Heteropathic versus homopathic resource integration and value co-creation in service ecosystems

Peters, Linda D.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.033

Cited by 89 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, not all resource integration is the same from the perspective of service ecosystem change. Peters (2016) highlights the difference between homopathic and heteropathic resource integration.…”

Section: Dynamic Capabilities Driving Service Ecosystem Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Heteropathic resource integration, on the other hand, is based on emergent processes and may lead to new properties on the service ecosystem level (Peters, 2016). Therefore, it is central for an actor aiming to influence service ecosystems to understand actors' resources and their possible homopathic or heteropathic…”

Section: Dynamic Capabilities Driving Service Ecosystem Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent service-dominant logic literature emphasizes that value proposing enables resource integration and supports relationship formation, thus contributing to ecosystem wellbeing (Ballantyne et al, 2011;Frow et al, 2014). Well-crafted and actionable value propositions enable actors to participate in value cocreation (Skålen et al, 2015), since value propositions facilitate exchanges between ecosystem actors (Vargo and Lusch 2004;2016). The relationship between value propositions and ecosystem change is also evident: as Frow et al (2014) state, "the role of the value proposition within an ecosystem moves from the proposal of a resource offering between actors to shaping of resource integration between actors within the system" (p. 335).…”

Section: Dynamic Capabilities Driving Service Ecosystem Changementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Game-changers: dynamic capabilities’ influence on service ecosystems

Nenonen

Gummerus

Sklyar

2018

JOSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Service-dominant logic acknowledges that actors can influence how service ecosystems evolve through institutional work, but empirical research is only nascent. This paper advances understanding of ecosystem change by proposing that dynamic capabilities are a special type of operant resources enabling actors to conduct institutional work. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to explore which dynamic capabilities are associated with proactively influencing service ecosystems.Design/methodology/approach -Drawing on service-dominant logic, institutional work, and dynamic capabilities, this exploratory study assumes an actor-centric perspective and proposes a conceptual model with a hierarchy of dynamic capabilities as the antecedents for successfully influencing service ecosystems. The research model was tested with survey data using PLS- SEM.Findings -Among the dynamic capabilities studied, 'visioning' and 'influencing explicit institutions' directly affect 'success in influencing service ecosystems', whereas 'timing' does so indirectly through 'influencing explicit institutions'. The other dynamic capabilities studied have no significant effect on 'success in influencing service ecosystems'. 'Success in influencing service ecosystems' positively affects the 'increased service ecosystem size and efficiency'.Practical implications -In addition to reactively positioning and competing at the marketplace, firms can choose to proactively influence their service ecosystems' size and efficiency. Firms aiming to influence service ecosystems should particularly develop dynamic capabilities related to visioning, timing, and influencing explicit institutions.Originality/value -This research is the first service-dominant logic investigation of the linkage between the actors' dynamic capabilities and their ability to influence service ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Dynamic Capabilities Driving Service Ecosystem Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dynamic Capabilities Driving Service Ecosystem Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dynamic Capabilities Driving Service Ecosystem Changementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Game-changers: dynamic capabilities’ influence on service ecosystems

Nenonen

Gummerus

Sklyar

2018

JOSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These interacting processes are at the core of value co-creation or co-destruction dynamics (Peters, 2016). In line with these arguments, one of the primary concerns of S-D Logic literature (Vargo and Lush, 2004Akaka et al, 2012) is the understanding of how different actors contribute to value co-creation and how they collaboratively share their own resources.…”

Section: Value Co-creation In a Health Care Service Ecosystemmentioning

confidence: 97%

Value Co-creation in the Health Service Ecosystems: The Enabling Role of Institutional Arrangements

Ciasullo¹,

Cosimato²,

Palumbo³

et al. 2017

IBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The health care service system is currently undergoing a profound revolution that has put the patient at the core of health outcome co-creation. Patient-centered care could be associated with Service Dominant Logic that looks at co-creation process as a dynamic resources' integration between actors. From this standpoint, the need for a broader vision of value creation process towards a service ecosystem perspective is emerging. This paper includes an overview of the scientific literature and reports on a narrative case study analysis concerning the "International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement" in an attempt to nourish the debate on the different ways that multiple actors can collaboratively shape a health service ecosystem. Findings reveal that co-creation practices, involving multiple actors who belong to different ecosystem levels, led to mutual adjustments and to on-going shared changes. These processes directly influenced health outcome creation, which is reframed in light of patients' needs, expectations, and experiences. Therefore, patients are assuming the role of health outcome "co-creator", interacting with all other ecosystems actors (e.g. physicians, institutions, NGO s , health managers, ICTs providers etc.). This study represents a first and preliminary attempt to investigate a real example of dynamic resources' exchange, based on the contribution of multiple interacting actors and on the role of interdepend and interacting institutions in value practices.

show abstract

“…Emergence has been already introduced in the service ecosystem literature [62], [66]. In Peters [53], attention was paid to the distinction between homopathic (summative) and heteropathic (emergent) types of resource integration and their relationships with value co-creation. Taillard et al [61] explained how actors' shared intentions can be emergent properties due to actors' interactions.…”

Section: E M E R G E N C E a N D S E R V I C E S Y S T E M Smentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Emergence in Service Systems

Polese

Sarno

Vargo

2020

Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been recognized that a service systems perspective, informed by service-dominant logic, provides a dynamic approach for studying value cocreation. According to this view, value is the increase in the viability of the system in which actors co-create value. A construct from systems theory -emergencecan be of particular interest in contributing to and detracting from systems viability. Emergence is related to the nonlinear interactions characterizing systems' elements that can give rise to novel and unpredictable properties not contained in the elements. This paper relates emergence to service systems based on the service-dominant logic and systems theory literature. Such issues can be useful for service science scholars to identify new research avenues for service systems.unpredictable [38]. Thus, emergent properties can result in new opportunities for the development and viability of service systems, but being unexpected (making them a particular case of system change [32]) can also cause them to appear as threats [32]. Thus, emergence should be better understood and embraced.By introducing a focus on the emergent properties of systems, emergence requires a shift systems thinking (the process of thinking using systems ideas [15]). Moreover, many constructs from systems theory (which accept as given the status of systems as things in the world) can be beneficially applied to further delve into emergent properties.After the analysis of the main insights of emergence i n t h e s y s t e m s t h e o r y l i t e r a t u r e ( S e c . 2 ) , a s h o r t overview of service ecosystems and service systems and the importance of emergence to them is provided (Sec. 3); then (Sec. 4), the main issues of emergence from systems theory are related to service systems based on the S-D logic and systems theory literature. These issues --knowledge, adaptation in context, and interactions -can be useful for service scholars to identify new research avenues for service systems, these latter of which are discussed in Sec. 5. Emergence and systems theoryThe word "system" has Greek roots and means "organized whole". A system can be conceived as "elements in standing relationship" [69], emphasizing the way in which the relationships between the elements are organized and thus the role of every element in such organizations.Emergence is an important aspect of systems. Although multiple definitions and perspectives on emergence have been provided in the literature, irreducibility seems to be the common denominator, implying that emergent properties have no meaning (or, in other words, cannot be reduced) at the level of the systems' elements [46]. Thus, in ecology, "cloud streets" and "sand ripples" have been considered examples of manifestations of emergent properties. Another common example is water, which shows the wetness property not reducible to the single atoms of

show abstract

Heteropathic versus homopathic resource integration and value co-creation in service ecosystems

Abstract: While the notion that resource integration is central to understanding value co-creation in service ecosystems, there is currently no clear and detailed definition of resource integration.

Cited by 89 publications

References 34 publications

Game-changers: dynamic capabilities’ influence on service ecosystems

Game-changers: dynamic capabilities’ influence on service ecosystems

Value Co-creation in the Health Service Ecosystems: The Enabling Role of Institutional Arrangements

The Role of Emergence in Service Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About