Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to offer a fresh framing of innovation, as service innovation/ value innovation.Design/methodology/approach - By examining the visions, patterns and outcomes of three different research approaches to understanding innovation - goods-dominant (G-D) logic, the resource-based approach and service-dominant (S-D) logic - the authors strive to outline the contribution of each to the debate on innovation. This investigation involves a comprehensive literature review. Scrutiny of a case company provides a means of identifying and illustrating how these approaches play out in a real business context.Findings - A framework for innovation builds on the comparison of the three research approaches. G-D logic, when analysed in terms of new product development and new service development, positions innovation as an output (a new good or service) of a business's internal processes, with the firm as the main actor. The resource-based approach establishes the drivers of innovation as knowledge, capabilities and relationships, but the firm is still the main innovator. S-D logic addresses "open" innovation processes in which all actors in the network can mobilize and integrate their resources to become value co-innovators.Research limitations/implications - This study builds on the literature review by offering a more systematic way of dealing with the different research traditions in innovation debate.Practical implications - This study spurs managers to question the validity of dominant logic and how it affects the decision-making process. The conceptualization of innovation within S-D logic provides new avenues for decision makers and practitioners to tackle topical challenges of global competition.Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in defending the premise that S-D logic is better suited than the other two research traditions to frame current innovation within the context of global competition because it moves innovation beyond mainstream conceptualization: from "products and services" to "service and value", from "buyer-seller dyads" to "ecosystem relationships", and from "closed/linear process" to "open/co-created process".
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influential factors of the antecedents of relationship quality (RQ), RQ, and long-term relationship orientation between the members that constitute the insurance marketing channel. Design/methodology/approach – This study uses in-depth interviews as well as a survey to examine long-term relationship orientation between life insurers and insurance intermediaries in Taiwan. Findings – Results indicate that antecedents of RQ (customer orientation, expertise, similarity, and contact intensity) have a positive effect on RQ. Relationship qualities (trust, satisfaction, and commitment) have a positive effect on the long-term relationship orientation. The antecedents of RQ have a positive effect on the interaction of long-term relationship orientation through mediating effects of RQ. Originality/value – It fills a gap in the literature by explores the long-term cooperative relationship between life insurers and insurance intermediaries based on the RQ perspective. Further, previous studies have focused on the automobile, food, electronic information, textile, and financial industries. Few studies have looked at insurance marketing outsourcing from a RQ perspective. Thus, this study will be useful to decision makers in the insurance industry seeking to improve their supplier-distributor relationships.
Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon strategic marketing in emerging economies (EEs). It tries to answer the research question: what new business models are enabled by the Viable Systems Approach (VSA) and Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) perspectives?Design/methodology/approach– The paper is developed by integrating two well-established perspectives – VSA and SDL – and applying them to inclusive businesses.Findings– The integration of these perspectives allows the authors to recognize a convergence toward business models that seem to be consistent with the principles of inclusive capitalism. The authors claim that by shifting between a reductionist/static and a holistic/dynamic view, these perspectives can be integrated, thus revealing an interesting contribution to the understanding of inclusive business. Specifically, they contribute by highlighting how the economic and social dimensions are intertwined and by highlighting that the management-thinking perspective, which has dominated in recent decades, should shift toward a more inclusive vision.Research limitations/implications– The paper represents an attempt to address an inclusive capitalism perspective in the context of marketing. Nevertheless, the conceptual reasoning developed in the paper should be further supported by empirical research carried out in the context of EEs.Practical implications– The paper has relevant managerial implications that suggest a rethinking of the business model to market with EEs.Originality/value– The paper contributes to the research on inclusive capitalism by linking it to well-grounded conceptual approaches to business that recapture a harmonious relationship between the economy and society.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer a fresh framing of innovation, as service innovation/value innovation. Design/methodology/approach – By examining the visions, patterns and outcomes of three different research approaches to understanding innovation – goods-dominant (G-D) logic, the resource-based approach and service-dominant (S-D) logic – the authors strive to outline the contribution of each to the debate on innovation. This investigation involves a comprehensive literature review. Scrutiny of a case company provides a means of identifying and illustrating how these approaches play out in a real business context. Findings – A framework for innovation builds on the comparison of the three research approaches. G-D logic, when analysed in terms of new product development and new service development, positions innovation as an output (a new good or service) of a business's internal processes, with the firm as the main actor. The resource-based approach establishes the drivers of innovation as knowledge, capabilities and relationships, but the firm is still the main innovator. S-D logic addresses “open” innovation processes in which all actors in the network can mobilize and integrate their resources to become value co-innovators. Research limitations/implications – This study builds on the literature review by offering a more systematic way of dealing with the different research traditions in innovation debate. Practical implications – This study spurs managers to question the validity of dominant logic and how it affects the decision-making process. The conceptualization of innovation within S-D logic provides new avenues for decision makers and practitioners to tackle topical challenges of global competition. Originality/value – The value of this paper lies in defending the premise that S-D logic is better suited than the other two research traditions to frame current innovation within the context of global competition because it moves innovation beyond mainstream conceptualization: from “products and services” to “service and value”, from “buyer-seller dyads” to “ecosystem relationships”, and from “closed/linear process” to “open/co-created process”.
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to summarize and classify extant research and to better understand the past, present, and future state of the theory of value co-creation. Its main objectives are: to identify the different theoretical perspectives and research streams that characterize and define the co-creation literature, and to highlight the connections between them; to look for emerging trends and gaps in the literature by comparing the most recent papers with those representing the field's core.Design/methodology/approach - The paper relies on bibliometric data: co-citation techniques were employed to select, analyze, and interpret citation patterns within the co-creation literature.Findings - The paper identified two main clusters, as well as specific research streams and common themes, representing scholarly journals' publications on co-creation over the past years. These research streams and themes apply three different theoretical perspectives: service science, innovation and technology management, and marketing and consumer research. Data from the most recent publications has been used to verify if and how the original streams and themes are reflected in the contemporary debate.Research limitations/implications - Inevitably, the findings of the analysis have limitations related to the research design, the databases, and the applied bibliometric methods.Practical implications - From a practical perspective, the research impacts on theory building, management decision making, and teaching.Originality/value - This study depicts the remarkable development of the literature on co-creation and shows the latent structure underlying its different research streams. To the best knowledge, this study is the first to determine co-citation frequencies from both the SSCI and Scopus databases.
