Kaj Storbacka

Managing Co‐Creation Design: A Strategic Approach to Innovation

Co‐creation offers firms and their network of actors significant opportunities for innovation, as each actor offers access to new resources through a process of resource integration. However, despite the significant advantages that co‐creation can offer, there is surprisingly little research providing a strategic approach for identifying the most advantageous co‐creation opportunities, especially when many possible options are available. Recently, scholars have called for research that develops tools and processes related to co‐creation. This study addresses these priorities, making two contributions. First, in contrast to previous work considering co‐creation more generally, or focusing on one specific form only, e.g. co‐production, this paper offers a detailed and granular approach to co‐creation design. A co‐creation design framework is developed, which incorporates multiple design dimensions and categories that can reveal new co‐creation opportunities. Second, the research extends the application of a design approach, specifically within the context of co‐creative activities. The authors use field‐based research with senior executives to develop a framework that includes key co‐creation design elements. A morphological approach is used to explore how a lead firm can identify attractive co‐creation opportunities. An innovation solution in one organization provides an illustration of how the co‐creation design framework can be applied.

Designing Business Models for Value Co-Creation

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to investigate how a focal market actor may design or redesign business models for improved value co-creation. Findings – We posit that value is co-created in use as actors integrate resources in practices, which makes practices a fundamental unit of value creation. Greater density of resources, relevant to a specific practice and to the goals or mission of the actor, corresponds to greater value. The role of a provider is to support other actors in their value-creation processes by providing resources that ‘fit’ into their practices. We identify 12 categories of business model design elements that need to be defined and developed in parallel. We conclude that a focal actor needs to strive for both intra-actor and inter-actor (meso-level) configurational fit of business model elements in order to enable purposeful co-creation in specific practices. Finally, we propose that meso-level configurations develop in a three-phase process of origination, mobilization and stabilization. A focal actor wishing to improve co-creation in a network needs to develop value propositions not only for customers but also for other actor domains. Overall, the performative power of a market actor is dependent on its network position, the relative strength of its business model and the actors ability to author compelling meanings. Originality – The research contributes to the discussion on value co-creation by identifying three shifts in the unit of analysis: (1) we argue that use-value is co-created as actors integrate resources in practices, rendering practices a fundamental unit of analysis, (2) as practices are outcomes of business models, we identified business model design as a key unit of analysis for the improvement of value co-creation and (3) our view on business models is network-centric and we focus on how to introduce new business model elements in a specific actor network. Practical implications – The realization of the fact that value creation occurs in networks of interdependent actors pinpoints the need for increased transparency both between functional silos and between actors. The business model framework identifies 12 design elements, which can act as a ‘checklist’ for managers wanting to engage in co-creative business models.

A new perspective on market dynamics: Market plasticity and the stability-fluidity dialectics

Several researchers have pointed out that if marketing is to develop as a discipline and contribute to solving complex business and societal challenges, it should question the neoclassical view of markets and develop its own theory of markets. Efforts in this direction indicate an emerging view of markets as dynamic, subjective, and subject to multiple change efforts. However, the neoclassical view of objective, detached, and deterministic market still influences the dominant models used to describe market change. We argue that in order to better understand market dynamics, both academics and practitioners need new concepts and constructs that go beyond existing linear process and development stage models. We seek to contribute to improved understanding of markets by studying a special characteristic of markets that enables market dynamics. Borrowing a term used by Alderson (1957: 277), we propose that markets are characterized by plasticity, that is, a “potentiality for being remolded and responding in a different way thereafter.” Even though the plasticity concept was introduced into the marketing literature nearly 60 years ago, the plastic character of markets remains underresearched. This article investigates the meaning and manifestations of market plasticity, drawing analogies from the physical, natural, and social sciences. We define market plasticity as the market’s capacity to take and retain form and propose that the dialectic between market stability and market fluidity lies at the heart of market change.

Theorizing with managers: how to achieve both academic rigor and practical relevance?

Purpose. There are heightened concerns that the theory-praxis gap is widening, despite decades of academic literature addressing the issue. We propose that one viable solution to this challenge is involving practitioners in research processes as active, reflective and empowered participants. Most extant discussions addressing the inclusion of managers as partners in theorizing restrain themselves to an ‘if’ question, arguing whether or not it is possible to create sufficiently rigorous knowledge in collaboration with practitioners. This leaves the ‘how’ question unanswered, i.e., how should such gap-bridging research be conducted in practice. Thus, the aim of this paper is to investigate how academic researchers in management and marketing can theorize with managers in order to generate results that are both academically rigorous and managerially relevant. Design/methodology/approach. Based on a literature review of collaborative theorizing processes, we develop a conceptual framework highlighting the main research design decisions when theorizing with managers. The use of the framework is illustrated with four research program examples. Findings. Most accounts of theorizing with managers use – explicitly or implicitly – abduction as the main mode of inference. In addition to this philosophical commonality, our literature review identified twelve themes that should be considered when designing collaborative research processes. The four illustrative examples indicate that theorizing with managers is an effective way of producing and socializing both academically sound and managerially relevant knowledge. On the other hand, collaborative theorizing processes are time-consuming and studies using abductive reasoning may be more challenging to publish in top-tier journals. Originality/value. This paper makes two contributions. First, we go beyond the extensive academic literature which provides a plethora of explanations and ideas for potential remedies for bridging the theory-praxis gap by offering a detailed description how one particular solution, theorizing with managers, unfolds in practice. Second, we ground collaborative theorizing processes in the philosophy of science and put abduction forward as a common nominator for such studies.

