When Algorithms are the Customer: Why Systemic Reliability Replaces Relational Capital

Paul F. Accornero 

Affiliations 

Founder, The AI Praxis   

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2567-5155

SSRN Working Paper Series: 5694102

Date: 2025

Comments welcome: paul.accornero@gmail.com 

WORKING PAPER - NOT INTENDED FOR CITATION

This is a pre-print version of a more in-depth paper undergoing peer review.

Abstract

This working paper introduces 'systemic reliability' as a critical innovation capability for organizations competing in the era of algorithmic commerce. As AI-powered procurement systems and autonomous agents increasingly replace human buyers, the foundational logic of business-to-business commerce is undergoing a fundamental shift. I argue that reliance on relational capital—interpersonal trust and human networks—is becoming insufficient as a primary source of competitive advantage. In its place, a new imperative emerges: demonstrable and verifiable integrity of an organization's technical and operational systems. This paper develops a conceptual framework integrating relationship theory and platform economics to explain this transformation. I define systemic reliability, encompassing data integrity, API performance, and operational consistency, and propose the 'Innovation Systems Architect' as a new organizational archetype. This framework explains how value is created and which capabilities matter most when the customer is an algorithm.

1. Introduction: The Obsolescence of Relational Capital

Consider a scenario that has become increasingly common across global supply chains. A major retailer's algorithmic procurement system rejects a leading consumer packaged goods manufacturer's product submission because of a minor nutritional data formatting variance. The manufacturer's veteran Key Account Manager—celebrated for two decades of relationship excellence and deep buyer connections—finds herself powerless to intervene. No human buyer reviews the submission. No phone call can rectify the situation. The algorithm decides, and its decision is final.

This incident exemplifies a profound shift in the nature of commercial competition. As AI-powered systems—from Amazon's automated replenishment algorithms to enterprise platforms like SAP Ariba and Coupa—increasingly handle purchasing decisions, the foundational assumptions underpinning relationship-based commerce face potential obsolescence1. The statistics validate this transformation. Research indicates that by 2025, approximately 80% of business-to-business sales interactions will occur through digital channels2, and by 2028, an estimated 15 billion connected products may function as autonomous purchasing agents3.

This transformation raises fundamental questions for both scholars and practitioners. If algorithms replace human buyers as the primary decision-makers in commercial transactions, what innovation capabilities must organizations develop to remain competitive? When machine-readable data feeds substitute for persuasive presentations, what competencies drive competitive advantage? How must organizations transform their commercial functions to succeed in platform-mediated ecosystems?

I argue that we are witnessing a fundamental transformation in the logic of value creation in business-to-business markets. The challenge is not merely technological adoption; rather, it represents a systemic transformation requiring new organizational capabilities and theoretical frameworks4. While recent research has explored AI as an augmentation tool for innovation processes5, less scholarly attention has been directed toward understanding what occurs when algorithms become autonomous procurement agents, fundamentally altering the innovation capability requirements for supplier organizations.

2. The Theoretical Problem: When Algorithms Replace Human Buyers

For decades, commercial theory has centered on relational capital as the primary driver of sustainable competitive advantage. The field evolved from viewing selling as discrete transactional exchanges6 toward a relationship marketing paradigm emphasizing trust, partnership, and collaborative value creation7. This relational perspective posits that sustainable competitive advantage derives primarily from relationship quality rather than technical or operational superiority alone8. Success in Key Account Management, in particular, has been defined by the quality of salesperson-customer relationships, which research demonstrates positively impacts customer loyalty and willingness to pay premium prices9.

The central theoretical problem I address in this paper is that this entire conceptual apparatus implicitly assumes a human buyer capable of experiencing and responding to relational influence. Relationship selling succeeds because humans possess psychological susceptibility to relational influence, persuasive communication, and emotional appeals. Trust—the central currency of relationship-based commerce—develops through repeated satisfactory interactions, behavioral consistency, and demonstrated integrity over time10.

Algorithms, however, fundamentally lack consciousness, emotion, and social cognition. They do not experience trust, reciprocity, or commitment in any meaningful sense. Instead, they optimize decisions based on explicit, quantifiable criteria and historical data patterns, remaining immune to persuasive framing or relationship-based influence tactics11. No research has demonstrated that relationship quality influences purchasing outcomes when decision authority is delegated to algorithmic systems operating without human oversight.

This reality creates a significant theoretical gap. As commerce increasingly occurs on digital platforms12, organizations must develop innovation capabilities that prove legible and compelling to algorithmic evaluators. These platforms create value by facilitating exchanges between multiple market sides while establishing governance systems that shape innovation constraints and opportunities13. When algorithms serve as gatekeepers rather than humans, the fundamental rules of competitive differentiation must necessarily transform.

3. A New Framework for Algorithmic Commerce

This paper employs a conceptual theory development approach14 to integrate relationship selling theory with platform economics and algorithmic decision-making literature. I propose a framework addressing two central research questions:

RQ1: How does algorithmic intermediation fundamentally undermine the logic of relationship-based commerce, and what alternative theoretical logic of value creation emerges in its place?

RQ2: What conceptual framework can explain the necessary transformation of organizational innovation capabilities—from interpersonal skills to techno-operational competencies—required to compete effectively when algorithms serve as primary evaluators?

3.1 Core Theoretical Propositions

This framework builds upon three core theoretical propositions that specify the mechanisms driving this commercial transformation:

Proposition 1 (The Problem): Algorithmic intermediation in purchasing processes reduces the effectiveness of relationship-based commercial approaches because algorithms lack the psychological and social mechanisms through which relationship quality influences human decision-making.

Proposition 2 (The Core Construct): In algorithmically-mediated innovation ecosystems, competitive advantage shifts from relational capital toward 'systemic reliability'—an innovation capability encompassing the verifiable integrity and performance of organizational systems including data infrastructure, API interfaces, and operational processes.

Proposition 3 (The Consequence): This shift from relational capital to systemic reliability necessitates fundamental capability transformation, where organizational performance, innovation legitimacy, and competitive effectiveness become primarily dependent on verifiable technical and operational competencies rather than interpersonal skills.

3.2 Systemic Reliability as an Innovation Capability

I introduce systemic reliability as the central innovation capability for this algorithmic era, contrasting it fundamentally with traditional relational capital. While relational capital develops through interpersonal interaction and subjective trust-building processes15, systemic reliability develops through verifiable technical and operational excellence, measurable through objective performance metrics. It represents a dynamic capability16 extending organizational reliability theory17 into the commercial innovation function.

As an innovation capability, systemic reliability encompasses three interrelated dimensions that organizations must develop and maintain:

Technical Infrastructure Integrity: This dimension includes the measurable quality of data, the reliability and performance of application programming interfaces (APIs), and seamless system interoperability. It constitutes the technical foundation enabling participation in algorithmic ecosystems.

Operational Performance Consistency: This refers to verifiable supply chain reliability, consistent service level achievement, and predictable operational processes. It provides the historical evidence that an organization can consistently deliver on commitments.

Organizational Transparency: This involves demonstrable regulatory compliance, verifiable audit trails, and ethical data practices. This dimension builds algorithmic trust and organizational legitimacy18 within platform ecosystems.

The innovation challenge for organizations shifts fundamentally—from building interpersonal connections to constructing technical systems that generate algorithmically-readable signals of reliability, consistency, and trustworthiness across these three dimensions.

4. The Archetype Shift: From Manager to Architect

This framework is best understood through the evolution of two idealized archetypes developed using Weberian ideal type methodology19. These archetypes represent distinct configurations of objectives, activities, competencies, and success factors that characterize fundamentally different approaches to commercial innovation.

The Relational Management Archetype (traditionally exemplified by the Key Account Manager) represents the culmination of relationship-based theory. This role's primary objective centers on revenue growth through persuasive influence and human relationship leverage. The key counterpart remains a human buyer susceptible to relational influence. Core activities include conducting persuasive presentations, building personal rapport through business entertainment and social engagement, negotiating contract terms, and engaging in consultative dialogue to understand strategic priorities. Essential competencies emphasize interpersonal skills: rapport-building, persuasive communication, negotiation prowess, and political acumen within complex organizational systems.

The Innovation Systems Architect represents the strategic evolution necessitated by algorithmic intermediation. This role's primary objective transforms to achieving algorithmic selection through system optimization and verifiable performance demonstration. The key counterpart is no longer a human buyer but rather the platform engineer or data scientist who designs algorithmic evaluation criteria. Core activities include presenting real-time performance dashboards, managing complex technical integration projects, coordinating cross-functional teams spanning IT, supply chain, and commercial functions, monitoring technical performance metrics continuously, troubleshooting system integration issues, and ensuring organizational data achieves completeness and machine-readability.

Essential competencies for the Innovation Systems Architect emphasize technical literacy: understanding of APIs and data schemas, data analysis capabilities, project management expertise, systems thinking orientation, and continuous improvement mindset. Performance metrics shift dramatically from traditional revenue and margin targets to include API uptime percentages, data accuracy scores, supply chain reliability metrics (such as on-time-in-full delivery rates), system error rates, and algorithmic selection rates. Success depends on technical competence, operational excellence, analytical rigor, and cross-functional coordination rather than personal charm or relationship depth.

5. Managerial and Contextual Implications

This transformation is not hypothetical—it is actively underway across major commercial contexts. In retail channel management, 'selling to retailers' increasingly means ensuring seamless technical integration with algorithmic replenishment and search ranking systems. The competitive battleground has shifted from negotiating shelf space with category managers to optimizing for algorithmic visibility and favorable ranking in recommendation systems. Success depends on systemic reliability: data accuracy, supply chain reliability, and inventory availability rather than the strength of personal relationships with buying office personnel.

Similarly, in business-to-business enterprise procurement, platforms deploy AI systems to evaluate suppliers based on total cost of ownership, quality metrics, and delivery performance20. For suppliers, the traditional sales presentation transforms into a structured data feed, while negotiation becomes an API-mediated exchange of dynamic pricing and availability information. Competitive differentiation occurs primarily through technical excellence: API reliability, data accuracy, and integration support responsiveness.

For innovation and digital transformation leaders, this framework suggests six strategic imperatives for organizational adaptation:

First, assess algorithmic exposure: Conduct systematic audits to segment customers not merely by size or revenue but by their current and projected use of algorithmic purchasing systems. This segmentation—from traditional human decision-making to fully automated procurement—proves critical for allocating innovation resources and identifying transformation priorities.

Second, audit innovation capabilities: Conduct honest assessments of organizational technical capabilities relative to systemic reliability requirements. Identify gaps in data infrastructure, API availability and performance, internal technical talent, and cross-functional coordination mechanisms. This audit often reveals that despite strong products and relationships, technical inadequacies create severe algorithmic vulnerability.

Third, invest in socio-technical systems upgrading: Begin multi-year investments in foundational systemic reliability capabilities. This includes establishing product information management systems, implementing master data management for consistency, and developing robust, well-documented APIs meeting platform standards. This represents innovation infrastructure investment rather than simple IT projects.

Fourth, evolve innovation talent strategy: Rethink hiring profiles, training programs, and career paths to develop technically-capable innovation professionals. This requires prioritizing backgrounds in engineering, data analytics, or operations alongside traditional business education, and building technical literacy curricula covering APIs, data schemas, and platform economics. Organizations should establish dual career tracks: relationship-focused for human buyer contexts and technical-focused for algorithmic buyer contexts.

Fifth, restructure innovation incentives: Align performance metrics and compensation structures with technical and operational excellence rather than revenue alone. For teams managing algorithmically-evaluated relationships, balanced scorecards should incorporate metrics including API uptime, data accuracy scores, and on-time-in-full delivery rates. Given cross-functional dependencies, team-based incentives may prove more effective than individual commissions.

Sixth, foster innovation ecosystem integration: Break down organizational silos separating Commercial, IT, and Operations functions. Algorithmic customers evaluate holistic performance without distinguishing between sales and operations problems. This requires establishing integrated customer success teams with joint accountability, unified performance dashboards, and regular cross-functional governance for high-value algorithmic relationships.

6. Boundary Conditions and Conclusion

This framework is not universally applicable. Its relevance depends on several key boundary conditions. When purchase complexity remains high, requiring significant customization or collaborative problem-solving, human judgment and relationship-based trust continue to play critical roles. Similarly, in contexts characterized by high perceived risk or strict regulatory accountability—such as healthcare, defense, or financial services—organizations typically prefer human oversight and may resist full automation. The framework applies most directly to standardized, repeat purchases where evaluation criteria can be quantified and automated decision-making offers clear efficiency advantages.

Despite these limitations, the central argument of this paper addresses a fundamental question confronting contemporary organizations: what happens when our commercial counterparts become algorithms? I propose that this shift necessitates a profound innovation transformation—from a logic based on relational capital to one centered on systemic reliability. This new capability builds on the verifiable integrity of data, technical systems, and operational processes, demanding a new organizational archetype: the Innovation Systems Architect.

This transformation is not merely additive but potentially substitutive in nature. The core logic of innovation and value creation may change fundamentally in platform-based business models. As conceptual work, this framework rests on theoretical analysis rather than systematic empirical evidence. Future research should pursue empirical testing of these propositions, analyze implementation patterns of the Innovation Systems Architect role, and trace the co-evolution of relational and technical competencies in hybrid algorithmic-human ecosystems.

The central challenge for today's innovation leaders is not to resist this transformation but to evaluate its implications thoughtfully and proactively build organizational capabilities for this emerging era. The age of relationship-based selling may not be entirely finished, but its dominance appears to be waning in algorithmically-governed markets. The age of systemic reliability—characterized by verifiable performance and technical excellence—may be closer than many organizations currently recognize.

Selected References

1.     Gartner. (2020, September 15). Gartner says 80% of B2B sales interactions between suppliers and buyers will occur in digital channels by 2025 [Press release]. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-09-15-gartner-says-80-percent-of-b2b-sales-interactions-between-suppliers-and-buyers-will-occur-in-digital-channels-by-2025

2.     Gartner. (2024, November 19). B2B ecommerce future trends: AI and digital transformation. Gartner Research Reports.

3.     Mariani, M. M., Machado, I., Magrelli, V., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Artificial intelligence in innovation research: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions. Technovation, 122, 102623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102623

4.     Roberts, D. L., & Candi, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence and innovation management: Charting the evolving landscape. Technovation, 136, 103081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103081

5.     Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250977

6.     Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251126

7.     Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308

8.     Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136

9.     Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251829

10.  Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679

11.  Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105

12.  Boudreau, K. J., & Hagiu, A. (2009). Platform rules: Multi-sided platforms as regulators. In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation (pp. 163–191). Edward Elgar Publishing.

13.  MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136

14.  Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225

15.  Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z

16.  Gligor, D., & Holcomb, M. (2023). Organizational reliability and digital integration in supply networks. Journal of Business Logistics, 44(2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12315

17.  Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331

18.  Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410210748

19.  Bienhaus, F., & Haddud, A. (2018). Procurement 4.0: Factors influencing the digitisation of procurement and supply chains. Business Process Management Journal, 24(4), 965–984. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2017-0139

Author Note

This document is a working paper intended to circulate research-in-progress and establish the priority of core conceptual contributions. It is not a final, peer-reviewed academic article.

An expanded, full-length version of this theoretical framework is currently under peer review for publication in a leading academic journal. The author is expanding these theoretical frameworks in a forthcoming book on algorithmic commerce under contract with St. Martin's Press, expected 2027.

The author acknowledges the use of AI assistance in research support, literature synthesis, and drafting portions of this manuscript. All concepts, frameworks, and theoretical contributions remain the original intellectual work of the author, who takes full responsibility for the content and conclusions presented herein.

This working paper is provided for scholarly discussion and feedback. It may not be reproduced, distributed, or cited without the express written permission of the author. An expanded version of this research is currently under peer review for publication in a leading academic journal.

Correspondence concerning this working paper should be addressed to Paul F. Accornero, The AI Praxis. Email: paul.accornero@gmail.com  https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2567-5155