USI

Exploring Interaction in S-D Logic

• Daniela Corsaro (University of Lugano, Manchester Business School)• Roberta Sebastiani (Università Cattolica di Milano) • Ivan Snehota (University of Lugano)

USI

Interaction in service logic• Renovated role and meaning of interaction in mutual value-creating processes

(Spohrer et al., 2008; Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Vargo, 2009; Gronroos, 2010)

• The value creating process is not limited to the dyadic interaction but takes place through interaction in complex (service) networks (Ballantyne & Varey, 2008; Cova & Salle, 2008; Gummesson, 2008)

• Notwithstanding the attention raised by the service-centered logic about the concept of interaction in (service) network, we still need further clarification and refinement of its conceptual meaning (Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Gronroos, 2010) and the managerial implications deriving from it (Gummesson, Lusch & Vargo, 2010)

• Special attention is devoted to the interactive and networked nature of value creation (Gummesson, 2006; Vargo & Lusch, 2008a; Cova & Salle, 2008) and to the pivotal role of interactions in reciprocal value-creating processes (Edvardsson, Tronvoll & Gruber, 2011).

• Interaction in complex networks (Ballantyne & Varey, 2008. Cova & Salle, 2008; Gummesson, 2008).

USI

Interaction in B2B - IMP- The transition from a product- to a service-centric approach, while still in its early

stages, is spreading to business markets too (Araujo and Spring, 2006): “business markets more and more take over the character of service markets” (as Jacob & Ulaga, 2008: 248)

- Interaction has been at a centre of research on industrial networks. A large amount of literature can be found on that.

- One of the more complete attempt to model interaction has been provided by Ford et al. (2008), through the definition of the interaction model, whose dimensions have been later further described by Håkansson et al. (2009).

USI

Research questions

- Can the Interaction Model (Hakansson et al., 2009) support a further understanding of interaction in service networks?

- But also, can this model be further specified/enriched when applied to service networks?

USI

Methodology

• Longitudinal case study on a service network over 7 years (Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Dubois and Arujo, 2004)

• ARA Model (Ford, 2002; Gadde, 2004) to explore the evolution of interactions among actors, stressing out the interdependencies, over time and space

• Our service setting: Endenred. • Endenred a leading global company, expert in delivering end-to-end

solutions for rewards, compensations, incentives, assistance and loyalty programs for employers and citizens

• Its first and best known service is the meal voucher, Ticket Restaurant®

• Data gathered:• 20 Interviews from the key informants inside the company • 20 Interviews from a selected group of Endenred customers and

service providers• Secondary data gathered (firms’ website, reports, other internal

documents)

USI

Phase 1Edenred network and main interactions in Ticket Restaurant service system

USI

Phase 2New typologies of Edenred services: emerging interactions among Edenred and other heterogeneous service providers, customers and beneficiaries

USI

Phase 3The launch of social vouchers: new customers and new final beneficiaries generating new interactions

USI

Findings: Resources• Resource constellations in service networks

• stress on intangible resources mainly related to human, organizational and informational and relational resources(Spohrer et al. 2007; Madhavaram & Hunt, 2008; Lusch, Vargo & Tanniru, 2010)

• Attention shifts from static to dynamic resources (Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Vargo, 2009), as knowledge and skills, and to how they combine.

USI

Findings: Activities• Interconnection of the production-delivery activities within a service

process, as highlighted in the service logic: value creation is typically an output of interactions among several different actors, both producers and customers (Gronroos, 2001; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003; Gronroos and Ravald, 2009)

• The service process is essentially simultaneous and its simultaneity determines opportunities as well as limits that have to be taken into consideration by managers operating in a service system (Edvardsson, Holmlund & Strandvik, 2008)

USI

Findings: Actors• The way in which actors make sense of situations appears critical for

orienting their behaviours, especially in interaction between the parties (Weick, 1995). Representations are emergent as interaction unfolds (Corsaro and Snehota, 2010).

• This strong embeddedness, implies a cognitive confrontation among actors: different schemata, languages and cultures ask for new mechanism of coordination and a more rigid selection of counterparts

USI

ConclusionsApplying the Interaction Model to service networks could contribute to bothstreams of research:

• To service logic of marketing, as insights from IMP could help at better understanding and modelling interaction.

• To the IMP approach, by showing that the interaction model can be better specified when applied to a service network context.

Further research:

• Better characterize the time and space dimensions of interaction in service network

• Development of interaction capabilities

• Link between internal organization of the company and external context.

USI

Thanks for your kind attention

daniela.corsaro@usi.ch; daniela.corsaro@mbs.ac.ukroberta.sebastiani@unicatt.itivan.snehota@usi.ch