Defining Firm-Level Resource Integration Effectiveness from the Perspective of Service-Dominant Logic: A Critical Factor Contributing to the Sustainability of a Firm’s Competitive Advantage and the Ecosystem It Operates
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
- Step 1: Scopus was selected as the search engine to systematically search relevant literature because it produces the most extended list of relevant references [17]. Through the understanding gathered from the preliminary literature review, the authors searched the Scopus database for the phrases resource integration, resource integration process, resource integration AND service-dominant logic, and resource integration process AND service-dominant logic. The search process of the phrases resource integration and resource integration process mostly returned irrelevant responses. Thus, this study ignored those responses. The search conducted for the phrase resource integration process AND service-dominant logic returned 58 unique responses. The phrase resource integration AND service-dominant logic produced 112 unique responses. The outcome of resource integration process AND service-dominant logic overlapped with the outcome of resource integration AND service-dominant logic. Thus, only the results of resource integration AND service-dominant logic were considered. As a result, 112 distinct search results were retrieved.
- Step 2: The authors carefully reviewed all the studies obtained from Step 1. The review identified two types of studies. Fifty-eight studies provided opinions on the nature of resource integration, while the others did not. The group that commented on the nature of resource integration considers it an interactive or an interactive and emergent process. Ref. [18] suggest that resource integration can be defined by considering it as an emergent, interactive, or intersubjective process. Hence, the authors decided that the studies that discuss the nature of resource integration can be used to form the definition of resource integration. Thus, at the end of Step 2, 58 studies were retained for further review.
- Step 3: To ensure that this study captures a majority of the relevant articles, the authors repeated step 1 with the Google Scholar search engine. Results of up to 10 pages were chosen because the authors noted that the search results beyond ten pages consisted of irrelevant studies. The screening process was carried out by reading the titles and abstracts of each study. At the end of step 3, 13 more studies that are published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals were considered. Thus, the authors shortlisted 71 studies for further review by the end of this step.
3. Results
3.1. Defining Resource Integration
3.2. Defining Firm-Level Resource Integration Effectiveness
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2016, 44, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haase, M.; Kleinaltenkamp, M. Property rights design and market process: Implications for market theory, marketing theory, and S-D logic. J. Macromarketing 2011, 31, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. 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; Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., Eds.; MESharp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 43–56. [Google Scholar]
- Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caridà, A.; Edvardsson, B.; Colurcio, M. Conceptualizing resource integration as an embedded process: Matching, resourcing and valuing. Mark. Theory 2019, 19, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusch, R.F.; Nambisan, S. Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Q. 2015, 39, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hibbert, S.; Winklhofer, H.; Temerak, M.S. Customers as resource integrators: Toward a model of customer learning. J. Serv. Res. 2012, 15, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollebeek, L.D. Developing business customer engagement through social media engagement-platforms: An integrative S-D logic/RBV-informed model. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 81, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodie, R.; Löbler, H. Advancing knowledge about service-dominant logic: The role of midrange theory. In The Sage Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic; Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 565–577. [Google Scholar]
- Brodie, R.J.; Saren, M.; Pels, J. Theorizing about the service dominant logic: The bridging role of middle range theory. Mark. Theory 2011, 11, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Service-dominant logic 2025. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2017, 34, 46–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Podsakoff, N.P. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 293–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, T.; Evans, D. Conducting a systematic review. Aust. Crit. Care 2000, 13, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlachter, S.; McDowall, A.; Cropley, M.; Inceoglu, I. Voluntary work-related technology use during non-work time: A narrative synthesis of empirical research and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 825–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lozano-Reina, G.; Sánchez-Marín, G. Say on pay and executive compensation: A systematic review and suggestions for developing the field. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2020, 30, 100683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, J.; Criado, A.R. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 29, 101717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, L.D.; Löbler, H.; Brodie, R.J.; Breidbach, C.F.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Smith, S.D.; Sörhammar, D.; Varey, R.J. Theorizing about resource integration through service-dominant logic. Mark. Theory 2014, 14, 249–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Löbler, H. Service-dominant networks: An evolution from the service-dominant logic perspective. J. Serv. Manag. 2013, 24, 420–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, L.D. Heteropathic versus homopathic resource integration and value co-creation in service ecosystems. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2999–3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aal, K.; Di Pietro, L.; Edvardsson, B.; Maria, F.R.; Mugion, R.G. Innovation in service ecosystems: An empirical study of the integration of values, brands, service systems and experience rooms. J. Serv. Manag. 2016, 27, 619–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleinaltenkamp, M.; Brodie, R.J.; Frow, P.; Hughes, T.; Peters, L.D.; Woratschek, H. Resource integration. Mark. Theory 2012, 12, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peters, L. Resource integration: Concepts and processes. In The Sage Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic; Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 341–356. [Google Scholar]
- Bruce, H.L.; Wilson, H.N.; Macdonald, E.K.; Clarke, B. Resource integration, value creation and value destruction in collective consumption contexts. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 103, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edvardsson, B.; Kleinaltenkamp, M.; Tronvoll, B.; McHugh, P.; Windahl, C. Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration. Mark. Theory 2014, 14, 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Laud, G.; Karpen, I.O.; Mulye, R.; Rahman, K. The role of embeddedness for resource integration: Complementing S-D logic research through a social capital perspective. Mark. Theory 2015, 15, 509–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widjojo, H.; Fontana, A.; Gayatri, G.; Soehadi Agus, W. Value co-creation for innovation: Evidence from Indonesian organic community. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2020, 32, 428–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widjojo, H.; Fontana, A.; Gayatri, G.; Soehadi, A.W. Value co-creation for marketing innovation: Comparative study in the SME community. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 24, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballantyne, D.; Frow, P.; Varey, R.J.; Payne, A. Value propositions as communication practice: Taking a wider view. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2011, 40, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gummesson, E.; Mele, C. Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and resource integration. J. Bus. Mark. Manag. 2010, 4, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korkman, O.; Storbacka, K.; Harald, B. Practices as markets: Value co-creation in e-invoicing. Australas. Mark. J. 2010, 18, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S.L. Customer integration and value creation: Paradigmatic traps and perspectives. J. Serv. Res. 2008, 11, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LEXICO. Definition of effective in English. 2019. Available online: https://www.lexico.com/definition/effectiveness (accessed on 9 March 2020).
- Strauss, K. The 10 companies with the best CSR reputations in 2017. Forbes, 13 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, C.; McWilliams, A.; Lawrence, R.; Waheduzzaman, W. MGMT4, 4th ed.; Cengage Learning Australia Pty Limited: South Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Dans, E. Volkswagen and the failure of corporate social responsibility. Forbes, 27 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hotten, R. Volkswagen: The Scandal Explained. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772 (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darwin, C. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs; Smith Elder & Company: London, UK, 1842. [Google Scholar]
- Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; Broadview Press: Peterborough, ON, Canada, 1859. [Google Scholar]
- Laland, K.N.; O’Brien, M.J. Cultural niche construction: An introduction. Biol. Theory 2011, 6, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laland, K.N.; Odling-Smee, F.J.; Feldman, M.W. The evolutionary consequences of niche construction: A theoretical investigation using two-locus theory. J. Evol. Biol. 1996, 9, 293–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laland, K.N.; Odling-Smee, J.; Feldman, M.W. Cultural niche construction and human evolution. J. Evol. Biol. 2001, 14, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Laland, K.N.; Odling-Smee, J.; Myles, S. How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendal, J.; Tehrani, J.J.; Odling-Smee, J. Human niche construction in interdisciplinary focus. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Laland, K.; Matthews, B.; Feldman, M.W. An introduction to niche construction theory. Evol. Ecol. 2016, 30, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Laland, K.N.; O’Brien, M.J. Niche construction theory and archaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2010, 17, 303–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodie, R.J.; Löbler, H.; Fehrer, J.A. Evolution of service-dominant logic: Towards a paradigm and metatheory of the market and value cocreation? Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 79, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churchill, G.A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeVellis, R.F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; SAGE Publications: Sauzende Oaks, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Characteristic | Inclusion Criteria |
---|---|
Publication medium | Peer-reviewed journal, conference, and book chapters indexed in Scopus |
Language | English and Sinhala |
Period | From 2006 to 2020 (inclusive) |
Research design | Conceptual and empirical |
Content | SD logic related studies that include discussions on resource integration |
Source | Scopus and Google Scholar databases |
Study | Description of Resource Integration | Resource Integration: An Interactive Process (IP), Emergent Process (EP) or an Interactive and Emergent Process (IEP)? |
---|---|---|
[24] | A process whereby actors combine and apply resources in pursuit of value creation | IEP |
[6] | Resource integration is a process consists of three phases: matching, resourcing, and valuing | IEP |
[25] | Resource integration consists of cooperative and collaborative processes between actors, leading to experiential outcomes and outputs, as well as mutual behavioral outcomes for all actors involved | IEP |
[22] | Resource integration requires process(es) and forms of collaboration. Collaboration occurs through commitments between networked actors | IP |
[26] | Conceptualize resource integration with six distinct interactive practices: accessing, adapting, mobilizing, internalizing, transforming, and applying | IP |
[20] | Where resource interaction results in either emergent or summative relations | IEP |
[18] | Claim resource integration as an emergent process while acknowledging its interactive nature | IEP |
[4] | Resource integration integrates and transforms micro-specialized competencies residing within organizations into complex services that are demanded in the marketplace | IP |
[5] | All social and economic actors are resource integrators | IP |
[27,28] | Collaborative networks and dynamic interactions back resource integration | IP |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jayasinghe, S.; Johnson, L.; Hewege, C.; Perera, C. Defining Firm-Level Resource Integration Effectiveness from the Perspective of Service-Dominant Logic: A Critical Factor Contributing to the Sustainability of a Firm’s Competitive Advantage and the Ecosystem It Operates. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052717
Jayasinghe S, Johnson L, Hewege C, Perera C. Defining Firm-Level Resource Integration Effectiveness from the Perspective of Service-Dominant Logic: A Critical Factor Contributing to the Sustainability of a Firm’s Competitive Advantage and the Ecosystem It Operates. Sustainability. 2022; 14(5):2717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052717
Chicago/Turabian StyleJayasinghe, Shan, Lester Johnson, Chandana Hewege, and Chamila Perera. 2022. "Defining Firm-Level Resource Integration Effectiveness from the Perspective of Service-Dominant Logic: A Critical Factor Contributing to the Sustainability of a Firm’s Competitive Advantage and the Ecosystem It Operates" Sustainability 14, no. 5: 2717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052717