AN EXPLORATION OF NETWORKS IN VALUE COCREATION: A SERVICE-ECOSYSTEMS VIEW Melissa Archpru Akaka, Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this essay is to explore further the concept ofvalue cocreatio n fr om a service-ecosystems view, by consi dering the importance of ne twor ks and the configurati on of re lationships andresources in markets. Methodology/approach – We use a conceptual approach to extend a ser vice-dominant (S- D) logic, ecosystems view of val ue coc reation by drawing on the literature regarding networks in marketing and relatedresearch. Findings – A service-ecosystems approach to cocreating value-in-context is proposed, which points toward networks as mediating factors in value cocreation be cause they influ ence th e abil it y to acce ss, adapt, andintegrate resources by establishing exchange relationships and shaping the social contexts through which value is experienced. Special Issue – Toward a Better Understanding of the Role of Value in Markets and Marketing Review of Marketing Research, Volume 9, 13–50 Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10 .1108/S1548-6435( 2012)0000009006 13
39
Embed
An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
approach centers on the interaction among multiple stakeholders at variouslevels of any given exchange system, and, thus, is highly relational. In this
view, exchange encounters are nested within a host of networked relation-
ships (Chandler & Wieland, 2010). Because of this, thus a broader view of
relationships is required for understanding value cocreation in systems of
service-for-service exchange.
Dynamic and Nested Relationships
The traditional conceptualization of relationships in marketing focuses on
the repeat patronage of customers and the continuity of their interactions
with a particular firm over time (for detailed review of relationship
marketing, see Vargo, 2009). However, this focus on customer–firm
exchange encounters neglects the variety of interactions that occur among
other stakeholders that potentially influence or are influenced by any given
exchange (Baldwin, 2007). With the rise of online social networks and the
transparency of customer interactions, it is becoming increasingly clear that
there is more to exchange than a single (or multiple) transaction(s).From a service-ecosystems perspective, the process of value cocreation
continues through a nexus of ubiquitous exchanges, and the transfer and
generation of knowledge through these interactions is infinite (Vargo &
Lusch, 2011a). In this view, discrete, money-for-goods exchange transac-
tions only make up a small fraction of what is being exchanged throughout
society. Vargo and Lusch (2011a) argue that, from an ecosystems view,
transactions (discrete exchange encounters) can be seen as ‘‘bounded
relationships.’’ That is – transactions are bounded because they represent
temporary moments (sometimes made tangible through goods) in intersect-ing value cocreation processes and relationships.
Vargo (2009) draws on Baldwin (2007), who distinguishes between a
transfer and a transaction to differentiate between two types of exchange.
Baldwin (2007) states that transfers are necessary for human survival
because no one person has access to all the resources he or she needs.
However, she explains that transfers are not necessarily transactions because
transactions must be standardized, counted, and compensated. Baldwin
argues that transactions arise as ‘‘thin crossing points’’ between ‘‘modules’’
or clusters of multiple interactions. She explains that transactions acrossmodules are driven by a multitude of transfers (of resources or interactions)
within them. Thus, in order to gain a fuller understanding of value
cocreation, the consideration of relationships or transfers that create and are
MELISSA ARCHPRU AKAKA ET AL.20
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
influenced by ‘‘transactions’’ and the drivers of those relationships areneeded.
Ballantyne and Varey (2006, p. 336) elaborate on how S-D logic expands
the scope of value cocreation by suggesting, ‘‘the time logic of marketing
exchange becomes open-ended, from pre-sale service interaction to post-sale
value-in-use, with the prospect of continuing further as relationships
evolve.’’ In line with this view, Ramirez (1999, p. 51) discusses the never-
ending interaction and interconnected relationships in value cocreation and
argues that ‘‘there are no ‘final’ customers in this emerging framework.’’
Thus, this ecosystems view of relationships suggests that value is cocreatedthrough a combination of processes that include pre-purchase information
gathering, the exchange encounter, and the use derived through the
application of a value proposition and its integration with other resources
and relationships as well.
