Progress propositions aren’t just offers – they’re carefully crafted bundles of supplementary resources you’ve designed to help Seekers make progress. Savvy executives know this, and they unlock sales, innovation, and growth by repeatedly and purposefully aligning their proposed resource mix and progress-making activities with ever evolving Seeker needs. Seekers don’t stand still – neither should your proposition.

Progress Propositions

Let’s explore the why, what, and where of progress propositions to provide the necessary context before diving into their key components.

Why are there progress propositions?

In the progress economy, we see Seekers as individuals or organisations striving to make progress by executing a series of progress-making activities. Each activity involves integrating resources they have access to (where resources are carriers of capability).

When a Seeker lacks the resources to make progress – for example tools, skills, knowledge (including knowledge of the progress-making activities themselves), etc – they encounter the lack of resource progress hurdle. Without overcoming this hurdle, the Seeker will fail to achieve their progress sought, meaning maximum value for them will not emerge.

A Seeker may struggle on themselves, but this is where Progress Helpers come in. Helpers offer supplementary resources (progress propositions) with the aim of enabling Seekers to make progress.

What drives helpers to offer propositions?

At their core, Helpers are Seekers too. They pursue their own progress that they likely cannot achieve alone because they lack the necessary resources. This progress may be something they desire directly, or it may be due to them assembling progress from other Helpers – whether companies, departments, employees, or partners – in order to craft and offer their proposition to you.

That motivates them to engage in service exchange. It’s a “I help you and you help me” dynamic. However, this is not a barter economy – which Martin tells us didn’t and don’t really exist in Money, the unauthorised biography – and exchanges are rarely direct. Service-dominant logic, one of our foundations, tells us:

Indirect exchange masks the fundamental basis of exchange

#2

In most cases, exchanges are indirect and asynchronous, creating a need for mechanisms that can balance differences in magnitude, timing, and parties involved.

That mechanism is service credits, with cash being a widely adopted and highly effective implementation.

Service credits enable transitive indirect exchanges: “I help you, you give me service credits, I use those credits not with you, but with another Helper.” They also support indirect exchange within organisations and across ecosystems, making it possible to coordinate complex networks of progress propositions even when exchanges don’t happen in a simple, linear fashion.

Service credits are a signal of effort involved in providing a service. They also signal how much effort the Helper requires from a Seeker in return for giving access to their resources. We’d all like exchanges to be equitable, ie we are not undercharging or overpaying. Here we find the inequitable exchange progress hurdle. But we also find business model innovation – exchanges may be one-off, or a series (subscription) or subsidised (eg advertisement based); or even “funded” by another party (frictionless payments, bank loans…).

What are progress propositions?

As mentioned, propositions are offerings of supplementary resources to a Seeker with the aim of helping them make progress. Specifically, the supplementary resources are provided as two bundles:

1. proposed series of progress-making activities – better known as instructions, manuals, recipes, processes, etc
2. progress resource mix – proposition specific mix of six types of resources

When engaging a proposition, the progress attempt becomes a dual endeavour. The responsibility for driving the progress-making activities may rest primarily with the Seeker, the Helper, or both.

Some propositions, known as enabling propositions, place the responsibility for progress-making fully on the Seeker. They must integrate their own and the supplementary resources to make progress.

Other propositions, known as relieving propositions, shift this responsibility to the Helper, who performs all progress-making activities and integrates their own resources with those of the Seeker.

Most propositions exist somewhere along a spectrum – the progress proposition continuum – ranging from fully enabling to fully relieving.

Propositions have no inherent value. As Grönroos writes:

It is of course only logical to assume that the value really emerges for customers when goods and services do something for them. Before this happens, only potential value exists

Grönroos (2004) “Adopting a service logic for marketing”

Aligning needs and offers?

Crucially, it is the Seeker who drives the preference for enabling or relieving propositions. As Helpers, we can aim to understand these preferences and shape propositions to match. When there is a mismatch between what a Seeker desires and what a Helper offers, the height of the continuum misalignment progress hurdle increases. Minimising this misalignment is a key factor in making a proposition attractive.

The dual endeavour of progress-making becomes a journey from the proposition’s progress origin to the proposition’s progress offered.

However, these may not perfectly align with the Seeker’s own starting point or their progress soight, unless by happy coincidence or in the case of very simple progress. Helpers may offer the ability to customise a proposition’s end points. But this typically comes at an increased equitable exchange (in simple terms: cost).

This is why Helpers rarely offer fully customisable propositions. Doing so would elevate the equitable exchange hurdle – one of the 5 additional progress hurdles that propositions introduce – to a level most Seekers would find unacceptable. Instead, Helpers usually define the starting and ending states of their offering (we would recommend by using progress as a segmentation approach). Seeker need to judge whether those points are sufficiently useful to justify engagement.

The sales discussion is a powerful moment to align progress aspirations and offering. Innovation can take place here as part of the search for alignment. Similarly, dialog during the use of a proposition can surface further innovation and/or innovation needs

Relation to service (singular)

We can view the execution of a progress proposition as a service (singular), aligning closely with Vargo and Lusch’s foundational definition:

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”

Progress propositions can be direct or indirect service. Direct service involves immediate application of competences by the Helper, while indirect service refers to competences that are frozen and distributed—typically in the form of goods—and then unfrozen by the Seeker through acts of resource integration.

We can further draw on Grönroos’ definition of service to reinforce why a progress proposition is inherently made up of a series of progress-making activities and a progress resource mix.

Grönroos describes service as consisting of two key elements:

• A set of resources provided by the service provider, which we define in detail as the progress resource mix.
• A series of provider activities, which maps directly to our progress-making activities.

We expand Grönroos’ view of the provider’s resource elements to include data and locations as possible elements in the resource mix.

Where do propositions come from?

Fundamentally, new propositions emerge when an actor finds ways to either make progress better or make better progress. This appears as improvements in the progress-making activities, changes to the progress resource mix, or both.

Sometimes these improvements are discovered accidentally. Other times, they surface during the aligning phase of sales conversations. But more often, they are the deliberate outcome of focused research, development, and innovation activities.

It should be noted that a key reason many innovation initiatives fail is their lack of disciplined focus on what will actually be useful to Seekers. The progress economy solves for this by offering a laser focus on progress as the anchor for sales, innovation and relevance.

Since propositions are themselves resources, the ways we discover them align with the same mechanisms by which Seekers and Helpers find other valuable resources:

• observation/imitation: by observing others making progress attempts (from own and other market/industires)
• finding in environment:
• experience: hands-on involvement in progress attempts
• experimentation/innovation: using resources available to them, or combining them, in new ways; or creating new resources
• education and training: taking formal education and training programs to acquire specific capabilities (eg skills and knowledge from a teacher, or strength from weight training)
• acquiring/collaborating with: other helpers
• from other exchanges they are involved in

Putting propositions in context

Here’s how progress propositions fit into the context of the progress economy. They build upon progress attempts context, adding the progress resource mix, the proposed progress-making activities, as well as introducing 5 additional progress hurdles.

Let’s start unpacking some of this new terminology, starting with the proposition’s progress origin.

Progress offered

The obvious focal point of any proposition is its progress offered – the specific progress state a Helper offers to help a Seeker reach.

progress offered: The progress state a progress proposition offers to help progress seekers reach

Like all progress states, it comprises three elements: functional, non-functional and contextual.

Proposition success, for a Helper, hinges on establishing a progress offered that attracts sufficient number of, or size of, service exchanges to make the proposition viable. This is a strategic choice. It demands a shift away from traditional product or demographic segmentation and toward segmenting Seekers by progress sought. Smart innovators design propositions that align to these progress-based segments, creating offers that matter to the right audiences.

Why alignment matters

Here’s how 3 progress offered states look if plotted on our progress diagram, their relation to a Seeker’s progress sought, and the impact on value as perceived by the Seeker.

When the progress offered aligns precisely with the Seeker’s progress sought, we assume maximum potential value. But perfect alignment is rare. Often, propositions offer progress states that either:

• Fall short of the Seeker’s goal
• Extend beyond what the Seeker originally intended

Offering less progress than sought obviously obviously means progress (potential value) is left on the table.

Whereas offering more progress than the Seeker seeks can sometimes be an unexpected advantage, opening up additional progress (value). But it may also be irrelevant or increase progress hurdles the Seeker isn’t willing to overcome. Christensen’s disruptive innovation (innovator’s dilemma) plays out here – Seekers may trade down to simpler, lower cost, new technology propositions that meet their needs “well enough”.

An alternative way of looking at this interface between progress offered and progress sought is through the progress diamond. Here we can see that functional, non-functional and contextual progress offered can drift from that sought,

How Seekers Judge Propositions

Before a Seeker engages a proposition, they make three critical progress comparisons:

1. Progress offered vs. progress sought: Will this proposition get me close enough to my goal?
2. Progress potential vs. progress offered: How close do I believe I can realistically get using this proposition?
3. Progress hurdles vs. Seeker’s hurdle profile: Are the hurdles low enough for me in this attempt?

As Seekers progress, they continuously reassess whether to continue based on their evolving experience of progress achieved vs. expected progress and recompiling the above.

It is these comparisons that feed into the concept of value in the progress economy. The proposition the Seeker scores highest on the above, ie helps a them make the best progress, will be perceived as most valuable by the Seeker.

Let’s note a couple of things. First, a proposition has no value itself, only the potential to help progress.

actors cannot deliver value but can participate in the creation and offering of value propositions

#7

Second, whilst we see the Seeker as predominantly judging value (progress comparisons) we differ from our service-dominant logic foundation that finds them exclusively doing so. In certain propositions, Helpers actively evaluate whether a Seeker is likely to succeed before granting access to their supplementary resources. This is particularly relevant when the Helper’s resources are scarce, the risk of failure is high, or an element of non-functional progress is exclusivity.

Customising as a strategic action

Helpers can offer customisation of progress offered as part of their proposition. This helps with the alignment challenge mentioned above. But, the greater the customisation, the higher the exchange required from the Seeker. Finding this balance is where competitive advantage lies.

For example, retailing suits can be segmented into off-the-peg and bespoke tailoring. Both appealing to different sets of non-functional progress. Bespoke tailoring also offering maximum alignment but at a higher equitable exchange. An off-the-peg retailer could add an optional offering to customise arm and leg length. The alignment now becomes a little closer for a little increase in equitable exchange.

Progress origin

Often not understood or completely missed – although the progress economy shines the light on – is the gap between the seeker’s and proposition’s progress origins – where the progress attempt starts from. We have two definitions:

progress origin (seeker): the attempt specific progress state from which a progress seeker begins a progress attempt.

progress origin (proposition): the starting state a progress proposition assumes it will help a progress attempt from.

When these origins misalign, even the best propositions can fall short.

Why Progress Origin Misalignment Matters

Here’s the implication of those two definitions visually.

Your proposition’s origin could be to the right of the Seeker’s. Imagine a beginner aiming to learn Mandarin Chinese, but the only available proposition assumes they are already at an intermediate level. The Seeker lack of resource has not been sufficiently reduced by the proposition. The effect is to reduce the Seeker’s progress potential vs progress offered progress comparison

On the flip side, a proposition may assume the Seeker is starting from further back than they actually are. This creates friction:

• It wastes the Seeker’s time with unnecessary steps.
• It may inflate the equitable exchange (the Seeker is asked to exchange effort for resources or activities they don’t need).
• If progress-making activities are made mandatory rather than optional, frustration quickly compounds.

Consider a Seeker who already speaks a tonal language but wants to learn Mandarin. If the only course available forces them to spend six weeks on tonal basics, they will quickly disengage.

Handling progress origins strategically

Progress origin is not just a customer experience detail, it’s a segmentation opportunity and a design imperative.

You must:

• Segment your propositions by progress origin, just as you would by progress sought.
• Ensure your proposition’s starting assumptions match the Seeker’s real starting point.

This is already common in industries like education – Mandarin courses are often structured around beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels, typically aligned to the HSK syllabus, which serves as a proxy for progress measurement.

The key question to ask: are you over-offering or under-offering relative to where your customers really are?

Over-offering increases cost and friction. Under-offering leaves unmet needs and risks abandonment. Alignment is what makes your proposition attractive and reduces drop-off. Just as with progress offered, consider offering some customisation of segments

Editing below here

Progress-making activities

role of the seeker

Proposed series of activities. Can be missing for the Seeker. Not necessarily mandatory. Can be encoded into a system, that makes them mandatory. Relieving propositions can hide the activities internally giving commercial protection. Enabling propositions hide skills and knowledge within the frozen goods, but need to give proposed progress-making activities to the Seeker, ie how to use the goods.

The helper’s proposed progress-making activities constitute another essential resource bundle in a proposition.

This aligns with the concept seen in a progress attempt, where a series of progress-making activities is undertaken; this time to achieve the progress offered, judged by the seeker as sufficiently close to their progress sought. Each progress-making activity is an act of resource integration.

In contrast to progress attempts, progress propositions introduce key distinctions:

• this series of activities is now proposed by the progress helper
• activities are performed by some combination of the seeker and helper
• resource integrations are some combination of seeker resources and supplementary resources in the proposition’s progress resource mix.

Here’s how the difference between a progress attempt with and without a proposition looks like.

In our daily lives we encounter these proposed activities under more familiar names, such as:

• instructions
• operating manuals
• recipes
• processes
• contract terms etc

These proposed activities are often not mandatory for the seeker to follow. Seekers can opt to use their own devised activities. When was the last time you unboxed a new electrical device and read the manual before using? Although a helper may embed the activities within a system or outline them in a specific contractual manner to enforce their usage.

Just like with progress attempts, this series of progress-making activities is an operant resource; as such, service-dominant logic tells us they are a source of strategic benefit. The quality of the proposed activities directly influences progress and, consequently, the emergence of value.

Proposition misuse: Value destruction

Deviating from the suggested steps can be viewed as a misuse of resource, or lead to misusing other resources. That potentially leads to value co-destruction.

Progress resource mix

6 types of resources that a Seeker integrates with – not all are required, it is specific to proposition.

• Employees (operant): humans, or AI, that Seeker interacts with
• Systems (operant or operand)
• Data (operand)
• Goods – both physical and digital (operand)
• Physical resources – goods where ownership is temporarily transferred (operand)
• Locations (operand): specialised places where progress is made, eg hospitals, platforms, web sites

Not every resource type needs to be included in a particular mix; a single item like a nail can serve as a straightforward, one-item resource mix.

Here’s a couple of example mixes, in a useful way to visualise them:

The composition of the resource mix often sheds light on the nature of the proposition, indicating whether it leans toward enabling or relieving on the proposition continuum.

Altering the mix

Modifying the resource mix is feasible because resources carry capabilities, making them largely interchangeable, though not necessarily in a one-to-one ratio.

For instance, substituting an employee with a goods – such as a tradesman with a hammer – is a toy example of this interchangeability. Goods have the ability to freeze knowledge and skills, enabling their distribution, and are unfrozen during acts of resource integration.

This substitution not only shifts the proposition’s position on the continuum, now leaning towards enabling rather than relieving, but it also affects the supported non-functional requirements. Additionally, it places specific resource demands on the seeker, requiring knowledge, skills, and time, as illustrated in this example.

Introducing additional Progress Hurdles

Whilst the intention of propositions is to address the lack of resource progress hurdle, they may not do so fully. And they may even create a new, different, lack of resource hurdle.

Say, for example, to meet a functional progress of travelling between cities, we offer fly yourself mini aircraft. We might offer a way of attempting progress. But we require the seeker to have skills and knowledge of flying the aircraft – likely a resource they lack.

The mere presence of a progress proposition brings about five additional hurdles that must be minimised.

We have to ensure the seeker feels they can use the proposition. For example it is simple and they can trial it. If you’ve studied innovation then this is Rodgers’ adoptability. And we need to minimise seekers deciding to resist the proposition. Think back to the resistance to nuclear power stations of the past.

Yet another challenge emerges based on the position of the proposition along the continuum we’ve previously discussed. It turns out seekers also position themselves on the continuum when making a progress attempt. They may be looking for non-functional progress that is supported by a relieving proposition. If you’re offering only an enabling proposition, then you are far from what they are seeking.

The seeker’s confidence in your proposition and in you as a helper becomes important. Lower confidence means a higher barrier.

Lastly the seeker needs to feel they exchange of service they are about to partake in with you is equitable. Given most exchanges are indirect, the question the seeker is asking themselves is this: does the effort I need to give (or have given) in providing service elsewhere justify the effort I’m going to get from you.

Lastly, the seeker needs to feel that the exchange of service they are entering with you is equitable. Are they getting enough effort from you for the effort they are giving in return. Since most exchanges are indirect, seekers question is really are you asking for too many service credits for your help.

updating the progress journey decisions process

When engaging a proposition the seeker follows a slightly updated decision process. Now they also need to judge if the progress offered aligns closely enough with their individual progress sought.

We call this updated approach the proposition engagement process. Which you can compare to the earlier progress decision process below.

Now the start and continuation decisions include phenomenological decisions by the seeker on

resource integrations

Service-dominant logic’s 9th foundational premise tells us that all actors are resource integrators:

All social and economic actors are resource integrators

#9

And this is exactly what we see In the progress economy. Both our main actors, seekers and helpers, integrate resources in order to make progress. For example:

• a patient (seeker operant resource) providing background information to a doctor (helper operant resource)
• a teacher (helper operant resource) educating a student (seeker operant resource)
• a customer (seeker operant resource) driving a hire car (helper operand resource)
• a technician (helper operand resource) repairing an object (seeker operand resource)

resource integration – a model

We can also build a model for how resource integration works. Luckily Gallouj & Weinstein (1997) provide such a model to which we can make some very simple tweaks. Below you can see this.

The intention being the final characteristics (far right) are what the seeker experiences. We can interpret those as the aspects of progress sought (or offered) elements. The functional, non-functional and contextual elements. They are achieved through various resource integrations between the items in the rest of the diagram.

The technical characteristics are the operant resources that when acted upon lead to aspects of progress. These are the goods, physical resources, data, locations, processes, systems (operant), and the series of progress- making activities.

On the left we find the skills and competences of the seeker and any helper employees and systems acting as operand resources.

Gallouj & Weinstein identify interesting aspects. Particularly that beneficial characteristics in helper employees are often captured as technical characteristics to ensure they are shared amongst other employees.

Relating to innovation

Payne tells us the following about helper competitiveness:

If a supplier wants to improve its competitiveness, it has to develop its capacity to either add to the customer’s total pool of resources in terms of competence and capabilities (relevant to the customer’s mission and values), or to influence the customer’s process in such a way that the customer is able to utilize available resources more efficiently and effectively

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

Which touches the two resource bundles of a progress proposition:

• progress resource mix – “add to the customer’s total pool of resources in terms of competence and capabilities (relevant to the customer’s mission and values)”
• proposed progress-making activities – “influence the customer’s process in such a way that the customer is able to utilize available resources more efficiently and effectively”

Innovation should focus on creating new, or altering existing, progress resource mix and progress-making activities so that a proposition offers some combination of:

• increasing a seeker’s progress potential (getting them closer to their progress sought)
• improving how to make existing progress better
• reducing one or more of the progress hurdles

By segmenting they look at both functional and non-functional aspects. That feeds directly into Porter’s Generic Competitive Strategies (differentiation vs cost). That is to say, helpers look at mainstream progress and decide which components can be decreased (cost) and which can be increased (differentiation). Supermarket self checkouts are a good example of getting this wrong.

Expanding on that, a helper can also add or remove progress components to the mainstream view. Now we’re talking about the main tool in Kim and Mauborgne Blue Ocean Strategy, aiming to identify markets that are uncontested.