Maicon
da Silva
Universidade
de Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil
E-mail: maicon213@bol.com.br
Submission: 3/4/2020
Revision: 3/19/2020
Accept: 3/29/2020
ABSTRACT
This study responds to a theoretical essay, where it sought to analyses the dominant logic of service in marketing and its contextualization, based on studies initiated by exponents such as Vargo and Lusch in 2004. In other words, this new logic interpreted that value is constructed from the perspective of value in individual or social use. Also, it was sought to bring findings of the evolution of the concept of marketing, because it has been the concern of researchers in the area over the past decades. Still, since 2004, theories have been developed about this orientation of the "new logic". In this period, the proposers of the Vargo and Lusch theory reviewed the Foundational Assumptions (FPs) of the "Service Dominant Logic" (SDL), where some years later was added an eleventh FP written in the article of (Vargo & Lusch, 2016) "the co-creation of value is coordinated through institutions managed by an actor and institutional arrangements". In this way, this essay approached private higher education through reports from teachers (teachers) and students (students) of the Master's Degree in Administration at a University located in the Pardo River Valley/RS, more precisely the classroom of that course, addressing the interactive relationships between the parties in the process of teaching learning and knowledge construction. Finally, studies based on the dominant logic of service in marketing and the co-creation of value, consists of resuming studies of the last decade in the marketing area, providing advances for integrative issues, where companies need to differentiate themselves in relation to their competitors, seeking to offer the best products and/or services.
Keywords: Service-Dominant; Marketing; Foundational; Premises; Master; Administration; Value Co-creation
1.
INTRODUCTION
One of the research
challenges related to Marketing Administration is to understand the importance
of the media, because access to information allows customers to have quick and
detailed knowledge about a particular product and/or service. This possibility
is based on the perspective of the dominant logic of marketing service, where
these new perspectives have made the customer increasingly demanding, causing
companies to seek closer ness with them in order to identify their needs and
desires.
From the Dominant Logic
of the Marketing Service, Vargo and Lusch (2004) defend the exchange of intangible assets -
represented by skills, expertise and processes - to the detriment of a vision
exclusively focused on the exchange of tangible goods, i.e., manufactured
products. This approach, which puts the client in a service orientation
position, also sees him as a co-creator, and this experience adds value to the
process and suggests new strategies that ensure their greater satisfaction.
According to Pine II
and Gilmore (1998, p. 97) "the experiences of customers provided by
companies is what will matter most as goods and services become commodities."
These authors state that the experiences have typically been interpreted by
economists as services, however, experiences constitute a distinct economic
offer of services as well as these are of products. They argue that services as
well as products before them become increasingly commoditized and thus
experiences emerged as the next stage of them call value generation (Pine Ii
& Gilmore, 1998, p. 98).
Thus, the idea of
co-creation of value that is this is given emphasis on the Dominant Logic of
the Service (LDS). Proposal that has been discussed since 2004, having as main
exponents Vargo and Lusch.
In this logic, it was interpreted that the value is constructed from the
perspective of value in use created by the user individually or socially during
the use of resources and processes (Grönroos & Voima, 2013). Such an interpretation would break with the
argument of b2c – business to consumer interactions (Vargo
& Lusch, 2008).
At the risk of
interpretations that would denote an imbalance in the relationship between
offer or and consumer, which would maintain the value still being created by
one of the parties, the latest (LDS) review presents a reordering of the
lexicon that considers the process of creating value like A2A – actor to actor
– where operative resources act as strategic benefits and no longer as a
competitive advantage (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). As a reason, the authors point out that they
are not failing to consider competition, but that this should be a secondary
motivator while co-creation by the provision of services is the main one.
On the other hand, the
vision based on The Dominant Logic in Service is shredding economic principles
and this new perspective is gaining notoriety in the literature, especially in
the marketing area, where it proposes a new framework in which services
represent the economic exchange systems, countering commodity-based vision
(Moraes & Costa, 2012).
To provide personalized
experiences (Thomke & Von Hiippel,
2002; Prahalad & Ramaswamy
2000; Von Hiippel, 1986) firms must create
opportunities for customers to experiment with them and decide how much
engagement they want to have in creating a given experience. Thus, the center
of gravity of innovation remains in technology or product reinforcing the
dominant logic of value creation. Instead, the center of gravity must move to
individual co-creation of experiences. According to the author, in the universe
of experience the individual (client) is the center (Ramaswamy,
2003).
In view of these
questions, the present study, which is responsible for a theoretical essay,
aims to highlight the importance of the dominant logical theme of service in
marketing for private higher education, and it is possible for universities to
think about actions that differentiating themselves from competitors.
Thus, the importance of
this article and its contributions to the academic environment, aligns with the
different contexts related to the dominant logic of service in marketing, but
specifically in private higher education, in which a new trend arises in
provision of educational services focused on the concepts of marketing
administration, where it is necessary to immerse ourselves in the process of
seeking new services that universities can offer to customers (students),
meeting their needs and desires.
Thus, we sought to
analyze the concepts and premises of the dominant logic of service in marketing
and its contextualization’s, understanding the state of the art on the theme
proposed in this research. It is therefore noteworthy that the debate is
situated. It is necessary to advance in the understanding of the phenomenon of
marketing focused on services. For this, discussions about the theoretical
essay proposed in this article are presented, seeking to investigate ways
and/or possibilities for further studies.
2.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE MARKETING
CONCEPT
Before the early 1960s, marketing
was seen as a mere synonym for sales within large companies in the United States
of America – despite many academics, consultants and analysts defining
marketing quite differently. Because of the functions and meanings attributed
to marketing by the high summit of large companies, marketing was had by many –
in several countries, but mainly in Europe in the early 1970s – as a resource
used by large companies (in especially large U.S. companies) for the purpose of
manipulating consumers, citizens and business employees (Faria,
2008).
For Faria
(2008), from the mid-1970s, recognizing that much of what was said about
marketing was not effectively practiced, academics and some organizations had
to redefine marketing. These new definitions emphasize the strategic character
of marketing and strongly challenged the 'dark' side of the concept and the
dominant tactical approach. As one of the results of this process of academic
redefinition, marketing is defined today both as a managerial function and as a
philosophy of administration or social principle.
