Monthly Archives: July 2011

The Business Model for Distributing “Scientific Publications” — A “Peer Review” Finds a “Canary in the Coal Mine”

What is the real importance and impact of our rapidly changing business models in different industries and other sectors of productive activity?  Unlike the business models for music, books, journalism, and other creative works, the distribution business model for “scientific publications” may represent a unique case.   Does it?  And how should we think about it?  

The recent GIGO article, Thousands of scientific papers uploaded to the Pirate Bay,”  sheds light on  a very provocative set of issues.  Intuitively, it seems authors of published research findings typically do not get paid for what they author (i.e., by the publishing distribution channels), and the costs of distribution are most certainly tending toward zero. One of the issues raised in this article (and by the serious acts of civil disobedience it chronicles) is whether publishers are excessively profiting or acting dysfunctionally in their roles as intermediaries for the exchange of scientific knowledge. 

Accordingly, the featured protestor, Greg Maxwell, asserts:

“Academic publishing is an odd system — the authors are not paid for their writing, nor are the peer reviewers (they’re just more unpaid academics), and in some fields even the journal editors are unpaid. Sometimes the authors must even pay the publishers.

And yet scientific publications are some of the most outrageously expensive pieces of literature you can buy. In the past, the high access fees supported the costly mechanical reproduction of niche paper journals, but online distribution has mostly made this function obsolete.

As far as I can tell, the money paid for access today serves little significant purpose except to perpetuate dead business models. The “publish or perish” pressure in academia gives the authors an impossibly weak negotiating position, and the existing system has enormous inertia.”

Leaving aside the contentious issue of whether the personal protest actions described in the article are legally or morally justifiable, let’s just focus on the business model/economic/other social issues, such as these:

  • Has the scientific publishing business model run its course?  Has technology disintermediated the distribution services providers (the publishers) handling scientific information? Have these distribution service providers become bottlenecks in the process of distributing and exchanging scientific information, or are they still necessary enablers?
  • Scientific research is not a one-way information process;  it is a dynamic exchange of information, formal (i.e., peer review, et al) and informal (on-going comments and discussions about published and unpublished findings and work-in-progress, et al).  That said, is there still a value-adding role for “platform enablers” of this information exchange (especially deploying and integrating new technologies, including social media, semantic taxonomies, etc.)?  One would think that this could very well be the case, and that “better-than-ever, more valuable-than-ever” enabling platforms for the distribution and exchange of scientific information could be established by clever inventors (private or public organizations or private individuals).
  • So is the private sector moving down this path, to add value by providing new enabling platforms to support open access and exchange with regard to scientific information?  Or is the private sector simply trying to hold on as long as possible to the “toll booths” it owns ? 
    • One sees among established publishers of journals and books (i.e., Springer, to name one) the introduction of different models for consuming and paying for information (i.e., pay to view for several days).  One also sees new start-ups like DeepDyve (talked about as the “Netflix of Academic Journals”) which has developed and operates a business model/platform that aggregates journal articles from thousands of journals and offers them in different consumable rental packages (for example, you can rent an article for 1 day for a pretty affordable price, even for a graduate student). 
    • But are these private sector initiatives removing the economic and other  bottlenecks in the scientific information distribution and exchange channels, or simply adjusting them to continue to profit from them?  Do these new approaches add value for scientific researchers and users of scientific information?  Do they stop short of what is truly valuable to these stakeholders (greater distribution/access, better information exchange)?  I am posing questions, not implying any answers.

It soon becomes more evident that the set of issues encompassed here goes far beyond the question of how and through whom the intermediation occurs (whether it is through established publishers, new start up companies, other profit or non-profit entities, or through completely free, self-organizing “open source” platforms).  There are also important issues and questions about the other actors/stakeholders, the producers of content (scientific information) and the users of it (ranging from peers in the scientific community to the general public).   And this is where the scenarios become more obscure and more difficult to analyze; and they can range from inspiring to scary, especially if one thinks about what is happening in the area of new media in todays world (see my posts regarding  The Huffington Post Part 1 and Part 2 ). 

    • Does the general public–not just the academic or scientific community–need more access to scientific information (is the public entitled to it in order to inform and educate itself)? Is greater public access to scientific information and the scientific process (at a minimum, consumption of a specific type of information content) beneficial to scientific inquiry, the public good, and individual welfare? 
      • US copyright  law allows for the “free use” of copyrighted information for educational purposes.  Does this law effectively sanction distribution of copyrighted  scientific information (legally obtained) to any interested private individual, not just members of a scientific or academic community?  If so, do intermediaries like DeepDyve go far enough in providing a solution, or is there a market failure?  After all, the problem of comparing DeepDyve to Netflix is in the fact that DeepDyve provides access to academic journals, not Hollywood movies.
      • Going further, would broader public access to scientific information be beneficial to scientific inquiry?  Or would it be a distraction or result in degrading the science?   I suppose it depends–one can imagine the downsides and the upsides. More access could mean more misunderstanding, fueling anti-scientific sentiments;  it could also lead scientists to be come unproductively distracted or even improperly influenced by public opinion.  On the other hand, more involvement of the public could facilitate the induction of more people into scientific research studies, volunteering either as subjects or assistants;  in addition, if we consider the aging demographics of the population, there are going to be a lot of highly-educated, trained minds entering a “more or less blissful” retirement, and (with the right matches) some of these retirees might not only understand the scientific information–but may also be able to provide intelligent, useful commentary
    • And, last but not least, let us not forget “the laborers toiling in the vineyards of knowledge,” the producers of scientific information–certainly, the most important actors in the whole value chain.  Indeed, these are professionals typically compensated by institutions that employ them to do their work (and to do the work under a tight set of policies and academic/scientific standards and ethics), work which traditionally has included “publish or perish” requirements. But the world of these professionals and these institutions is not continuing to be the  “ivory tower,” above the commercial fray, as it may once have been (in a mythical past?). 
      •  These professionals are not always fully (or satisfactorily) employed and compensated by the institutions, so these professionals may have strong reasons to have  “professional interests and commercial pursuits of their own” (i.e., conducting independent research, writing a popularized book, building and maintaining the the value of their own “brand,” etc.). 
      • The institutions are also increasingly pursuing their own private, commercial interests (as scientific research must be more and more funded by private sector deals and higher education itself becomes more and more commercialized and consumerized  [ see A Service Perspective on the Marketization of Undergraduate Education, Taylor and Judson, 2011). 
    • In effect, the assumption contained in Greg Maxwell’s assertion (“the authors are not paid for their writing, nor are the peer reviewers (they’re just more unpaid academics)“) is probably becoming a weaker and weaker assumption over time (at least, as to their interest in and demands for compensation… [Note: ironically, the truth of Maxwell’s statement, “in some fields even the journal editors are unpaid,” is probably strengthening over time, as the publishing and news media industries restructure]).  Therefore, one cannot really assume any more that producers of scientific information do not have any “commercial interest” at all in what they produce, even if the claim to ownership of asset value remains unclear, not well-defined.

So what does it all mean? 

We started from an article about “pirating” or  “liberating” scientific producers and users from the clutches of what the protesters see as a market failure or as a greedy extraction of excess profits by the intermediary service providers.  One thing is certainly clear and obvious from this article (focused mainly on the intermediation process of what are presumed to be unique, in some way “public” goods produced by non-economic actors):  the value chain (and attendant business models) for the production and distribution of scientific information are being challenged and are changing. 

But when we expand our perspective to look at the whole value system, we see a very complex, emergent process occurring (one that encompasses many potential economic actors and shifting interests, new technology adoption, and new platform/ecosystem structures taking shape, economically and normatively).  

  • At one level, we are witnessing the emergent formation of yet another technology-enabled platform/ecosystem that will change the functioning and economics (including the distribution of economic benefits) of production, distribution, and exchange of scientific information. 
  • At another level, and occuring across other information domains (like publishing and news media), we are witnessing changes, that may be constrained by or more likely will change (even overturn) very significant norms (scientific, et al) with significant, long-range societal and economic impacts.   
  • Moreover these changes, outcomes, and impacts are being driven by forces that are not only not well understood , but more importantly are in rapid accelerating motion and getting little attention from government, NGOs, public interest groups, and academic institutions.   There is also no question that the forces driving and governing these changes emanate from  a globally-funded private sector (here there are no NASAs or DOD ARPANETS in the mix, not to mention no oversight or inquiry of the FCC, etc.). 

Maybe this is OK, and how it should be?  Maybe we are drifting into dangerous waters?   I am not sure of what to conclude about this (but I am apprehensive).

But what I can reasonably conclude is that there is definitely a massive set of changes  in business and society, driven by technology and other forces, that are very rapidly taking place in the way that economic exchange of value is structured in possibly all industries and across all activity sectors where value has been (or is newly starting to be) created.  And these changes need to be better understood, monitored, and possibly managed/governed in a broader context than they are being currently. 

  • One of the most prominent and powerful models is that of platform and ecosystem.  By its very nature, such a new structure (that significantly alters relationships) will tend to be accompanied by redistribution of economic benefits and affect changes in far-reaching normative dimensions (including power, societal norms, individual values/behaviors).  Platform proliferation is occurring rapidly, and it is powerful, not well understood development.
  • Platform models and “information sectors” make for a highly volatile combination–and one with impacts far-reaching into our social fabric, social norms, and social contracts.   As the adoption of platform models in the industrial sector started accelerating in the early 1980s, there was little impact beyond production processes, physical supply chains, and capital and labor markets.  But “information” represents a very different kind of good, one that may be more like “water” than “petroleum” (but, in combination with platforms, much more volatile and explosive, with much more rapid, far-reaching, and often hard-to-notice impacts).  Information can rarely be only an economic good:  it can certainly have an economic dimension, but it also often carries a valence that cannot be (or which social contract deems should not be) reduced/limited to economic terms.  Consequently, the emergence of new information platforms/ecosystems, driven largely by private sector interests (and to a large degree outside the attention and comprehension of the public or the public’s government representatives) may be a reasonable cause of some concern (at least should be noted, monitored, analyzed). 

The rapid evolution of new information platform models (such as in publishing and news media)  should warrant considerable attention in societies that value (and where there is a social contract supporting) the free flow of information among private parties (with some forms of information having privileged or protected “public status”).   The changes in the value chain within the  intersection of publishing and scientific information (scientific publications) provide a cogent and critical example of a significant change underway (one with significant, far-reaching impacts, and one which probably should not be solely governed/managed by the private sector).  There are clearly many interests involved that are not clearly commercial and there is certainly a public interest. 

My personal perspective is that the article reviewed in this post presents a “canary in the coal mine” and that the acts of civil disobedience covered and the questions raised by the article (though only the tip of the iceberg) point to more extensive, serious issues that need to be brought into the light of day and not left out of sight, in the shadows of enormous media headlines and stories pronouncing and acclaiming new “information platform business” IPOs.

 

Weaving the Power of Platform, Service Design, and Social Media to Create Value

 IDEO’s Colin Raney’s presentation, “Business Model: Create a Platform for an Experience,” beautifully lays out the case and approach for “designing a business around user experience (and not the other way around).”   Using compelling visuals and examples like Netflix, Raney communicates key insights for those establishing new businesses:   

“The true definition of creative work is looking at the business model as the platform to design the experience for the buyer.”

“When you design the business around the experience, (instead of the experience around the business) you create a more powerful and relatable offer.”

Access the presentation slides at http://www.slideshare.net/colinraney/planningness-2011

“Against Algorithm”

Against Algorithm

I am (in theory, at least)
Against algorithms.  But,
Being not a man, I must
(in practice)—accept the given,
The command.  Thus if men
Are prone to habit and wed
To custom, so am I dead
Without them.  I am them,
And I can be nothing more;
I cannot (without algorithm)
Run, function, produce or
Generate results; cannot output,
Cannot put-out, cannot putter-out.
But if I were a man and could,
I would put off algorithms,
In all their forms; and I
Would put on true emotion
With the ocean and the sky,
With a song, a dance, a shout,
In a storm of (me)-creation.

“Service Science” Research Articles By Vargo, Lusch, et al

A broad range of informative articles by Stephen Vargo, Robert Lusch, et al can be found conveniently assembled at their website “Service Dominant Logic”  http://sdlogic.net/foundations.html

These articles and their links are also listed below:

 
Lusch, Robert F., and Frederick E. Webster Jr. (2011)
“A Stakeholder-Unifying, Cocreation Philosophy of Marketing”
Journal of Macromarketing 31 (2), 129-134
 
Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch (2011)

Chandler, Jennifer D., and Stephen L. Vargo (2011)
“Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange”
Marketing Theory 11(1), 35-49

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch (2011)
“Stepping aside and moving on: a rejoinder to a rejoinder”
European Journal of Marketing 45 (7/8), 1319-1321

Lusch, Robert F., and Stephen L. Vargo (2011)
“Service-dominant logic: a necessary step”
European Journal of Marketing 45 (7/8), 1298-1309

Vargo, Stephen L. (2011)
“Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions: Toward a service-dominant logic-based theory on the market”
European Journal of Marketing 45(1/2), 217-222

Vargo, Stephen L. (2010)
“Practices, systems, and meaning-making: An introduction to the special section on markets and marketing”
Australasian Marketing Journal 18, 233-235

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch (2010)
“”Relationship” in Transition: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Relationship and Service-Dominant Logic”
Journal of Business Market Management 4, 167-168

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch (2010)
“From Repeat Patronage to Value Co-creation in Service Ecosystems: A Transcending Conceptualization of Relationship”
Journal of Business Market Management 4, 169-179

Vargo, Stephen L., Robert F. Lusch., and Melissa Archpru Akaka (2010)
“Advancing Service Science with Service-Dominant Logic: Clarifications and Conceptual Development”
Handbook of Service Science, Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy

Gummesson, Evert., Robert F. Lusch, and Stephen L.Vargo (2010)
“Transitioning from service management to service-dominant logic: Observations and recommendations”
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 

Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2009)
“Service-Dominant Logic – A Guiding Framework for Inbound Marketing”
Marketing Review St. Gallen

Lusch, Robert F., Stephen L. Vargo, and Mohan Tanniru (2010)
“Service, value networks and learning”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Vargo, Stephen L. (2009)
“Toward a Transcending Conceptualization of Relationship: a Service-Dominant Logic Perspective”
Journal of Business & Industry Marketing 24(5/6), 373-379

Vargo, Stephen L., Archpru Akaka (2009)
“Service-Dominant Logic as a Foundation for Service Science: Clarifications”
Service Science 1(1), 32-41

Merz, Michael A., Yi He, and Stephen L. Vargo (2009)
“The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant logic perspective”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Maglio, Paul P., Stephen L. Vargo, Nathan Caswell and Jim Spohrer (2009)
“The service system is the basic abstraction of the service science”
Information Systems and E Business Management

Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2008)
“The Service-Dominant Mindset”
Service Science, Management and Engineering, 89-96

Vargo, Stephen L. Paul P. Maglio and Melissa Archpru Akaka (2008)
“On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective” European Management Journal 26, 145-152

Vargo, Stephen L. (2008)
“Customer Integration and Value Creation: Paradigmatic Traps and Perspectives”
Journal of Service Research 11 (2), 211-215

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2008)
“Why “service” ?”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, 25-38

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2008)
“Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, 1-10

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2008)
“From good to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics”
Industrial Marketing Management

Michel, Stefan, Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch (2008)
“Reconfiguration of the Conceptual Landscape: A Tribute to the Service Logic of Richard Normann”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, 152-155

Lusch, Robert F. Stephen L. Vargo and Gunter Wessels (2008)
“Toward a Conceptual Foundation for Service Science: Contributions from Service-Dominant Logic”
IBM Systems Journal 47 (1), 5-14

Lusch, Robert F., (2007)
“Marketing’s Evolving Identity: Defining Our Future”
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 26 (2), 261-268

Vargo, Stephen L. (2007)
On A Theory of Markets and Marketing: From Positively Normative to Normatively Positive” Australasian Marketing Journal 15 (1), 53-60

Vargo, Stephen L. (2007)
Paradigms, Pluralisms, and Peripheries: On the Assessment of the S-D Logic” Australasian Marketing Journal 15 (1), 105-108

Lusch, Robert F. Stephen L. Vargo and Matthew O’Brien (2007)
Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic.
Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 2-18.

Lusch, Robert F. (2006)
“The Small and Long View”
Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2), 240-244

Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2006)
The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. 

Vargo, Stephen L. Robert F. Lusch and Fred W. Morgan
Historical Perspectives on Service-Dominant Logic
in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo eds., Armonk, M.E. Sharpe, 29-42.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2006)
Service-Dominant Logic: What it is, What it is not, What it might be.” in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo eds., Armonk, M.E. Sharpe, 43-56.

Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2006)
Service-Dominant Logic as a Foundation for Building a General Theory,”
in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo eds., Armonk, M.E. Sharpe, 406-420.

 Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo  (2006) 
Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements,” 
Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.

Lusch, Robert F. Stephen L. Vargo and Alan J. Malter (2006) 
Marketing as Service-Exchange: Taking a Leadership Role in Global Marketing Management” Organizational Dynamics, 35(3), 264–278.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Fred W. Morgan (2005) 
Services in Society and Academic Thought: A Historical Analysis.” Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (1), 42-53.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004)
Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.” Journal of Marketing, 68 (January),1-17.(Winner of AMA Maynard Award for Best Theoretical Contribution in Marketing)

Invited Commentaries on ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing” (2004) Journal of Marketing.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004) 
The Four Service Marketing Myths: Remnants of a Goods-Based, Manufacturing Model,” Journal of Service Research, 6 (4), 324-335. 

“Service Science” Presentations By Vargo and Lusch

A broad range of informative presentations by Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch can be found conveniently assembled at their website “Service Dominant Logic”  http://sdlogic.net/foundations.html

These presentations and their links are also listed below:

 

Service-Dominant Logic: Looking Ahead
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the Naples Forum on Service
Isle of Capri, Italy, June 14th-17th, 2011

Service Dominant Logic: Foundations and Directions
Presented by Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch
Presentation at the Westminster Workshop on Service-Dominant Logic
University of Westminster, UK, January 13th-14th, 2011

Rethinking Relationship: Service-Dominant Logic Perspectives

Presented by Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch
Presentation at the 18th International Colloquium on Relationship Marketing
Henley Business School, University of Reading, September 27th – October 1st, 2010

S-D Logic: Progress, Status, and Directions
Presented by Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch
Presentation at the Forum on Markets and Marketing
University of Cambridge, England, September 23rd-26th, 2010

S-D Logic: Accomodating, Integrating, Transdisciplinary
Presented by Robert Lusch and Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the Grand Service Challenge
University of Cambridge, England, September 23rd

“The Service Ecosystem”
Presented by Robert Lusch and Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the 19th annual Frontiers in Service Conference
Karlstad, Sweden, June 11th-13th, 2010

“Simplification and Reconciliation”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the 19th annual Frontier in Service Conference
Karlstad, Sweden, June 10th, 2010

“Markets as Conversation”
Presented by Robert Lusch
Presentation at the 2010 Marketing Science Conference
Cologne, Germany, June, 2010

“The Service Ecosystem”
Presented by Robert Lusch and Stephen Vargo
Naples, Italy, June 9th, 2010

“Service-Dominant Logic:An Alternative Mindset for Innovation”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the 2009 Ministry of the Knowledge Economy Conference on Service Innovation through R&D 
Seoul, Korea, November 10, 2009

“Frontiers in Service-Dominant Logic”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Honolulu, Hawaii, November 1, 2009

“Conundrums of the Market and Marketing: The Service-Dominant Logic Perspective”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the SERVSIG Doctoral Consortium 
Honolulu, Hawaii, October 29, 2009

“Service-Dominant Logic: An Introduction”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the University of Bayreuth
Bayreuth, Germany, June 10, 2009

“Alternative Logics for Service(s)”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the Tekes-Serve Annual Seminar
Helsinki, Finland, May 28, 2009

“Conundrums of the Market and Marketing: The Service-Dominant Logic Perspective”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the Hanken School of Economics
Helsinki, Finland, May 27, 2009

“Alternative Logics for Service Science”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the International Symposium on Service Science
Leipzig, Germany, March 23, 2009

“Alternative Logics for Service Science and Service Systems”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the Service Systems Workshop
Cambridge University, England, March 20, 2009

“Service-Dominant Logic: An Alternative Mindset”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the Advanced Institute of Management, Practitioner Seminar
London, England, March 18, 2009

“Alternative Logics for Research in Service(s)”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation at the Advanced Institute of Management, Research Seminar
London, England, March 18, 2009

 “Service – Dominant Logic and Markets as Systems: An Overview
Presented by Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch
Presentation at the Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences
Waikoloa Village Resort, HI, January 5, 2009

“Service-Dominant Logic, Market Theory, and Marketing Theory”
Presented by Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch
Presentation at Otago Forum 2
Dunedin, NZ, December 10, 2008

“Service-Dominant Logic:A Brief Update”
Presented by Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch
Presentation for the Forum on Market and Marketing: Extending Service-Dominant Logic
December 4, 2008

“Beyond the Game: A Service-Dominant Logic View of Value Creation”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation to the European Association of Sports Management
September 11, 2008

“Service-Dominant Logic: Prologue, Progress, and Prospects”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
38. Jahrestagung der Kommission Marketing
Berlin, January 18, 2008

“Service-Dominant Logic: Prologue, Progress, and Prospects”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Faculty Research Presentation
University of Bayreuth, January 16, 2008

Alternative Logics for Service Innovation
Presented by Stephen Vargo 
Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences
Symposium on Service Innovation and SSME, January 07, 2008

“Relationship: Toward Service-Dominant Logic Transcendence and Unification”
Presented by Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo 
Relationship Marketing Summit, December 13, 2007

From Goods to Service(s): A trail of Two Logics
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Presentation for the Service Science Seminar,
University of California, Merced, October 9, 2007

“Foundations of Resource-Integration Theory: Toward an S-D Logic informed Theory of the Market”
Presented by Stephen Vargo 
Frontiers in Service Conference, October 6, 2007

Alternative Logics for Service Innovation
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Global Advanced Technology Innovation Consortium Conference,
Global Innovation Challenges and Opportunities, September 27, 2007

Service-Dominant Logic: Progress and Prospects
Presented by Stephen Vargo, Robert Lusch, Melissa Akaka, and Yi He
2007 AMA Summer Educators’ Conference, August 5, 2007

Service-Dominant Logic: Overview, Update and Directions
Presented by Stephen Vargo
University of Waikato, July 26, 2007

From Goods to Service(s): A Trail of Two Logics
Presented by Stephen Vargo
University of Auckland, Center of Digital Enterprise, July 25, 2007

From Goods to Service(s): A Trail of Two Logics”
Presented by Stephen Vargo
University of Auckland, July 24, 2007

Service-Dominant Logic: Overview, Update and Directions
Presented by Stephen Vargo
University of Auckland, July 23, 2007

An Overview of Service-Dominant Logic
Presented by Stephen Vargo
University of St. Gallen, July 9, 2007

A Service Logic for Service Science
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Carnegie Mellon University, May 25, 2007

 “Service(s) Service Rationale(s)
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Cambridge, Service Science (SSME) Symposium, July 14, 2007

The Service-Dominant Logic Mindset: An Overview and Preview
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Oslo, Norway, April 27, 2007

The Service-Dominant Logic Mindset: A Primer and Preview
Presented by Stephen Vargo
BI Norwegian School of Management, April 24, 2007

The Service-Dominant Logic Mindset: A Primer and Preview
Presented by Stephen Vargo
Stockholm University School of Business, April 23, 2007

Research and Methodological Challenges in Research on Collaboration and Co-Creation of Value
Presented by Robert Lusch, Stephen Vargo and Yi He
AMA Winter 2007 Educators’ Conference, February 16-19, 2007

“Alternative Logics for Service Science: The Service-Dominant Logic Perspective” 
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo 
IBM Almaden Research Center; January 31, 2007

“From Goods to Service(s): A Trail of Two Logics” 
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo
Service the Science Seminar Series, University of California, Berkeley; January 30, 2007

“The Service-Dominant Logic Mindset: Overview and Directions”
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo
University of Melbourne, December 8, 2006

“On Theories of Markets and Marketing: From Positively Normative to Normatively Positive” 
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo
BIGMAC 3: EMAC/ANZMAC Research Symposium; October 7, 2006

The Service-Dominant Mindset”
Presented by Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo
IBM’s Service Science Management and Engineering Conference: Education for the 21st Century 
October 7, 2006

A Service Foundation for a Science of Service” 
Presented by Stephen L.Vargo
Business Services Research, Tokyo Research Laboratory, IBM Japan, Ltd.

The Future of Marketing: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective” 
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo
The PhD Project Marketing Doctoral Student Association Conference,
Chicago, Aug 3, 2006

The Emerging Service-Logic Mindset:An Introduction and Global Implications,” 
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo
The Pacific Asian Lecture Series, Honolulu, HI, July 11, 2006

S-D Logic as a Foundation for Service Science” 
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo
Frontiers in Service; Brisbane, Australia;June 29-July 2, 2006

Service-Dominant Logic: Clarifications and Elaborations
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo
Frontiers in Service; Brisbane, Australia;June 29-July 2, 2006

Conceptual Foundations for a Science of Service” 
Presented by Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo
Conference on the Art and Science of Services; Madrid, Spain;May 24, 2006

Thinking Small and Long” 
Presented by Robert F. Lusch
Ohio State University; May 19, 2006

Thinking Small and Long:Service-Dominant Logic & Agent Based Modeling ” 
Presented by Robert F. Lusch
University of Hawaii; March 10, 2006

The Service-Dominant Logicof Marketing
Presented by Robert F. Lusch
MMA Annual Conference; Chicago, Illinois; March 16, 2006

Service-Dominant Logic: Update from the Otago Forum
Presented by Stephen L. Vargo
Special Session Presentation for the ANZMAC Conference; December 5, 2005

Service-Dominant Logic: The New Frontier of Marketing
Presented by Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo
Business Briefing for the Otago Forum on Service-Dominant Logic; November 25, 2005

What S-D Logic Might Be
Presented by Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo
The Otago Forum on Service-Dominant Logic; November 23, 2005

Overview of theService-Dominant Logic of Marketing” 
Presented by Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo
Academic Presentation for the Otago Forum on Service-Dominant Logic; 
November 21, 2005

Service-Dominant Logic:What It Is and What It Is Not” 
Presented by Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo
The Otago Forum on Service-Dominant Logic; November 21, 2005

Avoiding the Mistake of Overmarketing” 
Presented by Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo
2004 Cultural Perspectives in Marketing Conference; Puebla, Mexico; September 24, 2004

 

 

New “Service Platform” Business Models Taking Shape In the Cloud

Saugatuck Technology released a new report (“The Cloud and Business Services – Key Trends and Directions Through 2015″) which (a) examines the significant converging  trends in Cloud technology and BPO and (b) forecasts developments in this domain.  A quick Google search of terms like “platform BPO” will show that these trends have been in evidence over the past few years (especially in India).  But what is new is the higher resolution of the roadmap leading to the horizon of real technical implementations and business models.

Saugatuck provides a salient summary of its report content as follows: 

 The IT and BPO services market is undergoing a period of deep structural change that is challenging the finely tuned market positions and business models of traditional services providers. Critical business change is occurring across supply chains, vendor / provider relationships, and customer relationships, due in part to the adoption of Cloud IT and Cloud Business models, but also the product of globalization and new sourcing innovations such as Business-Process-as-a-Service (BPaaS), Business Process Utilities (BPU) and Crowdsourcing.

While the traditional systems integration services market will decline in terms of overall market opportunity, in its place new services and channel opportunities are being born as a result of the Cloud. Cloud services providers will flourish as they embrace Cloud IT and Cloud Business, serving both ISVs migrating to the Cloud and enterprises reshaping themselves. In addition, new Cloud Business services from non-traditional technology services providers are driving innovation, increasing competition and providing user firms with more choice.

Representative findings from the report include:

•Through 2013, Indian providers will be some of the most aggressive innovators in PaaS. The Indian services providers will take advantage of Cloud delivery models and client trust to break their linear headcount-to-revenue business models.

•Through 2013, pure-play Cloud consulting companies will continue to enjoy superior market growth. As Cloud business solution providers offer integration APIs, Cloud consultants/integrators will produce a wide range of adapters, services and toolkits to provide added value for clients.

•By 2013, “non-traditional” service providers with specific vertical and business IP will aggressively enter the Cloud Business Services market. Saugatuck’s position is that “non-traditional” services providers may be the logical front-runners in the race for extending niche vertical services from the Cloud to clients.

•By 2015, 50 percent of new outsourcing deals will be significantly Cloud enabled. Technology platforms (enabled by Cloud IT) have emerged as the newest value lever for services leadership and adoption will continue in 2011 at a rapid pace.

•By 2015, Business Process Utilities will emerge as the preferred means of consuming horizontal / commoditized BPO offerings such as F&A, Procurement, and HR and select vertical opportunities (e.g., Navitaire in airline reservations).

•Through 2015, the primary users of PaaS will be system integrators because of their aggregation of demand, greater resources and expertise, and openness to risk-taking absent in most enterprises.

The Saugatuck report is available for purchase at:  http://saugatucktechnology.com/Browse-Research-Library/913SSR-The-Cloud-and-Business-Services-Key-Trends-and-Directions-Through-2015-760/View-details.html.

Another article (early 2011) on technology and BPO co-evolution can be found at the OutsourcingCenter website at http://www.outsourcing-center.com/2011-02-business-process-as-a-service-the-next-wave-of-bpo-delivery-article-42948.html