Integration of Operant and Operand Resources
The discussion of resources in S-D logic and service ecosystems identifiestwo broad categories of resources that are integrated to create value:
(1) operant resources – those that are capable of acting on other resources to
contribute to value creation and (2) operand resources – those that require
action taken upon them to be valuable (Constantin & Lusch, 1994; Vargo &
Lusch, 2004). S-D logic emphasizes the primacy of operant resources, such
as knowledge and skills, which moves the focus of exchange and value
creation away from operand resources, such as goods and money. Within
S-D logic, knowledge and skills are considered to be key resources for
competitive advantage and ‘‘when goods are involved, they are tools for thedelivery and application of resources’’ (Vargo, Lusch, & Morgan, 2006).
However, Vargo, and Lusch (2004, p. 2) also argue that ‘‘resources are not,
they become.’’ This means that in order for a potential resource to become a
resource, it must contribute to the improvement or increased viability of a
system (Vargo et al., 2008). In this way, value is influenced by variety of
internal and external factors, including, but not limited to, the ability to
access other operant and operand resources.
From an S-D logic view, markets are woven together through the
integration of resources via exchange. Vargo et al. (2008, p. 149) argue thatactors integrate their resources with those of others to improve their own
circumstances (create value) as well as the circumstances of others. They
elaborate, ‘‘One way to acquire resources is through the exchange of a
An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation 21
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
system’s applied operant resources (service) with those of other systems. Wecan consider individuals, groups, organizations, firms and governments to
be service systems if they can take action, apply resources, and work with
others in mutually beneficial ways.’’ In this way, individuals and groups of
individuals interact and exchange resources in their efforts to create value
for themselves and for others. Thus, the process of resource integration is
continuous. This is because no one actor can access all the resources it
needs, and once resources are integrated and value is created – e.g.,
satisfaction arises – the situation is temporary. Thus, value cocreation is a
continuous process because resources become depleted and views on what is,and is not, valuable change over time.
Lusch and Vargo (2006b, p. 14) suggest that what are often thought to be
external (i.e., exogenous) and uncontrollable factors in markets, such as
legal, social, technological, and even natural environments, ‘‘have the
potential to be resources if certain resistances can be overcome.’’ In other
words, when firms consider the applicability of their offerings within a
variety of contexts, they can actually draw on environmental factors (e.g.,
social or political institutions) as resources to increase the potential value of
their value propositions. In this way, resource integration not only draws onresources accessed through exchange among actors but also integrates those
resources that are part of a broader social context. Moreover, a service-
ecosystems view of value cocreation suggests that as actors cocreate value,
they not only draw on, but also contribute to the social context through
which value is derived (Chandler & Vargo, 2011).
Value-in-Context
The S-D logic, ecosystems view suggests that ‘‘there is no value until an
offering is used – experience and perception are essential to value
determination’’ (Vargo & Lusch 2006, p. 44). Vargo and Lusch (2006)
argue that the study of value creation should be focused on value-in-use
because a firm’s role in value creation is an intermediary part of the process,
and customers are ultimately responsible for deriving and determining value
through the application of a firm’s offering. They join other scholars (e.g.,
Alderson, 1957; Shostack, 1977) in arguing for a movement from the
primacy of value-in-exchange toward the primacy of value-in-use. However,a service-ecosystems approach to value cocreation also emphasizes the
importance of the context through which value is derived (Chandler &
Vargo, 2011). In particular, Vargo et al. (2008, p. 150) propose the concept
MELISSA ARCHPRU AKAKA ET AL.22
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
of ‘‘value-in-context’’ to explicate the contextual nature of value-in-use andargue that ‘‘the context of value creation is as important to the creation of
value as the competences of the participating parties.’’ They add,
‘‘Resources such as time, weather and laws, which are often considered
uncontrollable by individuals and organizations, are integrated, if not relied
on – in the value creation processes by all service systems (e.g., customers,
firms, families, countries).’’
