I've just finished my danish bachelor project using Value Co-creation combined with the thinking of symbolic interactionism. We analyzed participators at a gaming festival. It showed the paradigmatic consequenses in how we view a costumer and a company. It seems to end up in the philosophic questions you mentioned. We ended up realising how deep this dominant logic affected us as well as those who facilitated the festival. The definition of Value Co-creation is FAR from empty. I'm looking forward to learn more on this subject.
This gentleman is a professor in the UK, superkind, helpful, I sent him a personal message asking more questions on SD logic, he helped me, and was very kind. Such people who are down to earth are few. God bless.
Thank you so much for the good summary and explanation! We hat to read this paper in a University lecture as a basis for discussion next week and I found it quite difficult to get the main points - until I came across your video. Now I feel good prepared and understood the statements and concepts in the article :) Greetings from Germany!
Thank you very much professor for your effort. Indeed it's a worth listening video. Unfortunately I could not see much of the videos regarding"leading service paper series". could you please take out more time to add more on this area? Thanks again.
This is really helpful. The video helps me a lottt in understanding the paper in a time-saving way. I like the way you explain the concept. You've got a new subscriber. Keep up the good work!
Hi, Glenn! Thanks for the video and the explanation. As I understand from it, the concecpt of Customer Development by Blank and Dorf is a grasp of S-D logic, isn't? And regarding the ultimately experience that consumer seeks, I can think about Google Stadia as a gaming experience service or rental cars services as a commute to work experience service. Can you comment on that?
Your second question is good - what is experience. I go to the ‘what is good?’ And ‘what is value?’. Look at my videos on value and good and see what you think - be interested to hear
I don't want a Ferrari, or a BMW bike, I want to be transported from A-B. I don't want a good comb, I want my hairstyle, I don't want a good Art brush or a tennis bat, I want art by itself, or the ball to go around in the tennis court.
I understand I am "late to the party" on this video. But I would like to ask, how come there is not a premiss that explicitly states "Context matters", I feel like this is always in the air and in some way always present as an argument... or would that be considered more of an axiom? -Yet I feel like the authors (Vargo & Lusch) in their paper tried to make SDL applicable to essentially every context, and thus it was not needed to be stated?
You make a good point. We did talk about this a few years back when I was on a panel with Prof Irene Ng, Prof Lusch and Prof Vargo. Value is always created in use and in context. So, do we always need to say it? Should it be an axiom? Some of the axioms are, in my view, not axiomatic, yet use and context is so central to value creation in SDL.
why papers are written in such a boring and complicated way while you can make it available and interesting for many people! Especially when the marketing people make things dull I doubt their marketing knowledge :D
This might sound new to academia. But there is nothing new in this for corporate sector. I could not hear anything new and everything has been thought through years ago by corporate top marketing consulting groups and large part of thinking comes from lean philosophy.
I come from a Lean background so I can see where you are coming from. The first lean principle is customer value - and we then Lean theory builds from that premise. However, lean is grounded in the goods dominant logic of manufacturing. We have value adding steps and deliver value to the customer, where value is in the exchange. The theory is micro and meta level. Service Dominant Logic is at the level of grand theory. It focuses not on the actual production, but the thinking - conceptualising service as the unit of all exchange. Value is always co-created and this occurs in context. I don't think you have quite grasped his theoretical contribution. The paper brings together lots of previous thinking which you recognise, and consolidates it into a new logic. Thinking in different ways can help us re-evaluate business.
@@GoodProfessor That is exactly the wrong way to understand lean as a philosophy. Heart of lean is value creation and ideally co-creation, and thinking happens at the grandest organizational philosophical level first. creation of value happen through a combination of tangible and intangible means coupled by capabilities and processes. These combination evolves and reorganizes in such a way to optimize value in the journey of continuous improvement. There is absolutely nothing 'goods dominant' logic in lean.
@@padmakamirihagalla1551 I think we are agreeing on the focus on value creation - the difference is in the theory as lean is very goods dominant. It evolved from Toyota's recovery following the second world war. They were building cars and trying to build to order so they got the money at the same rate they built. Taiichi Ohno's work is very much in the goods dominant economic tradition of manufacturing. That construct was then developed into Lean by Womack, Jones and Roos who were looking to create economic value in the US for the car industry. The focus was on the vehicle as the valuable unit of exchange. Most of the work in Lean manufacturing ignores the first lean principle and focuses more on value steps, value stream alignment and pull. It can be reinterpreted, but it isn't the original philosophy, as lean and TPS comes from economic need, not a philosophy of service echange.
I've just finished my danish bachelor project using Value Co-creation combined with the thinking of symbolic interactionism. We analyzed participators at a gaming festival. It showed the paradigmatic consequenses in how we view a costumer and a company. It seems to end up in the philosophic questions you mentioned. We ended up realising how deep this dominant logic affected us as well as those who facilitated the festival. The definition of Value Co-creation is FAR from empty. I'm looking forward to learn more on this subject.
This gentleman is a professor in the UK, superkind, helpful, I sent him a personal message asking more questions on SD logic, he helped me, and was very kind. Such people who are down to earth are few. God bless.
Thanks - that is very kind. Hope you enjoy the videos!
The best explanation of SDL I've encountered, thank you very much Glenn!
Edgaras Benediktavicus thank you!
you are a hero my man, you are my hero.
Thank you so much for the good summary and explanation! We hat to read this paper in a University lecture as a basis for discussion next week and I found it quite difficult to get the main points - until I came across your video. Now I feel good prepared and understood the statements and concepts in the article :) Greetings from Germany!
Hope you shine in class!
Thank you very much professor for your effort. Indeed it's a worth listening video. Unfortunately I could not see much of the videos regarding"leading service paper series". could you please take out more time to add more on this area? Thanks again.
Ok sure can!
This is really helpful. The video helps me a lottt in understanding the paper in a time-saving way. I like the way you explain the concept. You've got a new subscriber. Keep up the good work!
Thank you for a clear explanation.
Vidyashree Nagaraju I’m glad you enjoyed it
Hi, Glenn! Thanks for the video and the explanation. As I understand from it, the concecpt of Customer Development by Blank and Dorf is a grasp of S-D logic, isn't?
And regarding the ultimately experience that consumer seeks, I can think about Google Stadia as a gaming experience service or rental cars services as a commute to work experience service. Can you comment on that?
Sort of. They seem to bring together Osterwlader and Pigneur, SD and lean thoughts.
Your second question is good - what is experience. I go to the ‘what is good?’ And ‘what is value?’. Look at my videos on value and good and see what you think - be interested to hear
I don't want a Ferrari, or a BMW bike, I want to be transported from A-B. I don't want a good comb, I want my hairstyle, I don't want a good Art brush or a tennis bat, I want art by itself, or the ball to go around in the tennis court.
I understand I am "late to the party" on this video. But I would like to ask, how come there is not a premiss that explicitly states "Context matters", I feel like this is always in the air and in some way always present as an argument... or would that be considered more of an axiom? -Yet I feel like the authors (Vargo & Lusch) in their paper tried to make SDL applicable to essentially every context, and thus it was not needed to be stated?
You make a good point. We did talk about this a few years back when I was on a panel with Prof Irene Ng, Prof Lusch and Prof Vargo. Value is always created in use and in context. So, do we always need to say it? Should it be an axiom? Some of the axioms are, in my view, not axiomatic, yet use and context is so central to value creation in SDL.
why papers are written in such a boring and complicated way while you can make it available and interesting for many people! Especially when the marketing people make things dull I doubt their marketing knowledge :D
It’s a problem!
This might sound new to academia. But there is nothing new in this for corporate sector. I could not hear anything new and everything has been thought through years ago by corporate top marketing consulting groups and large part of thinking comes from lean philosophy.
I come from a Lean background so I can see where you are coming from. The first lean principle is customer value - and we then Lean theory builds from that premise. However, lean is grounded in the goods dominant logic of manufacturing. We have value adding steps and deliver value to the customer, where value is in the exchange. The theory is micro and meta level. Service Dominant Logic is at the level of grand theory. It focuses not on the actual production, but the thinking - conceptualising service as the unit of all exchange. Value is always co-created and this occurs in context. I don't think you have quite grasped his theoretical contribution. The paper brings together lots of previous thinking which you recognise, and consolidates it into a new logic. Thinking in different ways can help us re-evaluate business.
@@GoodProfessor That is exactly the wrong way to understand lean as a philosophy. Heart of lean is value creation and ideally co-creation, and thinking happens at the grandest organizational philosophical level first. creation of value happen through a combination of tangible and intangible means coupled by capabilities and processes. These combination evolves and reorganizes in such a way to optimize value in the journey of continuous improvement. There is absolutely nothing 'goods dominant' logic in lean.
@@padmakamirihagalla1551 I think we are agreeing on the focus on value creation - the difference is in the theory as lean is very goods dominant. It evolved from Toyota's recovery following the second world war. They were building cars and trying to build to order so they got the money at the same rate they built. Taiichi Ohno's work is very much in the goods dominant economic tradition of manufacturing. That construct was then developed into Lean by Womack, Jones and Roos who were looking to create economic value in the US for the car industry. The focus was on the vehicle as the valuable unit of exchange. Most of the work in Lean manufacturing ignores the first lean principle and focuses more on value steps, value stream alignment and pull. It can be reinterpreted, but it isn't the original philosophy, as lean and TPS comes from economic need, not a philosophy of service echange.