Seekers attempt to make progress by integrating capability-carrying resources in a series of progress-making activities. If they lack the capabilities, progress is affected

Progress attempts: Moving to progress sought

progress attempt: an attempt by a progress seeker to progress towards their progress sought through executing a series of progress-making activities

Think of a progress attempt as the execution view of progress as a verb. It is how a progress Seeker attempts to move to their more desired state of progress sought from their progress origin.

Payne et al establish the seeds of this:

The customer’s value creation process can be defined as a series of activities performed by the customer to achieve a particular goal.

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., and Frow, P. (2006) “Managing the co-creation of value”

Through deliberate execution of a series of progress-making activities – each one integrating two or more capability-carrying resources – a Seeker attempts to make progress on their progress journey. When executed successfully, each activity moves the Seeker a step closer to their progress sought.

Let’s update our progress diagram to reflect this.

Updating the Progress Diagram

We can take our progress diagram from progress as a verb and update it to show progress is a series of steps (progress-making activities).

The same progress origin and progress sought apply, with value emerging as progress is made – none at the origin, and maximum value (for the Seeker) upon reaching their progress sought.

Since each progress-making activity can take a different amount of time and deliver varying degrees of progress, we conceptualise the steps as arrows of differing length.

There’s an important point to cover: these are attempts, not guarantees of progress.

Attempts not guarantees

We use the word attempt purposefully. Progress isn’t guaranteed. Sometimes seekers fail when executing an activity. A Seeker may misapply capabilities or, more often, they lack needed capabilities. These capabilities include skills, knowledge, availability (time), strength and so on (or at a more organisation level we might talk of Sales, accounting, or R&D capabilities).

And let’s remember that a Seeker is trying to make progress with everything in their life. However, we usually concentrate on one particular aspect at a time – a Seeker phenomenologically decides what that is, based on what’s important to them at that point in time, and if they feel they can make progress.

When a Seeker lacks some or all of the necessary capabilities, they face the foundational progress hurdle we call the lack of capability. This directly affects their ability to make progress.

Interestingly, as we’ll see later, knowledge of, and skills to execute, the series of progress-making activities required are capabilities that the Seeker may lack.

When this lack of capability hurdle arises, the seeker faces a choice: develop the missing capability independently – usually by trial and error, accessing resources in their environment, or observing others and copying – or engage a progress proposition. These propositions offer supplementary capabilities, packaged within a specific resource mix and accompanied by a proposed sequence of progress-making activities. Progress becomes a joint endeavour… but that is something we’ll explore in the next context layer.

Relationship to service

Since the Progress Economy builds on Service-Dominant Logic, it’s natural for us to discuss how progress attempts relate to the concept of service

It might seem strange to consider a progress attempt as service (singular), but they are acts of self-service. Thinking this way helps set the scene when we later build progress attempts into attempts with progress propositions.

Let’s start with Vargo and Lusch’s definition of service:

service: the application of competences (knowledge and skills) for the benefit of another party

Vargo & Lusch (2008) “From Goods to Service(s): Divergences and Convergences of Logics”

For our progress economy definition, we need to substitute competences for capabilities (which also widens the scope from just knowledge and skills) and say it is for the “benefit of oneself or another party”. Therefore, we define service (singular) as:

service: the application of capabilities for the benefit of oneself or another party

You probably wonder why we say service (singular). We want to distinguish between this and services (plural) which is often used in comparison to goods. As a plural, services refers to a unit of output; in the singular, it is the process we are interested in (see more here: services vs service).

Now it makes sense, right? We apply our capabilities to benefit ourself. Maybe we tattoo ourselves (a mainly non-functional progress sought) or we self medicate, or create a vessel out of wood and use that vessel to carry fresh drinking water. This usefully brings the role of goods into view.

Role of goods

What do goods do? They freeze service – the application of capabilities – so it can be distributed in time and location. A Seeker then unfreezes that service during acts of resource integration.

In our progress attempts context, goods are limited to what a Seeker discovers or creates from their natural environment. Think of a Seeker using their own knowledge and skills to carve a bowl from wood. That bowl embodies – freezes – that knowledge of holding and transporting liquid. Each time the Seeker uses it to collect water from a stream, they are unfreezing those embedded capabilities.

It’s certainly reasonable to argue that goods acquired through progress attempts that have engaged progress propositions could also be included. However, for clarity and conceptual discipline, we’ll draw a line here: such goods fall under propositions, even if there’s no active Helper involved at that moment. In effect, re-using those goods is still engaging a proposition.

Another implication of this framing is that goods, at this level, are almost always physical. Without access to more advanced goods, it’s difficult – if not impossible – for a Seeker to create digital goods.

We’ll revisit the role of goods in more depth when we examine progress attempts in richer contexts. But even this minimalist landscape reveals a core insight: without Helpers and their propositions, a Seeker’s ability to make meaningful progress is sharply constrained.

Talking of context, let’s explore where progress attempts fit.

Putting progress attempts in the strategic context

Progress attempts build directly on the broader context of progress (and value).

We introduce three critical operational aspect: capabilities, carried by resources, progress-making activities (which are acts of resource integration) and the progress hurdle that is foundational: lack of capability.

Resources fall into two categories: operant resources (those that act on other resources to make progress) and operand resources (those that must be acted upon for progress to occur).

This framing introduces not only a mechanism for understanding progress execution (without external help), but also a diagnostic for identifying capability gaps that shine a light on the foundation progress hurdle (a lack of capability) and the opportunity space for helping.

Now we’ll explore the detailed mechanics of making progress, starting with where the Seeker starts how their progress origin and sought usually evolve over time.

Progress origin and sought: evolving over time

We inherit progress origin from our exploration of progress as a verb, where we saw it is the Seeker’s starting point. Similarly, we inherit progress sought as the Seeker’s more desired state. For clarity and manageability of analysis, we noted that we typically isolate specific aspects of progress at a time, though we need to be aware other aspects may sometimes interconnect or even conflict.

Now, as we shift focus to progress attempts, we’ll recognise that both a Seeker’s origin and progress sought often evolve. Seekers constantly engage in progress attempts across all areas of their life. In doing so, they accumulate new capabilities, that can change their origin, and can often cause them to stretch their progress sought.

In short: every attempt reshapes the map. Progress isn’t static; it adapts with experience, exposure, and ambition. And that has strategic implications for how we support, enable, and anticipate a Seeker’s evolving needs.

Progress between progress origin and progress sought is made through progress-making activities.

Progress-making activities

As we saw from Payne et al, value creation (making progress in our view) comes from a customer performing a series of activities to reach their goal.

The customer’s value creation process can be defined as a series of activities performed by the customer to achieve a particular goal.

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., and Frow, P. (2006) “Managing the co-creation of value”

Seekers make progress one step at a time. Each step – a progress-making activity – represents a purposeful integration of capability-carrying resources.

progress-making activity: A resource integration that increases a seeker’s progress reached towards progress sought.

Consider a basic example: a Seeker (a resource) wants to grow vegetables for nourishment (functional component of progress sought). They apply their skills and knowledge (capabilities) to integrate seeds, soil, water, sunlight, and time (other resources). The following could be the series of progress-making activities they undertake:

• prepare seeds
• prepare soil
• sow seeds
• water the growing plants
• weed the surrounding area to remove competing plants
• check for maturity
• harvest vegetable

Each activity is a unit of progress, and each requires application of capability through resource integration. There’s a couple of concepts we should look into more.

Understanding capabilities and resources

Capabilities power progress. Resources carry those capabilities.

For a simple Seeker, like an individual, capabilities are skills, knowledge, availability, and physical attributes such as strength. The person themself is the resource. For example, when sowing seeds, we apply our knowledge of the correct depth, soil type, and coverage, along with a measure of physical strength to make the hole and cover it.

For a more complex Seeker, such as an organisation, capabilities tend to operate at a higher level of abstraction. We speak of innovation, learning, marketing, or R&D as capabilities. These are often distributed across systems, teams, and processes – still capabilities, just carried by more sophisticated resources.

Not all capabilities originate from the Seeker. Some are external, like the ability to generate power or transport materials. These might be carried by wind, water, or other natural resources.

These capabilities must be applied in order to make progress. That application happens through resource integration: the deliberate combination and use of resources to unlock their embedded capabilities.

What is resource Integration

progress requires that the capabilities carried by a resource be applied. This act is known as resource integration. For example, as a Seeker (a resource), you apply your capabilities, such as skills or knowledge, to another resource in order to leverage its capabilities and move closer to your progress sought.

This leads us to a useful distinction. Some resources do something. Others have something done to them. We refer to the former as operant resources and the latter as operand resources.

Progress happens when an operant resource successfully integrates with operand or other operant resources. The Seeker moves closer to their desired state.

resource integration: an operant resource applies their capabilities on one or more operand or other operant resources to take a step forwardstowards a Seeker’s progress sought

In solo progress attempts, the Seeker is usually the operant resource. This is something we relax when looking at progress propositions (there it could by a system, an employee of the Helper, or a combination of).

There are also non-human operant resources. Solar energy and wind, for example, can act on other resources without human intervention. In the case of growing vegetables, even the seed or plant itself can be viewed as an operant resource—integrating water, nutrients, CO₂, and sunlight to generate physical growth (but let’s not overcomplicate a simple illustration).

And occasionally, the Seeker might be both the operant and operand resource. Such as when applying makeup, self-tattooing, or reading. In these cases, the Seeker both acts and is acted upon.

Defining the activities

Sometimes, Seekers instinctively know which progress-making activities are required. They draw on past experience, observation of others, or analogical reasoning. Not knowing the activities , or the correct sequencing, is a lack of capability. The Seeker must discover what works through experimentation and trial and error (or not start the attempt). Sometimes, it’s a blend: they begin with a rough idea and iterate their way forward.

In everyday life, we recognise these series of activities in more familiar forms: action lists, plans, recipes, checklists, experiment designs, and so on. Some are written down; others live informally in our minds.

Think of baking a cake. The recipe contains the knowledge, but it can’t act on anything. It’s an operand resource carrying knowledge. Only when the Seeker applies their skill – integrating ingredients and applying the recipe – that progress is made and a cake is baked.

Being confident in the progress-making activities is part of the Seeker’s progress decision process.

Editing below here

Attempting Progress: the decision process

Whether consciously or unconsciously, progress seekers follow a well-defined decision-making process when making a progress attempt. Understanding this process gives us a powerful lens for designing better experiences, reducing friction, and increasing conversion.

At its core, a progress attempt mirrors the dynamics of innovation adoption. It starts with a decision to begin and is sustained through a series of decisions to continue. This structure is conceptually similar to Everett Rogers’ Innovation Adoption Decision Process from Diffusion of Innovations. And that’s no coincidence. Every progress attempt is really the adoption of an innovation (the big job/little job concept of jobs to be done theory).

It’s useful to think of these decisions happening at the start of each progress-making activity. And more useful to know that they are unique and phenomenological judgements made by individual progress Seekers.

Initiate decision: Should I Start?

The seeker weighs two key factors:

• progress potential against progress sought: How closer this attempt could bring them to their desired state of progress sought.
• lack of capability hurdle: How high the hurdle is, based on the capabilities they currently lack.

If the perceived progress potential is high enough, and the lack of capability hurdle is low enough, for that individual Seeker, then they choose to begin. If not, they reject starting the attempt. But rejection isn’t permanent. Progress seekers often revisit and reassess. For example, a lack of time or energy today may no longer be an issue tomorrow. Progress is dynamic, and so are Seekers motivations.

Continuation decision: Should I continue?

Once the attempt is underway, the Seeker continues to evaluate. At natural breakpoints (typically at the end of each activity, or start of new one, depending on how you want to look at it), they reassess based on updated judgments:

• progress reached vs. expectation: Am I where I thought I’d be?
• progress potential vs. progress sought: Does the path ahead still look promising?
• revised progress sought: Has my goal shifted?
• Updated lack of capability hurdle: Do I now lack something I didn’t expect?

If the promise of progress still outweighs the friction, they continue. If not, the attempt stalls or ends in what we call a discontinuance.

Discontinuances: Why a Seeker abandons a progress attempt

There are three primary reasons seekers abandon progress attempts:

• replacement: They find a better path to progress and shift course.
• disenchantment: They lose faith in the approach – progress is too slow, difficult, or disappointing.
• phenomenological: The most human of all – they simply lose the will. “I just can’t be bothered anymore” or some other aspect of progress sought becomes more important to them

Each form of discontinuance reveals valuable insights into friction, unmet needs, and where innovation should go next.

What does success look like?

The natural assumption is that a successful attempt means reaching progress sought. And in theory, it does, because that’s where maximum value emerges for the seeker.

But reality is more nuanced. In many domains, reaching the ideal outcome is impractical, even impossible. More often, success looks like sufficient progress for now. Which is a compromise shaped by context, constraints, or shifting goals.

Ultimately, success is defined subjectively. It rests in the seeker’s own comparison of progress reached versus progress sought and whether that leaves them phenomenologically satisfied.

This subjectivity isn’t a weakness in the model. It’s a strength. It reminds us that progress (and therefore, value), is always judged in context, always in motion, and always personal.

Relating to value

Earlier, we described value as something that emerges through the act of making progress. Where the is no value emerged at the progress origin – which we can now say is the start of the progress attempt – only potential value. And maximum value has emerged when a Seeker reaches there progress sought.

Now we can see why. Payne et al capture this in their 2006 paper “Managing the co-creation of value”, where they define the customer’s value creation process as:

The customer’s value creation process can be defined as a series of activities performed by the customer to achieve a particular goal.

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., and Frow, P. (2006) “Managing the co-creation of value”

Their “particular goal” maps to what we call progress sought, and “value creation” refers to the act of making progress – by executing progress-making activities – through which value emerges.

At the start of a progress attempt, value exists only as potential. As Seekers execute progress-making activity, value progressively emerges, reaching its maximum only when the Seeker arrives at their progress sought.

But there’s a further nuance to consider. When does this emerged value actually have meaning to the Seeker?

Take a simple case of functional progress: moving 100km. Suppose you travel 80km in a day. Has value emerged? On paper, yes – 80 units of progress. But what if your goal was to arrive that same day? In that case, the 80km is meaningless. No real value was realised.

This highlights a critical insight: value only becomes meaningful when the Seeker recognises it as progress that matters to them. It’s similar to how revenue recognition works in accounting; performance must be delivered and acknowledged before it becomes recognised value.

Emerging value from progress is not enough. It must align with the Seeker’s expectations, context, and non-functional progress sought – such as timing, convenience, or emotional relief – before it converts into perceived value. A Seeker needs to recognise value.

This distinction is central to understanding and designing for progress in real-world contexts. It shifts our focus from simply creating output to ensuring meaningful, recognised outcomes.

Destroying value

Not the same as in value-in-exchange

When progress is hampered by a seeker or a helper we may be observing value co-destruction. Lintula delves into this topic and presents a framework highlighting how value can be co-destructed at different stages: before, after, or during a progress attempt.

Relating to innovation

Innovation is all about increasing progress judgements which we can interpret as:

• reducing the lack of capability progress hurdle
• improving capabilities
• improving the progress-making activities
• increasing the frequency of value recognition

We need to approach this with regard to the three components of progress (functional, non-functional and contextual) and in relation to the Seekers progress origin. And when I say “we” here, I mean only the Seeker, since our context here is solo attempts. They might do so through:

• using existing resources in different ways
• acquiring new resources from nature (or other progress attempts they have made)
• observing and copying other actors
• altering their progress-making steps through trial and error or deliberate planning

Admittedly, solo progress attempts are limited, but considering them lays the foundation for, and to understand, what comes next.

Seekers that successfully find ways to make progress may decide to offer their new found capabilities to others. They become a progress helper with a progress proposition.

Why this matters