According to Rocha and Christensen (1999),
marketing is not only a managerial function, dedicated to the adjustment
between the organization's offer and the specific demands of the market, using
as a tool a set of principles and techniques. It can also be seen, as a social
process, by which the supply and demand of goods and/ or services are regulated
to meet social needs.
Thus, even before they were objects
of study, organizations already used Marketing concepts in their business. The
idea of producing something that meets the needs of others and delivers the
manufactured product in exchange for another product or monetary value is as
old as one imagines (Lazzaretti, 2013). According to
Terblanche (2005), it is possible to observe product and service marketing
practices since before 7.000 a.c. (barter,
mercantilism, enlistment in armies). However, the marketing discipline has less
than a century of existence.
Therefore, define what is evolution
of the marketing concept and what its scope has been the concern of researchers
in the area over the past decades. The American Marketing Association (AMA)
changed and refined several times the concept of marketing, seeking to explain
and adjust the definition and scope of the area to reflect the complexity of
the performance of managers and academics, in an increasingly competitive
environment and, therefore, the evolution of the marketing concept (Darroch et al., 2004).
For a better understanding, in the
last decades of the 20th century, marketing thinking was fragmented and, in
light of the time, in a superficial analysis, this seemed to be a reasonable
characterization (Vargo & Lusch,
2004). According to the authors, this view was questioned, suggesting that
perhaps, at the time, the marketing thought was not fragmented, but rather,
evolving into a new dominant logic (that of the service), which is increasingly
present, far from the exclusive vision the exchange of tangible goods
(manufactured things) and towards an exchange of intangible assets (skills,
expertise and processes), thus moving towards a more comprehensive and
inclusive logic.
After an extensive research and
development process conducted by Robert Lusch and
Greg Marshall in 2004, the AMA's definition was changed to “an organizational function and a set of processes for creating,
communicating and delivering value to customers and for the management of
relationships with them, so that it benefits the organization and its
stakeholders” (Darroch et al., 2004). For Sheth and Uslay (2007), replacing
the term exchange for value co-creation in the 2004 definition of the AMA draws
attention to the fact that, when focusing on the exchange, it is considered
only the creation of value at the time of exchange, of the transaction.
In front of this situation,
Oliveira, Damacena and Brambilla
(2014) choose the term Dominant Logic of the Service, refining it as the
consumer's conception evolves as a valued co-creator, also restructuring other
premises aimed at this situation. Thus, the Dominant Logic of the Service
should not have its interpretation restricted to traditional conceptualizations
that treat it as residual (all that is not very tangible), something offered to
improve a good (service as added value), or what has been classified as service
industries (health, government, education). Thus, in the next section will be
addressed the theory of the dominant logic of the service in marketing.
3.
DOMINANT LOGIC OF MARKETING SERVICE
The traditional marketing logic,
centered on products and whose focus is the transaction, that is, the transfer
of possession by sale, no longer makes sense in current times. This change of
focus in the marketing area had already been announced in the 1960s, when
Levitt (1960) revealed that errors in business perception so of the real needs
of customers led to conditions of low competitive capacity (Barguil,
2012). For Levitt (1960), the idea of selling at any cost should be excluded
from the mental model of companies, since the important thing is that they
focus on the customer and their present and future satisfaction rather than
centralizing efforts only on the production of goods.
LDS is also the basis for the
development of Service Science, led by IBM, which articulates human and
organizational understanding with technological and business understanding to
categorize and explain service systems (its construct how they interact and
evolve to co-create value. Service Science considers LDS a conceptual
foundation for providing perspectives, vocabulary and premises for building a
theory that underpinned a scientific approach to advance the design and
proposal of innovations for service systems (Maglio & Spohrer,
2013).
Thus, the logic that permeates all
subjectivity of what is expected and what is obtained is understood by Vargo and Lusch as The Dominant
Logic of the Service (LDS). LDS's proposal emerged in 2004 not as a new theory,
but as a philosophical reorientation to marketing (Vargo
& Lusch, 2007; Brambilla,
2013). The exchange-based consumer approach is based on its central objective
of the exchange that, in addition to sustaining the economy, supports social
structures (Kotler & Levy, 1969).
Since transactions involving
companies, markets and economies are primarily exchanging services, it has been
said that marketing thinking should start from a theoretical construction with
principles in the logic of the service that considers the value of the good as
a value that encompasses the participation of the different actors involved (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Vargo & Morgan, 2005; Vargo,
Maglio & Akaka, 2008; Brambilla, 2013; Grönroos & Voima, 2013).
By shifting value to experience,
relationships between company and client favor co-creation (Ballantyne, 2004; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004;
Ballantyne & Varey, 2006). For Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004),
increasingly active consumers become valuable co-creators by interacting with
the company. This definition is in line with that adopted by LDS, where service
is understood as "the application of specialized skills (operational
resources – knowledge and skills) through instruments, processes and
performances for the benefit of another entity itself" (Vargo & Lusch, 2008b, p. 26).
Logic Dominated by the Service does
not focus on the economic system from the point of view of the
production-consumption of goods, and the essential thing in this exchange model
is the exchange of service for service, being the service being a process in
which one actor benefits another and/or takes advantage of the interaction (Lusch & Vargo, 2014).
According to these authors, the process of serving involves the application of
knowledge and skills for the benefit of another entity or itself.
Best (2009) reiterates the idea that
companies need to look beyond available products and prices and see the
shopping experience in a complete way. The idea of mass collaboration is
introduced in due course. According to the author, customers (prosumers, partners, suppliers and employees)
should be involved in the process of creating value to the customer, and
consequently in creating value for the company. The greater the specialization
of delivery, the greater the interdependence between the parties and the more
relational the "exchange contract", thus seeking long-term
interaction with customers.
The interesting thing about the new
logic is that it does not abandon the concept of product logic, it just adds
the concept of service. Products and services remain important, as they
constitute the service provision mechanism (Vargo
& Lusch, 2004a). The product can be understood as
encapsulated knowledge, to provide a desired service by the consumer. Customers
buy the service or benefit that these goods perform for them. According to the
new logic, consumers are little concerned about the physical object itself, but
with what this object will bring you benefits and satisfaction. This should
then be the focus of companies: increase the benefits of the service. The
product, therefore, becomes a knowledge transmitter (Vargo
& Lusch, 2004a).
The focus of the Dominant Logic of
the Service on understanding what problems customers face would be the starting
point to propose solutions, regardless of an offer or product for these
problems. Thus, marketing becomes the provider of solutions for the tasks customers
need to do (Baker & Hart, 2008). Thus, this logic is represented by
Foundational Premises (PFs), addressed in the next section. As already
referenced in this study, for example, in the case of co-creation, PFs
represent axes of development of the dominant logic of service.
3.1.
Foundational Assumptions of The
Dominant Logic of Service
The dominant logic of the service is
represented through premises, which, according to Vargo
and Lusch (2004a) propose the evolution of marketing,
based on the greater interaction between consumer and company, which is
reflected in equality between agents in the search for solutions. Vargo and Lusch (2006; 2008;
2016) warn of the evolution of concepts previously worked in marketing,
pointing out eight fundamental premises for understanding this study.
To previous premises, in 2006 the
authors added the PF9 premise, according to which "all social and economic
actors are resource integrators". Vargo and Lusch (2008) modified six founding premises of marketing
and launched the tenth, PF10, which provides that "the value is always
determined in a unique way is phenomenological by the beneficiary".
Subsequently, the authors altered four founding premises of marketing and
released the eleventh and last premise, PF11, which states: "value
co-creation is coordinated through institutions managed by an actor and
institutional arrangements" (Vargo & Lusch, 2016, p. 72).
Based on the discussions generated
between 2004 and 2016 on Dominant Service Logic, Etierre
(2018) presents in his study "Co-creative Process between Company, Athlete
and Consumers" the initial foundational marketing premises. Preserving the
temporal criteria, the eight premises present in Vargo
and Lusch (2004a) present; then the ninth premise
added in Vargo and Lusch
(2006) and the tenth premise found in Vargo and Lusch (2008). Finally, the eleventh premise present in the
most recent study by Vargo and Lusch
(2016) is denoted, with the explanation of its logical evolution. Next, we can
observe the evolution of the eleven premises proposed by these authors. In
'Chart 1', the presentation of the ten PFs in their updated versions.
· PF1: The application of skills and expertise is the fundamental unit of
exchange (Vargo & Lusch, 2004a).
Evolved into service is the
fundamental basis of exchange (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). The substitution occurred due to two reasons:
1) the unit is related to product logic, such as an output; and 2) by
simplifying, because for authors, skills and knowledge for the benefit of
others is a lexicon related to service. This premise states that the service is
exchanged for service.
· PF2: Indirect transactions mask the fundamental trading unit.
It evolved into indirect
transactions masking the fundamental basis of the exchange. According to the
authors, the change is necessary for the same reason as the previous premise,
where the term unit is related to the dominant logic of goods (Vargo & Lusch, 2008).
With growth, organizations lose
focus on consumers and the service they provide. The integration of money, goods,
organizations and vertical marketing systems are just trading vehicles that
mask the trading unit (Vargo & Akaka, 2009).
· PF3: Goods are distribution mechanisms for the provision of services.
Knowledge is the fundamental source
of competitive advantage and goods are not common exchange denominators (Vargo & Lusch, 2004a). This
premise remained unchanged in the authors' publications (Vargo
& Lusch, 2016). Consumers want products depending
on the services they provide; for example, cars are seen as providers of the
locomotion service.
· PF4: Knowledge is the fundamental
source of competitive advantage.
The premise has been changed to
operating resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). The
authors point out that knowledge and skills are synonymous with an operative
resource. And finally, operating resources are a key source of strategic
benefit (Vargo & Lusch,
2016). The operating resources are difficult to copy, thus generating a
competitive advantage (Day et al., 2004).
· PF5: All economies are service
savings.
The premise remained unchanged.
Tangible goods (products) are mechanisms for provision of service, and service
and its consumers are the essence of economic activity (Lusch,
Vargo & O'brien, 2007).
Therefore, the fundamental unit of exchange are the mental and physical skills
related to the provision of the service (Brambilla
& Damacena, 2011).
· PF6: The consumer is always a
Co-producer.
This premise has been changed for
the consumer is always a co-creator of value (Vargo
& Lusch, 2008). The change occurred due to the
fact that co-production is associated with product logic (customer
participation only of the production process), while the co-creation of value
is a broader term that incorporates co-production, where the consumer is active
in the process of generation of value (Brambilla
& Damacena, 2011).
· PF7: The company can only make
value propositions.
Evolved into the company cannot
deliver value, can only offer value proposition (Vargo
& Lusch, 2008) and finally the company cannot
deliver value, can participate in the creation and value proposition offers (Vargo & Lusch, 2016).
The product that is not sold has no
value, a service provider (product) without consumers has no function. The
consumer should not be seen only as a target, as he is responsible for
determining the value (COLD, 2014). The company alone has A2A relationships
(within the company), cannot deliver value, only provide services and co-create
value along with the consumer (Vargo & Lusch, 2016).
· PF8: A service-centric vision is
consumer-oriented and relational.
This premise has evolved into a
service-centric vision inherently consumer-oriented and relational vision (Vargo & Lusch, 2008) and,
finally, a service-centric vision is inherently beneficiary-oriented and
relational (Vargo & Lusch,
2016).
Goods as inanimate elements do not
promote relationships, because the service is determined according to the
benefits created by itself; logic becomes inherently centered on the consumer
and the relationship. In Vargo and Lusch (2016), the service vision is centered on the
beneficiary and not just on the final consumer, since this is an approach to
LDS.
· PF9: Organizations exist to
integrate and transform micro specialized skills into complex services that are
demanded in the market.
All social and economic actors are
resource integrators; not only consumers and companies propose value, but also
all stakeholders linked to the process (Frow &
Payne, 2011).
· PF10: The value is always unique
and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary, that is, the value is
determined by the consumer at the time of use.
For Grönroos
and Voima (2013), the value depends on the consumer's
situation and the time of use, that is, products that have already been
experienced and expectation of the future are contextual elements related to
value for the consumer (Helkkula, Kelleher & Pihiström, 2012).
· PF11: The co-creation of value is
coordinated through institutions managed by an actor and institutional
arrangements.
To refer to the interrelated sets of
institutions which together constitute a coherent relative assembly that
contributes to the activity of co-creation of value in service ecosystems (Vargo & Lusch, 2016).
The Dominant Logic of the Service is
presented through the Eleven Foundational Premises (PFs), which represent axes
of development. As noted earlier, the eight PFs cited by Vargo
and Lusch (2004a) were altered in later articles (Vargo; Lusch, 2004a; 2006; 2008;
2016), with changes in terms initially used. In addition, two new premises were
proposed, thus giving rise to ten PFs.
Vargo and Lusch (2008) argue that the service is a process that uses
resources for the benefit of another party, usually the customer/consumer. For
a better understanding of the PFs of the 'Dominant Logic of the Service', they
are still up to date and commented. Table 1 below synthesizes and extends
previous explanations.
Table 1:
Foundational Premises (updated) of the Dominant Logic of Marketing Service.
Updated Foundational Assumptions |
PFs Comments |
|
PF1 (2004a) |
Service is the fundamental basis of
exchange. |
Services are exchanged for services, and
represent the economic analysis unit. |
PF2 (2004a) |
Indirect exchanges mask the fundamental
exchange base. |
The provision of the service has a
complex integration of elements. |
PF3 (2004a) |
Goods are mechanisms for distributing
the provision of service. |
The value is linked to the use, through
the provision of the service. |
PF4 (2004a) |
Intangible
resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage. |
Competitive advantages guide the
competition. |
PF5 (2004a) |
All economies are service savings. |
Service, in the singular, better
characterizes the idea of the logic of marketing in service. |
PF6 (2004a) |
The consumer is always a co-creator of
value. |
Value co-creation occurs interactively
in all service contacts. |
PF7 (2004a) |
The company cannot deliver value, only
offer value propositions. |
Value propositions are only possible in
interaction. Unilaterality does not generate value. |
PF8 (2004a) |
A service-centric view is inherently
consumer-oriented and is also relational. |
The service is determined by the
customer through the benefits determined by the customer in the co-creation
of value. |
PF9 (2006a) |
All social and economic
actors are resource integrators. |
The context of value co-creation is
integrative. |
PF10 (2008) |
Value is always unique, and
phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary. |
Value is idiosyncratic, referring to
experience, contextual and loaded with meaning for consumers. |
Source: adapted by the author of Vargo and Lusch (2004a); Lusch and Vargo (2006a); Vargo and Lusch (2008); vargo and lusch (2016).
In view of the above, all this was
synthesized by the creation of four axioms, from which the other PFs were
related. In 2016, Vargo and Lusch
added the eleventh Foundational Premise, adding a fifth axiom. The creation of
these axioms (Lusch and Vargo,
2014) and the modifications proposed in the 2016 article emphasize the details
allowing a broader perception for theory, mainly through the review of
concepts. The evolution of the concepts described is synthesized in Table 2.
Table 2:
Evolution from eleven premises to the five axioms
Axioms |
Description |
Axioms
1/PF1 |
Service is the fundamental basis of exchange. |
Axioms
2/PF6 |
The value is co-created by several actors, always
including the beneficiary. |
Axioms
3/PF9 |
All social and economic agents are resource
integrators. |
Axioms
4/PF10 |
Value is always unique and phenomenologically
determined by the beneficiary. |
Axioms
5/PF11 |
Co-creation of value is coordinated through
institutions generated by the actor and institutional arrangements. |
Source: adapted by the author of Vargo and Lusch (2016, p. 8).
When analyzing the historical
trajectory of marketing thinking, it is possible to observe the evolution of
consumer participation in market processes. The new theoretical discussions
address the need to integrate the client into the process of creating value
from the collaboration from their experiences with products and services. The
value is no longer in the product, but in the experiences that the product
provides and in the interaction between company and consumer. Based on the
dominant logic of the marketing service, the client becomes an active agent in
creating value, a scenario that becomes perceived in private higher education.
Brambilla
and Damacena (2011) complement that in a market where
products and services increasingly resemble their characteristics,
differentiation will take place through the creation of value perceived by the
customer. This value will become a competitive advantage, transforming the
service into a strategic activity.
From this new dominant logic of the
service, the creation of value begins to occur through the system of exchange
of experiences, proposing a narrative based on resource integration and
provision of reciprocal service, with actors co-creating value for both
parties, philosophy that should also be adopted by the educational market (Vargo & Lusch, 2015).
Thus, value co-creation is no longer
seen from a linear and sequential flow, but rather as a more complex and
dynamic exchange system, similar to a service ecosystem, in which value
creation practices are guided by institutions and arrangements as shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Narrative and process of the dominant logic of the service
Source: adapted by the author of Vargo and Lusch (2016).
For Firat,
Dholakia and Venkatesh (1995), the perception that
consumers are actively engaged in creating value and benefits for consumption
itself is in accordance with the postmodernist view that consumers are a
participant in the "customization of a world." This point of view has
affinity with the client concept as a part-time worker approached by Bowers,
Martin and Luker (1990). For Grönroos
and Ravald (2011), value creation, within the
Dominant Logic of Service, is a process that seeks to create the value in use
of resources for the consumer, culminating in different concepts of
co-creation.
For a better understanding, this
marketing logic, the SDL, is focused on the service. Therefore, the same
"implies that marketing is a continuous series of social and economic
processes" (Vargo & Lusch,
2004a, p. 5). As can be seen in Table 3, the differences between product and
service logics are substantial, and change the overview of market operation.
