" the primacy of operant resources over operand resources in value co-creation"

Parte I.

"Axiom 3 - All social and economic actors are resource integrators.
As explained, S-D logic argues that all actors provide service (apply resources for other’s benefit) to receive similar service from others (other actors applying their resources) in the process of co-creating value. This means that all actors are both providers and beneficiaries of service and that the activities and characteristics of actors are not fundamentally dichotomous, as implied by the conceptual division of economic actors into producers and consumers.
...
Resources, in S-D logic, are viewed “as anything, tangible or intangible, internal or external, operand or operant, an actor can draw on for increased viability”. The literature regarding resources in S-D logic recognizes that two broad types of resources are being integrated. Operand resources are resources, such as natural resources, that require action taken upon them to be valuable. Operant resources are resources, such as knowledge and skills, are capable of acting on other resources to contribute to value creation. Aligned with many of the resource-based views, S-D logic emphasizes the primacy of operant resources over operand resources in value co-creation. In other words, although operand resources often contribute to the cocreation of value, without the application of operant resources, such as knowledge, skills and competencies, value co-creation does not occur.
...
It is important understand that, in S-D logic, potential resources are realized in the context and through the application of other resources. In other words, resources are not, they become.
...
This means that resources such as knowledge and skills, and the availability of other resources determine the resourceness of potential resources"

Trechos retirados de "Service-Dominant Logic: Foundations and Applications"

"the application of specialized resources for the benefit of other actors" (I)

"Furthermore, understanding exchange as a process also brings forth additional insight about the purpose of exchange. It becomes clear that aim of exchange is not to move around products or other exchange objects, but to share applied knowledge and skills with other actors to support what they are trying to accomplish. In other words, the purpose of exchange is to enable reciprocal value creation. As this is possible only through collaboration and exchange with a large number of actors, S-D logic calls this process value co-creation and the collectives, among which value cocreation occurs, service ecosystems.
...
in S-D logic the purpose of exchange is value co-creation, which is facilitated through the exchange of service, that is, the application of specialized resources for the benefit of other actors (and themselves), rather than goods, which are only occasionally used in the transmission of this service. This shift in how exchange is understood also implies a radical change in the meaning of value. G-D logic views value as something determined and produced by the producer that can be embedded in goods and defined in terms of its “exchange value”. Alternatively, Vargo and Lusch (2004) proposed that value is actually determined by the beneficiary on the basis of the “value in use” that results from the beneficial application of the resources (e.g. knowledge and skills) exchanged...
S-D logic also implies that the beneficiary is always an active participant in its own value creation process – that is, a co-creator of value. In other words, for value to be perceived by the beneficiary and, thus, value creation to occur, the beneficiary’s (e.g. customer) operant resources must also be integrated."

Trechos retirados de "Service-Dominant Logic: Foundations and Applications"

Think “outcome before output”

The first time I used the expression on my blog:

Think “input before output”

It was in October 2017 in "it took a holistic approach towards how to play". Since then I have used it here dozens and dozens of times, for example in:

• Privileging inputs over outputs (partt XII) (a serie of 12 blogposts in Portuguese)
• Focus from output to input (in Portuguese)

This week I started to think that the expression is not the best for what I intend to convey. In this blogpost, "Beyond product versus service", I put these two definitions of ISO 9000: 2015:

• Product - output of an organization that can be produced without any transaction taking place between the organization and the customer
• Service - output of an organization with at least one activity necessarily performed between the organization and the customer

When an organization focuses on its output, it thinks about product. You do not need interactions:

At the limit, the organization vomits as much as possible, wants to increase the pace at which produces in order to lower unit costs and be more competitive.

What do I mean by focusing on input?

Assume that what is the output of the organization is actually the customer's input. Something that the client will use to process in his life, in his own way.

However, now I realize that there is another word and another position for what I want to communicate ...

Think “outcome before output”

When thinking about the client's outcome there must be interaction with the client. Customers are all different and look for and value different things. Only by interacting with them is it possible to understand what each one values. Outcome is not a physical result, it is not a noun. Outcome is not the bottle and the wine that you drank, the outcome is the party is the good mood between friends.

