Scripting markets: From value propositions to market ... - CiteSeerX

Scripting markets: From value propositions to market propositions

Otago Forum 2 (2008) – Academic Papers

Paper no: 12

Kaj Storbacka Nyenrode Business Universiteit [email protected]

Suvi Nenonen Hanken School of Economics [email protected]

Scripting markets: From value propositions to market propositions Kaj Storbacka & Suvi Nenonen

Scripting markets: From value propositions to market propositions Abstract The paper is based on a research process, carried out between August 2007 and April 2008, involving eight case companies, and entailing analysis of their market scripting activities. Venkatesh et al. (2006) concluded that marketing has not focused enough on understanding and defining the market construct. Vargo and Lusch (2008) also argue that “what is needed is a general theory of the market” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008 p. 3). The paper aims to contribute to the theoretical discussion about how markets are formed and how competitive advantage is created. Additionally, the paper also contributes to the managerial practises of market management.

Introduction The service-dominant (S-D) logic suggests that markets are spaces where firms deploy and integrate operant and operand resources to co-create value – instead of being places where demand and supply meet and reach equilibrium as neo-classical economics suggests (Arnould 2008, Lusch and Vargo 2006, Vargo 2007, Vargo and Lusch 2008). Defining markets and specifically market boundaries has created interest in many research schools. The industrial economist Geroski (1998) ends his article about market definitions by a very “non-economist” statement: “a market exists whenever someone can dream up a set of needs that can be profitably served [...] markets exists only in the eyes of their beholders. Market boundaries are imaginary lines which we impose [...] to isolate certain kinds of activities [...]” (p. 692). He is basically arguing that markets are socially constructed, subjective realities that can be altered by different actors in the market. Marketing scholars have recently adapted economic sociology’s (Granovetter 1992, Krippner et al. 2004) suggestions that economic action is embedded in networks of social relationships and that markets are socially constructed. Based on a combination of the performative actors network theory (Callon 1998), and practice theory (Reckwitz 2002), scholars like Andersson et al. (2008), Araujo et al. (2008), and Kjellberg and Helgesson (2006) have developed suggestions that markets are co-created (performed) as actors engage in market practices. This paper builds on the foundational propositions of the S-D logic and takes as its starting point the following assumptions: (1) markets consist of networks of market actors, (2) markets are social constructions co-created by market actors, and (3) markets are resource integrators aiming at the co-creation of value. Our key interest has been to explore questions regarding market formation and market dynamics. Brennan (2006) argues that that “firms are not simply passive victims of their environment but strive to alter competitive market conditions in their favour” (p. 832). But how do firms shape the markets that they engage in, and what are the mechanisms by which market conditions are altered?

187

Otago Forum 2: Academic Papers

The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for understanding how markets are formed and shaped, and use this to identify practices that firms can engage in to actively develop markets in their favour. The paper is disposed in the following way. First, we describe the research process and the methods used for data collection. Second, we discuss markets as resource integrators and propose to view markets as configurations of the participating market actors’ resources and capabilities. Third, we discuss issues related to the dynamics and inertia of market configurations, and develop a language to describe the marketness of the configurations. Fourth, we develop a three-dimensional framework for market scripting. Fifth, we use a case to illustrate practical applications of the developed framework. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and managerial conclusions and limitations of the study and identify avenues for further research. Research process The research discussed in this paper is one output of a twelve month research process on industry independent market definitions, carried out between May 2007 and May 2008. Other outputs are e.g. Storbacka et al. 2008, and Korkman et al. (2008). The research involved a consortium of eight multi-nationally operating companies from different industries (see Table 1 for characteristics of the participants). The companies participated in the process as they have a keen interest in exploring new ways to define their markets, either because the existing markets (as they are defined today) are mature, or because the dynamics in the markets open up numerous (and sometimes confusing) opportunities for redefinitions. One of the companies involved in the research process will be used a case illustration. Table 1. Characteristics of the participating firms

Eisenhardt (1989) has pointed out that conceptual frameworks and theory are typically based on combining previous literature, common sense, and experience. Our research process followed this approach as we combined literature reviews with experience and learning from 188


field-based research with managers. The field-based approach utilized “interaction research” (Gummesson 2002a). Gummesson proposes that interaction and communication with groups of managers can play a crucial role in research and that testing concepts through such interaction is “an integral part of the whole research process” (ibid. p. 345). The interaction with the participating firms involved senior level executive vice presidents and their direct reports. We placed considerable effort to involve of “reflective practitioners” (Schön 1983, Gummesson 2002b) who had expressed interest in being involved in the conceptual development of market definitions. The research process consisted of three phases - pre-understanding, model development, and model refinement. Each phase included a full-day research workshop with 2-3 representatives from each participating firm. During the pre-understanding phase, the researchers developed an initial framework for market definition based on a literature review combining findings from several research schools (primarily economic sociology, Nordic School of Marketing, Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group (including markets-as-networks), actor-network theory, and the work by Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008), and Normann (2001) Following this work, the first research workshop was held. This workshop was directed at identifying additional viewpoints in the participating firms’ practices of market definition. After a briefing the participants were divided into groups and asked to describe their extant market definitions and possible ideas for new market definitions. During the workshop, the researchers documented the group work results and the consequent discussions, and this formed a crucial input for the model development phase. During the model development phase, the researchers analyzed the output of the first workshop with reference to a further literature review (focusing on evolutionary economics), data from the interviews and other data collected from the firms during the first phase of the research. Based on this analysis, we developed a first version of a framework for scripting markets which was refined further during the second interactive research workshop. This workshop adopted a similar process as the first one and focused on evaluating and critiquing the emerging framework components, and on identifying best practices among the participating firms. During the model refinement phase, we synthesized the output from the second workshop where participating companies identified key themes and best practices. In the third interaction research workshop, we presented the revised model and asked participants to test the model in the context of their firms. Many of the organizations had utilized some of the model components in the time between the second and third workshops and applied them in their own company’s development work.

Markets as configurations Normann (2001) propose that actors interact [in a market] in order to increase the(ir) density of resources - the higher the density (for a ‘time/space/actor’ unit), the more value is created. Building on this and on the configurational approach (Meyer et al. 1993, Miller 1996), Storbacka et al. (2008) propose that one way to describe the resource integration aspect of markets is to view markets as configurations of interdependent elements that make increased

189


density of resources and capabilities, and value co-creation possible for the participating actors. Configurations are constellations of design elements that are orchestrated by a single theme (Miller 1996). The equifinality of configurations indicates that several configurations may be equally effective (Doty et al. 1993), as long as the elements reinforce each other in order to achieve a high degree of configurational fit (Siggelkow 2002), achieved when the resource and capability density maximizes the network’s aggregated value creation. Storbacka et al. (2008) suggest that the configurative elements of market configurations are: market actors, their business models, and the market practices that connect the actor’s business models (summarized in Figure 1). Figure 1. Elements of market configurations

Market actors Storbacka et al. (2008) suggest, based on economic sociology, that markets actors can be analyzed by determining their network position, habitus, and mental models. The network position of a market actor can be understood by analysing the types of relationships the actor has within a specific market configuration: how many relationships the actor has, how many of these relationships can be classified as primary contacts, how central is the market actor’s position within the market configuration, and what is the market actor’s relative power position within the market configuration. Each actor’s habitus defines the ability to influence their network and to institutionalize certain features of the market. Fligstein (2001) talks about “skilled actors” who manage to stabilize a particular field by getting others to agree with their definition of a market: they 190


manage to construct markets and influence other market actors to share their subjective view on the market definition. MacMillan et al. (2003) argue that firms have different levels of ‘clout’ to enforce their view or influence other actors. Storbacka et al. (2008) conclude that habitus is related to a market actor’s relative size within a specific market configuration, its resources and capabilities, and the longitudinal development path of its network position. The mental models of market actors have a considerable impact on the resulting market configurations. There are two interesting views that influence market configurations. First, the actors’ bounded rationality (Simon 1957) will influence their ability to understand and change markets. Building on this and on Weick’s (1995) suggestion that organizations “produce” the environments to which they respond, through their actions and selective attention, Brooks (1995) claim that “enacted markets” are outcomes of prior transactions between actors. Thus, the market is defined by the already established relationships and this “structure” form mental barriers against other perceptions of the market. Second, understanding and influencing the calculative motives of the market actors will be important in order to achieve configurational fit (cf. Callon 1998, ‘calculative agencies’). The calculative motives shift according to the situation (and possibly among different individuals and functions within a firm); this is referred to as multiple or multivalent agency (Andersson et al. 2008, Callon 2007, Law & Akrich 1996, Simakova & Neyland 2008). Business models Zott and Amit (2008) suggest that the “locus of value creation extends traditional firm boundaries” (ibid. p. 2), and claim that business models represent a broader conceptualization that captures this change. Chesbrough (2007) argues for the need for “open business models” in order to deal with the rising development cost and short product life cycles. Business models is externally oriented and address questions like: how to connect with factor and product markets, which parties to link to the focal actor and what exchange mechanism to adopt, what resources and capabilities to deploy to enable exchange of goods or information, how to control the interaction, what incentives to use (Zott and Amit 2008)? Building on Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002), Osterwalder et al. (2005), and Zott and Amit 2008) we define business models as the firm’s resource and capability configuration, which defines the content, process and governance of interactions between the focal actor and other market actors. Storbacka et al. (2008) define a firm’s resources as the financial, physical (e.g. specialized equipment, geographic location), human (e.g. skills and knowledge), and relational (e.g. relationships to suppliers, partners, alliances and customers) assets that can be used to implement value-creating strategies at the market. Capabilities can be defined as the routines and processes that enable firms to coordinate activities and make use of their resources effectively (i.e. to achieve goals). In practice, business models consist of elements such as: segmentation models and customer definitions, the value proposition and definitions of the content of exchange (the goods, services and information that the provider provides), pricing logic (price level and price structure), process by which the provider makes the content available to the customer (including production), the process of interaction between the actor and its suppliers and customers (including demand generation, sales. delivery and invoicing), the infrastructures used, and the management system (organization, planning and control) of the provider.

191


Business models are also configurations, i.e. constellations of design elements that are orchestrated by a single theme. Effective business models are characterized by configurational fit of elements. Actors, thus, have an internal configuration (defined by the business model) and an external configuration (defined by market configurations) and are continuously engaged in practices that aim at improving both its internal and external configurational fit. Market practices Market practices are defined as the interactions between market actors within a market configuration (Kjellberg and Helgesson 2006, Andersson et al. 2008). The existing market practice literature identifies three distinct and interconnected market practices: normalizing practices, exchange practices, and representational practices (Kjellberg and Helgesson 2006). Exchange practices are involved in consummating individual economic exchanges of goods; they impact how the object of exchange is being defined and how the buyer-seller interaction is configured. Normalizing practices result in norms and rules guiding the actions of market actors that make efficient configuring of resources and capabilities possible. Through normalizing practices, market actors seek to stabilize their business models, as the relative stability of the business models is a pre-requisite for efficient operations, enabling e.g. long productions runs and learning curve effects. Market actors need a common language and concepts to describe markets and actions within them. Representational practices are practices by which the business models of market actors and the market configuration are represented through shared images. Such shared images could for example be firm presentations and market analyses. Therefore, representational practices are the means for market actors to make their business models visible, also for those market actors with which they currently have no direct interactions.

The dynamics and inertia of market configurations Market configurations are perpetually dynamic and developing. The conception of markets as dynamic configurations bears resemblance to evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter 1982, Dopfer et al. 2004), which, according to Brennan (2006, p. 834), is characterized by assumptions about heterogeneous firms that are open learning systems and whose innovation driven development is path dependent, and that economic knowledge is a set of routines reproduced through practice. Brennan (2006) argues for the inclusion of elements of an evolutionary process into the dynamics of change within networks. Evolutionary economics view markets as an economic system with a complex structure of rules that have evolved over time. Changes in the market incur by the introduction of new rules: “the process by which new rules originate and are adopted and diffused (with modification) into an economic system constitutes the driving force of economic evolution” (Dopfer et al. 2004, p. 266). Market configurations as a meso level construct Dopfer et al. (2004) propose a macro–meso–micro framework (in contrast to the conventional micro–macro framework of economics). The meso level can be described by looking at rules 192


and actors who use the rule (rule-populations), and meso level analysis focuses on the “evolutionary moments: such as the size of a rule-population, or the variance in the rule in terms of the variety of its micro actualizations, or the phase structure” (ibid. p. 267); how the meso develops. The argument is that dynamic change can only be effectively understood at the meso level. We suggest that a market configuration corresponds to the meso level, and that market configurations are at the conceptual heart of market dynamics; how markets develop and change. Market configurations may be perpetually dynamic, but their development is also restricted by their inherent inertia. Building on Håkansson’s and Ford’s (2002) network paradoxes, we argue that opportunities and restrictions co-exist in a configuration (see also Ballantyne and Williams 2008). The resources accessed through the configuration is a basis for firm development, but at the same time the sunk cost devoted to build, adapt, develop, understand, relate and combine different human and physical resource configurations together also ties the firm into its extant business model and creates inertia. This inertia may be difficult to change without appropriate habitus. On the other hand, the more successful the firm is to control the market configuration the less innovative the market becomes as unilateral action aimed at dominating a market configuration will disrupt the multilateral potential of the configuration. Furthermore, the interdependence of the configuration bring with it difficulties related to influencing and being influenced. As the market configuration is performed by the actors, the configuration will be a consequence of a firm’s actions and likewise a firm’s actions are the consequence of the market configuration. The calculative motives and cognitive myopia (Levinthal and March 1993) of the focal actor’s key individuals’ mental models may form a key restraint to achieve configurational fit and expand the limits of the enacted market; they tend to focus on actions in the context of the firm's enacted market. The marketness of configurations In this paper we assume that markets cannot be seen as given constructions where actors compete for positions. The focal actor can, hence, make subjective market definitions and attempt to influence other to share this definition (create a “shared social construction”), i.e. the actor engages in market making. Markets will, therefore, go through different stages of development, in which the market configurations will be “more or less markets” in terms of how established the product definitions are, how stable the norms of trade are, how accepted the price formation mechanisms are, and how the market is represented in statistics and analysis. Building on Block (1990) Storbacka et al. (2008) suggest that a usable construct to depict the development stages of market configurations is “marketness”, defined as a continuum describing the level of configurational fit of market elements. In high marketness situations the core elements of the market reinforce each other; the actors’ network positions and habitus are established, their business models are configured and there are market practices that increase fit. Hence, there are commonly used norms for trade, exchange objects are singularized (Callon and Muniesa 2005), price formation mechanisms are set, there are non-economic actors, such as associations and/or other institutions that measure the market or create rules, there is a defined set of competitors that usually know each others’ strengths and weaknesses, and definitions of market boundaries are shared among market actors.

193


In a low marketness situation there is poor fit between possible core elements of the market. Density of resources and capabilities is low, little value is co-created, market actors are engaged in market creation activities, building network positions and influencing other actors in the market (potential customers, providers, and competitors) to start to view the suggested market configuration as an attractive source of resources for their future value creation. In extreme low marketness cases, market configurations might temporarily lack some market practices altogether. First, in a state of low marketness, the exchange practices require a long time and various iteration rounds before market actors can agree upon the unit of exchange, their value propositions and business model boundaries – or the exchange practices can also stop short of actualizing the exchanges altogether. Second, normalizing practices in low marketness market configurations are characterized with competing viewpoints and lack of commonly accepted norms and rules. Finally, representational practices in low marketness situations concentrate on making the market actors and the unit of exchange visible through symbolic representations. Low marketness situations relate to “market making” or market creation, where the focal actor is involved in social interactions, creating its network position, and promoting the cognition and the configuration of a new market, by proving to market actors that the market configuration entails opportunities for increased density of resources and capabilities and value co-creation. In high marketness situations the focal firm aims to promote its own relevance by “market shaping”; by re-defining its network to improve its network position and habitus, and moulding its business model and, thus, influence market practices so that the market configuration changes towards increased density and configurational fit. Consider KONE Corporation, the fourth largest elevator and escalator company in the world that for a long time has based its strategy on expanding their service operations, to balance the cyclicality of the equipment business (a high marketness market), and to utilize the installed base as a platform for revenue and profit growth: growing customer share, instead of market share. During their latest strategy round they repositioned themselves as a “people flow” company, not selling elevators, escalators and service for the maintenance and modernization of these, but helping their customers to manage their people flow issues. The market for “people flow” services or solutions is a low marketness market: the products are not singularized, there are no competitors, no established norms (nor any normalizing practices), no representational practices creating statistics or other images of the market. KONE has, therefore, engaged in market making activities, involving actors who control resources and capabilities related to people flow optimization. As an indication of this you can now find the construct “people flow” in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Flow, accessed on Sept 14, 2008).

Scripting markets – making market propositions Market scripting can be defined as the conscious activities conducted by a market actor in order to alter the current market configuration in its favour. Central to market scripting is the subjective motive of the focal actor to align the mental models and business models of other market actors so that they reinforce the mental and business models of the scripting actor, and increase marketness. Andersson et al. (2008) define scripting, as processes through which a program of action (or script) is devised for some entity in some envisaged situation (cf. Akrich & Latour 1992). 194


The concept of scripting bears similarities to structuration theory (Giddens 1984), which suggests that active agents have the capacity to transform their setting through action, and to the action network-theory (ANT), which examines how actor-networks get formed, hold themselves together, or fall apart (Latour 2005), exploring, for instance, the translation moments: “problematisation, interessement, enrolment, and mobilization of allies” (Callon 1986). The concept of market scripting asks for an enlargement of the idea proposed by Vargo and Lusch (2004), re-phrased as “the enterprise cannot deliver value, but only offer value propositions” in Vargo and Lusch (2008). As value is increasingly co-created in networks, in market practices participated by several actors, the argument could be that “the firm offers market propositions”, signifying that successful firms need to offer their view on how the market should be configured and engage actors in collective sensemaking (Weick 1995) activities aimed at creating a shared market view. One of the few empirical studies illustrating market scripting in the face on conflicting calculative motives has been conducted by Azimont and Araujo (2007), who illustrate how beverage companies actively seek to negotiate beverage categories to fit their competitive strengths. We define market propositions as resource integration promises: the scripting actor promises to enhance value creation for participating actors by creating a market configuration that makes increased density of resources and capabilities, and value co-creation possible. This resonates well with Frow’s and Payne’s (2008) idea that firms have to make value proposition to all stakeholders. Market scripting mechanisms can be understood by examining three interrelated dimensions. First, markets configurations can be scripted by altering any of the configurative elements: actors (specifically their mental models), the scripting actor’s business model, and the market practices that the actors engage in. Second, market scripting can be understood by describing how the configurative elements perform the market in an interactive dialogue between the firm and the meso level. Third, scripting happens in a sequence of phases, starting from the origination of a change to a configurative element, mobilizing support (on a firm and a meso level) for the new elements, and by stabilizing the element. The interrelatedness of the dimension is illustrated by Figure 2. Figure 2: Market scripting dimensions

195


The performativity of firm and meso level configurative elements We argue that the concept of performativity emerges as a central theme when examining how socially constructed market configurations are being formed, or shaped. The notion of performativity, i.e. that the expressed views (theories, social structures etc.) of actors influence reality, originates in speech act theory, and in the work of John L. Austin (Hall 2000). Swedberg (1987, p. 110) provides an example of performativity: “businessmen act as if the market has a stable structure and consequently it gets one”. Storbacka et al. (2008) propose that market configurations are being performed by all configurative elements: market actors (in terms of their mental models), their business model configurations, and the market practices through which firms interact with other market actors. Hence, scripting markets or making market propositions may entail the deliberate change of any of the elements (or the sub-elements). Scripting markets entails a continuous dialogue between micro level (intra-firm) and meso level (inter-firm) elements: the scripting actor actively changes its mental models and influences the meso level mental models (or rules), develops its business models in order to manipulate or stimulate the business model configurations of other actors, and engages in marketing practices in order to change the prevailing market practices. As the market actors’ agency shifts along with the situation in which they perform the market, actors’ mental models, their business models, and the practices they engage in seldom have a complete, Austinian performativity (MacKenzie 2004) towards the market configuration. Instead, markets usually encompass multiple and often conflicting efforts to shape them as different market actors aim to script markets to suit their objectives and business models, leading to partial performativity (cf. Kjellberg & Helgesson 2006). The mental models of market actors are the result of the actors’ experience from their enacted market defined by their bounded reality. Typically, firms act influenced by (sometimes implicit) assumptions, labelled dominating ideas (Normann 1977), or dominating logic (Prahalad 2004). These ideas are often myopic and form mental blockages for the individuals in the firms to “expand” their view of the market. Sometimes these ideas may become common industry recipes (Spender 1989), or industry business logics (Storbacka 2006). A key task for the scripting actor is to identify the firm and meso level logics and challenge these, by developing alternative views, and substantiate these. Weick (1985) argues that a key skill is the authoring of meanings that become cognitive models for actors in the organisation (and in the market configuration). Actors’ mental models are made actionable (in terms of influencing the actor’s habitus) through their business models. Business models, as well as market configurations were defined as configurations of interrelated elements. A key objective of configurations is to create harmony, consonance, or fit between configurative elements (Meyer et al. 1993, Miller 1996, Normann 2001). Elements of a configuration interact if the value of one element depends on the presence of the other element; reinforce each other if the value of each element is increased by the presence of the other element; and are independent if the value of an element is independent of the presence of another element. A configuration with many elements that reinforce each other is can be said to have a high degree of configurational fit (Siggelkow 2002).

196


Optimal configurational fit is achieved when the resource and capability density maximizes the value creation. Johnston et al. (2006) suggest that ‘fit’ could be relevant also in characterizing network structures and interactions, suggesting that firms should focus on inter-firm configurations. We argue that scripting actors aim at increasing the configurational fit (i.e. marketness) of a particular market configuration – and thus improving the efficiency of their business model. In conceptually, spatially and contextually limited market configurations, consisting for instance only a few dyads (or triads), achieving an increases level of sharedness and thus marketness requires less habitus. In complicated market configurations the number of actors to be influenced increases, and the success in increasing the marketness becomes progressively more dependent on the habitus of the scripting actor. Demanding market scripting situation arise when a single market actor seeks to upframe or re-orchestrate a comprehensive field (as conducted by e.g. IKEA in the field of furnishing and decoration). In such a situation, success in market scripting is likely only when the scripting market actor has both compelling habitus in the field and the market proposition of the scripting market actor is highly lucrative for the majority of the other market actors. Configurational changes are induced by the scripting actor, as they try to shape the resource and capability structure of the firm and thus induce changes in the market. The literature discusses different types of efforts that firms engage in to reconfigure their business models: “partnering” (Anderson and Narus 1991), moving “from selling products to selling solutions” or towards “systems selling” (Davies et al. 2008, Dunn and Thomas 1986, Hannaford 1976, Millman 1996), “moving downstream in the value chain” (Wise and Baumgartner 1999), “transitioning from products to services” (Oliva and Kallenberg 2003). Any of the above suggested changes in the business model, will necessitate firms to engage in processes where they “negotiate” resource and capability configurations within the firm, in the firm-customer dyad, and in the larger network. Business models define the practices that the scripting actors engage in. The practices that influence the market configuration can be defined as customer practices (including brand positioning, segment definition, marketing communication, channel management, sales management), offering practices (including pricing logic, offering component definition, offering configuration, terms of trade), operational practices (including sourcing ,production, assembly, delivery), and management practices (including management systems, organizational structures, planning and control processes, information technology infrastructures, remuneration systems). Changes in the practices performed by the scripting actors will – dependent on the habitus of the scripting actor – influence the market practices of the market configuration. Market scripting phases Building on Dopfer et al. (2004), Callon 1986), and Giddens 1994) we propose that market configurations develop in a three-phase process of origination, mobilization, and stabilization of new market elements in the relevant network. Origination refers to the invention or introduction of a new market element into the market configuration. This may relate to the scripting actor’s ability to author new meanings or create new descriptions of the market, or to the introduction of a new resource of capability that influences the practices of the scripting actor. The new element needs to have the potential to improve the density of resources or capabilities in the market configuration and thus improve the co-creation of value for the participating actors. 197


The performativity of the new element is dependent on the scripting actors ability to mobilize support for the idea or new practice both inside the firm, and – on a meso level – in the market configuration. On a firm level a new view of the market requires cross-functional alignment around the idea (Storbacka 2007); the performativity of views expressed by sales and marketing may not suffice. The mobilization phase is similar to change management processes carried out inside firms: it requires communication, the ability to prove value for the participating actors/functions/individuals, and the ability to understand potential blockages of change (cf. Kotter 1996). Mobilizing support on the meso level may come about one dyad at the time; literature discusses the role of “lead customers” in the adaption of new innovations (cf. Slater 1997). Stabilization refers to a state when the proposed mental model has become the dominant logic of the configuration and the business model is the dominant design for firms in the configuration. During the stabilization phase the meso level norm and rules are stable and there are commonly accepted representational practices that create images of the market.

Case GS-Hydro: from welded to non-welded piping solutions In this section, we illustrate the proposed market scripting framework (Figure 2) with a single case study description. The case study contains illustrations of how a medium-sized firm has scripted its innovative market definition over a course of 24 years through its mental model, business model, and marketing practices. Additionally, the market scripting dialogue between the firm level and the meso level is described. Finally, when appropriate, the sequence phases of market scripting (origination, mobilization, stabilization) are discussed. Methodology Data was gathered from the following sources: nine interviews with the senior management of GS-Hydro, discussions in the three research workshops, GS-Hydro’s marketing materials, and GS-Hydro’s strategy documents. The researchers progressively analyzed data using data sources and the model in Figure 2. Initially, the researchers coded specific elements relating particularly to mental models, business models, and processes and practices. The subsequent analysis focused on identifying and coding the appropriate level (firm, meso) of the specific elements. This data was then related to the three key evolution phases of origination, mobilization and stabilization. Analysis followed the constant comparative method (e.g. Glaser and Strauss, 1967), whereby new data was compared to previous interpretations. The authors reviewed the findings and made decisions about further data required to give a full description of the market scripting of GS-Hydro. The authors continued the iterative process until they were confident that they had accurately described the process of market scripting. Senior management at GS-Hydro verified the final versions of the case description and the model for accuracy. Background GS-Hydro is a leading global supplier of non-welded piping solutions for hydraulic and other application. GS-Hydro was founded in Finland in 1974 by an inventor Göran Sundholm, who invented and patented a way to assemble piping systems without welding. Even today, the core of GS-Hydro’s offering is built on three innovative flange systems that allow piping systems to be assembled without welding, yielding from 10 to 690 bar working pressures. In 198


addition to piping materials and components, GS-Hydro offers a wide range of services including engineering, prefabrication, pressure testing, flushing, commissioning, and project management. GS-Hydro's first foreign subsidiary was established in Norway in 1982 and the business was primarily directed towards the marine industry. The oil industry in the North Sea expanded during the 1980's and the offshore industry became an increasingly important customer segment for GS-Hydro. During the 1990’s new subsidiaries were opened in Europe to serve Metals & Mining, Pulp and Paper and testing equipment customers for the automotive industry for example. Today the GS-Hydro Group consists of seventeen wholly-owned subsidiaries providing service globally in 15 countries including USA, Canada, China, Korea and Singapore. In addition to own operations, GS-Hydro has partners and agents in 10 geographical areas. In 2007, GS-Hydro Group generated a turnover of nearly 150 million euro and employed over 500 piping specialists. At the moment, GS-Hydro conducts business in three main application segments: offshore, marine, and land-based applications. On offshore, the GS-Piping System is used in a wide variety of applications on all different type of offshore drilling and production installations ranging from fixed platforms and jack-up rigs to semisubmersible rigs, and floating production, storage and offloading systems. Additionally, GS-Piping has also been used successfully in vessels associated with the offshore production, such as in supply, research and seismic vessels. For the offshore industry, GS-Hydro supplies piping for hydraulic systems, air tensioning systems, mud and cement lines, water injection and process lines, as well as for seawater, cooling water and fire mains systems. In marine applications, the GSPiping system is used in a wide variety of applications in different types of ships ranging from tankers, supply ships and roro-vessels to luxury cruise ships and specialty sailing boats. GS-Hydro's piping solutions are especially used in the shipbuilding industry for hydraulic, seawater, and other piping systems such as fire water, air, sewage, fuel oil, grey water, and fresh water systems. Since 1974, the GSPiping system has been fitted onto more than 6000 ships all over the world. Regarding the landbased applications, GS-Hydro piping systems are installed in a number of different environments such as pulp & paper, steel mills, recycling stations, sugar plants, and test systems for car manufacturers. GS-Hydro faces competition from a wide range of companies, from global providers of piping systems to local ‘mom-and-pop’ operatives providing piping installation services to shipyards. From a competitive viewpoint it is important to notice that in many instances no “non-welded piping system market” exists: GS-Hydro’s customers are in the market for piping systems and such piping systems can be constructed either by using welding or by non-welded applications. GS-Hydro’s non-welded piping systems are especially competitive when the application places high demands on quality, reliability and cleanliness. Additionally, as welding is both time and labour consuming, GS-Hydro’s non-welded solutions are competitive in geographical areas and industries characterized by high labour costs and fast project schedules. Mental models The market definition of GS-Hydro (providing non-welded piping systems) was initially envisioned by GS-Hydro’s founder in the 1970’s. As discussed above, this market definition 199


is not commonly shared by all market actors: most market research and requests for quotations discuss ‘piping systems’ or ‘hydraulic piping systems’, not ‘non-welded piping systems’. As GS-Hydro as a company was founded around the technical innovation enabling the onwelded assembly of piping systems, it can be said that all GS-Hydro employees have internalized the benefits of the non-welded approach and thus have also internalized the new innovative market definition. Therefore, the technical aspects of GS-Hydro’s mental models progressed fast to the stabilization phase, in which all GS-Hydro employees share the same view of the benefits of the non-welded piping technology. However, it can be said that historically GS-Hydro has had some challenges in promoting its own mental models on the benefits of nonwelded piping and GS-Hydro’s market definition to other actors in the market configuration: even in the early 2000’s, only a limited number of customers and partners had internalized the benefits of the non-welded piping and used this technology in their technological specifications. Thus, it can be said that in the meso level the mental models related to non-welded piping were still in the origination phase. One of the reasons for the slow dissemination of mental models related to non-welded piping on the meso level can be found in the sales argumentation used by GS-Hydro until the early 2000’s. The discussion about the benefits of the non-welded systems compared to welded systems focused more on the technological benefits than on the value created for the end-user – generated via faster installation time, higher operating reliability and lower lifetime costs. In a similar vein, the strong focus on non-welded piping has sometimes created a myopia related to the external competition: sometimes GS-Hydro representatives have had challenges in discussing GSHydro’s competition as “GS-Hydro basically has no competition since no other firm provides exactly the same technical non-welded solution” – even though the choice between welded and non-welded is not always the decisive factor for GS-Hydro’s current and potential customers. Under the new growth-oriented ownership and management (established in 2006) GSHydro’s mental models have started to change. First, GS-Hydro representatives are increasingly discussing the benefits of GS-Hydro’s market definition (non-welded piping systems) in terms of the business benefits for the customer and the customer’s business partners, instead of illustrating the market definition as technical specifications. These efforts have resulted in a visible improvement in the meso level mental models related to nonwelded piping: an increasing number of customers do now proactively specify the use of nonwelded technology in their requests for proposals, especially in the offshore and marine segments. Additionally, GSHydro ´s top management has paid conscious efforts in seeking to understand the competition GS-Hydro faces in different applications and in different geographical areas. In these competitive analyses, the focus has been on both welded and non-welded technologies – a clear change in the mental models of the company. During the latest strategy round during spring 2008, GS-Hydro further clarified its market definition and stated the geographies, the application segments, and the offering scope it wants to operate in during 2009-2011. The role of external influences has been considerable in the process of changing GS-Hydro’s mental models related to markets. First, since 2006 the majority of the group management, including the CEO, have been replaced by individuals coming from outside the GS-Hydro. Second, GS-Hydro has utilized external consultants in quantifying and communicating the business potential of active market making: i.e. the fact that the largest business potential 200


resides in promoting the use of non-welded in piping systems and in transforming the users of welded technology into users of non-welded technology. The process of changing the mental models related to markets has also required considerable investments in face-to-face meetings and discussion forums: GS-Hydro has used at least 8 days annually in face-to-face meetings involving all group management executives and the directors of sales companies. It is hypothesised that such a change in mental models related to markets would not have been possible without extensive opportunities to discuss the alternative market definitions and their implications. Business model As GS-Hydro’s market definition (non-welded piping systems) is based on a technological innovation, GS-Hydro’s has always considered it to be essential to have a 100% ownership related to the production of its own patented products. Additionally, the technologically oriented market definition necessitates continuous efforts to develop further the components and machinery enabling non-welded piping. Thus, GS-Hydro has considerable R&D activities for a company of its size. The market definition has also influenced the way how GS-Hydro has defined its customers. The non-welded piping systems are especially competitive in applications with high on quality, reliability and cleanliness requirements and in contexts characterised with high labour costs and the need for fast installation. Such applications and contexts are particularly found in offshore and marine industries – and GS-Hydro has selected these as two of its three customer segment. Within the third customer segment, the land-based applications, GS-Hydro also approaches customers with high quality, reliability and cleanliness requirements and sensitivity for labour costs and project speed, such as pulp and paper, steel, and testing equipment manufacturing. Within these customer segments, GS-Hydro has selected a limited number of strategic customers to which GS-Hydro appoints dedicated strategic customer managers. All of GSHydro’s strategic customers are at the moment Western companies, as the key benefits of GS-Hydro’s market definition (high operating reliability, fast & cost-efficient installation, low lifetime costs, safety) are particularly appealing to companies originating from Europe or North America. GS-Hydro has invested considerably in the training and the tools provided to the strategic customer managers in order to communicate the benefits of its market definition to its strategic customers in more effective manner. Strategic customer managers are for example supported in quantifying the value of non-welded systems over the course of the system lifetime and in translating these non-welded benefits into customer-oriented value propositions. GS-Hydro is able to reach its customers, both strategic and non-strategic, in two ways: either by providing the piping components and machinery to installation companies who install the system for the customer or delivering the entire piping system as a project delivery directly for the customer. As the direct project delivery yield more opportunities for GS-Hydro to promote the benefits of its market definition to its customers, GS-Hydro favours direct project deliveries in all its core markets – channel sales through installation partners are used only in such locations which are either very risky or in which GS-Hydro has limited access to the end customers. In order to support direct project deliveries, and thus the efficient communication of its market definition, GS-Hydro has documented its project sales and delivery know-how into a project manual, organized global training around project business, 201


and is establishing a major projects unit which will concentrate in supporting the sales and delivery of large direct delivery projects. GS-Hydro’s use of direct project deliveries has increased continuously over time and it can be said that this go-to-market aspect of GS-Hydro’s business model in still in the mobilization phase: GS-Hydro is still contemplating about the optimal balance between direct project deliveries and channel sales. However, GS-Hydro’s efforts to increase the share of direct project deliveries have already caused changes in GS-Hydro’s network position and in GS-Hydro’s customers’ business models. Especially in some geographical markets GS-Hydro is in a progress of moving from a component supplier position into a system supplier position in the value creation network. This has also caused certain changes in GS-Hydro’s customers’ business models. Instead of outsourcing the installation of piping systems to various small installation companies or doing the installation themselves, GS-Hydro’s business model change has enabled its customers to eliminate their own piping installation operations and to streamline their supplier management organizations. As GS-Hydro’s market definition is an innovative one and relatively new for both its customers and their business partners, GS-Hydro has made a conscious decision to centralize its marketing and communication functions. This decision is partially spurred by GS-Hydro’s attempts to promote its market definition and the benefits of the non-welded piping to the entire value creation network, i.e. GS-Hydro’s attempts to raise the mental models related to these issues from firm level to meso level. Thus, it can be said that GS-Hydro’s marketing is currently in mobilization phase: efforts have been taken to change the marketing function, but this change has not reached the stabilization phase yet. Under the new set-up, GS-Hydro’s marketing and communication professionals help sales company representatives by providing marketing materials in which the benefits of GS-Hydro’s market definition are clearly communicated in a customer-oriented manner. Additionally, GS-Hydro’s marketing professionals ensure that GSHydro is present in all major marine, offshore and hydraulics exhibitions, in order to communicate its market view to targeted audiences. Finally, the organizational structure and the main business metrics are designed to support GSHydro’s market definition. As discussed above, the main vehicles for efficient market scripting (i.e. sales & project delivery for large customers, marketing communication, and participation in key exhibitions) are all owned by group management executives and receive continuous support from the group management. Additionally, as project delivery has been deemed far more efficient in communicating the market definition to current and prospective customers, GSHydro follows up its project delivery sales separate from component sales. Market practices It is also possible to identify how GS-Hydro maintains and refines its marketing practices towards all main market practices: normative, exchange, and representational practices. The normative practices related to quality standards and type approvals from classification societies are of utmost importance in creating and maintaining market definitions: most customers are not willing to purchase piping components without appropriate type approvals. Thus, entries to different industry or geographical markets are entirely dependent on the firm’s ability to get type approvals for its components. Currently, GS-Hydro’s products are approved by classification societies such as Det Norske Veritas, Lloyds Register, Germanischer Lloyd, American Bureau of Shipping, Bureau Veritas, Registro Italiano

202


Navale, Russian Maritime Register of Shipping, Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, China Classification Society. As the type approval processes and the test programmes associated with them are often lengthy and labour-consuming, GS-Hydro conducts close cooperation with Finnish technical universities whenever launching new products. GS-Hydro’s marketing practices related to type approvals and university cooperation can be argued to be in the stabilization phase: these marketing practices have been conducted within GS-Hydro in relatively unchanged manner since the foundation of the company. However, the meso level normative practices, related to non-welded technology are still a marginal phenomenon: the majority of the type approvals, classifications, and research relate to other joining technologies than non-welded. Thus, the non-welded perspective in normative practices is still in a mobilization phase. Also in its exchange practices, GS-Hydro seeks to convince its customers and their business partners of the superiority of GS-Hydro’s market definition compared to the competing market definitions. Especially noticeable is GS-Hydro’s commitment to get involved with its customers as early as possible in the purchasing/sales process. As GS-Hydro’s products and services are most commonly used in large investment goods (such as ships, oil rigs, or paper machines), the planning phase related to these investments is the most fruitful period for GSHydro to communicate its market view to all relevant actors. For example, the initial plans related to offshore rigs can be drafted up to 10-12 years before the actual construction is started. During this planning period, GS-Hydro is able to communicate the benefits of its market definition both to the customer and the customer’s consultants, design houses, and engineering partners. The benefits of influencing the specifications of large investment goods are two-fold: first of all, it ensures that GS-Hydro is able to respond to the forthcoming requests for quotations as the specifications do not exclude the use of non-welded technology. Secondly, continuous communication with actors (owners, end-users, design houses, engineering companies, etc.) involved in issuing requests for quotations means that gradually GS-Hydro is able to communicate the benefits of its market view to all relevant market actors – and thus the market view of GS-Hydro increasingly becomes the shared ‘view of the world’ among these actors. When analyzing the evolution phase of GS-Hydro’s exchange marketing practices, it can be concluded that these practices are at the mobilization phase: GS-Hydro has acknowledged the importance of a proactive sales process and the company has changed its operations accordingly – but the new proactive exchange practices are yet not stabilized throughout the organization. GS-Hydro is also becoming increasingly active in promoting its market definition in various representational practices. As there is very little market research conducted related directly to piping systems, GS-Hydro’s main representational marketing practices are not directed towards market research – as is the case in many other industries. Instead, GS-Hydro seeks to affect the representations of the piping market by giving presentations at selected industry exhibitions and by issuing statements and articles to leading industry media. Additionally, during the last years GS-Hydro has considered the possibility of creating a specialised industry consortium around non-welded piping. This consortium would be accessible to all companies interested in nonwelded piping. Such a consortium would mean that GS-Hydro would create a new representational practice together with its main competitors, aimed at transferring the dominant welded market view towards a non-welded market view. The possible cooperation between competing companies can be understood against the current market dynamics of the piping market: both GS-Hydro and its competitors would get 203


access to a considerably larger market than their current one, would they be able to convince the users of welded technology to use non-welded technology. Therefore it can be concluded that the representational practices related to non-welded piping as still in the origination phase, on both the GS-Hydro and the meso levels. The importance of affecting the market representations is acknowledged both by GS-Hydro and other value network actors, but the concrete forms of conducting such representational practices are still in very early development phases. Conclusions The case study illustrates how a technology-driven company has scripted its innovative market definition over the course of 24 years, first relatively unconsciously and later with more conscious efforts. The case study exemplifies the systemic nature of market configurations. The scripting of GS-Hydro’s new market definition was initiated with a new mental model, i.e. the realization that piping can be joined without welding, and throughout the years the new mental model has impacted the mental models of other market actors, the business models of GS-Hydro and other market actors, as well as the marketing practices of GS-Hydro and the market practices of the entire value creation network. Some conclusions can also be drawn from GS-Hydro’s relatively lengthy market scripting period. First, transforming firm-level subjective market definitions to meso-level shared market definitions is a wide, corporate-level task. The interviews showed that there are few frameworks or suitable language to describe the market scripting process. What comes out clearly is that market scripting requires a change in the mental models of the firm conducting the scripting: the market needs to be perceived as a system, consisting of various actors, all with their own mental models, business models, and marketing practices. Second, it seems evident that successful market scripting requires “marketing” to be extended beyond traditional functional marketing. In GS-Hydro’s case, several functions, including marketing, sales, product development, communications, and corporate management, were involved in market scripting activities. Especially the role of key account managers and other sales personnel emerged as a central. Third, the habitus and the network position of the market actor seem to influence the impact of market scripting: the stronger the habitus and the network position of the actor, the stronger the impact of market scripting. In return, successful market scripting is also likely to influence the market position and the habitus of the market actor conducting the market scripting. Initially, the effectiveness of GS-Hydro’s market scripting efforts was limited as their view on the relevant market was exceedingly wide in relation to the size and resources of GS-Hydro. However, as the result of the new managements more focused market definitions (identification of “competitive arenas”), GS-Hydro’s habitus within the selected market configurations have improved – and this has further improved GS-Hydro’s opportunities to conduct successful market scripting.

Discussion The research described above is part of a larger research effort covering industry independent market definition. The purpose of this paper was to develop a framework for understanding how markets are formed and shaped, and to use this to identify practices that firms can engage in to actively develop markets in their favor. We defined markets as configurations of interdependent elements that make increased density of resources and capabilities, and value 204


co-creation possible for the participating actors. The identified configurative elements are market actors (in terms of their mental models, network position and habitus), their business models (in term of their firm specific configuration of resources and capabilities), and the market practices (exchange, normalizing and representational practices) that connect the actor’s business models. Several different market configurations may be effective, as long as the elements reinforce each other in order to achieve a high degree of configurational fit, achieved when the resource and capability density maximizes the network’s aggregated value creation. We further suggested that market configurations are at the conceptual heart of market dynamics on a meso level; markets develop and change by influencing market configurations. The development stages of market configurations can be depicted by the marketness construct defined as a continuum describing the level of configurational fit of market elements. An outcome of the research is that firms are increasingly engaged in complex market configurations where the alignment of market views becomes central for success. Firms, hence, need to offer market propositions: offer their view on how the market should be configured and engage actors in activities aimed at creating a shared market view. Market propositions are in essence resource integration promises: the focal actor promises to enhance value creation for participating actors by creating a market configuration that makes increased density of resources and capabilities, and value co-creation possible. We labelled the practice of making market propositions market scripting, and defined it as the scripting actor’s activities aimed a altering an extant market configuration: to align the mental models and business models of other market actors so that they reinforce the mental and business models of the scripting actor, and increase marketness. Market scripting mechanisms are based on the performativity of all the configurative elements. Finally we developed a framework to describe the how firms can engage in market scripting. The framework has three interrelated dimensions: the configurative elements (mental models, business models and practices of the different market actors), the elements’ interactive dialogue between the firm and the meso level, and the phases of introducing configurative elements (origination, mobilization, and stabilization). The usefulness of the framework was illustrated with a case description of a globally operating company engaged in market shaping activities. The case description shows that the language developed is helpful in understanding and explaining the market shaping efforts. Further research avenues The case study has some limitations that also are indications of further research avenues. First, the case illustrates a low marketness situation, where the case company is trying to mobilize support for the transformation from welded to non-welded technology. An interesting avenue for further research would be to do comparative analysis of market configurations with different levels of marketness, in order to find out if the scripting efforts vary in different marketness situations. Second, the case illustrates a firm with low habitus, with considerable problems in introducing new views of the market into the meso level. Again a comparative analysis of market scripting activities by firms with different habitus would create insight into the types and effectiveness of various market shaping activities for firms with different habitus. 205


Another possible research avenue relates to the proposed equifinality of different kinds of market configurations. The research has so far not made it possible to compare the effectiveness of different kinds of configurations as no measurement of marketness (or configurational fit) is defined. Providing managerial guidance requires robust measurement tools that make comparisons of alternative management actions possible. Further research is needed in all the market scripting dimensions. In this paper we have not focused on the role of network positions of scripting actors. The idea of structural holes (Burt 1992), hold considerable promise for valuable and actionable research. The ability of scripting actors to influence their network “distinguishing primary from secondary contacts in order to focus resources on preserving primary contacts” (Burt, 1992, p.21) seems to constitute a considerable opportunity of increased resource density. The business models of market actors emerge as a key construct that links resources and capabilities between actors and enables the co-creation of value. Further research is needed as to the conceptualization the elements of a business model. The dialogue with the participating firms suggests that possible main dimensions in a business model configuration could be customer capabilities, offering capabilities, operational capabilities, and management capabilities. It seems, furthermore, plausible to expect that the transparency of business models is a key attribute in effective markets; transparency makes it possible for market actors to better assess the fit between different actors’ internal resource configurations. The research presented emphasises the role of marketing and sales practices in terms of their ability to perform markets. Further research is needed as to the role of different practices. Simakova and Neyland (2008) suggests that marketing departments should be engaged in authoring and presenting an organising, tellable narrative – a tellable story that helps to configure a new technology and prepare it for the market. Marketing departments need to work towards two audiences: the other functions inside the firm (in order to influence the business model configuration) and the other market actors (in order to influence and co-create market configurations). Storbacka et al. (2008) argue that firms (i.e. marketing departments) need to develop their ability to generate a “deeper understanding of the value creation potential in the relevant market configuration”, something that they label value sensing. Value sensing can viewed as a representational practice: it is performative as it influences how market actors view the market and how they discuss the development of a particular market configuration. Efficient market scripting requires more understanding of the practice of value sensing. As value creation extends traditional firm boundaries, the interdependence and dialogue between the firm and the meso level will evolve into an interesting research avenue. The market configuration idea emphasizes that boundary spanning roles become central determinants of configurational fit. Many of the traditionally rather operationally oriented functions, such as marketing, sales and account management, and supply, will become strategic; they will need to influence the strategic planning process of market scripting actors. Building on Fries (2008) we call these roles the “boundarians”, and suggest that sales and account management need to be redefined to cover a more strategically focused agenda. Storbacka (2007) argues that account management focuses on co-creation of value and is both “inside-out”, i.e. implements strategy in order to achieve agreed corporate goals, and “outsidein”, i.e. identifies business and renewal opportunities by deeply understanding the 206


customer’s value-creating process, and influences the firm’s strategic process (Gosselin and Heene 2003). Sales and account management is increasingly involved in active market development activities, and this task necessitates sales to be re-defined from a function towards a cross-functional process, involved in the larger task of commercialization. Commercialization requires a process that spans boundaries between the firm and the selected customers, between different functional groups and hierarchical levels within the firm and the customer’s organization, and often between market configurations. Understanding and conceptualizing this process and the role of the boundarians calls for focused research efforts. Finally, the market scripting phases needs further conceptualization: how are new elements originated, who drives this development, what is the performative power of the different elements, what are the mechanisms for mobilization of support for a new market view inside the firm and on the meso level, and what are the enablers of a stabilized market view? Managerial conclusions Our research has a number of managerial implications. First, the research pinpoints the fact that market are subjective constructions and this indicates that firms in mature markets can engage in market scripting to shape markets in their favor. The key managerial task is to (1) author new market definitions, and (2) engage in market shaping activities to increase the marketness of the subjectively constructed market. In doing this, firms need to create increased transparency as to their resource and capability configuration. This will help to shape the firm specific business model and to influence the meso level market configuration. Second, marketing has to assume a new role; not only focusing on brand positioning or demand creation in a pre-defined market, but progressively engaging in market making and market scripting activities. Third, sales also has to take on a new boundarian role: a crossfunctionally process oriented and strategically focused role of active market development. During the research process the managers of the participating companies several times alluded to the fact that most companies will be involved in many market configurations at the same time. Some market configurations may be evolving, low marketness configurations, whereas other maybe stable, high marketness configurations. A managerial conclusion from this may be that companies need to have a mix of market configurations with different levels of marketness corresponding to different development horizons. Some serve the immediate short-term performance, while others build platforms for future performance. Viewing markets as configurations will have major impacts on the strategy of the scripting actors. The aim of strategy is not “winning” a zero-sum game, defined as a product market. Nor should the focus be on “competing”, but rather on how the firm can engage in cocreation of value with actors (suppliers, customers, and partners) to improve the resource density of the market, and, hence, improve firm performance for several actors at the same time.

207


References Akrich, M. & Latour, B. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping Technology/Building Society, Studies in Technological Change, W.E. Bijker & J. Law, eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992. Anderson, J.C. & Narus, J.A. (1991). Partnering as a focused market strategy. California Management Review, 33 (3), 95-113. Andersson, P., Aspenberg, K. & Kjellberg, H. (2008). The configuration of actors in market practice. Marketing Theory, 8 (1): 67-80. Araujo, L., Kjellberg, H., & Spencer, R. (2008). Market practices and forms: introduction to special issue. Marketing Theory, 8 (1), 5-14. Arnould, E.J. (2008). Service-dominant logic and resource theory. Journal of the Academy of the Marketing Science, 36 (1), 21-24. Azimont, F. & Araujo, L. (2007). Category reviews as market-shaping events. Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (7), 849-860. Ballantyne, D. & Williams, J. (2008). Business to business relationships: the paradox of network constraints? Australasian Marketing Journal, 16 (1), 95-107. Block, Fred. Postindustrial possibilities: a critique of economic discourse. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1990. Brennan, Ross (2006). Evolutionary economics and the markets-as-networks approach. Industrial Marketing Management 35 (7) 829–838. Brooks, G.R. (1995). Defining market boundaries. Strategic Management Journal, 16 (7), 535-549. Burt R.S. Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1992. Callon, M. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, John Law, ed., Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1986. Callon, M. Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics, in The Laws of the Markets, M. Callon, ed., Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, Oxford, 1998. Callon, M. What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics, D. MacKenzie, F., Muniesa & L. Siu, eds., Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2007. Callon, M. & Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic markets as calculative collective devices. Organization Studies, 26 (8), 1229-1250.

208


Chesbrough, H. (2007). Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48 (2), 21-28. Chesbrough, H. & Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (3), 529-555. Davies, A., Brady, T. and Hobday, M. (2008). Charting a path toward integrated solutions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47 (3), 39-48. Dopfer, K., Foster, J. & Potts, J. (2004). Micro–meso–macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14 (3), 263–279. Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H. & Huber, G.P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and the organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6), 1196-1250. Dunn, D.T. & Thomas, C.A. (1986). Strategy for systems sellers: a grid approach. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 6 (2), 1-10. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14 (March), 532-50. Fries, L. (2008). Boundarians that shape market actors: a review of the literature on business associations. Proceedings of the 24th IMP Conference, Uppsala September 4-6, 2008. Fligstein, N. The architecture of markets. An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist society. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001. Frow, P. & Payne, A. (2008). Stakeholder perspective of value: exploring the value proposition concept in the context of stakeholders and service-dominant logic. Proceedings of Forum of Markets and Marketing: Extending Service-Dominant Logic, Sydney December 46, 2008. Geroski, P.A. (1998). Thinking creatively about markets. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16 (6), 677–695. Giddens A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Chicago, 1984. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies of qualitative research. Wiedenfield and Nicholson, London, 1967. Gosselin, D. P. & Heene A. (2003). A Competence-Based Analysis of Account Management: Implications for a Customer-Focused Organization. Journal of Selling and Major Account Management, 5 (1), 11-31. Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social constructions. Acta Sociologica, 35 (1), 3-11.

209


Gummesson, E. (2002a). Practical value of adequate marketing management theory. European Journal of Marketing, 36 (3), 325-349. Gummesson, E. (2002b). Total Relationship Marketing. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2nd ed., 2002. Hall, K. (2000). Performativity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9 (1/2), 184-187. Hannaford, W.J. (1976). Systems selling: problems and benefits for buyers and sellers. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 5 (2), 39-45. Håkansson, H. & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55 (2), 133-139. Johnston, W.J., Peters, L.D. & Gassenheimer, J. (2006). Questions about network dynamics: characteristics, structures, and interactions. Journal of Business Research, 59 (8), 945-954. Kjellberg, H. & Helgesson, C.-F. (2006). Multiple versions of markets: multiplicity and performativity in market practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 35 (7), 839−855. Korkman, O., Storbacka, K. & Harald, B. (2008). Practices as markets: value co-creation in e-invoicing. Proceedings of Forum of Markets and Marketing: Extending Service-Dominant Logic, Sydney December 4-6, 2008. Kotter J.P. Leading change. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge MA, 1996. Krippner, G., Granovetter, M., Block, F., Biggart, N., Beamish, T., Hsing, Y., Hart, G., Arrighi, G., Mendell, M., Hall, J., Burawoy, M., Vogel, S. & O’Riain, S. (2004). Polanyi Symposium: a conversation on embeddedness. Socio-Econometric Review, 2 (1), 109-135. Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005. Law, J., & Akrich, M. On customers and costs: a story from public sector science. In Accounting and Science: Natural Inquiry and Commercial Reason, M. Power, Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. Levinthal, D.A. & March, J.G., (1993) The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Special issue), 95-112. Lusch, R.F. & Vargo, S.L. Service dominant logic as a foundation for a general theory. In The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, R.F. Lusch & S.L. Vargo, eds., ME Sharpe, Armonk, 2006. MacKenzie, D. (2004). The big, bad wolf and the rational market: portfolio insurance, the 1987 crash and the performativity of economics. Economy and Society, 33 (3), 303−334. MacMillan, I.C., van Putten, A.B. & McGrath, R.G. (2003). Global gamesmanship. Harvard Business Review, 81 (5), 62-71.

210


Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S. & Hinings, C.R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6), 1175-1195. Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (7), 505-512. Millman, A.F. (1996). Global key account management and systems selling. International Business Review, 5 (6), 631-645. Nelson, R.R. & Winter, S.G. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1982. Normann, R. Management for growth. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977. Normann, R. Reframing business: when the map changes the landscape. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 2001. Oliva, R. & Kallenberg, R. (2003). Managing the transition from products to services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14 (2), 160-172. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. & Tucci, C.L. (2005). Clarifying business models: origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16 (1). Prahalad, C.K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning, 37 (2) 171179. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a development of culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2), 243-263. Schön, D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York, NY, 1983. Siggelkow, N. (2002). Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (1), 125159. Simakova, E. & Neyland, D. (2008). Marketing mobile futures: assembling constituencies and creating compelling stories for an emerging technology. Marketing Theory, 8 (1), 91-116. Simon, H.A. Administrative Behavior (2nd ed.). Macmillan, New York, 1957. Slater, S.F. (1997). Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 162-167. Spender, J. -C. An inquiry into the nature and sources of managerial judgment. Blackwell, Oxford, 1989. Storbacka, K. Driving growth with customer asset management. WSOY, Helsinki, 2006. Storbacka, K. Driving firm performance with strategic account management. Inaugural essay, Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Nyenrode, 2007. 211


Storbacka, K., Nenonen, S. & Korkman, O. (2008). Markets as configurations: a research agenda for co-created markets. Proceedings of Forum of Markets and Marketing: Extending Service-Dominant Logic, Sydney December 4-6, 2008. Swedberg, R. (1987). Economic sociology: past and present. Current Sociology, 35 (1), 1– 144. Vargo, R.F. (2007). On a theory of markets and marketing: from positively normative to normatively positive. Australasian Marketing Journal, 15 (1), 53-60. Vargo, S.L & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), 1-17. Vargo, S.L & Lusch, R.F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1-10. Weick, K.E. Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1995. Wise, R. & Baumgartner, P. (1999). Go downstream: the new profit imperative in manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 77 (5), 133-141. Zott, C. & Amitt, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (1), 1-26.

212

Scripting markets: From value propositions to market ... - CiteSeerX

Scripting markets: From value propositions to market ... - CiteSeerX

Suggest Documents

VALUE PROPOSITIONS

WINNING VALUE PROPOSITIONS

Customer Value Propositions in Business Markets - Google Sites

Service-dominant logic and value propositions - CiteSeerX

From Plan to Market - CiteSeerX

Dynamics of value propositions: insights from service ... - DiVA portal

'needing' Propositions and - CiteSeerX

Design Propositions Evaluation : Using Viewpoint to ... - CiteSeerX

Five Propositions - CiteSeerX

Techniques for designing value propositions ...

PDF Creating Winning Value Propositions - Google Sites

[PDF] Creating Winning Value Propositions - Google Sites

Developing Value Propositions: Strategic Choice in ...

Engineering Value Propositions: Professional and Personal Needs ...

Aligning value propositions in supply chain.pdf

Read Ebook Creating Winning Value Propositions: Marketing ...

Value differentiation: Creating Customised Value Propositions in the ...

Managing the politics of value propositions

Information Markets to Improve Information Value and ... - CiteSeerX

Markets, Market-Making and Marketing - CiteSeerX

PROPOSITIONS

Propositions

PROPOSITIONS

From Commodity Chains to Value Chains - CiteSeerX