|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|1027336||1483446||2016||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• Provides a framework to understand the various and simultaneous roles of service-dominant logic's generic actor.
• Concludes that value co-creation takes place when beneficiaries accept a value proposition and when it is rejected.
• Shows that value co-creation occurs at the actor and network level as well as the provider–beneficiary dyad.
• The type of value generated varies depending on the level at which value is co-created (actor, dyad, network).
• Concludes that an actor assumes multiple roles, including provider and beneficiary roles, over time in a service network.
The traditional goods dominant logic lexicon assumes pre-specified and static roles of market participants. Fixed roles such as ‘supplier’ and ‘customer’ imply that value creation occurs between two parties (the dyad) and occurs in a specified direction (i.e., from a supplier to a customer). In contrast, service dominant logic suggests that markets are comprised of generic actors engaged in bilateral actor-to-actor exchanges. However, the generic actor concept is not well developed in existing literature. We contribute to the literature by providing a typology of generic actor roles and identifying multiple types of value that may be co-created in a network. To empirically ground the concepts and generate propositions, we follow the development and deployment of a self-service technology, the Green Fingerprint, in the Swedish commercial real estate industry. Within a service network we find that generic actors assume several roles simultaneously, and may perceive multiple forms of co-created value. Theoretically, this paper offers a basis for further study of the generic actor and types of value, as well as an understanding of how network value co-creation emerges and evolves. Managerially, it offers insights into the existing value and co-creation potential of all actors, even those who are currently passive or reject a value proposition.
Journal: Industrial Marketing Management - Volume 56, July 2016, Pages 51–62