Of course, if we are in a B2B relationship, our client, in addition to his outcome, will also have his output:

And if it is a B2B relationship, the organization should also consider their client's client and their outcomes:

And here we start to get into another classic theme of my blog: ecosystems. In an ecosystem, the objective is no longer to maximize value for the customer, but to maximize value for the ecosystem. Therefore, we can reach an ecosystem in which the customer is a prisoner of the relationship that the organization has developed with the customer's customer:

And I return to a blogpost from March 2007 (in Portuguese)

As relações como a plataforma mais importante

"By the early 1990s, IBM was losing billions every year, running out of cash and close to bankruptcy.
...
Why was IBM able to survive while so many other IT companies didn’t make it?  I’ve thought a lot about this question.  In my opinion, IBM’s survival was made possible by three major factors: talent and R&D investments; trustful relationships; and wise leadership.
...
Trustful relationships.  Another critical survival factor are the trustful collaborations with clients, business partners, research communities, and other stakeholders that take years to build.[Moi ici: O papel de um ecossistema]
...
“From the beginning, as a maker of complex machines IBM had no choice but to explain its products to its customers and thus to develop a strong understanding of their business requirements.  From that followed close relationships between customers and supplier.  Over time these relationships became IBM’s most important platform - and the main reason for its longevity.”
...
Wise leadership.  In April of 1993 Lou Gerstner became IBM Chairman and CEO, the first outsider appointed to the position.  This was, in my opinion, the third major factor in IBM’s survival.
...
He imbued the IBM workforce with a strong sense of urgency, prodding it to address the serious problems the company faced.  He surrounded himself with executives who knew the company well and understood what needed to be done.
...
Early in his tenure he was faced with a few critical decisions.  IBM’s previous leadership had been working on a plan to break up the company into a loose federation of thirteen so-called baby blues.  But, after talking to a number of IBM’s key customer, Gerstner reversed the decision. Customers told him that IBM was much more valuable as an integrated company that could help them solve complex problems and build industry solutions than as a provider of piece parts or components."

Trechos retirados de "Getting Through Highly Uncertain Times - Some Lessons Learned"

Think “outcome before output”

A primeira vez que usei aqui no blog a expressão:

Think “input before output”

Foi em Outubro de 2017 em "it took a holistic approach towards how to play". Desde então usei-a aqui dezenas e dezenas de vezes como, por exemplo em:

• Privilegiar os inputs sobre os outputs (parte XII) (uma série de 12 postais)
• Foco do output para o input

Esta semana comecei a pensar que a expressão não é a melhor para o que pretendo transmitir. Há tempos, neste postal, "Beyond product versus service", coloquei estas duas definições da ISO 9000:2015:

• Product - output of an organization that can be produced without any transaction taking place between the organization and the customer
• Service - output of an organization with at least one activity necessarily performed between the organization and the customer

Quando uma organização se concentra no seu output, pensa em produto. Não precisa de interacções:

No limite podemos dizer que vomita o mais possível, quer aumentar o ritmo a que produz por forma a baixar custos unitários e ser mais competitiva.

O que querodizer com focar no input?

Partir do princípio que aquilo que é o output da organização é na verdade o input do cliente. Algo que o cliente vai usar para processar na sua vida, à sua maneira.

No entanto, agora percebo que há outra palavra e outra posição para o que quero comunicar...

Think “outcome before output”

Ao pensar em outcome do cliente tem de haver interacção com o cliente. Os clientes são todos diferentes e procuram e valorizam coisas diferentes. Só interagindo com eles é que é possível perceber o que é que cada um valoriza. Outcome não é um resultado físico, não é um substantivo. Outcome não é a garrafa e ovino que se bebeu, outcome é a festa é a boa disposição entre amigos.

Claro que se estivermos numa relação B2B o nosso cliente além do seu outcome também terá o seu output:

E se é uma relação B2B a nossa organização também deverá considerar o cliente do nosso cliente e os seus outcomes:

E aqui começamos a entrar num outra tema clássico deste blogue: os ecossistemas.

Num ecossistema o objectivo não é mais maximizar o valor para o cliente, mas maximizar o valor para o ecossistema. Por isso, podemos chegar a um ecossistema em que o cliente é prisioneiro da relação que a organização desenvolveu com o cliente do cliente:

E volto a Março de 2007.

The Rules of the Passion Economy (parte II)

Parte I.

Ainda do capítulo 2 “The Rules of the Passion Economy", retirado de "The Passion Economy: The New Rules for Thriving in the Twenty-First Century".

