Michel et al. define a discontinuous innovation as one that significantly changes how customers co-create value and affects market size, prices, or shares. However, the definition is flawed because value-in-use and value-in-exchange are difficult to define and measure. The authors also claim that customers play three roles in value creation - as users, buyers, and payers - but these roles are too rigid and don't fully capture how value is created. While the authors say firms change value creation through embedding resources, changing integrators, and reconfiguring networks, many of these claims restate principles of service-dominant logic without providing new insights.

1. Prepared by Michael Ling
Page 1
LITERATURE REVIEW SAMPLE SERIES
NO. 6
“Michel, S., S. W. Brown, and A. S.. Gallan (2008), “An Expanded and Strategic View of
Discontinuous Innovations: Deploying a Service-dominant Logic,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36, 54-66”
Michael Ling
July 2014 updated

2. Prepared by Michael Ling
Page 2
Definition of discontinuous innovation
Michel et al. define an innovation as discontinuous, from a SDL perspective, if it “(1)
significantly changes how customers co-create value (value-in-use criterion) and (2)
significantly affects market size, prices, revenues, or market shares (value-in-exchange
criterion).” Though the authors support the overall argument of SDL that customer is a co-
creator of value in innovation where “it is the customer who perceives and defines value based
on “value-in-use””(p. 55), they acknowledge the equal importance of ‘value-in-exchange’ in
their definition of discontinuous innovation. They claim that ‘value-in-exchange’ owes its
existence to ‘value-in-use’ which “exists only if and when value-in-use occurs for the customer”
(p. 55), but have not elaborated nor provided support of their claim. For example, it is not clear
how and to what extent ‘value-in-use’ will lead to ‘value-in-exchange’. Is it a one-to-one or one-
to-many relationship? As ‘value-in-use’ is based on operant resources such as knowledge,
ability and competences of consumers, it is a quality that is hard to define and measure. As
‘value-in-exchange’, according to the authors, is defined in terms of its effects on market such as
market shares or sizes, it is vaguely defined and impossible to measure its value consistently and
reliably. As a result, I would argue that the definition of discontinuous innovation is flawed
because it depends on variables that are hard to define and measure.
Customer’s value creation
Michel et al. state that “the creation of value requires that customers perform three
different roles: users, buyers, and payers”, where “the user’s role refers to value-in-use, the
payer’s to value-in-exchange, and the buyer’s role bridges value-in-use and value-in-exchange.”

3. Prepared by Michael Ling
Page 3
They claim that “any innovation always changes both the firm’s value creation and at least one
of the customer’s roles...or some combination thereof (p.61)”, and illustrate it by examples such
as IKEA and Wikipedia. I would argue that the specification of customer roles against the
‘value-in-use’ and ‘value-in-exchange’ types is too rigid and, to an extent, not entirely correct.
For example, value can be created by the payer if the value induces improvements in flexibility,
efficiency or convenience; hence, ‘value-in-use’ is created for the payer. The same argument
applies to a buyer. For example, value can be created by the buyer if the value enhances the
procurement process; hence, ‘value-in-use’ is created for the payer.
Firm’s value creation
The authors claim that a firm changes its value creation by “embedding operant
resources into objects”, “changing the integrators of resources”, and “reconfiguring value
constellations”.
As customer value co-creation through “embedding operant resources into objects” is
merely a re-statement of the first foundational premises (FP1) of SDL (Vargo & Lusch, 2004),
which postulates that products are “not the end product of the process of production” and can be
viewed as “distribution mechanisms for service provision”, the authors have not added any new
thoughts into their claim.
Michel et al. continue to claim the innovation category of “changing the integrators of
resources” is a fundamental cause of market exchange, a premise that is in FP1 of SDL (Vargo &
Lusch, 2004). The authors compare McDonald’s to a dining restaurant as an example to support
their claim that “less integrated offerings are less costly for the provider” and “more affordable
for consumers.” However, I would argue that the operation of McDonald’s is, in contrast, the

4. Prepared by Michael Ling
Page 4
result of a special and complex integration of specialized knowledge across large number of
employees (Grant, 1996), where employees are “empowered in their value-creation role and
considered the primal source of innovation, organizational knowledge, and firm value.” (Vargo
and Lusch, 2008). As a result, their argument does not lead to the affordability in McDonald’s.
Regarding the innovation category of “reconfiguring value constellations”, Michel et al.
claim that customer value co-creation can draw from a network of “operant resources from
multiple sources” where “market exchange is not restricted to two parties but is open to many
actors.” This view has been raised by Vargo and Lusch (2008a) as “a close link between
specialization and the exchange of service for service and networks and interaction.” I agree
that the network-centric approach is important to customer value co-creation, and the growth in
social networking media such as online communities will influence the growth and diversity of
value constellations.
References:
Grant R. M. (1996), “Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as
Knowledge Integration,” Organization Science, 7 (4), 375-387.
Vargo S. L. And R. F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68
(January), 1-17.
Vargo S. L. And R. F. Lusch (2008), “Why “Service”?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 25-38.
Vargo S. L. And R. F. Lusch (2008a), “Service-dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution” Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10.