Academic Paper

Hunting for Value: How Journal of Creating Value

3(1) 50–62
to Enable Value-in-use? © 2017 SAGE
SAGE Publications
A Conceptual Model sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2394964317694780
http://jcv.sagepub.com

Jan Petri1
Frank Jacob1

Abstract
Recently, researchers have prioritized studying service and value creation, which
has led to extensive conceptual and empirical literature on the subject. However,
models are missing that link existing research on value creation and apply it in
a concrete service marketing business context. This article explores how value-
in-use must be enabled before entering the relational business solution creation
process. Drawing from extant literature, the authors develop a conceptual model
with four interrelated elements—solution objectives, resource requirements,
assessment and customer–provider interaction. These elements must be aligned
iteratively to enable value-in-use. The current study integrates the proposed
model into the overarching context of the solution process that culminates with
experienced value-in-use. The findings significantly extend the current view of
value-in-use as a determining variable when creating business solutions.

Keywords
Customer value, value-in-use, value creation, servitization, solution, business
marketing

Introduction

Scholars and practitioners have long recognized the importance of investigating

concepts that extend understanding of value (Ostrom et al., 2010). Parallel to the
industrial change in focus from a goods-dominant to a service-dominant logic,
researchers have increasingly emphasized operant resources like knowledge and
skills as the basis for value creation (Chandler & Vargo, 2011; Vargo & Lusch,
2004a). They have also progressively softened the conventional differentiation

1
ESCP Europe Business School Berlin, Heubnerweg, Berlin, Germany.
Corresponding author:
Frank Jacob, ESCP Europe Business School Berlin, Heubnerweg 8–10, D-14059 Berlin, Germany.
E-mail: fjacob@escpeurope.eu
Petri and Jacob 51

between goods and services, noting, for example, that services often have tangible
results (Vargo & Lusch, 2004b).
This development is also reflected in industry, as traditional manufacturing com-
panies have increasingly invested in services due to the increase in competition in
traditional markets, the need for differentiation and the possibility of earning higher
margins (Biggemann, Kowalkowski, Maley, & Brege, 2013). These companies
eventually become solution providers, which offer ‘a comprehensive bundle of
products and/or services, that fully satisfies the needs and wants of a customer
related to a specific event or problem’ (Stremersch, Wuyts, & Frambach, 2001, p.
2). This ‘servitization’ began in the late 1980s (Vandermerwe & Rada, 1988), and
by the early 2000s, more than 60 per cent of Fortune 500 firms offered solutions
(Sharma, Lucier, & Molloy, 2002). Consequently, scholars have emphasized
identifying competences and processes that enable companies to co-create solutions
with the customer (Ulaga & Reinartz, 2011). However, practitioners claim that
solutions create less value than expected: One study shows that half the firms engag-
ing in solution provisioning make only moderate profit, and one-quarter of them
lose money (Hancock, John, & Wojcik, 2005).
Simultaneously, the customer’s role has evolved in value-creation literature
from a pure recipient of goods into the determining party in the relational
value-creation process (Heinonen et al., 2010; Tuli, Kohli, & Bharadwaj, 2007).
Vargo and Lusch (2008, p. 8) claim that ‘value is always uniquely and phenom-
enologically determined by the beneficiary’. Grönroos and Voima (2012, p.
144) conclude that ‘value is best defined as value-in-use’ because it can only
emerge or be created through the recipient’s use. Following that logic, the pro-
vider is a potential value facilitator and co-creator only through the relational
nature of the joint solution creation process (Grönroos, 2008).
Although this focus on service and value creation has inspired extensive
research, no uniform understanding exists about where and how value is created
(Chandler & Vargo, 2011; Grönroos & Voima, 2012). Thus, scholars have called
for models that conceptualize capturing value (Macdonald, Kleinaltenkamp, &
Wilson, 2016; Ostrom et al., 2010). In this article, we answer the following
research question: How can business solution customers enable the creation of
value-in-use? This question may seem counter-intuitive, because value-in-use by
definition does not exist before the beneficiaries’ usage (Grönroos & Voima,
2012); however, the experienced and accumulated value-in-use depends on the
perceived quality of the outcome, which is strongly connected with customer
expectations of that outcome co-created with the provider firm (Macdonald et al.,
2016; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1988). Hence, the solution creation
process must align with value-in-use evaluation criteria. This research makes two
main contributions: First, we propose a conceptual model with four elements that
facilitate value-in-use. Second, we investigate the interrelationship between the
discussed elements and the iterative nature of the suggested model. Our contribu-
tions can ultimately help enable the creation of expected value-in-use through the
alignment of the discussed elements.
52 Journal of Creating Value 3(1)

The Concept of Capturing Value-in-Use

Extant View on Value Creation

Although extant literature addresses value creation from many perspectives, three
commonalities emerge. First, researchers agree that the customer’s role has evolved to
the locus of value creation. Second, value creation occurs as a relational process.
Third, value is perceptual and the result of the customer experience. Table 1 provides
an overview of these commonalities.
Table 1. Extant View of Value Creation
Entity of Study Illustrative Quotation
Evaluation
Customer as Grönroos and Voima (2012) ‘The customer is the
locus of value value creator, and a firm
creation facilitates value for its
customers’ (p. 138).
Relational value Tuli et al. (2007) ‘We propose that a solution
creation is a set of customer–
supplier relational processes
comprising (1) customer
requirements definition,
(2) customization and
integration of goods and/
or services and (3) their
deployment, and (4) post-
deployment customer
support, all of which
are aimed at meeting
customers’ business
needs’ (p. 5).
Vargo and Lusch (2004a) ‘The consumer must
determine value and
participate in creating it
through the process of
coproduction’ (p. 11).
Vargo and Lusch (2015) ‘A service-centered view
is inherently beneficiary
oriented and relational’ (p.
10).
Value is Grönroos and Voima (2012) ‘The customer creates
perceptual and value through past, current,
the result of and/or imagined future
the customer experiences in a temporally
experience fluctuating individually
and socially accumulated
process’ (p. 139).
(Table 1 Continued)
Petri and Jacob 53

(Table 1 Continued)

Entity of Study Illustrative Quotation

Evaluation
Macdonald et al. (2016) ‘[A definition of the term
“value in use”] must allow
for goals to be met at
any point in the relational
process of a solution; thus,
we define value in use as
all customer-perceived
consequences arising from
a solution that facilitate or
hinder achievement of the
customer’s goals’ (p. 98).
Source: Authors’ own.

Extant literature provides a sound theoretical background on value creation and

business solutions. However, integrating the identified commonalities into overarch-
ing concepts remains challenging. Grönroos and Voima (2012) analyze the value-
creation process and conceptualize value spheres but do not apply the findings to
concrete service creation processes. Tuli et al. (2007) propose a relational customer
solution process and variables that affect solution effectiveness, though the implica-
tions for value creation are rather vague. Macdonald et al. (2016) investigate how
business customers evaluate solution quality and value-in-use but do not discuss the
role of early solution process phases. Hence, Figure 1 portrays our integration of value
creation and business solutions research to propose a schematic model on how
solution customers enable creation of value-in-use.
The element ‘relational solution process’ draws on Tuli et al.’s (2007) four-step
relational process, which represents the core of solution co-creation. Over time,
scholars have added other phases and process activities (Aarikka-Stenroos &
Jaakkola, 2012; Petri & Jacob, 2016). We model the process beginning prior to
relational solution development and thereby draw a differentiated picture of the
required elements that determine a solution and meet value-in-use expectations.
‘Experienced value-in-use’ addresses the overall objective to extract value
through customers’ perception as value ‘accumulates over time through experi-
ences during usage’ (Grönroos & Voima, 2012, p. 136). Figure 1 illustrates this
by showing that value-in-use can be experienced at any point in the process. An
individual’s perception and expectations may differ from collective (organiza-
tional) goals, as can the moment of experiencing value (Macdonald et al., 2016).
Macdonald et al. (2016) propose a value auditing process in which a customer
firm compares solution quality expectations and perceptions, which allows it to
monitor and optimize value creation.
54 Journal of Creating Value 3(1)

Enabling Value-in-use
Our model suggests interaction and mutual dependence of four interrelated
elements. It focuses on determining elements as the perceived value-in-use compared
against expectation and culminates with ‘experienced value-in-use’ (Macdonald et al.,
2016; Zeithaml, 1988).

