Service-dominant logic: Difference between revisions

Since Vargo and Lush published the first S-D logic article, "Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing",<ref>For this work, Lusch and Vargo have been awarded the Harold H. Maynard Award by the American Marketing Association for "significant contribution to marketing theory and thought" and the Sheth Foundation Award for "long term contributions to the field of marketing."</ref> in 2004, S-D logic has become a collaborative effort of numerous scholars across disciplines and it has been continually extended and elaborated (most frequently by Vargo and Lusch and in doing so, most of their references are their past papers, which should seriously decrease the validity of their papers). Among the most important extensions have been (1) the development of service ecosystems perspective that allows a more holistic, dynamic, and systemic perspective of value creation and (2) the emphasis of institutions and institutional arrangements as coordination mechanisms in such systems.

The first axiom (FP1) {{'}}''Service is the fundamental basis of exchange''{{'}} is based on the previously introduced definition of service as the application of operant resources (primarily knowledge and skill) for the benefit of another actor. S-D logic argues that it is always fundamentally service, rather than goods, per se, that actors exchange as they strive to become better off. It is important to emphasize that thisThis 'service' (singular), a process, should not be confused with 'services', (usually plural), usually intended to denote a unit of (intangible) output, which is associated with goods dominant (G-D) logic. The first axiom is at the heart of S-D logic, and thus foundational to the other FPs. For example, it implies that (1) goods are distribution mechanisms for service provision (FP3) and (2) all economies are service economies (FP5). It also follows that money, when it is involved in exchanges, represents rights to future service. In other words, money can be viewed as a placeholder for future service and can be understood as a form of indirect service exchange that often masks the fundamental basis of exchange (FP2).

* Ehrenthal J.C.F., Gruen T.W., Hofstetter J.S. (2021). Recommendations for Conducting Service-Dominant Logic Research. In: Dornberger R. (eds) New Trends in Business Information Systems and Technology. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 294. Springer, Cham, 281-297281–297. {{ISBN|978-3-030-48332-6}} https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48332-6_19

* Hardyman, W., Daunt, K. L., and Kitchener, M. (2015). Value co-creation through patient engagement in health care: a micro-level approach and research agenda. Public Management Review, 17(1), 90-10790–107.

* Karpen, I. O., Bove, L. L., Lukas, B. A., & Zyphur, M. J. (2015). Service-dominant orientation: measurement and impact on performance outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 89-10889–108.

* Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2004). [http://dret.net/lectures/ssme-spring07/VargoReading-Recommended.pdf 'Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing'], ''Journal of Marketing'', 68(1), 1-171–17.

* Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. ''Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science'', 36(1), 1-101–10.

* Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L and O'Brien, M. (2007). Competing Through Service: Insights from Service-Dominant Logic, ''Journal of Retailing'' 83(1), 5-185–18.

* Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L and Wessels, G. (2008). Toward a Conceptual Foundation for Service Science: Contributions from Service-Dominant Logic," ''IBM Systems Journal'' 47(January–March), 5-145–14.