Measuring the value of placements to employers

Abstract

This article explores the concept and measurement of placement value, underexplored in theory and practice to date. The article makes a theoretical contribution to the placement value discourse by examining and articulating the placement value concept. It also offers a practical contribution by exploring a piloted tool to evaluate employer placement value, developed as part of a project funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. It examines the immaturity of the placement value concept against contemporary value discourse, including service- and goods-dominant logic frameworks (exploring value-in-use and value-in-exchange) and calls for greater attention to be paid to placement value to support the sustainable provision of placements.

Keywords

cost–benefit analysis internships placement value placements third mission

Over the last decade, performance measurement and metric-based management have ‘noticeably increased’ and become ‘commonplace’ in the higher education (HE) sector (Draper and Gittoes, 2004: 449). This trend has been observed across the world (Kallio et al., 2017; Varghese et al., 2012; Woelert and Yates, 2015). In current HE practice, there are numerous examples of evaluation and measurement activity with regard to research, teaching and student outcomes (Kallio et al., 2017). In the United Kingdom, such examples include the Research Excellence Framework, the Teaching Excellence Framework and key performance indicators influential for various university rankings (staff–student ratios, student satisfaction). There are now proposals for a KEF – a Knowledge Exchange Framework (Pells, 2017). The antecedents of this measurement culture are varied, but in the United Kingdom they include heightened government intervention and scrutiny (Watson et al., 2016) and the emergence of new public management (Devanney and Uglebjerg, 2009; Kettl, 2005; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Woelert and Yates, 2015). Despite this prevalent measurement culture, placements remain relatively under-evaluated and there have been few quantitative assessments of their worth to various stakeholders (Lange, 2015; Wilton, 2014).

Concomitantly, the conceptualization of placement value appears undeveloped (Lange, 2015) and, as in many aspects of HE, the ‘student as customer’ tends to dominate this discourse (Finney and Finney, 2010; Groccia, 1997; Laing and Laing, 2016; Woodall et al., 2014). The value of placements to their hosts, the employers, is underexplored and there is little articulation of what value might be delivered to employers through the placement exchange (Lange, 2015). The absence of the employer in placement value discourse has been previously noted by Wilton (2014: 244): ‘less evident in the literature is an employer perspective on placement employment’.

The contexts outlined above introduce three potential problems: (1) the underdevelopment of the placement value concept, (2) the under-recognition of the employer in placement discourse and (3) the absence of an established approach to measuring placement value. The implications of organizations not articulating value have been identified in the value proposition discourse. Value propositions are used strategically to provide clear articulations of value promises, uniqueness and position (Frow et al., 2014). Various scholars have proffered the benefits of having a clear value proposition in order to secure sustainable competitive advantage (Lapierre, 1997; Payne et al., 2017). At a time when higher education institutions (HEIs) are experiencing significant competition in domestic and international contexts (Diaconu and Dutu, 2014; Watson et al., 2016), being clear on the value offer may be important. If HEIs are not clear on the value of placements to employers, then placement value may not be fully leveraged. As well as these competitive drivers, worries over the availability of placements and placement hosts provide a further rationale for developing the employer–placement discourse (Brennan and Little, 1996; Ellis and Moon, 1998; Walmsley et al., 2006). Jackson et al. (2017) identify employers’ lack of understanding and concern for costs as reasons for their poor engagement. At a time when there is significant government pressure to engage with business (part of the third mission) (Diaconu and Dutu, 2014; Molas-Gallart et al., 2002), a clearer understanding and a managed approach to placement value and placement evaluation may also be helpful.

This article provides a critical examination of the value created for employers as placement hosts. In doing so, it stimulates discourse on an area of placement literature recognized to be deficient (Wilton, 2014; Lange, 2015). It also explores the under-measurement of placement value to employers, considering prior attempts and possible approaches to its evaluation. The article draws on learning from a project funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) – the ‘case study’ – which developed and piloted an evaluation tool to measure (quantitatively) placement value to employers.

The methodology underpinning the case study project is described in the next section. The findings from the pilot evaluation tool are then explored. Against this background, the final two sections offer discussion and conclusions which examine the placement value concept, the implications and learning from the pilot and the opportunities for the evaluation of placement value to employers.

Methodology

Context

This case study is based on a project commissioned by HEFCE as part of the Postgraduate Support Scheme (PSS). The PSS project, at a local level (in the HEI), was delivered in a UK university’s engineering department and was designed to analyse two advanced engineering programmes to explore sustainable and employer-driven postgraduate provision. The PSS project had the secondary aim of improving university–employer relations and this included the development of a tool that would support employers to quantify the value of investing in postgraduate students on placements and placement projects. Learning from the development of this tool is used here to support the examination of placement value and placement evaluation.

The primary aim of the project was to ‘develop and pilot a tool to quantify the value of investing in postgraduate students on placements’. Several secondary research objectives were necessary to support this end: (1) to conduct a literature review to explore existing knowledge and practice relating to the placement value concept and placement evaluation, (2) to develop a placement evaluation tool to quantify placement value to employers and (3) to pilot a placement evaluation tool with employers to determine its potential.

Procedure

Several data-collection techniques were used to develop the placement evaluation tool, including a literature review, semi-structured interviews and user acceptance testing.

A background literature review on placement value and placement evaluation was carried out using prior academic and grey literature, including theses and university websites. Grey literature was used in accordance with the ‘Prague definition’ (Schöpfel, 2010). A background review helped us to identify, reinforce and justify the research problem (Vom Brocke et al., 2015), and to orient the data collection (Creswell, 2009). The literature review was intentionally less comprehensive than, for instance, a systematic literature review (Collins and Fauser, 2005). The search was iterative and search terms evolved from those used initially (for instance, ‘placement value’ was extended into ‘internships’). Marketing literature was consulted more heavily than was first anticipated, owing to the concentration on value discourse by marketing academics. Some of the literature resulting from this review is integrated into the ‘Literature review’ section below.

