Recordar:
"Recently the discourse has developed along four trajectories. First, building on the idea of generic actors, research is increasingly focusing on actor engagement rather than customer engagement. Second, ideas related to collective or multi-actor engagement in networks illustrates how actors are connected and how these connections drive engagement behaviours. Third, informed by the realization that value creation happens in a systemic context, literature is making attempts to be liberated from a dyadic view, thus recognizing how institutional contexts influence actor engagement.Trechos retirados de "Actor engagement, value creation and market innovation" de Kaj Storbacka, publicado por Industrial Marketing Management 80 (2019) 4–10.
...
Building on this we also argue that, to be free from the restriction of dyadic thinking, engagement needs to be de-coupled from the exchange of property rights. The paper then proceeds by explicating the role of actor engagement as a driver of value creation, which suggests an elevation of actor engagement as a managerial priority.
...
the previously strict roles of producer vs. consumer, or seller vs. buyer are fleeting, as actors can have different roles. An actor-to-actor perspective effectively renders clearly specified and static actor roles useless. All actors have comparable processes of engagement and what is needed is a generic view of actor engagement.
...
“actors need to be viewed not only as humans, but also as machines/technologies, or collections of humans and machines/technologies, including organizations”
...
need to also understand collective engagement of multiple (individual) actors. The argument is that focusing only on engagement by individual actors may lead to ignorance about aspects that arise from the inherent social embeddedness of actors, i.e., actor engagement by one actor affects resource integration processes between the focal actor and other actors in the service ecosystem.
...
However, all actor engagement happens in an institutional context, in which all actions are governed by various competing institutional arrangements. These arrangements are “interrelated sets of institutions that together constitute a relatively coherent assemblage that facilitates coordination of activity”
...
we posit that the dramatic shifts that we see in the operating environment are elevating the role of actor engagement, making the management of actor engagement a strategic priority.
...
it is not the attributes of resources that make them valuable, but the linkages between them.
...
means that firm size is less important and firms' ability to collaborate more important, and that firms require a systemic view to be able to grasp opportunities for actor engagement with the aim to orchestrate resources in the market system for multiactor value creation.
...
Value creation is related to resource integration, which resonates with Normann (2001), who argues that greater density of resources corresponds to more value. Density expresses the degree to which resources are accessible for integration in a specific actor, time, situation and space combination.
...
Density relates not only to physical resources but also to the density of various forms of socio- cultural resources such as meanings, designs and/or symbols. Consequently, resource density can be improved both by exchange-based and non-exchange-based resource contributions.
...
the ‘economics of connections’, i.e., increased returns through amplified density of interactions between business, people and things. As the density of connections grows, it increases the density of available resources and, thus, make increased returns possible.
...
we suggest that without actor engagement (i.e., resource contributions), no resource integration happens, and no value can be created. From a managerial point of view, this indicates that it is not the connections that increase the returns for a focal actor - it is the ability to mobilize actors in the market system to engage in resource contributions that, combined with other resources, improve resource density and value creation. This creates a clear link between actor engagement and increased returns – firm that have such abilities may enjoy ‘economies of actor engagement’. As we describe later in this paper, this suggests that firms should focus on a new set of capabilities: actor engagement management. To build these capabilities firms can likely build on existing processes and practices developed in connections to the management of customer relationships, supplier relationships and stakeholder relationships.
...
Recent research in strategic management and entrepreneurship suggests that markets should not be viewed as a given and deterministic context, exogenous to the firm. Firms are increasingly conceptualized as active creators of market opportunities, suggesting that markets are not precursors, but rather outcomes of strategy. Firms that have engagement management capabilities can engage in market-shaping activities to generate market innovations that improve the value creation of the market.
...
Managerially this means that to identify opportunities for marketshaping, focal market-shaping actors need abilities to comprehend a larger system of actors, to understand how new resource linkages can be created within this system, to recognize the institutional arrangements that govern all actors, and to mobilize actors for exchange-based and non-exchange-based resource contributions – thus making actor engagement central to market-shaping.
...
research is progressively seeing markets as networks, systems, or ecosystems...
Market systems do not obey simple laws of cause and effect, and they have no center and no central control mechanism. They do, however, evolve from a combination of deliberately designed influence, and random emergence resulting from combinations of various actors' engagement patterns. This indicates a need to understand how market change happens in a balance between deliberate design efforts (and related engagement) by various market actors, and spontaneous emergent developments occurring because of the amalgamation of all actors' engagement.
...
Understanding markets as systems that do not obey simple laws of cause and effect and that have no center and no central control mechanism, and which consist of generic actors that, governed by institutional arrangements, both contribute resources and create value by integrating their resources with the resources of other market actors, questions many of the traditionally dyadic and linear models of management. Instead of assumptions of control of resources and processes, management increasingly need to ‘let go’ and find new ways to manage the engagement of various intra- and inter-organizational actors."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário