Modelos para el Estudio de las Emociones

The main premise of S-D logic is that service is exchanged for service in order to co- create value through the provision and integration of resources within the service ecosystem. The purpose of constant adjustment of resource requirements shows the primary purpose of exchange is to improve viability of a system through density maximisation (Lusch and Vargo, 2014).

Resource integration is broadly defined as the process of integrating and transforming ‘micro-specialized competences into complex services that are demanded in the marketplace’, and which perform particular service system functions for a specific beneficiary or actor in the service system’ (Vargo and Lusch, 2008. pp 7). Resources (competences) within this context are not confined to operant and operand resources developed by man and culture, but also non- physical entities such as time, environmental conditions, laws, rules and regulations are often relied upon for value creation (Vargo et al, 2010). This definition also leads to the understanding of resource integration as a process whereby activities are performed by an actor or actors within the service ecosystem for the benefit of themselves or another (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Payne et al, 2008). This understanding of resource integration and resources as becoming when acted upon (Zimmermann, 1951) reflects an understanding that resources are carriers of competence and when acted upon allow an activity to be performed for the purpose of value creation (Lobler, 2013; Peters et al, 2014). To illustrate this, an example can be drawn from the Rolls Royce Power by the Hour concept within the servitization literature (Baines et al, 2009a). Within this context, an engine is only an engine and

77 | P a g e

potential resource until integrated and acted upon by the customer and their operant resources to produce propulsion and allow the actor(s) to transport passengers to their chosen destination. In this example, they also draw on weather conditions and time within their value creating activities.

The discussion so far shows compatibilities between designing for high variety and resource integration and suggests there is a relationship between the two. In discussing designing for incompleteness (high variety), Garud et al (2008) highlighted that designs (resources) are simultaneously a noun and a verb. They also state that every outcome (i.e., design or manufactured offering) marks the start of a new process once integrated and acted upon by various actors within their use contexts (Kimbell, 2011). Combining this understanding of design with the five attributes of use that Ng (2013) highlighted as being essential if an organisation is to design for high variety as opposed to exchange (low variety), provides a more holistic and complete understanding of the requirements of designing for high variety. Taken together, if an organisation first acknowledges and understands the customers’ existing value creating activities, as discussed by Payne et al (2008), Gronroos & Ravald (2011) and Ng (2013), then they can best position themselves to design a suitable value proposition, underpinned by digital technology, that can be adapted, modified and bespoke within each individuals use context. Thus, design is a process of resource integration that is simultaneously a verb (resource integration as a process) and a noun (the resources to be integrated) as determined by the focal beneficiary.

78 | P a g e

3.3.1 Lack of theoretical underpinnings

The previous section discussed resource integration and resources from a S-D logic perspective and illustrates their relationship with designing for high variety. Whilst they appear well developed and logical, many of the descriptions contained within both this thesis and the wider literature lack significant theoretical grounding. This is observed by Edvardsson et al (2014), who note that the process of resource integration and coordination of resource integrating actors is a relatively understudied area of interest. This is an interesting proposition given Wilden et al (2017), in their review of past, present and future S-D logic research, found resources and resource integration were two of the most consistently discussed concepts within the S-D logic literature between 2004 and 2015. However, from this literature review thus far it can be argued that whilst discussed, little theoretical consideration has been given to the process of resource integration. This is supported by Peters et al (2014) who argue that the definition of resource integration provided by Vargo & Lusch (2008) is not actually that useful as it is merely a generic description of the concept. Within their review of the literature, they found over 100 papers by 2012 had discussed resources and resource integration within S-D logic. However they found only 15 articles adequately theorised around the concept and even then questions were raised about the significance of the theoretical discussions and contributions contained within said papers. Finally, Pohlmann & Kaartemo (2017) highlight that theoretical contributions to resource integration in S-D logic are not currently well developed, but if it was it would help toward the understanding of other core principles of S-D

79 | P a g e

logic given the centrality of resource integration to value creation and service-for- service exchange.

These articles bring to the fore the shallow theoretical underpinnings of resources and resource integration even whilst it is such a central concept to S-D logic. At present, S-D logic is calling for greater emphasis to be placed on the development of mid-range theory (Brodie et al, 2011) with these types of study emphasising the development of some propositions for others to empirically explore (Brodie & Gustafsson, 2016). Lusch et al (2010) note that mid-range theories for resource integration in the areas of design science and design thinking would be a novel area of application for S-D logic. Furthermore, Brodie et al (2011) suggest that mid-range theory would help bridge the academic-practitioner divide and that four of the ten FPs (see table 3.1) are core to the development of mid-range theory.

Within the previous chapter, Ng (2013) claimed modularity theory as conceptualised by Baldwin (2008) would be a suitable theoretical approach for design and resource integration. However, whilst S-D logic recognised modularity in earlier evolutions of the logic, it was not developed to a suitable level to inform the process of resource integration. Building upon the foundations already laid by earlier scholars and drawing upon the lens of S-D logic, an opportunity to develop a mid-range theory for S-D logic within the specific scope of design and modularity is evident.

80 | P a g e