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!).
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”.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
Typically a goods is a tangible operand resource (a 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.
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.
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.
Vargo, S., Lush, R. (2004) “The Four Service Marketing Myths”, Journal of Service Research; Vol 6; Issue 4; pp 324-335, DOI: 10.1177/10946705032629
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.
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.
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.
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)
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:
Progress seekers’ skills and knowledge – Alves, Ferriera and Fernandes (2016) found increasing a progress seeker’s expertise has a positive impact on value co-creation
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).
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.
a progress helper’s offered goods where ownership is not permanently transferred to a progress seeker, or
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 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.
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:
hurdle
description
lack of resource
is there a lack of resource that will hinder progress
adoptability
can the progress seeker readily see themselves using the proposition
resistance
will the progress seeker postpone, reject, or worse, oppose the proposition
misalignment on continuum
how far apart, on the progress continuum, are the proposition and the seeker’s wishes
lack of confidence
does seeker trust proposition and/or helper
effort elsewhere
how 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
Vargo, S., Lush, R. (2004) “The Four Service Marketing Myths”, Journal of Service Research; Vol 6; Issue 4; pp 324-335, DOI: 10.1177/1094670503262946
Vargo, S. L., Lush, R. (2004) “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic”, Journal of Marketing; Vol 68; Issue 1; pp 1-17, DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
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.
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.
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.
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).