It is important to note that by focusing on value-in-use, or value-in-
context, S-D logic does not omit the necessity of value-in-exchange – or
the market price (Vargo et al., 2008). Vargo and Lusch (2006, p. 49) arguethat value-in-exchange could not exist without the presence of value-in-
context, but exchange is required for value creation once the resources
needed cannot be attained naturally. The authors also acknowledge the
importance of value-in-exchange with regard to financial feedback to the
firm. Vargo and Lusch (2006, p. 49) explain that ‘‘when a firm sells its
service (with or without a tangible good), it receives a monetary instru-
ment (cash or the promise to pay). These monetary instruments are used
to acquire other service (with or without tangible good) from suppliers,
including employees.’’ Although value-in-exchange is an important feed-back mechanism for firms, the emphasis of an S-D logic view of value is
on value-in-use, in context, or value-in-context.
Chandler and Vargo (2011) elaborate the concept of value-in-context and
shed light on how the interaction among various actors contributes to value
cocreation as well as the ‘‘contextualization’’ or formation of the social
context that frames exchange. The authors propose a multilevel approach
for conceptualizing context, which is composed of micro, meso, and macro
levels, as well as a meta layer that allows for oscillation among the other
three levels of context. This view on value-in-context emphasizes therecursive nature of value cocreation in service ecosystems. In this view, as
actors interact to cocreate value for themselves and for others, they not only
contribute to individual levels of value, or an evaluation of an experience, but
also contribute to the formation, or contextualization, of the social context
through which value is being derived. This social context is composed of a
variety of interconnected relationships (Chandler & Vargo, 2011) but also
the social norms or ‘‘institutions’’ that guide interaction as well (Edvardsson,
marketing and related areas to elaborate how social contexts (composed of interconnected relationships and resources) frame exchange and how these
contexts influence and are influenced by value cocreation, or processes by
which value is collaboratively created.
NETWORKS IN MARKETS AND MARKETING
A number of value cocreation studies focus on the relationship between a
firm and its customers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Payne et al., 2008).However, an S-D logic, ecosystems approach emphasizes that value
cocreation involves a multitude of actors, with various roles and resources
(Akaka & Chandler, 2011). Lusch and Vargo (2006a) explain that the
cocreation of value involves a firm and its customers, suppliers and other
‘‘network partners.’’ Moreover, S-D logic’s emphasis on the contextual
nature of value (Chandler & Vargo, 2011; Vargo et al., 2008) underscores
the importance of the social context that frames exchange and value
cocreation. Based on this, it is clear that a customer’s ability to integrate
knowledge and skills and cocreate value is dependent on existing internalcompetences as well as the integration of resources through a broader
network of relationships. Thus, the value created through any exchange
encounter depends on the relationships and resources beyond the firm–
customer dyad.
Because a number of avenues of information (e.g., personal, market
facing, and nonmarket facing) are often required for a customer to derive
value from a firm’s value proposition (service rendered), a model of value
cocreation must allow for studying complex and dynamic interaction among
multiple actors with differing roles and responsibilities. Thus, the frameworkfor conceptualizing service ecosystems must be flexible enough to account
for continuous movement and improvement as well as expansion for a wide
variety of external variables included in value cocreation processes.
Furthermore, the concept of value-in-context (as discussed above) suggests
that the process of value cocreation not only draws on but also influences
the social contexts – relationships, as well as norms and meanings – through
which value is derived (Edvardsson et al., 2011). In this way, a network
(composed of interconnected relationships and resources) can be considered
as a critical mediating variable in the cocreation of value at micro as well asmeso and macro levels (Chandler & Vargo, 2011).
Lusch and Vargo (2006a, p. 285) propose the integration of network-
related research for examining value cocreation by suggesting that ‘‘much
MELISSA ARCHPRU AKAKA ET AL.24
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
could be gained in the elaboration and extension of S-D logic from a moreexplicit connection to the interactivity and networking literature.’’
Gummesson (2006, p. 342 emphasis in original) describes how the study
of networks contributes to the understanding of relationships in value
creation. He argues, ‘‘When relationships embrace more than two people or
organizations, complex patterns will emerge – networks. We therefore also
talk about networks of relationships. What happens between the parties in a
relationship is called interaction.’’ The following sections provide a
discussion of networks in markets and the interaction that occurs within
and among them. Although the literature regarding networks spans avariety of social science disciplines (e.g., see Wasserman & Faust, 1994), the
aim here is to inform the understanding of value cocreation in markets and
marketing. Thus, this discussion centers on the literature regarding networks
in marketing to shed light on the nature of networks in service ecosystems
and how they contribute to the cocreation of value as well as the formation
of social contexts that frame exchange (Chandler & Vargo, 2011).
Multiple Actors in Networks
Early studies regarding networks in marketing first appeared during the
1970s in the work related to business-to-business (B2B) marketing and
interorganizational theory (Chandler & Wieland, 2010; Gummesson, 2005).
Gummesson (2005) describes how B2B marketing developed separately
from business-to-consumer (B2C) marketing, creating two major categories
of marketing. He says that one of the possible reasons that has been noted
for this separation is that the B2B products are thought to be developed
from the initiative of the buyer or in close buyer–seller relationships. Fordand Hakansson (2005) argue that business interactions must be studied
under a network paradigm because business relationships cannot be
understood through the perspective of a single company. They say that
business relationships are inherently interactive and the actions of a single
company are largely based on its internal interpretations of past and present
relationships. Business networks recognize that each actor is heterogeneous
in terms of its resources, needs, and goals, and businesses cannot be
categorized neatly into homogeneous groups such as customers, suppliers,
competitors, manufacturers, or retailers. Additionally, in such an interactiveenvironment, the process or flow of resources is not linear or controlled by
any one actor. Although Gummesson (2006, p. 349) notes that the research
regarding network theory in marketing originated in the B2B literature, he
An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation 25
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
from.’’ In this way, an experience is central to the creation of value for acustomer.
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) provide a network perspective on the
concept of customer experiences with the introduction of ‘‘experience
networks.’’ The authors argue that ‘‘value is cocreated at multiple points of
interaction’’ and that the ‘‘basis of value is cocreation experience.’’ In other
words, in this view, value is derived through the cocreation of an experience
through interaction and exchange of resources, especially knowledge and
skills, in a network of firms, customers, and other stakeholders. Import-
antly, this view of an experience network emphasizes the role of firms inconstructing a network to best facilitate a particular experience. Moreover,
in addition to value cocreation, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) discuss
the coextraction of value, or the collaborative effort required to determine
or extract the value of a particular resource. This suggests that collaborative
efforts are not only required for the generation of new resources but also
necessary for the determination of value on existing resources as well,
including natural resources. Importantly, the outcome of a cocreated or
coextracted experience (i.e., value) is unique to each person and varies
depending on how a particular customer is able to interact within a networkand integrate available resources.
Normann (2001, p. 96) sheds light on the importance of knowledge in
experience networks by describing the experience phenomena within the
context of a ‘‘value system.’’ His understanding of experience focuses on
knowledge, relationships, and an actor’s position in a market. Individual
objects are of minimal importance and relationships and market positions
become key factors in value-creating systems. Importantly, the information
about objects and relationships is more valuable than the objects and actors
themselves. However, this ‘‘information’’ or ‘‘knowledge’’ is not a given, as itis continually regenerated through interaction and exchange. Moreover, in
value-creating systems, value is derived from the knowledge of how to build
and maintain long-term relationships through interdependent exchange.
These types of interdependent relationships change the aspects of time and
space in a network and the creation of value moves from a sequential process
to a process of ‘‘simultaneous, synchronous, and reciprocal’’ interaction.
