Purpose Due to the recent economic crisis, competition has considerably increased in the legal profession in the Netherlands. However, marketing in legal services is mostly in its infancy and value research in this context is scarce. We therefore used a contingency approach in exploring the origin of customer value and the association with loyal behaviour in legal services for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Methodology Because professional services are effectively provided by means of a relationship, the emergence of value was studied in the interaction between lawyers and clients in an explorative way, by means of a case study: in-depth interviews with ten lawyers and ten SMEs led to provider and client perspectives on value driving in twenty-eight legal cases. The underlying research model was based on the Service logic for marketing (e.g. Grönroos and Voima, 2013), which proposes that interaction is conditional for the emergence of value. Findings We assumed that value could only derive from the interaction during the service encounter. Field findings however, confirmed that previous, current and anticipated service experiences influences value. Due to the credential character of legal services, antecedent recommendation of others and the track record of lawyers, for example, are also important value drivers. The relational value perspective appears to be insufficient in analysing the emergence of value in credence services, because value drivers outside the joint sphere help clients to reduce perceived purchase risks. Originality Our study enriches the limited literature and offers a more holistic understanding of the origin of value in credential contexts like legal services. Our findings agree not only with insights from the Service logic (e.g. Grönroos and Voima, 2013) but also from the Customer-dominant logic (e.g. Heinonen et al., 2013).
LINK
During a service interaction, a customer should be viewed as having three distinct capacities: as a client, as a connection and as a resource. In each of these respective capacities, service (S) processes, relationship (R) processes and loyalty (L) processes create value for both customers and organizations. Satisfactory service is the minimum requirement for relationship processes to be effective and for the connection capacity to be activated. Likewise, high relationship quality is a minimal condition for loyalty processes to be effective and for the resource capacity to be activated. After presenting the measurable and actionable dimensions of relationship quality, I explain the difference between service processes and relationship processes. According to the service integrated relationships (SIR) framework, when relationship processes are integrated with existing service processes: (a) relationship quality improves; (b) loyal customer behaviours are evoked; and (c) service satisfaction improves. I conclude by discussing implications of the SIR framework for organizational systems and service employees.
LINK
The purpose of this paper is to gain deeper insight into the practical judgements we are making together in ongoing organizational life when realizing a complex innovative technical project for a customer and so enrich the understanding of how customer orientation emerges in an organization. The outcome contributes to the knowledge of implementing customer orientation in an organization as according to literature (Saarijärvi, Neilimo, Närvänen, 2014 and Van Raaij and Stoelhorst, 2008) the actual implementation process of customer orientation is not that well understood. Saarijärvi, Neilimo and Närvänen (2014) noticed a shift from measuring the antecedents of customer orientation and impact on company performance, towards a better understanding how customer orientation is becoming in organizations. A different way of putting the customer at the center of attention can be found in taking our day-to-day commercial experience seriously, according to the complex responsive process approach, a theory developed by Stacey, Griffin and Shaw (2000). The complex responsive processes approach differs from a systems thinking approach, because it focuses on human behavior and interaction. This means that the only agents in a process are people and they are not thought of as constituting a system (Groot, 2007). Based on a narrative inquiry, the objective is to convey an understanding of how customer orientation is emerging in daily organizational life. Patterns of interaction between people are investigated, who work in different departments of an organization and who have to fulfill customer requirements. This implies that attention is focused towards an understanding in action, which is quite distinct from the kind of cognitive and intellectual understanding that dominates organisational thought. The reflection process resulting from this analysis is located in a broader discourse of management theory.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
Dutch Cycling Intelligence (DCI) embodies all Dutch cycling knowledge to enhances customer-oriented cycling policy. Based on the data-driven cycle policy enhancement tools and knowledge of the Breda University of Applied Sciences, DCI is the next step in creating a learning community between road authorities, consultants, cycling industry, and knowledge institutes with their students. The DCI consists of three pilars:- Connecting- Accelerating knowledge- Developing knowledgeConnecting There are many stakeholders and specialists in the cycling domain. Specialists with additional knowledge about socio-cultural impacts, geo-special knowledge, and technical traffic solutions. All of these specialists need each other to ensure a perfect balance between the (electric) bicycle, the cyclist and the cycle path in its environment. DCI connects and brings together all kind of different specialists.Accelerating knowledge Many bicycle innovations take place in so-called living labs. Within the living lab, the triple helix collaboration between road authorities the industry and knowledge institutes is key. Being actively involved in state-of-the-art innovations creates an inspiring work and learning environment for students and staff. A practical example of a successful living lab is the cycle superhighway F261 between Tilburg and Waalwijk, where BUAS tested new cycle route signage. Next, the Cycling Lab F58 is created, where the road authorities Breda and Tilburg opened up physical cycling infrastructure for entrepreneurs in the bicycle domain and knowledge institutes to develop e-cycling innovation. The living labs are test environments where pilots can be carried out in practice and an excellent environment for students to conduct scientifically applied research.Developing knowledge Ultimately, data and information must be translated into knowledge. With a team of specialists and partners Breda University of applied sciences developed knowledge and tools to monitor and evaluate cycling behavior. By participating in (inter)national research programs BUAS has become one of the frontrunners in data-driven cycle policy enhancement. In close collaboration with road authorities, knowledge institutes as well as consultants, new insights and answers are developed in an international context. By an active knowledge contribution to the network of the Dutch Cycling Embassy, BUAS aims to strengthen its position and add to the global sustainability challenges. Partners: Province Noord-Brabant, Province Utrecht, Vervoerregio Amsterdam, Dutch Cycling Embassy, Tour de Force, University of Amsterdam, Technical University Eindhoven, Technical University Delft, Utrecht University, DTV Capacity building, Dat.mobility, Goudappel Coffeng, Argaleo, Stratopo, Move.Mobility Clients:Province Noord-Brabant, Province Utrecht, Province Zuid-Holland, Tilburg, Breda, Tour de Force
The project focuses on sustainable travel attitude and behaviour with attention to balance, liveability, impact and climate change (as indicated above). The customer journey is approached from the consumer side and intends to shed light on the way COVID-19 has influenced (or not) the following aspects:• consumer’s understanding and appreciation of sustainability • the extent to which this understanding has influenced their attitude towards sustainable travel choices• the extent to which this change is represented in their actual and projected travel behaviour throughout the travel decision-making process • conditions that may foster a more sustainable travel behaviourThe project can be seen as a follow up to existing studies on travel intention during and post COVID-19, such as ETC’s publication on Monitoring sentiment for domestic and Intra-European travel – Wave 5, or the joint study of the European Tourism Futures Institute (ETFI – www.etfi.nl) and the Centre of Expertise in Leisure, Tourism and Hospitality (CELTH – www.celth.nl) highlighting four future scenarios for the leisure, tourism and hospitality sectors post COVID-19. The project will look beyond travel intention and will supplement existing knowledge with crucial information on the way consumers view sustainability and the extent to which they are willing to adjust their travel behaviour to aid the recovery of a more sustainable travel and tourism industry. Therefore, the report aims to generate knowledge vital for the understanding of consumer trends and the role sustainability will play in travel choices in the near future.Problem statementPlease describe which question in the (participating) industry is addressed.How has the sustainable travel attitude and behaviour in selected European source markets been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic? Further questions to be answered:• How did the COVID-19 pandemic influence the consumer’s understanding and appreciation of sustainability?• To what extent did this understanding influence their attitude towards sustainable travel choices?• To what extent is this change represented in their actual and projected travel behaviour throughout the travel decision-making process?• What are the conditions that may foster a more sustainable travel behaviour?
