Are you:

• offering enough relief from progress-making activities, or forcing customers to work harder than they want to?
• enabling customers that want to make their own progress enough, or missing the demand for autonomy, control, or self-actualisation?

Position your target Seeker(s) and your proposition(s) on the proposition continuum – then innovate to close the gap. Or, deliberately slide along the continuum to explore new proposals, new resource mixes, and new target Seekers.

How do seekers want to be helped: relieved or enabled?

To set the context for the progress proposition continuum, let’s briefly revisit the Seeker-first perspective that underpins the Progress Economy.

• Seekers actively try to make progress through a series of progress-making activities – essentially, integrations of resources
• Seekers often lack the resources – skills, knowledge, tools, physical attributes, time, etc – needed to succeed
• Helpers step up by offering propositions: supplementary resources designed to close these resource gaps and accelerate the Seeker’s progress

When Seekers lack the necessary resources, they typically face two choices. They can create (or find those resources in the environment) themselves, or more often, they engage a progress proposition that provides the resources and capabilities they need.

But not all Seekers want help in the same way. Some want to perform all the progress-making activities themselves. Others want someone else to perform them all. Many Seekers position themselves somewhere in between. This is where we uncover the relieving-enabling continuum.

Who performs the progress-making activities?

When we explored progress, we noted that Seekers might either pursue progress independently or engage a proposition. Now we can go further – who actually performs the progress-making activities, why does it matter, and what are the implications?

Some Seekers want to be relieved from performing any of the progress-making activities. This preference is part of a growing trend commonly called “the ongoing shift to the service economy”. These Seekers pursue relieving propositions which are typically fronted by employees, AI, or specific systems in a Helper’s resource mix. Seekers integrate with these operant resources – resources that act on other resources to create progress – and those operant resources perform the progress-making activities.

Other Seekers want to be enabled. They prefer to make progress themselves. Sometimes, this is as simple as using resources they find in their environment. For example, using a fallen tree branch as a lever. More commonly, these Seekers are drawn to enabling propositions, which are offerings that provide goods, tools, locations, or systems (distinct from operant systems).

When Seekers integrate with these operand resources – resources that must be acted upon to create progress – they drive the progress-making activities themselves. Seekers engage a Helper to access these propositions for the first time. Other times, they reuse propositions they’ve already acquired from previous progress attempts.

Many Seekers position themselves somewhere along this continuum between the two extremes, seeking varying degrees of relieving or enabling support depending on their context, experiences, capabilities, and preferences.

Positioning on the relieved-enabled continuum

Whilst we can frame a Seeker’s position on the continuum as the question: who do they want to perform the progress-making activities? This choice is shaped by several underlying factors. While the order may vary by situation, the following generally shape where a Seeker positions themselves:

• non-functional progress sought
• the context of the current progress attempt
• lack of resource (the foundation progress hurdle)
• the height of progress hurdles

The same Seeker may shift their preference along the relieving-enabling continuum depending on their situation.

• A parent may want to prepare home-cooked meals for their family during the weekend (enabled) but choose a pizza delivery on a demanding workweek night (relieved).
• A CEO may want to self-serve insights from a dashboard in one scenario but fully delegate risk assessment to a specialized consultancy in another.

A proposition’s position on the continuum is the dual of the Seeker’s positioning. Proposition positioning is typically shaped by:

• non-functional progress offered
• context of the progress offered
• offered resource
• the height of progress hurdles

The ideal proposition has a position that identically matches the Seeker’s position: often there is a misalignment that a Seeker needs to judge if acceptable.

An example: Getting nourished

Let’s use the seemingly simple functional progress of getting nourished to bring this to life. We can break down the progress-making activities and map example propositions along the continuum as follows:

Progress-making activities in getting nourished:

• raising or growing the ingredients
• obtaining the ingredients
• preparing the ingredients
• cooking the meal(s)
• serving the food
• deciding what to eat
• eating the food

At one end of the continuum, cooking at home with ingredients you’ve grown yourself represents a highly enabled scenario. The Seeker performs most, if not all, of the progress-making activities.

As we move along the continuum, we find Seekers who prefer to be progressively relieved of these activities. Some may want ingredients delivered, others may prefer prepared meals, and some may seek ready-to-eat services.

At the far end sits a fully relieved scenario where the seeker wants to be relieved of all progress–making activities: being nourished via a feeding tube in a hospital. Though that is a situation typically driven by necessity rather than choice.

This example sets the stage to explore a critical question: What does it really mean to want to be relieved or enabled? And, equally, what does it mean for a proposition to relieve or enable?

The answers, as we will see, are likely more nuanced than they first appear.

Looking to be relieved

Being relieved means you look for someone else to perform the majority of the progress-making activities on your behalf.

When Seekers pursue being relieved, they aren’t always seeking convenience. Sometimes they want to offload complexity, reduce risk, or escape accountability. For example:

• A Seeker may choose a fully catered solution not because they lack the skill to cook, but because they want to dedicate their cognitive and emotional bandwidth elsewhere
• In a B2B context, a company may outsource IT not just to save time, but to transfer risk and operational burden to a trusted expert

Relieving isn’t simply about “someone else doing the work”. It can represent a strategic choice to shift responsibility, minimise exposure, or access higher reliability.

Seekers tend to pursue relieving propositions for four main reasons, beginning with non-functional progress.

Due to non-functional progress sought

Non-functional progress is a key driver of a Seeker’s positioning on the continuum.

Sometimes it’s as simple as wanting to be relieved. More often, it includes progress like convenience, exploration (the desire to experience different food cultures), or the pursuit of unique experiences (perhaps only available at a Michelin-starred restaurant). It may also be about risk reduction – or more precisely, risk transfer, moving the risk of failure from yourself to another.

We can look to Almqvist’s hierarchy to explore common non-functional progress elements.

Due to context

Then there is contextual progress which shapes the appeal of being relieved.

You may be having lunch at the office, where cooking facilities are limited to a microwave. Or at the end of a long day, you may lack the energy or desire to cook, making a home-delivered pizza especially attractive.

Remember that context is specific to each progress attempt and may vary from one attempt to another for the Seeker.

Due to lack of resource

Further influencing your decision is resource availability, or rather the lack of it.

A lack of time may lead you to seek relieving propositions. Though it’s important to note that a lack of time may equally push you toward enabling options – for example, making something quick and simple to eat at home.

You may also lack other resources to progress, such as tools, skills and knowledge. For example, the specific ingredients to cook, or the pizza oven or a torch for crème brûlée. Perhaps you never learned the basics of cooking, could set fire to water, or you want to eat Fugu/pufferfish, which is dangerous if prepared incorrectly.

Due to progress hurdles

Finally, the other progress hurdles (beyond lack of resource) can play a decisive role.

For instance, it may not be socially acceptable to cook lunch at your office (part of the resistance hurdle). Or, as is often the case when considering relieving options over enabling ones, you may perceive the inequitable exchange hurdle as too high. Simplistically, being relieved is too expensive.

Looking to be enabled

While we observe a clear, ongoing shift towards Seekers preferring relieving propositions, there remains a significant cohort who want to be enabled – that is, they want to perform the progress-making activities themselves.

For some, this is about maintaining control. But usually, Seekers choose to be enabled because they are pursuing learning, mastery, or the intrinsic satisfaction of making progress through their own efforts.

Consider these examples:

• A consumer may choose to build their own furniture not to save money, but because they enjoy the process and the satisfaction of creation.
• An enterprise may deploy a data visualisation tool in-house, not to cut costs, but to build internal data literacy and strategic capability over time.

The decision to seek enabling propositions generally stems from the same four factors that influence the desire to be relieved.

Due to non-functional progress sought

Non-functional progress is often the most significant driver of enablement. Seekers may desire self-achievement, admiration from others, or the deep sense of self-actualisation that comes from doing something themselves. This helps explain why people grow their own food, brew their own drinks, or cook elaborate meals. It’s often for personal satisfaction, and sometimes to impress friends, partners, or social groups.

In business, the desire to be enabled often reflects a preference to avoid hold-ups or dependencies. Relying on others may de-risk operations, but it can also introduce friction. This is the heart of transaction cost economics and the theory of the firm – decisions about whether to “make,” “buy,” or “ally” hinge on where the business wants to internalise or externalise progress-making activities.

Due to context

Situational factors can push Seekers toward enablement. The same individual may prefer to be enabled in one context and relieved in another. For example, making your own lunch could be preferable when you know that your lunchbreak is going to be with meetings.

Due to lack of resource

A lack of time can encourage Seekers to lean towards looking to be enabled. This might sound a little counter-intuitive but making and eating a sandwich for lunch can often be quicker than getting something from a cafe/restaurant/canteen.

It’s also important to highlight a nuance here: lack of skills or knowledge often leads to looking to be relieved however, gaining those knowledge and skill through trial and error might be the progress the Seeker wants to make. It’s not always about the end outcome, it can be about the journey and the personal development along the way.

Due to progress hurdles

Many of the 6 progress hurdles would point to relieving propositions as being the preferred choice, but there is one that is a key driver to looking to be enabled: inequitable exchange. Is the effort required to make progress with an enabling proposition less than that with a relieving proposition? Remember here it is both your effort directly plus the effort you need to exchange for the proposition (the later often being indirect and signalled as price).

It’s a nuanced issue. Using a ride-share has less overall effort than buying a new car…however if you already have a car, using it is less effort than ordering a ride-share. Hiring a handyman to is likely more effort overall than hanging a picture on a wall yourself (even if you might need to buy/hire the tools). From this you can see it is tied in with lack of resource.

Lack of confidence hurdle may also play a factor. If you have low confidence that someone else can do the job better than you, you will look to be enabled rather than relieved.

No available relieving propositions

There are also situations where no relieving propositions exist. In these cases, Seekers must pursue enabling propositions out of necessity, not preference. The desire to be relieved still exists, but the market has not yet provided a suitable solution. This misalignment on the continuum presents a potential opportunity for Helpers who can close the gap.

There’s always someone that needs to be enabled

There is nearly always a Seeker who needs to be enabled. Even Helpers offering relieving propositions are Seekers themselves – and they need propositions to support their own operations.

Consider the supply chain for a restaurant. A chef may offer a relieving proposition to diners, but the chef relies on farmers to supply ingredients. The farmer, in turn, is a Seeker who requires seeds and equipment. The seed supplier might be another Seeker who relies on enabling propositions like machinery or software to produce and distribute seeds efficiently. The chain continues.

The Progress Proposition Continuum

Let’s turn this thinking into a tool and framework that you, as a Helper, can use for improving innovation, sales, and growth: the progress proposition continuum.

Progress proposition continuum: a continuum between enabling and relieving propositions that reflects how many of the progress-making activities the seeker performs

Visually we can see this continuum as following:

At the top we find our two extremes of propositions; enabling and relieving. Just below that is the indication of who performs the progress-making activities. Then there is an indication of a typical resource mix, the non-functional progress supported and how our getting nourishment example fits.

enabling propositions

Helpers design enabling propositions to empower a Seeker, allowing them to undertake progress-making activities themselves.

enabling propositions: propositions that enable the progress seeker to perform the majority of the progress making activities

A Helper freezes their skills and knowledge of helping to make progress into an object (physical or digital). This object becomes the proposition. The Seeker then unfreezes those skills and knowledge through acts of resource integration at the time and place they attempt to progress.

Imagine a Seeker looking to entertain themselves by listening to music. A Helper will capture a band’s performance (skills & knowledge of playing) as a digital file and make it available on a streaming site. A Seeker will stream that performance in their favourite mobile app, at which point the bands performance is unfrozen.

This is the definition of goods in the Progress Economy. It extends beyond traditional physical goods to include physical resources which are goods where ownership is not transferred, as well as data and locations.

Key characteristics of enabling propositions:

• The Seeker drives the activity – the customer is actively involved in achieving their progress; they are not outsourcing the effort
• Appeals to Seekers who want control, self-actualisation, or enjoyment in the process
• Relies heavily on goods (operand resources) – typically goods-heavy, employee-light
• Higher Seeker involvement and risk – progress depends on the Seeker’s skills, time, and knowledge
• Need for greater co-ordination – often requires Seekers to co-ordinate several propositions themselves to achieve their progress sought
• Examples:
  • Cooking a meal at home using home grown ingredients (vs. dining out)
  • Home improvement DIY kits
  • Self-serve technology platforms
  • Gym memberships (vs. personal training services)

Relieving propositions

Helpers design relieving propositions to relieve a Seeker from performing progress-making activities.

relieving propositions: propositions where the progress helper performs the majority of the progress making activities

A Seeker generally integrates with an agent of the Helper and that agent performs the progress-making activities. Those agents are employees/AI and operant systems.

Key characteristics of relieving propositions:

• Minimises effort for the Seeker – the customer’s involvement is low; they are “relieved” of doing the work themselves
• Reduces Seeker risk – the Helper typically provides the expertise, systems, and resources needed to ensure reliable outcomes
• Relies heavily on employees, AI or systems (operant resources) – these propositions are often goods-free, leaning heavily on employees, processes, and technology to deliver outcomes
• Prioritises convenience, simplicity, and speed – Seekers choose relieving propositions when they want frictionless, low-effort progress
• One stop shops – a relieving proposition often covers a wider scope of progress-making activities of a progress journey (eg amazon covers sourcing, buying and shipping)
• Examples:
  • tube-feeding in a hospital (the ultimate relieving proposition)
  • Concierge services
  • Managed IT services
  • Full-service home cleaning

Relating to The classic goods-service continuum

The idea of a continuum of help is not new. Traditional business thinking has been shaped by goods-dominant logic, which draws a sharp distinction between goods and services.

This perspective gave rise to the classic goods-service continuum, popularised by Palmer and Cole in Services Marketing: Principles and practice. They recognised that many offerings sit between these two extremes, noting that tangible goods often come with supporting services, while major services frequently rely on supporting products.

However, this continuum has limited relevance in the Progress Economy.

In the Progress Economy, the debate between goods and services (plural) is removed. Goods are viewed as distribution mechanisms for service. If we attempted to reframe the goods-service continuum as a service-service continuum whilst maintaining the tangible-to-intangible range, it would add little strategic insight. It would simply reposition the old logic without truly advancing our understanding.

A more useful lens is provided by Vargo and Lusch in Why service?. They introduce the distinction between direct and indirect service provision. Services can be delivered directly (for example, by people, AI, or systems) or indirectly (where service is “frozen” within goods). This reframes the conversation away from the goods-service divide and towards a direct-indirect continuum of service provision.

Better still, Vargo and Lusch go further, referencing Normann’s influential work Reframing business: when the map changes the landscape. Norman introduces the critical distinction between enabling and relieving service. To quote Vargo and Lusch:

Norman’s distinction is essentially based on which party’s operant resources are most central to value creation. In relieving processes, the firm is using its operant resources to provide relatively direct service for the consumer and in enabling processes, the customer is primarily using relatively more of his or her operant resources to act upon resources provided by the firm

Vargo & Lush (2008) “Why service?”

Rather than framing propositions along a goods-service or direct-indirect continuum, the Progress Economy evolves this thinking to an enabling-relieving continuum. The critical question becomes: Whose operant resources are primarily used? In other words, who performs the majority of the progress-making activities: the Seeker or the Helper?

This shift in perspective is far more actionable for leaders. It directs attention to how propositions are constructed, how value is co-created (ie how progress is made), and ultimately, how businesses can best align their offerings with the real progress their Seekers want to make.

Editing below here

Implications of the continuum for progress propositions

When looking at enabling and relieving propositions we pulled out some implications of each. Let’s look a bit deeper.

Expectations on seeker

Expectations on seekers vary based on whether the proposition is relieving or enabling. Relieving propositions have lower expectations on seeker knowledge and skills, while enabling propositions demand a higher level of proficiency.

Even the least demanding proposition of either type requires the seeker to define their progress sought. It may seek regular feedback on progress reached during the attempt, with more engaged propositions possibly seeking feedback after completion.

Equitable exchange

Relieving propositions are well-suited for seekers not inclined, or able, to acquire the resources they lack. These seekers may feel they lack the time, skills, or knowledge to progress, and the helper relieves them of this resource deficiency. However, relieving propositions often come with a higher equitable exchange hurdle, reflecting the increased effort required by the helper. Additionally, they only temporarily alleviate the seeker’s lack of resources.

Requirements on knowledge and skills

Contrastingly, enabling propositions expect more from seekers in terms of skills and knowledge. Seekers engaging with enabling propositions need to understand how to use the propositions. They may additionally need to discern the order in which to apply them.

Take a simple example of hanging up a picture. A handyman relieves you the effort here. But doing it yourself requires knowledge of various tools needed especially how to hang items of particular weights on different types of walls.

While enabling propositions often outline detailed progress-making activities, it’s ultimately up to the seeker to follow through. Deviations from the proposed activities – instructions, recipes, manuals etc – likely lead to value co-destruction. Although occasionally this may result in innovative uses.

Composing Resource mixes

A relieving proposition, by definition, relies more heavily on the helper’s operant resources to execute progress-making activities. Consequently, their progress resource mixes is anticipated to be skewed towards operant resources, with employees and certain systems (such as Artificial Intelligence, web browsers, etc.) playing a central role. Though it may certainly include some operand resources.

Whereas the resource mix of an enabling proposition reflects that the seeker’s operant resources are driving the progress-making activities. Therefore it is likely to be heavier on operand types of resources – those that need acting upon for progress to be made. Here we’re thinking goods, locations, and some types of systems (typewriters, dumb call centre routers, etc).

Whereas an enabling proposition indicates the seeker’s operant resources drive the progress-making activities. This suggests the progress resource mix will emphasise operand resources – those that need to be acted upon for progress to occur. These include goods, locations, and certain systems (like typewriters, basic call center routers, etc.).

Offering physical resources – goods where access is only temporary – moves us slightly along the continuum, but can still be thought of as enabling so long the seeker drives the activities. Hiring a tool you use is enabling; using a train is generally not (unless for some reason you become the driver).

Ownership of resources

Often the seeker acquires ownership of the operant resources offered by the helper with the first engagement. Subsequently they can use any non-consumed resource again whenever and wherever they want. Once you have a hammer you can hammer whenever and whatever you want. Unfortunately, if its a consumable, say ingredients in our running example, then once used they are gone.

However, it’s worth noting that when a resource is not in use, it is not helping anyone progress (co-create value). So enabling propositions are often inefficient in resource usage. Leading to the innovation opportunity of how can they be made more efficient?

transfering risk

Relieving propositions support reaching a different range of non-functional progress. A key one is reducing risk. Since the helper drives the progress-making activities the risk of failing the attempt is on them (or so the seeker is likely to believe). They also support saving time, simplifying, reducing effort, often increasing quality and so on. But doesn’t reduce cost (equitable exchange) or help gain skills and knowledge.

Access to latest technology

Moreover, by using relieving propositions, seekers can gain access to the latest approaches and technologies. In a subscription service for tools, a seeker should expect technology refreshes in the offering.

Revealing a progress hurdle: continuum misalignment

The enabling-relieving continuum does more than describe how propositions are positioned. It also reveals one of 6 critical progress hurdles.

As Bettencourt, Vargo, and Lusch note in A Service Lens on Value Creation (2014):

…a company must decide where on a continuum of “enabling” to “relieving” service it will be because this impacts the service role of the customer.”

Bettencourt, Lusch, and Vargo. (2014) “A Service Lens on Value Creation”

The key insight in the Progress Economy is this: it’s not just propositions that sit on this continuum, Seekers do too. And importantly, a Seeker’s position isn’t fixed. It can shift from one progress attempt to another.

This dynamic introduces the concept of continuum misalignment Simply put, the distance between where a Seeker positions themselves on the continuum and where a proposition sits indicates the size of this hurdle.

The larger this distance, the greater the hurdle. For example, if a Seeker wants to be fully relieved of effort, but a proposition is fully enabling (requiring them to take on all the progress-making activities themselves), the hurdle is at its highest.

Of course, a hurdle is not a barrier. Seekers may still choose to engage if their phenomenological judgement of value (progress) outweighs their judgement of overcoming the hurdle. However, Helpers should actively seek to minimise this misalignment for their target Seekers, either by repositioning their propositions along the continuum or by more precisely targeting Seekers whose position naturally aligns with the proposition’s design.

This is where competitive advantage can emerge: by reducing progress hurdles through better alignment, organisations can remove friction, accelerate adoption, and increase the likelihood of sustained engagement.

Relating to innovation and sales

The great thing about the continuum is it provides an excellent framework for innovation, allowing progress helpers to explore new positions, adapt their service mix, understand shifting seeker positions, and identify supplementary propositions. This dynamic approach enables progress helpers to continually refine and enhance their offerings to better meet the evolving needs of progress seekers.

Closing misalignments

Exploring New Positions

By navigating along the continuum, progress helpers can explore new positions that cater to the evolving needs and preferences of progress seekers.

Why not explore the impacts of moving towards a relieving service – applying AI or servitisation/platform asa service? Or moving the other way to attract seekers looking to learn new skills.

These fresh positions often lead to innovative propositions that better align with the changing landscape of progress.

Adapting the resource Mix

The ability to update the resource mix is a key feature of the continuum. Progress helpers can assess and modify the mix of resources and activities offered to align more closely with the specific requirements of progress seekers.

This adaptability ensures that propositions remain relevant and effective in achieving progress.

Hunting unserved Seekers

Identifying Supplementary Propositions

Helpers can introduce supplementary propositions that help narrow the misalignment hurdle. Whether acting as the incumbent helper or a challenger/complementer, they can refine their offerings to reduce the gap between their propositions and progress seekers’ needs.

As an illustrative example of the last point, consider the “cooking yourself” proposition. If a seeker lacks cooking skills and knowledge, the progress helper can enhance the service mix by including resources such as cookbooks, online instructional videos, physical or online cook-along sessions, and on-demand assistance. This comprehensive approach not only addresses the seeker’s skill gap but also offers a more holistic solution for achieving progress.

There’s a growing preference to being relieved

Seekers are increasingly prefering relieving propositions. This has been called the shift to the service economy. The main reasons for this can be summarised as follows:

Within these reasons we can distill the four points above: non-functional, context, lack of resource and progress hurdles.

Why this matters

Understanding whether a Seeker wants to be relieved or enabled—and why—isn’t just a design question. It’s a strategic imperative:

• It affects product-market fit.
• It influences resource allocation.
• It shapes operating models and revenue streams.
• It drives how you differentiate in increasingly crowded markets.

In the Progress Economy, winning propositions are not just those that offer the right solution—but those that align with the Seeker’s preferred mode of making progress at that moment.