Definitions

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

a

activity

An atomic step, typically a resource integration, that increases progress achieved.

[see also series of activities]


When engaging a progress proposition, resource integration is usually between resources provided in a helper’s progress resource mix and the seeker’s own. Though an activity may be internal to a progress helper or a progress seeker. The later being exclusively so if a progress seeker choses to make a progress attempt alone.

Completing an activity moves the progress seeker closer to their progress sought (or towards progress offered if they are engaging a progress proposition). As a result, it likely increases views of emerging value.

adoptability progress hurdle

The adoptability progress hurdle relates to how readily a progress seeker phenomenologically feels they are able to engage with a progress proposition during a progress attempt.

“Adoptability” progress hurdle
“Adoptability” progress hurdle

[see also the five other progress hurdles: lack of resource, resistance, misalignment on progress continuum, lack of confidence, and effort elsewhere]


In the progress economy we draw a direct line from this hurdle to Rogers’ innovation adoption theory. Specifically the perceived attributes of the proposition:

  • relative advantage
  • compatibility
  • complexity
  • trialability
  • observability

Progress seekers, according to the engagement decision processes, may decide to not start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they feel a progress proposition’s adoptability is too low.

Since a progress helper exists simply to gain progress seekers using their proposition(s), their goal should be to continuously understand evolving progress sought and innovate to increase adoptability of their progress proposition(s).

But be careful. As always, it is a case of know your progress sought. Snapchat has a relatively more complexity interface than other photo sharing apps…keeping parents out of the system, much to the joy, and progress sought, of the younger generation.

Rogers’ other five adoptability variables – communication channels, nature of the social system, type of adoption decision, and, extent of change agent’s efforts – have varying impacts depending upon context and use of propositions.

Rogers, E. M. (2003) “Diffusion of Innovations

c

capability

In the context of resources, capabilities are:

  • human (e.g. skills and knowledge of individuals) 1
  • organisational (e.g. controls, routines, cultures, and competencies) 1
  • informational (e.g. knowledge about markets, competitors, and technology) 1
  • relational (e.g. relationships with competitors, suppliers, and customers) 1
  • physical – include sensory-motor endowment, energy, emotions and strength 2
  • social – made up of both personal and cultural relationships 2
  • cultural – include specialised knowledge and skills, life expectancy and historic imagination 2
  • properties uncontrollable by humans such as time and weather 3
Sources:
1. Madhavaram, S., Hunt, S. (2007) “The service-dominant logic and hierarchy of operant resources”, Academy of Marketing, 36, pp 67-82
2. Alves, Ferriera and Fernandes (2016) “Customer’s operant resources effects on co-creation activities
3. Advancing service science with service-dominant logic

competitive advantage

Offering resources that integrate with seeker resources to provide superior progress

contextual progress

Information related to when/how/where progress is happening (can often be seen as constraints under which a progress attempt is made)

[see also functional progress and non-functional progress]


Usually captured in progress sought by the progress seeker and reflected in the progress offered by progress helpers.

Unlike the other components of progress we don’t usually envisage contextual progress changing over time. Therefore, it usually represents constraints under which functional and non-functional progress are attempted.

As seen above, examples of contextual progress relating to the functional progress of “transporting myself from A to B” could be “during rush hour” or “don’t know how to drive”. Of course we could argue that changing those contexts could be a progress sought. But let’s consider this for a moment…

  • Example A – changing the rush hour context is not something we can do, except for deciding to transport outside rush hour. That, by our definition of progress – moving over time to a more desired state – is not progress
  • Example B – not knowing how to drive could be changed…but it would be better expressed as it’s own functional progress sought (with it’s own associated contextual progress)

co-creation of value

[see value co-creation]

d

data

An increasingly important operand resource consisting of structured or unstructured information that can be leveraged when making progress.


The use of, and need for, data for decision making has long been known. Better data should equate to better decisions. And nowadays data fuels the advancement of artificial intelligence.

digital goods

An intangible goods. Usually transported electrically.


For example an e-book instead of a physical book; or a streaming song/video instead of vinyl/cd/dvd.

If ownership of the digital goods is not irrevocably transferred to the seeker, then it is, instead, a physical resource within the progress resource mix.

disruptive innovation

Innovation that initially creates and offers a progress proposition who’s progress offered better matches the progress sought of progress seekers who have been left behind, or ignored, by improvements to incumbent progress helpers’ progress propositions. And then repeatedly innovating that offering towards attracting mainstream progress seekers.

Disruption occurs when mainstream progress seekers begin to use an entrant’s progress proposition in volume.


Progress helpers are constantly innovating to improve the progress offered by their progress proposition. Not least to address progress sought becoming more demanding over time. However, when they do so to solely address the progress sought by their most demanding progress seekers – who typically offer the most effort in service exchange – they begin to exceed or ignore the progress sought by less demanding seekers.

As a result, the lack of resource and effort elsewhere progress hurdles increase for those seekers. A gap in progress offered is created. Into which entrant progress helpers emerge, offering progress propositions that offer to, again, reduce the hurdles.

Incumbent helpers tend not to respond vigorously to these new helpers. They are innovating chasing higher profitability in the more-demanding progress sought segments. And, at the same time, the entrant progress helpers are innovating to improve their progress offered (drawn by the higher service exchange potential of moving up).

Disruptive innovation is perhaps the most misused phrase in innovation. Partly as the word lends itself to great marketing copy relating to “move fast, break things”. The referenced article is a good read, showing that Uber, for example is not disruptive innovation.

Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E. and McDonald, R. (2015) “What Is Disruptive Innovation?” HBR Magazine

e

effort elsewhere progress hurdle

The effort elsewhere progress hurdle relates to the progress seeker’s phenomenological feeling of how much service (”effort”) they are requested to give in equitable service exchange for a specific progress proposition. And we say ”elsewhere” since service exchange is often indirect.

“Effort Elsewhere” progress hurdle
“Effort Elsewhere” progress hurdle

[see also the five other progress hurdles: lack of resource, adoptability, resistance, misalignment on progress continuum, and lack of confidence]


According to Service-dominant logic, “service is fundamental basis of exchange“. That is, we exchange service for service (rather than cash for value). However, these exchanges are often indirect. And the progress economy adds that exchange should be equitable in terms of effort.

Progress helpers signal the equitable exchange for their progress proposition as price (a number of service credits (effort) and frequency of exchange(s))

Progress seekers, according to the engagement decision processes, may decide to not start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they feel price (effort elsewhere) for a progress proposition is too high.

progress helper will generally try to maximise the effort it receives in an exchange for its service. However, they exist simply to gain progress seekers using their proposition(s). As such, their goal should be to continuously  innovate to reduce (sometimes perceived) effort requested in exchanges. For example:

  • Subscription models – reduce perceived effort per exchange (in return for more exchanges)
  • Substitute models – use other sources of service credits to reduce effort requested from seeker – freemium models, ad-based, etc
  • Deferred/extended service credit exchange schemes – loans, buy now pay later…
  • Tiered propositions – offer varying levels of progress (functional, non-functional, contextual) for varying service-credits
  • Moving along progress proposition continuum – usually to a more enabling proposition, moving effort of progress attempt towards progress seeker
  • Reduce internal service exchange prices
  • Eco-system choice – are there other eco system partner choices that reduce the service credits a helper needs to ask seeker for?
  • …and more.

employees

An operant resource, and usually humans, offered by a progress helper for resource integration purposes with a progress seeker’s resources during progress attempts.

They are the most adaptable of the five skills and knowledge encapsulating elements that might appear in a progress proposition’s progress resource mix.

[see also goods, systems, physical resources and locations]


It is not uncommon to hear business gurus relate the flexibility of employees in resource mixes through phrases such as:

Clients do not come first, employees come first. If you take care of employees, they will take care of the clients

Richard Branson

Emloyees are the most adaptable progress resource mix element. Being able to be trained, to learn with each successive progress attempt, and, to react to situations.

And, if allowed to by the progress helper, employees are capable of actively adjusting progress offered during progress attempts to reflect evolving progress sought. As well as autonomously seeking to minimise/reverse a range of factors contributing to value co-destruction.

Is Artificial Intelligence an employee in the mix? The distinction between employees and systems is becoming increasingly hazy. And the progress economy is somewhat agnostic in this regard: AI is generally an operant resource, as are employees and systems(if used that way). The ability to slide between five equal level ‘knowledge and skill encapsulating’ resources is the beauty of the resource mix. We’ll leave it as Spohrer et al remind us in 2023s “Service in the AI era“: AI can be used to augment or automate employees.

Other non-human candidates as employees would be animals – service dogs, for example.

Finally, the existence of employees in the progress resource mix suggests the proposition is towards the relieving end of the progress proposition continuum.

enabling proposition

A progress proposition in which the primary driver of progress making activities is the progress seeker.

[see also progress proposition, and relieving proposition]


Enabling propositions are at one end of the progress proposition continuum. And typically have a progress resource mix heavy in goods/physical resources that a seeker uses themselves in progress attempts.

As such, enabling propositions place higher demands on the progress seeker compared to relieving propositions (which are at the other end). They require the seeker to:

  • have the skill and knowledge to integrate with the goods/physical resource
  • link additional progress propositions together to achieve full progress sought (since a goods often helps with only part of the progress attempt)
  • know the series progress making activities needed to make progress

But they have non-functional progress that might be being sought. Progress seeker reduces the likelihood of being “held-up” in making progress while waiting for someone else’s resources to become available. Or they may be looking for a sense of self-worth/satisfaction. Perhaps even relishing the challenge of working out the activities.

engagement decision process

The process a progress seeker goes through when deciding to start, and continue, engaging a progress proposition during a progress attempt.

[see also progress decision process]


The engagement decision process comprises two types of decision points:

  • deciding to start a progress attempt with a progress proposition 
  • subsequent repeating decisions to keep on engaging the proposition

Where it is believed that the repeating decisions are taking place at the end of each individual activity in the series of progress making activities.

Service Engagement Decision

And it is an enhancement of the progress decision process. Reflecting the six progress hurdles related to progress propositions. Compared to just the lack of resource hurdle when seeker attempts progress on their own. While still taking account the progress seeker’s phenomenological judgement of progress achieved, and progress potential.

To start engaging a proposition, a progress seeker needs to see enough potential progress and that the six hurdles are low enough. Whilst to continue, they need to feel they have sufficient progress achieved, see sufficient potential progress, and that the six hurdles remains low enough.

Abandoning an attempt – a discontinuance – could be due to disenchantment with the progress proposition. Not enough progress achieved as expected; or remaining progress potential is not enough; or experience shows one or more of the hurdles are too high.

Or an attempt can be abandoned due to replacement. Where the seeker has identified another progress proposition they now phenomenologically feel better suits their progress attempt.

externalities

An actor/actors that enforces some progress sought that a


Typically governmental legislation or institutional requirements. Such as requiring various non-functional/contextual progress relating to safety (for example requiring seatbelts in cars or speed limiters) or the environment (the proposed ban on fossil fuel engines in the EU).

[see progress seeker and progress helper].

equitable service exchange

a balanced and fair exchange of service, where each actor phenomenologically perceives that the same effort is being reciprocated by the other actor.


We see service as the fundamental basis of exchange in the progress economy (as service-dominant logic informs us).

However, most actors will want to see this as an equitable exchange. That is to say the level of effort you put into your service should match the level of effort I put into mine. Or that the smaller effort service is performed several times to give equality.

Since service exchange is often indirect, the equitable service swap can be some combination of service and service credits (in practice, usually completely in service credits).

f

functional progress

The action element of progress.

[see also non-functional progress and contextual progress]


Usually expressed in progress sought by the progress seeker and reflected in progress offered by progress helpers.

It can be usefully categorised, using Lovelock & Wirtz1 original classification of services:

  • People processing
  • Possession processing
  • Mental-stimulus processing
  • Information processing

For some (toy) examples of progress sought, including functional progress, see below.

Various progress offered through progress propositions can be imagined and offered by progress helpers to meet progress sought. Focussing only on functional progress, the best offer, for example A, would help the seeker achieve the full 50km. Anything less, and functional progress potential seen by progress seeker for that proposition likely starts decreasing.

Now, there are valid reasons for under/over offering progress. We risk hiding by trivial examples of distance (which you either make or don’t). And disruptive innovation is an example where initially under offering may be a good approach.

A helper that cannot offer full progress might chose to co-ordinate with other helpers that complete them. A helper that can offer to get a seeker 40km by train might see benefit of co-ordinating with a local bus operator for the final 10km. Rather than leaving the seeker to do that. Or a new helper might see the opportunity in offering such a service.

This though is a trivial example. A progress seeker makes a relatively complex phenomenological judgement on starting and continuing a progress attempt. Which takes into account progress potential across all components of progress together with up to six progress hurdles.

1Lovelock, C., Wirtz, J. (2016) “Services Marketing

g

goods

Usually tangible, but increasingly available in intangible digital form, operand resource offered by the progress helper for resource integration purposes with progress seeker’s resources during progress attemptsWith the distinguishing factors that:

  • ownership is irrevocably transferred to the progress seeker prior to any resource integration
  • they i) freeze specific skills and knowledge of the progress helper allowing those to be distributed in time and space and ii) those skills and knowledge are unfrozen during acts of resource integration

They are one of five skills and knowledge encapsulating elements that may appear in a progress proposition’s progress resource mix.

[see also employees, systems, physical resources and locations]


At first glance, the concept of goods freezing skills and knowledge allowing their transportation may appear strange. But it quickly became a natural way of thinking. And it liberates us from an unnecessary long-running debate over goods vs. services. Opening our minds to just how flexible the progress resource mix is.

For example, vinyl/CD/digital stream can all freeze a band’s performance in different formats. Those can then be transported to wherever you want. And you unfreeze them by using an appropriate music playing device. That device itself has frozen the engineers’ skills who knew how to playback audio in a particular format. When you press play, those skills are unfrozen.

