O poder da interacção directa

Continuando a minha leitura de Christian Grönroos e Johanna Gummerus em "The service revolution and its marketing implications: Service logic vs service-dominant logic".
.
Penso primeiro nos que sonham com a automatização das relações com os clientes, penso nos encadeados pelos faróis do eficientismo e que, por isso, passam ao lado da vantagem competitiva da interacção.

"The firm is not restricted to offering value propositions ...Service marketing knowledge, concepts and models reflect the foundational premise that service providers are not restricted to offering value propositions; instead, the marketing context of service firms, unlike that for consumer goods, is characterised by interactivity, reciprocity and two-way influences in the service process. The value for the customer of the service being provided in this process thus depends on how the service provider and customer, through their behaviour and communication, influence each other. The provider clearly influences the service and its value for the customer. In addition, fellow customers who are simultaneously present in the process may exert impacts....providers, together with other parties, may need to act to ensure the realisation of proposed value, which is possible only during the interaction between the firm and the customer....Because the actors’ processes – the firm’s service production process and the customer’s consumption and value creation processes – merge into one collaborative, dialogical process during direct interactions, a platform for co-creation of value for both actors arises. The activities on this platform are interactive, mutual and reciprocal. Both parties can directly and actively influence each other’s processes. Therefore, the value-in-use created for the customer (or the firm or both actors) is influenced by actions that occur on the platform..As a clearer understanding of the nature of direct interactions shows, in services there are ample opportunities for the firm, as a service provider, to go beyond the goods logic-influenced view that the firm can only offer value propositions. The service provider can actively and directly influence customers’ perceptions of the firm and its service, as well as customers’ willingness to continue buying from it. Whatever value the service provider has originally promised, or proposed (using value proposition terminology), may be moderated and altered during the interaction process and thus change the customer’s experiences and determination of value-in-use. The higher the value-in-use, the greater the likelihood that the customer considers buying from the same firm the next time. If the co-creation process has an unfavourable impact on the customer’s experiences and value-in-use, the effect likely will be the opposite."

Interacção e co-criação de valor

Parte I.
.
Continuando a saborear a reflexão de Christian Grönroos e Johanna Gummerus em "The service revolution and its marketing implications: Service logic vs service-dominant logic".

"If co-creation of value is used analytically, rather than in a metaphorical sense, we must ask: what is the role and focus of co-creation, who is involved, and when does value co-creation occur? The key to answering these questions is the interaction concept.
...
Although “enterprises can offer their applied resources for value creation and collaboratively (interactively) create value following acceptance of value propositions, but cannot create/deliver value independently”, the meaning of this assertion gets disguised by the claim that firms and customers are always co-creators of value.
...
Direct interaction means that two (or more) actors act together in one process, in which their doings and sayings influence each other’s actions and perceptions. The two actors’ processes thus merge into one collaborative, dialogical joint process. During this interactive process, every actor involved can directly and actively influence the value-in-use that emerges for the other actor (or actors). This collaborative, dialogical joint process then becomes a platform for reciprocal co-creation of value. What takes place on the interaction platform may influence how value is realised, or value fulfilment, for one or all actors – provided they are prepared to and effectively make use of the value co-creation opportunity.
.
Direct interaction need not be a joint collaborative, dialogical process with two persons though; it also can be a direct interaction between one actor (e.g. customer) and an intelligent non-human resource. For example, interactions with a system that can intelligently register the actions or speech of a person and respond to it form a joint dialogical process together with the person, as well as a platform for value co-creation. Both parties learn and immediately react on the basis of the lessons. Such interactions are also direct interactions. Most non-human resources, such as products and various types of systems, do not possess intelligent properties in this sense. For example, physical products or IT-based systems that respond in a standardised way to user actions do not meet the  criteria of intelligent non-human resources. The customer still interacts with the firm, through the use of products or resources, but the interactions do not provide a value co-creation platform. These indirect interactions with a firm or a service provider involve resources, including non-intelligent products and systems, that the service provider offers to the customer as a source of potential value-in-use. Whether value-in-use is created or emerges by the use of such resources depends on the actions of the customer alone. This value creation can be characterised as a customer’s independent value creation.
...
Only direct interactions enable co-creation between the actors, such as a service provider and a customer, and form a platform for value co-creation. In the total value generation process, the development and provision of products and other resources by a firm, which enable indirect interactions only, are part of the provider sphere, which is closed to the customer (and other actors). Similarly, the resource integration actions of a customer, involving only indirect interactions with the firm, is closed to the firm."

Acerca do valor e da sua criação

Um artigo, "The service revolution and its marketing implications: Service logic vs service-dominant logic", de Christian Grönroos e Johanna Gummerus, muito bem escrito, dá gosto ler.

"we offer five notes on value and value creation. First, both SDL and SL use the expression “value creation”, even though value is not always, and perhaps is even infrequently, instrumentally created. Value can just emerge from a resource integration process; as suggested by the customer-dominant logic, such emergence even could be the normal case. In the SL and for this paper, the expression “value creation” refers to this phenomenon, without any assumptions about whether value-in-use emerges or is instrumentally created. Second, use – not context, experience or interaction – is the key qualifier of the value-in-use notion, so SL adopts the term value-in-use, without disguising this key qualifier. Naturally, value-in-use depends on, for example, the social and physical context in which usage takes place. If the context changes, so should the level of value-in-use. Third, value-in-use does not exist at a singular point in time, as value-in-exchange does, but rather evolves over time in a cumulative process during usage. This cumulative process may include destructive phases, in which value accumulation takes negative turns. Then value can be both positively created and destroyed. Fourth, use can take many forms, not just as a matter of physical use. For example, mental use occurs when a person dreams about a holiday trip in the near future or remembers the trip while looking at pictures afterward. Use also might be mere possession, such as when a person feels content knowing he or she owns a luxury car or a famous painting. Fifth, value for the customer and value for the firm are two sides of the same coin, so firms and customers reciprocally influence each other’s value creation. Not only does the firm function as a service provider, but the customer may provide the firm with actionable information about how to develop its resource base and systems, in which case the customer functions as service provider, with the firm as a user and value creator.
...
The service provider then serves as a creator of potential value-in-use and facilitator of real value-in-use. From a customer perspective, potential value-in-use is not real value yet; there is no difference between potential value-in-use and value-in-exchange. When a customer pays for a resource, the act manifests value-in-exchange, but there is still no realised value or value-in-use for the customer. In contrast, for the firm, manifested value-in-exchange is real value."

Continua.

"value creation processes and value outcomes" (parte II)

Parte I.
.
Um alerta para as diferentes formas de abordar os "value outcomes":

"Value outcomesThe value outcome logics concern how an actor determines the value outcome. Three of the four categories of value outcome determination logics, that is, value as means–ends, value as benefits/sacrifices, and value as experience outcomes, are consistent with the previously conducted reviews on customer value literature. The fourth category, value outcome as phenomenological, was identified from the S-D logic literature.
...
Value as means–ends. The first approach, value in accordance with mean–end theories inspects product evaluations as chains from the object characteristics to use consequences. According to this view, value can be appreciated at different levels of abstraction, with product attributes at the lowest, attribute performances at the middle, and goals and purposes at the highest level.
...
Value as benefits/sacrifices. This research stream views value as a cognitive judgment of utility made by a customer based on inputs (benefits) and outputs (sacrifices). In its simplest form, it is a ratio between service quality (benefit) and costs (sacrifice) or even an assessment of a product being a good buy. The benefits may include several quality dimensions but also relationships, time-to-market, know-how, and social benefits. Sacrifices range from monetary to non-monetary.
...
Value as experience outcomes. Value as experience outcomes aims to supplement and enrich the view of customers as logical decision makers by seeing humans as emotional sensation-seekers
...
value as an ‘interactive, relativistic preference experience’, meaning that value is an experience based on interaction between a subject and an object as well as relative. The relativism refers to three aspects of value: value is comparative (varying between objects for a certain person), personal assessment (what is valuable for one person need not be that to another), and situational, that is, context specific. Thus, the value of an object is dependent on the context in which the judgment occurs.
...
S-D Logic‘value is always co-created with and determined by the customer (value-in-use)’.
...
value is created when the customer’s ‘wellbeing has somehow been improved’ and exemplify this with a customer feeling relieved because the service has fulfilled its value proposition and has been integrated in the customer’s life. Overall, the emphasis is on value-in-use and it seems close to value as experiential."

"value creation processes and value outcomes" (parte I)

Um outro artigo que me parece muito interessante e a merecer vários sublinhados é "Value creation processes and value outcomes in marketing theory: Strangers or siblings?".
.
Por vezes há temas que dançam na nossa mente e que nunca chegam a merecer uma reflexão mais adequada, porque continuam no ar, a dançar e, nunca são concretizados no papel. Este artigo tem o condão de tornar a reflexão inevitável, porque coloca o tema de forma bem explícita:
.
Duas coisas distintas:

"value creation processes and value outcomes
...
value is co-created by firms and customers, and that beneficiaries determine the value [outcomes]
...
During categorization, it became clear that there are two main, high-level literature streams: value creation processes and value outcome determination. Value creation processes study activities, resources, and interactions that result in value creation, whilst value outcome determination explores how customers make value assessments and what the value outcomes are.
...
The actors engaged in value creation processes versus determination of outcomes differ. In co-creation processes, several parties are involved in the activities through the integration of resources. ... Outcome determination, on the other hand, is proposed to be done by a single actor, as outcomes are ‘uniquely determined’. This asymmetry is important, as it means that the perspective shifts between multiple and one: in co-creation processes, the perspective is that of a network, whereas in outcome determination, it is that of an individual."

Lido, isto faz sentido. Contudo, quando penso em exemplos concretos... não chega. Podemos começar por identificar os clientes-alvo e determinar quais são os "value outcomes" procurados e desejados. No entanto, por vezes, o pivô do ecossistema da procura não são os clientes, é outro elemento que participa nos processos de co-criação.
.
Por exemplo, um médico que prescreve um medicamento a um paciente e que o compra a uma farmácia que, por sua vez, o compra a uma empresa farmacêutica.
.
Quem é o cliente da empresa farmacêutica? É a farmácia, é ela que paga!
Quem é que determina o "value outcome"? A tal assimetria? É o médico!