Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Introduction
Conclusion
References

Reconceptualising service through a service-dominant logic

Profile image of Stephen L VargoStephen L Vargo

2012

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This chapter explores service through the lens of service-dominant (S-D) logic, emphasizing a shift in understanding value creation in service and product offerings. It argues that by redefining a firm's value proposition to align with customer use contexts, organizations can integrate resources more effectively, leading to a clearer understanding of value co-creation. The operationalization of S-D logic encourages firms to view their offerings as components within a larger value-creating system, necessitating reevaluation of internal structures to support this hybrid framework.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What is the impact of service-dominant logic on traditional definitions of service?add

The research identifies that service-dominant logic challenges traditional definitions, suggesting service as foundational to economic exchange rather than merely an adjunct to goods. Vargo and Lusch's 2004 framework provides a shift towards viewing all offerings as services, highlighting all economic interactions as co-creation processes.

How does the service-dominant logic redefine customer roles in value creation?add

Under service-dominant logic, customers are not merely recipients but co-producers engaged actively in value creation. This perspective underscores the importance of the value constellation, wherein both the firm and the customer contribute resources towards achieving shared outcomes.

What are the foundational premises of service-dominant logic?add

Service-dominant logic is framed by ten foundational premises, emphasizing service as the fundamental basis of exchange, and recognizing goods' role as integral to the service delivery process. These premises collectively reposition value creation in the context of cooperative resource integration.

Why is a hybrid organization model important in service-dominant logic?add

A hybrid organization model enables firms to overcome the rigid boundaries between products and services, fostering resource reconfiguration for value co-creation. This organizational flexibility is crucial for adapting to technological advancements and changing customer interactions.

What role does technology play in evolving service-dominant logic frameworks?add

Technology enables the formation of value constellations by enhancing connectivity among diverse stakeholders in the service system. Advances like cloud computing and the Internet of Things facilitate innovative service delivery and co-created value in real-time.

Related papers

An Ontological Consideration on Essential Properties of the Notion of “Service”
Riichiro Mizoguchi

Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 2012

Although many definitions of services have been proposed in Service Science and Service Engineering, essentialities of the notion of "service" remain unclear. Especially, some existing definitions of service are similar to the definition of function of artifacts, and there is no clear distinction between them. Thus, aiming at an ontological conceptualization of service, we have made an ontological investigation into the distinction between service and artifact function. In this article, we reveal essential properties of service and propose a model and a definition of service. Firstly, we extract 42 properties of service from 15 articles in different disciplines in order to find out fundamental concepts of service. Then we show that the notion of function shares the extracted foundational concepts of service and thus point out the necessity of the distinction between them. Secondly, we propose a multi-layered model of services, which is based on the conceptualization of goal-oriented effects at the base-level and at the upper-level. Thirdly, based on the model, we clarify essential properties of service which can distinguish artifact function. The conceptualization of upper-effects (upper-service) enables us to show that upper-services include various effects such as sales and manufacturing. Lastly, we propose a definition of the notion of service based on the essential properties and show its validity using some examples.

View PDFchevron_right
Contribution to the Definition and Modeling of Service and Service Activities
Wael Touzi

Advances in Production Management Systems …, 2010

For a long time, it was highlighted that the service is intangible or immaterial; these characteristics are mainly used to distinguish the service, making it incomparable with good. The set of proposed definitions and characteristics that led to debates between specialists in economics for several years and gave place to a variety of visions and approaches are still not consensual and science engineers challenge. Goal of this paper is to present, on the one hand, the existing literature proposed by economists concerning services (definitions and specificities) and, on the other, arguments proposed by science engineers that challenge them. That study allows us to propose a generic definition of what a service is and a preliminary model of a service activity.

View PDFchevron_right
�Three Thoughts on Services
dawn iacobucci iacobucci

Marketing Science, 2006

Rust and Chung should be congratulated on presenting a very nice, indeed limpid, overview and synthesis of much of the services marketing literature. Their review sparked three associations.

View PDFchevron_right
Contribution to the Development of a Conceptual Model of Service and Service Delivery
Thecle Alix

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 2013

For a long time, it was highlighted that services have specific characteristics mainly used to differentiate themselves from goods. Proposed definitions and characteristics led to debates between specialists in economics, marketing and management for several years and result in different points of view and approaches. There is still no consensus in these disciplines. More recently, new ones have contributed to define the concept of service. The goal of this paper is to present, on the one hand, the existing literature proposed by economists and managers about services (definitions and specificities) and, on the other, perspectives proposed by other disciplines such as computer science, engineering science or the SSME that challenge them. The bibliographical analysis results in a conceptual modeling of service and service delivery.

View PDFchevron_right
The Four Service Marketing Myths Remnants of a Goods-Based, Manufacturing Model
Jorge Diez Modenesi

Marketing was originally built on a goods-centered, manufacturing-based model of economic exchange developed during the Industrial Revolution. Since its beginning, marketing has been broadening its perspective to include the exchange of more than manufactured goods. The subdiscipline of service marketing has emerged to address much of this broadened perspective, but it is built on the same goods and manufacturing-based model. The influence of this model is evident in the prototypical characteristics that have been identified as distinguishing services from goods-intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability. The authors argue that these characteristics (a) do not distinguish services from goods, (b) only have meaning from a manufacturing perspective, and (c) imply inappropriate normative strategies. They suggest that advances made by service scholars can provide a foundation for a more service-dominant view of all exchange from which more appropriate normative strategies can be developed for all of marketing.

View PDFchevron_right
Why “service”?
Stephen L Vargo

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2008

Service-dominant logic" appears to have found resonance in the marketing community since its introduction as the evolving, "new dominant

View PDFchevron_right
The Four Service Marketing Myths
Stephen L Vargo

2000

Marketing was originally built on a goods-centered, manufacturing-based model of economic exchange developed during the Industrial Revolution. Since its beginning, marketing has been broadening its perspective to include the exchange of more than manufactured goods. The subdiscipline of service marketing has emerged to address much of this broadened perspective, but it is built on the same goods and manufacturing-based model. The influence of this model is evident in the prototypical characteristics that have been identified as distinguishing services from goods-intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability. The authors argue that these characteristics (a) do not distinguish services from goods, (b) only have meaning from a manufacturing perspective, and (c) imply inappropriate normative strategies. They suggest that advances made by service scholars can provide a foundation for a more service-dominant view of all exchange from which more appropriate normative strategies can be developed for all of marketing.

View PDFchevron_right
An Investigation Into Four Characteristics of Services
Tran Trang

This study replicates US-based research by Hartman and Lindgren on the extent to which consumers differentiate between products and services. In addition, Hartman and Lindgren investigated the importance of four characteristics of services to consumers; intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity and perishability. Hartman and Lindgren did not find that these four service characteristics were used by consumers when distinguishing between goods and services.

View PDFchevron_right
The Object of Service Design
Dirk Snelders

Design Issues, 2011

View PDFchevron_right
All Traded Services are Embodied in Materials or People
Herbert Grubel

The World Economy, 1987

View PDFchevron_right

References (66)

  1. Baker, M.J. (1981), "Services-salvation or servitude?", The Quarterly Review of Marketing, Spring, pp. 7-18
  2. Ballantyne, D. and Varey, R.J. (2008) "The service-dominant logic and the future of marketing", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 11-14.
  3. Bateson, John E.G. (1977), "Do We Need Service Marketing?" in Marketing Consumer Services: New Insights, Marketing Science Institute, Report # 77-115 (December)
  4. Bell, Martin (1981), "A Matrix Approach to the Classification of Marketing: Goods and Services," in Marketing of Services, J.H. Donnelly and W.R. George, eds., Chicago: American Marketing.
  5. Berry LL (1980), "Services Marketing is Different," Business, 30 (May-June), 24-29
  6. Blois K.J. (1974), "The Marketing of Services: An Approach", European Journal of Marketing Vol 8 Summer Pg 137-145
  7. Bolton, R. (2004) "Invited commentaries on "Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing"", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 18-27.
  8. Chandler, Jennifer D., and Stephen L. Vargo (2011) "Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange" Marketing Theory, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 35-49
  9. Das, R. (1981), Managing Diversification: The General Management Perspective, Macmillan, New Delhi
  10. Deighton, John, and Das Narayandas. "Commentary on "evolving to a new dominant logic in marketing".Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1 (January 2004), pp. 18-27.
  11. Demsetz, H. (1993), The Nature of the Firm. Origins, Evolution and Development, Oxford University Press, New York
  12. Dodson, S. (2003, Thursday 9 October 2003) The internet of things. Guardian Drechsler, L. (1990), "A note on the concept of services", Review of Income and Wealth, Series 36, Number 3
  13. Edget, S. and Parkinson, S. (1993), "Marketing for service industries-a review", The Service Industry Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp 19-39
  14. Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A. and Roos, I. (2005), "Service portraits in service research: A critical review", International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 107-121.
  15. Engeström, Y. (1999) Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43 (7), pp. 960-974.
  16. Greenfield, Harry I. (2002), "A Note on the Goods/Services Dichotomy," Service Industires Journal, 22 (October), 19-21.
  17. Grönroos, C. (1994), "From marketing mix to relationship marketing: Towards a paradigm shift in marketing", Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, Vol. 2, August, pp. 9-29.
  18. Grönroos, C. (2000), Services Management and Marketing: A Customer RelationshipApproach, 2 nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley
  19. Gummesson, Evert (1995), "Relationship Marketing: Its Role in the Service Economy," in Understanding Services Management, William J Glynn and James G. Barnes, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 244-68
  20. Hill, P. (1999), "Tangibles, intangibles and services: A new taxonomy for the classification of output", Canadian Journal of Economics -Revue Canadienne D Economique, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 426-446.
  21. Johns, Nick (1999), "What is this thing called service?" European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 9/10, 1999, pp. 958-973.
  22. Johnson, P., Johnson, H., and Hamilton, F. (2000) Getting The Knowledge Into HCI: Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Task Knowledge Structures. Schraagen, J.M., Chipman, S.F., and Shalin, V.L. (Eds.) Cognitive Task Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. pp. 201-214.
  23. Judd, R.C. (1964), "The case for redefining services", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 January. pp 58-9
  24. Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 9th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  25. Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. and Wong, V. (1996), Principles of all Marketing: The European Edition, Prentice-Hall International, Hemel Hempstead, p. 588
  26. Kounkou, A., Cullinane, A., and Maiden, N. (2008) Using HCI Knowledge in Service- Centric Applications: the S-Cube Network of Excellence. Wild, P.J. (Ed). HCI2008 Workshop on HCI and the Analysis, Design, and Evaluation of Services, Liverpool
  27. Levitt, Theodore (1981), "Marketing intangible products and products intangibles", Harvard Business review, May-June.
  28. Liechty, M. and G.A. Churchill, Jr. (1979), "Conceptual Insights into Consumer Satisfaction with Services," in Proceedings, Chicago: American Marketing
  29. Lovelock, C.H. (1980), "Towards a Classification of Services", in Theoretical Developments in Marketing, Charles W. Lamb and Patrick M. Dunne, ed., Chicago: American Marketing, 72-76.
  30. Lovelock, C.H. (1983), "Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights" Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Summer), pp. 9-20
  31. Lovelock, C.H. (1999) "Developing marketing strategies for transnational service operations", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss: 4/5
  32. Lovelock, Christopher and Evert Gummesson, (2004), "Whither Services Marketing? In Search of a New Paradigm and Fresh Perspectives" Journal of Service Research, Vol 7, No. 1, Aug, 20-41
  33. Lusch, R.F. (2011), "Reframing supply-chain management: A service-dominant logic perspective", Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 14-18.
  34. Minter, A. (1982), "Why have services been ignored," The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 2, Iss. 3, pg. 65-71
  35. Mitchell, V-W; Greatorex, M (1993), "Risk perception and reduction in the purchase of consumer services," The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 13, Iss. 4, pg. 179
  36. Ng, Irene C. L. (2007)The Pricing and Revenue Management of Services: A Strategic Approach under the Advances in Management and Business Studies series, (ISBN: 978-0- 41535-077-8), Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group
  37. Ng, Irene C.L., Sai Nudurupati and Paul Tasker, (2010) "Value Co-creation in Outcome- based Contracts for Equipment-based Service", AIM working paper series, WP No 77 - May -2010 http://www.aimresearch.org/index.php?page=wp-no-77 under second review in Journal of Service Research
  38. Ng, Irene C.L., R.S. Maull and Laura Smith (2011) "Embedding the New Discipline of Service Science" in The Science of Service Systems, Demirkan, Spohrer and Krishna Eds., 2010 volume in "Service Science: Research and Innovations (SSRI) in the Service Economy" Book Series, Springer -ISSN: 1865-4924, forthcoming
  39. Ng, Irene C.L. and Gerard Briscoe (2011) "Value, variety and viability: designing for co- creation in a complex system of direct and indirect (goods) service value proposition", The 2011 Naples Forum on Service -Service Dominant Logic, Network & Systems Theory and Service Science: Integrating Three Perspectives For A New Service Agenda, 14-17 June, Capri, Italy
  40. Ng, Irene C.L., Ralph Badinelli, Primiano Dinauta, Sue Halliday, Helge Löbler and Francesco Polese, (2012) "S-D Logic: Research Directions and Opportunities: The perspective of Systems, Complexity and Engineering," Marketing Theory, forthcoming
  41. Normann R (2001) Reframing business: When the map changes the landscape. John Wiley & Sons Inc
  42. Normann, R. and Ramirez, R (1993), "From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 65-77.
  43. O'Shaughnessy, J. and O'Shaughnessy, N.J. (2011), "Service-dominant logic: A rejoinder to Lusch and Vargo's reply", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, No. 7/8, pp. 1310- 1318.
  44. Papazoglou, M., and van den Heuvel, W.-J. (2007) Service oriented architectures. The VLDB Journal, 16 (3), pp. 389-415.
  45. Parker, S., and Heapy, J. (2006) The Journey to the Interface. Report, DEMOS, London.
  46. Prahalad, C.K. and Bettis, R.A. (1986) "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 485-501.
  47. Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V (2000), Co-opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1): 79-87.
  48. Rathmell, John M. (1966), "What Is Meant by Services?" Journal of Marketing, 30 (October), 32-36
  49. Rathmell, John M. (1974), Marketing in the Service Sector, Cambridge: Winthrop Publisher Inc., MA
  50. Ren, G., 2009. Service Business Development in Manufacturing Companies: Classification, Characteristics and Implications. PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge
  51. Sharma, D., Lucier, C., and Molloy, R. (2002), "From solutions to symbiosis: Blending with your customers", Strategy and Business, Vol. 27, No. 2), pp. 38-43.
  52. Scheirer, J., Fernandez, R., Klein, J., and Picard, R.W. (2002) Frustrating the user on purpose: a step toward building an affective computer. Interacting with Computers, 14 (2), pp. 93- 118.
  53. Shostack, L. (1977), "Breaking free from product marketing", Journal of Marketing, April, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 73-80.
  54. Silvestro, R. and Johnson, R. (1990), "The determinations of service quality -enhancing and hygiene factors", in Proceedings of the QUIS II Symposium, St John's Univeristy, New York, USA, July
  55. Smith A (1776), The Wealth of Nations, Books I-III, Wiley, Chichester, England.
  56. Storey, Chris and Easingwood, Christopher J. (1998), 'The Augmented Service Offering: A Conceptualization and Study of its Impact on New Service Success,' Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15, 335-351
  57. Uhl, K.P. and G.D. Upah (1983), "The Marketing of Services: Why and How is It Different," In Research in Marketing, V.6, J.N. Sheth, ed., NY: Elsevier van der Geest S and Whyte S and Hardon A (1996) The Anthropology Of Pharmaceuticals: A Biographical Approach. Annual Review of Anthropology 25(1) pp 153-178
  58. van Dijk, G., Minocha, S., and Laing, A. (2007) Consumers, channels and communication: Online and offline communication in service consumption. Interacting with Computers, 19 (1), pp. 7-19.
  59. Vargo, S.L. (2011), "Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions: Toward a service- dominant logic-based theory of the market", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, No. ½, pp. 217-222.
  60. Vargo and Lusch (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing 68 pp 1-17
  61. Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2006), "Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be", In Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds.), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, ME Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 43-56.
  62. Vargo SL and Lusch RF (2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1) pp 1-10
  63. Wyckham, R.G., P.T. Fitzroy, and G.D. Mandry (1975), "Marketing of Services: An Evaluation of the Theory," European Journal of Marketing, 9, 59-67
  64. Xia, M., Zheng, L., and Yuli, X. (2009) Emotional gaze behavior generation in human-agent interaction. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems Boston, MA, USA: ACM.
  65. Zeithaml VA, A. Prasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), "Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, (Spring) pp. 33-46
  66. Zeithaml VA and MJ Bitner (1996), Services marketing, McGraw-Hill Boston, Mass Zeithaml VA, Bitner A.J. & Gremler D.D. (2006), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm (McGrw Hill) 4th edition

Related papers

Ng I. C. L., Vargo S. L. & Smith L. A. (2012), Reconceptualising Service through a Service-Dominant Logic
Laura Phillips
View PDFchevron_right
Ng ICL, Vargo SL & Smith LA (2012) Reconceptualising Service through a Service-Dominant Logic. WMG Service Systems Research Group Working Paper Series 02/12
Stephen L Vargo, Irene C L Ng
View PDFchevron_right
Product versus Service: Old Myths versus New Realities
irfan tariq

This paper critically examines the old school unique characteristics of services namely, intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability (IHIP) that have served as a differentiating line between services and products. Next, it looks at how the move towards services and technological advancements in the field has blurred this traditional differentiating line. And it acknowledges the contribution of various researchers in their endeavors to come up with new criterion to differentiate between a service and a product. And it concludes that no such a differentiation is universalizable, hence is an infeasible to proceed with. Finally this text points out some factors which have caused both the categories to entangle together such that they cannot be detached from each other.

View PDFchevron_right
From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics
Stephen L Vargo

Industrial Marketing Management, 2008

There are two logics or mindsets from which to consider and motivate a transition from goods to service(s). The first, "goods-dominant (G-D) logic", views services in terms of a type of (e.g., intangible) good and implies that goods production and distribution practices should be modified to deal with the differences between tangible goods and services. The second logic, "service-dominant (S-D) logic", considers servicea process of using ones resources for the benefit of and in conjunction with another partyas the fundamental purpose of economic exchange and implies the need for a revised, service-driven framework for all of marketing. This transition to a service-centered logic is consistent with and partially derived from a similar transition found in the business-marketing literaturefor example, its shift to understanding exchange in terms value rather than products and networks rather than dyads. It also parallels transitions in other sub-disciplines, such as service marketing. These parallels and the implications for marketing theory and practice of a full transition to a service-logic are explored.

View PDFchevron_right
On the concepts of goods and services
Américo M . S . C . Mendes

2009

The purpose of this paper is to do the following: • present a concept of goods which takes as a starting point the five dimensions considered in neoclassical economics (form, date, location, value and mode of appropriation), but considers other types of values besides the use and exchange values considered by that school of economic thought; • present a new concept of services which not only fits very well with this concept of goods, but also has the advantage of discarding a problematic criterion frequently used to differentiate between goods and services [(in)tangibility] and highlighting the nexus between moral values and the values human beings give to goods and services; • present the case of relational goods as an example of the usefulness of these definitions of goods and services and take this opportunity to point out to some limitations of the current definition of this type of goods which could be overcome if the definitions of goods and services proposed here was adopted.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved