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 (progress making)

An atomic step towards progress sought/progress offered.

Usually comprising resource integration of resources in the progress resource mix and/or seeker resources. Though an activity may be internal to a progress seeker or progress helper.

[see also series of activities]

adoptability

Progress seekers, according to the progress- and engagement decision processes, may decide not to start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they phenomenologically feel challenges adopting the progress proposition they are consdering.

These adoptability factors come directly from Rogers’ 5 variables of innovation adoption. Including the perceived attributes variable which covers:

  • relative advantage
  • compatibility
  • complexity
  • trialability
  • observability

In general, the progress helper should always aim to increase these aspects to minimise this progress hurdle. Saying that, complexity should usually be reduced rather than increased! Unless complexity is part of progress sought (such as Snapchat’s deliberately bewildering interface that keeps parents out of the system, much to the joy and progress sought of the younger generation – know you progress sought!).

This is one of six progress hurdles identified in the progress economy.

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

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

c

contextual progress

Contextual constraints related to progress sought.

Usually contextual progress does not change over time. Therefore, the starting state for contextual progress is usually the same as for progress sought.

Examples of contextual progress would be “during rush hour” or “have own transport” for a functional progress of “transporting oneself from A to B”.

[see also progress, functional progress and non-functional progress]

co-creation of value

[see value co-creation]

d

digital goods

An intangible goods that may be offered in a progress proposition.

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 should be seen as a physical resource within the progress resource mix.

e

effort elsewhere (progress hurdle)

Progress seekers, according to the progress- and engagement decision processes, may decide not to start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they phenomenologically feel the effort of providing service elsewhere – to obtain the necessary service credit to engage a progress proposition – is too much.

Moving from value-in-exchange thinking (exchanging money for goods that have value embedded) to value-in-use (value is created by making progress) has the consequence that price as a signal of value disappears. Yet price remains a factor in progress seekers decisions. Price “becomes part of the value proposition” (Kowalkowski). Which in the progress economy is interpreted as the ‘effort elsewhere’ progress hurdle.

That is to say, how much effort does a progress seeker need to expend providing service, usually elsewhere, in order to get the service credits required by the progress helper to engage with the progress proposition.

This way of thinking helps us focus on business models. For example:

  • Does a subscription model or moving from goods to physical resource (hiring) make sense (reduces perception of effort required).
  • Can effort required be reduced by supplementing from other places – freemium, ad-based, etc.
  • What about tiered service options.
  • Internally can we reduce progress helper’s effort expended (which drives the needed service credits) or even swap in/out eco-system partners?
  • Can eco system partner choice be shifted to progress seeker (eg what courier/delivery service to use)?
  • How would progress seeker react to moving along the continuum to a more enabling proposition?
  • …and so on.

This is one of six progress hurdles identified in the progress economy.

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

employees

One of four skills and knowledge encapsulating resources that a progress helper may offer as part of their progress proposition‘s progress resource mix.

Specifically, employees are an operant resource (a resource that acts on other resources to make progress) and encapsulate specific skills and knowledge that they apply during progress making activities.

They are the most adaptable resource in the progress resource mix, capable of actively adjusting progress offered during progress attempts, if allowed. In addition, they are capable of acting to reduce/reverse value co-destruction.

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

[see also goods, systems, and physical resources]

enabling proposition

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

Enabling propositions are at one end of the progress proposition continuum. They typically have a progress resource mix heavy in goods/physical resources.

The intention of the progress proposition being: “here’s one or more goods that freeze some needed skills and knowledge that you need to progress; I, as a progress helper offer it to you; now you as the progress seeker, unfreeze those skills and knowledge by integrating the goods with your resources in your attempt to make progress”.

We find that enabling propositions place higher requirements on the progress seeker compared to relieving propositions (which are at the other end). They require the seeker to:

  • have a level of skill and knowledge to integrate with the goods
  • often link additional progress propositions together to achieve full progress sought (ie, a goods often only helps with part of the progress attempt – a number of enabling propositions is required to replace a handyman hanging up a picture…)
  • know the complete series, and order of, progress making activities (especially if they are integrating propositions)

On the other hand, by utilising an enabling proposition, the progress seeker reduces the likelihood of being “held-up” in making progress while waiting for someone else’s resources to become available. The progress seeker may also be looking for a sense of self-worth as part of their non-functional progress. Which is addressed by discovering/completing progress making activities themselves.

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.

[see also progress proposition, and relieving proposition]

engagement decision process

The decision process a progress seeker goes through when attempting to make progress through engaging a progress proposition.

Service Engagement Decision

It is an enhancement of the progress decision process to take account of the progress proposition. It similarly comprises i) an initial decision to engage and to start making a progress attempt with a specific progress proposition. Followed by ii) multiple sequential decisions to keep on engaging or to abandon the progress attempt.

Those decision points, which focus on progress achieved, progress potential, and levels of progress hurdles, are most likely to be at the end of individual progress making activities. And from them emerges our concept of value.

[see also progress decision process]

f

functional progress

Describes i) the functional progress sought by the progress seeker; and ii) the functional progress offered by progress helpers.

These two descriptions may not 100% match, see progress.

[see also progress, non-functional progress and contextual progress]

g

goods

One of four skills and knowledge encapsulating resource that a progress helper may offer in their progress proposition‘s progress resource mix.

Typically a goods is a tangible operand resource (resource that needs to be acted upon for progress to be made). A goods “freezes” skills and knowledge, allowing them to be transported to another time and/or place. Those skills and knowledge are then unfrozen, usually by the progress seeker, through resource integration in progress making activities.

The use of goods in the progress resource mix suggests the proposition is towards the enabling end of the progress proposition continuum.

A key characteristic of goods, compared to other resource in a progress resource mix, is that ownership irrevocably transfers to the progress seeker. A goods where this transfer can be revoked is seen as a physical resource.

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

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 this on their way to explore service-dominant logic.

i

integrating resources

[see resource integration].

innovation

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

i) helping progress seeker to make progress better

ii) helping progress seeker to make better progress

iii) lowering one or more of the six progress hurdles

whilst maintaining, or improving, the survivability of the progress helper (entity, ecosystem).

j

jobs to be done

Closely related to 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)

Progress seekers, according to the progress and engagement decision processes, may decide not to start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they feel they lack the confidence in the progress helper or the progress proposition.

[to be detailed – brand, brand expansion and servicescapes emerge from this hurdle]

This is one of six progress hurdles identified in the progress economy.

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

lack of resource (progress hurdle)

Progress seekers, according to the progress and engagement decision processes, may decide not to start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they feel they lack the necessary resources to progress.

Examples of resource are quite broad and cover skills, knowledge, time, tools (systems/goods) etc. A lack of knowledge of and/or skills in the steps required to make progress also sits here.

This is one of six progress hurdles identified in the progress economy. And progress propositions arise to address this initial lack of resource. Though they may lead to additional lack of resource, eg knowledge of how to use a proposed system. And offering a proposition introduced five new progress hurdles.

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

m

markets

Groups of progress seekers who seek, or are prepared to sufficiently compromise to accept, similar progress.

misalignment on continuum (progress hurdle)

Progress seekers, according to the progress and engagement decision processes, may decide not to start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they phenomenologically feel the progress proposition is too far away on the progress proposition continuum to their position.

The progress proposition continuum informs us that propositions lie somewhere between enabling and relieving propositions. Principally, the position relates to who primarily drives the progress making activities. But we can also understand a wealth of non-functional progress relating to position.

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.


A seeker will also identify with a position on the continuum for the progress they are seeking. The gap between that position and where proposition is, is s progress hurdle.

For example, a seeker wanting a relieving proposition would likely see a large hurdle when contemplating an enabling proposition. Whereas a seeker who doesn’t want to be held up waiting might feel a relieving proposition as a hurdle compared to getting a tool they can use themselves whenever they want.

This is one of six progress hurdles identified in the progress economy.

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

money

An implementation of service credits.

Although, since we are living in a world without value-in-exchange, we need to be careful that we do see money as an implementation of service credits. Rather than get bogged down in the wider context of its properties in a traditional view, 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

Describes i) the non-functional progress sought – performance, behaviour, emotions, etc – by the progress seeker; and ii) the non-functional progress offered by progress helpers.

These two may not 100% match, see progress.

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

Examples of non-functional progress

[see also progress, functional progress and contextual progress]

o

operand resource

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

Typically these are goods or physical resources. And in goods-dominant logic they are seen as the resource type related to value.

[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 to make progress.

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

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

Operand resources that may be offered by the progress helper in their progress proposition‘s progress resource mix. Specifically, they are either:

  1. a progress helper’s offered goods where ownership is not permanently transferred to a progress seeker, or
  2. a physical entity owned by the progress helper that is used during progress attempt and that the progress seeker interacts with.

Examples of the latter are the hospital building where an operation takes place, or a cloud server a seeker directly integrates with etc. And, here’s, the servicescape has importance.

Whereas examples that are not physical resources in the progress resource mix would be the telephone call centre building that houses telephone operatives, or a cloud server the seeker is unaware is being used. Whilst physical resources, the seeker does not integrate directly with them.

[see also goods, employees, and systems]

profit

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

price

The number, and frequency, of service credits requested by a progress helper for engaging with their progress proposition.

Price “becomes part of the value proposition” (Kowalkowski). It is not a measure/signal of value. Rather, in the progress economy i) price is interpreted as the ‘effort elsewhere’ progress hurdle and ii) value emerges from phenomenological judgements of that hurdle, and five others, together with progress.

Progress helpers set the number of service credits required from a progress seeker for service exchange. They usually seek to obtain maximum number of service credits possible. And often includes profit. Various business models can be employed to minimise the effort elsewhere’ progress hurdle.

progress (verb)

Moving to a more desirable state over time through a series of, mostly resource integration, activities.

This more desirable state is referred to as progress sought. And the actor seeking it is the progress seeker.

Seekers often face a ‘lack of resources’ (time, skills, knowledge, tools (goods/systems), etc.) progress hurdle when attempting to make progress on their own.

Such a barrier creates an opportunity for progress helpers – actors who have worked out how overcome this hurdle – to assist progress seekers by offering progress propositions to reach a progress offered state. Where there is some relation between progress sought and progress offered, described more at progress offered.

progress (noun)

A state comprising functional, non-functional and contextual elements.

We use different names to refer to specific progress states. Such as progress sought, progress offered and progress achieved.

progress achieved

A phenomenological judgement of progress made by a particular point in time.

Primarily the judgement is seen as being made by individual progress seekers. And is part of their progress decision process (or engagement decision process if they are engaging a progress proposition).

In addition, the progress helper may make a judgement. Whether or not they do so, and how much weight they place on it, appears to be related to where a progress proposition sits on the progress proposition continuum. Enabling propositions, which are frequently goods-heavy with the seeker driving the progress making activities, appear to be of lesser interest.

progress attempt

An attempt by a progress seeker to make progress towards their progress sought through executing a series of progress making activities. The seeker follows the progress decision process when deciding to start and continue an attempt.

There are a couple of changes when a progress attempt engages a progress proposition:

  • progress is made towards progress offered rather than progress sought (though there is a relation between the two)
  • the decision process used is the enhanced engagement decision process (which addresses the five additional hurdles introduced by progress propositions)

In either case, value emerges as progress is made ; though value co-destruction may also occur.

progress decision process

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

It comprises a decision to start, and subsequent repeating decisions to continue, making progress. It is believed these repeating decisions take place at the end of each individual activity in the series of progress making activities.

The feeling of value emerges from these decisions

[see also engagement decision process]

progress helper

The entity offering to help progress seekers make progress. Typically the helper is a single actor (person/firm/organisation) or an ecosystem.

A helper may offer to help with all of some part of the progress sought. If only offering to help with some part it puts onus on another actor(s) to find other helpers to complete.

[see also progress seeker]

progress hurdles

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

In the progress economy there are six identified progress hurdles:

hurdledescription
lack of resourceis there a lack of resource that will hinder progress
adoptabilitycan the progress seeker readily see themselves using the proposition
resistancewill the progress seeker postpone, reject, or worse, oppose the proposition
misalignment on continuumhow far apart, on the progress continuum, are the proposition and the seeker’s wishes
lack of confidencedoes seeker trust proposition and/or helper
effort elsewherehow many service credits does a progress seeker need to get from elsewhere to engage proposition

progress offered

The functional and non-functional progress a progress helper offers to help a progress seeker make.

Whilst progress offered needs to be sufficiently close to progress sought by a progress seeker, it does not need to match 100%. This is a zone for innovation. Where over offering may be sub attempt to attract latent progress sought; under offering may be a disruptive innovation play; and over offering in certain aspects whilst under offering in other may be a blue ocean play.

The progress diamond shows the relationship between progress sought and progress offered.

Progress Diamond
The progress diamond tool of the progress economy

progress potential

A phenomenological judgement by an individual seeker of the progress they believe can be made going forwards from a particular point in time.

progress proposition

An offering by a progress helper to help a progress seeker make some specified progress. It 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

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.

[See also enabling proposition and relieving proposition]

progress proposition continuum

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

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 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 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.

progress resource mix

The varying amounts (including none) of four, skills and knowledge encapsulating, resources:

offered by the progress helper for integration with the progress seeker during progress attempts.

Together, a progress resource mix and a proposed series of progress making activities, form a progress proposition.

progress seeker

The actor that is seeking to make progress.

[see also progress helper]

progress sought

The functional, non-functional and contextual progress sought by a progress seeker. There are parallels between progress and Jobs to be Done theory.

[see also progress offered]

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)

Progress seekers, according to the progress and engagement decision processes, may decide not to start, or to abandon, a progress attempt if they phenomenologically feel the need to resist the 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).

Resistance is therefore a progress hurdle that needs to be minimised. Kleijnan et al identify a useful structure and hierarchy of resistance we can use:

This is one of six progress hurdles identified in the progress economy.

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

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

resource

The tangible and intangible entities available to an actor.

[see operant resource and operand resource]

Hunt, S. (1997) “Competing Through Relationships: Grounding Relationship Marketing in Resource-Advantage Theory”, Joumal of Marketing Managemet, 13. 431—445

resource integration

The act of applying one resource to another typically performed in a progress making activity in an attempt to make 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 operant resources are integrating with other operant resources, it is always the case that there is an operand resource performing the integration in the background.

s

series of activities (progress making)

The proposed series of activities designed to move a progress seeker towards their progress sought/progress offered.

It is considered an operant resource; one that a progress seeker may lack the knowledge (resource) of what activities are required and/or the order which they should be performed. This leads both to a progress hurdle and an opportunity for progress propositions.

Progress propositions include proposed series of activities. Where typical forms are:

  • 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.

Individual activities may be driven by 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 seeker and proposition are on that continuum is a progress hurdle.

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

service credits

Transferable promises of future service, with no inherent value, used to arbitrate temporal and magnitude differences in service exchanges.

With foundations of service-dominant logic, the progress economy sees service as the fundamental basis of exchange.

However, the exchange is often i) where each service is of different magnitude of effort; ii) separated in time; and iii) indirect (I give you a service, but don’t want a service in exchange from you…but I do want a service from someone else)

Service credits lubricate this situation. They are transferable promises of future service. But have no inherent value themselves – allowing us to additionally adhere to the principle of having value-in-exchange rather than value-in-use.

They can implemented as transferable physical/digital tokens passed between actors or ownership can be recorded in some central register.

There are probably several conditions to be placed on service tokens. Though we wish to minimise over thinking (which may lead to unnecessary conditions, such as those placed on money).

For now, we identify four properties. Service credits must be

  • acceptable within a given community of potential progress helpers
  • uniform
  • durable if in physical form
  • and can’t be easily created – if they can, then arbitration of service exchange would quickly break down. (note: this is subtly different to scarcity, which is tied with value)

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.

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

service

The application, by one actor, of skills and knowledge for the benefit of another actor or itself

Lush & Vargo

service-dominant logic

A way of understanding the world where service is dominant and is seen as the fundamental basis of exchange. And where value is co-created whilst using the service.

This contrasts with the common goods-dominant logic applied today. Which sees services as poor relatives to goods and that value is embedded by manufacturers and exchanged for money.

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:

Lush & Vargo

service exchange

Service-dominant logic informs us that “Service is the fundamental basis of exchange”. That is to say, I perform a service for you and you perform a service for me.

This fundamentally shifts our view of how the world operates from value-in-exchange to value-in-use. Which encourages a more dialog based world, looking before and after a now non-existent point of exchange/sale. Where “value” is co-created.

However, service-dominant logic also informs us that this exchange of service is often indirect. I may perform a service for you but dont need your service…though I do want a service from soneone else. We see (value-less) service credits as enabling this indirect exchange. Managing temporal and magnitude of effort differences in service being exchanged.

Lush & Vargo

systems

One of four skills and knowledge encapsulating elements that a progress helper may offer in the progress resource mix part of their progress proposition.

Systems encapsulate specific skills and knowledge that are applied, usually through integrating with seeker resource, in progress making activities.

They may be operand resources (e.g a word processor) or operant resources (e.g. artificial intelligence) depending on how they participate in progress attempts.

[see also employees, goods, and physical resources]

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

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 integrating resources whilst performing one or more activities in a progress attempt.

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

The common, though restrictive, way of thinking about value creation.

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]

value-in-use

A view of how value is created that says 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).

%d bloggers like this: