Kleinaltenkamp, Michael

Macdonald, Emma K.

Wilson, Hugh N.

Institutional Repository of the Freie Universität Berlin

FrameworkResults1 C r a n f i e l d S c h o o l o f M a n a g e m e n t , C r a n f i e l d U n i v e r s i t y2 S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c s , F r e i e U n i v e r s i t ä t B e r l i nPropositions 1-6:1. Collective value-in-use includes emergentdimensions which may go beyond thoseanticipated at the time of exchange.2. The value-in-use from solutions is judgedrelative to the individual goals of usagecenter members (individual value-in-use)and not just organizational goals(collective value-in-use).3. Individual value-in-use and collectivevalue-in-use interact, as the achievementof individual goals can support collectivegoals and vice versa.Solution Quality and Value in UseEmma K. Macdonald1, Michael Kleinaltenkamp2, Hugh N. Wilson1School of Business & EconomicsMarketing DepartmentHow Business Customers Judge SolutionsFindingsImplicationsMotivationThere is increasing recognition of the importance of business solutions combining services and products. Many manufacturers look to business solutions to provide growth. It is unclear, however, howsuch solutions can create superior perceived value. Thus, this research explores what constitutes value for customers from solutions over time – conceptualized as “value-in-use” – and how thisarises from quality perceptions of the solution’s components.Research Question Data & MethodsFigure  1A:  Quality-Value RelationshipHow do business customers judge solutions and the value they create? How do business customers assess solution quality as antecedent to value? What constitutes the value in use that results from the solution?Business Solut ions:This paper redefines business solutions as: “The combining of supplier and customer processes and resources through a joint resource integration process to create collective and individual value in use, which is monitored and optimized through value auditing processes.”4. In addition to supplier resource quality, customer resource quality is instrumental incontributing to value-in-use.5. In assessing the value-in-use of solutions, customers assess the quality of the joint resourceintegration process, which in turn draws on customer and supplier resource quality.6. The quality of value-in-use auditing processes by the supplier and the customer impactscollective value-in-use.There are four moderators influencing how solutions are assessed.Figure 1B:  Moderators of the  Quality-Value Relationshipsolution quality and individual value-in-use.8. Role extraversion negatively moderates(reduces) the relationship between customerresource quality and a) resource integrationprocess quality; b) value-in-use.9. Solution ownership positively moderates therelationship between value-in-use auditingquality (by both the supplier and thecustomer) and collective value-in-use.10. A customer firm’s reconfiguration capabilitynegatively moderates the relationshipbetween customer resource quality anda) resource integration process quality;b) value-in-use. Redefining the boundary between supplier & customer firm. Achieving high coordination effectiveness, e.g. through joint teams. Improving the customer’s processes (i.e. redesigning not only the supplier’s own offerings). Jointly designing adequate change management strategies at an early stage to overcomeresistances within customer firm. Jointly engaging in quality control and value-in-use auditing (including focusing on emergentbenefits). Solution quality resides at customer interface, in customer’s own resources and processes,and in supplier-customer relationship through quality assessment of the resource integrationprocess. Value auditing processes optimize value-in-use. Business solutions are judged relative to the individual goals of usage center members. There is heterogeneity in how solutions are judgedRepertory grid interviews with mean-end chains:• Industrial solutions customers• 36 interviews with usage center members (main usage center roles: maintenance, operations, purchasing, general management)• 4 manufacturing firms (sectors: medical devices, printers, pharmaceutical products, building materials)Transcript analysis to identify constructs and ladders between perceived quality and value 609 ladders 13 Quality Constructs & 15 Value-in-use ConstructsImplications matrix including all implications between quality and value constructs 1629 implications hierarchical value map summarizing constructs and their relationships Changing role and tasks of key account managers (providing integrated communication activities toward the customer to increase quality perceptions as well as value-in-use assessments). Expanding scope of customer insight to uncover customer’s perceptions of solution quality and value-in-use including their own efforts. Gaining more detailed insights into preferences of different members of the usage center.Figure 2:  Hierarchical Value Map (Total Sample)• GF = goodness-of-fit (% of all implications); Pa1 = Parsimony1 (% of all squares in the matrix); Pa2 = Parsimony2 (% of all nonzero squares in the matrix). • Horizontal axis: construct’s abstractness (0: concrete – 1: abstract)• Circle area: proportional to construct centrality (how often construct appears in a ladder).• Line thickness: proportional to no. of implications between two constructs.• Number of implications represented = 1,021.P u b l i s h e d i n : J o u r n a l o f M a r k e t i n g , Vo l . 8 0 ( M a y 2 0 1 6 ) , 9 6 – 1 2 0 .Propositions 7-10:7. Resource integration involvement positively moderates (enhances) the relationship between

Solution Quality and Value in Use

https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/fub188/23059/1/Poster2016_1.pdf

Solution Quality and Value in Use

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Repository of the Freie Universität Berlin