Table 3:
Difference between LDP and LDS
|
Product Oriented Marketing Logic |
Service Oriented Marketing Logic |
First
trading unit. |
People trade for products. |
People exchange to acquire
the benefits of the service. |
Paper
of products. |
Goods are material resources
and end products. |
Products are transmitters of
entrenched knowledge, used in the co-creation of value. |
Role
of consumers. |
The consumer is the
recipient of the products. |
The consumer is a co-creator
of the service. There is
interaction. |
Determination and meaning of VALUE. |
VALUE is determined by the
producer. |
THE VALUE is perceived and
determined by the consumer. Firms can only make value propositions. |
Interaction between the firm and the consumer. |
The consumer is a target. |
Consumer is an active
participant in exchange relationships and also in the co-creation of value. |
Source
of economic growth. |
Wealth is obtained by
tangible resources. The reference unit is the product. |
Wealth is obtained through
knowledge and specialized skills (service). |
Source: adapted by the author of Vargo and Lusch (2004a, p. 7) and Vargo and
Lusch (2008).
Therefore, one of the ways to
promote value to consumers is through co-creation, a concept that will be
addressed below.
4.
VALUE CO-CREATION
The co-creation of value makes the
market an open space for dialogue between organizations and consumers. The
market is now seen as a place to exchange experiences and consumers make clear
their willingness to pay - or not, so it is being offered on the market (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004).
As competitiveness increases, it is essential that service providers intensify
the preparation of their personal contact team, both in the aspect of knowledge
to provide the best possible service and service, as well as, in the aspect of
elevating collaboration, relationship and interaction with customers (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003; Prahalad
& Ramaswamy, 2004).
Following this logic, the consumer
begins to be defined as an increasingly dynamic and participatory subject in
the interaction with companies, prioritizing products that meet their needs and
desires (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2004). In order for the product to respond to the interests of the consumer,
its participation in the creation process becomes fundamental. As Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000)
have available, this involvement can be characterized as a co-creation of
value, which has become increasingly common in the middle of business.
Conquering the client by meeting
their most particular needs through co-creation, considering their needs and
wills, can be the differential to generate satisfaction and assist in the
positive perception of the same in relation to the company (Zmoginski
et al., 2009). Prahalad and Ramaswamy
(2004) argued that in the future, competitive advantage will be related to the
process of co-creation of value with consumers. This interaction with the
consumer is due to the offer of their skills, skills and, mainly, for their
experiences of consumption. Thus, the consumer is considered as an active and
endogenous agent in the marketing process (Lusch,
2007; Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2004).
Thus, the co-creation of value takes
place through the active participation of the consumer in the development of a
customized product and/or service that meets the needs and expectations. Thus,
the essence of co-creation in service is the search for a better composition of
value to the consumer, serving their interests in the individual plane, a
situation that characterizes one of the discussions of the Dominant Logic of
the Service (Brambilla & Damacena,
2011). Table 4 shows some of the concepts of value co-creation.
Table 4:
Concepts of value co-creation
The concept of co-creation |
Consumers and
other actors are part of the value creation process. It is the source for
value generation. Value is created collaboratively through the interaction of
several actors, in order to achieve the final result that meets all involved. |
Shared
value creation that develops between company and consumer. |
|
Allow the
consumer to participate in the co-construction of the service experience. |
|
Jointly defined
the problem and also the solution. |
|
Varied
experiences, the participation of different people. |
|
Individualized experience. |
|
Continuous
dialogue between all parties involved in the co-creation process. |
|
Custom experience co-construction. |
Source: Adapted by the author, Bambilla and Damacena (2011), based on Prahalad
and Ramaswamy (2004) and Vargo
and Lusch (2011).
According to Brazil, Santos and
Dietrich (2010, p. 08), there are some principles that condition the
co-creation of value, that is, "characteristics that would provide, or
not, convenient conditions for generating value based on sharing and
experiences". In order to demonstrate and provide the dissemination of
knowledge to stakeholders, the authors designed a structure that, in accordance
with the organizational structure, establishes elements that enable, sustain
and make possible the implementation of the co-creation process within
organizations, so that the objectives of both parties can be achieved (client
and organizations).
In the design of value co-creation,
there is no clear distinction of roles between clients and organizations
proposed by the traditional approach of value creation. Cova and Dalli (2009) point out that, although it is already clear
that consumers contribute to the social construction of reality, culture and
consumer symbology, there is still a need to explain
that they also produce economic value through the collaboration with companies.
For authors, consumers are the main source of value and therefore value
co-creators.
The process of co-creation of
customer value is based on the experience of the relationship that the customer
experiences or experienced with the company's products and services. This
meeting is what allows interaction between both parties, when everyone
collaborates for the co-creation of value. This experience is influenced by several
factors, which can be emotional (feelings, mood, personality characteristics),
cognitive (developed through the processing of information present in memory)
or behavioral (actions that originate and result in experiences) (Payne, Storbacka & Frow, 2008).
Thus, after this review in the
conceptual models proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) and Payne, Storbacka
and Frow (2008), it can be affirmed that the
relationships established between client/consumer and company are the essence
of value co-creation. Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010) emphasize that co-creating value with the
customer or final consumer cannot be considered as the only way for a company
to develop this process, and it is necessary to involve all stakeholders in it,
enabling interaction between consumers and managers, but also suppliers and
employees. According to the authors, providing innovative experiences for end
customers/consumers requires the company to have a highly qualified internal
team.
Ramaswamy
(2009) contributes to studies stating that it is necessary to understand the
roles of each of the co-creators, operating, where necessary, in response to
the needs and desires of customers/consumers and also of other stakeholders.
From an organizational point of view, the author states that all employees
should be involved in the process, "from the first contact with the
client, to the after-sales", thus will be creating an environment
conducive to co-creation between client and company.
4.1.
Services Based on Value Co-creation:
A Master’s Study in Administration
Given the importance of premises
oriented to the Logic of The Service in Marketing, that of the consumer as a
co-creator of value, is one of the most relevant. Because it is important to
point out the complexity of educational services offered by private higher
education institutions.
