring. Marketing and Logistic Problems in the Management of Organization, Wydawnictwo Akademii Techniczno-Humanistycznej W Bielsku-Białej, Bielsko-Biała, 23-41.
5. Borodako, K., Berbeka, J., Rudnicki, M., & Łapczyński, M. (2023). The impact of innovation orientation and knowledge management on business services performance moderated by technological readiness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(7), 674-695.
6. De Mendonca, T. R., & Zhou, Y. (2019). Environmental performance, customer satisfaction, and profitability: A study among large US companies. Sustainability, 11(19), 5418.
7. Ferna, E., & Garcı, F. (2012). Learning from exporting: The moderating effect of technological capabilities.
8. Gupta, A. K., & Gupta, N. (2020). Effect of corporate environmental sustainability on dimensions of firm performance–Towards sustainable development: Evidence from India. Journal of cleaner production, 253, 119948.
9. Haeussler, C., Patzelt, H., & Zahra, S. A. (2012). Strategic alliances and product development in high technology new firms: The moderating effect of technological capabilities. Journal of business venturing, 27(2), 217-233.
10. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2019) Multivariate data analysis. Eighth edition edn. Andover, Hampshire, UK: Cengage Learning, EMEA.
11. Hamad, A. Y. A. (2019), The moderating effect of technological capabilities in the relationship between strategic orientation and service innovation to enhance operational performance in Sudanese services firms p (39-44).
12. Heidi, Korhonen. (2015). Customer Orientation in Industrial Service Innovation - Deepening the Understanding on Customers, Needs, Involvement, and Value.
13. Hewing, M. (2013). Business process blueprinting: A method for customer-oriented business process modeling. Springer Science & Business Media.
14. Isichei, E. E., Emmanuel Agbaeze, K., & Odiba, M. O. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance in SMEs: The mediating role of structural infrastructure capability. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 15(6), 1219-1241.
15. Josh Siepel, Marcus Dejardin. (2020) How do we measure firm performance? A review of issues facing entrepreneurship researchers. 2020. ffhalshs-02571478
16. Kotler, P. (2012). Kotler on marketing. Simon and Schuster.
17. Kumar, V., Dalla Pozza, I., Petersen, J. A., & Shah, D. (2009). Reversing the logic: The path to profitability through relationship marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), 147-156.
18. Kura, A. B. (2019). Influence of Marketing Research Application on Customer Attraction, Customer Satisfaction and Retention in Small and Medium Scale Enterprises in Borno State, Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, Kwara State University (Nigeria)
19. Madhani, P. M. (2010). Resource based view (RBV) of competitive advantage: an overview. Resource based view: concepts and practices, Pankaj Madhani, ed, 3-22.
20. Magre, Sunita, Vithalrao., Beena, Khemchandani. (2011). Customer Orientation - A Study.
21. Marcuse, P. (1998). Sustainability is not enough. Environment and urbanization, 10(2), 103-112.
22. Morris, M. H., Schindehutte, M., & LaForge, R. W. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing: a construct for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 10(4), 1-19.
23. Santos, J. B., & Brito, L. A. L. (2012). Toward a subjective measurement model for firm performance. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 9, 95-117.
24. Schrettle, S., Hinz, A., Scherrer-Rathje, M., & Friedli, T. (2014). Turning sustainability into action: Explaining firms' sustainability efforts and their impact on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 73-84.
25. Sekeran .2003, research method for business, A Skill-Building Approach Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-471-20366-1 -ISBN 0-471-38448-8 (WIE)
26. Selvam, M., Gayathri, J., Vasanth, V., Lingaraja, K., & Marxiaoli, S. (2016). Determinants of firm performance: A subjective model. Int'l J. Soc. Sci. Stud., 4, 90.
27. Sonny, Nwankwo. (1995). Developing a customer orientation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, doi: 10.1108/07363769510103856.
28. Srivastava, M. K., Gnyawali, D. R., & Hat, D. E. (2015). Technological Forecasting & Social Change Behavioral implications of absorptive capacity: The role of technological effort and technological capability in leveraging alliance network technological resources.
29. Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research policy, 47(8), 1367-1387.
30. Wang, H. L. (2014). Theories for competitive advantage.
31. Wu, J. (2014). Cooperation with competitors and product innovation: Moderating effects of technological capability and alliances with universities. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 199-209.
32. Xin, Zhao. (2021). Customer Orientation: A Literature Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis. SAGE Open, doi: 10.1177/21582440221079804
Copyright (c) 2024 Alfateh Fegada, Zoltan Veres
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