Semi-structured interviews were held with academic peers to achieve a broader perspective of placement practice and potential value. A semi-structured, conversational interviewing approach helped the researchers to respond to academic peer feedback (as opposed to following a strict interview guide) (Brinkmann, 2013; Lavrakas, 2008). The constructivist nature of semi-structured interviews enabled the researchers to generate knowledge useful to the development of the evaluation tool (Cohen and Manion, 1994). An opportunity sampling technique was adopted for the academic peer interviews, which were held both in person and via email. In all, six peers across three institutions were consulted and all had had experience of supporting placement students and working with placement hosts. Academic peers were consulted again once the evaluation tool had been developed in order to sense-test it.

User acceptance testing was conducted once the evaluation tool had been developed: This approach is widely used in information systems research and there are also examples of its application in HE research (Qomaruddin et al., 2014). The tests involved email distribution of the placement evaluation tool (hosted on Microsoft Excel) to employers, who were encouraged to trial it. Telephone interviews were also booked with employers to discuss various aspects of the tool and conduct a trial attempt (walk-through) at completing it. In particular, these interviews sought to establish the user-friendliness of the tool (the system), its extensiveness (the categories covered), and the results of trialling it (the outcomes). The interviews were relatively structured to ensure that the key information sought was obtained. The user acceptance tests were offered to all employers who engaged in the PSS intervention: of 30 employers invited (via telephone and email), 12 participated (a 40% uptake). All 12 had hosted 24-week industrial (engineering) placements in the United Kingdom in the preceding 12 months. Their firms were small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) located in the Midlands region of the United Kingdom and operating in the engineering management, construction, manufacturing, automobile and renewable energy generation sectors. Among the projects the students carried out during their placements were application of robotic surveyors in construction projects, examining approaches and tools to predict the behaviour of polymers, warehouse operation optimization and a feasibility study on alternative fuel for power generation.

So far, the working definition of value in this article has, intentionally, not been articulated, nor has a particular perspective on value discourse been adopted (i.e. ‘financial value’ in accounting, ‘perceived value’ in marketing, ‘value for money’ in government). These deliberate omissions support an open exploration of the term and more generally reflect a tension in the definition of value. In marketing discourse, customer value, in its simplest form, is something customers stand to gain (benefit) relative to what they give up (cost) (Zeithaml, 1988). However, more multidimensional frameworks of value have been posited, identifying various value types. Smith and Colgate (2007), for instance, explore functional (e.g. product utility), experiential (e.g. emotions created), symbolic (e.g. association of meaning) and cost (e.g. consideration for the sacrifice versus return) values. The brief for the case study focused on quantifying value, and this scope is relevant to the evaluation approach developed.

The literature review presented in the next section examines existing knowledge and practice with regard to placement value and evaluation. The development of the placement evaluation tool is then outlined, and the exploration and justification of key decisions that were necessary to develop an approach to measuring placement value are discussed.

Literature review

This review critically surveys literature on value concepts, placement value and placement evaluation. The purpose is to establish the theoretical foundations of placement value, explore the maturity of the concept and identify articulations of value useful to the construction of the case evaluation approach. This review extends the literature review completed as part of the case study project (and introduced above).

Value concepts

To examine the notion of value in the placement context, a review of value concepts more generally was considered worthwhile. Value concepts have received significant attention in numerous disciplines and contexts (Frow et al., 2014), including supply chain management (see Lusch et al., 2010), marketing (see Payne and Holt, 2001; Ravald and Grönroos, 1996), human resources management (see Guthridge et al., 2008; Heger, 2007), public administration (see Osborne, 2017) and HE (see Woodall et al., 2014).

Value can be a challenging concept to work with, as Woodall et al. (2014: 49) state: ‘what value is, and what it is not, is hard to decipher, and the literature, generally, demonstrates how slippery this is perceived to be, irrespective of context’. In subjects such as marketing and consumer behaviour, despite much discourse on value, there is still healthy debate on how it should be defined and how it is created (Payne and Holt, 2001; Ravald and Grönroos, 1996). Further, in public sector management, there is a recognition that, at present, the understanding of ‘what constitutes “value” is still embryonic’ (Osborne, 2017: 4).

Many agree that value, if understood and leveraged well, can provide organizations with a sustainable competitive advantage (Grönroos, 1996; Payne et al., 2017). Through an awareness of the value of core products and services, strategies to maximize (value-adding activity) or preserve this value can be developed (Ravald and Grönroos, 1996). Value can also help organizations to innovate (Spohrer and Maglio, 2008).

Value propositions help organizations to articulate the value they can deliver. However, value propositions themselves exist in various forms, with definitions variously characterizing them as ‘promises’, ‘proposals’ or ‘claims’ concerning what will be delivered and the savings and benefits the products/services will provide (Anderson et al., 2006; Frow et al., 2014).

The role of the consumer in the value exchange is well defined, particularly in the marketing field (Ravald and Grönroos, 1996; Zaltman and Wallendorf, 1983). Value to employees, suppliers and the public is also noted (Frow et al, 2014; Normann, 2001; Osborne, 2017; Payne et al., 2005). In the HE sector, value discourse has become heavily occupied with debating the metaphor of the ‘student as customer’ (Laing and Laing, 2016; Woodall et al., 2014). Indeed, the notion of transaction (students paying fees), consumption (students consuming academic goods and services) and evaluation of the good/services consumed (satisfaction measures) seem to support the characterization of the student as customer (Finney and Finney, 2010).

The way value is created has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years, and the traditional economic view that firms create value for customers has been challenged (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Smith et al., 2015). The concepts of co-production and co-creation explore the role of the consumer in the creation of value alongside the organization (Alford, 2009; Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008). Co-production recognizes that it is difficult to separate consumption from production, and thus the consumer from the producer; they are interdependent (Brudney and England, 1983). For instance, customer feedback is an example of co-production, with customers providing their feedback on the goods or services of a business based on their consumption, which in turn informs product development and production. Thus, in co-production, the consumer is involved in creating the value. Co-creation sees the consumer as a joint creator of value, so value can be created only when the consumer engages in the exchange – until then, the firm can only make a value proposition or offer (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). To understand co-creation further, meanings of value must be understood, particularly the notions of value-in-use and value-in-exchange, and service- and goods-dominant logic frameworks (Vargo et al., 2008). Value-in-exchange is associated with goods-dominant logic (G-DL) and sees the roles of consumer and producer as separate from one another (Vargo et al., 2008). Value-in-use, represented through service-dominant logic (S-DL), relates to the co-creation of value, with the roles of consumer and producer less distinct: The use of the knowledge and skills of both firm and customer is acknowledged in value-in-use and S-DL (Vargo et al., 2008). Co-creation in the HE sector has not been extensively explored (an exception is Fagerstrøm and Ghinea, 2013), although studies have called for better collaboration between business schools and businesses (Thatcher et al., 2016), and suggested that ‘collaborative practice appears to have a constructive and multifaceted impact on all parties involved’ (Thatcher et al., 2016: 577). There is a recognized need for further development in the university–business collaboration literature and in relation to the benefits of university collaboration with SMEs (Thatcher et al., 2016).

Placement value

In the HE context, the concept of placement value appears to be underdeveloped (Lange, 2015) and the deep debate about the nature of value creation (co-creation, co-production, etc.) discussed above is largely absent. Lange (2015: 16), in the placement context, interprets value in terms of ‘perceived importance’ and ‘benefits’, but suggests that these cannot be quantified. Placement benefits, indeed, tend to be described but not quantified. When exploring the value of placements, the benefits for three stakeholder groups are clearly identified – the employer, the placement student, and the HEI (Ellis and Moon, 1998). These benefits are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Placement benefits to stakeholder groups.

Placement benefits to student	Placement benefits to HEI	Placement benefits to employer
Opportunity to apply knowledge (Smith et al., 2007; Ferguson, 2014). Opportunity to develop skills (Smith et al., 2007, Coates and Koerner, 1996; Walmsley et al., 2006). Enhances CV (Paisey and Paisey, 2009). Opportunity to gain experience (Little, 2006; Little and Harvey, 2006). Employers favour placement students (Little and Harvey, 2006). Test roles and sectors (Prospects, 2015; Smith et al, 2007; Walmsley et al., 2006). Can be paid (Atfield et al., 2009).	Enhanced reputation (Banga and Lancaster, 2013). Enhanced employability outcomes (Banga and Lancaster, 2013; Walmsley et al., 2006). Industrial collaboration (CIHE, 2010). Opportunity for knowledge transfer from industry (‘bi-directional knowledge flow’) (D’Este and Patel, 2007). Networking with employers (Atfield et al., 2009).	Additional capacity (including to undertake specific projects). Fresh perspectives (Abukari and Costley, 2015; Morse, 2006). Benefit from student as a critical thinker (Benjamin, 2013). Identify placement student as future employee (Ellis and Moon, 1998). Knowledge transfer (Ferguson, 2014).

Placement benefits to student

Placement benefits to HEI

Placement benefits to employer

Opportunity to apply knowledge (Smith et al., 2007; Ferguson, 2014).

Opportunity to develop skills (Smith et al., 2007, Coates and Koerner, 1996; Walmsley et al., 2006).

Enhances CV (Paisey and Paisey, 2009).

Opportunity to gain experience (Little, 2006; Little and Harvey, 2006).

Employers favour placement students (Little and Harvey, 2006).

Test roles and sectors (Prospects, 2015; Smith et al, 2007; Walmsley et al., 2006).

Can be paid (Atfield et al., 2009).

Enhanced reputation (Banga and Lancaster, 2013).

Enhanced employability outcomes (Banga and Lancaster, 2013; Walmsley et al., 2006).

Industrial collaboration (CIHE, 2010).

Opportunity for knowledge transfer from industry (‘bi-directional knowledge flow’) (D’Este and Patel, 2007).

Networking with employers (Atfield et al., 2009).

Additional capacity (including to undertake specific projects).

Fresh perspectives (Abukari and Costley, 2015; Morse, 2006).

Benefit from student as a critical thinker (Benjamin, 2013).

Identify placement student as future employee (Ellis and Moon, 1998).

Knowledge transfer (Ferguson, 2014).

Students have received most attention in the placement literature (Little and Harvey, 2006; Walmsley et al., 2006; Wilton, 2014), reflecting Smith et al.’s (2015: 150) observation that ‘the benefits accruing to students from participating in placement(s) tend to dominate the discourse’. Numerous benefits for HEIs have also been identified, including enhanced graduate outcomes and student experience (Banga and Lancaster, 2013; Walmsley et al., 2006). Atfield et al. (2009: 67) acknowledge that placements help HEIs to network and develop a ‘culture of placement activity’. Placements act as a vehicle for HEI–industry collaboration, and knowledge and technology transfer (CIHE, 2010; D’Este and Patel, 2007; Lee, 1996) are driven by external pressures for increased collaboration (CIHE, 2010; Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2012; HM Government, 2017) and form part of third mission activities (Laredo, 2007; Lockett et al., 2013).

The benefits of placements to employers (the primary focus of our article and the underpinning case study) have received less attention than those for students and HEIs. Atfield et al.’s (2009) study is one of the few to explore the impact of placements on businesses/employers. Those authors identified a number of benefits, including the ‘freeing up of staff time; having things done that other staff had not got around to; the implementation of new procedures; and the completion of specific projects’ (Atfield et al., 2009: iv). Furthermore, they found that 89% of employers felt they had benefited from hosting a placement (Atfield et al, 2009: 43). The benefits of ‘fresh eyes’ for a business have also been described (Abukari and Costley, 2015; Morse, 2006). Placement students may be able to view the organization from an alternative perspective to their host, informed by skills and knowledge gained during their studies (Benjamin, 2013). Placement providers report the benefit of being able to ‘try before they buy’, marking the potential for placement students to be ‘pre-selected’ for a permanent role in the organization after their placement (Ellis and Moon, 1998; Paisey and Paisey, 2009; Vakaloudis et al., 2015). Organizations often take on students who have performed well during their placement, so avoiding costs normally associated with recruitment.