In this sense, the importance of
co-creation for the generation of value, more precisely in the Master's degree
in Administration course at a University located in Rio Pardo Valley / RS, in
which the institution is a service provider, and it responds by the performance
for the minimum performance of approval and professional training of these
students in the future. Reports were collected aiming to clarify the
co-creation of value in private higher education, some interviews with teachers
(teachers) and students (students) of the Master's Course in Administration at
a University located in the Vale do Rio Pardo/RS, which has an average of 20
students annually attending this course.
Of the reports collected in the last
quarter of 2018, five considerations from each category were selected about the
interactions between teacher and student in the master's class in
administration. Each contribution will be reported according to the
interviewees' speech during this chapter, whose generic identification of the
report may be: "teacher"
or "student".
· Teacher 1:
The role of the teacher is to discuss and
present the main theoretical approaches, as well as instigate the debate with
students. The initial report indicates that in the service, the co-creation
of value in education, results in the meeting in which the educational
institution through its faculty (teachers) needs to promote mechanisms that can
instigate the debate on the themes proposed within of the classroom.
· Teacher 2:
Forming an ethical, critical subject, and
who knows his responsibility. In this report, the role of the teacher goes
beyond his role as an educator, that is, the same contributes to train subjects
who need to build their own personality in this process of ethical and moral
values, which are fundamental for the construction of each Individual.
· Teacher 3:
The learning process is not completely
individual that requires interaction. In this statement, learning depends
not only on the students, but on the engagement of the teacher who contributes
to their training. Thus, the interaction between teacher and student from the
perspective of value co-creation results in the creation of knowledge between
the parties involved in this process.
· Teacher 4:
The teacher is a builder of knowledge
along with the student. The teacher's challenge in recent years has ceased
to be a mere replicator of knowledge, because it is up to the teacher to bridge
the student and the various ways of teaching, that is, together teacher and
student learn, because the greater the involvement between teachers and higher
students will be the chances of building new knowledge.
· Teacher 5:
The teacher who teaches the discipline
needs to follow the basic menu of the discipline, and the contents that were
approved by the educational institution and Capes. In this report, the
university provides the teacher with the menu of a certain discipline that it
will teach, but it is up to the professor in addition to following the
programmatic content, seeking new ways to pass the content within the
classroom, because innovating is one of the practices proposed in studies
related to co-creation of value in the educational context.
In addition to reports collected
with teachers, reports were collected with students of the Master's degree in
Administration, then five reports were highlighted:
· Student 1:
Develop knowledge in the best possible
way, and bring in a reworked way this issue of teaching. From this report
the student seeks to develop new knowledge, where it promotes a change of
mentality, the way of thinking, in order to ensure even a better quality of
learning, and, contributing to new teaching methods.
· Student 2:
Very important for my professional
growth. In this report, the possibilities of growth are immense. Therefore,
it is important as university academics to seek specific certifications in the
areas that are intended to act as a professional, since it will basically have
their personal effort to grow.
· Student 3:
When the service is offered with quality,
it is an investment that is made in your life. In this testimony, the
student should be aware of everything when choosing a quality educational
service, because who determines whether the quality of a service is good or not
the client (student), being the quality of educational services provided
indispensable at the time of choose by particular university and course.
· Student 4:
But there are many people who are wearing
the institution's shirt, and who are really partners of the educational
institution and who makes "the thing happen". It is perceived in
this report that it should not invalidate the fact that the purpose of the
educational institution is only to profit, but on the other hand there is the
idea of the concept of social responsibility of the educational institution
towards the community in which it is inserted, as well as people committed to
making a difference in academia.
· Student 5:
It is important, because the construction
of knowledge is not only within the classroom. This account in turn is
understood that the construction of knowledge depends not only on students, but
also in conjunction with teachers. Thus, the learning that is obtained within
the classroom can be extended to other spaces of the university, such as large
spaces of coexistence, libraries, among others. For, from the perspective of
the coexistence of value, the involvement between groups of people provides
debates, exchanges of information and experiences that provides different forms
of knowledge construction.
Thus, it is perceived that although
the expression co-creation of value is not present in the reports of teachers
(teachers) and students (students), it is possible to identify the importance
of this process in the reports of this group. In this sense, presented the
central concepts of the evolution of the concept of marketing, dominant logic
of the service, co-creation of value, as well as the example of the master's
classroom in Administration at a University located in the Rio Pardo Valley/RS,
follows the final considerations about the subject.
5.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The present study responded by a
theoretical essay for a better understanding about the Dominant Logic of
Marketing Service, seeking to make a rescue of the concepts and premises that
guide marketing theories focused on services, based on studies initiated by
exponents such as Vargo and Lusch
in 2004. Because The SDL is a conceptual structure based on products and/or
services, where it includes all the experiences involved throughout the
co-creation process.
As a central pillar of studies based
on the dominant logic of marketing service, the idea of working product and/or
service together consists of resuming the understanding of marketing
activities, providing the construction of strategies aimed at building
competitive advantage. Pointing to the reports of teachers (teachers) and
students, where both parties are concerned with the interaction, thus having an
opportunity in the adoption of the SDL and in the co-creation of value based on
innovation strategies focused on educational services offered by universities.
Thus, the action through this vision
requires a managerial posture strategically focused on the interactions and
possibilities of groups of people in helping to draw the experience experienced
(Mendonça & Medeiros, 2014). For example, in the
case of higher education, the main objective of the university is to pass on
knowledge and contribute to the teaching process learning of these students,
seeking to meet their expectations, when they chose to purchase a certain
educational service of a university. Within this context of supply and demand,
education often becomes seen as a service and the student as a client (SILVA et
al., 2019).
It is also mentioned by Webster Jr.
(2006), that the model of service-oriented logic in marketing represents an
exciting, important and controversial discussion necessary for the development
of the area. A theoretical line that breaks with traditional visions, which
configure much of the development of Marketing. These discussions will result
in changes, guiding the field to a new or modified conceptual posture, an
integrated marketing sense (Webster Jr., 2006). As a minimum, the dominant
logic of the service will provide discussions that tend to advance discipline
to integrative issues and essential precepts in the new competitive scenarios.
Regarding the theoretical
contribution, it can be perceived that the studies of Ciccantelli
and Magison (1993), Nambisam
(2002); Prahalad and Ramaswany
(2004) suggest that companies need to co-create value to gain an advantage over
their competitors, a situation, which has been identified even more
expressively since the second decade of the 21st century. Thus, the analysis of
information was developed based on the assumption that the dominant logic of
service and the co-creation of value can favor the strengthening of the company
from the relationship between company and client.
Finally, the realization of this research
also resulted in some aspects that need to be mentioned: it presents an
important contribution in marketing administration, by contextualizing concepts
and premises of the dominant logic of service. Furthermore, the co-creation of
value in complex service in the Master's degree in Administration course at a
University located in the Rio Pardo Valley/RS was considered, bringing reports
of professors and students related to the interaction between the two in the
classroom of this course.
As a limitation of the study, I
highlight that the sample used included only one unit of analysis, that is, the
classroom of a graduate program in administration of a University located in
the Vale do Rio Pardo/RS, in which it had reports from professors (teachers) and
students (students). As a stimulus for new studies, it is recommended to
contemplate more units of analysis, as well as other educational institutions.
REFERENCES
Alves, H., &
Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student
satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management, 18(5), 571-588.
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.
Ballantyne, D. (2004).
Dialogue and its role in the development of relationship specific
knowledge. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 114-123.
Baker, M., &
Hart, S. (2008). O livro de
marketing. Routledge.
Barguil, F. E. (2012). O
papel da confiança na coprodução (Doctoral dissertation).
Bendapudi, N., &
Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer
participation in co-production. Journal of marketing, 67(1), 14-28.
Bendapudi, N.,
& Leone, R. (2001). How to Lose Your Star Performer Without Losing
Customers, Too. Harvard Business Review, 79(10), 104-110.
Berry, L. L.,
Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the Total Customer
Experience. MIT Sloan Management Review,
43(3), 84-90.
Berry, L. L. (1987).
Big Ideas in Services Marketing. Journal
of Services Marketing, 1(1), 5-9.
Best, R. J. (2009). Market-based
management: Strategies for growing customer value and profitability.
Bolton, R. N.,
Grewal, D., & Levy, M. (2007). Six Strategies for Competing through
Service: An Agenda for Future Research. Journal
of Retailing, 83, 1-4.
Bowers, M. R.,
Martin, C. L., & Luker, A. (1990). Trading
places: employees as customers, customers as employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 4(2), 55-69.
Brambilla, F. R. (2013). Perspectiva Multi-Canal de valor na
lógica dominante do serviço em Marketing. Diálogo, (24),
105-114.
Brambilla, F. R., & Damacena, C. (2011). Lógica Dominante
do serviço em marketing: estudo dos conceitos e premissas aplicados à educação
superior privada na perspectiva docente. Revista Brasileira de
Marketing, 10(3),
151-176.
Brambilla, F. R. (2010). Entendendo a lógica dominante do
serviço em marketing: conceito e premissas. Encontro Anual da Associação
de Pós-Graduação em Administração, 34.
Brasil, V. S., Santos, C., & Dietrich, J. F. (2010).
Co-Criação de valor: proposição de uma estrutura de análise dos elementos
influenciadores da criação compartilhada de valor nas empresas. Anais
do EMA–IV Encontro de Marketing da ANPAD, Florianópolis.
Chen, C., &
Hughes, J., Jr. (2004). Using Ordinal Regression Model to Analize
Student Satisfaction Questionnaires. Association
for Institutional Research – AIR: IR Applications, 1(1), 1-12.
Ciccantelli, S., & Magidson, J. (1993). From
experience: consumer idealized design: involving consumers in the product
development process. Journal of product innovation management, 10(4), 341-347.
Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009). Working consumers: the next step in
marketing theory?. Marketing
theory, 9(3), 315-339.
D’avila, L. C., Damacena, C.; Garrido, I. L. (2008). Valor de
Marca na Nova Lógica de Serviços. Anais
do XXXII EnANPAD. Rio de Janeiro: Anpad.
Darroch, J.; Miles, M. P., Jardine, A., & Cooke, E. F. (2004). The 2004 AMA
definition of marketing and its relationship to a market orientation: an
extension of Cooke, Rayburn, & Abercrombie (1992). Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 12(4), 29-38.
Day, G. S., Deichton, J., & Narayandas,
D. (2004). Invited Commentaries on ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for
Marketing’. Journal of Marketing, p.
18-27.
Debnath, S.
C., Tandon, S., & Pointer, L. V. (2007).
Designing Business School Courses to Promote Student Motivation: An Application
of the Job Characteristics Model. Journal of Management Education, 31(6), 812-831.
Mendonça, F. M., & Medeiros, M. L. (2014). Satisfação e
lógica dominante do serviço em meios de hospedagem. Revista Hospitalidade,
246-270.
Moraes, M. B., & Costa, B. K. (2012). Co-criação de valor
e perspectiva da lógica dominante: um estudo em uma empresa do setor
aeronáutico. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e
Desenvolvimento Regional, 9(2).
Etierre, M. (2018). Processo
Cocriativos Entre Empresa, Atleta e Consumidores. Dissertação (Dissertação
em Administração) – UNISC. Santa Cruz do Sul.
Fang, C. B.,
Candelária, P. D. A. P., Klug, W. A., & Capelhuchnik,
P. (2008). Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse by the Delorme
technique and rectopexy. Revista da Associação Médica
Brasileira, 54(2), 142-145.
Faria,
A. (2008). A evolução do conceito de
marketing. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Online.
Fitzsimmons, J. A.,
& Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2014). Administração de Serviços: Operações, Estratégia e Tecnologia da
Informação. Amgh Editora.
Firat, A.
F., Dholakia, N., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Marketing em um mundo
pós-moderno. Revista Europeia de
Marketing, 29(1),
40-56.
Grönroos, C. (2006).
Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing theory, 6(3), 317-333.
Grönroos, C.,
& Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic:
making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the academy of
marketing science, 41(2),
133-150.
Grönroos, C.,
& Ravald, A. (2011). Service as business logic:
implications for value creation and marketing. Journal of service management, 22(1), 5-22.
Hertog, P.
D., Wietze, A. V. D., & Jong, M. (2010) Capabilites for managing service innovation: towards a
conceptual framework. Journal of Service
Management, v. 21, n. 4, p. 490-514.
Lazzaretti, T. M. (2013). Valor
Percebido e a Nova Lógica Dominante de Serviço: estudo da indústria brasileira
de equipamentos de refrigeração para transporte de cargas (Doctoral dissertation).
Levitt, T. (1960).
Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business
Review, v. 38 (July-August), n. 4 p. 26-44.
Lusch, R.
F. (2007). Marketing's evolving identity: defining our future. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 261-268.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). The service-dominant logic of marketing:
Dialog, debate, and directions. Routledge.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O‟Brien,
M. (2007). Competing through Service: Insights from
Service-Dominant Logic. Journal of
Retailing, 83(1), 5-18.
Lusch, R.
F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006a) Service-Dominant
Logic: Reactions, Reflections and Refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281-288.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006b). The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions. New
York: M. E. Sharpe.
Kotler, P.,
& Levy, S. J. (1969). Ampliando o conceito de marketing. Jornal de marketing, 33 (1), 10-15.
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2013). A
service science perspective on business model innovation. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42(5),
665-670.
Moraes, M. B., & Costa, B. K. (2013).
Co-criação de valor e perspectiva da lógica dominante: um estudo em uma empresa
do setor aeronáutico. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e
Desenvolvimento Regional, 9(2).
Nambisam, S.
(2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development:
Toward a theory. Academy
of Management review, 27(3), 392-413.
Oliveira, G., Damacena, C., &
Brambilla, F. R. (2014). Cocriação como proposta para geração de valor: caso da
empresa dental américa. Desenvolve Revista de Gestão do Unilasalle, 3(2), 129-150.
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.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience
economy. Harvard business review, 76, 97-105.
Prahalad, C.
K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-Creation
Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Prahalad, C.
K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The New Frontier of
Experience Innovation. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 12-18.
Prahalad, C.
K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). The
future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Press.
Ramaswamy, V. (2003). Co-creating experiences with customers: new paradigm of
value creation. The TMTC Journal of Management, 8, 6-14.
Ramaswamy, V. (2009). Liderando a transformação para
co-criação de valor. Estratégia e Liderança, 37 (2), 32-37.
Ramaswamy, V.,
& Gouillart, F. J. (2010). O poder da co-criação: construa
com eles para impulsionar o crescimento, a produtividade e os lucros. Simon e Schuster.
Ribeiro, Á. H. P., Monteiro, P. R. R., & Luttembarck, L.
(2019). The Use of the'Job to Be Done'methodology to identify value co-creation
opportunities in the context of the Service Dominant Logic. BBR.
Brazilian Business Review, 16(1), 32-45.
Ritala, P.,
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Blomqvist,
K. (2009). Tug of war in innovation–coopetitive
service development. International Journal of Services Technology
and Management, 12(3),
255-272.
Rocha, A., & Christensen, C. (1999). O
conceito de marketing. Rocha, A.,
& Christensen, C. Marketing: teoria
e prática no Brasil. São Paulo: Atlas.
Sawhney, B.,
Balasubramanian, S., & Krishnan. (2004). Criando crescimento com
serviços. MIT Sloan Management Review.
Sheth, J. N., & Uslay, C. (2007). Implications of the revised definition of
marketing: from exchange to value creation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 302-307.
Silva, M., Silva, L. C. A., Fontoura, F. B. B., & Brambilla, F. R. (2019).
Cocriação de valor e comportamento do consumidor no ensino superior privado. CPMark - Caderno Profissional de Marketing
– UNIMEP, 7(1).
Terblanche, N. S. (2005). A century of marketing: Achievements, mishaps
and future challenges. Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern
African Institute for Management Scientists, 14(4), 2-17.
Thomke, S., & Von
Hippel, E. (2002). Clientes como inovadores: uma nova maneira de
criar valor. Revisão de negócios de Harvard, 80(4), 74-85.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Instituições e
axiomas: uma extensão e atualização da lógica dominante de serviço. Jornal
da Academia de Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008b). Why
service? Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36(1), 2538.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-Dominant
Logic: Continuing the Evolution. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2007). Robert
F. Why Service? Academy of Marketing
Science, 36, 25-38.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F.
(2004a). Evolving to a
New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal
of Marketing, 68, 1-17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004b). The Four Service Marketing Myths: Remnants of a
GoodsBased, Manufactoring
Model. Journal of Service Research,
6(4), 324-335.
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F., & Morgan, F. W.
(2006). Historical Perspectives on Service-Dominant Logic. In:
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo,
S. L. (Editors). The Service-Dominant
Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions. New York: M. E. Sharpe,
29-42.
Vargo, S. L., &
Morgan, F. W. (2005). Services in Society and Academic Thought: An
Historical Analysis. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(1), 42-53.
Vargo, S. L., & Akaka, M. A. (2009). Service-dominant
logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications. Service Science, 1(1), 32-41.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A.
(2008). Na co-criação de valor e valor: uma perspectiva de sistemas de
serviço e lógica de serviço. Revista europeia de gestão, 26(3), 145-152.
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Usuários
líderes: uma fonte de novos conceitos de produtos. Management science , 32(7), 791-805.
Voss, R.;,
Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service Quality
in Higher Education: The Role of Student Expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60, 949-959.
Webster, Jr., & Frederick E. (2006). Foreword. In: Lusch, Robert F., & Vargo, Stephen L. (Editors). The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions. New York: M. E. Sharpe, p.xiii-xv.
Zmoginski, A. S., Kwak, A. I. B., Canabarra, C. M., Bertolino, D. F., Ynonye, F. Y., & Ades, C. (2009). Co-criação de Valor: Inovação no Modelo de Negócio Obtendo Vantagem Competitiva. Revista Jovens Pesquisadores. Vi(10).