Experienced Value-In-Use & Value Auditing

Relational Solution
Value-In-Use Enablement
Process

Outcome
Model for Enabling Value-in-use

Solution Objectives
• Operational performance
• Competitive advantage
• Innovativeness
Assessment Customer-
•  Role differences Provider-
•  Hierarchical Interaction
Resource Requirements differnces
• Methodological & •  Individual
Functional expertise differences
• Capacity
• Market knowledge
• Risk Management
• Legitimation
• Sourcing Network

Figure 1. Model for Enabling Value-in-use

Source: Authors’ own.

The first element, ‘solution objectives’, refers to the underlying customer prob-
lem to be solved. ‘Resource requirements’ proposes that a customer must translate
solution objectives into resource requirements. ‘Customer–provider interaction’
draws on early interactions between the parties to develop a joint value proposition
before the final provider is selected. Finally, ‘assessment’ connects all other
elements. This is crucial, as all elements are contingent on each other and assess-
ment aligns all elements iteratively. For example, a customer may identify solution
objectives accurately and derive resource requirements correctly but learn through
interaction with the provider that initial assumptions were misguided. This should
lead to reassessment of solution objectives and resource requirements. Furthermore,
the customer must re-examine the providers’ capabilities to compensate for the
Petri and Jacob 55

identified insufficiencies. Hence, this element involves assessing both customer and
provider resources.
The final assessment determines the ultimate outcome of the process: a solution
objective of creating the expected value-in-use by aligning resource requirements
and a purposefully selected provider firm to compensate for resource gaps and
co-create the solution. Next, we explore these elements in detail.
Solution Objectives
The objective of a solution is to solve a specific customer problem. Customers are
not seeking a service or product per se but rather what it will do for them (Sawhney,
2006). Following the value-in-use logic, the customer’s application of the outcome
mitigates or solves the identified problem, thereby creating value-in-use through
and for the customer (Grönroos & Voima, 2012). Thus, the customer’s identified
problems become part of the expected outcome before the creation process begins
and, therefore, part of the customer’s solution objective. Moreover, the customer’s
solution objective influences its resource requirements and provider selection
criteria. Although a clear definition of objectives and requirements is important for
successful solution creation, in practice, it is often insufficient (Aarikka-Stenroos &
Jaakkola, 2012). From Macdonald et al.’s (2016) comprehensive list of commonly
pursued objectives, we discuss three in detail.
Customers view operational performance as a fundamental benefit (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004a), particularly process improvement (Macdonald et al., 2016).
Macdonald et al. (2011) find that efficiency, asset maximization and control as
well as increased time for the core business determine perceived value-in-use
for the customer organization. Ulaga and Reinartz (2011) suggest differentiat-
ing between performance-enhancing solutions that increase the efficiency of a
customer asset and processes delegated to the provider. Others note that better
quality, lower cost and increased speed typically lead to better operational per-
formance (Kannan & Tan, 2002). The customer firm thus develops its resource
requirement and provider selection criteria along these lines when aiming for
increased operational performance through joint solution development.
Macdonald et al. (2016) suggest innovativeness as a variable of perceived value-
in-use. Contrary to the general understanding of the advantage of deep customer
engagement, Lehrer et al. (2012) propose that engagement is not beneficial during
development phases for innovation-driven solutions, noting that creativity is neces-
sary during this phase, but customer participation can result in less innovative out-
comes—and therefore lower perceived value-in-use. From this viewpoint, trust in
the provider firm as a key enabler for value co-creation becomes even more impor-
tant, as the customer has less insight into the provider’s activities during those
phases (Petri & Jacob, 2016). Hence, the customers’ resources are less important but
an intensive assessment of the provider during the selection process is critical for
customers whose main objective is innovativeness.
Furthermore, Möller, Rajala and Westerlund (2008) propose differentiating
between customers’ and providers’ established, incremental and radical service
innovation strategies to leverage value generation from the developed solution.
56 Journal of Creating Value 3(1)

These strategies require different co-creation approaches, and a misaligned

understanding between provider and customer causes inefficiencies and reduced
value creation.
Increasing competitive advantage is another main motivation for firms to
adopt solutions (Macdonald et al., 2016). Hunt and Morgan (1995) describe
competition as a process in which a firm continually strives for comparative
advantage in resources to achieve or maintain a superior position in the market
and ultimately achieve superior financial performance. This concept draws on
the idea of firms having control over valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substi-
tutable resources as well as the ability to apply them (Barney, 1991). Vargo and
Lusch’s (2004a) service-dominant logic bolsters this view, noting that firms
should focus on specialized skills and knowledge that enable competitive
advantage. Therefore, the customer firm must analyze whether those required
resources are internally available. We discuss this analysis of customers’
resource requirements next.
Resource Requirements
The basis of business solution development is co-creation. However, the provider’s
role is not predefined in the value-creation process (Grönroos & Voima, 2012). It
fluctuates between that of a value facilitator, which focuses on defining the value
proposition, and that of a value co-creator, which supports the customer firm in
achieving its solution objectives through integration into the customer activities and
processes. For a provider to become a value co-creator, the customer firm must
integrate the provider into its operations (Grönroos & Voima, 2012), which presup-
poses that the customer firm knows what it requires. Hence, the customer firm must
translate solution objectives into resource requirements by scrutinizing its resource
base and identifying what the provider can compensate for (Payne, Storbacka, &
Frow, 2008). Next, we discuss commonly proposed resource requirements.
Methodological and functional expertise are important in that business solutions
are often complex and require specific application skills and knowledge (Vargo &
Lusch, 2006). Nordin and Kowalkowski (2010) note that firms often do not have the
required expertise. By engaging an external provider firm, a customer firm can
acquire new knowledge (Maurer, 2010). More specifically, ‘functional expertise’
refers to special capabilities and knowledge within a function that the customer firm
requires but lacks to create the solution (Petri & Jacob, 2016). ‘Methodological
expertise’ refers to project management know-how for structuring the creation
process and applying frameworks (Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012).
Capacity addresses human resources required to create the solution (Petri &
Jacob, 2016). Human resource intensity of business services and the tendency of
firms to outsource non-core activities increases the demand for an external work-
force (Cova & Salle, 2007). In contrast to methodological and functional expertise,
capacity needs refer to the operational support, as customer firms increasingly
expect provider firms to supply not only know-how but also workforce capacity
(Skjølsvik et al., 2007). The level of need depends on both the availability of cus-
tomer workforce and the organizational impact of the aspired solution objectives;
Petri and Jacob 57

for example, a local creation and implementation of a new business solution might
involve fewer workers than a global business solution.
Market knowledge is another key source for competitive advantage. In the pre-
sent context, it refers to an organization’s need to integrate market knowledge into
the solution (Petri & Jacob, 2016). Sinkula (1994) suggests a hierarchy of market
knowledge that begins with ‘what is something?’ looking for definitions of things,
advances to more procedural ‘how are things actually done?’ knowledge and
finally to ‘how should things be done?’ market knowledge. However, this process
can only build a knowledge foundation for solution creation, because the purpose
of the solution is to advance current norms rather than catching up with competi-
tion. Hence, market knowledge on future trends is important to capture value
(Li & Calantone, 1998).
Risk management describes the customer firm’s need to mitigate the perceived risk
of the solution. The unknown outcome of a business solution, complexity of co-crea-
tion and uncertain final costs as well as duration put pressure on the customer firm
(Dhar, Menon, & Maach, 2004). These peculiarities increase its perceived risk and
uncertainty, especially for inexperienced firms (Liu & Hart, 2011). Hence, customers
may seek opportunities to reduce their financial risk and dependence on the provider
firm (Macdonald et al., 2016).
Legitimation addresses customer firms’ need for external and internal
approval of the solution (Petri & Jacob, 2016). Drawing on institutional theory,
scholars who focus on external legitimation emphasize organizations’ need to
achieve social acceptance (Carroll, 1997). Internal acceptance of solutions has
a crucial role as well, because value is only created by the usage or application
of the solution through a firm’s employees (Grönroos, 2008; Vargo & Lusch,
2008). Therefore, other scholars emphasize the importance of creating internal
commitment (Bettencourt et al., 2002).
Furthermore, because the customer firm requires external and internal legiti-
mation from the solution objectives, it must consider the provider firm’s legiti-
mation as well. For example, if a solution objective of enhanced organizational
performance through increased efficiency leads to layoffs, then internal turmoil
and political pressure on the organization might result.
Sourcing network refers to the need to enlist the help of firms outside the
direct customer–provider relationship (Macdonald et al., 2016). Reflecting on
the service-dominant logic, Lusch and Vargo (2006) propose that value creation
is a resource integrative process within value-creation networks. Cova and Salle
(2008) suggest that customers should extend their perspective from their own
network to include their supplier network. Macdonald et al. (2016, p. 114)
describe this resource requirement as follows: If ‘the supplier’s network is
perceived to be superior over the customer’s, the customer firm may configure
its supply network to make more use of the supplier as an intermediary’.
Customer–Provider Interaction
Interaction between customer and potential provider firms starts early in a business
solution process (Brady, Davies, & Gann, 2005). In this iterative interaction, the
customer firm shares its identified solution objectives and needs with selected
58 Journal of Creating Value 3(1)

