Motivation: The missing driver for theorizing about resource integration

Abstract

Resource integration is vital to value co-creation. However, most research focuses on competencies as enablers of resource integration and the social aspects that guide them. Based on a literature review of resource integration and motivation theories, this article proposes including motivation as a driver of resource integration and integrating concepts from motivation theories into the resource integration process. This approach extends the understanding and conceptualization of actors’ resource integration processes, such that motivation determines the direction, intensity, and persistence of effort. When they engage in behavioral and cognitive activities, actors interact with resources, which informs the actors and influences their competences and motivation. Accordingly, motivation is central for a clear understanding of the psychological mechanisms of resource integration processes, as motivation expands the explanatory power of sociological factors by including intensity and persistence.

Keywords

Competencies effort institutions motivation resource integration value co-creation

Introduction

Actors integrate resources as a part of their value co-creation processes in service ecosystems (Akaka et al., 2012; Vargo and Akaka, 2012; Vargo and Lusch, 2008, 2016). Despite the vital role of resource integration in value co-creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2016), relatively little attention has focused on defining and conceptualizing this phenomenon; rather, most research addresses actors’ ability to integrate resources, their competencies, or social influences. For example, Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2012: 202) assert that “the ability and allowance to use or integrate a resource […] enables actors to utilize a resource and to make an exchange of ‘service for service’ possible.” Thus, actors’ ability and competence may enable resource integration, but they are not sufficient for resource integration to occur.

Resource integration has received considerable research attention for several decades, although the discussion has only recently been framed according to service-dominant (S-D) logic (Peters et al., 2014). Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2012) refer to resource integration as the processes and forms of collaboration through which resource integrators (i.e. actors) co-create phenomenologically determined value-in-context (Chandler and Vargo, 2011), using operant resources (e.g. knowledge and skills) and acting on operand resources (Peters et al., 2014). However, it is not knowledge and skills that generate value but rather their use. To use knowledge and skills, actors must be motivated, because activity is triggered by motivation. Because value-in-use requires activity, motivation is already embedded as a precondition of the value-in-use (value-in-context) concept. However, motivation has been forgotten somehow in the discussion of resource integration and value co-creation.

Recent research in S-D logic has conceptualized the social aspects of resource integration, such as institutions (e.g. Edvardsson et al., 2014; Koskela-Huotari and Vargo, 2016; Vargo and Lusch, 2016), structuration theory (e.g. Edvardsson et al., 2011), or practice theory (e.g. Echeverri and Skålén, 2011). However, social aspects mostly direct the effort of actors, but lack the explanatory power regarding the intensity and persistence of effort. Moreover, motivation gives energy (direction, intensity, and persistence) to resource integration efforts, and thus may be a missing component in theorizing resource integration. Motivation as a psychological driver helps expand the explanatory power of sociological factors by including intensity and persistence. Various disciplines already identify motivation as an important driver of human activity, including psychology (Cerasoli et al., 2014), organizational behavior (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003), management (Locke and Latham, 2004; Steel and König, 2006), economics (Ariely et al., 2009; Xia and Suri, 2014), sociology (Turner, 1987), and education (Cameron and Pierce, 1994; Oxford and Shearin, 1994).

Motivation is vital to an explanation of how and to what extent actors leverage their knowledge and skills (Locke and Latham, 2004) to integrate resources and co-create value. Consequently, motivation is an important driver of activity (e.g. Cerasoli et al., 2014; Locke and Latham, 2004; Mitchell and Daniels, 2003) because it influences the direction, intensity, and persistence of effort (e.g. De Cooman et al., 2009; Latham and Pinder, 2005; Locke and Latham, 2004; Mitchell and Daniels, 2003; Pinder, 2008). Furthermore, motivation is a fundamental component of any credible model of human performance (Cerasoli et al., 2014). By using motivation theory, we contribute to explaining the tensions between actors’ social and psychological drivers of resource integration. Furthermore, we argue that a traditional understanding of operant resources, which does not include motivation, is insufficient to explain resource integration activity.

With this conceptual article, we seek to answer calls to conceptualize resource integration and actors’ motivation to integrate resources (e.g. Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012; Peters et al., 2014), as well as the performative prerequisites of actors’ efforts during resource integration for value co-creation (Edvardsson et al., 2014). We posit that motivation is key for understanding actors’ willingness to integrate resources and fundamental to why actors integrate resources. Motivation enables scholars to explain the effects of sociological constructs (e.g. institutions or structure) on resource integration. The aim of this article is to use motivation theories to further explain what drives resource integration. Resource integration reflects the micro-level activities in value co-creation processes. This article contributes to existing research by including actors’ motivation as a driver of resource integration and thus explains how motivation at micro-level directs and shapes resource integration processes and outcomes. Furthermore, we contribute with four propositions and a new definition and thus conceptualize resource integration. The implications of addressing this are, first, to provide researchers with a conceptual framework for future research. Second, for practitioners, it highlights that resource integration results in subjective experiences and thus cannot solely be understood from the value co-created in a holistic perspective, and finally how the value propositions offer actors directional motivation for their resource integration efforts.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: First, we provide a general overview of the theoretical framework. Following MacKenzie et al.’s (2011) construct conceptualization procedure, we conduct a literature review of resource integration to gain an overview of the key characteristics of resource integration and how it has been defined. Second, we review motivation literature to identify key concepts and inform the S-D logic. Third, using concepts from motivation theory (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, goals, and internalization), we extend the existing conceptualization of resource integration, to include what drives and maintains it. Fourth, we propose a conceptual framework of the resource integration process and offer four propositions reflecting an extended view of actors’ resource integration. Fifth and finally, we provide directions for future theorizing and empirical research.

Theoretical framework

According to Vargo and Lusch (2016), the narrative of value co-creation is developing into one of the resource integration activities performed by actors. In line with Edvardsson et al. (2014), we define actors as either individuals or formal or informal organizations, such as firms, peer groups, families, or pressure groups. These reciprocal-service-providing actors are co-creating value through holistic, meaning laden, experiences (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Actors’ resource integration co-creates value within nested and overlapping service ecosystems, governed and evaluated through their institutional arrangements (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). S-D logic addresses both value creation processes and outcomes regarding value-in-use (Gummerus, 2013), which was later, according to Vargo and Lusch (2016), modified to “value-in-context” (Chandler and Vargo, 2011) and subsequently amplified to include “value-in-social-context” (Edvardsson et al., 2011). S-D logic does not directly address outcomes as a concept. However, Vargo and Lusch (2016) argue the service ecosystem levels of aggregation are analytical levels, which are inseparable of each other in practice. Similarly, value outcomes exist in the actor’s perception and do not represent an ending point in the value co-creation process, but rather serve analytical purposes and represent perspectives of value related to levels of aggregation (e.g. micro, meso, and macro). Micro, meso, and macro generally within S-D logic refer to levels of aggregation ranging from an actor perspective (individual or a group of people as in a firm), through midrange structures (e.g. industry and market) and up to a societal perspective (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). However, the research question should determine the scope of analysis, and thus these assignments are somewhat arbitrary (Vargo and Lusch, 2016).

Resources can be classified as (1) operand resources, which must be activated and operated on by the actor to create an effect, or (2) operant resources (knowledge and skills, often referred to as competencies), which are capable of acting on and activating other resources, including other actors, to induce an effect (Lusch and Vargo, 2014; Vargo and Lusch, 2008). Operand resources need operant resources to be used, so resource integration cannot occur without operant resources (Haase and Kleinaltenkamp, 2011; Löbler, 2013; Xie et al., 2008: see also Table 1). Accordingly, operant resources are fundamental to resource integration and essential for value creation and realization. We define competencies as actors’ knowledge and skills that enable them to integrate resources effectively.

Table 1.

Conceptualizations and definitions of resource integration.

