Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Service-Dominant Logic Continuing The Evolution

    Uploaded by

    Revanth Kumar
    The paper aims to further develop Service Dominant Logic (SDL) originally proposed by the authors. It addresses criticisms of SDL, including that the original article used terminology from Goods Dominant Logic (GDL) which caused confusion. The authors acknowledge some valid criticisms and make minor revisions to the original Foundational Premises (FPs) of SDL, removing GDL terminology and adding a new FP stating that value is uniquely determined by the beneficiary's phenomenological experience. The revisions are intended to further distinguish SDL from GDL and clarify the interactive, networked nature of value co-creation central to SDL.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Service-Dominant Logic Continuing The Evolution

    Uploaded by

    Revanth Kumar
    81 views3 pages
    The paper aims to further develop Service Dominant Logic (SDL) originally proposed by the authors. It addresses criticisms of SDL, including that the original article used terminology from Goods Dominant Logic (GDL) which caused confusion. The authors acknowledge some valid criticisms and make minor revisions to the original Foundational Premises (FPs) of SDL, removing GDL terminology and adding a new FP stating that value is uniquely determined by the beneficiary's phenomenological experience. The revisions are intended to further distinguish SDL from GDL and clarify the interactive, networked nature of value co-creation central to SDL.

    Original Title

    Service-dominant logic continuing the evolution

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The paper aims to further develop Service Dominant Logic (SDL) originally proposed by the authors. It addresses criticisms of SDL, including that the original article used terminology from Goods Dominant Logic (GDL) which caused confusion. The authors acknowledge some valid criticisms and make minor revisions to the original Foundational Premises (FPs) of SDL, removing GDL terminology and adding a new FP stating that value is uniquely determined by the beneficiary's phenomenological experience. The revisions are intended to further distinguish SDL from GDL and clarify the interactive, networked nature of value co-creation central to SDL.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views3 pages

    Service-Dominant Logic Continuing The Evolution

    Uploaded by

    Revanth Kumar
    The paper aims to further develop Service Dominant Logic (SDL) originally proposed by the authors. It addresses criticisms of SDL, including that the original article used terminology from Goods Dominant Logic (GDL) which caused confusion. The authors acknowledge some valid criticisms and make minor revisions to the original Foundational Premises (FPs) of SDL, removing GDL terminology and adding a new FP stating that value is uniquely determined by the beneficiary's phenomenological experience. The revisions are intended to further distinguish SDL from GDL and clarify the interactive, networked nature of value co-creation central to SDL.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution

    Stephen L. Vargo & Robert F. Lusch

    The theoretical paper aims to extend the debate on Service Dominant Logic (SDL) which was
    initially started by the same authors in their now well renowned research paper “Evolving to
    a new dominant logic for marketing”. As such, the authors in this paper focus on how SDL
    has evolved over time owing in due part as to how it has been received in the academic
    community. The 2004 article of new logic prompted a huge response from the academic
    community and not only from those belonging to the discipline of marketing but from other
    disciplines as well. While most of the feedback that was generated was positive in nature,
    there was a sizeable voice which provided scepticism to the debate and dialog which had
    begun surrounding the origin and continuing development of this new logic. The reason
    which the original authors provide for this rather overt sceptical response from these
    individuals stems from a misunderstanding of the proposed logic.

    However, the authors also acknowledge certain proposed revisions by other academics.
    Mostly these issues emerge from the fact that the new logic contests many areas of marketing
    theory and practice that have been in place for the past 150 years or so. These past theories
    form the old logic or what is more accepted as the Goods Dominant Logic (GDL). Because of
    the richness of the literature present in GDL, at the time when the original article of new logic
    was written, the authors struggled in either developing or acquiring terminologies which
    better explained the new logic. Because of this, terms such as “producer”, “production”,
    “consumer” etc. (terminologies of the old logic) were used to elaborate the idea of the new
    logic. Thus, this created a critical debate amongst academics who stated that using the old
    lexicon to establish the new logic was counterproductive. The authors respond by
    highlighting that these “lexicographic slips” have been modified over time; either by using
    neutral terms or creating new ones. Other issues which have been considered form part of the
    natural evolution of the discussion regarding SDL. These pertain to ideas such as that the
    original article did not explicitly discuss the interactive and networked nature of value
    creation (an argument stemmed from the debate on service science) and the
    phenomenological nature of value creation.

    The authors in that regard provide their view that the interactive nature of value was an
    implied notion in the original article and that using the terms experience held closer to the
    explanation of SDL than the original terminology which they had used which was service
    provision. The authors focus on answering certain key issues which have been brought up by
    those academicians who have either questioned the new logic that was proposed or who have
    brought their own perceptions of what exactly the new logic. As such, both of these main
    issues have been addressed by providing more reasoning as to why they said what they had
    said in their seminal work. Furthermore, acknowledging certain critiques, the authors have
    also updated some of the original foundational premises (FPs) and have also added a new FP
    as well.
    Service-dominant logic foundational premise modifications and additions

    FPs Original foundational Modified/new Comment/explanation


    premise foundational premise
    FP1 The application of specialized Service is the fundamental The application of operant resources
    skill(s) and knowledge is the basis of exchange (knowledge and skills), “service,” as defined
    fundamental unit of exchange in S-D logic, is the basis for all exchange.
    Service is exchanged for service

    FP2 Indirect exchange masks the Indirect exchange masks the Because service is provided through
    fundamental unit of exchange fundamental basis of complex combinations of goods, money, and
    exchange institutions, the service basis of exchange is
    not always apparent

    FP3 Goods are a distribution mechanism Goods are a distribution Goods (both durable and non-durable)
    for service provision mechanism for service derive their value through use – the service
    provision they provide

    FP4 Knowledge is the fundamental Operant resources are the The comparative ability to cause desired
    source of competitive advantage fundamental source of change drives competition
    competitive advantage

    FP5 All economies are services All economies are service Service (singular) is only now becoming
    economies economies more apparent with increased specialization
    and outsourcing

    FP6 The customer is always a co- The customer is always a Implies value creation is interactional
    producer cocreator of value

    FP7 The enterprise can only make value The enterprise cannot Enterprises can offer their applied resources
    propositions deliver value, but only offer for value creation and collaboratively
    value propositions (interactively) create value following
    acceptance of value propositions, but cannot
    create and/or deliver value independently

    FP8 A service-centered view is A service-centered view is Because service is defined in terms of


    customer oriented and relational inherently customer oriented customer-determined benefit and co-created
    and relational it is inherently customer oriented and
    relational

    FP9 Organizations exist to integrate and All social and economic Implies the context of value creation is
    transform microspecialized actors are resource networks of networks (resource integrators)
    competences into complex services integrators
    that are demanded in the
    marketplace

    FP10 Value is always uniquely and Value is idiosyncratic, experiential,


    phenomenologically determined by contextual, and meaning laden
    the beneficiary

    Conclusion

    Understanding that the continuing debate on SDL merits that some changes be made to the
    original FPs provided in the original new logic article, the authors explicitly make said
    changes in this paper. Most of the changes that are made generally consist of minor revisions
    to the FPs. These revisions are done to remove the terms which are generally considered
    being more GDL centered and to ultimately introduce terminologies which are SDL specific.
    The new FP which is proposed by the authors states that value is a phenomenological
    occurrence and that its realization is unique to the one who is benefitting from it. This again
    marks the distinction of SDL from GDL as within the latter value was ingrained in the firm
    offering while in the former value is ingrained in the phenomena or the experience.

    You might also like