IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v88y2018icp550-559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collaboration reasoning or social heuristics? Value proposition validity in omnium-gatherum business models

Author

Listed:
  • To, Chester Kin-man
  • Yee, Rachel W.Y.
  • Mok, P.Y.
  • Chau, K.P.
  • Wong, Man Chong
  • Cheung, N.M.

Abstract

Central to the value co-creation business model is mutualistic interaction, through which business value producers propose offers and affirm the final meaning of offering values with customer experience. The model treats each upstream offering of value production merely as a part of value proposition (Grönroos, 2011; Vargo, 2008). Thus, the interaction becomes a locus, key source of value co-creation. Contemporary literature on interactive marketing and service research contain a myriad of theories clarifying the relevance and prominence of the interaction. However, there are still limited discussions regarding how business actors may propose a new potential value, and how the actors can judge the validity of the value co-creation in multi-actor business environments. This study provides a literature review on two main judgment paradigms used as a means to validate new value proposition and co-creation. The two paradigms are as follows: (1) collaborative rationality that evaluates rationales behind business actors' interactions for value co-creation; (2) social heuristics that concerns group-based satisficing decisions and judgments on a specific value proposition. Social heuristics use social information that does not necessarily stem from a formal, accurate analysis. To corroborate the theoretical implications of the two paradigms, the study analyzes a set of field case value validation processes for a novel product life cycle management information platform. The case study findings illustrate implications for collaborative business modeling and verification on new service-dominant value creation. Finally, the case study presents a prescriptive framework for smarter multi-actor value propositions and co-creation procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • To, Chester Kin-man & Yee, Rachel W.Y. & Mok, P.Y. & Chau, K.P. & Wong, Man Chong & Cheung, N.M., 2018. "Collaboration reasoning or social heuristics? Value proposition validity in omnium-gatherum business models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 550-559.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:88:y:2018:i:c:p:550-559
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296318300687
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.062?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yadav, Manjit S. & de Valck, Kristine & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Hoffman, Donna L. & Spann, Martin, 2013. "Social Commerce: A Contingency Framework for Assessing Marketing Potential," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 311-323.
    2. Storbacka, Kaj & Brodie, Roderick J. & Böhmann, Tilo & Maglio, Paul P. & Nenonen, Suvi, 2016. "Actor engagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 3008-3017.
    3. Robert Sugden, 2011. "Mutual advantage, conventions and team reasoning," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 58(1), pages 9-20, March.
    4. Gintis, Herbert, 2016. "Homo Ludens: Social rationality and political behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PB), pages 95-109.
    5. Richard Willson, 2001. "Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm," Transportation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-31, February.
    6. To, Chester K.M., 2016. "Collaboration modes, preconditions, and contingencies in organizational alliance: A comparative assessment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 4737-4743.
    7. Payne, Adrian & Storbacka, Kaj & Frow, Pennie & Knox, Simon, 2009. "Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 379-389, March.
    8. Michael Bacharach, 2006. "The Hi-Lo Paradox, from Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory," Introductory Chapters, in: Natalie Gold & Robert Sugden (ed.),Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, Princeton University Press.
    9. Nikolaeva, Ralitza, 2014. "Interorganizational imitation heuristics arising from cognitive frames," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1758-1765.
    10. von Krogh, Georg & Spaeth, Sebastian & Lakhani, Karim R., 2003. "Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1217-1241, July.
    11. Loock, Moritz & Hinnen, Gieri, 2015. "Heuristics in organizations: A review and a research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 2027-2036.
    12. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniela Andreini & Cristina Bettinelli & Nicolai J. Foss & Marco Mismetti, 2022. "Business model innovation: a review of the process-based literature," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 26(4), pages 1089-1121, December.
    2. Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia & Romero, Jaime & Bilro, Ricardo Godinho, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement in co-creation processes for innovation: A systematic literature review and case study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 388-409.
    3. To, Chester K.M. & Chau, K.P. & Kan, Chi Wai, 2020. "The logic of innovative value proposition: A schema for characterizing and predicting business model evolution," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 502-520.
    4. Kang, Weiyao & Shao, Bingjia, 2023. "The impact of voice assistants’ intelligent attributes on consumer well-being: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Lucia-Palacios, Laura & Pérez-López, Raúl, 2021. "Effects of Home Voice Assistants' Autonomy on Instrusiveness and Usefulness: Direct, Indirect, and Moderating Effects of Interactivity," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 41-54.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nadeem, Waqar & Tan, Teck Ming & Tajvidi, Mina & Hajli, Nick, 2021. "How do experiences enhance brand relationship performance and value co-creation in social commerce? The role of consumer engagement and self brand-connection," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    3. Il-Horn Hann & Jeffrey A. Roberts & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2013. "All Are Not Equal: An Examination of the Economic Returns to Different Forms of Participation in Open Source Software Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 520-538, September.
    4. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    5. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    6. Elsenbroich, Corinna & Payette, Nicolas, 2020. "Choosing to cooperate: Modelling public goods games with team reasoning," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    7. Wonseok Oh & Jae Yun Moon & Jungpil Hahn & Taekyung Kim, 2016. "Research Note—Leader Influence on Sustained Participation in Online Collaborative Work Communities: A Simulation-Based Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 383-402, June.
    8. Siobhan O'Mahony & Rebecca Karp, 2022. "From proprietary to collective governance: How do platform participation strategies evolve?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 530-562, March.
    9. Teppo Felin & Todd R. Zenger, 2016. "CROSSROADS—Strategy, Problems, and a Theory for the Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 222-231, February.
    10. Ann Majchrzak & Arvind Malhotra, 2016. "Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 685-703, December.
    11. Maha Shaikh & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2016. "Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Openness and Transparency in Open Source Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 813-833, December.
    12. Radzvilas, Mantas & Karpus, Jurgis, 2021. "Team reasoning without a hive mind," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 345-353.
    13. Vargo, Stephen L. & Lusch, Robert F., 2017. "Service-dominant logic 2025," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 46-67.
    14. Sergio Beraldo, 2015. "On the economic relevance of the principle of gratuitousness," International Journal of Happiness and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(3), pages 204-215.
    15. Islam, Mazhar & Miller, Jacob & Park, Haemin Dennis, 2017. "But what will it cost me? How do private costs of participation affect open source software projects?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1062-1070.
    16. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    17. Nicolas Jullien & Klaas-Jan Stol & James D Herbsleb, 2019. "A Preliminary Theory for Open Source Ecosystem Micro-economics," Post-Print hal-02127185, HAL.
    18. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    19. Jie Chen, 2022. "Carrots and sticks: new evidence in public goods games with heterogeneous groups," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 17(4), pages 1139-1169, October.
    20. Van Basshuysen, Philippe, 2021. "Rationality in games and institutions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112463, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:88:y:2018:i:c:p:550-559. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.