A segunda regra parece tirada de tantos postais escritos neste blogue desde 2006: 

"RULE #2: ONLY CREATE VALUE THAT CAN’T BE EASILY COPIED.
...
you should be careful not to produce value — create a thing that people want—at scale. [Moi ici: Recordar os "sábios" da Junqueira. BTW, da próxima vez que ouvirem Vítor Bento na TV lembrem-se do que ele disse e da suckiness dos gigantes] Creating value at a large volume is something only huge companies can do profitably. ... Your value should be created slowly and carefully. Absorbing the significance of this point can be hard. Only focusing your attention on those things that reach a relatively small and strongly opinionated customer base, things that are hard to do, will be worth your while. [Moi ici: Recordar as tribos assimétricas de Taleb]
...
in the current economy, you want to do the opposite of what in the past has usually been considered good business sense. The moment one of your products or services takes off and becomes widely copied, you should begin abandoning it and looking for the next thing.
The more stuff you make or the more clients you take on, the harder it is to maintain excellence and to adapt your products and services in a way that both you and your customers want. Leave scale for the mass market. The Passion Economy is about quality and the conversation you have with your clients." [Moi ici: Recordar a co-criação] 

Acerca da co-criação (valor, actores, plataforma)

"A joint process during which value is reciprocally created for each actor (individuals, organizations, or networks). These actors engage in the process by interacting and exchanging their resources with one another. The interactions occur on an engagement interface where each actor share its own resources, integrates the resources provided by others, and potentially develops new resources through a learning process.[Moi ici: Por exemplo, um workshop de costura numa loja de lãs. A animadora fornece know-how, os participantes testam os novos conhecimentos sob a supervisão da animadora, os participantes adquirem a capacidade de desenvolver novas peças, de utilizar novos materiais e de evitar erros no seu trabalho, melhorando o seu desempenho no seu universo pessoal/profissional]
This definition conceptualizes value cocreation as a process in which actors exchange resources and jointly create value. The resource exchange requires them to perform two roles: provider and beneficiary. Providers offer their resources to others; beneficiaries integrate these external resources and create value through their consumption. During the value cocreation process, each actor performs both roles in turn, so value is reciprocally created. To enable and facilitate resource exchanges, actors interact. These interactions are located centrally on an engagement interface, [Moi ici: A loja de lãs fornece uma plataforma para interacção. Também ela tem a ganhar com a interacção com a animadora e os participantes. Não só pela promoção e compra dos produtos da loja, como pela promoção nas redes sociais do papel da loja perante outros potenciais clientes e interessados, que de outra forma não descobririam a loja ou não perceberiam o seu contributo para esta tribo] which can be offline (e.g. phone call) or online (e.g. website). Through this process of creating value by sharing and integrating resources, actors potentially develop new skills and engage in learning loops that enrich their engagement in future cocreation activities. Previous literature emphasizes the key roles of actors’ motivations as drivers of the value cocreation process and the consequences that the value cocreation process can generate for each actor (contributors, passive consumers, and companies). It also highlights moderators at three levels, namely, motivations, the process, and consequences."

Com base na minha experiência profissional, no tempo em que havia dinossauros na Terra, (sim, foi há muito tempo) um problema que a empresa onde eu trabalhava sentiu nesta abordagem tinha a ver com os free-riders. Potenciais clientes que solicitavam apoio, mas depois compravam noutro sítio. Algo que a Xiameter me ensinou a evitar.

Trecho retirado de "Ten years of value cocreation: An integrative review" de Thomas Leclercq, Wafa Hammedi e Ingrid Poncin.

"explore the future by doing"

“Co-creating: Crystallizing and Prototyping the New.
.
The aim of co-creating is to build landing strips for the future through prototypes that allow us to explore the future by doing.
.
The prototypes evolve based on the feedback they generate. The “observe, observe, observe” of the co-sensing phase becomes “iterate, iterate, iterate.” This movement is inspired by design thinking and blended with presencing principles to make it relevant to profound shifts in social fields.
...
Outcomes of Co-creating
2. A set of connections with stakeholders and partners that are relevant for taking the prototype to pilot and scale
3. Enhanced leadership and innovation capacities for dealing with disruptive innovation
4. A team spirit that could help change the leadership culture in the company
5. Creative confidence among the team members to take on big and complex projects"
A prototype is a microcosm of the future that you want to create. Prototyping means to present your idea (or work in progress) before it is fully developed. The purpose of prototyping is to generate feedback from all stakeholders about how it looks, how it feels, how it matches (or does not match) people’s needs and aspirations, and then to refine the assumptions about the guiding project. The focus is on exploring the future by doing rather than by analyzing. As the folks at IDEO have put it, the rationale for prototyping is “to fail often to succeed sooner” or to “fail early to learn quickly.”
A prototype is not a plan. It is something you do that generates feedback. But a prototype is also not a pilot. A pilot has to be a success; by contrast, a prototype may fail, but it focuses on maximizing learning.”

1. A set of refined prototypes—living microcosms of the future—that have generated meaningful feedback regarding the guiding questions and objectives of the lab

Trechos retirados de "The Essentials of Theory U: Core Principles and Applications" de Otto Scharmer.

Uma transformação

"Two decades ago, we sought knowledge by laboriously searching in bulky paper-based encyclopedias or dusty journals in libraries; today we have knowledge on-line at our fingertips at the tap of an app.
.
Two decades ago, a car was a metal machine with a couple of electric controls: today, a car is a multifunctional entertainment center on wheels, with which we can even hold conversations.
.
Two decades ago, a telephone was a mechanical contraption attached by wire to a physical system: now, a telephone is a handheld multifunction device that connects us to the world and serves an infinite array of complex purposes.
.
Two decades ago, an office was a physical building that contained people and machines: now, an office is a software network with people scattered around the planet interacting with it."

E em que medida é que as ofertas da sua empresa se transformaram? Em que medida deixaram de vender substantivos e passaram a vender resultados na vida dos clientes?


Trecho retirado de "How Software Developers Sparked Management Transformation"

Nichos, co-criação e intimidade à escala

"Dalton, Ohio is an unlikely place to find fresh insight into how to thrive in a chaotic 21st-century economy.[Moi ici: Pensem no século XXI, na internet, em toda a parfernália tecnológica e, depois, pensem numa empresa de gente Amish que cumpre os preceitos Amish, que não pode ter electricidade da rede ligada ao negócio, que não pode usar a internet, ... como prosperam?]
...
A company like Pioneer could not have been nearly as successful in a previous era. It is, in its own way, thoroughly modern and embodies what I call the “passion economy”
...
The tools of modern commerce—easy access to sophisticated shipping and logistics, the ability to reach and connect with customers all over the globe—are now available even to the most technologically unsophisticated businessperson. This allows something new: intimacy at scale, in which companies can create highly specialized products that reach customers thinly spread around the world.[Moi ici: Quando leio estas coisas lembro-me sempre da lição alemã que aprendi em 2010 - ""pursue niche strategies that combine product specialization with geographic diversification", "they concentrate their often limited resources on niche market segments that they can dominate worldwide.", e de Conrado Adolfo e o fim da geografia, apesar de Ghemawat]
.
The Pioneer business model would be hard to pitch to a group of investors. The core addressable market is fewer than 25,000 farmers, with decidedly below-average purchasing power. That market cannot be reached through digital ads, TV or radio. The products themselves are big and bulky and need to be shipped from rural Ohio to remote customers across North America. [Moi ici: Sabe quem são os seus clientes? Sabe o que procuram e valorizam? Sabe quais são as suas ansiedades e sonhos? Sabe quais são os seus medos e dores? Sabe o que é sucesso para eles?]
...
Amish farmers are increasingly shifting from bulk commodity grains to higher-value produce, which means they need entirely different kinds of gear. [Moi ici: Interessante esta nota acerca da fuga à comoditização por parte de uma comunidade que não pode usar tecnologia moderna e tudo o que apoia o eficientismo da quantidade] Many Amish are moving north, leaving their historic districts in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana for relatively cheap farmland in the deindustrializing Rust Belt and the prairie out west. This means they are farming colder, rockier ground and need plows that are stronger and more pliable.
...
In today’s economy, the narrowness and complexity of Pioneer’s market is actually a strength. While 25,000 farmers aren’t enough to attract the full attention of the big players like John Deere, Kubota and Caterpillar, they are more than enough to support Pioneer and several other Amish farm equipment makers, all of which are growing healthily.
...
Companies like Pioneer will not replace large firms, which are getting bigger and more dominant in the American economy.
...
But companies like Pioneer offer an alternative path. By focusing obsessively and passionately on an audience that they know uniquely well, and by embracing the tools that will help them serve that audience while rejecting those that won’t, such small businesses are able to thrive in the 21st-century economy."

Quando em "Acerca da rapidez (parte II)" rematamos no final "Talvez os nichos sejam o futuro, talvez a co-criação seja o futuro." estamos a sugerir o mesmo caminho referido no último trecho sublinhado. Focar um nicho e servir esse nicho como ninguém"

Trechos retirados de "An Amish Lesson for Small Business Success"

"a resource not as a substance or thing, but rather as an abstraction"

"although operand resources often contribute to the cocreation of value, without the application of operant resources, such as knowledge, skills, and competences, value cocreation does not occur.
.
An important part of the service-centered view is to understand that the nature of resources is contextual. In other words, resources are not, they become. This means that actors’ knowledge and skills—that is, other resources—determine the resourceness of resources.
.
Consider, for example, fire: The resourceness of fire only became available for humans once the knowledge and skills needed to control and apply fire for specific purposes were developed. Hence, potential resources become resources when appraised and acted on through integration with other potential resources.
...
“Value is cocreated by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary”) and the nature of value outcomes and their determination (Axiom 4, “Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary”)."

Li isto e fiz logo a ponte para a importância da formação dos comerciais sobre como comunicar, ou sobre como fazer emergir a "resourceness" na vida dos clientes.

"a resource not as a substance or thing, but rather as an abstraction that describes the function that a substance or idea contributes to achieve a desired end. Hence, to integrate resources, resource-integrating actors must first be able to recognize the resourceness of the potential resources available to him/her. Therefore, the process of affording potential resources their resourceness becomes a prerequisite for resource integration and value cocreation. For this reason, a deeper understanding of  resources is critical for the further development of SD logic and its service ecosystems perspective.
...
resourceness is not an intrinsic characteristic of a resource, but is a socially constructed and institutionalized phenomenon"

Trechos retirados da tese de doutoramento "The evolution of markets – A service ecosystems perspective" de Kaisa Koskela-Huotari.

"Your brand is not what you say you are"

"One of the most persistent myths of marketing and sales is that we can tell our customers our stories and, through this telling, we can change their minds. Yeah, right.
.
If you’re telling your story to a customer, it is likely that the customer isn’t actually listening. They’re probably doing something else, or thinking about something else. Of course, storytelling is a wonderful thing. We all love to hear a good story, told well. However, most of the most powerful stories in our lives weren’t told to us. We co-created them with other people.
...
We can’t tell a customer a story about why they should love us. But we can co-create a shared story with our customers. We can have conversations with customers that help them form beliefs about why they value us, and why they want to commit to our relationship.
...
Your brand is not what you say you are, it’s what your customers believe you are. A conversation is the perfect setting for your customers to form clear, compelling and motivating beliefs about you. Stop telling your brand story to your customers and start co-creating stories through conversation."

Trechos retirados de "The Brand Story Conversation – Yastrow & Company"

Relações, sofisticação e co-criação

Encontrei uma pequena pérola, mais uma, ao ler  "Prime movers" de Rafel Martinez e Johan Wallin.

"Customer contacts are thus the R&D of the co-productive economy. Finding out which are one's most sophisticated customers - the ones one can learn most with - is thus a crucial piece of information."

Essencial para subir na escala de valor, essencial para crescer nos eixos dos conteúdos de serviço e humano.

Quem são os clientes mais sofisticados que a sua empresa tem? Esse grupo é o que se sente underserved:

Como não recordar e confrontar com:

 Que rebati com:

Quem não aposta no "cheaper" e no "cost", aposta na interacção, aposta na co-criação, aposta noutro mindset... eu diria, "Every visit customers have to make are an opportunity for interaction and co-creation"

Ou usando a terminologia da fricção:

"It is a mistake to try to reduce friction when it is positive, just as it is a mistake not to remove it when it is negative." 

Cuidado com a eficiência.

O estilhaçar do século XX

Continua a minha leitura de "Prime movers" de Rafel Martinez e Johan Wallin.

Segundo os autores, quando pensamos na abordagem da criação de valor devemos olhar para a oferta como o resultado de de três conteúdos:

O potencial de criação de valor ao longo de cada uma das dimensões da oferta dependerá do sistema de criação de calor de cada cliente.

Assumir isto e querer fazer parte do processo de criação de valor do cliente, apostando na co-criação de valor, requer o aumento da granularidade ou resolução, para permitir a diferenciação requerida por cada cliente.

Reparem só nesta linguagem usada:

"Enhanced 'granularity' or 'resolution' was not present in the traditional, 'industrial' logic. There, supply and demand factors were considered at a fairly aggregated level, (generic) products and (mass) markets. For example, car manufacturers didn't think of their customers as individuals, but viewed them as a mass of buyers (markets or market segments) who bought the same product.
.
As the potential for interactivity between the firm and its environment increases, being able to specify the contribution of each individual party participating in value co-production is of great help. Instead of throwing products at undifferentiated market 'sinks', in co-productive situations, companies must decide which of their firm-specific capabilities to deploy for each specific customer."

Leio isto e recordo a suckiness dos gigantes.
Leio e isto e recordo o plankton tão querido às Heinz e às Procter & Gamble deste mundo.
Leio isto e recordo Seth Godin:

"The defining idea of the twentieth century, more than any other, was mass.
.
Mass gave us efficiency and productivity, making us (some people) rich. Mass gave us huge nations, giving us (some people) power. Mass allowed powerful people to influence millions, giving us (some people) control.
.
And now mass is dying."

Voltando a Ramirez e Wallin:

"Customers have different priorities in their value creation, and offerings targeted at them reflect these. The characteristics of the offerings can include low-risk solutions; low-cost solutions; broad relationship-based offerings, co-produced with a distributor or not; co-learning initiatives; facility of integration into customer systems; and so on. As customers' value creation conditions evolve, the offerings — and thus the capabilities brought in to make them possible, must be altered.
...
The more the types of 'fit', the more granularity or resolution is required, also with respect to capabilities. From a customer's point of view, a value constellation has an architecture designed around each individual customer, with manysuppliers targeting this customer with different offerings. The logic is the same: offering architecture will be judged in terms of 'fit' with customer value creation."

Aquele, "The more the types of 'fit', the more granularity or resolution is required, also with respect to capabilities", é poderoso. A explosão de tribos e a progressiva incapacidade dos gigantes para se adaptarem ao estilhaçar do mundo da massa. Mongo! Terra de artesãos.

Já cheguei a pensar que Mongo seria de artesãos e suas cooperativas. Talvez um dia, para já ainda é cedo. Antes dessa fase teremos empresas mais pequenas, pelos padrões do século XX,  focalizadas em nichos. Só que com o fim mitigado da geografia, esses nichos têm alguma dimensão.

Acerca da co-criação de valor

"In co-productive terms, value is manifested thanks to the 'enabling' which the supplier brings to the customer's own value creating activity. By 'enabling' we mean 'supporting', or 'making possible'.[Moi ici: Tudo a ver com o uso da oferta como um input a ser processado pelo cliente na sua vida. A mesma oferta é processada por diferentes tipos de clientes de diferentes maneiras e, por isso, terá valores diferentes para cada tipo de clientes. Se a mesma oferta está disponível no mesmo local para todos os tipos de clientes, alguns vão considerar a oferta como demasiado cara, ou como suspeitosamente barata. Admitindo que possa fazer sentido trabalhar para mais do que um tipo de cliente, talvez faça sentido usar marcas diferentes, ainda que o 'hardware' seja o mesmo, para enviar diferentes mensagens e sinais para diferentes tipos de clientes]
...
Rather than being objective or subjective, interactive value is in fact, `actual'. It is 'actual' in the sense that it requires action on the part of both the customer, and his or her customers, and the supplier for the value to become (actually) possible. Once the actions take place, they become facts. Actual value is thus dependent on 'action' and interaction, which upon taking place 'actually', becomes 'factual'. With this understanding of customer valuation, the notion of 'end customer' — a customer at the end of a value chain that passively receives the value produced by the supplier — has lost its significance. [Moi ici: Isto não invalida que certos tipos de clientes não saibam, ou não precisem, ou não queiram criar mais valor com uma oferta. Porque a noção de valor não é a do produtor, mas a daquele que vai operar a oferta com um fim em vista. Como comprar azeite virgem extra de marca de nicho, para depois só o usar para fazer refogados] Somebody buys an offering, seeking to co-create value with others, for themself, for the other, and/or for third parties. We buy in order to create value, with others or in relationship to them. And we seek value-creating opportunities, which guide much of our buying. Understanding these value-creating opportunities for one's customers becomes the true challenge for any seller. [Moi ici: O vendedor pode fazer o papel de consultor, de formador do cliente, ajudando-o a perceber como uma determinada oferta pode fazer mais sentido e ser mais útil para a criação de valor percebido realmente como tal] The interface between one's customers and their own different customers, establishes the value that one's customers are seeking to produce. It is the supplier's role of actually helping customers to create value (with their counterparts) that convinces a customer to buy from that supplier. [Moi ici: A importância de ir para além da relação diádica e perceber o ecossistema do negócio]
...
The connotations that a given interaction holds for us, how we value it, are subjected to the particulars of the situation in which the interaction takes place. ... Offerings are thus valued 'contingently', that is, depending on which they are connected.
...
The offering consequently is not something that exists, independently, in itself. It both resulted from and contributes to a bundle of activities that enable the buyer to perform his or her activities in a different way than if the offering had not been bought. It is the outcome of these intended activities that creates some form of satisfaction for the buyer.
...
Facilitating customer value creation is, within the co-productive point of view, the raison d'être for a firm. This perspective shifts the focus of strategic attention from actor or 'activity' to interaction."
...
What competes is the offering, not the actor. Offerings are the output produced by one (or several) actor(s) creating value — the `producer' or 'supplier' — that becomes an input to another actor (or actors) creating value — the 'customer'....Offerings are thus both outputs and inputs. Acknowledging and incorporating the specific individual requirements of each customer implies that customers cannot be simply treated en masse as anonymous, 'average', de-personalized 'product markets'. Customer requirements can be better understood by knowing how each customer is producing value for themself and in turn, for their customers. A company's offering have value to the degree that customers can use them as inputs to leverage their own value creation with their own counterparts."

TRechos retirados de "Prime Movers" de Rafael Ramirez e Johan Wallin. 

Vendas, custos e riscos

Um trecho interessante para os empresários pensarem:

"Clients pay for two things in the main, either increasing revenue or reducing costs. [Moi ici: Faz logo lembrar "The Three Rules", mas o ponto que quero sublinhar é o que vem a seguir] But they will also pay, in a very direct way, for trust and for the perception of reduced risk. One of the things that allows you to increase your rates over time is think of it that there is a tremendous fear in every client’s mind, when they get into a new technology project (or any kind of project really), that the project is just going to totally blow up and they will get no value out of it. So they discount the rate that they are paying to you, the maximum rate they think they can afford to pay you, by the chance of the project totally blowing up."[Moi ici: Faz logo lembrar a frase "no one was ever fired for buying ibm"]

A ideia do risco tem duas vertentes:

• Ajuda os que estão estabelecidos e têm uma reputação no mercado
• Prejudica os novos que querem entrar num mercado: os estudos todos dizem que o produto é melhor, mas ... são estudos, não a vida real. E se corre mal? Recordar:

Recomendo a audição ou a leitura da fonte do trecho lá de cima "Ramit Sethi and Patrick McKenzie On Why Your Customers Would Be Happier If You Charged More" (muito me ri ao ouvir o podcast enquanto conduzia debaixo de chuva à noite). Por exemplo:

"“How do I download the Googles to my printer?”
Ramit:  What? That’s a reasonable ‑‑ [laughs] to your printer?
.
Patrick:  Yeah.
.
Ramit:  [laughs] You had me until you said printer. OK, that is ridiculous.
.
Patrick:  My users occupy a place of love in my heart. So I say this from a position of love, and not to make fun of anyone, but rather to tell you that real people really think like this: I’ve had to convince people that there are not two physically distinct Internets entitled “the blue Googles” and the “the green Googles.”  This means they can use their login on my website regardless of whether they’re on the blue Googles or the green Googles.  Believe it or not, any site that you can reach from the blue Googles is available on the green Googles as well.
.
(Wondering how someone would come to this misconception?  A particular customer used the Internet using IE opening to MSN at school and IE opening to Google at home.  They did not realize that Microsoft and Google were not the same company.  They interpreted this as “the blue Googles” and the “green Googles”, because the Googles is the Internet to them.  When they typed stuff into the two different boxes on the two different Googles, different results came out.  Their natural inclination for, “Why does this strange, devil box work in different ways?” was, “Oh, they must be two different devil boxes.”)"

 À parte as piadas o artigo deixa várias provocações relacionadas com a parte do título "Your Customers Would Be Happier If You Charged More"

"making the management of actor engagement a strategic priority"

Os arquitectos de paisagens competitivas, os engenheiros de ecossistemas serão uma função cada vez mais importante.

Recordar:

• Arquitectos de paisagens competitivas
• A importância crescente dos ecossistemas.

"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.
...
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."

Trechos retirados de "Actor engagement, value creation and market innovation" de Kaj Storbacka, publicado por Industrial Marketing Management 80 (2019) 4–10.

Acerca do valor

Excelente artigo sobre princípios associados ao conceito de valor, "What Does It Means to Create Value Now":

"First Principles.
Value is in the eyes of the beholder—or the recipient, for our purposes here. You have the right to develop a theory as to what should be valuable for another person, but they possess the right to determine their worth. Because perceptions about value vary, you may have to explain why your dream client should perceive the value in the way you view it.
.
The person receiving the value needs to be better off in some way having received it. If the person is no better off having received the attempted value creation, it is not value.
.
Value exists on a continuum. Some things are more valuable than others. My view of this continuum of value in sales is 1: Product Value, 2: Experience Value, 3: Tangible results, and 4: Strategic Value.
.
Value has a contextual component, meaning something that might have been valuable in the past may not be helpful in the future. Something that would be valuable in one circumstance might be less useful when the conditions are different.
.
Value creation tends to degrade over time; it has a half-life. The value you created in the past is not likely to be as valuable to your clients as the value you create now.
.
Value creation may also build on prior value. It is possible to create an upward spiral of higher value over time. [Moi ici: A base para a subida na escala de valor, a base para os macacos que não voam, mas trepam às árvores]
.
The greater the value you create, the more relevant you will be to your clients and your dream clients. An inability to create value will make you irrelevant. [Moi ici: O paradoxo do foco num nicho]
.
Value creation is found in your understanding. It is as much in your learning as it is your teaching. While it is important you help your clients discover something about themselves, it’s equally (or more) important that you allow them to educate you if you want to create a preference."

Uma ressalva: as empresas não criam valor, as empresas criam ou co-criam valor potencial. Só quando o cliente experiencia valor na sua vida é que ele se materializa.

Relacionar com "Richard von Strigl on Subjective Value":

"The economic value of a good can only be understood as a "subjective value", that is to say, it is always related to and depends upon the effective ends of a determinate economic agent (even though the agent may, of course, take into account the interests of several individuals when setting his ends, as is, for example, the case of a family father)."

Uma lição sobre co-criação, ...

Em 2010 escrevemos "Mais uma sugestão de modelo de negócio" com base numa ideia tida pela primeira vez junto à barragem de Bemposta, enquanto ouvia na rádio as notícias sobre níveis de radioactividade elevados nos países escandinavos (depois descobrir-se-ia Chernobyl, Abril de 1986 portanto).

Em 2014 acrescentamos "O essencial é co-criar à medida de cada um, a sua experiência".

Agora, leio "Flyfishing and kayaking trips help L.L. Bean, Orvis sell more gear and attract more customers". Uma lição sobre co-criação, sobre parcerias, sobre desenvolvimento de experiências:

"It's all there when you arrive. The fishing gear, the boat, the waders, the guide that knows that one secret spot where the trout are sure to bite along the Madison River in Montana's Ruby Valley.
.
Orvis outdoor apparel and gear company has taken care of all of it — for $3,275. All you have to do is focus on the rhythm of your cast and the cool, clear water moseying by.
.
This is the vacation experience outdoor retailers and apparel companies are gunning for as they expand beyond merchandise into planning adventure trips and outdoor activity schools.
...
Education has long been a strategy for finding new customers for outdoor brands, which have offered low cost or even free programs for decades. The majority of vacationers either do no or very few outdoor activities in a given year on their trips, according to a 2018 study by market research company Mintel. Just 16% of people who went on a vacation in the past year did four or more outdoor activities on their trip and just 23% said they purchased equipment for a vacation.
...
By teaching people how to do new activities, the apparel and gear companies are expanding their customer pool.
.
"We start from a base of we want people to be interested and learn skills and learn those activities. Of course, once they do those activities, they fall in love with those activities, they become lifelong outdoors people, and then of course they start buying stuff," Smith said. "But it really starts from a pure place of wanting people to get outside and learn those skills and activities."

Democratização da produção (Parte IV)

Parte I, Parte II e Parte III.

Recordar "Quanto tempo?"

"Just as electrification did more than simply change the power source, leading companies to revamp their factory layouts, additive manufacturing will do more than increase flexibility and simplify assembly lines. It will allow for the overhaul of the industrial geography.
.
Because additive manufacturing doesn’t depend on economies of scale, as conventional manufacturing does, factories can be much smaller. [Moi ici: O que dizemos aqui há anos!] They can focus on local markets rather than global demand — and then take this production to a new level of customer responsiveness.
...
“Today, Jabil has over 100 factories throughout the world,” he said in an interview. “Ten years from now, we might have 1,000 factories — or 5,000 factories — all smaller, and each closer to where our end markets are and where people buy products. This would allow us to make products fully on demand, which is ultimately the most compelling aspect of 3D printing’s value proposition.
...
Instead of drawing from global supply chains, the local factories that Dulchinos envisions will make most of their parts in-house. They will also need fewer parts and less assembly, though they will always need feeder materials. Thus, 3D printers integrated with software platforms promise to make countries more self-reliant in manufacturing. Companies will depend less on the flow of goods across continents, which would limit the damage from trade disputes. And they will do all of this while better giving customers what they want, on demand.
.
Thanks to the versatility of later-stage Industry 4.0 production systems, these local factories will likely also make products across multiple industries. [Moi ici: Uma espécie de cooperativas ou makerspaces]
...
Each local factory will therefore serve customers across many product categories and beat its focused, single-industry rivals. This “pan-industrial” approach would give an already diversified company such as Jabil a major competitive advantage over focused rivals. If this progression continues, at some point in the not-too-distant future a typical retail store will consist of a showroom in front and a factory — managed by Jabil or others — in back. The store clerks would be like industrial consultants, conferring with customers and making products to order for them on the spot." [Moi ici: Proximidade para assegurar co-criação]

Trechos retirados de "Jabil’s manufacturing leap".