Dois tweets e a co-criação de valor (parte II)

Parte I.

"we claim that institutions are the coordinating link that have impact on value cocreation efforts and are the reference base for customers’ value assessment. When conceptualizing the systemic nature of resource integration, we include the regulative, normative, and cognitive institutions and institutional logics.
...
the discussion surrounding resource integration emphasizes the means through which actors like customers, suppliers, and other interested stakeholders use their knowledge and skills to cocreate value
...
Coordination is essential, as resource integration requires process(es) and forms of collaboration at many levels of business. Furthermore, resource integration is always performed in the context of a service system driven by the actors’ knowledge and skills as well as their intentions and motivation. Within these service systems and the larger social system, knowledge, skills, intensions, and motivation are influenced by institutions on the one hand and the actions taken by actors influence existing institutions on the other. Consequently, we view institutions as enabling or constraining the ‘‘humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction’’. Institutions play a major role in shaping an actors’ behavior when managing resource integration and the cocreation of value in service systems.
...
Value is here understood as being cocreated by customers and other actors, and service systems are configurations of actors, resources, and technology designed to enable value cocreation. As service systems are shaped by social values and forces in social systems, we emphasize that institutional settings and thus institutional logics affect service systems and the involved actors’ behavior. This means that no single, unrelated institution is active but that there is a set of typically nested institutions of different kinds affecting each other in various but coherent ways with respect to their effectiveness.
...
From this understanding it becomes clear that value cocreation and service-for-service exchange do not happen in an institution-free world. They incorporate a reciprocal reaction, where institutions influence actors’ behavior and vice versa, actors influence institutions through their behaviors. It is through this creation and recreation of service systems that institutions become pre- requisites for value cocreation, as an institutional context plays a key role when actors are using or operating on resources in service systems. For that reason, institutional logics are crucial in shaping service systems as they introduce broader belief and regulation systems that shape the cognition and behavior of actors."

Como não relacionar, "institutional logics are crucial in shaping service systems as they introduce broader belief and regulation systems that shape the cognition and behavior of actors", com Mongo e a política?
 
Trechos retirados de "Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration" de Bo Edvardsson; Michael Kleinaltenkamp; Ba ̊rd Tronvoll; Patricia McHugh; e Charlotta Windahl, publicado por Marketing Theory 2014, Vol. 14(3) 291–309.

Dois tweets e a co-criação de valor (parte I)

Sábado passado encontrei dois tweets que relacionei logo com o que ando a ler:

This is a CENTRAL result: you don't get peace forcing pple to hold hands & sing Kumbaya by the campfire.

You get peace via fractal LOCALISM.

The usual idiotic AUB-style pseudoleft in Lebanon call "sectarian"(pejorative) anyone who believes in such Swiss-style localism. https://t.co/sel9Hbtl5E

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) December 8, 2018

This is an image of GPS tracking of multiple wolves in six different packs around Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota, which shows how much the wolf packs avoid each other's range [source: https://t.co/BYFdDNCIOi] pic.twitter.com/MRKpw2KA9b

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) December 7, 2018

 

"Unlike arms-length transactions, relational exchange stems from previous agreements. Relational exchange generally lasts longer and reflects an ongoing process in which anticipated conflicts of interest are counterbalanced by trust and efforts at unity. Essentially, actors sacrifice short-term gains because they trust that the relationship will pay off in the long run.
…
Importantly, the glue that binds these chains of reciprocity is composed largely of social constructs such as trust and loyalty.
...
All institutions are therefore “cognitive,” insofar as their effect depends on actors’ beliefs and expectations. … we use the phrase “shared understanding” to reference the beliefs and expectations common to a set of actors but note that others have variously used terms such as socio-cognitive structures, broadly diffused schema, or shared representations in reference to the same phenomenon. Nonetheless, the power of an institution is apparent only when many actors share the same (or similar) set of understandings. That is, an institution can only be referred to as such if it shapes the behavior of many individuals in a similar manner, and this only happens if those individuals have a broadly shared understanding of how to behave."

Trechos retirados de "Redefining the market: A treatise on exchange and shared understanding" de Lusch e Watts, publicado por Marketing Theory.

Prisioneiros do muros altos que ergueram.

Ontem comecei a leitura de "Service-Dominat Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities" de Robert Lusch e Stephen Vargo.
.
No primeiro capítulo li:

"Institutionalization refers to the shared acceptance of concepts, meanings, and normative behaviors - it allows coordination by providing rules of the game. It also allows human actors to "think," communicate, and act without taxing their limited calculative capacity. A dominant logic is a set of related, institutionalized conceptualizations concerning some activity or object - in the case of G-D logic, economic exchange.
.
Performativity relates to acting in accordance with an institutionalized logic and thus implies at least a partial self-fulfillment."

À noite, encontrei este texto "Crowdsourcing fashion".
.
O que quero realçar é algo que Niraj Dawar não se cansou de chamar a atenção em "Tilt: Shifting Your Strategy from Products to Customers".
.
Segundo Vargo e Lusch:

"Importantly, institutions are almost always ignored in traditional approaches to firm strategy. However, it is one of the most crucial determinants of a firm being able to design and reconfigure markets and its future. For customers, the firm needs to know if there are institutions required for a new solution (service) to be successful, and, if there are whether these institutions are in place, and whether any institutions need to be desintitutionalized."

Segundo Niraj Dawar, como referimos em "Para reflexão" quem aposta em alterar as instituições em curso e re-institucionalizar outro modelo, quem re-escreve o mercado, tem uma vantagem tremenda sobre os concorrentes, eles continuam agarrados ao modelo mental anterior, prisioneiros do muros altos que ergueram.

.

Por isso, foi com um sorriso cúmplice que li em "Crowdsourcing fashion":

"Finally there is the issue of how easy it would be to copy this model. To date, existing brands have not.
.
“We benefit a little bit from how old this industry is. A lot of fashion companies are used to working a certain way, and either they’re too wedded to the traditional retail model – they can’t walk away from hundreds and hundreds of stores, that’s too scary – or they just don’t get it. They say, ‘No, we’ve always done business this way, why would we change?’”"