Because the knowledge of a system and its offerings are more than the
system and an offering itself, the configuration of the value-creating system
can compress and actually ‘‘create’’ time. This is done by implementing theprinciple of density, which Normann and Ramirez (1993, p. 69) define as ‘‘a
measure of the amount of information, knowledge, and other resources that
an economic actor has at hand at any moment in time to leverage his or her
MELISSA ARCHPRU AKAKA ET AL.32
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
own value-creation.’’ If a combination of resources is effectively mobilizedfor a specific situation, and a particular time and place, value will increase
(Normann, 2001). In this way, information and knowledge are the drivers of
value creation. By arranging relationships and access to resources so they
are more available at opportune places and times, the offering will actually
free up time for other activities to be done.
In order to provide access to resources at more opportune times and
places, Normann (2001) says that firms should focus on their ability to
break up or ‘‘unbundle’’ resources and put together or ‘‘rebundle’’ available
offerings. He explains how an actor’s utilization of an asset is not isolated orfocused solely on the present; it is assimilated with surrounding resources
and includes considerations of future benefit or use. Normann (2001, p. 114,
emphasis added) argues, ‘‘The more we are interested in the utilization of an
asset, the more we need to know how it fits into a context of future
production and value creationy [thus], information about the ‘asset in
context’ and not only the asset itself is critical to us.’’ This concept of density
falls in line with an S-D logic view on value cocreation and value-in-context
(Vargo et al., 2008). Furthermore, the elaboration of the literature on
networks in marketing provides added insight to the processes of valuecocreation and nature of the context through which value is created.
NETWORKS OF RELATIONSHIPS AND
RESOURCES IN SERVICE ECOSYSTEMS
The concept of value-in-context is an important shift from thinking about
value created in a dyad to value created in a network. Importantly, thecontext that frames value creation and exchange (Chandler & Vargo, 2011)
is composed of interconnected networks of relationships as well as the
resources. Some of the most central operant resources in service ecosystems
are the social norms and meanings, or institutions (Edvardsson et al., 2011)
that influence, but are also influenced by, value cocreation and exchange
(Vargo & Lusch, 2011b). In this view, processes of value cocreation draw on
social contexts as operant resources – those that influence the use and
integration of other resources. However, the efforts of individual actors to
create value for themselves and for others also contribute to the formationof social contexts (composed of relationships and resources) via contextua-
lization (Chandler & Vargo, 2011) or institutionalization (Edvardsson et al.,
2011) processes as well. Table 1 provides an overview of a service-ecosystems
An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation 33
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
the ability to access, adapt, and integrate resources by all social andeconomic actors, within a broad social context. In this value cocreation
framework, exchange is conducted in order to render service with the
intention of bettering one’s circumstances through value-in-use, in a
particular context. Because value-in-use is determined through the integra-
tion of a number of resources and relationships, the context in which
resources are applied is a critical determinant of the value derived. Fig. 2
depicts the process of deriving value-in-context as resources are accessed,
adapted, and integrated and how the integration of resources can lead to
new ways to access and adapt resources as well.The consideration of value cocreation within networks sheds light on how
networks of relationships provide access to necessary resources. However,
access to resources is not enough to cocreate value. Resources must also be
adaptable within various networks of resources and relationships (assort-
ments). In other words, in order for value to be cocreated, a resource must
be accessible through a particular network of relationships and adaptable –
it must fit with other resources at a particular place and time. However, even
if a resource is accessible through a particular network and adaptable in a
particular assortment of resources, it still is not guaranteed that value will becreated. The resource must then be integrated with other resources (operant
and operand) and applied in a particular context.
As mentioned, one of the key features of networks is that they allow for
the transfer as well as generation of knowledge. This is especially critical at
the point of integration because even though a resource may be accessible
and adaptable, if a given actor does not have the necessary information or
knowledge to integrate and apply a particular resource, value cannot be
created. That is – if an actor is not knowledgeable or capable of using a
particular resource, in a particular context, value cocreation will not occur.Moreover, as unique experiences arise in markets, the value determined
through those experiences also contributes back to the social context
through which it was derived. In other words, as actors learn, they provide
Access Adapt Integrate
Attain Resources via
Relationships in Network
Fit of Resources with
Available Assortment
Fit of Resources in Unique
Context
Fig. 2. Cocreating Value-in-Context.
MELISSA ARCHPRU AKAKA ET AL.36
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
feedback to the system and improve or make changes in order to increasetheir abilities to cocreate value in the future.
The consideration of the social context that influences and is influenced by
value cocreation underscores the importance of operant resources in
networks and actors’ abilities to access, adapt, and integrate such resources.
This is because in order for value cocreation to occur, actors must have
access not only to the value propositions made available by firms, but also
to knowledge on how to adapt and integrate them. The following sections
draw on the value cocreation framework proposed above and highlight
several ways in which firms can increase the accessibility, adaptability, andintegrability of resources by (re)configuring networks. A number of research
questions are presented for furthering the research on how networks of
relationships and resources influence value cocreation and drive the
reformation of social contexts that frame exchange.
view, the main role of marketing is to develop or configure relationshipsamong firms, customers, and other stakeholders from which customers or
service beneficiaries can draw on to cocreate experiences (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004). The accessibility of a resource depends on how, where,
and when a service can be rendered and the relationships that enable service
provision (resource application) at the most appropriate place and time. It
also requires the awareness of a potential resource or value proposition and
an understanding of how that resource can be accessed. The considerations
for configuring relationships to increase accessibility of a value proposition
are: How do differences in actors’ positions influence interaction amongactors? How do differences among actors and their relations influence the
interactions among actors or the development of relationships? Whom do
actors rely on for information about what resources are accessible and how
to access them?
To shed light on how the positions of actors influence value cocreation,
Chandler and Wieland (2010) propose centrality, a useful way of conceptua-
lizing and measuring relationships in systems (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
Wasserman and Faust (1994, p. 173) define a central actor as ‘‘one involved in
many ties.’’ Thus, centrality is a property of an actor’s position – the particularset of relationships connected to one actor – in a network. Centrality is often
considered a measure of prominence in a particular network (Wasserman &
Faust, 1994) and is an appropriate measure for studying social and economic
phenomena such as access to resources and brokerage of information
(Knoke & Burt, 1983). In this way, the relationship between an actor’s
centrality in a network and its contribution to the interaction in that
system can provide insight to how the configuration of a network contri-
butes to the development of new relationships.
The literature regarding networks suggests that, in addition to an actor’sposition in a system, the nature of that actor’s relations with other actors
will also contribute to the development of relationships and accessibility of
resources. Granovetter (1973, p. 1361) discusses two types of relations in
particular, strong ties and weak ties. He defines the strength of tie as a
‘‘combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity (mutual
confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie.’’ His view
suggests that weak ties are important in service ecosystems because they act
as bridges between networks and provide the primary means for transferring
information from one network to another. However, Granovetter (1983)also states that strong ties play a useful role as well. He argues that strong
ties have the greater motivation to be cooperative and make resources more
easily accessible.
An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation 39
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
resource contribute to customers’ self-concept or cultural meanings? Whatkind of new knowledge can be generated from the application of a
particular resource? How do customers develop new meanings or uses for
value propositions?
From the broadened ecosystems/network framework of value cocreation,
it becomes obvious that exchange is not a dyadic encounter; rather it is a
continuous process that provides access to service within a system of
interdependent actors. The value cocreated in a service system is dependent
on the configuration and interaction within the system itself. As mentioned,
the reconfiguration of a system, and bundling and unbundling of resources,addresses time and space constraints for actors. In a sense, firms can
increase the ability to integrate a particular resource by increasing systems
density (Normann, 2001).
When firms make efforts to unbundle and rebundle or enable customers
to rebundle its resources in ways that best fit with other resources, the
potential for value cocreation to occur increases. However, firms must be
careful to focus on the operant resources required for the use of a particular
market offering. This will encourage customers to personalize not only any
tangible part of a particular experience but also the meanings associatedwith that experience. The picture presented in Fig. 1 reflects the mobilization
of resources based on the configuration of market relationships and
activities that enable the cocreation of value among a group of social and
economic actors. As seen in Fig. 2, the value derived in a system of service
exchange occurs through the process of accessing, adapting, and integrating
resources.
Ideally, all actors within a system will have access to all the knowledge
and specialization needed at any given place and time. However, this is
often not the case. Because processes of value cocreation require that theresources accessed and adapted be integrated in a variety of social
contexts, new knowledge is continually generated (Lusch & Vargo, 2006b).
These resources are further transferred, and accessed, adapted, and
integrated across networks within service ecosystems and drive economic
and social evolution. The way in which customers develop their own
norms and meanings has been extensively studied in the growing area of
consumer culture theory (Arnould & Thompson, 2005). However, the
process by which the micro-level actions and interactions among multiple
stakeholders draw on and contribute to the constitution of macro-levelstructures (Giddens, 1984) has received limited attention in marketing
literature. Thus, the exploration of the cocreation of norms and meanings
as well as value from a service-ecosystems view will help to strengthen the
MELISSA ARCHPRU AKAKA ET AL.42
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
understanding of how various social and economic actors contribute notonly to the creation of value but also to the creation of cultures.
IMPLICATIONS
The framework for value cocreation presented in this essay fundamentally
shifts the underlying focus of value creation away from a firm’s output. It
suggests that all economic actors access, adapt, and integrate resources to
cocreate value for themselves and for others, and that knowledge is the coreresource of all exchange. In this view, exchange is done in order to render
service or apply the knowledge of others with the intention of bettering the
circumstances of both the provider and the beneficiary. In each exchange
encounter, all participating parties give up something of value for something
that is expected to be of greater value. It is the application of operant
resources that uniquely benefits each actor and allows the generation of new
knowledge and other resources. This viewpoint of continuous knowledge
transfer, application and generation, throughout an infinite web of value
cocreation, has many implications for the study and practice of marketing.This deeper understanding of value cocreation can potentially influence the
scope and responsibilities of marketing, strategic initiatives of the firm,
attitudes toward innovation and globalization, and, ultimately, societal
wellbeing.
As reviewed in the literature above, the study of marketing is currently in
a state of transition. Although the study of value cocreation remains in its
early stages, the framework proposed in this essay provides an important
avenue for studying the way in which networks of relationships and
resources influence value cocreation. S-D logic’s ecosystems view on valuecocreation and resource integration provides an overarching mindset for
how value is created through exchange and related relationships. The
existing literature on networks in markets and marketing helps to ground
this logic, and appears to be an essential viewpoint for studying the
complexities of relationships associated with value cocreation. However,
networks should be observed and analyzed through an S-D logic ecosystems
lens in order to better understand the dynamic realities and underlying
mechanisms driving market exchange.
The proposed framework suggests that neither the firm nor the customerplays a central role in the process of value creation by itself. The focus of
value cocreation remains in a particular actor’s ability to access, adapt, and
integrate resources, and the value derived depends on the participation and
An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation 43
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
importance of accessing, adapting, and integrating resources in valuecocreation – the specific ways in which firms can increase the accessibility,
adaptability, and integrability of resources through the (re)configuration of
networks requires further examination. The identification of these compo-
nents of value cocreation point toward additional avenues of research to be
explored and fertile areas of literature, beyond the scope of current
marketing research, from which deeper insights can be drawn – e.g., social
network theory (Wasserman & Faust, 1994), institutional theory (William-
son, 2000), and structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) (see Vargo & Lusch,
2011a for details). Although the implications of value cocreation are evidentin today’s complex market and society, more research and empirical studies
are also needed to better understand the processes and complex structures
through which value is cocreated. Just as the process of value cocreation
drives innovation and the evolution of markets through the generation of
new knowledge, it enables academic knowledge to progress. The under-
standing of value cocreation will only increase from the combined effort of
multiple actors, cooperating and competing to propel continuous transfer
and generation of knowledge.
REFERENCES
Akaka, M. A., & Chandler, J. D. (2010). Practices, processes, positions and propositions: A
resource-based approach to value co-creation in value networks. Paper presented at the
forum on markets and marketing. Cambridge, UK.
Akaka, M. A., & Chandler, J. D. (2011). Roles as resources: A social roles perspective of change
in value networks. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 243–260.
Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action a functionalist approach to
marketing theory. Homewood IL: Richard D. Irwin.Anderson, J. C., Hakansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1994). Dyadic business relationships within a
business network context. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 1–15.
Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(March), 868–883.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(October), 32–39.
Baldwin, C. (2007). Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the
boundaries of firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17 (1), 155–195.
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2006). Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction:
The exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing. Marketing Theory, 6(3),
335–348.
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362.
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How value
frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49.
An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation 47
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
Chandler, J. D., & Wieland, H. (2010). Embedded relationships: Implications for networksinnovation and ecosystems. Journal of Business Marketing Management, 4, 199–215.
Constantin, J. A., & Lusch, R. F. (1994). Understanding resource management. Oxford, OH:
The Planning Forum.
Cova, B., & Salle, R. (2008). Marketing solutions in accordance with the S-D logic: Co-creating
value with customer network actors. Industrial Marketing Management, 37 (3), 270–277.
Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service
exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.
Ford, D., Gadde, L., Hakansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2002). Managing networks. 18th IMP
Conference, Perth, Australia.Ford, D., & Hakansson, H. (2005). The idea of business interaction. The IMP Journal , 1(1),
4–27.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological
Theory, 1, 201–233.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and the social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Gro ¨ nroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: Towards a paradigm shift
in marketing. Managment Decision, 32(2), 4–20.Gummesson, E. (2005). A network approach to service marketing: From dyads to many-
to-many. Paper presented at the Otago Forum. University of Otago, Dunedin,
New Zealand.
Gummesson, E. (2006). Many-to-many marketing as grand theory. In R. F. Lusch &
S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions
(pp. 339–353). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Hakansson, H., & Prenkert, F. (2004). Exploring the exchange concept in marketing. In
Merz, M., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009). The evolving brand logic: A service-dominant logicperspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 328–344.
Moller, K. K., & Svahn, S. (2006). Role of knowledge in value creation in business nets. Journal
of Management Studies, 43(5), 985–1007.
Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business: When the map changes the landscape. Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing
interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 65–77.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York, NY: Wiley.
Peppers, D., Rogers, M., & Dorf, B. (1999). Is your company ready for one-to-one marketing?Harvard Business Review, 77 (1), 151.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York, NY: Free Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Ramirez, R. (1999). Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice.
Strategic Management Journal , 20(1), 49–65.
Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Marketing under
uncertainty: The logic of an effectual approach. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 1–18.
Schau, H. J., Muniz, A. M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices
create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(September), 30–51.
Sewell, W. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29.
Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41(April),
73–80.
Vargo, S. L. (2009). Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: A service-
dominant logic perspective. Journal of Business and Industry Marketing, 24(5/6),
373–379.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(January), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it
might be. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing:
Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 43–56). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011a). It’s all B2B and beyondy: Toward a systems perspective
of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011b). From goods-dominant logic to service-dominant logic.
Invited presentation at Workshop on service-dominant logic: An evolution or revolution
in marketing theory and practice? Concordia University, Montreal.
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F., & Morgan, F. W. (2006). Historical perspectives on service-
dominant logic. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of
marketing: Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 29–42). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service
systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal , 26(3), 145–152.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation 49
7/29/2019 An Exploration of Networks in Value Cocreation - A Service-Ecosystems View
Ward, J., & Reingen, P. (1996). A network perspective on crossing the micro-macro divide.In I. Dawn (Ed.), Networks in marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Williamson, O. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal