Innovation For Joint Productivity
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Innovation For Joint Productivity

on

  • 635 views

Paper presented at the La Londe conference on service management (Fosse, Wille, Andreassen & Brønn)

Paper presented at the La Londe conference on service management (Fosse, Wille, Andreassen & Brønn)

Statistics

Views

Total Views
635
Views on SlideShare
616
Embed Views
19

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 19

http://www.linkedin.com 10
http://www.lmodules.com 9

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Innovation For Joint Productivity Innovation For Joint Productivity Document Transcript

  • Innovating for Joint Productivity Jan H. S. FOSSE - Deloitte Consulting, Norway Stein E. WILL – Get, Norway Tor W. ANDREASSEN - BI Norwegian School of Management, Norway Carl BRØNN - BI Norwegian School of Management, Norway ABSTRACT Firms innovate to stay competitive but the underlying variables governing the mechanism for short term and long term value creation are only understood to a limited extent. In this study we specifically investigate the long-term effects of productivity improvements that either take the firms’ or customers’ interests into account. Our point of departure is previous research by Parasuraman (2002), Rust, Moorman and Dickson (2002), and Vargo and Lusch (2004) on value creation for modern firms. The relationship has been operationalized through a synergistic model that includes both the firm’s and the customer’s input-output relationship. Based on dynamic simulations the results are surprisingly clear. When the firm considers the customer as a partner in value creation, optimal value is gained by providing mutual productivity improvements and long-term profitability is strongly improved. If the firm is self- centric with its own bottom-line as focus, the firm is less profitable in a long-term perspective. Thus, this research confirms and expands the service dominant logic in a managerial perspective. Jan H. S. Fosse (MSc) is a consultant with the strategy and operations practice at Deloitte Consulting, 0475 Oslo. Norway. Phone 0047 95 43 96 82 Email: janhenryfosse@gmail.com Stein E. Wille (MSc) is an account manager with the large client department at Get. 0663 Oslo. Norway Phone 0047 93 42 32 70 Email: sewille@gmail.com *Tor W. Andreassen (PhD) (Corresponding author) Professor and Chair Department of Marketing at BI Norwegian School of Management - Room # C4-073 - PoBox 20 - Nydalsveien 37 – N-0442 Oslo - Norway Phone: 0047 46 41 05 25 Email: tor.w.andreassen@bi.no Carl Brønn (PhD) is an Associate Professor, Department of Strategy and Logistics at BI Norwegian School of Management, Room # B3-060. PoBox 20. Nydalsveien 37. N-0442 Oslo. Norway. Phone: 0047 46 41 04 70 Email: carl.bronn@bi.no
  • Innovating for Joint Productivity INTRODUCTION Societies and industries thrive to profitability, reducing costs and im- when companies jockey for better posi- proving quality. For risk averse managers tions (Porter 1985) through a process of cost cutting has been the preferred route. creative destruction (Schumpeter 1934). Even though they may believe in the At the heart of most changes lies alternative, the associated risk and time innovative use of technology, i.e. techno- pressure often make them shy away. logy to improve the firm’s competitive However, there is a strong support in the advantage through costs reductions or marketing literature linking customer-per- increased revenue through differentiation. ceived quality and customer satisfaction to Balancing measures to improve efficiency positive business outcomes, supporting and effectiveness is at the heart of any the effectiveness of a customer focus (e.g. business manager’s decision making. In improving quality) Rust et al 2002: 9). This order to reap the long-term benefits notion is also strongly supported within the managers need to make sure that the firm market orientation and strategy literature survives in the short term. In other words: (Rust et al. 2002). today’s decisions may impact the long- term conditions to survive. For service In a recent article, Parasuraman firms one typical trade-off is cost cutting (2002) suggested that higher levels of today and its potential impact on customer service quality can be obtained not only satisfaction tomorrow. While some cost through more consistent quality over time reductions may leave customer satis- but also by reducing customer inputs faction unaffected or improved (e.g. re- (time, effort, emotional energy) and in- duced breakage) other cost cutting efforts creasing company input (labor, may have a direct impact on customer technology, equipment etc.). Because dissatisfaction (e.g. customer service) in most services are co-produced service the following periods. At the heart of this quality will “influence outputs from both a discussion lies organizational efficiency company and customer perspective.” and effectiveness. Parasuraman (2002) defines customer output as service performance and There are a number of definitions satisfaction, and company output as sales, of organizational efficiency and effective- profits and market share. Finally, and in ness. We define effectiveness as “the keeping with the disconfirmation of degree to which an organization realizes expectation paradigm (Oliver 1980), its goals” (Etzioni 1964). The efficiency of customer satisfaction should increase an organization is measured by “the (alternatively customer dissatisfaction de- amount of resources used to produce one crease) with increased perceived service unit of output” (Etzioni 1964, p 6). The quality. Today there are few, if any, argument is that there is a distinction here: research studies that focus on the impact on the one hand, productivity (efficiency) is of productivity and performance when the ‘amount of resources used to produce customers are part of the value creation a unit of output’ and on the other hand, process. The purpose of this study is to fill effectiveness is the ‘degree to which an this gap in the literature. The research organization realizes its goals’. (Etzioni question that guides our study can be 1964, p 8). Fundamental to this thinking is expressed as: What is the long-term the well-developed and documented ser- impact of firm or customer focused vice quality -> customer satisfaction -> productivity innovations? We will address performance link, (see for example Fornell this question in two steps. First, from the 1992; Rust et al. 2002; Rust and Zahorik literature we will identify key relationships 1993; Rust et al. 1994). From this linkage behind firm and customer productivity’s managers know that there are two routes impact on firm performance. Second, from
  • this review we will build a dynamic the above studies is the firm level. While simulation model to test the relationships. Rust et al. (2002) is a cross sectional From the base model we will simulate the study based on self-reported and longi- effects over time of two types of invest- tudinal secondary data, Parasurman tments in self-service technology: one that (2002) and Vargo and Lusch (2004) are maximizes firm productivity and one that normative and conceptual frameworks. maximizes customer productivity. The test Our contribution is a dynamic model con- lies in impact on performance over time. trasting the service and goods dominate logic of value creation (Vargo and Lusch CONCEPTUAL MODEL 2004), and testing them with regard to effectiveness. As alluded to above, there are three ways to an improved bottom line: Customers’ use of technology to increase revenue, reduce costs, or a produce and receive the service is often combination of these. According to Rust, referred to as self-service technology Moorman and Dickson (2002) firms that (SST), i.e. Technological interfaces that primarily focus the revenue side will have enable customers to take advantage of a a higher return on investment than any of service without any involvement from the other two options. While the hybrid service employees (Meuter et al. 2000). solution (cost cutting and revenue expan- SST has been successfully implemented sion at the same time) was documented in in private sector service firms (Blumberg one study (Mittal et al. 2005) to have the 1994). Given the elasticity of substitution highest return, the authors concluded that the firm can increase its capacity and difficulties of maintaining a balanced focus productivity by replacing labor with on both revenues and costs caused technology, and the consumer gains the problems for management. The emphasis freedom of easy and unconstrained on applying technological solutions to the access to desired services. For the firm, challenge of financial performance is a and especially one in a very competitive natural cones-quence of advances in infor- market with small margins, the case for mation technologies. With the proliferation SST can be very compelling in the quest of Internet-based firms and the increasing for a competitive advantage. In the acceptance of consumers for doing extreme, advances in technology allow the business online, it is natural for other types firm to essentially “outsource” most client of service providers to explore the use of relations’ activities to the clients them- technology in the production and delivery selves. of services. Following the findings of Rust et al. (2002), Rust and Kannan (2003) For the customers, there are addi- argued that the “electronification” of tional consequences that over a period of services (e-service) had the highest poten- time will begin to affect the relationship tial if it was employed to increase the between the service provider and service service level to the customers (i.e. the firm user. This dynamic interplay of action -> can offer more with less) rather than to reaction between firm and customer is reduce costs (e.g. increased productivity illustrated conceptually by Parasuraman through self service). One thing missing in (2002).
  • Figure 1: The Duality of service productivity In terms of systems thinking again manifests itself through various (Senge 1990), the challenge faced by symptoms. Over time these symptoms are service providers can be described by the then addressed with more of the same “Shifting the Burden” archetype, as medicine – short-term solutions. But the illustrated in Figure 1. The behavior of this beneficial results become more difficult to system is as follows. A triggering realize as the fundamental problem condition, the Problem Symptom, for becomes more and more entrenched. example, weak financial performance over time, initiates activities on the part of the Service firms that decide to firm to alleviate it. These actions can be of emphasize the SST approach to customer two types. The first is a short-term interactions can be susceptible to “Symptomatic Solution” that yields relative- behaviors described by the Shifting the ly immediate results. The other action is Burden archetype. The side effects is, of associated with addressing the “Funda- course, increased customer workload. This mental Solution,” which lies deeper in the increase, if kept within “reasonable” levels system and which takes relatively longer to through, for example, user-friendly assert its beneficial effects. Both solution interfaces, comprehensive help and on- types feed into and alleviate the Problem line functions, and accessible customer Symptom but at different rates and support services, contributes to increasing strengths. The natural human tendency is customer productivity and satisfaction. to rely on a strategy of implementing the However, if these amenities are not readily quicker symptomatic solution, but this has available then more of the customer’s time additional side effects that are unintended and effort will be spent on non-productive and usually not appreciated. The activities associated with trying to perform conundrum is that the consequence of a function. Over time, this will result in relying on a symptomatic solution actually consequences for the service provider. worsens the fundamental problem, which
  • Symptomatic Solution (developing SST) + - + Problem Symptom Side Effect (weak financial (customer performance) workload) - Fundamental Solution + (maintain loyal - customer base) Figure 2: The Shifting the Burden archetype As with any new technology, there Side Effects (customer workload) with is an adoption and a learning curve that Fundamental Solution (maintain loyal consumers must overcome in order to customer base). The polarity of the link is realize the full value of the technology negative. This means that as the level of (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Any frustrations the causal variable Side Effect increases, experienced in this phase will reduce the then the ability to realize the Fundamental productivity of the customer as they will Solution will decrease; there is an inverse experience a decrease in service con- relationship between these factors. This venience, i.e. “.... Consumers’ time and relationship is important in that it is a effort perceptions related to buying or fundamental requirement that the firm has using a service” (Berry et al. 2002). a loyal customer base. This has several Negative consequences are mitigated to important consequences for growth, not some extent if the company maintains an the least of which is the word-of-mouth effective service staff that can assist effect. customers. Over time, however, other effects will accumulate and can have a In the following paragraphs we delayed impact on the relationship bet- detail the logic that links the side effects of ween the company and its customers. In the press for greater customer involvement the causal loop diagram of Figure 2, these in the co-production process (Lusch et al. effects are represented in the arrow linking 2006) with its consequences.
  • Service Labor Investment + - SST Firm co-production Investment + Customer co-production workload workload + + + + + Cost level Customer Technology SST Service Proficiency - Time pressure - - Performance Level Price level Financial Firm productivity Customer productivity + Performance level + + + - Switching Cost + + Treshold - Revenue level Increase Decrease + Likelihood of Size of defection customer base + - Customers gained Customers lost + Figure 3: Dynamic model The process is complex in that the higher degree of SST are that its operating relationship between customer productivity costs will be reduced by converting and workload is non-linear. Although customers to part-time employees. The people deal with stress due to workload in actual amount of work that the firm individual ways, the general relationship contributes to the co-production process can be described as an inverted u-shape decreases as the burden for executing with the vertical axis representing pro- interactions is shifted more to the ductivity and the horizontal axis the customers. This, coupled with increased workload. People will respond positively, production capacity, will increase firm but at a decreasing rate, to increased productivity. In sum, replacing expensive work, but as the workload a passes labor with less expensive technology through a critical level, productivity will serves to improve the firm’s financial drop off. Reduced convenience (Berry et situation. al. 2002) may create an incentive to change patronage (Keaveney 1995). Not Employing technology in services surprisingly the loyalty bond between the implies often a de-emphasis on labor and customer and the supplier is weakened. the interpersonal service aspects of value The decision to change from one supplier production. This can be an additional side to another is further mitigated by the cost effect of implementing new technology. of changing suppliers (Shapiro and Varian Over time, this side effect can negatively 1999). However, if the impact of shifted influence the ability of the firm to maintain workload from SST is sufficiently great, the a loyal customer base (Selnes and threshold switching cost will be exceeded Hansen 2001). Reduced customer loyalty and the relationship is broken. may increase customer voice and exit behavior (Hirschman 1970) thus impacting The firm also experiences cones- the size of the actual customer base. In quences from investments in SST. The turn this will affect the firm’s financial benefits to the firm from implementing a performance both directly and indirectly.
  • These relationships are very customer base. Results are aggregated complex and the behavior resulting from over the time steps. A central feature of their interactions can only be understood the model is related to the concept- through simulation. Co-production and the tualization of the SST performance level customer’s productivity is a complex and its influence on customer productivity. relationship, but the effect of shifting more This variable is a function of the total SST responsibility for value creation on to investment and the customer’s ability to customers can increase the likelihood of use the technology based on their defection. The size of the customer base proficiency level, thus establishing an and the ability of the firm to maintain a endogenously defined performance metric. loyal base, and derive the benefits of This is in keeping with the thinking behind positive word-of-mouth, are crucial to the Technology Readiness Index being able to maintain financial perfor- (Parasuraman 2000).The simulation runs mance at acceptable levels. That the over a time period of 48 steps with four precedents of the ability to maintain a loyal exogenously defined variables including customer base are associated with Service Labor Investment, SST Invest- potentially significant time delays makes ment, Price level, and Customer Tech- understanding and interpreting these nology Proficiency. The investment levels relationships even more difficult. The next are used to establish the two opposite section develops a system dynamics- scenarios. based simulation model that enables us to understand the potentially conflicting In the first scenario the firm outcomes from the business process reduces their investment in service labor strategy. aggressively and maintains a low level of spending. This implies that a firm would ANALYSIS AND RESULTS reduce or remove personnel that used to A simulation model that captures produce and deliver the service and rather the short-term and long-term relationships let customers carry the workload using the in the value co-production process was technology interface. In order to establish developed. The model enabled simulation a functional SST platform the firm would of two scenarios that represent extreme allocate an initial investment, but reduce opposites with respect to investing in SST. spending as quickly as possible. Sub- While the first case focuses on improving sequent investment for improvements and the firm’s productivity, the second case further development would be kept at a emphasizes customer productivity. This minimum. In short, the firm improves its contrasting of interests captures the productivity and reduces customer pro- different views in goods and service ductivity. dominant logic of value creation. All simulations are executed using the The results indicate an initial Vensim simulation package. The model is improvement measured in both financial based upon the dynamic model in Figure 3 performance and productivity due to the with the addition of the stock size of reduced firm workload.
  • Financial Performance level 400,000 300,000 Monetary value 200,000 100,000 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Time (Month) Figure 4: Financial performance in scenario I However the results shift drama- In the second scenario the firm tically towards the second half of the reduces service labor to a lesser extent. In simulation period. Customers start leaving addition, the firm keeps investing in SST to the firm when their workload gets dis- further develop and improve the service proportionably large and the financial offering once the initial investment is performance drops when revenue losses made. This is done to reduce customer outweigh the benefits of cost reduction. workload. In short, the firm reduces its Additionally, the switching cost threshold is productivity but increases customer pro- reduced when customers experience time ductivity. The simulation results indicate pressure as a result of the increased that both the firm and the customer workload. The lowered switching cost benefits from a better balanced distribution threshold increases the probability of of workload. customers ending their relationship with the firm. Financial Performance level 600,000 450,000 Monetary value 300,000 150,000 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Time (Month) Figure 5: Financial performance in scenario II
  • Financial performance improves think “customers first” and accept a throughout the simulation and there are temporary drop in firm productivity also strong improvements in firm pro- awaiting customers future response to ductivity. Customers initially experience innovative solutions that better integrate some loss of productivity when shifting customers’ recourses with the firm’s from service to self-service. This result is resources. partly based on an initial limited ability to utilize the technology since the customer For managers struggling with which must both learn to use the SST and school of thought to follow – service perform the service. dominant or goods dominant – will know from this study that the financial per- MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS formance seems to be more rewarding for firms innovating in accordance with the Balancing operational issues and service dominant logic of co-creation of market issues has always been a value. This finding is rather unique as the challenge to managers, more so for service dominant logic has never been service firms than traditional manu- tested with regard to effectiveness. facturing firms. In this study we have investigated the long-term effects on LIMITATIONS performance of two types of innovations, increased use of SST to improve firm We have developed a general productivity or customer productivity. From model capturing value creation for service the results of the simulations we see that firms. From this we made two simulations although effects of innovations that follows focusing either firm or customer interests. the goods dominant logic (i.e. maximize Value creation is complex and we have firm productivity) are very promising in the only captured some key relationships and short run the long term-effects are made some assumptions about their discouraging. Obviously customer reac- intercorrelations. Future research should tions from being forced to do more of the elaborate on our model by including other job themselves leads to customer variables and investigate more thoroughly dissatisfaction and finally customer exit. how they relate to each other. Future The feeling of imbalance in the workload is research should test the model for in keeping with Homans’ law on equity different types of services (e.g. tailor made (Homans 1961). Many firms would prob- versus standardized) or capturing different ably remedy the increased workload with a customer segments (e.g. age or different reduced price, reflecting their own cost scores. savings and partially passing them on to the customers. Adjusting for price reduction in the simulation we see the same pattern with regard to performance. Innovations for productivity in accordance with the service dominant logic (i.e. maximize for customer productivity) are discouraging in the short term but rewarding in the longer run as they produce results that far outperform the initial losses. From this we can learn that despite a reduction in firm productivity the long-term effects of increased customer productivity far exceed the firm’s initial loss. Contrary to traditional pro- ductivity thinking service managers should
  • References Berry, Leonard L., Kathleen Seiders, and Oliver, Richard L. (1980), "A Cognitive Dhruv Grewal (2002), "Understanding Model of the Antecedence and Service Convenience," Journal of Consequences of Satisfaction Marketing, 66 (3), 1-17. Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (September), 46-49. Blumberg, Donald F. (1994), "Strategies for Improving Field Service Operations Parasuraman, A. (2002), "Service Quality Productivity and Quality," The Service and Productivity: A Synergistic Industries Journal, 14 (2), 262-77. Perspective," Managing Service Quality, 12 (1), 6-9. Etzioni, A. (1964), Moden Organizations. Engelwoog Cliffs, New Jersey: ---- (2000), "Technology Readiness Index: Prentice-Hall. A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Fornell, Claes (1992), "A National Technologies," Journal of Service Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Research, 2 (4), 307-3320. Swedish Experience," Journal of Marketing, 55 (January), 1-21. Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Hirschman, Albert O. (1970), Exit, Voice, Press. and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Rust, Roland T. , Christine Moorman, and Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Peter R. Dickson (2002), " Getting Return on Quality: Revenue Homans, G.C. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Expansion, Cost Reduction, or Both?," Elementary Forms. New York, NY: Journal of Marketing, 66 (October), 7- Harcourt, Brace, and World. 24. Keaveney, Susan M. (1995), "Customer Rust, Roland T. and P.K. Kannan (2003), Switching Behavior in Service "E-service: A New Paradigm for Industries: An Exploratory Study," Business in the Electronic Journal of Marketing, 59 (2), 71-82. Environment," Communications of the Lusch, Robert L., Stephen L. Vargo, and ACM, 46 (June), 37-42. Matthew O'Brien (2006), "Competing Rust, Roland T., A. J. Zahorik, and T. L. through service: Insights from service- Keiningham (1994), "Return on Quality dominant logic," Journal of Retailing, (ROQ): Making Service Quality 83 (1), 5-18. Financially Accountable," Marketing Meuter, Matthew L., Ostrom Amy L., Science Institute. Roundtree Robert I., and Bitner Mary Rust, Roland T. and Anthony J. Zahorik Jo (2000), "Self-Service Technologies: (1993), "Customer Satisfaction, Understanding Customer Satisfaction Customer Retention, and Market with Technology-Based Service Share," Journal of Retailing, 69 (2 Encounters," Journal of Marketing, 64 summer), 193-215. (3), 50-64. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Mittal, Vikas, Eugene W. Anderson, Akin Economic Development. Cambridge, Sayrak, and Pandu Tadikamalla Mass: Harvard University Press. (2005), "Dual Emphasis and the long- Term Financial Impact of Customer Selnes, F. and Håvard Hansen (2001), Satisfaction," Marketing Science, 24 (4 "The Potential Hazard of Self-Service Fall), 544-55. in Developing Customer Loyalty," Journal of Service Research, 4 (2), 79- 90.
  • Senge, Peter (1990), The Fifth Discipline: Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch The Art & Practice of the Learning (2004), "Evolving to a New Dominant Organization. New york: Doubleday Logic for Marketing," Journal of Currency. Marketing, 68 (January), 1-17. Shapiro, Carl and Hal R. Varian (1999), Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.