provider firms, and the provider firm develops value propositions using this
information. Scholars recommend that a solution provider should use customer
reference marketing and integrate ‘signalling activities’ to assure customers of the
provider’s competence, experience and commitment (Töllner, Blut, & Holzmüller,
2011). The customer assesses the proposals and provides feedback, which can
lead to adjustments on both sides. At this stage, the customer must play an active
role in the value proposition creation process of the provider to enable ‘effective
conversion of the value proposition into value-in-use’ (Pires, Dean, & Rehman,
2015, p. 930).
Assessment
Scholars recommend that firms address perceived risk and uncertainty by establish-
ing formal professional buying centres to govern purchasing processes, establish
standards and integrate purchasing professionals (Pemer, Werr, & Bianchi, 2014).
They differentiate the various roles in these buying centres (Adamson, Dison, &
Toman, 2012; Webster & Wind, 1972) and emphasize the involvement of different
functions in the customer firm, as solutions often have a cross-functional impact on
the organization (Dhar et al., 2004). Drawing on Tuli et al.’s (2007) solutions
business process, Töllner et al. (2011) analyze a solutions buying centre and cluster
three roles according to their greatest interest in the solution business process. The
‘users’, or those who will ultimately work with the solution, focus on the customiza-
tion and deployment of solutions. ‘Buyers’ are likely to be part of the procurement
department and often are involved only until the buying decision is made. Their
main interest lies in the evaluation of the provider’s signalling activities and the
provider’s requirement definition. ‘Deciders’ similarly focus on the signalling
activities and requirement definition but go a step further and evaluate the solution
provider’s inter-process management.
Regardless of its role, value-in-use is perceptual and thus influences the
assessment of solution objectives and resource requirements. Macdonald et al.
(2016) identify the unpredictability of perception as a critical concern and find
hierarchical differences. For example, managers focus on organizational goals,
whereas operational solutions users look for individual goals such as task
simplicity, perceived control or social comfort. Different cognitive styles and
cultural norms further add to the complexity (Tetlock, 2000).

Conclusions, Implications and Limitations

Conclusion
Although research has focused on value creation in a service applied environment,
existing models lack integration with emerging topics such as business solutions.
This study addresses this gap with the research question: How can business solution
customers enable the creation of value-in-use? We develop a model involving four
interrelated elements that interact iteratively and thus make two main contributions.
Petri and Jacob 59

First, the model suggests that value-in-use begins with neither application
nor relational creation but rather with preparation to enable value-in-use
(see Figure 1). We identify four elements—solution objectives, resource require-
ments, assessment and customer–provider interaction—that enable the creation
of value-in-use. Hence, the study extends existing literature by suggesting a
differentiated model on the creation of value-in-use.
Second, the model shows the interrelationship between the four elements and
emphasizes the iterative process to align these elements. Specifically, early stage
exchanges with potential solution provider firms may stimulate the realignment of
the model elements. However, the assessment element also illustrates the challenge
of aligning all elements to capture value-in-use, in that the latter is perceptual and
therefore depends on the opinion of the various buying centre members.

Managerial Implications
This study offers several managerial implications for solution customer and provider
firms to capture value-in-use. First, the model provides a framework for customers to
structure internal preparation for creating a solution and developing selection criteria
for external support. Specifically, awareness regarding the interrelationship between
the proposed elements helps customers assess the individual model elements and
enables them to make conscious adjustments while considering the potential impact
on other model elements.
Second, resource requirements provide a set of variables to customer firms
that enable value-in-use. The solution customer must evaluate whether it has the
internal resources available to implement the solution objectives. Hence, the
model provides guardrails for an internal analysis and purposeful selection of
provider resources.
Third, providers benefit from this model as it offers a clear understanding of the
customers’ solution preparation approach. They can align their internal processes to
support customers in assessing the different model elements. This enables provider
firms to (a) develop value propositions that accurately address the customer’s
solution objectives and (b) customize their signalling activities more effectively.

Limitations and Future Research

As is common in this type of study, some limitations exist. Foremost is that
the model is conceptual. Hence, this study should be viewed as a primary
effort to address an issue that has significant implications for value creation in
service marketing theory and practice. Future research should empirically test
the conceptual model.
Furthermore, this study does not take the element of negotiation between the
solution customer and provider into account. Using research such as Neale and
Northcraft’s (1991), behavioural negotiation theory stresses the complexity and
importance of dyadic bargaining; further research could examine this topic from
a value-in-use context.
60 Journal of Creating Value 3(1)

References
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2012). Value co-creation in knowledge intensive
business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process. Industrial
Marketing Management, 41(1), 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.11.008
Adamson, B., Dixon, M., & Toman, N. (2012). The end of solution sales. Harvard Business
Review, 90(7–8), 60–68.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Orvosi Hetilap,
17(1), 99–120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108
Bettencourt, L. A., Ostrom, A. L., Brown, S. W., & Roundtree, R. I. (2002). Client
co-production in knowledge-intensive business services. California Management
Review, 44(4), 100–128.
Biggemann, S., Kowalkowski, C., Maley, J., & Brege, S. (2013). Development and
implementation of customer solutions: A study of process dynamics and market
shaping. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(7), 1083–1092. doi: 10.1016/j.
indmarman.2013.07.026
Brady, T., Davies, A., & Gann, D. M. (2005). Creating value by delivering integrated
solutions. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 360–365. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijproman.2005.01.001
Carroll, G. R. (1997). Long-term evolutionary change in organizational populations:
Theory, models and empirical findings in industrial demography. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 6(1), 119–143.
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context
frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49. doi: 10.1177/1470593110393713
Cova, B., & Salle, R. (2007). Introduction to the IMM special issue on ‘Project marketing
and the marketing of solutions’: A comprehensive approach to project marketing and
the marketing of solutions. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 138–146. doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.04.008
———. (2008). Marketing solutions in accordance with the S-D logic: Co-creating value
with customer network actors. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 270–277.
doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.005
Dhar, R., Menon, A., & Maach, B. (2004). Toward extending the compromise effect to
complex buying contexts. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 258–261.
Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates?
European Business Review, 20(4), 298–314. doi: 10.1108/09555340810886585
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2012). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation
and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150. doi:
10.1007/s11747–012–0308–3
Hancock, M. Q., John, R. H., & Wojcik, P. J. (2005). Better B2B selling. McKinsey
Quarterly, 1–7.
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K.-J., Edvardsson, B., Sundström, E., & Andersson,
P. (2010). A customer-dominant logic of service. Journal of Service Management, 21(4),
531–548. doi: 10.1108/09564231011066088
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition.
Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1–15.
Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2002). Supplier selection and assessment: Their impact
on business performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38(4), 11–21.
doi: 10.1111/j.1745–493X.2002.tb00139.x
Petri and Jacob 61

Lehrer, M., Ordanini, A., DeFillippi, R., & Miozzo, M. (2012). Challenging the orthodoxy
of value co-creation theory: A contingent view of co-production in design-intensive
business services. European Management Journal, 30(6), 499–509.
Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on
new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of
Marketing, 62(4), 13–29.
Liu, R., & Hart, S. (2011). Does experience matter? A study of knowledge processes and
uncertainty reduction in solution innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5),
691–698. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.05.004
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and
refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288. doi: 10.1177/1470593106066781
Macdonald, E. K., Kleinaltenkamp, M., & Wilson, H. N. (2016). How business customers
judge solutions: Solution quality and value-in-use. Journal of Marketing, 80(3), 96–120.
doi; 10.1509/jm.15.0109
Macdonald, E. K., Wilson, H., Martinez, V., & Toossi, A. (2011). Assessing value-in-use:
A conceptual framework and exploratory study. Industrial Marketing Management,
40(5), 671–682. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.05.006
Maurer, I. (2010). How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: The impact of project
staffing and project rewards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition and
product innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 629–637.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.006
Möller, K., Rajala, R., & Westerlund, M. (2008). Service innovation myopia? A new recipe
for client-provider value creation. California Management Review, 50(3), 31–48.
Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1991). Behavioral negotiation theory: A framework for
conceptualizing dyadic bargaining. In L. Cummings & B. Straw (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behaviour (vol. 13, pp. 147–190). Connecticut: JAI Press.
Nordin, F., & Kowalkowski, C. (2010). Solutions offerings: A critical review and
reconceptualisation. Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 441–459. doi:
10.1108/09564231011066105
Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., Burkhard, K. A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels,
V., & Rabinovich, E. (2010). Moving forward and making a difference: Research
priorities for the science of service. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 4–36.
doi: 10.1177/1094670509357611
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. doi: 10.1007/s11747–007–0070–0
Pemer, F., Werr, A., & Bianchi, M. (2014). Purchasing professional services: A transaction
cost view of the antecedents and consequences of purchasing formalization. Industrial
Marketing Management, 43(5), 840–849. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.04.009
Petri, J., & Jacob, F. (2016). The customer as enabler of value (co)-creation in the solution
business. Industrial Marketing Management, 56(7). doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.03.009
Pires, G. D., Dean, A., & Rehman, M. (2015). Using service logic to redefine exchange
in terms of customer and supplier participation. Journal of Business Research, 68(5),
925–932. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.019
Sawhney, M. (2006). Going beyond the product: Defining, designing and delivering
customer solutions. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds), The service-dominant logic of
marketing (pp. 365–381). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Sharma, D., Lucier, C., & Molloy, R. (2002). From solutions to symbiosis: Blending with
your customer. Strategy + Business, 27(2), 1–16.
Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. The
Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45. doi: 10.2307/1252249
62 Journal of Creating Value 3(1)

Skjølsvik, T., Løwendahl, B. R., Kvalshaugen, R., & Fosstenløkken, S. M. (2007). Choosing
to learn and learning to choose. California Management Review, 49(3), 110–128.
Stremersch, S., Wuyts, S., & Frambach, R. T. (2001). The purchasing of full-service
contracts: An exploratory study within the industrial maintenance market. Industrial
Marketing Management, 30(1), 1–12.
Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and
cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2),
293. doi: 10.2307/2667073
Töllner, A., Blut, M., & Holzmüller, H. H. (2011). Customer solutions in the capital
goods industry: Examining the impact of the buying center. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(5), 712–722. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.001
Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From
product bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17.
Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine
goods and services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5–23. doi: 10.1509/
jmkg.75.6.5
Vandermerwe, S., & Rada, J. (1988). Servitization of business: Adding value by adding
services. European Management Journal, 6(4), 314–324. doi: 10.1016/0263–
2373(88)90033–3
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
———. (2004b). The four service marketing myths: Remnants of a goods-
based, manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 324–335. doi:
10.1177/1094670503262946
———. (2006). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions.
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
———. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s11747–007–0069–6
———. (2015). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant
logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. doi: 10.1007/
s11747–015–0456–3
Webster, F. E., & Wind, Y. (1972). A general model for understanding organizational
buying behaviour. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 12–19.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control
processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 35–48.