Technology enabled resource integration in service ecosystems

Introduction Activities and interactions enabled by technology affect how actors (e.g. customers) experience the service (Åkesson, Edvardsson and Tronvoll 2014). For business, information technology, digitalization, and big data metrics and analytics have created technology-enabled resource integration opportunities and service platforms are changing many businesses (Rust & Huang 2014; Hartmann et al. 2016; Kunz et al. 2017; Colurcio et al., 2017). Interactive technologies challenge traditional logic of creating value and enable new modes of resource integration (e.g. online contest) driving customized service and new modes of experiencing value (Caridà et al., 2018). For customers, Internet based technologies, including self-service technologies (SSTs), are a key strategic driver of changes in customer behavior (Kandampully, 2012), as enable self-customization and socially-embedded consumption experiences (Mathwick, Wiertz and De Ruyter, 2008; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000, 2004). The widespread use of technology changes the nature and definition of service and suggests a new form of consumer–firm relationship that relates more to the process of serving instead of the concept of service as output (Grönroos, 1984; Lusch, Vargo and Wessels, 2008). Indeed, the technological advancement, digitalization and data analytics, on one hand, weakean the traditional face-to-face contact between companies and end-users and highlight the relevance of the functional dimension of services (e.g. ease and speed of achieving a task effectively and conveniently: Pura, 2005; service excellence, price and time savings: Overby and Lee 2006), whereas, on the other hand, they boost the deep engagement of customers within the companies’ service ecosystem (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015) and underline the relevance of the relational and the experential dimension of services (Holbrook and Hirschman,1982; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) as an holistic and meaning-laden experiences based on social identity and cultural processes (Caridà et al., 2018). Recently, scholars disclose the dynamic and transformative power of technology by emphasizing its dual roles (facilitator or enabler and initiator or actor) in the service context (Caridà et al., 2017; Lusch and Nambisan, 2015; Löbler, 2013). As pointed out above, the technological advancement and scaling-up of technology use allow for new coordinating mechanism of resource integration, such as the online contest (Caridà et al., 2017), which are designed to: i) support the dialogue among actors (human - non human and human - human), ii) allow for the easy access to additional resources and iii) optimize the actors limited abilities to successful co-create and capture value. In this latter, technology discloses the critical role of resource integration within the interactive value formation system by potentially enhance the successful transfer and activation of the actors’ resources in the company service creating process, as well as, the successful operation on available resources to mutually reinforce and transform resources for a shared purpose and shared meanings (e.g. value creation: Caridà et al., 2018). Although web based technology, including social media discloses a high potential for boosting resource integration, its mere adoption is not synonymous with positive value creation. Indeed, only the intended use of technology (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015) provides the broad service ecosystem (Vargo and Akaka, 2012) with new opportunities to successful integrate resources and thus to co-create, assess and capture positive value (Caridà et al., 2017). The aim of the paper is to theorize beyond the concept of resource integration as the antecedent of value creation (Edvardsson and Tronvoll, 2013; Lusch and Webster, 2011), as a theoretical concept, to theorize on resource integration in dynamic business practice in the context of service ecosystems. We will explore who and why the engaged actors collaborate and establish dynamic and enabling or inhibiting relationships (e.g. market relationships) by inspiring and driving them toward more effective resource integration and value co-creation outcomes; that is value-in-context (Chandler and Vargo 2011). According to Edvardsson et al. (2014), resource integration relates to the methods through which resources are integrated and used by colaborating actors and implies cooperative and relational processes that result in attractive outcomes for all engaged actors. In such vein and according to the aim of the paper, the study focussed on online contests, we reffered to as a business practices and a resource integration coordinating mechanisms that through the intended use of technology drives the market dynamic relations. This study adopts the Caridà, Edvardsson and Colurcio (2018) conceptualization of resource integration and broadens it to the next level of the dynamics of the market relations within the more complex service ecosystem context. Literature Review As research on resource integration are in an early stage of development (Colurcio et al.2017) some scholars have called for a more solid theory about resource integration as a construct per se and not only as a key concept within the value co-creation issue (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012; Peters et al., 2014). Indeed this topic is still relatively unexplored and is conceptually subordinate to value co-creation. With the exception of some recent contributions (Caridà et al.2018), studies on how integrate available resources and on how design and manage the integration processes lack. Resource integration emerges as , central process embedded into the interactive value-formation system (Caridà, Edvardsson and Colurcio, 2018) that is not only driven and shaped by actors’ use of knowledge and skills but also implies a social and cultural process that enables the networking of actors (Gummesson and Mele, 2010) within the service ecosystem (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015; Vargo and Akaka, 2012). Resource integration is accomplished and by multiple actors within asymmetric relationships in a continuous process of integrating and coordinating activities performed by actors (Payne, Storbacka, and Frow, 2008). It occurs through a specific set of interactions and forms of collaboration between actors and available resources (Ballantyne and Varey, 2006; Peters et al., 2014) and emerges through a sequence of three phases – matching, resourcing and valuing – that are interdependent and have a powerful mutual influence (Caridà et al.2018): “during the first two phases, actor’s resources interact, match and become. They transform themselves from basic operant resources (BORs) into composite operant resources (CORs) and interconnected operant resources (IORs). Finally, during the last phase, actors interpret the social context and determine the value outcomes they co-create within and through it” (pp. 5-6). Technology is a booster of such a matching-resourcing-valuing process as it enables both resource liquefaction and resource density (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015) and empowers the actors’ awareness of resource potential (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2016). Methodology This article is conceptual in nature; it adopts a qualitative research approach and an empirical contextualization strategy (Ketokivi and Mantere, 2010; McInnis, 2011) to refine and upgrade existing theories rather than inventing entirely new ones. According to Ketokivi and Mantere, (2010), in our contextualization exercise, we reinterpreted well-known online contests cases in the light of the literature we propose to match and bridge theory and business practice. The research process followed the research planning and the literature review, and the selection and interpretation of empirical contextualization. In this latter, the narratives we built are based on data and information we gathered from previous studies; their reinterpretation allows us to observe specific dynamics featuring online contests as resource integration coordinating mechanism that, on one hand, enhances the convergence between the functional and the experiential dimensions of service(s), and on the other, shapes the market as a long-time, recursive and valuable relationship. Findings The study sets online contest as a resource integration coordinating mechanism that is multi-actor, flexible and valuable for all the service ecosystem actors. In this line, online contest is the main mechanism triggering the systemic networking, the strengthening of existing market relationship and the development of new ones for the integration and the join creation of value for the whole service system. Accordingly, the online contest doesn’t appear as a one time activity but is a crowdsourcing practice that is socially and culturally embedded within the company business model. It goes beyond the relationship between company and customers to mobilize and foster higher resource density and resource renewal through the service ecosystem. Accordingly, online contest shapes the service context by affecting the market relationships dynamics. Conclusion and Implication This paper contributes to the ongoing theorizing and conversation on resource integration in service ecosystems. It contributes by extending the understanding of the mechanisms that are enabling or inhibiting resource integration in practice for engaged actors. One specific contribution has to do with elaborating on how diffeent actors are engaged to extract different value but benefit form establishing collaborative relationships with each other. The very reason for collaborating and forming relationships is that other actors are invited since they have someting the focal actor have not but find attractive and useful for creating business or social value. This sometimes requires the breaking of existing modes of resorce integration to enable the making of new and more effective processes for resource integration and at the same time maintaining supportive and institutionlized practices and relationsips (Koskela-Huotari et al., 2016). This will be further elaborated on in the final version of the paper, empasizing asymmetric resource integration drivers. On the managerial perspective, this study provides useful insigts to better manage online contest as a resource integration coordinating mechanism to design collaborative business model enabling the successful co-creation of holistic and meaning-laden experiences through which actors (e.g. service ecosystem actors) assess and capture positive value

Fighting poverty and inequalities through social impact bonds: Learning from case studies to support the Covid-19 response

This chapter focuses on critical case studies involving SIBs—launched to address poverty (also in advanced economies) and socio-economic inequality issues—with the aims of understanding (1) the links and gaps between the contests and the structures of different SIB models and the ways to achieve their goals and (2) the key elements for scaling up these practices. Our analysis examines the main implications for research and practice by providing a framework for an ecosystem in which SIBs are developed. The work contributes to the international debate and introduces interesting stimuli for developing SIBs in the post-COVID-19 era, especially in some European Union countries, such as Italy, that are characterized by high rates of unemployment and poverty

Il valore del brand nella value proposition dei functional foods

Il tema del lavoro riguarda un fenomeno di business di interesse crescente: i functional food (FFs). Con tale terminologia si individua la varietà tipologica di alimenti e bevande ai quali, al di là delle specifiche proprietà nutrizionali, è associata la capacità di influenzare positivamente una o più funzioni dell'organismo. Il business degli alimenti funzionali si trova in una fase di rapida e promettente evoluzione che interessa oltre ai paesi dell’Europa occidentale, anche i paesi russi. La necessità di fare chiarezza su tema dal punto di vista teorico e di operare una prima sistematizzazione in tal senso ha animato l’interesse allo sviluppo del presente lavoro di ricerca che presenta una duplice finalità. In primo luogo si propone di indagare i diversi contesti di significato dei FFs rispetto alla molteplicità dei campi scientifici interessati al fenomeno e di operare una sistematizzazione dei contributi secondo una prospettiva teorica di marketing. In secondo luogo, lo studio mira alla definizione di un framework di manageriale per supportare le imprese nella definizione della proposizione di valore e soprattutto nel product e brand management dei FFs

Efficacy and safety of first-line checkpoint inhibitors-based treatments for non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-based regimens in non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been deeply investigated. To rank the available therapeutic options, we carried out a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ICI regimens, and a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) with an all-comers and a stratified strategy were conducted. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results: Nineteen RCTs involving 17 treatment regimens were included. For the all-comers population, pembrolizumab/ chemotherapy (CT) and cemiplimab were most likely the best treatments. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) < 1% nivolumab/ipilimumab with/without CT, for PD-L1 > 1% and 1%-49% pembrolizumab/CT and for PD-L1 > 50% cemiplimab ranked first for OS. In non-squamous (NSQ), pembrolizumab with/without CT ranked first for OS; cemiplimab ranked worse than the unselected population. In squamous (SQ), pooled hazard ratio (HR) showed a better chance in improving efficacy for combination strategy, while monotherapy did not, except for cemiplimab that ranked second. Atezolizumab/CT/bevacizumab ranked first in most subgroups for PFS. Direct comparison showed a non-statistically significant benefit of ICI regimens for the liver metastases cohort in OS, with a good ranking for pembrolizumab/CT and atezolizumab/bevacizumab/CT. Regarding brain metastases, all ICI regimens demonstrated an improvement in OS and PFS compared to CT. Nivolumab/ipilimumab/CT ranked better in this subset. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis updated on the most recent findings demonstrates that different ICI treatments rank differently in specific NSCLC settings (histology, biomarker and clinical presentation) offering a novel challenging scenario for clinical decision making and research planning