And this example highlights something we often find with goods heavy progress resource mixes. They are often quite specialised. And a progress seeker needs to know what other propositions they need to link together to make the totality of their progress sought. As well as how to use the propositions they are linking.

Usually it is the progress seeker that integrates with goods. But there is nothing preventing the progress helper. Updating operating system/firmware on connected devices at a progress seeker’s location is a progress helper integrating with goods.

Finally, the provision of goods in the progress resource mix suggests the proposition is towards the enabling end of the progress proposition continuum.

goods-dominant logic

Today’s predominant, taught and applied, logic on how our world works. It views outputs (goods), and therefore manufacturing, as the dominant aspect. Value revolves around value-in-exchange, focussing us on the point of sale and away from pre/post opportunities.

Services are treated in the same way as goods, ie a focus on the outcome rather than how that outcome is achieved. And are seen as poor relatives to goods, they are:

  • intangible
  • inconsistent
  • inseparable
  • require the involvement of the customer
  • you can’t create an inventory

Vargo & Lush began the argument against treating services this way on their way to describing service-dominant logic. Arguing, for example, that inconsistency should be seen as customisation; intangibility as benefitting from simpler supply chains and increased ease of replication.

They further tackled the view of value-in-exchange, shifting us to see service (application of skills and knowledge for benefit) as the basis of exchange. Which leads us to thinking in terms of value-in-use and value co-creation – the fundamentals of service-dominant logic.

i

ideation

A creative process of generating, developing, communicating and sharing ideas. Often the first step of, but not sufficient for, innovation.


There are many that will say Innovation starts from ideas. And that ideation is where those ideas emerge and develop. But for innovation there needs to be successful, sustainable, execution of ideas.

Having the idea to build an elevator to the moon is not an innovation. It is just an idea. Building and running such an elevator whilst maintaining the (economic) survivability of the organisation doing so, makes it an innovation.

And, keeping with the moon elevator, for it to be a successful innovation, there needs to be an underlying need for it. If no-one has the need to go to the moon, then a moon elevator would not be a successful innovation.

integrating resources

[see resource integration].

innovation

Creating and executing new, to the individual, firm, market/industry or world, progress propositions that offer some combination of:

whilst maintaining, or improving, the survivability of the progress helper.

j

jobs to be done

A way to identify progress sought.

Christensen, C. (2016) ”Know your customers’ ‘jobs to be done’”, HBR; alternatively Ulwick, T. (2017) “What is jobs to be done?

l

lack of confidence progress hurdle

The lack of confidence progress hurdle relates to how much confidence the progress seeker phenomenologically feels they have in achieving a progress proposition’s progress offered during a progress attempt.

“Confidence” progress hurdle

[see also the five other progress hurdles: lack of resource, adoptability, resistance, misalignment on progress continuum, and effort elsewhere]


A seeker needs to have confidence in the progress proposition (and the progress helper) helping them reach the progress offered.

Confidence often boils down to a seeker’s past experiences with i) proposition under consideration, ii) similar propositions, and iii) the progress helper.

Where the proposition and helper are totally new to the seeker, then hurdles such as adoptability and resistance are likely to dominate (and be interpreted as confidence).

Since a progress helper exists simply to gain progress seekers using their proposition(s), their goal should be to continuously understand evolving progress sought and innovate to minise seekers’ lack of confidence.

Helper’s can best increase future confidence by ensuring a seeker feels the current experience is the best possible. Indicating a need to be more conversational and adapting progress offered during progress attempts. Servicescapes also play a role. Would you seek a medical procedure in an unclean facility, for example.

Brand, and brand extension look to capitalise on awareness of confidence.

lack of resource progress hurdle

The lack of resource progress hurdle relates to how much resource the progress seeker phenomenologically feels they lack when making a progress attempt.

“Lack of resource” progress hurdle
“Lack of resource” progress hurdle

[see also the five other progress hurdles: lack of resource, adoptability, resistance, misalignment on progress continuum, and effort elsewhere]


Examples of resource in the progress economy are quite broad; even though our focus is usually on resources the progress seeker has access to and integrates with. These cover, amongst others:

Lack of resource is the fundamental progress hurdle. And from it, the opportunity for progress propositions arises. Where the intention of progress propositions is to make available additional resources to the progress seeker to help them progress. A progress proposition comprises a progress resource mix – skills and knowledge encapsulating components – together with a proposed series of progress making steps.

Since a progress helper exists simply to gain progress seekers using their proposition(s), their goal should be to continuously understand evolving progress sought and innovate to minise seekers’ lack of resource.

However, we need to be aware that providing a progress proposition gives rise to five additional progress hurdles: lack of confidence, adoptability, resistance, misalignment on progress continuum, and effort elsewhere. And may just shift lack of resource hurdle to new resources lacking. These new hurdles also need addressing.

For example offering a “fly yourself airplane” proposition may address a progress sought and related lack of resource for the progress sought of self transportation. But it likely exposes a new lack of resource. Namely, skills and knowledge of how to fly. Plus adoptability (ease of engaging) and resistance (postponing/rejecting) progress hurdles may spike along with the effort elsewhere hurdle (loosely think price) being too high.

locations

Tangible or intangible (digital) destinations offered by the progress helper where those parts of a progress proposition’s series of progress making activities involving the progress seeker are intended to take place.

They are one of five skills and knowledge encapsulating elements that may appear in a progress proposition’s progress resource mix.

[see also employees, systems, goods and physical resources]


Examples of this resource type are the hospital building where an operation takes place, the wind shelter on a snowy arctic mountain pass or the web site, mobile apps, metaverse etc.

A call centre building or an intranet would not generally be a location. Since the progress seeker would not interact with them. However, here we have to be aware of who the progress seeker is. An call centre employee, in their role as a progress seeker, may well be interested in the call centre location.

Concepts such as the servicescape (see Bitner (1992)) and eServicescape (see Harris & Goode (2010)) are of relevance here. Where they impact several of the progress hurdles such as adoptability, lack of confidence and resistance. Few progress seekers want an operation in an unclean hospital or to use a poorly designed website with security issues.

m

markets / segments

Groups of progress seekers who seek, or are prepared to compromise to seek, a similar specific aspect of progress.


Through the progress economy lens, every actor is seeking to make progress with all aspects of their lives. Giving us one giant market/segment of progress seekers. However, that is somewhat impractical for helpers to craft progress offered against – who can help everyone, progress with everything?

Segmentation allows us to focus by grouping seekers by specific aspects of progress sought. And that grouping is down to progress helpers to identify.

Two areas of interesting segmentation come in disruptive innovation and Blue Ocean Strategy.

misalignment on continuum progress hurdle

Misalignment on the progress proposition continuum is a progress hurdle relating to how far apart the progress seeker phenomenologically feels they and the progress proposition are from each other on the progress proposition continuum.

“Misalignment on progress proposition continuum” progress hurdle
“Misalignment on progress proposition continuum” progress hurdle

[see also the five other progress hurdles: lack of resource, adoptability, resistance, lack of confidence, and effort elsewhere]


All progress propositions lie on a continuum between enabling and relieving propositions. Similarly, a progress seeker also mentally takes a position on the continuum for a specific progress sought.

The progress proposition continuum of enabling to relieving propositions. Showing the implications on/of the service mix, non-functional progress sought, and which actor drives the activities involved in the process of making progress.

The distance between these two positions, as felt by the progress seeker, is the size of this progress hurdle.

Since a progress helper exists simply to gain progress seekers using their proposition(s), their goal should be to continuously understand evolving progress sought and innovate to decrease the misalgnment. Either by:

  1. moving the proposition proposition
  2. attempting to move the seeker’s position
  3. both of the above

money

An implementation of service credits.


For the progress economy, we need money to have only the properties defined for service credits, namely:

  • Fungible: One service credit is viewed as interchangeable with another.
  • Portable: Progress seekers can carry service credits with them and transfer them to others.
  • Durable: A service credit must be able to withstand being used repeatedly.
  • Acceptable: Everyone must accept service credits in service exchange
  • Uniform: All service credits must have the same service exchange power.
  • Limited in Supply: can’t be easily created or counterfeited – if they can, then arbitration of service exchange would quickly break down. (note: this is subtly different to scarcity, which is tied with value)

Money though has a wider set of properties, see Hull and Sattath (2021), as a:

  • “medium of exchange (Jevons (1) describes a medium of exchange as something that is ‘…esteemed by all persons… which any person will readily receive’
  • standard of deferred payment (means of settling a debt)
  • store of value
  • unit of account
  • societal or regulatory function”
Hull, I. and Sattath, O. (2021) “Revisiting the properties of money”; Sveriges Riksbank Working Paper Series; Number 406

n

non functional progress

Non functional aspects of progress, such as performance, emotions, feelings, etc.

Usually captured in progress sought by the progress seeker and progress offered by progress helpers.

[see also functional progress and contextual progress]


Whereas functional progress captures the hard aspects of progress, non-functional progress addresses the softer side. Often it relates to adverbs: quickly, safely, cheaply etc. But there are many other aspects it can capture.

There is a useful hierarchy we can lean on for inspiration of non-functional components.

Examples of non-functional progress

o

operand resource

A resource that needs to be acted upon for progress to be made.


Traditionally these are seen as goods or physical resources. So much so that in goods-dominant logic they are seen as the resource type that hold value. In our service-dominant logic view, they are seen differently.

An operand resource that has become increasingly in demand and useful in progress making is data.

[see also operant resource]

First sentence is based on definition in Vargo, S.L.and Lusch, R.F.(2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 68(1): 1–17.

operant resource

A resource that acts on other resources resulting in progress being made.


Service-dominant logic informs us that operant resources are the fundamental source of strategic benefit. And typically these type of resources are human related, such as specific skills and knowledge. But they can also be organisational, informational, relational, etc.

Notable operant resources in the progress economy are:

Madhavaram & Hunt (2008) introduce a hierarchy of operant resources. Those higher in the hierarchy are harder to obtain, but give greater benefit. For example market orientation (not all helper operant resources need to be in the progress resource mix).

[see also operand resource]

First sentence is based on definition in Vargo, S.L.and Lusch, R.F.(2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 68(1): 1–17.

p

phenomenological

“of or relating to someone’s awareness or experience of something rather than the thing itself”

Dictionary.com


Inherited from the underlying service-dominant logic, phenomenological is best simplified as the lived and living experience an actor brings to a decision. Where:

a) lived experience – the ”baggage” we bring from all past attempts to make progress (both for this and other progress sought)

b) living experience – how we’re feeling today, how we’re expecting to experiencing this attempt to make progress, how we are experiencing it, etc.

It’s why you feel the way you do about self-service supermarket checkouts and your friend feels different. And why you might use them all the time; or only in certain circumstances; or refuse to ever use them.

physical resources

Goods whose ownership is not irrevocably transferred to a progress seeker and are made available by the progress helper for resource integration purposes with progress seeker’s resources in progress attempts.

They are one of five skills and knowledge encapsulating elements that may appear in a progress proposition’s progress resource mix.

Physical resources may come in tangible and intangible (digital) forms.

[see also goods, employees, systems and locations]


In practice, physical resources are goods that are hired out. A hire car, for example, or tools etc. Digitally we can think of movies, books, songs. Often, progress seekers consider these to be digital goods; however, if ownership is not irrevocably transferred to the seeker, they are physical resources in the mix. This is quite common – for example, you do not own songs on Spotify. And Amazon has previously removed paid for books, ironically such as George Orwell’s 1984.

Finally, the progress helper does not have to necessarily own the physical resource. Consider progress propositions that allow physical resource owners to profit from spare capacity (the so called sharing economy). Loan your tools that you aren’t using, for example, through Hygglo. Or making your property you are currently not using available on Airbnb.

profit

The difference in effort between effort given in providing a service and the effort in the service(s) offered in exchange. Usually this is in the form of service credits.

price

The service effort – typically represented by the number of service credits together with frequency – requested by a progress helper in exchange for engaging with their progress proposition.

Price gets seen by the progress seeker as the effort elsewhere progress hurdle.


Price “becomes part of the value proposition” (Kowalkowski). It is not a measure/signal of value. Rather, in the progress economy price signals effort requested for equitable service exchange – size and number of service applications in exchange for requested service. To an extent, price is the business model.

It is set by a progress helper. Who may use various approaches to arrive at it – such as summing together the service efforts of all parties involved in the progress helper plus profit). And is seen by progress seeker as the effort elsewhere’ progress hurdle.

A progress seeker may attempt to negotiate price during pre service discussions aimed at determining progress potential and size of the effort elsewhere’ progress hurdle (subsequently the seeker’s initial view on value of the progress proposition emerges).

Various alterations to business model (price) can be employed by the progress helper to minimise the effort elsewhere’ progress hurdle.

progress (verb)

Moving, over time, to a more desirable state.

[see also progress (noun) and progress (state)]


In isolation, we see progress seekers as making progress attempts towards their progress sought, which comprises functional and non-functional progress informed by context. In doing so they follow the progress decision process.

When engaging with a progress propositions we see progress helpers as offering to help progress seekers move towards a progress offered state. And there needs to be some relation between progress sought and progress offered for the proposition to be of interest to a progress seeker. In such a situation, progress seekers follow the engagement decision process.

Lovelock & Wirtz1 developed a classification of services which might be useful to repurpose as a classification of progress:

  • People processing
  • Possession processing
  • Mental-stimulus processing
  • Information processing
1Lovelock, C., Wirtz, J. (2016) “Services Marketing

progress (noun)

A specific named progress state carrying some importance in the progress economy.

[see also progress (verb) and progress (state)]


In the progress economy we recognise five named states:

description
progress soughtthe more desirable progress state a progress seeker is looking to reach

it often evolves during, and between, progress attempts; and includes any progress sought injected by externalities (government, regulators etc)
progress potentialthe phenomenological view of the progress state that could be reached from a specific point in time during a progress attempt

we can see this as future value to be created and is judged prior to and during a progress attempt
progress offeredthe progress state a progress helper is offering to help reach when a progress seeker engages with their progress proposition

it has a relation to progress sought, but need not exactly match (here we find explanations for mainstream progress sought, segmentation, disruptive innovation and blue ocean strategy
progress originthe progress state from which the seeker starts a progress attempt
progress reachedthe progress state that we phenomenologically judge to have been reached at a specific moment during a progress attempt.

it is judged during and after a progress attempt

Views of value emerge from these.

progress (state)

A snapshot of progress comprising functional, non-functional and contextual elements.

[see also progress (verb) and progress (noun)]


Progress as a state consists of three elements:

progress reached

A phenomenological judgement of the progress state that has been reached by a specific point in time during a progress attempt.

[see also progress potential]


Where a progress proposition is engaged, the engagement decision process informs us judgements of progress reached are made repeatedly during a progress attempt.

We see these decisions being made primarily by the progress seeker. And they may decide to abandon their progress attempt if they believe insufficient progress has been made, in comparison to their expectations, by the time of judgement.

Sometimes the progress helper will make a parallel judgment within a specific progress attempt. And, if they believe insufficient progress has been made, in comparison to their expectations, they may decide to withdraw from that progress attempt. Whether or not they make such a judgement, and how much weight they give it, appears to be related to where their progress proposition sits on the progress proposition continuum. Where doing so for enabling propositions, in which the progress seeker drives the progress making activities, appear to be of less interest.

Insufficient progress achieved may be due to value co-destruction. For which either party may attempt to rectify.

Where the progress seeker is attempting to progress on their own, the similar progress decision process informs us there are the same repeated decisions. But in this case there is no progress helper involved.

progress attempt

An attempt by a progress seeker to progress towards their progress sought through executing a series of progress making activities


The attempt then is:

Where a progress seeker’s decisions to start and continue the attempt is guided by the progress decision process (or the engagement decision process when engaging a progress proposition)

Value emerges as progress is made through value co-creation; although value co-destruction may also occur.

progress decision process

The decision process a progress seeker goes through when attempting to make progress on their own.

Service Engagement Decision

[see also engagement decision process]


It comprises two types of decision points:

  • deciding to start a progress attempt or not, and
  • subsequent repeating decisions to continue the progress attempt or abandon (discontinuance)

And it is believed that the repeating decisions typically take place at the end of each individual activity in the series of progress making activities.

Decisions take account of the progress seeker’s phenomenological judgements of lack of resource progress hurdle as well as progress potential and progress achieved.

To start, a progress seeker needs to see enough potential progress and that the lack of resource hurdle is low enough. Whilst to continue, they need to feel they have sufficient progress achieved, see sufficient potential progress, and that the lack of resource hurdles remains low enough.

Abandoning an attempt – a discontinuance – could be due to disenchantment that the above criteria are not met. Or due to replacement. Where the seeker has identified another approach they now phenomenologically feel better suits their progress attempt.

progress helper

An actor/actors offering to help progress seekers make some specific progress by creating, making available, and executing one or more progress propositions.

[see also progress seeker]


A progress helper is either a single entity (person/firm/organisation) or an ecosystem. To paraphrase Drucker:

the purpose of a progress helper is to attract maximum equitable service exchange (number or size) with progress seekers – as such a progress helper has three, and only three, functions:

  • marketing – continuous discovery of ever evolving progress sought
  • executing – delivery of progress offered
  • innovating – continuous innovation of progress offered towards the ever evolving progress sought

They offer progress propositions, which are offers to help progress seekers make progress towards progress sought. These address a lack of resource progress hurdle. And sit on a progress proposition continuum between an enabling and a relieving propositions.

Helpers cannot offer value, since that is co-created when using the proposition. But do signal effort expected for equitable service exchange through price (required number of service credits and frequency of exchange).

Finally, the progress offered by a helper may match progress sought, or over/under offer. This disparity is a zone of innovation (where, for example, disruptive innovation and blue ocean strategy sit).

The frame of reference of seeker/helper can be adjusted to look at the seeker/helper relationship within a progress helper. Where helper becomes seeker and various internal functions become helpers.

progress hurdle

A factor that, if felt uniquely and phenomenologically by a progress seeker as too high, may lead them to decide not to start or to abandon a progress attempt.


They are a part of the judgements from which views on value emerge. And reducing them should be an aim of (systematic) innovation.

We identify six such hurdles in the progress economy. A lack of resource hurdle being fundamental, giving rise to the opportunity for progress propositions. And, in turn, progress propositions give rise to five additional hurdles.

hurdledescription
lack of resourcehow much resource does the progress seeker feel they lack in order to progress
adoptabilityhow readily does the progress seeker feel they are able to engage the progress proposition (compatibility, complexity, etc – Rogers’ adoption factors)
resistancehow much resistance – none, postpone, reject, or worse, oppose – does the progress seeker feel towards the proposition
misalignment on continuumhow far away, on the progress proposition continuum, does the progress seeker feel the proposition is compared to their own position
lack of confidencehow much confidence does the progress seeker have in the progress proposition and/or progress helper
equitable service exchangehow many service credits – amount and frequency – does a progress seeker need to get from elsewhere in order to meet that requested by the progress helper in order to engage the progress proposition (more formally: to participate in service exchange)

progress offered

The progress state a progress helper offers to help a progress seeker attempt to reach when engaging with the helper’s progress proposition.

It takes account of contextual progress, but it is not common for this to change.

[see also progress sought]


There needs to be a close relation between progress offered by a progress helper and progress sought by a progress seeker. Otherwise the progress seeker will not see enough progress potential in the proposition (and therefore be unlikely to engage).

We visualise this relationship in the progress diamond tool.

Progress Diamond

Though this need not be a 100% match. And indeed this is a zone for innovation, where:

  • over offering – may be an attempt to offer latent progress sought
  • under offering – may be a disruptive innovation play; and
  • both over offering in certain aspects whilst under offering in other – may be a blue ocean play.

progress origin

The state from which a progress seeker begins their progress attempts.

[see also progress sought]


It is usually unique to a progress seeker

progress potential

phenomenological judgement of the progress state that could be reached from a specific point in time in a progress attempt.

Sometimes used as an amount – though rarely can this be truly enumerated in a meaningful way.

[see also progress reached]


Where a progress proposition is engaged, the engagement decision process informs us judgements are made before, and repeatedly during, a progress attempt.

We see the progress seeker as primarily making judgements on progress potential, as follows:

  • Before progress attempt:
    • is progress offered close enough to my progress sought
    • can I make sufficient progress towards progress offered given my general experience and awareness of the progress proposition
  • During progress attempt:
    • can I continue to make sufficient progress to progress offered given my general experience plus the experience I have now gained in the progress attempt so far
    • is progress offered still close enough to my progress sought

Although, the progress helper may make a parallel judgement on progress potential with a particular progress seeker. Whether they do so, and how much weight they place on it, appears to be related to where their progress proposition sits on the progress proposition continuum. Where enabling propositions, which see the seeker driving the progress making activities, appear to be of lesser interest.

If it is felt there is insufficient progress potential then the progress attempt may not be started or may be abandoned. This insufficient progress may be due to value co-destruction. Which either party may attempt to rectify.

Where the seeker is attempting to progress on their own the judgements are simpler and related only to progress sought and the progress decision process.

progress proposition

An offering by a progress helper to help a progress seeker make some specified progress (progress offered). Typically comprising a:

  • proposed eries of progress-making activities
  • progress resource mix of supplementary skills and knowledge encapsulating resources

It is, in essence, a package of supplementary resources. Comprises a progress resource mix plus a series of proposed progress making activities.

Definition of a progress proposition as a set of activities integrating with a service mix

[See also enabling proposition and relieving proposition]


In the progress economy we observe progress propositions arise from a progress seeker encountering a ‘lack of resource’ progress hurdle. Some other actor has solved that hurdle and now offers their help to others. However, the act of offering a progress proposition raises five additional hurdles.

Help comes in both the form of a progress resource mix as well as a proposed series of progress making activities. Examples are the process to follow when hiring a car, or instructions on how to use a screw. 

The progress seeker may or may not follow proposed activities. And the impact of that – potential value co-destruction and abandoning a progress attempt – is loosely related to whether the proposition is an enabling or relieving one.

We also find that propositions exist on a continuum. If the proposed activities are primarily driven by the progress seeker, the proposition is towards the enabling end. If, on the other hand, the activities are primarily driven by the progress helper, then the proposition is towards the relieving end of the continuum.

progress proposition continuum

A continuum between enabling and relieving propositions on which all progress propositions sit.

The progress proposition continuum of enabling to relieving propositions. Showing the implications on/of the service mix, non-functional progress sought, and which actor drives the activities involved in the process of making progress.

Positioning on the continuum is principally driven by which of the progress seeker or progress helper primarily drives the series of progress making activities. Enabling proposition have activities primarily driven by the progress seeker. Whereas the progress helper primarily drives activities in a relieving proposition.

The continuum additionally informs about the progress resource mix and aspects of non-functional progress.

As well as positioning propositions, we can visualise where the progress seeker wishes to be in the continuum. The gap between proposition and seeker’s wishes is a progress hurdle. As well as a zone for innovation.

The progress proposition continuum supports our discovery of what it means for the progress seeker to be at a position on the continuum. And the distance a proposition is from that point is one of six progress hurdles.

progress resource mix

A subset of a helper’s resources offered to a seeker as part of a progress proposition for use in resource integrations during progress attempts.

It comprises proposition specific levels (maybe none) of six, generally interchangeable, skills and knowledge encapsulating resources, namely:

[see also progress making activities]


The progress resource mix, when combined with the proposed series of progress-making activities, forms a progress proposition. The mix itself is the specific combination of resources offered by a progress helper that:

  • they believe addresses a progress seeker’s initial lack of resource progress hurdle to achieving the seeker’s progress sought
  • aligns with their proposed series of progress making activities.

Although, offering a progress proposition introduces five new progress hurdles. As well as potentially introducing new lack of resource progress hurdle aspects.

Innovation: can be hunted through altering the proposed mix. We find that there are often many mixes that can be offered. Due to progress sought consisting of various functional, non-functional and contextual components. Combined with progress helpers over/under offering help on various permutations.

The above diagram shows three mixes that might meet that the toy example of functional requirement of “getting something to eat”: i) cooking at home ii) eating at a buffet restaurant and iii) dining at a 4* restaurant. Each mix is naturally different. Innovation lies in understanding and reflecting a best proposed mix.

One important thing to note is that all elements of the mix are equal. There is no goods vs service debate, for example, as we see in goods-dominant logic. This frees us to swap (or slide between) various elements. Lowering employees + physical resources (a typical relieving progress proposition) and increasing goods (a typical enabling progress proposition) moves one way along the progress proposition continuum; and we can go the other way too.

progress seeker

The actor that is seeking to make progress.

[see also progress helper]


Progress seekers are looking to move to more desired states (progress sought) in every aspect of their lives. Sometimes its functional progress – to become better educated, to transport themselves to another place, to get nourishment – sometimes non-functional – to be relaxed, get happy – usually a combination. And often informed by context.

They may decide to start, and continue, a progress attempt on their own – usually for a specific part of that progress sought – guided by i) the decisions in the progress decision process, and ii) a series of progress making activities the progress seeker identifies and drives themselves.

At any point they may phenomenologically feel there is not enough progress potential, progress achieved, or that the lack of resource progress hurdle is too high; and so not continue the attempt.

Alternatively, progress seekers might look at engaging a progress proposition provided by a progress helper. In which case the decisions in the engagement decision process guide the attempt. This process is an enhancement of the progress decision process; taking account of the lack of resource plus five additional progress hurdles associated with progress propositions.

Progress propositions contain a progress resource mix and proposed series of progress making activities (which are mostly resource integrations of seeker and resource mix resources). The proposed activities may be driven by seeker or helper. And who primarily drives them positions the proposition on the progress proposition continuum of enabling to relieving propositions.

progress sought

The more desirable progress state a progress seeker wishes to reach.


We refer to the whole progress as progress sought. But usually deal in specific aspects, though still refer to that as progress sought.

There are parallels between progress and Jobs to be Done theory.

[see also progress offered]


It may evolve during a progress attempt as the seeker learns more in the attempt and is influenced by other external sources.

Some toy examples of progress sought can be seen below.

r

relieving proposition

Progress propositions where the progress helper leads the progress making activities.

[see also progress proposition, enabling propositions and progress proposition continuum]

resistance progress hurdle

Resistance – postponing, rejecting, or opposing a progress proposition – is one of six progress hurdles identified in the progress economy.

“Resistance” progress hurdle
“Resistance” progress hurdle

[see also the five other progress hurdles: lack of resource, adoptability, misalignment on progress continuum, lack of confidence, and effort elsewhere]


According to the engagement decision processes, progress seekers may decide to not start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they phenomenologically feel too much resistance (none, postponement, rejection, opposition) towards a progress proposition.

From the literature we find:

  • “innovation resistance seems to be a normal, instinctive response of consumers” (Sheth and Ram, 1989)
  • “customer resistance is usually one of the most significant risks to innovation” (Heidenreich & Kraemer, 2015).

Since the aim of a progress helper is to gain seeker’s using their proposition(s), their goal should be to continuously innovate to reduce resistance to their progress proposition(s).

Usefully, Kleijnan et al. propose this hierarchy of resistance. Along with aspects that contribute to them.

Kleijnen, M., Leeb, N., Wetzels, M. (2009) “An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedentsJournal of Economic Psychology 30, pp344–357

resource

A carrier of capability that can be integrated in one or more progress-making activities.

[see operant resource and operand resource]


Resources come in two types: operant and operand. The difference being in how they help make progress.

They are used in resource integration progress making activities between progress seeker’s own resources and progress helper’s resource mix (employees, systems, goods, physical resources, locations).

resource integration

The act of applying one resource to another with the intention of making progress


There are some rules:

  • Operant resources can integrate with other operant resources and/or operand resources.
  • Operand resources – typically goods and physical resources – can only be integrated with operant resources.

Where it appears two operand resources are integrating, it is always the case that there is an operant resource performing the integration.

s

series of activities

A series of activities performed during a progress attempt with the intention that i) each activity moves the progress seeker forwards towards their desired state, and ii) when completed, a progress seeker has achieved maximum progress.


Knowledge of, or the skills to identify, the series of activities to reach progress sought is a fundamental operant resource in the progress economy. Where the progress seeker lacks this, they hit the lack of resource progress hurdle. And will likely abandon their own progress attempts.

However, this gives rise to the opportunity for progress propositions. These include a progress helper’s proposed series of activities to reach progress offered. And those can come in varying forms, such as:

  • instructions, recipes, and so on, which may be partially, or fully, ignored by a progress seeker
  • processes the helper uses to guide a seeker, eg workflows in systems (hiring a car, as an example), Agile development methodologies, etc
  • contractual defined terms/ways of working; which, I suspect, are more common in business to business situations.

During execution, individual activities may be driven by the progress seeker or progress helper. The primary driver of the series of activities positions the progress proposition on the progress proposition continuum. And the distance between where the progress seeker and proposition are on that continuum is another progress hurdle.

Progress achieved increases as activities are completed. Likely increasing the views on the emerging value. However, in some situations value only emerges once all activities in the series are completed. Due to the joint endeavour nature of activities in a progress proposition, we observe value-in-use.

Not following, or hindering, the proposed activities may lead to value co-destruction.

service (verb)

i) “the application of competences (knowledge and skills) for the benefit of another party”*

ii) “the application of knowledge to co-create value”**

iii) executing a series of progress-making resource integration activities in an attempt to make progress.


These are equivalent definitions. The first from Vargo & Lush when introducing service-dominant logic; the second from the International Society of Service Innovation Professionals; and the third is how we express service using the progress economy terminology.

* Vargo & Lush (2008) “From Goods to Service(s): Divergences and Convergences of Logics
** International Society of Service Innovation Professionals ISSIP.org

service (noun)

See progress proposition.

service credits

Transferable tokens, with no inherent value, used as place holders for service in service exchange. They enable indirect exchange as well as mediating temporal and magnitude differences in service being exchanged.

[see also price, ‘effort elsewhere’ progress hurdle]


Service credits:

  • mediate differences in timelines of service exchange.
    • Service credits are a means of accounting for delayed exchange.
    • Actor A can exchange service credit rather than service with Actor B. At a later time point, Actor B can exchange that credit (or an equivalent) with Actor A for their service.
  • mediate differences in effort between service in service exchange.
    • Service credits allow signalling of service effort of a service and comparison of efforts between service.
    • Let’s say Actors A and B determine themselves and agree that Actor A’s service involves four service credits of effort and Actor B’s involves two per exchange. Equitable exchange from Actor B for Actor A’s service would be one of i) two Actor B’s service; or ii) one Actor B service and two service credits; or iii) four service credits.
  • enable indirect exchange.
    • Service credits are transferable between actors
    • Actor A may accept service credits from Actor B in service exchange and subsequently use those in service exchange with Actor C.

We need service credits to have several properties. These are similar, but perhaps not as exhaustive as money. Within a given community of progress seekers and progress helpers service credits must be:

  1. Fungible: One service credit is viewed as interchangeable with another.
  2. Portable: Progress seekers can carry service credits with them and transfer them to others.
  3. Durable: A service credit must be able to withstand being used repeatedly.
  4. Acceptable: Everyone must accept service credits in service exchange
  5. Uniform: All service credits must have the same service exchange power.
  6. Limited in Supply: can’t be easily created or counterfeited – if they can, then arbitration of service exchange would quickly break down. (note: this is subtly different to scarcity, which is tied with value)

Service credits are an abstract concept and can be implemented in may ways. They may be physical/digital tokens passed between actors. Or ownership recorded in some central/distributed register.

It turns out that money/cash has been the most successful implementation of service credit, to date. Although stones and gold have previously been used, and cryptocoins may have a future.

service-dominant logic

Viewing and understanding our world from a service first perspective. Where service is seen as the fundamental basis of exchange. And value is co-created whilst using the service (a series of resource integrations)

Vargo & Lush (2004) introduced service-dominant logic as an evolution to goods-dominant logic. By 2016 they were summarising it with 11 foundational premises as follows:

Of which the five in bold (FPs 1, 9, 6, 10 and 11) are seen as axiomatic.

Service-dominant logic is part of the progress economy’s foundation layer.


Service-dominant logic evolves the common goods-dominant logic applied today. Which sees value as the basis of exchange and services as poor relatives to goods.

Instead, service is seen as the fundamental basis of exchange. All social and economic actors are resource integrators. And value is co-created, determined uniquely and phenomenologically by the beneficiary (progress seeker), whilst co-ordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements.

There is no goods vs service debate in service-dominant logic. Goods are seen as distribution mechanisms for service – they freeze a service, which is unfrozen when the goods is used. This allows us, amongst other things, to reason about progress resource mixes and progress proposition continuum.

Here’s the main references on service-dominant logic:

An interesting paper addressing several misconceptions of sd-logic is “Advancing Service Science with Service-Dominant Logic Clarifications and Conceptual Development” by Vargo, S.L., Lusch R.F., and Akaka, M.A (2010)

service economy

i) goods-dominant logic perspective – an economy where provision of services, as opposed to goods, is the primary economic activity

ii) service-dominant logic perspective – an economy where exchanging the application of skills and knowledge for benefit is the basis of economic activities


The goods-dominant perspective is quite pervasive in our world. Often being taught in (business) schools. It is based on exchange of output for money, so called value-in-exchange. And sees services as inferior to goods. It arguably starts in 1776 with Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) viewing manufactured items – things that could be stored and exchanged for money – as wealth-generating. Services were not.

However, we need phrases such as “shifting to a service economy” to reflect the fact that goods are a diminishing part and service increasing part of our economic outputs today.

But, jump forwards to 2017, we find a different story and need phrases such as “shifting to a service economy”. Food delivery service Just Eat’s revenue was £546Mn. Uber’s $11.3Bn. Apple’s 2018 service revenue was $37.2Bn (14% of overall revenue). Securitas’ revenue was 92Bn SEK. And Handelsbanken2017 revenue was 41Bn SEK. 

The OECD, in 2000, was saying:

“manufacturing [is] slipping to less than 20% of GDP and the role of services rising to more than 70% in some OECD countries”OECD, 2000

And Chesbrough’s Open Service Innovation projected the US economy would be 80% service-based by 2050 (with the handy figure in Figure 1). The UK reported its 2017 economy was 79% service-based. And it is not just a “developed” world phenomenon. Nigerian reported its 2010 economy was 50% service-based. By 2017 it had grown to be 55.8%.

Whereas the service-dominant logic view is based on how outputs are produced – through the application of skills and competence. Goods are seen as distribution mechanisms for service (service singular to distinguish from goods economy thinking of outputs). And therefore there is no shift to a service economy, rather the classic era shifts in economics are in reality shifts in skills and competence seen as beneficial.

The reasons for shift are summarised as:

service exchange

Fundamentally, “Service is exchanged for service”*


Service-dominant logic, a foundation of the progress economy, informs us that “service is the fundamental basis of exchange”, rather than value (value-in-exchange). That is to say, I apply my competence (skills and knowledge) for your benefit and in exchange, you apply your competence for my benefit.

But there are some specifics of service exchange we need to consider beyond the simple Actor A and Actor B exchange services (where they act as both progress seeker and progress helper to each other). In the real world we need to:

  • mediate differences in time of exchange of service.
    • Actor A might want Actor B’s service in January but Actor B doesn’t need Actor A’s service in exchange until November.
  • mediate differences in effort between exchange of service.
    • Service-exchange would be expected to be with service of equivalent effort. However, Actor A may feel their effort of providing service is greater than Actor B.
    • Note we are not talking about value here, since that can only be determined by the progress seeker (Actor B in this example). But the concept of price emerges.
  • enable indirect exchange.
    • Where Actor A performs a service for actor B but is not interested in Actor B’s service in exchange…rather, they are interested in Actor C’s service.

In the progress economy we see abstract, value-less, service credits as this mechanism enabling and mediating the above.

* Vargo & Lush (2008) “From Goods to Service(s): Divergences and Convergences of Logi

survivability (of progress helper)

To survive, a progress helper (a single entity or ecosystem) needs to obtain, as a minimum, an equal number of service credits for engaging in helping a progress seeker progress as it expends on doing that.

systems

Technology offered by the progress helper for resource integration purposes with progress seeker’s resources in progress attempts. Depending on how they participate in a progress attempt, they can be operant or operand resources.

Systems are one of five skills and knowledge encapsulating elements that may appear in a progress proposition’s progress resource mix.

[see also employees, goods, physical resources and locations]


In general, systems can be either technology or processes. However, in the progress economy, we limit our perspective to only technology. Why? Any progress helper’s processes with which a progress seeker interacts are viewed as the series of progress making activities. These, of course, could be implemented in technology.

Unlike other elements of a potential progress mix, technology can be either an operant or an operand resources. It depends on how it participates in progress attempts.

Take a word processor. It needs to be acted upon in order for progress to be made. In this case the system is an operand resource – one that needs to be acted upon for progress to be made.

In contrast, Artificial Intelligence

Technology’s Impact on the Gaps Model of Service Quality

t

the progress economy

A four layer lens on how our economy works together with a set of tools aimed at:

  • fixing the innovation problem
  • firing up growth
  • enabling the circular economy

It comprises four layers:

v

value

Emerges from unique and phenomenological judgements of progress and heights of progress hurdles. It is disassociated from price.

Judgements are made before, during, and after progress attempts by both progress seekers and progress helpers.

  • Before engaging
    • Progress helpers judge how much progress sought they feel they can offer and how low they have lowered the hurdles (price is one of these hurdles)
    • Progress seekers judge if there is enough progress potential and if the progress hurdles are low enough to start engaging
  • During engaging- at various points, likely aligned with the end of individual activities in the series of progress making activities:
    • Seeker judges if enough progress has been achieved, if there is enough progress potential remaining and if the hurdles are low enough to continue
    • Helper judges if they can still help seeker progress in the progress remaining; or if they need/can adjust progress offered based on what they have learnt from progress achieved.
  • After engaging
    • Seeker judges if enough progress has been achieved
    • Helper ideally judges if progress offered was enough and was achieved

The predominant actor making judgements is the progress seeker.

In all judgements the actors judges if value co-destruction is occurring and if they want to recover from that or abandon progress attempt.

value co-creation

The act, and result, of a progress seeker and a progress helper jointly making progress.


Value emerges from making progress. When engaging with a progress proposition then we see value as being co-created since making progress is a joint endeavour between a progress seeker and a progress helper.

The progress zip tool is a useful way to visualise value co-creation.

Progress Zip Tool

[see also progress, and value]

value co-destruction

The act and result of a progress seeker, a progress helper, or both obstructing a progress attempt.


Lintula, Tuunanen and Salo provided a useful model to understand where, when and how such value co-destruction may take place.

Lintula, J., Tuunanen, T., Salo, M. (2017) ”Conceptualizing the Value Co-Destruction Process for Service Systems: Literature Review and SynthesisProceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

value-in-exchange

A view of value creation that sees value as a property of goods/service. Manufacturers embed value through taking an input and creating an output. Value is realised at the point of sale by exchanging for cash. From which point the customer proceeds to use-up or destroy that embedded value.


This view is the basis of goods-dominant logic – the traditional view of the economy. It is based on the view the manufacturers successively embed additional value in a goods at each step of the supply chain. Eventually that embedded value is exchanged for money with a customer. That customer then proceeded to destroy/ear-up the embedded value.

It is, unfortunately, a restrictive view of value creation. Missing out on opportunities post the moment of exchange and based on the manufacturer believing they know best in value.

Similar thinking is often applied for services with just some name changes: service provider creates services that are valuable, and exchange happens when a consumer uses the service.

[see also: value-in-use and value-through-progress]

value-through-progress

A view of value creation that sees value as being increasingly created as progress is made. Though this value may be recognised on a different schedule.


A progress attempt starts with zero value created. As progress towards a more desired state is made, value created for the progress seeker increases. We follow value created as a function of progress achieved.

When a seeker engages a progress proposition we use the more complicated view of value-in-use which also takes into account a progress helper’s perspective.

[see also: value-in-exchange and value-in-use]

value-in-context

A view of value creation that extends value-in-use to reflect the context of the use (e.g. time, place, social setting etc)


Value-in-use conceptualises that value is co-created whilst seeker and helper jointly make a progress attempt. In service-dominant logic Vargo & Lush pushed that their original definition of value-in-use needed to take account of context. For example the time or place of use, or the social setting etc.

In the progress economy, this context is captured as part of the progress state. And so we generally use value-in-use.

[see also: value-in-exchange and value-through-progress]

Vargo, S. L., Lush, R. (2008) “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution”

value-in-use

A view of value creation that sees value being increasingly co-created during a progress attempt as a progress seeker engages a progress proposition. Though this value may be recognised on a different schedule.


Value-in-use is a special case of value-through-progress. One where a seeker engages a progress helper’s progress proposition.

Like value-through-progress, there is no value created before the progress attempt starts. And value is increasingly created as progress is made.

Which means that a progress proposition can only offer value – seen as progress potential. And progress accumulated as progress achieved. Thi is phenomenologically and uniquely determined by both by the progress seeker and progress helper. Though the determination may be different.

At the start th progress helper value cannot be created and embedded by a manufacturer. Rather it is co-created when a proposition is used.

In the progress economy we would say that value emerges when a progress seeker engages a progress proposition in a progress attempt.

However, this does not preclude a progress helper having a view on how much value they feel they can help create (ie how much progress they can help a progress seeker make).

[see also: value-in-exchange and value-through-progress]