While the economic benefits of placement hosting dominate the literature, Smith et al. (2015: 150) note that employers may also have an ‘altruistic’ motive for supporting placements, participating in the process because it is the ‘right thing to do’ for the students and the local and wider society. Locality may be important to employers – for instance, Mitra and Edmondson (2015) refer to the tendency for firms to interact with their local HEI, where the expertise exists.

However, placements are not always viewed positively and do have limitations for some organizations (Cooper and Shepherd, 1997). Atfield et al. (2009) found little evidence of the financial benefits of placements, and they also found that placements were labour-intensive and that few new university–employer links resulted.

Placement evaluation

There are few examples of placement value being measured or quantified in the grey or academic literature, particularly from the employer’s perspective (Wilton, 2014). Indeed, there is recognition that few have addressed the measurement or evaluation of employer engagement (Tudor and Mendez, 2014) – in spite of the acknowledgement that tools are necessary to measure value in other contexts (see Rintamäki and Kirves, 2017, on the retail context). Anderson et al. (2006) suggest that documenting and explaining the cost savings and profit to customers (substantiating value claims) is a good business practice. Lange (2015: 15), however, questions whether it is possible to measure the value of work placements, stating that it ‘could not be captured in a quantitative analysis’.

Those few who have attempted to evaluate placement or internship value to employers have looked towards a cost–benefit approach (Atfield et al., 2009; Ruvoldt, 2000; Viet et al., 2015). Atfield et al. (2009) considered the employer’s perspective in their evaluation of the impact of placement value on employers in the south-west of England. They obtained feedback from 91 employers on the respective costs and benefits experienced, identifying the ‘day-to-day’ costs of managing placements as well as ‘transactional’ costs (Atfield et al., 2009: 43). They provided a temporal categorization of these costs and benefits, identifying them as ‘immediate’, ‘intermediate’ or ‘long term’ (Atfield et al., 2009: 43). Ruvoldt (2000) suggests that a cost–benefit analysis could help in the evaluation of the return on investment of internships and in the formulation of business cases for presentation to employers. Ruvoldt identifies costs such as recruiting interns, administering the programme and any salary paid to interns, and benefits, including the reduction of recruitment costs. A cost–benefit model by Viet et al. (2015) identifies gross costs and quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits to explore internship value. The costs identified include trainee costs, the trainer/training cost, investment in infrastructure and training materials, while the benefits include the productive contribution of trainees, investment, selection savings, reputation and support of corporate social responsibility strategies.

Morse (2006: 737) suggests that informally (without the need for any formal evaluation tools) organizations may make an ‘assessment of the costs and the benefits of the placement’. The use of a cost–benefit approach echoes the customer value literature. For instance, Monroe (1991) identifies categories of perceived sacrifices and benefits as a means of establishing customer value. Monroe’s logic is that the benefits have to outweigh the sacrifice for the customer to perceive the relationship as having created value.

Development and piloting the tool

As outlined earlier, this article draws on a wider project and the construction and piloting of a placement tool to measure (quantitatively) placement value to employers. The methodology for the pilot is explained above. The outputs from the development and piloting of the tool are now explored and discussed.

Developing the placement evaluation tool

Time constraints and user-friendliness were key considerations in the development of an evaluation approach. The intended audience included HE programme leaders, placement support staff and employers, and it was likely that some of the intended users would not have received prior evaluation or research training. Rorrer (2016) reminds us of the need to consider evaluation capability when designing evaluation tools and, with this in mind, an uncomplicated evaluation tool was sought. The project also had to be completed within a relatively tight time frame, imposing constraints on the extensiveness of the pilot. Figure 1 illustrates the process of developing and piloting the evaluation tool.

Figure 1.

Process of developing the evaluation tool.

As outlined earlier, a review of the literature and interviews with academic peers provided information to enable the development of a placement evaluation tool. In particular, the literature review identified a clear delineation of benefits and sacrifices in both the conception and the evaluation of value (Monroe, 1991) and past exploration of placement value (Atfield et al., 2009). A cost–benefit approach had been used in some previous evaluation studies (see Atfield et al., 2009; Viet et al., 2015), but it remained relatively under-articulated, and underused in practice. Cost–benefit analyses have long been used to weigh up the relative costs and benefits of particular initiatives (Clarke, 1999) and ‘to place monetary values on both the inputs (costs) and outcomes (benefits)’ (Robinson, 1993: 924). Applying a cost–benefit approach for the present purpose enabled us to keep the tool relatively uncomplicated and user-friendly. In addition, a cost–benefit model was likely to resonate with organizations (this supposition was confirmed during testing with employers), which would be familiar with such appraisal techniques.

The difficulties in identifying cost and benefit categories are well documented (Rossi and Freeman, 1993; OECD, 2006; Schopper, 2016). By adopting the principles of value chain analysis (Donaldson et al., 2006), we were able to identify several interactions between the HEI, the student and the employer in the placement process. Stages of the process were identified by considering the life of a placement from the employer’s perspective. No employer placement value chain had surfaced in the earlier exploration phase of our study (through the background review) or on revisiting secondary sources. These stages were tentatively identified ahead of piloting the tool and peer review (feedback from academics). Following the academic feedback, a description of each category was added. The project’s attempt to translate placement activity into a financial value was a concern for two of the academic peers, with one noting that they disagreed with such a ‘reductionist approach’. However, the quantification of value had been built into the project brief (‘to quantify the value’) and changing this was not within the scope of our work. Table 2 presents the identified stages in the placement process.

Table 2.

Stages in the placement process.

Stage	Stage description
Initial collaboration	Interaction and communication between HEI and employer to offer and understand placement opportunity
Placement preparation	Activity relating to organization and preparation for the placement
Recruitment	Activity relating to recruitment of the placement student
Development/training	Activity relating to development and investment of the placement student by the employer
Support/supervision	Activity relating to management, leadership, supervision and support of the student by the employer
Delivery	Activity relating to delivery of the placement
Placement evaluation	Activity relating to review and evaluation on termination of the placement

HEI: higher education institutions.

Mapping this value chain enabled the researchers to interrogate the various activities for which costs and benefits might be incurred or accrued by employers. Figure 2 provides examples of the cost and benefit categories made available through the evaluation tool.

Figure 2.

Interrogation of placement costs and benefits to employer.

Clarke (1999) notes that estimating and attributing values during cost–benefit analysis can be difficult. These values were drawn from either (a) the estimated hourly rate multiplied by time spent (hours × £/hour), against each cost or benefit category (e.g. time spent interviewing × approximate hourly cost of interviews), and (b) direct costs and benefits (e.g. £ worth of benefit from not advertising a formal job position). Through the cost–benefit approach, the general assumption for value was that, where benefits are greater than cost, the placement is likely to demonstrate value.

We were able to ascribe financial values to the cost and benefit categories through the piloting of the tool with employers who had recently hosted placements. As outlined earlier, the cost–benefit template was piloted with 12 engineering placement providers in a user acceptance test. The original cost and benefit categories were confirmed by employers during the pilot, and no refinements were required.

Interviews with employers during the user acceptance test phase suggested that they largely welcomed the tool, and had not previously considered the value created or ‘previously appreciated the benefits’ that could be realized from placements. (The actual findings of the pilot, in terms of financial savings and costs, are beyond the scope of this article.)

Figure 3 presents a completed example of the costs section of the employer placement evaluation tool, and Figure 4 a completed example of the benefits section.

Figure 3.

Example of an employer’s entry in the costs section of the employer placement evaluation tool.

Figure 4.

Example of an employer’s entry in the benefits section of the employer placement evaluation tool.

Beyond the tangible

Recognizing that not all benefits are financial, a slight deviation from the brief was made to acknowledge non-monetary benefits and enable these to be considered via a third section of the tool. The ‘non-financial benefit’ categories were drawn from previous literature. We asked, ‘To what extent do you value non-financial benefits associated with your postgraduate placement student?’ Employers were encouraged to rate the usefulness of several pre-selected benefits on a Likert-type scale of 0 to 10 (0 = ‘did not value’, 10 = ‘value extremely highly’); other categories were also provided. During the piloting of this section, a number of placement providers commented that the non-financial benefits were important to them (even when the financial benefits were relatively insignificant). Thus it seems that employers also make judgements based on their social values, and value placement hosting for reasons other than economic gain. (see Figure 5.)

Figure 5.

Example of an employer’s entry in the intangible benefits section of the employer placement evaluation tool.

Discussion

Employers in the placement literature

We identified few attempts to define the value of placements to employers in theory and mainstream practice, supporting earlier assertions by Wilton (2014). The placement value discourse has predominantly examined the benefits to students (employability, skills development, income) but much less attention has been paid to the value to employers. This focus on students was observed in both the placement and HE value literature (the ‘student as customer’ discourse, for instance) (Finney and Finney, 2010; Laing and Laing, 2016). This article therefore concentrates on the employer in the placement value exchange, exploring how value is created for employers. However, as we discuss in this section, employers may have a role beyond that of consumer (of the value created by placement students). By drawing attention to the under-recognition of the employer in the placement value discourse, we look to stimulate further debate on the employer’s role in placements.

Given concerns about the availability of placement hosts (Brennan and Little, 1996; Ellis and Moon; 1998; Walmsley et al., 2006), the recognition of placement value and the articulation of a value proposition to employers could be a worthwhile exercise. Further research on the value proposition of placements to employers could also be developed.

Immaturity of the placement value concept

In the course of our exploration of the concept of placement value, we made several observations and discoveries about the way value is currently represented in the placement value discourse. Our review of the literature demonstrated that the concept tended to be presented descriptively (Ferguson, 2014; Morse, 2006). For instance, value from placements was described in terms of how it supported student employability or provided employers with a fresh pair of eyes, and so on. There was little evidence of placement value being expressed quantitatively or financially in existing theory or practice.

The literature also revealed a distinct contrast between the maturity of value concepts seen in marketing, supply chain and public management literature and placement value literature. The former had progressed to explore the co-creation of value and the role of the customer in value creation (Alford, 2009; Osborne, 2017; Vargo and Lusch, 2008; Vargo et al., 2008). The placement literature relied on simpler constructs and had not examined how this value came to be created. While the value of placements to students, employers and universities was described in the literature, the interdependency between those groups with regard to value creation (co-creation) was not explored. This point is developed next, but it also constitutes an opportunity for further research.

The creation of placement value

The concepts of value-in-use, value-in-exchange, S-DL and G-DL (discussed above in the literature review) appear to be absent in the placement literature (and relatively under-acknowledged in HE research), even though they have gained prominence in other disciplines (HR (Guthridge et al., 2008), public management (Osborne, 2017) and supply chain (Lusch et al., 2010)). A fundamental rethinking of how value is considered, created and measured in placement discourse is needed. Table 3 demonstrates value-in-use and value-in-exchange in the placement context (adapted from a general overview of G-DL and S-DL provided by Vargo et al. (2008: 148)), and represents a first attempt to ally service- and goods-dominant logic in the placement context.

Table 3.

Exemplar: S-DL and G-DL in the placement context.

	G-DL; value-in-exchange	S-DL; value-in-use
Creator of value	Student as creator of value; employer’s role is to use value	Student, employer and HEI all create value together: student provides value; HEI proposes value; employer co-creates value
Process of value creation	Student creates value by enhancing goods or services for employer	Value is fluid based on value proposition (proposals); employers also create value through use (of goods and services developed by student)
Purpose of value	Value premised on economic growth/wealth to employer; nominal value	Value recognized for benefits to relevant stakeholder systems (sustainability, knowledge transfer, employability); beyond economic wealth
Measurement of value	Financial value/costs involved in exchange	Measures based on sustainability/survival/innovation, and so on

S-DL: service-dominant logic; G-DL: goods-dominant logic; HEI: higher education institutions.

The table demonstrates that employers may have a role in co-creating value through S-DL in the placement context. It also explores how the concept, and therefore the evaluation, of value may differ according to whether value is considered as value-in-use or value-in-exchange. Value-in-exchange, while appearing to be under criticism for not considering the mutuality of the placement relationship, is still necessary to measure and monitor value-in-use (Vargo et al., 2008). The confluence of co-creation thought with placement value discourse may be useful to reposition the role of the employer in placement theory and practice, and to develop the placement value concept. Moving beyond seeing placements as an exchange between student (e.g. to gain experience) and employer (e.g. in gaining resource), might help the employer to be recognized better in the placement process and support improved articulations of what value in placements means. In doing so, the lack of attention that employers have received in the placement value discourse may also be overcome.

Leveraging value

In the same way as the placement value concept has remained primitive, there have also been few examples of the forming or leveraging of a placement value proposition by HEIs. The absence we noted of tools to capture placement value (evaluation) and the lack of mainstream evaluation practice supported this point (although our research was limited to an external reflection on HEI practice through grey literature searches – some HEIs may adopt internal systems). As the literature review demonstrates, value propositions exist in various forms, and some types may not be so relevant to placement practice. Some suggest that value propositions are promises (Martinez, 2003), yet it would be difficult for HEIs to promise a particular quantity of benefits or value from each placement. Others recognize value propositions as proposals (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), a less rigid approach than seeing them as promises. Value proposals would support the role of the HEI outlined in Table 3, as proposer in a value-in-use context.

We found criticism of the attempt to quantify the value of placements both in the literature (Lange, 2015) and through academic feedback in the case study project. Some academic peers shared concerns at attempts to turn value into a financial number. While this concern is understandable, there is some evidence that such data could inform business decision-making (Ruvoldt, 2000). In our current context, such financial data might be used to help organizations decide whether or not to host a placement.

Evaluating placement value to employers

The study found that little previous research or practice on the evaluation of placements had occurred. While the HE sector now measures a great deal of its activity (e.g. research, teaching, satisfaction, graduate career outcomes), placement evaluation appears to have been largely ignored. There has been some prior recognition that HEIs are not always good at identifying and leveraging financial return – see, for instance, Mitra and Edmondson (2015) in the case of knowledge transfer.

To overcome the gap in the evaluation of placements for employers, we discuss the development and piloting of a placement evaluation tool, and offer this as new knowledge with potential for adoption in HE practice. Our review identified some earlier exploration of cost–benefit approaches in the placement/internship context (Atfield et al., 2009; Viet et al., 2015).

The process of developing a cost–benefit approach to placement evaluation was examined. There have been few previous attempts to identify a placement value chain or to articulate the stages of a placement lifecycle, and this situation provided us with a starting point for the development of a cost–benefit analysis (Table 2). The stages offered in this article may encourage further discussion on placement value and evaluation. The article also offers cost and benefit categories, identified from the literature. These represent examples of how value could be measured and created at each stage of the placement process. By identifying discrete cost and benefit categories and breaking down its components, placement value can be more strategically managed. Monroe (1991) noted that value could be created intentionally by acknowledging benefits and sacrifices – in other words, benefits can be strategically increased, and attempts can be made to reduce costs. By recognizing the stages and categories of placements, HEIs, employers and funders can work to enhance the value created within them. The pilot evaluation was treated as a success, with employers and academic peers accepting the tool as a viable approach towards quantifying placement value. This suggests that the tool could be developed and used further in the HE sector.

Conclusion

The article sets out to examine the value created for employers from placements, thus addressing a gap in the placement literature. It also explores the under-measurement of placement value to employers and, drawing on an earlier study as part of an HEFCE-funded project, identifies ways in which employer placement value could be understood and measured.

The article addresses both theoretical and practice-based gaps. It contributes to the literature by (1) providing an examination of the placement value concept, which currently has a weak theoretical foundation; (2) articulating placement costs and benefits that have been previously under-explored; (3) stimulating discussion and inquiry on placement value and placement evaluation in general; (4) prompting recognition of employers in the placement value exchange; and (5) exploring placement value in light of G-DL/value-in-exchange and S-DL/value-in-use, and co-creation concepts. It also contributes to practice by offering HEIs a piloted evaluation approach to measuring placement value. The article encourages evaluative practice in the placement arena, and the identification of input and output categories and the overall approach offer a blueprint for further testing, development and discussion.

The pilot study generated an employer-informed model using a cost–benefit approach that sought to capture mainly tangible inputs and outputs. The evaluation approach advocated prompts consideration of a sector-wide solution for HEIs, so that they can address the under-articulation, under-recognition and under-measurement of placement value to employers. The ability of HEIs to monitor placement activity using an approach such as that advocated here provides several opportunities. It develops knowledge of placement value, so that HEIs may gain a better understanding of what sort of placement activity adds the greatest (or least) value for employers. The placement evaluation tool developed in this pilot may help decision-making by both employers and HEIs.

Limitations

The evaluation framework met its brief, delivering a piloted model to quantify the value of placements to employers (as placement hosts). However, the brief was relatively constrained, reducing placement activity to financial values and seeking only to quantify short-term outputs. It also encourages approximations. Further iterations of the tool could look to address these weaknesses further.

The article has also assumed that placements provide positive value for employers. Arguments have been made in the academic literature to this effect (Atfield et al., 2009). The engineering placements in the case study facilitated knowledge and technology transfer, resulting in considerable value for many of the pilot firms, but placements in other disciplines may not be able to offer such potential value. For the future, there are opportunities to extend the evaluation tool to other disciplines, as well as to different academic levels (the pilot was done at postgraduate level).

The time taken for placement value to come to fruition has received little recognition in the literature – with the exception of Atfield et al. (2009), who identify various time frames associated with placement costs and benefits – and was not explored extensively in the development of our placement evaluation tool. The aim of the evaluation tool explored in this article is to assess placement value at the conclusion of the placement, which did not overcome this limitation.