Management of customer assets for increased value capture in business markets

Purpose – The last two decades have seen a surge of interest in the concept of value in business markets. Furthermore, extant literature suggests that value capture can be conceptualized as the return on the firms customer assets. However, the existing customer asset management literature has a strong bias towards consumer markets. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to create a conceptual framework for managing customer assets for improved value capture in a business market context, and to illustrate the use of the framework empirically. Design/methodology/approach – The authors approach the topic with conceptual development and a longitudinal case illustration from a globally operating forestry product firm. Findings – The findings of the study indicate that B2B firms can increase their value capture by dividing their customer base into customer portfolios, which are managed with differentiated customer management concepts targeted to increase the economic profit contribution of each customer portfolio....

Market Innovation: Renewal of Traditional Industrial Networks

The study adopts a constructionist approach to markets, positing that markets are socially constructed human artifacts resulting from the actions and cognitive framing of the involved actors. The present research had three objectives: to develop a conceptual framework for categorizing managerial market definitions, to investigate empirically how practitioners frame novel markets, and to identify challenges associated with creating innovative market definitions in traditional industrial networks. The chapter draws on data collected within an extensive research program, carried out between March 2009 and December 2010. The program consisted of six academic research projects covering a wide range of theoretical backgrounds as well as interactions with 112 senior managers from ten major firms in a series of 52 workshops. The proposed conceptual framework supplements the current dominant product-based view of market definitions by positing that managers in industrial networks can also choose to define their markets based on (1) the firm’s resources and capabilities, (2) the network’s resources and capabilities, (3) the customers’ processes, and (4) the end-consumers’ practices. The results of the study additionally showed that current product-based theories of markets also influence managerial judgment: practitioners framed the vast majority of new market opportunities (73 %) around the product or service being sold.

Collaborative theorising about markets and marketing and service-dominant logic:

Following the very successful forums on Markets and Marketing (FMM) held at the University of New South Wales in 2008 and at the University of Cambridge in 2010, the third forum was held at the University of Auckland Business School in February 2012. The purpose of the forums is to advance the development of service-dominant (S-D) logic by focusing on foundational issues related to markets and marketing and exploring the cross-disciplinary foundations of the S-D logic. Informed by S-D logic’s foundational thinking about co-creation and building on the highly interactive logics of the first forums, this forum was developed into an experiment in collaboration with academics, using a structured work process based on the experience from facilitation of groups of managers. The idea was to explore whether it is possible to encourage and accelerate co-creation of new contributions by a facilitated process that would take advantage of a broader group of scholars with a more diverse range of perspectives than would occur when writing papers. An underlying issue is whether academic work is designable and academics are manageable? The open-minded participants agreed to partake in the experiment, which has now resulted in the five articles in this special issue that provide a substantial advance in theory about S-D logic. In this editorial, we will first describe the collaborative process used before, during and after the forum and then introduce the five articles.

Theorizing with managers to bridge the theory-praxis gap: foundations for a research tradition

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to refine an agenda concerning the theory–praxis gap to develop a foundation for a research tradition. Design/methodology/approach The paper synthesizes and builds on the suggestions in commentary articles by Kohli (2017), Leeflang (2017) and Moller (2017). Findings The authors develop a research agenda consisting of the following issues: the need for a systemic view of business practice; the need for innovative and meaningful theoretical understanding; the need to identify conditions and approaches for collaborative theorizing; to further define and instruct the abductive approach; and to explore pragmatic realism to ensure both practical outcomes and truthful theories. Originality/value These five issues are a step towards developing a theory–praxis research tradition.

Voraussetzungen der Transformation vom Produkt- zum Lösungsanbieter– Wenn Lösungen zum Problem werden

Unter dem doppelten Wettbewerbsdruck, der sich durch vielfach gesattigte und zunehmend globalisierte Markte ergibt, versuchen viele Industrieunternehmen durch ein Angebot von Dienstleistungen sowohl Umsatz- als auch Gewinnzuwachse zu erzielen (Visnjic et al. 2014; Kowalkowski et al. 2015). Dabei werden in verschiedensten Sektoren, von der Automobil- und Luftfahrtindustrie uber die Arzneimittelbranche bis hin zur Informationstechnik zunehmend hybride Leistungen offeriert, die sich aus Produkten und Dienstleistungen zusammensetzen (Shankar et al. 2009).

Market (Re)creation Through Innovation and Entrepreneurship

In this special session we reconsider how innovation and entrepreneurship influence the (re)creation of new markets by exploring and extending a service ecosystems approach, based on service-dominant (S-D) logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008). Importantly, S-D logic has been connected with emerging entrepreneurial theories (Read et al. 2009) and aligns with a focus on the creation of opportunities under conditions of uncertainty (Alvarez and Barney 2005, 2007, 2011). In addition, a service ecosystems view points toward institutionalization (i.e., (re)formation of institutions) as an underlying process that drives innovation, or development of new technologies and markets (Vargo et al. 2014). Based on this, markets are defined as “institutionalized solutions” that emerge and evolve (and dissolve) over time and space. In this light, we integrate emerging views on markets, innovation and entrepreneurship to address the questions: (1) What are markets? (2) Where do markets come from? and (3) How do markets evolve?