Search results

Various authors have brought forth the idea that the increase in context turbulence and the relentless change in today's economic and competitive environments have rendered it essential for an effective firm strategy to combine both value appropriation and value creation (Porter, 1996; Moran & Ghoshal, 1999; Venkataraman & Sarasvathy, 2001; Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001b). Nonetheless, the methodological bases and the assumptions that characterize contributions concerning value appropriation and value creation are notably different and in many respects opposite to one another. These profound methodological differences hinder the possibility of a combined consideration of value appropriation and value creation issues within a coherent interpretative framework. By reinterpreting more conventional strategy studies in the light of the Austrian process view, this article builds a process framework which is able to consider and render mutually compatible both value appropriation and value creation within the unitary process of firm development. In addition, the use of the Austrian approach as an interpretative lens enables an evolution and extension of the resource-based theory that consents it, not only to grasp the mechanisms behind value appropriation, but also to suggest new ways of viewing post-industrial firm behavior that help to interpret its dynamic and proactive role in the value creation process.

As markets become increasingly competitive, it is important for multinational corporations to generate value. Both headquarters and subsidiaries are responsible for contributing to value generation, albeit they may do so in different ways. This builds on the notion from the literature that it is possible to discern two separate concepts that relate to the generation of value, namely, value creation and value added. These concepts are often used interchangeably, without a clear distinction what they de facto reflect or what the underlying mechanisms of value creation and value added are.

Based on a set of assumptions regarding headquarters–subsidiary relations conceptual arguments related to value generation are developed.

Teasing out the differences between the concepts becomes important as it leads to a fuller understanding of what a headquarters do in different situations and of what a headquarters–subsidiary relationship entails for value generation.

In this chapter, it is argued that value-adding activities tend to be conducted by a headquarters, but are dependent on varying knowledge situations of headquarters, while the value creation process tends to take place at the subsidiary level.

The objective of this chapter is to understand innovative processes of resource redeployment taking place during consumption. We label this as consumer entrepreneurship. We define consumer entrepreneurship as the process of sharing and recombining resources innovatively to seek opportunities for self-creating user value. Through the illustration of heterogeneous forms of consumer peer-to-peer sharing, we argue that consumer entrepreneurship: (1) differs ontologically from a view of entrepreneurship as creation of exchange value; (2) bridges the notion, established in marketing studies, of consumers as value creators with the field of entrepreneurship; (3) develops mostly when the process of sharing is regulated informally, based on trust relationships; and (4) thrives as groups of sharing consumers discover and enact their values through the experimentation of multiple forms of product and service procurement. On the basis of these points, consumer entrepreneurship contributes to provide a novel perspective on hybrid organizations, that is, a view of hybrid organizations as everyday spaces where consumers create heterogeneous forms of (utilitarian, social, or environmental) value that they personally use as opposed to reward exchanges. Relative to the current definition of hybrid organizations (Pache & Santos, 2013) and organizing (Battilana & Lee, 2014), we argue that consumer entrepreneurship helps better explain “why, when, and how” consumers increasingly engage in peer-to-peer sharing organizations – a fledging and still underexplored way of organizing consumption worldwide.

The role of management control has not received sufficient attention in the literature on value creation so far. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the role of control in value creation in industrial networks. More specifically, the aim is to examine the management and control of interfaces between key resources within and between firms, in the networks surrounding firms, when they attempt to create value. All the firms that take part in a value-creation process have both formal and informal control systems: these firms have budgets, specific routines, reward systems, and sanctioned “ways to behave.” The paper relates the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) group's research on interaction, relationships, and networks with control literature, and presents a framework for controlling resource interfaces in a network setting. Two in-depth cases illustrate the role of control in value creation. The first case covers the development of a low-weight newspaper grade that Holmen and its paper mill Hallsta initiated. The second case examines the attempt to develop and commercialize a new, energy efficient pulping technology.

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 actor's 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.

We propose a typology of acquisition value creation logics derived from the dynamic capability literature and explore the organisational capabilities and implementation processes required for the effective delivery of three value creation logics: governance-based, cost-based and knowledge-based. We argue that each value creation logic calls for a specific and distinct set of acquirer capabilities and post-acquisition implementation processes. We put forward a contingency approach, where effective corporate acquirers make a conscious choice as to their predominant value creation logic based on a consideration of their organisational capabilities, which, in turn, defines the characteristics of appropriate target companies and the necessary implementation actions required to realise value post-acquisition. We discuss the implications for both acquiring firm executives and future M&A research.

Purpose – The aim is to introduce a sociological perspective on resource integration and value co-creation into service research using a service systems approach.

Methodology/approach – Conceptual and a case study of the service system a Telecom Equipment and Service Provider is embedded in is reported.

Findings – The service practice of the service system is framed by social structures of signification, legitimation, and domination. However, the practice is also independent of the structures since it is embedded in and shapes the structural realm.

Research implications and limitations – Drawing on structuration and practice theory, the chapter offers a new framework describing how social and service structures and practices can inform and reveal mechanisms of service system dynamics. Based on the framework, three propositions are developed focusing on the mechanisms of resource integration and value co-creation. The implications need to be generalized in future research by studying other empirical contexts.

Practical implications – The chapter provides some tentative guidelines on how organizations can design service systems that enable and support customers and other actors in their resource integration and value co-creation processes by paying attention to social structures and forces and not only resources as such.

Originality – The chapter explicates how social structures have implications for value co-creation and resource integration in service system. It makes systematic use of structuration and practice theory to understand the social dimensions of service systems. A distinction between intended and realized resource integration is made.

The competitive luxury market raises higher requirements for luxury brands to effectively involve young generations in creating and endowing meanings to products, services and experiences. Several researchers suggest that art experiences create a fertile source of co-creation practices for cultural customers as they could engage in cognitive, emotional and imaginal activities to endowing meanings to products or services. Hence, bridging art and luxury is of significance for luxury brands to create value and engage their customers. This chapter delivers the essence of value for luxury brands and their customers and focusses on how luxury brands deploy art-based initiatives as a favourable technique in which value co-creation takes place.