Further research

As outlined in the preceding discussion, the placement value arena is relatively under-explored and there remain significant opportunities to examine how value is defined and created. The role of stakeholders in the creation of this value, in light of co-creation, G-DL and S-DL concepts and frameworks, would benefit from further inquiry and this would help the placement value concept to mature. In practice, placement evaluation tools could be trialled and piloted, using learning from this article, to identify and leverage value.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abukari

Costley

(2015) The impact of work-based research projects at postgraduate level. Journal of Work-Applied Management 7(1): 3–14.

Alford

(2009) Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-Production, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Anderson

Narus

van Rossum

(2006) Customer value propositions in business markets. Harvard Business Review 84(3): 1–10.

Atfield

Purcell

Hogarth

(2009) The Impact of Graduate Placements on Businesses in the South West of England: A Longitudinal Study to Run Alongside the Graduates for Business Project. Report - Warwick Institute for Employment Research, November 2009.

Banga

Lancaster

(2013) Addressing the challenges computing students face in completing a placement year. Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/cs_172_1.pdf (accessed 22 May 2017).

Benjamin

(2013) College to work: attacking a critical market failure: measuring critical thinking skills for success in the workplace. University Business 16(11): 18.

Brennan

Little

(1996) A Review of Work based Learning in Higher Education. Report - Quality Support Centre and Open University, UK, October.

Brinkmann

(2013) Qualitative Interviewing. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Brudney

England

(1983) Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review 43(1): 59–65.

10.

CIHE (2010) Talent fishing: what businesses want from postgraduates. Available at: https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/gradschool/about/external/publications/talent-fishing.pdf (accessed 18 November 2015).

11.

Clarke

(1999) Evaluation Research: An Introduction to Principles, Methods and Practice. London: Sage.

12.

Cohen

Manion

(1994) Research Methods in Education, 4th ed. London: Routledge.

13.

Collins

Fauser

(2005). Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Human Reproduction Update 11(2): 103–104.

14.

Coates

Koerner

(1996) How market oriented are business studies degrees? Journal of Marketing Management 12(5): 455–475.

15.

Cooper

Shepherd

(1997) The relationship between tourism education and the tourism industry: implications for tourism education. Tourism Recreation Research 22(1): 34–47.

16.

Creswell

(2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2012) Following up the Wilson review of business-university collaboration: next steps for universities, business and government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32399/12-903-following-up-wilson-business-university-collaboration-next-steps.pdf (accessed 22 May 2017).

18.

D’Este

Patel

(2007) University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy 36(9): 1295–1313.

19.

Devanney

Uglebjerg

(2009) Can ethnography complement evaluation within new public management? Case studies from England and Denmark, Liverpool-Keele Symposium. Available at https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/schoolofmanagement/docs/abstracts/ethnography2009/Devanney.pdf (accessed 21 June 2017).

20.

Diaconu

Dutu

(2014) Entrepreneurial university: developing and integrating the third mission in higher education institutions. Strategii Manageriale VII(4): 549–554.

21.

Donaldson

Ishii

Sheppard

(2006) Customer value chain analysis. Research in Engineering Design 16: 174–183.

22.

Draper

Gittoes

(2004) Statistical analysis of performance indicators in UK higher education. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 167(3): 449–474.

23.

Ellis

Moon

(1998) Business and HE links: the search for meaningful relationships in the placement marketplace - part one. Education + Training 40(5): 185–193.

24.

Fagerstrøm

Ghinea

(2013) Co-creation of value in higher education: using social network marketing in the recruitment of students. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management 35(1): 45–53.

25.

Ferguson

(2014) Knowledge exchange between universities and the creative industries in the UK: a case study of current practice. Industry and Higher Education 28(3): 177–183.

26.

Frow

McColl-Kennedy

Hilton

. (2014) Value propositions: a service ecosystems perspective. Marketing Theory 14(3): 327–351.

27.

Finney

(2010) Are students their universities’ customers? An exploratory study. Education + Training 52(4): 276–291.

28.

Groccia

(1997) The student as customer versus the student as learner. About Campus 2(2): 31–32.

29.

Guthridge

Komm

Lawson

(2008) Making talent a strategic priority. McKinsey Quarterly 1: 8–59.

30.

Heger

(2007) Linking the employment VP (EVP) to employee engagement and business outcomes: preliminary findings from a linkage research pilot study. Organization Development Journal 25(2): 121–32.

31.

HM Government (2017) Building our industrial strategy. Green Paper, January 2017.

32.

Jackson

Rowbottom

Ferns

. (2017) Employer understanding of work-integrated learning and the challenges of engaging in work placement opportunities. Studies in Continuing Education 39(1): 35–51.

33.

Kettl

(2005) The Global Public Management Revolution. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

34.

Kallio

Grossi

(2017) Performance measurement in universities: ambiguities in the use of quality versus quantity in performance indicators. Public Money & Management 37(4): 293–300.

35.

Laing

(2016) The student-as-customer metaphor: a deconstruction using Foucauldian constructs. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal 10(1): 40–54.

36.

Lange

(2015) Exploring value through international work placements in social entrepreneurial organisations: a multiple case longitudinal study. Doctoral Thesis, University of Exeter. Available at: https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/22106 (September 2015).

37.

Lapierre

(1997) What does value mean to business-to-business professional services? International Journal of Service Industry Management 8(5): 377–397.

38.

Laredo

(2007) Revisiting the third mission of universities: toward a renewed categorization of university activities. Higher Education Policy 20(4): 441–456.

39.

Lavrakas

(2008) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

40.

Lee

(1996) Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25: 843–863.

41.

Little

(2006) Employability and Work-based Learning: Learning and Employability Series One. UK: Higher Education Academy.

42.

Little

Harvey

(2006) Learning through work placements and beyond. Report for HECSU, Sheffield Hallam University and Open University, UK, August.

43.

Lockett

Wright

Wild

(2013) The co-evolution of third stream activities in UK higher education. Business History 55(2): 236–258.

44.

Lusch

Vargo

Tanniru

(2010) Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38: 19–31.

45.

Martinez

(2003) Understanding value creation: the value matrix and the value cube. Doctoral Thesis, University of Strathclyde. Available at: http://oleg.lib.strath.ac.uk/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=21195 (accessed 24 October 2017).

46.

Mitra

Edmondson

(2015) Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Exchange. Abingdon: Routledge.

47.

Molas-Gallart

Salter

Patel

. (2002) Measuring Third Stream Activities: Final Report to the Russell Group of Universities. Report, University of Sussex, UK, April.

48.

Monroe

(1991) Pricing – Making Profitable Decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

49.

Morse

(2006) Assessing the value. Journal of European Industrial Training 30(9): 735–755.

50.

Normann

(2001) Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

51.

OECD (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Executive Summary. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/environment/tools-evaluation/36190261.pdf (accessed 22 May 2017).

52.

Osborne

(2017) From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Editorial Essay Public Management Review 20(2):225–231. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461.

53.

Paisey

(2009) Developing skills via work placements in accounting: student and employer views. Accounting Forum 34(2): 89–108.

54.

Payne

Holt

(2001) Diagnosing customer value: integrating the value process and relationship marketing. British Journal of Management 12(2): 159–182.

55.

Payne

Ballantyne

Christopher

(2005) A stakeholder approach to relationship marketing strategy: the development and use of the ‘six markets’ model. European Journal of Marketing 39(7–8): 855–871.

56.

Payne

Frow

Eggert

(2017) The customer value proposition: evolution, development, and application in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45(4): 467–489.

57.

Pells

(2017) Jo Johnson plans for KEF to measure knowledge exchange. Times Higher Education, 12 October 2017. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/jo-johnson-plans-kef-measure-knowledge-exchange (accessed 24 October 2017).

58.

Pollitt

Bouckaert

(2011) Public Management Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

59.

Prospects (2015) Student Career Guide 2015/2016 [online]. Available at: http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?pbid=720eb68d-631a-443a-b324-a4a3019b6892 (accessed 27 November 2015).

60.

Qomaruddin

Rahman

Iahad

(2014) User acceptance test of computer-assisted problem-based learning assessment tool (CAPBLAT). Journal of Education and Learning. 8(1): 71–77.

61.

Ravald

Grönroos

(1996) The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing 30(2): 19–30.

62.

Rintamäki

Kirves

(2017) From perceptions to propositions: profiling customer value across retail contexts. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 37: 159–167.

63.

Robinson

(1993) Cost-benefit analysis. BMJ 307: 924–926.

64.

Rorrer

(2016) An evaluation capacity building toolkit for principal investigators of undergraduate research experiences: a demonstration of transforming theory into practice. Evaluation and Program Planning 55: 103–111.

65.

Rossi

Freeman

(1993) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 5th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

66.

Ruvoldt

(2000) Developing a cost benefit analysis for internships: part 1, Blog, ERE. Available at: http://www.ere.net/developing-a-cost-benefit-analysis-for-internships-part-i/ (accessed 31 October 2017).

67.

Schöpfel

(2010) Towards a Prague Definition of Grey Literature. Twelfth International Conference on Grey Literature: Transparency in Grey Literature. Grey Tech Approaches to High Tech Issues. Prague, 6-7 December 2010, Dec 2010, Czech Republic. pp. 11–26, 2010. Available at: https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00581570/document. (accessed 24 October 2017)

68.

Schopper

(2016) Some remarks concerning the cost/benefit analysis applied to LHC at CERN. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 112: 54–64.

69.

Smith

Clegg

Lawrence

. (2007) The challenge of reflection: students learning from work placements. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44(2): 131–141.

70.

Smith

Colgate

(2007) Customer value creation: a practical framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 15: 7–23.

71.

Smith

Caddell

(2015) Can pay, should pay? Exploring employer and student perceptions of paid and unpaid placements. Active Learning in Higher Education 16(2): 149–164.

72.

Spohrer

Maglio

(2008) The emergence of service science: toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value. Production and Operations Management 17(3): 1–9.

73.

Thatcher

Alao

Brown

. (2016) Enriching the values of micro and small business research projects: co-creation service provision as perceived by academic, business and student. Studies in Higher Education 41(3): 560–581.

74.

Tudor

Mendez

(2014) Lessons from Covey: win-win principles for university-employer engagement. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning 4(3): 213–227.

75.

Vakaloudis

Anagnostopoulos

Elder

(2015) Enhancing the academic value of industrial placements with the agile framework. In: Proceedings of the 1st teaching and education conference, Amsterdam. DOI: 10.20472/TEC.2015.001.014.

76.

Varghese

Parker

Adedokun

. (2012) Experiential internships: understanding the process of student learning in small business internships. Industry and Higher Education 26(5): 357–367.

77.

Vargo

Lusch

(2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic of marketing. Journal of Marketing 68: 1–17.

78.

Vargo

Lusch

(2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 1–10.

79.

Vargo

Maglio

Akara (2008) On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal 26: 145–152.

80.

Viet

Nguyen

Huyen

(2015) Report on cost and benefit analysis of TVET internship programmes in enterprises. Available at: http://www.tvet-vietnam.org/kontext/controllers/document.php/609.7/5/29dbca.pdf (accessed 31st October 2017).

81.

Vom Brocke

Simons

Riemer

. (2015) Standing on the shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 37(1): 205–224.

82.

Walmsley

Thomas

Jameson

(2006) Surprise and sense making: undergraduate placement experiences in SMEs. Education + Training 48(5): 360–372.

83.

Watson

Hall

Tazzyman

(2016) Trick or treat: academic buy-in to third stream activities. Industry and Higher Education 30(2): 155–167.

84.

Wilton

(2014) Employability is in the eye of the beholder: employer decision-making in the recruitment of work placement students. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning 4(3): 242–255.

85.

Woelert

Yates

(2015) Too little and too much trust: performance measurement in Australian higher education. Critical Studies in Education 56(2): 175–189.

86.

Woodall

Hiller

Resnick

(2014) Making sense of higher education: students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher Education 39(1): 48–67.

87.

Zaltman

Wallendorf

(1983) Consumer Behavior: Basic Findings and Management Implications. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

88.

Zeithaml

(1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52(July): 2–22.