Author	Description	Key characteristics of the description
Author	Description	Prerequisites	Activity	Outcome
Lusch and Vargo (2006: 283)	…integrate and transform micro-specialized competencies into complex services…	Micro-specialized competencies	Integrate and transform	Complex services
Xie et al. (2008: 109)	Consumers act as resource integrators when they use their competence, tools, raw materials, and sometimes professional services to produce.	Competence, tools, raw materials, and sometimes professional services	Use	Maintenance services, entertainment, meals, and so on for themselves
Vargo (2008: 213)	…each actor is its own primary resource integrator, using the application of its uniquely configured resources as the currency for resource enrichment through the exchange (economic and otherwise) of service.	Uniquely configured resources	Application	Resource enrichment
Grönroos and Ravald (2011: 8)	As resource integrators, customers operate on resources made available to them by a given provider, by other market actors or by themselves in order to increase their well-being.	Available resources	Operate on	Well-being
Haase and Kleinaltenkamp (2011: 157)	Application of skills	Skills	Application
Witell et al. (2011: 143)	Applying […] uniquely configured skills and resources	Skills and resources	Applying
Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson (2012: 576)	Resource integration is largely an interaction process between the parties.		Interaction
Hibbert et al. (2012: 248)	Customer resource integration refers to the processes by which customers deploy their resources as they undertake bundles of activities that create value directly or that will facilitate subsequent consumption/use from which they derive value.	Resources	Deploy	Create value
Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2012: 203)	Integration requires process(es) and forms of collaboration.		Collaboration
McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012: 375)	…activities and interaction with collaborators…		Activities and interaction
Hilton et al. (2013: 4)	The tasks performed by the actors are achieved by drawing upon their resources.	Resources	Drawing upon	Task performance
Löbler (2013: 422)	Whenever people act, they use operant resources along with operand resources. In so doing, they integrate resources.	Operant resources along with operand resources	Use
Edvardsson et al. (2014: 297)	Resource integration consists of cooperative and collaborative processes between actors, leading to experiential outcomes and outputs, as well as mutual behavioral outcomes for all actors involved.		Cooperative and collaborative	Experiential and behavioral
Peters et al. (2014: 254)	Resource integration is a continuing process consisting of a series of activities performed by an actor for the benefit of another party which is conceptually aligned with service; that is, the application of specialized competencies (knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself.	Specialized competencies (knowledge and skills)	Application through deeds, processes, and performance	Benefit of another entity or the entity in itself
Frow et al. (2015: 464)	Resource integration involves a process of ongoing combination of resources by actors (resource integrators) in co-creating value.	Resources	Combining	Value co-creation
Laud et al. (2015: 510)	Resource integration refers to actors’ interaction with and/or use of resources.	Resources	Interaction and use
Skålén et al. (2015b: 251)	Resource integration refers to actors’ efforts to combine and use resources to create intended value.	Resources	Effort to combine and use	Intended value
Cheung and McColl-Kennedy (2015: 486)	Customer resource integration is an active, dynamic process that requires social actors to work together to achieve a co-created outcome, drawing on tangible and intangible resources, such as skills and competencies, to co-create services of value.	Tangible and intangible resources, such as skills and competencies	Active, dynamic process; drawing on	Co-created outcome; co-create services of value
Hollebeek et al. (2016: 6)	Customer resource integration denotes a customer’s incorporation, assimilation, and application of focal operant and/or operand resources into the process of other actors in brand-related utility optimization processes.	Focal operant and/or operand resources	Incorporation, assimilation and application	Brand-related utility optimization
Singaraju et al. (2016: 46)	Resource integration is defined as the incorporation of an actor’s resources into the processes of other actors.	Resources	Incorporation
Frow et al. (2016: 26)	Resource integration refers to efforts to interact with and use resources.	Resources	Efforts to interact and use
Peters (2016: 3006)	Where resource interaction (defined as coming together of resources) results in either emergent or summative relations.	Resources	Coming together	Emergent or summative relations
Ng et al. (2016: 381)	Customer resource integration is customers employing resources, whether individually or collectively, to determine and enhance their own consumption experiences.	Resources	Employing	Determine and enhance their own consumption experiences
Plé (2016: 153)	Resource integration is a continuous process that involves different actions and activities performed by an actor […] it requires a mix and combination of resources that result in contextualized configurations of those resources. The result of this combination then can be applied through interactions among entities to either create new resources or co-create value.	Combination of resources	Actions and activities performed	Create new resources or co-create value
Anderson et al. (2016: 263)	The incorporation of an actor’s resources into the processes of other actors.	Resources	Incorporation

Since humans have limited cognitive abilities (Kihlstrom, 1987; Thornton et al., 2012; Vargo and Lusch, 2016), they efficiently rationalize through institutions that are diffused and shared (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Institutions represent frames of reference that condition actors’ choices for sense-making, the vocabulary they use to motivate action, and their sense of self and identity (Thornton et al., 2012). Moreover, institutions comprise regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life (Koskela-Huotari and Vargo, 2016). Accordingly, institutions and institutional arrangements (i.e. a set of institutions) guide the direction of an actor’s resource integration activities. Shared institutional arrangements enable and constrain how resources are integrated, and value is co-created in service ecosystems (Edvardsson et al., 2014; Koskela-Huotari and Vargo, 2016; Lusch and Vargo, 2014; Vargo and Akaka, 2012). Since actors cannot allocate cognitive resources to simultaneously process all environmental stimuli and action responses, actors develop structures that focus their attention both automatically and willed (Thornton et al., 2012). Accordingly, institutional arrangements make it easier for the actor to decide what problems get attended to and what solutions are likely to be considered (Thornton et al., 2012). Institutional arrangements and motivation theories have many conceptual overlaps, but base the explanations of behaviors and outcomes on different types of logic. Institutional arrangements emphasize sociological mechanisms as the origin of structure, while motivation theories emphasize the actors’ psychological mechanisms as drivers. Thus, the perspectives are often not contradictory, but complement each other.

Literature review on resource integration

The literature review on resource integration is based on a search of ISI Web of Science for 2004–2016, using the business category and the term “resource integration” in the article titles, abstracts, or keywords, which results in 57 publications. Only publications after 2004 are included, because Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) article initiated S-D logic. Through an analysis of all these publications, we identify similarities and differences in their definitions, conceptualizations, prerequisites, and underlying assumptions to shed light on resource integration processes. Searches using EBSCOhost and Google Scholar, in addition to checking reference lists of the identified articles (i.e. snowball sampling), ensure that no significant publications are missed. Finally, new resource integration studies published after our initial literature search are included later.

This review shows that the term “resource integration” usually refers to an empirical phenomenon, without a clear definition or description. Some definitions appear in these studies (see Table 1), but there is a definite lack of consensus. Competencies are identified as a prerequisite of resource integration, and resource integration is presented as part of actors’ value co-creation efforts and processes. Intuitively, the nature of resource integration may be such that scholars assume the name itself is equivalent to defining it; “integration” means combining into a whole, so resource integration is self-evidently combining resources into something new. Many publications also define or describe integration tautologically, as the act of integrating, which cannot contribute to theorizing resource integration (Plé, 2016). Furthermore, resource integration might seem so complex that scholars are hesitant to define it. In the earliest publications, we find that resource integration is used somewhat interchangeably with value (co-)creation and service provision, which creates some confusion and has hindered the development of resource integration as a separate concept unto itself.

The first publication that acknowledges resource integration as a separate concept is Lusch and Vargo (2006: 283), in which they describe the resource integration function of firms and households, in line with their ninth premise, “organizations exist to integrate and transform micro-specialized competencies into complex services….” They also consider service provision in terms of resource integration. The current view holds instead that resource integration is a process, an activity, or a step in the value co-creation process (Plé, 2016).

As Table 1 shows, all existing descriptions contain an active or behavioral element, whether (1) directly (e.g. activity, use, application, operate on, exchange, incorporation, and combination) or (2) indirectly, using process terms (i.e. a process by definition consists of activities; Payne et al., 2008), and the literature has a clear focus on either competencies (knowledge and skills) or the more all-encompassing term resources, as prerequisites of resource integration. However, this review ultimately provides little insight into the psychological mechanisms affecting an actor’s motivation to integrate resources.

According to Vargo and Lusch (2011), resource integration provides opportunities for creating new potential resources that can be used as well as access to additional resources. Resources only have potential value, which is realized through activity to become valuable. The activity can be behavioral or cognitive, such that it is defined as “performing” or “doing” (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012), and it often occurs in interaction with and operating on other resources (Laud et al., 2015) or in collaboration with actors (Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012). Resource integration involves combining (i.e. applying, operating on, and incorporating) resources; in doing so, the actor uses resources in context to achieve outcomes at various levels of activation. This level of activation may range from very active (e.g. driving a car) to very passive (e.g. a patient during an operation; Löbler, 2013). If other actors are viewed as resources (Löbler, 2013), integration also takes place between the actor and resources. For example, when driving a car (behavioral activity), the actor combines the car (operand resource) with knowledge about how to control and operate it (operant resource), knowledge about the rules of the road, knowledge about the meaning of traffic signs, and so on, and thereby gets from point A to point B. When driving in traffic, this actor also uses cognitive resources to analyze the surroundings, interpret other actors’ behaviors and the signals they provide, and interact with others. Therefore, the actors collaborate, based on common rules and norms (shared institutions), to operate safely in traffic. However, according to Peters (2016), interaction alone is an insufficient conceptual foundation for understanding resource integration, because it could result in (1) homopathic resource integration due to summative resource integration processes or (2) heteropathic resource integration, based on emergent resource integration processes (Lusch et al., 2016; Peters, 2016). Emergent resource integration is an interactive combination of resources that generates a new resource with different dispositional properties than integrated resources (Peters et al., 2014; see also Smith, 2010). Peters (2016) argues that the new emergent properties resulting from heteropathic resource integration have feedback effects on lower-order resources, focusing on how this feedback may have downward causality for resources, and it may change the systems overall (Wieland et al., 2012).

Several scholars argue that actors drive resource integration (e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2011), but in research literature, there has been a general zooming out to allow a more holistic, dynamic, and realistic perspective among a wider configuration of actors (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Thus, the focus is currently on structural details to explain what initiates, maintains, or influences actors’ resource integration efforts. Accordingly, resource integration is conditioned by institutions through the rules, norms, meanings, symbols, practices, and similar aides to collaboration (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). However, resource integrators are also actors with agency (Edvardsson et al., 2014; Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012), who use operant resources (e.g. competencies) to act on operand resources in the resource integration process (Peters et al., 2014). Using competencies implies agency, meaning it is the actors’ ability to act purposefully that leads to resource integration. Kleinaltenkamp et al. (2012) argue that actors must recognize the benefits of participation because collaborations are usually voluntary. Actors need to anticipate that integrating specific resources will be valuable before they decide to interact (Akaka et al., 2014), so it may seem natural to assume that resource integration always has an intended outcome. However, most resource integration activities, such as those performed by customers, are mundane, everyday activities performed in a spontaneous, relatively less conscious manner (Edvardsson et al., 2011; Grönroos and Voima, 2013). That is, resource integration activities are not always intentional, nor do they always have an intended outcome. Furthermore, resource integration is a context-dependent construct (Koskela-Huotari and Vargo, 2016), and any non-legitimate behavior will produce negative consequences (Edvardsson et al., 2014). Accordingly, resource integration is complex; it can involve both individual and collaborative behaviors, influenced by the context and multiple systems on multiple levels, across multiple value co-creation processes (Jaakkola and Hakanen, 2013; Laud et al., 2015). Several definitions of resource integration include outcomes, such as value (co-)creation (e.g. Frow et al., 2015; Hibbert et al., 2012; Skålén et al., 2015b), providing benefits for another party (e.g. Peters et al., 2014), increasing well-being (e.g. Grönroos and Ravald, 2011), gaining experiential outcomes and outputs (e.g. Edvardsson et al., 2014), or increasing system viability (survivability and well-being; e.g. Wieland et al., 2012). We find a clear consensus that value is phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary, because it is idiosyncratic, experiential, contextual, and meaning laden (Vargo and Lusch, 2008); multiple value outcomes need not be symmetrical across parties (Edvardsson et al., 2011).

From a service exchange perspective, potential value outcomes can be operationalized as value propositions, reflecting the value that customers may create by integrating the resources provided by the firm into their own processes (Saarijärvi et al., 2014). That is, value propositions are value creation promises, created by the firm independently or together with customers and other actors through resource integration of knowledge and competencies (Skålén et al., 2015a). However, actors are not equal in their ability to obtain value from their resource integration activities (Hibbert et al., 2012); some people are better drivers than others. Resource integration effectiveness therefore reflects the proficiency of resource deployment to create value (Hibbert et al., 2012). For this performance construct, the outcome is value co-creation, and the value outcomes of resource integration activities may be assessed from micro, meso, and macro perspectives.

In summary, three key characteristics emerge from the description of resource integration in Table 1: (1) Competence is a prerequisite for resource integration, (2) activity is required for resource integration, and (3) the outcome of resource integration is value (co-)creation. However, by focusing on actors as key drivers of resource integration at the micro-level, we seek insights into the psychological mechanisms that moderate social influences from context on actors’ resource integration.

Competencies have value only if used and directed toward desired outcomes. Accordingly, motivation enhances our understanding of what happens in practice when actors apply their knowledge and skills. Consider athletes competing in the Olympics. They all possess extremely high skill levels, and acquiring the skills required years of dedication and practice. These athletes are extremely motivated to invest the necessary time and effort to train and achieve their goal (e.g. win an Olympic gold medal). Without this motivation, they would not endure the countless hours of training. Accordingly, motivation is vital for explaining behavior (Locke and Latham, 2004), and in extension, we anticipate that it is critical for explicating how and why actors integrate resources. Thus, we turn to motivation theories to identify variables that might affect an actor’s motivation to engage in activity, namely, in the direction, intensity, and persistence of resource integration.

Motivation

Motivation theories seek to explain human behavior according to internal factors that impel action and external factors that act as inducements to action (Locke and Latham, 2004). Moreover, motivation is personal, and all actors are unique, with genetic and personal backgrounds that shape their wants, desires, and reactions to events (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). Ryan and Deci (2000b) argue that motivation is valued for its impact on prompting activity; for decades, in combination with ability, it has been used to predict behavior and performance (Ambrose and Kulik, 1999; Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). For example, in information processing research, Petty and Cacioppo (1986: 8) use Heider’s (1958) concepts of “trying” (motivation) and “can” (ability) to develop their elaboration likelihood model (Andrews, 1988).

Pinder (2008) defines work motivation as a set of energetic forces originating both within and beyond the individual being, which initiate work-related behavior and determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration. The manifestation of this energetic force is effort, often used as an operationalization of motivation (Pinder, 2008). In this sense, motivation is a psychological process, resulting from the interaction between the individual and the environment (Latham and Pinder, 2005), with a form of activity or behavior as the outcome (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003), executed with a certain level of energy or frequency (Gollwitzer and Oettingen, 2012). As described by Ryan and Deci (2000b: 69),

People can be motivated because they value an activity or because there is strong external coercion. They can be urged into action by an abiding interest or by a bribe. They can behave from a sense of personal commitment to excel or from fear of being surveilled. These contrasts between cases of having internal motivation versus being externally pressured are surely familiar to everyone.

In this article, we examine several motivation theories, including self-determination (e.g. Ryan and Deci, 2000b), social cognitive (e.g. Bandura, 2001b), goal-setting (e.g. Latham, 2009), and flow (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre, 1989), to explore how motivation influences the form, direction, intensity, and duration of behavior; in this case, it is the direction, intensity, and persistence of resource integration. These theories focus on different aspects of motivation (Locke and Latham, 2004; see also Steel and König, 2006) and thus provide insights into different aspects of the resource integration process.

The most basic categorization of motivation identifies intrinsic and extrinsic forms (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). Intrinsically motivated behaviors occur for their own sake (e.g. task enjoyment), rather than being instrumental for some other outcome, whereas extrinsically motivated behavior instead is governed by the prospect of an instrumental gain or loss (e.g. economic reward and pain avoidance) (Cerasoli et al., 2014). The number of instrumental goals, or external motivational factors, is practically unlimited, but actors’ intrinsic motivation is limited by human nature (Reiss, 2004). Reiss (2004) suggests 16 desires (e.g. power, curiosity, independence, and status) are the basis of all intrinsic motivation. As Ryan and Deci (2000b) argue, perhaps no single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation, which they describe as the inherent tendency to seek novelty and challenges, extend and exercise one’s capabilities, explore, and learn. Actors whose motivation is mainly intrinsic express more interest, excitement, and confidence, which is manifested as enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity (Ryan and Deci, 2000b).

Although intrinsic motivation is an important type of motivation, most of the activities people engage in are not, strictly speaking, intrinsically motivated (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). Much of human activity is non-motivated, compulsive, and habitual (Pinder, 2008). The freedom to be intrinsically motivated becomes reduced by social demands and roles requiring individuals to assume responsibility for non-intrinsically interesting tasks (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). Given that many acts of resource integration are not intrinsically stimulating, a central question is how to motivate actors to value such activities and carry them out on their own (Ryan and Deci, 2000b).

Consider two people who are running, one is running because he or she is late for work and the other is running to improve his or her health. Both are preforming the same task, but the motive behind the activity is very different. The first person is running to attain the separable outcome of avoiding sanctions from the boss. Similarly, the person running because he or she personally believes it is valuable for living a long and healthy life is extrinsically motivated because the person is running for its instrumental value rather than because running is interesting. Both examples involve instrumentalities, but the former involves compliance with an external control, and the latter entails personal endorsement and a feeling of choice (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). The process of integrating values or regulations with their own, so that it emanates from their sense of self, is within self-determination theory, referred to as internalization (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000b). The concept of internalization describes how an individual’s motivation can range from no motivation or unwillingness, to passive compliance, to active personal commitment (Ryan and Deci, 2000b). Accordingly, extrinsic motivators can become internalized into intrinsic motivation over time.

Actors are constantly involved in social interactions and comparisons; social contexts are key sources of information about how we view ourselves (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). Social cognitive theory emphasizes that human learning and behavior often occurs in social environments (Schunk and Usher, 2012); by observing the behaviors of other actors as well as their consequences, people learn a sequence of actions that subsequently guide their own actions as they seek to achieve pertinent outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Personal factors, behavioral patterns, and environmental events all operate as interactive determinants, influencing one another bidirectionally (Bandura, 2001a). Social interaction provides the actor with feedback, and because feedback is information, its effect on action depends on how it is appraised and the decisions made with respect to it (Latham, 2009). Finally, agency operates within the social structures of authorized systems of rules, social practices, and sanctions designed to regulate human actions (Bandura, 2001b). However, actors with agency are not only passive holders of internal mechanisms determined by contextual events but also agents of experience (Bandura, 2001b). Specifically, extrinsic incentives are effective if the actor has an intrinsic desire for them (Heath, 1999), and environmental factors only affect actors if they are perceived as important. Therefore, we argue that intrinsic motivation is the primary driver of activity and is moderated by extrinsic motivation.

Direction

Motivation is discretionary; behavior is something a person chooses to do (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003), so “when individuals find a particular task enjoyable or identifiable with the self, they are more likely to fully endorse and participate in the task” (Cerasoli et al., 2014: 982). Motivation literature tends to regard personal goals as forms of direction (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003), so the goal reflects what the person is trying to accomplish, similar in meaning to the concepts of purpose and intent (Locke et al., 1981). Goals are also most effective when feedback shows some progress toward them (Ambrose and Kulik, 1999; Latham and Locke, 1991)

According to Bandura (2001b), agency refers to acts done intentionally, representing the future course of action to be performed. The human mind is limited in its ability to focus on multiple tasks, so motivation focuses attention on particular issues, people, task elements, and so on (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). Moreover, motivation explains why an actor in a given situation selects one response over another (e.g. integrating a certain resource instead of another one) (Gollwitzer and Oettingen, 2012). Social cognitive theory includes goals as a precondition for behavior, but the existence of goals cannot ensure the person will actually pursue them (Bandura, 2009). That is, forming a goal is not sufficient for behavior. Furthermore, outcomes are not characteristics of agentive acts but rather are their consequences (Bandura, 2001b). Future events cannot cause current motivation or action, because they have no actual existence. But by being represented cognitively in the present, foreseeable future events can be converted into current motivators and regulators of behavior (Bandura, 2001b).

Intensity

Motivation produces effort, and people work harder when they are motivated (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). One student might coast through a course with minimal effort; another might study hard, prepare for every class, and participate actively. According to Pinder (2008), intensity is the momentary magnitude of actual motivational arousal, regardless of the available potential, with the assumption that the amount of energy used is not greater than what is needed to produce the required behavior. Motivation addresses the total amount of effort an actor will undertake to satisfy a motive, which can be spread over time; intensity instead refers to the magnitude at a particular point in time (Brehm and Self, 1989). If a student studies regularly and works continuously throughout the course, the intensity of motivation could always be low; if the student instead studies only right before the exam, the intensity of motivation is high at that moment. When goal difficulty increases, more effort is needed to achieve that goal (Pinder, 2008), and those who are intrinsically motivated often exhibit a higher degree of intensity (Cerasoli et al., 2014).

Persistence

Greater motivation leads people to sustain their behavior for longer (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). Actors who are intrinsically motivated and find the activity enjoyable and interesting engage in it for longer periods, beyond the point at which they receive rewards for that activity (Cerasoli et al., 2014), and they persevere in the face of obstacles (Bandura, 1989). Thus, a high level of motivational persistence counters the diminishing effects of negative feedback on the motivation to sustain the activity (De Cooman et al., 2009). Motivation is emergent in the sense that proximal goals arise out of the interaction (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). The interaction also provides feedback (e.g. in terms of performance and goal attainment), so actors gain information about what they must do to gain beneficial outcomes and avoid punishment (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura (2001b), agency requires actors to function as planners, motivators, and self-regulators, such that it entails not only a deliberative ability to make choices and action plans but also a capacity to give shape to appropriate courses of action and motivate and regulate their execution. This aspect is often referred to as equifinality (e.g. Ryan and Deci, 2000b) or task strategies (e.g. Mitchell and Daniels, 2003), reflecting the patterns of behavior undertaken to reach a particular goal (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003).

A special case of persistence arises with the achievement of flow, a positive psychological state in which continuing an activity becomes virtually effortless, because that activity unfolds seamlessly, with a distorted perception of time (Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre, 1989; Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). According to flow theory, people are more likely to achieve flow when the perceived challenges are commensurate with their perceived capacity for action (Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre, 1989). Theoretically, an intrinsically motivated person should be more likely to experience flow, because he or she is extremely interested in the task at hand (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Jackson et al., 1998).

In summary, motivation is an unobservable, internal construct, represented in people’s psychological processes and manifested in the direction, intensity, and persistence of their effort (Pinder, 2008). Adapting Pinder’s (2008) definition for work motivation, we define an actor’s motivation to integrate resources as a set of energetic forces originating both within the actor and from the (social) context, to initiate resource integration and determine its direction, intensity, and persistence. We also argue that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, goals, and internalization are key concepts from motivation theory to provide insights for conceptualizing resource integration. Goals provide direction for efforts, social contexts affect actors through extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, activities inform the actor, and this information affects the motivation to continue resource integration activities.

Extending conceptualizations of resource integration

The general concepts underlying motivation theories are that actors’ motivation shapes the direction, intensity, and persistence of their effort, through intrinsic and extrinsic motivation influenced by social context. By linking key concepts from motivation literature (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, goals, and internalization) and resource integration literature, we seek to extend the conceptualization of resource integration by first extending operant resources to include motivation, and then elaborate on motivated actors with agency. Next, we discuss resource integration outcome and goals and, finally, use motivation to explain the effect of institutions on actors, as well as actors creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions through their motivated resource integration activities.

Extending operant resources to include motivation

Competencies, knowledge, skills, ability, and capability are prominent in S-D logic studies, as well as in motivation theories. In motivation literature, competencies are often presented as innate or otherwise accomplished through arduous, lengthy training and development activities (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). Thus, competence should be more stable over time. In motivation literature, learning ability is often assigned to the more holistic concept of ability. Learning ability is an important element of competencies, because it explains why resource integration occurs, even if the actor might initially lack the necessary knowledge or skills. Because competence refers to actors’ knowledge and skills that enable them to integrate resources effectively, learning ability is an important skill. It enables the accumulation and development of competencies through use, and hence it is important for the role competencies play in resource integration processes.

Resources have potential value that gets activated depending on how the available resources are integrated and operated on in specific contexts with specific intentions (Edvardsson et al., 2011; Edvardsson et al., 2014; Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson, 2012). The actors must be willing to be involved (Auh et al., 2007; see also Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2013), so their motivation to participate and use resources to achieve intended outcomes is critical for value co-creation. For example, many people have the necessary competencies to visit a gym and exercise but choose not to do so; they need motivational factors that can initiate and maintain their effort and, by extension, initiate and maintain their resource integration. Motivation is a dynamic concept, strongly affected by context. Accordingly, a lack of motivation may change quickly, due to shifts in the context or conditions over time. High levels of motivation could even compensate for lack of knowledge or skills, by inducing persistence and the necessary effort to learn them. If an actor has the necessary competencies and access to resources, but low motivation, resource integration activities may not occur because the actor lacks the drive to perform the activity. If resource integration occurs in cases with low motivation, it is likely random or perhaps even nonconscious resource integration. This might be the behavioral and cognitive use of competencies performed outside the actor’s phenomenal awareness.

Competencies and motivation affect each other, although the direction of their causal relationship is difficult to determine theoretically (Siemsen et al., 2008). For example, high levels of motivation might lead the actor to engage in practice and learning activities, which increase competencies. However, high levels of competencies increase self-efficacy, which enhances motivation. Behavioral and cognitive activities also offer learning opportunities for actors to increase their competencies, and high levels of competencies increase actors’ ability to interpret information from resource integration activities. Accordingly, the constructs affect each other but are distinct. Thus, by conceptually combining all elements available to actors, including motivation, that enable them to integrate resources efficiently or effectively (Madhavaram and Hunt, 2008), as operant resources, we thus validate the role and strategic significance of operant resources for resource integration.

Resource integration performed by motivated actors with agency

Motivation theories indicate motivation is a mental state that influences an actor’s effort, in terms of direction, intensity, and persistence, reflecting both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. Motivation combined with competencies provides the mechanism for performance. Human actors can make a conscious choice to integrate resources or not, for example, owning a car does not mean the actor always drives, nor does having a gym membership automatically make the actor exercise. Consequently, we assert (in line with Kleinaltenkamp et al., 2012; Peters et al., 2014) that actors have agency. Agency reflects the need to extend understanding of the mechanisms that influence actors’ choices and increase their motivation to integrate resources, in support of our revised conceptualization of resource integration. For example, Akaka et al. (2014) argue that actors must predict whether integrating particular resources will be valuable, leaving them better off than before, before they will choose to interact and coordinate their action (Vargo et al., 2008).

Motivation, grounded in intentions to realize value, provides direction, intensity, and persistence of effort in support of resource integration. Intentions are focused on outcomes and give motivation the direction to pursue value-in-context; they also define the initial intensity of effort devoted to arriving at intended outcomes through resource integration. Customers are motivated by a value proposition (Sweeney et al., 2015) which offers a goal for resource integration activities, such that it provides motivation in the form of direction if the actor desires the proposed value.

Resource integration outcome

The literature review shows value outcomes from resource integration. A subject-oriented perspective focuses on the subjective experience of the actor from resource integration (Peters et al., 2014). In this case, the subjective experience can be linked to the value outcome, which is the actor’s perception of value-in-use derived from the specific resource integration process. The value outcome will be the goal for resource integration activities. However, if the scholar adopts a more object-oriented perspective, the main assumption would be that the resource integration outcome is an objective, observable, and measurable phenomena (Peters et al., 2014). From this perspective, the focal outcome of resource integration moves from value to resources, where the outcome of resource integration is new resources. Albert Einstein argued that energy cannot be created or destroyed, as it only changes from one form to another. Similarly, resources do not turn into value when used, they are transformed into new resources that can be used (Vargo and Lusch, 2011).

Goals are focused on outcomes and give motivation the direction to pursue value outcomes or resource outcomes; they also define the initial intensity of effort. Hence, the level of intensity should match the actor’s perception of the level of difficulty associated with attaining intended outcome. Accordingly, extrinsically motivated resource integration is the behavioral and cognitive activities performed to achieve something else (e.g. get new resources that is instrumental in achieving a more distant goal). Conversely, intrinsically motivated resource integration is the behavioral and cognitive activities performed for no other apparent reason than the activity itself that provides value-in-use.

Motivation, grounded in intentions to realize value, provides direction, intensity, and persistence of effort in support of resource integration. High motivation levels may drive actors to learn necessary competencies, gain access to necessary resources, or involve other actors to realize some intended outcome or goal. Driving a car demands extensive operant resources, such as knowledge about how to operate the car, follow rules and regulations, and read signs. It also requires skills, such as the ability to coordinate arms and legs to operate the car. The vast network of operand resources includes market-facing resources, such as the car, fuel, tires, dealerships, and roadside assistance; public resources including roads and police; and private resources, such as borrowing a car from a friend or practicing to learn to drive with parents (Lusch and Vargo, 2014). Actors are motivated to learn to drive if they perceive it will be instrumental to achieve other things of value, such as independence, getting from one place to another, or improving social status (Cerasoli et al., 2014). Learning to drive also increases perceived competence, so it might through internalization enhance intrinsic motivation, as long as the effort is perceived to be a choice (self-determination) rather than a forced behavior (Deci et al., 2001). High levels of motivation thus are sufficient for an actor to integrate resources instrumentally, in terms of attaining the necessary competencies or to get access to necessary resources to achieve a value outcome.

S-D logic emphasizes collaborations among actors and the ways actors engage with others in their service network to integrate resources (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012). However, all resource integration, including integration of tangible operand resources, informs the actors throughout the integration activity. A car provides a driver with information, in the form of sights, touch, sounds, and smells. When the actor processes this information, he or she can use it to achieve an intended outcome (e.g. keeping the car on the road). Thus, the car is informing the actor, and this may create learning processes in which the actor increases his or her competencies and skills through experience. The actor interprets information subjectively, based on former experience and competencies. If the experience from resource integration is perceived as positive and confirms expectations, it can evoke feelings of competence in action and thus enhance intrinsic motivations for that action (Ryan and Deci, 2000b) and institutionalize resource integration activities to become habitual or nonconscious. Through these experiences, actors create, maintain, or disrupt resource integration practices and thus institutions for future resource integration.

Institutions, motivation, and internalization

Institutions and institutional arrangements (a set of institutions) are important to consider because they help people make decisions due to limited cognitive abilities, although humans efficiently rationalize through institutions that are diffused and shared (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). That a limited amount of attention can be allocated to various activities is a fundamental premise in cognitive psychology (Kihlstrom, 1987). A sufficiently motivated actor can use a conscious process to screen, organize, prioritize, and coordinate information when making a choice (Laran et al., 2016) about their resource integration activities. From an institutional logics perspective, attention is focused both automatically and willingly (Thornton et al., 2012). An automatic attention is based on well-learned behavioral responses and routinized behavior, and willed attention is required in activities involving planning, troubleshooting, dangerous or difficult situations, and for overcoming habitual responses (Thornton et al., 2012). However, people also have the ability to act without being aware of the motives and values underlying their behavior—that is, to act nonconsciously (Locke and Latham, 2004). Social psychology researchers recognize both conscious and nonconscious mechanisms as playing important roles. Explicit attitudes likely have implicit counterparts that direct people in suboptimal circumstances (Wilson et al., 2000). For instance, the automotive model of nonconscious goal pursuit (Bargh, 1990) suggests that goals are mental representations capable of being activated by the contexts in which the same goals were pursued often or consistently in the past (Oettingen et al., 2006).

According to Kihlstrom (1987), cognitive unconscious mechanisms are mental structures and processes operating outside phenomenal awareness, but nevertheless influence conscious experience, thought, and action. In which case, institutions have been institutionalized to the point of the actor being able to behave in a habitual or routinized manner. Early motivation theories often emphasize this unconscious, automatic, biological, or instinctual drive (see Pincus, 2004), whereas contemporary cognitive theories postulate that people’s thoughts, beliefs, and emotions are the central processes underlying motivation (Schunk and Usher, 2012). Motivation research offers insights into this unconscious thought and noneconomic (e.g. symbolic) values, meaning it can contribute to establishing the “real” motives underpinning actors’ behaviors (Tadajewski, 2006). However, resource integrators are not just passive holders of internal mechanisms determined by institutions but are also agents of experience (Bandura, 2001b). Experiences as a result of agency might enhance intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 2001), thus internalizing extrinsic motivators and turning them into intrinsic motivators over time. This process of moving from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation through internalization provides a useful insight into the process of institutionalization in S-D logic. Considering that resource integration is contextual, it merges the interdependencies and tensions of intrinsic motivation and the social context, thereby influencing activity through psychological mechanisms (Bandura, 2001b).

For contexts to affect motivation, actors must grasp their meaning and synthesize it with respect to their other goals and values (Ryan and Deci, 2000b). For example, seeing people similar to oneself succeed by persistent efforts raises observers’ beliefs in their own abilities (self-efficacy) (Bandura, 2009), and this knowledge then serves as a guide for subsequent action (Bandura, 1977). An actor may be motivated to drive over the speed limit (e.g. to get to a meeting on time, for the thrill it provides) but does not always do so. Because resource integration is context dependent (Koskela-Huotari and Vargo, 2016), actors generally act according to the norms and rules of the context to avoid negative consequences (e.g. fear of police, fear of social embarrassment, and loss of license). Furthermore, each actor observes how other actors behave in traffic and thereby learns how to behave correctly. Observation in this case provides information, increasing actors’ competencies. Information from resources in context informs the actor about the effectiveness associated with achieving the intended resource integration outcomes. The difference between the expected and actual effectiveness determines the motivation to continue resource integration. Expectancy theory also suggests that greater time to value attainment decreases motivational effects (Steel and König, 2006), so actors may be more motivated to act in accordance with immediate contextual influences rather than pursue more distant value outcomes. Thus, intrinsic motivation is moderated by the norms and rules of the actors’ social context.

Resource integration can also be influenced by multiple systems on multiple levels, across multiple value co-creation processes (Jaakkola and Hakanen, 2013; Laud et al., 2015). Specific resource integration events enhancing the accomplishment of some value outcomes might have no effect on the accomplishment of others or could even detract from their accomplishment (cf. Motowildo et al., 1997). Additionally, actors may have multiple goals at different levels, which adds to the complexity. Goal achievement theory in educational psychology settings indicates empirically that students pursue multiple (social and academic) goals at school (Wentzel, 2000). That is, people are likely to pursue more than one goal in any specific situation. According to an institutional view, conflicts among goals remain unresolved, but are activated by the focus of attention, and goals are embedded within alternative institutional arrangements (Thornton et al., 2012).

Conceptual framework for the resource integration process

In line with MacKenzie et al.’s (2011) approach, the suggested conceptualization reflects how resource integration has been used in prior research. Based on the literature review and motivation theory, we offer a construct conceptualization in terms of domain, theme, and definition (MacKenzie et al., 2011). The resource integration process’ conceptual framework contributes to explaining the nature and role of resource integration in the narrative of value co-creation. Figure 1 depicts the resource integration process, which consists of resource integration enabled by actor’s competencies and driven by actor’s motivation, leading to the specific direction, intensity, and persistence of the actor’s behavioral and cognitive activities. These activities inform the actor, thus increasing the level of experience and strengthening the actor’s competencies. All aspects throughout the process influence and are influenced by conditions of the service and social context. Furthermore, through resource integration activities, the actor is creating, maintaining, and disrupting practices and institutions. By performing this process, the actor co-creates value in a holistic perspective.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework for resource integration.

A traditional view of resource integration is that actors drive resource integration through their knowledge and skills when operating on other resources they have access to or possess. However, the role of actors’ motivation to integrate these resources has not been included in conceptualization. Motivation is an unobservable internal construct that is manifested in and drives the direction, intensity, and persistence of efforts (Pinder, 2008), thus shaping the process and outcome of resource integration. Both enablers (e.g. competencies) and drivers (e.g. motivation) shape and direct resource integration. In line with our framework and discussions, we derive four propositions showing the inbuilt mechanism of motivation and how it contributes to explaining resource integration and outcomes.

Proposition 1: Resource integration is performed by actors, enabled by competencies, and driven by motivation and institutional arrangements

Resource integration is performative in practice; consequently, actors are not likely to realize equal value from the same set of resources. Competencies and motivation are prerequisite for integrating resources efficiently and effectively, and therefore, both must be conceptually included as operant resources. Motivation focuses on actors’ attention and thus gives direction and energy (i.e. intensity and persistence) (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). Institutions represent “rules” of resource integration and coordinate actors’ efforts, and shared institutional arrangements guide resource integration (Koskela-Huotari and Vargo, 2016; Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Tension may occur between social norms and intrinsically motivated behaviors (e.g. the urge to sing along when listening to music in public) and is resolved by ranking potential value outcomes; in this case, it is determining whether the potential for social embarrassment or reprimands for breaking social rules is more important than the urge to sing. Thus, actors’ motivation to integrate resources is the phenomenological assessment of intrinsic motives, moderated by the social context through institutional arrangements.

Proposition 2: Actor’s motivation shapes the direction, intensity, and persistence of resource integration

Motivation is phenomenological, and the combination of the direction (resource integration activities an actor chooses to perform in context), intensity (level of energy an actor devotes to resource integration), and persistence (how well an actor sustains resource integration despite negative experiences during the process) of resource integration depends on the importance of potential value outcomes to the actor, and in turn, is influenced by social interaction, values, norms, and rules, especially if the actors determine that social influence is more important than attaining a more distant value outcome. Routinized resource integration requires little or no attention and can be performed nonconsciously (Kihlstrom, 1987), for example, an actor being able to nonconsciously walk while participating in a conversation. However, it can only take place when motivation is enough focused on other activities being more important (e.g. the conversation is more important than walking). Further, actors’ ability to simultaneously perform two or more resource integration activities is limited by the resulting demands on available cognitive resources (Kihlstrom, 1987). For instance, it might be difficult to participate in a conversation with others while walking on rocky terrain or driving in heavy traffic.

Proposition 3: Actors’ subjective and shared experiences of resource integration influence their motivation and competencies

Resource integration processes and outcomes inform the actors involved, influencing their motivation and providing insights into changed or new knowledge and skills needed for future resource integration efforts. Therefore, actors can increase their competencies through subjective and shared experiences as well as create, maintain, and disrupt practices and thus institutional arrangements. If an actor identifies an intended outcome for resource integration, it also provides information about progress toward the goal, thereby influencing the actor’s motivation to continue. Hence, information from resource integration is categorized into (1) information from the resource integration itself and (2) information from the social context during the exchange. If an exchange and the pure process of resource integration constitute two separate activities, then the latter can be regarded as subjective, whereas by definition, the exchange is intersubjective (Löbler, 2011). S-D logic is also primarily intersubjective (Löbler, 2011; Peters et al., 2014). However, according to Skålén et al. (2015b), resource integration may be conducted by one actor in isolation from others to create value-in-use. Löbler (2013) also argues that a pure resource integration process could be carried out by a single person, several people, or many people, but access to the necessary resources demands some kind of exchange (Löbler, 2011). Regardless of whether resource integration can be performed in isolation, the actor’s interpretation and experience of resource integration processes and outcomes are what influence his or her future motivation and competencies. Therefore, resource integration must be understood from the subjective or intersubjective perspectives of the resource-integrating actor. The suggested frameworks thus contribute to explaining how actors’ interactions can result in changes in motivation to integrate resources in specific practices.

Proposition 4: Value propositions offer actors’ motivational direction toward intended value outcomes

Customers are motivated by value proposition (Sweeney et al., 2015) which offers actors motivational direction through goals for resource integration toward attractive, intended outcomes. However, intended value outcomes can be achieved through different initial conditions or various combinations of resources, so effectiveness may vary across different paths of resource integration. The realized value depends, for example, on the actors’ competencies and how resources emerge and are combined, together with the intensity and persistence of effort due to motivation. The potential value of resources refers to the maximum value that can be realized from using resources and is linked to motivation in terms of intensity and persistence as well as enabled by competencies. For example, knowledge about emergent resource integration processes can generate new resources, skills for utilizing those resources, and an ability to learn from the feedback, to make necessary adjustments and maximize value realization. The likelihood of achieving the intended value outcome of the value proposition also increases when the actors are motivated to exert the necessary effort regarding intensity and persistence.

Defining resource integration

Based on an extensive literature review and our conceptualization, we define resource integration as actors’ use of competence in emerging interactions, driven by motivation and enabled by available resources. There are several aspects of the definition worth highlighting. The definition includes both the driver (motivation) and enablers (competencies and availability) of resource integration. Use implicates an activity, which is necessary for it to be resource integration. Also, interaction is the coming together of resources (Peters et al., 2014; Peters, 2016) that can be of an emergent nature, making it consistent with Peters’ (2016) conceptualization of resource integration. Furthermore, we also include the service ecosystem through motivation (extrinsic motivation) and availability of resources, which are two constructs that are context dependent. Accordingly, this article provides a conceptualization of resource integration, grounded in motivation theories, that extends S-D logic by theoretically explaining not only why but also to what degree actors integrate resources to co-create value for themselves and others. We contribute by explaining how motivation gives energetic force to resource integration concerning the direction, intensity, and persistence of actors’ resource integration efforts and thus influencing the resulting value-in-context. Moreover, by including the psychological mechanisms, we shed light on how unconscious and habitual resource integration shape and direct actors’ resource integration.

Managerial implications

This study provides managers with an improved understanding of psychological mechanisms that drive and guide actors in their resource integration processes when co-creating value for themselves and others. Resource integration results in subjective experiences, and therefore, it cannot be understood solely from a holistic perspective of value co-creation. Customers cannot be regarded as having homogeneous needs; because there are various types of motivation drivers, customers must be treated individually. Mangers can learn from favorable and unfavorable customer experiences and through these, gain insight into different motivational drivers and their levels of importance. For example, if low prices are a customer’s main motivational driver, it is perhaps unnecessary to present a high-quality product with a high price since this does not motivate the buyer to make a purchase. Understanding an actor’s motivation to integrate resources enables the firm to, for instance, fit their value propositions to the actor’s context, facilitate value realization, and design service experiences that incentivize favorable resource integration.

Value propositions offer actors directional motivation for their resource integration efforts. The conceptual framework can be used to develop and communicate value propositions that motivate customers by drawing attention to factors that are most important to them when selecting market offers. Furthermore, these value propositions can motivate customers to realize as much value as possible within the context and thereby increase the likelihood of a favorable experience. For instance, customers who are co-opted into the co-creation of services feel involved and develop positive affective evaluations of both the service and the firm, which increases their loyalty and willingness to buy (Cova and Dalli, 2009). Norton et al. (2012) found that effort can even be sufficient to induce people to overvalue their own creations. Moreover, actors’ valuation of resource integration outcomes is likely to increase as they integrate more resources.

Actors (e.g. customers and frontline employees) may have egocentric agendas, and the intentional or unintentional misuse of resources may provide value for the resource integrating actor but simultaneously destroy value for other actors. Thus, firms must understand the context in which actors are integrating resources and how these contexts consciously and unconsciously affect the customer. For instance, research on servicescapes provides insight into how external factors (e.g. music and smell) affect customers in retail situations. The complexity of the service and co-creation process also affects actors’ motivation. For example, if resource integration activities are straightforward, highly repetitive, and less inherently enjoyable, then actors are more likely to rely on habitual behavior or even unconsciously perform resource integration. Thus, these resource integration activities are more closely linked to extrinsic incentives (Cerasoli et al., 2014). However, if actors are involved in complex services that require a great deal of resources and effort and have a high level of complexity, then firms should focus more closely on intrinsic motivation (Cerasoli et al., 2014). For managers, this implies that for simple repetitive services, monetary rewards (e.g. low price and performance-based salary) might be a good motivational driver, but with complex services (e.g. health care), managers should focus more on intrinsic incentives such as emotions, interest, and altruistic motives. Accordingly, understanding the role of motivation in the coordination of resource integration and value co-creation provides practitioners with guidelines for designing services and service ecosystems as well as developing effective value propositions.

Further research

A challenge in combining motivation theories is discerning how to integrate the general with the specific; there is no such thing as action in general, and every action is task and situation specific (Locke and Latham, 2004). According to Locke and Latham (2004), specific measures virtually always predict action better than general measures, but general measures offer wider predictions. We suggest the developing measures based on direction, intensity, and persistence in various contexts (e.g. health care, online gaming, hospitality, and higher education), including a wide range of motivation among customers. Focusing on the interdependencies between motivation and competencies would be particularly beneficial to examine how it relates to other constructs (e.g. resource accessibility).

The suggested conceptual framework could also be contextualized and further developed in a study that compares one group of very motivated actors with a group having low or no motivation. Empirically studying their motivation might also provide new insights into the motivation of highly engaged customers for co-creating value. The meaning of specific goals is culturally influenced, so the ways specific goals relate to well-being likely vary across cultures (Ryan and Deci, 2000b). In some parts of the world, being overweight is a sign of wealth; in other cultures, it is associated with being unhealthy. Therefore, examining motivations across cultures, such as those using self-service technologies or interacting with frontline employees, may offer interesting insights.

It has been argued that value is not only co-created, but also co-destructed, where the latter suggests failing resource integration (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011). This view on value creation uses practice theory to explain co-destruction through failing resource integration. The literature review offers alternative explanations of value co-destruction, where it can be explained by intentional misuse of resources (e.g. sabotage) to create value for one actor and destroy value in the system. Second, resource integration may have unintended consequences when the actor is (1) unaware of the consequences of the resource integration actions performed (e.g. effect on other actors in the service ecosystem) or (2) the outcome is significantly different from intention. Thus, resource integration may be of value to one actor and destructive to another. Future research should address this further as explanations of value co-destruction.

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.

ORCID iD

Rolf Findsrud

References

Akaka

M.A.

Corsaro

Kelleher

. (2014) ‘The Role of Symbols in Value Cocreation’, Marketing Theory 14(3): 311–26.

Akaka

M.A.

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2012) ‘An Exploration of Networks in Value Co-creation: A Service-Ecosystems View’, Review of Marketing Research 9: 13–50.

Ambrose

M.L.

Kulik

C.T.

(1999) ‘Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Research in the 1990s’, Journal of Management 25(3): 231–92.

Anderson

Spanjol

Jefferies

J.G.

. (2016) ‘Responsibility and Well-being: Resource Integration under Responsibilization in Expert Services’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 35(2): 262–79.

Andrews

J.C.

(1988) ‘Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to Process Information: Conceptual and Experimental Manipulation Issues’, Advances in Consumer Research 15(1): 219–25.

Ariely

Bracha

Meier

(2009) ‘Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially’, American Economic Review 99(1): 544–55.

Auh

Bell

S.J.

McLeod

C.S.

. (2007) ‘Co-Production and Customer Loyalty in Financial Services’, Journal of Retailing 83(3): 359–70.

Bandura

(1977) ‘Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change’, Psychological Review 84(2): 191.

Bandura

(1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

10.

Bandura

(1989) ‘Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory’, American Psychologist 44(9): 1175.

11.

Bandura

(2001a) ‘Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication’, Media Psychology 3(3): 265–99.

12.

Bandura

(2001b) ‘Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective’, Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 1–26.

13.

Bandura

(2009) ‘Cultivate Self-efficacy for Personal and Organizational Effectiveness’, in Locke

E.A.

(ed.) Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior (2nd ed, pp. 179–200). Chichester, Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

14.

Bargh

J.A.

(1990) ‘Auto-motives: Preconscious Determinants of Social Interaction’, in Higgins

E.T.

Sorrentino

R.M.

(eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (Vol. 2), pp. 93–130). New York: Guilford.

15.

Brehm

J.W.

Self

E.A.

(1989) ‘The Intensity of Motivation’, Annual Review of Psychology 40(1): 109–31.

16.

Cameron

Pierce

W.D.

(1994) ‘Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-analysis’, Review of Educational Research 64(3): 363–423.

17.

Cerasoli

C.P.

Nicklin

J.M.

Ford

M.T.

(2014) ‘Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives Jointly Predict Performance: A 40-year Meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin 140(4): 980.

18.

Chandler

J.D.

Vargo

S.L.

(2011) ‘Contextualization and Value-in-context: How Context Frames Exchange’, Marketing Theory 11(1): 35–49.

19.

Cheung

McColl-Kennedy

J.R.

(2015) ‘Resource Integration in Liminal Periods: Transitioning to Transformative Service’, Journal of Services Marketing 29(6/7): 485–97.

20.

Cova

Dalli

(2009) ‘Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing Theory?’, Marketing Theory 9(3): 315–39.

21.

Csikszentmihalyi

LeFevre

(1989) ‘Optimal Experience in Work and Leisure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(5): 815.

22.

Deci

E.L.

Koestner

Ryan

R.M.

(2001) ‘Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again’, Review of Educational Research 71(1): 1–27.

23.

Deci

E.L.

Ryan

R.M.

(1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, Plenum P.

24.

De Cooman

De Gieter

Pepermans

. (2009) ‘Development and Validation of the Work Effort Scale’, European Journal of Psychological Assessment 25(4): 266–73.

25.

Díaz-Méndez

Gummesson

(2012) ‘Value Co-creation and University Teaching Quality’, Journal of Service Management 23(4): 571–92.

26.

Dörnyei

Ushioda

(2013) Teaching and Researching: Motivation. New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Echeverri

Skålén

(2011) ‘Co-Creation and Co-Destruction: A Practice-Theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation’, Marketing Theory 11(3): 351–73.

28.

Edvardsson

Kleinaltenkamp

Tronvoll

. (2014) ‘Institutional Logics Matter When Coordinating Resource Integration’, Marketing Theory 14(3): 291–309.

29.

Edvardsson

Tronvoll

Gruber

(2011) ‘Expanding Understanding of Service Exchange and Value Co-creation: A Social Construction Approach’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39(2): 327–39.

30.

Frow

McColl-Kennedy

J.R.

Payne

(2016) ‘Co-creation Practices: Their Role in Shaping a Health Care Ecosystem’, Industrial Marketing Management 56: 24–39.

31.

Frow

Nenonen

Payne

. (2015) ‘Managing Co-creation Design: A Strategic Approach to Innovation’, British Journal of Management 26(3): 463–83.

32.

Gollwitzer

P.M.

Oettingen

(2012) ‘Goal Pursuit’, in Ryan

R.M.

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, p. 13. New York: Oxford University Press.

33.

Grönroos

Ravald

(2011) ‘Service as Business Logic: Implications for Value Creation and Marketing’, Journal of Service Management 22(1): 5–22.

34.

Grönroos

Voima

(2013) ‘Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-creation’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41(2): 133–50.

35.

Gummerus

(2013) ‘Value Creation Processes and Value Outcomes in Marketing Theory: Strangers or Siblings?’, Marketing Theory 13(1): 19–46. DOI: 10.1177/1470593112467267

36.

Haase

Kleinaltenkamp

(2011) ‘Property Rights Design and Market Process: Implications for Market Theory, Marketing Theory, and SD Logic’, Journal of Macromarketing 31(2): 148–59. DOI: 10.1177/0276146710397662

37.

Heath

(1999) ‘On the Social Psychology of Agency Relationships: Lay Theories of Motivation Overemphasize Extrinsic Incentives’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78(1): 25–62.

38.

Heider

(1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

39.

Hibbert

Winklhofer

Temerak

M.S.

(2012) ‘Customers as Resource Integrators: Toward a Model of Customer Learning’, Journal of Service Research 15(3): 247–61. DOI: 10.1177/1094670512442805

40.

Hilton

Hughes

Little

. (2013) ‘Adopting Self-service Technology to Do More with Less’, Journal of Services Marketing 27(1): 3–12.

41.

Hollebeek

L.D.

Srivastava

R.K.

Chen

(2016) ‘SD Logic–Informed Customer Engagement: Integrative Framework, Revised Fundamental Propositions, and Application to CRM’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5

42.

Jaakkola

Hakanen

(2013) ‘Value Co-creation in Solution Networks’, Industrial Marketing Management 42(1): 47–58.

43.

Jackson

S.A.

Kimiecik

J.C.

Ford

S.K.

. (1998) ‘Psychological Correlates of Flow in Sport’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 20: 358–78.

44.

Kihlstrom

J.F.

(1987) ‘The Cognitive Unconscious’, Science 237: 1445–52.

45.

Kleinaltenkamp

Brodie

R.J.

Frow

. (2012) ‘Resource Integration’, Marketing Theory 12(2): 201–5. DOI: 10.1177/1470593111429512

46.

Koskela-Huotari

Vargo

S.L.

(2016) ‘Institutions as Resource Context’, Journal of Service Theory and Practice 26(2): 163–78.

47.

Laran

Janiszewski

Salerno

(2016) ‘Exploring the Differences between Conscious and Unconscious Goal Pursuit’, Journal of Marketing Research 53(3): 442–58.

48.

Latham

G.P.

(2009) ‘Motivate Employee Performance through Goal Setting’, in Locke

E.A.

(ed.) Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior (2nd ed.), p. 119. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

49.

Latham

G.P.

Locke

E.A.

(1991) ‘Self-Regulation through Goal Setting’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 212–47.

50.

Latham

G.P.

Pinder

C.C.

(2005) ‘Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century’, Annual Review of Psychology 56: 485–516.

51.

Laud

Karpen

I.O.

Mulye

. (2015) ‘The Role of Embeddedness for Resource Integration Complementing SD Logic Research through a Social Capital Perspective’, Marketing Theory 15(4): 509–43. DOI: 10.1177/1470593115572671

52.

Löbler

(2011) ‘Position and Potential of Service-dominant Logic-evaluated in an ‘ISM’ Frame for Further Development’, Marketing Theory 11(1): 51–73.

53.

Löbler

(2013) ‘Service-dominant Networks: An Evolution from the Service-dominant Logic Perspective’, Journal of Service Management 24(4): 420–34.

54.

Locke

E.A.

Latham

G.P.

(2004) ‘What Should We Do about Motivation Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-First Century’, Academy of Management Review 29(3): 388–403.

55.

Locke

E.A.

Shaw

K.N.

Saari

L.M.

. (1981) ‘Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969–1980’, Psychological Bulletin 90(1): 125.

56.

Lusch

R.F.

Vargo

S.L.

(2006) ‘Service-dominant Logic: Reactions, Reflections and Refinements’, Marketing Theory 6(3): 281–8.

57.

Lusch

R.F.

Vargo

S.L.

(2014) Service-dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

58.

Lusch

R.F.

Vargo

S.L.

Gustafsson

(2016) ‘Fostering a Trans-disciplinary Perspectives of Service Ecosystems’, Journal of Business Research 69(8): 2957–63.

59.

MacKenzie

S.B.

Podsakoff

P.M.

Podsakoff

N.P.

(2011) ‘Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques’, Mis Quarterly 35(2): 293–334.

60.

Madhavaram

Hunt

S.D.

(2008) ‘The Service-dominant Logic and a Hierarchy of Operant Resources: Developing Masterful Operant Resources and Implications for Marketing Strategy’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 67–82.

61.

McColl-Kennedy

J.R.

Vargo

S.L.

Dagger

T.S.

. (2012) ‘Health Care Customer Value Cocreation Practice Styles’, Journal of Service Research 15(4): 370–89. DOI: 10.1177/1094670512442806

62.

Mitchell

T.R.

Daniels

(2003) ‘Motivation’, in Borman

W.C.

Ilgen

D.R.

Klimoski

R.J.

(eds.) Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, pp. 225–254. New York: Wiley.

63.

Motowildo

S.J.

Borman

W.C.

Schmit

M.J.

(1997) ‘A Theory of Individual Differences in Task and Contextual Performance’, Human Performance 10(2): 71–83.

64.

Nakamura

Csikszentmihalyi

(2014) ‘The Concept of Flow’, in Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology, pp. 239–63. New York: Springer.

65.

S.C.

Plewa

Sweeney

J.C.

(2016) ‘Professional Service Providers’ Resource Integration Styles (PRO-RIS) Facilitating Customer Experiences’, Journal of Service Research 19(4): 380–95. DOI: 10.1177/1094670516662351

66.

Norton

M.I.

Mochon

Ariely

(2012) ‘The IKEA Effect: When Labor Leads to Love’, Journal of Consumer Psychology 22: 453–60.

67.

Oettingen

Grant

Smith

P.K.

. (2006) ‘Nonconscious Goal Pursuit: Acting in an Explanatory Vacuum’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(5): 668–75.

68.

Oxford

Shearin

(1994) ‘Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework’, The Modern Language Journal 78(1): 12–28.

69.

Payne

A.F.

Storbacka

Frow

(2008) ‘Managing the Co-creation of Value’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 83–96.

70.

Peters

L.D.

(2016) ‘Heteropathic versus Homopathic Resource Integration and Value Co-creation in Service Ecosystems’, Journal of Business Research 69(8): 2999–3007.

71.

Peters

L.D.

Löbler

Brodie

R.J.

. (2014) ‘Theorizing about Resource Integration through Service-dominant Logic’, Marketing Theory 14(3): 249–68.

72.

Petty

R.E.

Cacioppo

J.T.

(1986) ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19: 123–205.

73.

Pincus

(2004) ‘The Consequences of Unmet Needs: The Evolving Role of Motivation in Consumer Research’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 3(4): 375–87.

74.

Pinder

C.C.

(2008) Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. New York and Hove: Psychology Press.

75.

Plé

(2016) ‘Studying Customers’ Resource Integration by Service Employees in Interactional Value Co-creation’, Journal of Services Marketing 30(2): 152–64.

76.

Reiss

(2004) ‘Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation: The Theory of 16 Basic Desires’, Review of General Psychology 8(3): 179.

77.

Ryan

R.M.

Deci

E.L.

(2000a) ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 54–67.

78.

Ryan

R.M.

Deci

E.L.

(2000b) ‘Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-being’, American Psychologist 55(1): 68.

79.

Saarijärvi

Grönroos

Kuusela

(2014) ‘Reverse use of Customer Data: Implications for Service-based Business Models’, Journal of Services Marketing 28(7): 529–37.

80.

Schunk

D.H.

Usher

E.L.

(2012) ‘Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation’, in Ryan

R.M.

(ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, p. 13. New York: Oxford University Press.

81.

Siemsen

Roth

A.V.

Balasubramanian

(2008) ‘How Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Drive Knowledge Sharing: The Constraining-factor Model’, Journal of Operations Management 26(3): 426–45.

82.

Singaraju

S.P.

Nguyen

Q.A.

Niininen

. (2016) ‘Social Media and Value Co-creation in Multi-stakeholder Systems: A Resource Integration Approach’, Industrial Marketing Management 54: 44–55.

83.

Skålén

Gummerus

Koskull

. (2015a) ‘Exploring Value Propositions and Service Innovation: A Service-dominant Logic Study’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43(2): 137–58.

84.

Skålén

Aal

K.A.

Edvardsson

(2015b) ‘Cocreating the Arab Spring Understanding Transformation of Service Systems in Contention’, Journal of Service Research 18(3): 250–64. DOI: 10.1177/1094670514559700

85.

Smith

(2010) What Is a Person? Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

86.

Steel

König

C.J.

(2006) ‘Integrating Theories of Motivation’, Academy of Management Review 31(4): 889–913.

87.

Sweeney

J.C.

Danaher

T.S.

McColl-Kennedy

J.R.

(2015) ‘Customer Effort in Value Cocreation Activities Improving Quality of Life and Behavioral Intentions of Health Care Customers’, Journal of Service Research 18(3): 318–35. DOI: 10.1177/1094670515572128

88.

Tadajewski

(2006) ‘Remembering Motivation Research: Toward an Alternative Genealogy of Interpretive Consumer Research’, Marketing Theory 6(4): 429–66.

89.

Thornton

P.H.

Ocasio

Lounsbury

(2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

90.

Turner

J.H.

(1987) ‘Toward a Sociological Theory of Motivation’, American Sociological Review 52(1): 15–27.

91.

Vargo

S.L.

(2008) ‘Customer Integration and Value Creation Paradigmatic Traps and Perspectives’, Journal of Service Research 11(2): 211–5.

92.

Vargo

S.L.

Akaka

M.A.

(2012) ‘Value Cocreation and Service Systems (re)Formation: A Service Ecosystems View’, Service Science 4(3): 207–17.

93.

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 68(1): 1–17.

94.

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2008) ‘Service-dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 1–10.

95.

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2011) ‘It’s All B2B…and Beyond: Toward a Systems Perspective of the Market’, Industrial Marketing Management 40(2): 181–7.

96.

Vargo

S.L.

Lusch

R.F.

(2016) ‘Institutions and Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-dominant Logic’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44(1): 5–23.

97.

Vargo

S.L.

Maglio

P.P.

Akaka

M.A.

(2008) ‘On Value and Value Co-creation: A Service Systems and Service Logic Perspective’, European Management Journal 26(3): 145–52.

98.

Wentzel

K.R.

(2000) ‘What Is It That I’m Trying to Achieve? Classroom Goals from a Content Perspective’, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 105–15.

99.

Wieland

Polese

Vargo

. (2012) ‘Toward a Service (eco)Systems Perspective on Value Creation’, International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology 3(3): 12–25.

100.

Wilson

T.D.

Lindsey

Schooler

T.Y.

(2000) ‘A Model of Dual Attitudes’, Psychological Review 107(1): 101.

101.

Witell

Kristensson

Gustafsson

. (2011) ‘Idea Generation: Customer Co-creation versus Traditional Market Research Techniques’, Journal of Service Management 22(2): 140–59.

102.

Xia

Suri

(2014) ‘Trading Effort for Money Consumers’ Cocreation Motivation and the Pricing of Service Options’, Journal of Service Research 17(2): 229–42.

103.

Xie

Bagozzi

R.P.

Troye

S.V.

(2008) ‘Trying to Prosume: Toward a Theory of Consumers as Co-creators of Value’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 109–22.