CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
SciVerse ScienceDirect
Procedía - Social and Behavioral Sciences 73 (2013) 616 - 624
The 2nd International Conference on Integrated Information
Business opportunity identification through dynamic information management in collaborative business ventures
Konstadinos Kutsikos*, Gerasimos Kontos
Business School, University of the Aegean, Michalio Hall, Michalon Road, Chios, GR-82100, Greece
Abstract
Globalization, technological change and an increasing demand for specialization has led to new economic activities, new business models and new value propositions. As enterprises struggle to react to these changes, they realize that they need to increase their engagement in new venture development. This, in turn, entails the development of collaboration capabilities with business partners, leading to the creation of collaboration networks for exploiting new opportunities and engaging in value innovation. Hence, the capability to seamlessly interoperate and co-create with other enterprises is increasingly becoming a key business asset for promoting entrepreneurship within an ecosystem of business entities. The raison d' etre for such an ecosystem is the exchange and use of resources among partners through service interfaces, in order to collectively assess and exploit a business opportunity. In this context, a number of challenges emerge: a) how can participants control dissemination of their resources? b) how can they design services for contributing controlled resources to the collaborative venture? c) how can they assess the potential value created in such a network, before fully engaging? In order to address these challenges, we developed and present in this paper a service classification framework for value co-creation activities. The major contribution of this framework is that it can help a service provider to: a) understand its options when engaging in a collaborative relationship for exploiting new business opportunities; b) assess the infrastructure gaps (organizational, business, technical) between what an option requires and what the provider already has; c) identify a service development roadmap based on a structure (service profile) that encompasses key requirements and prerequisites for successful provision.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The 2nd International (Conference on Integrated Information Keywords : value co-creation; service science; information management
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-22710-35148; fax: +30-22710-35099. E-mail address: kutsikos@aegean.gr
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The 2nd International Conference on Integrated Information doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.02.098
1. Introduction
Today's businesses are facing an ever more complex environment characterized by oversupply and variety of information flows that constantly evolve [1]. Products/services are becoming more diverse and adaptable, customers require individualized solutions and personalized customizations, while product and service lifecycles are shortening [2].
The resulting challenge on businesses and business executives is how to best exploit information flows in such complex environments, extract valuable business opportunities and turn them into viable business ventures. Numerous studies have addressed relevant strategic problematic by using computational methods and techniques as their core research method [3 - 17]. This is a challenge that firms increasingly realize that they cannot address independently. Hence, they turn to partner organizations for better managing and exploiting information - by collaboratively identifying, evaluating and creating new ventures and establishing significant competitive advantages [1,2]. Going forward, business strategies will most probably be focused on business ecosystems competition, rather than firm-driven competition.
Based on these observations, the main premise of this paper is that businesses will likely benefit by enriching their business opportunities portfolios with value co-creation ideas, i.e. working together with other partners to exploit business opportunities. The term 'value co-creation' generally refers to the business value that is generated by two or more entities that collaborate in product/service development. We adopt the Service Science viewpoint [18, 19], whereby: a) an enterprise is a service system, i.e. a dynamic configuration of people, technologies, resources and value propositions (service offerings), connected to other service systems through shared information flows [19]; b) value co-creation is the mutual and reciprocal interaction of service systems under the concept of service-for-service exchange; and it is through these interactions that service systems exchange and use resources, as well as specialized competences, that create value for themselves and others [20].
In this paper, we consider information flows as streams of potential value co-creation opportunities and focus on the evaluation of such opportunities. To that extent, we present a framework that is comprised of nine value co-creation profiles that codify key aspects of collaborative business opportunities (required resources, resource usage rights). Each profile provides different decision-making guidelines to business executives, regarding the effort required to jointly undertake a business opportunity.
Our research is positioned within the realm of Service Science, in order to understand how enterprises interact and evolve to co-create value. The multidisciplinary nature of Service Science enabled the elaboration and exploitation of fundamental characteristics of strategic management literature, namely Resource Based Theory (RBT) and Property Rights Theory (PRT), for incorporating the management implications of strategic partnerships. To that extent, the significance of this work is two-fold. First, it provides a practical framework for assisting managers to meticulously unfold management and/or organizational challenges in the early phases of the formation of a business value network. Second, it represents a first version of a design artifact that will be applied in a real-world context to evaluate its utility in further research.
The above points are reflected in the following sections. First, we briefly present an overview of service value networks, before elaborating on the underlying concepts of service science and value co-creation in order to position our research. Second, the main perspectives of Resource-Based Theory and Property-Rights Theory of the firm are presented. We then describe the development path of our research, highlight key findings and present our framework for helping businesses collaborate with other entities for exploiting new business opportunities. In closing, we identify further research directions and briefly describe our current state of work.
2. Literature Review
Globalization, technological change and an increasing demand for specialization raised the importance of a firm's need to collaborate with various partners for exploiting business opportunities [21, 22]. The result is a
clustering of entities with different capabilities and competencies, thus leading to the emergence of collaborative organizational structures known with multiple terms in current literature: business value networks [23], business webs [24], internet of services [25], or web service ecosystems [26].
2.1. Service Science — Value Co-Creation
The locus of value creation within the aforementioned collaborative networks has been the focal point of an emerging discipline termed Service Science [18]. From the Service Science viewpoint, these networks are comprised of dynamic service entities termed service systems, which work together to achieve mutual benefit (value co-creation). Researchers in this field aim to apply the characteristics of service-orientation from the information systems discipline to the business domain and vice-versa in order to explain how service systems (i.e. enterprises) interact and evolve to co-create value [23, 27].
[19] further elaborate on the notion of service systems, by abstracting them as dynamic configurations of people, technology, resources and value propositions, connected to other service systems through service offerings. Hence, all service systems are resource integrators that integrate and transform internal and market-acquired resources into service offerings for exploiting a potential business opportunity [28].
Within this logic, the ability of a service system to exploit such an opportunity and sustain its competitive advantage does not only arise from its own, distinctive resources but also from its capability to: a) sense new business opportunities; b) respond to these opportunities by combining own with acquired ones for developing unique service offerings [29, 30, 31]. Other scholars build on this conceptualization, and argue that the capability for value co-creation is a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which a service system systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness [32].
2.2. Resource-Based Theory (RBT)
The role of resources in strategic management is well described by the Resource-Based Theory (RBT). Its goal is to explain a firm's ability to stay ahead of competitors in turbulent and uncertain environments by looking at unique configurations of resources inside and outside of the firm [33].
In this context, resources are often defined as "anything which could be thought of as a strength or ability of a given firm" [34], resulting in an umbrella term covering both assets and capabilities. In this notion, assets are anything tangible or intangible that can be used by an organization. Capabilities on the other hand, refer to the ability of an organization to perform a coordinated set of tasks for exploiting resource configurations.
RBT and Service Science share key concepts [35, 28], relevant to value co-creation. Indeed, they share a similar interest in the strategic value of a firm's skills, knowledge, resources as well as in the capabilities required for combining and transforming these assets into meaningful value propositions [34, 28]. Furthermore, they both claim the capability of a firm to exploit a business opportunity does not only arise from its distinctiveness in resources. It also involves the harnessing of the firm's specialized knowledge and skills in terms of appraisal and mobilization of these resources for developing "configuration fits" which are difficult to imitate. Thus, a firm that deploys such an ability has the potential to develop unique offerings, as well as to enter into collaborative ventures for acquiring complementary or idiosyncratic resources that further sustain its advantage [28].
2.3. Property-Rights Theory (PRT)
Property-Rights Theory is concerned with the costs and ownership of assets (i.e. resources) and the efficient allocation of property rights within a network of collaborative enterprises. PRT was developed for the analysis of economic issues arising from the shared use of assets, as well as to analyze factors and conditions for optimal own-versus-rent decisions for assets. A number of key issues then arise: (1) how does each actor that participates
in such exchanges get access to the other parties' resources? (2) what are the "rules of the game" that lead to ongoing resource integration during exploitation of business opportunities? [36].
PRT aims to address these questions by conceptualizing each value exchange between collaborative enterprises either as the "creation" or the "transfer" of usage rights. Thus, it aims to understand how the reallocation of ownership and rights of shared usage of resources enables value co-creation and defines the boundaries and the structure of the value co-creation network [37]. Resource owners have the authority to grant or restrict access to the use of their resources and thus participate in any joint benefits. Therefore, successful value co-creation may significantly depend on the property rights arrangements that characterize a value exchange. The resulting overall structure of the value co-creation network may play a key role in successfully implementing a value proposition [36].
Overall, there are four types of rights that asset owners can delegate: a) transfer the ownership of the resource and all residual rights (creation of usage rights); b) transfer only the usage of the resource; c) transfer the usage of the resource and enable change and modification; and d) transfer the right to obtain income from the usage of the resource.
From a Service Science perspective, full concentration of rights refers to market-like transactions, while transfer or rights represent reciprocal value co-creation activities - collaborative partners enjoy the usage and/or consumption of the resources controlled by specific rights, and owners of the resources enjoy the benefits and/or losses of assigning usage rights either to the resource itself or specific features of the resource [36].
3. A Conceptual Model for Business Opportunity Assessment
Based on the research pillars described in the previous section, we aim to develop a practical framework and a methodology for helping business leaders assess their readiness for participating in networked organizational structures and select the right starting point for exploiting a business opportunity through value co-creation activities.
Our approach in addressing this challenge is to explore value co-creation from the point of view of a service system that provides its resources to other service systems through service provision ('service provider'), with the goal to jointly exploit business opportunities. It is important to reiterate that such resources may have been developed through integration of resources acquired from other service systems. Hence, a service provider is a node in a recursive structure - a chain/network of resource providers, interlinked with service offerings. In this case, a service provider may be constrained by its 'linked' partners (internal nodes) on how resources can be used, thus affecting the development and provision of its services.
Relevant research questions then emerge: a) how can service providers control dissemination and use of their resources in a collaborative environment? b) how can they design services for contributing controlled resources in a network that aims to exploit new business opportunities? c) how can they assess the potential value created in such a network, before fully engaging?
In order to address these questions, we define value co-creation as a function of two parameters, directly linked to the point of view of service providers: offered resource type, and offered resourced constraints.
Offered Resource Type captures the 'richness' of the value co-creation process and is related to fundamental characteristics of RBT. We define three such types: a) Core Resources, which refer to the primitive building blocks required from a service provider in order to offer a single service offering to its value network. Such building blocks usually exist within the portfolio of every service provider and constitute it's raison d'être. Limited service composition can be expected whilst ad-hoc support may be provided from other service systems (i.e. collaborative partners). The service that a service provider uses to release a core resource(s) is usually known as "atomic service". b) Combined Resources, which refer to the composition of two or more resources, with low degree of functional dependency. A service that instantiates combined resources is known as "bundle service" and aims to enhance the individual resources' market value; c) Dependent Resources are similar to Combined Resources, but with functional dependency among combined resources. A service that instantiates dependent
resources is known as "composite service" and aims to enhance the market value of the composition, rather than the marketability of individual resources.
Offered Resource Constraints capture the limitations that a collaborative partner imposes on the resources that it offers. These constraints may lead to trade-off decisions by the service provider. For example, it may have to decide between the cost and risk of coordination and dependence on external resources versus the cost and burden of possessing the ownership of these resources. We define three types of constraints: a) Full Concentration refers to release of full ownership of a resource and of all residual rights; b) The Right to Use/Benefit, which allows renting out the usage of a resource 'as is' and obtain benefit from its usage; and c) The Right to Use/Change/Benefit, which assigns the right to rent the usage and the constrained modification of a resource and obtain benefit from these rights. Since service offerings usually result from combining resources, the property rights structure of a certain service offering at a certain point in time is the recursive development of: a) a property rights structure assigned by the resource owner/custodian; and b) all value exchanges that have been conducted up to that point for the formation of the service offering.
The result of combining different Offered Resource Types and Offered Resource Constraints leads to the development of a 3-level structure (see Figure 1).
At the bottom level, the aforementioned combinations can be described as information objects (Resource Information Objects; RIO), which define the options that a service provider has for releasing and disseminating its resources in a business value network (value co-creation). Managing these information objects for business benefit takes place in the middle level. RIOs are tagged with management attributes that broadly define the infrastructure elements (organizational, business, technological) that a service provider must have in place in order to select a certain option (i.e. a RIO). Finally, at the top level, assessing the business benefit that can be realized is a matter of instantiating RIO-M attributes - by allocating them specific values, based on a service provider's specific circumstances (e.g. industry sector), generic characteristics and business needs, regarding value co-creation and exploitation of a business opportunity.
In such a context, this 3-level structure may help a service provider map out key elements for designing a service that allows access to a resource(s). Hence, we call this structure a Service Profile. It corresponds to a value co-creation opportunity and represents a structured way to provide a resource when engaging in collaborative relationships.
Based on the above discussion, we developed a service classification framework, which depicts nine Service Profiles that correspond to different combinations of resource types and usage rights (see Figure 2).
Fig 1. Service Profile: a 3-tier structure
Fig. 2. Our service classification framework
The major contribution of this framework is that it can help a service provider to: a) understand its options when engaging in a collaborative relationship for exploiting new business opportunities; b) assess the infrastructure gaps (organizational, business, technical) between what an option requires and what the provider already has; c) identify a service development roadmap based on a structure (service profile) that encompasses key requirements and prerequisites for successful provision. The expected benefit of using this framework is that a service provider will be able to define different scenarios for assessing the value that it can contribute and receive in a value co-creation engagement, as well as negotiate and control resource usage in a business value network.
3.1. RIO-M attributes
A key component of a service profile is Resource Information Object-Management (RIO-M) attributes. These are essentially tags that define the prerequisites of a service design process that is initiated based on a service profile. These prerequisites may cover any aspect of a firm's infrastructure that is needed in a value co-creation engagement and may refer to organizational, strategic or IT aspects of a firm.
Hence, RIO-M attributes can be of two types: generic (related to fundamental business aspects), or specific (related to particularities of an industry sector). In the following paragraphs, we describe a subset of RIO-M attributes, namely generic organizational RIO-M attributes.
We have currently defined two such attributes: partners management, and performance management.
Partners Management refers to the alignment of needs and expectations of value co-creators. Formal policies to educate partners for value co-creation are embedded in this attribute, since partners' understanding/knowledge of the service provider resources affect the capability of the latter to provide the service offering. Additionally, access rights to specialized resources, competences and co-created assets are also part of this attribute. Semiformal policies for supporting the cultivation of a mutually beneficial, trustful and tight-commitment working environment are important. Customer Relationship Management and Supplier Relationship Management practices are embedded in this attribute.
Performance Management takes care of the analytical side of the service offering, where all relevant qualitative and quantitative data are consolidated, evaluated and disseminated to service co-creators for improving their performance. Notably, end beneficiaries usage and acceptance rates are also analysed thus enabling a holistic conceptualization of the performance rate and the quality level of the value network.
These attributes are instantiated with different default values for each of the nine service profiles:
Partners Management
e Subcontracting relationship - a relationship characterised by limited use of specialized policies, rules and processes for aligning partners' expectations. As a result, loose ties of commitment and trust can be expected between partners. Additionally, usage of the required formal policies and governance structures is expected
e Collaborative relationship - a relationship characterised by specialized policies for ensuring tight commitment and the iterative alignment of collaborative partners' expectations and needs based on the resources they provide. As a result, shared access to specialized resources, competences, know-how, proprietary IT infrastructure and co-created assets can be expected. The service provider may set up a specialized business unit for managing service co-creators, especially if the partners are geographically distributed which results in the need for culture and norms alignment. This business unit may also undertake the role of developing formal policies for educating the partners for properly using their resources as the skills and competences that partners employ for using their resources influence the provider's ability for mobilizing these and his own resources into service offerings. Additionally, a strict governance structure is required for eliminating opportunistic behaviour of partners.
Performance Management
e Usage based - limited amount of relevant data is aggregated, thus lowering the cost and time effort for analysing the resulting information. The aggregated data may be restricted solely to the usage rates from the end-user perspective, based on predefined service-level agreements. e Network-based - qualitative and quantitative data regarding each used resource are aggregated, evaluated and disseminated to collaborative partners in order to assess their performance and improve their quality levels. Usage and acceptance rates of the co-created assets from the consumers perspective are also analysed, thus enabling a holistic conceptualization of the performance rate and the quality level of the value network. It is expected that specialized business analytics and CRM applications may be used by the service provider.
Based on the importance and the values that a service provider assigns to RIO-M attributes, well informed decisions are enabled on whether the specific attribute and its resulting organizational challenges (e.g. the establishment for a specialized business unit for partner's management) should be insourced as part of the overall value co-creation strategy, or outsourced to specialized partners. Hence, the assigned values enable a service provider to assess its maturity level for exploiting a business opportunity through value co-creation activities.
4. Conclusions and Further Research
Based on the Service Science view of value co-creation, we presented a practical framework that can help enterprises design an engagement path in a business value network for exploiting new business opportunities. Our framework delineates nine potential value co-creation opportunities (i.e. service profiles), where each profile differs based on specific values that are assigned to value co-creation attributes. These values abstract the management, organizational and technological challenges that collaborative partners may encounter.
Three further directions for research have been identified. First, our conceptual framework must be embedded in a real-world context to evaluate its utility for new venture development. Second, we are developing a software prototype (Service Profile Generator) that will semi-automatically 'translate' the high-level, attribute-based description of a service class into a pre-populated e3-value ontology template. Third, the ability of a service provider to effectively select and manage its partners would be enhanced by the use of a standard service description language that captures service requirements in a uniform way. To that extent, we started using USDL
(Unified Service Description Language) [38] for describing the resources that partners employ in different service offerings.
References
[1] Johannessson, P., Andersson, B., & Weigand, H. (2010). Resource analysis and classification for purpose driven value model design. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design, 1(1), 56 - 78.
[2] Weigand, H., Johannesson, P., Andersson, B., & Bergholtz, M. (2009b). Value-based service modeling and design: Toward a unified view of services. In Proceedings of the conference of advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE'09). LNCS vol. 5565, 410 - 424. Sringer.
[3] Sakas, D.P., Simos, T.E., A fifth algebraic order trigonometrically-fitted modified Runge-Kutta Zonneveld method for the numerical solution of orbital problems, (2005) Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 42 (7-8), pp. 903-920.
[4] Konstantopoulos, N., Sakas, D.P., Triantafyllopoulos, Y., The strategy of stakeholder briefing during merger negotiation in the bank market, (2009) Journal of Management Development, 28 (7), pp. 622-632.
[5] Konstantopoulos, N., Sakas, D.P., Triantafyllopoulos, Y., The dimension of communication in the merger: Simulation with dynamic model (2007) AIP Conference Proceedings, 963 (2), pp. 1062-1065.
[6] Triantafyllopoulos, Y., Konstantopoulos, N., Sakas, D.P., The role of leadership in high tech manufacturing companies in a changing environment (2012) Key Engineering Materials, 495, pp. 176-180.
[7] Triantafyllopoulos, Y., Konstantopoulos, N., Sakas, D.P., The performance management after mergers and acquisitions in high technology manufacturing business (2012) Key Engineering Materials, 495, pp. 171-175.
[8] Vaxevanou, A.Z., Konstantopoulos, N., Sakas, D.P., Outsourcing or insourcing in the high technology systems sector in a maritime company (2012) Key Engineering Materials, 495, pp. 163-166.
[9] Terzi, M.C., Sakas, D.P., Vlachos, D., Marketing dynamic simulation modelling in high tech laboratories (2012) Key Engineering Materials, 495, pp. 23-27.
[10] Terzi, M.C., Sakas, D.P., Seimenis, I., Pricing strategy dynamic simulation modelling within the high-tech sector (2012) Key Engineering Materials, 495, pp. 167-170.
[11] Markaki, E.N., Sakas, D.P., Chadjipantelis, T., Selecting the project teams' members. A challenging human resources management process for laboratory research (2012) Key Engineering Materials, 495, pp. 159-162.
[12] Sakas, D.P., Vlachos, D.S., Simos, T.E., Adaptive neural networks for automatic negotiation (2007) AIP Conference Proceedings, 963 (2), pp. 1355-1358.
[13] Sakas, D.P., Vlachos, D.S., Simos, T.E., Fuzzy constraint based model for efficient management of dynamic purchasing environments (2007) AIP Conference Proceedings, 963 (2), pp. 1351-1354.
[14] Sakas, D.P., Vlachos, D.S., Simos, T.E., Adaptive techniques for online auctions (2007) AIP Conference Proceedings, 963 (2), pp. 13591362
[15] Sakas, D.P., Konstantopoulos, N., Triantafyllopoulos, Y., Contribution of the executives in bank sector mergers: Application with a simulation model (2007) AIP Conference Proceedings, 963 (2), pp. 1054-1057.
[16] Vlachos D.S., Simos T.E., Partitioned Linear Multistep Method for Long Term Integration of the N-Body Problem (2004) Applied Numerical Analysis & Computational Mathematics Volume 1, Issue 2, pages 540-546.
[17] Kosmas O.T., Vlachos D.S., Simulated annealing for optimal ship routing (2012) Computers & Operations Research Volume 39, Issue 3, 576-581.
[18] Spohrer, J., & Maglio, P.P. (2008). The emergence of service science: towards systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value. Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 1-9.
[19] Maglio, P.P., Vargo, S.L., Caswell, N. & Spohrer, J. (2009). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Information Systems and e-business Management, 7, 395-406.
[20] Smith, L., & Ng, I. CL. (2012). Service Systems for Value Co-Creation. WMG Service Systems Research Group, working paper series 1(12), ISSN: 2049-4297.
[21] Kohlborn, T., Korthaus, A., Riedl, C., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Service aggregators in business networks. In Proceedings of the 13th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW). 195-202. Springer.
[22] Riedl, C., Bohmann, T., Rosemann, M., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Quality Management in Service Ecosystems. Information Systems and eBusiness Management (ISeB), 7(2), 199-221.
[23] Stathel, S., Finzen, J., Riedl, C., & May, N. (2008). Service Innovation in Business Value Networks. In Proceedings of the XVIII International RESER Conference, Stuttgart, Germany.
[24] Tapscott, D., Lowy, A., & Ticoll, D. (2000). Digital Capital: Harnessing the Power of Business Webs. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
[25] Schroth, C. (2007). The internet of services: Global industrialization of information intensive services. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Digital Information Management, (ICDIM'07).
[26] Barros, A., Dumas, M., & Bruza, P. (2005). The Move to Web Service Ecosystems. BPTrends, 1-9.
[27] Fischbach, M., Puschmann, T., & Alt, R. (2011). Towards an interdisciplinary view of service science, the case of the financial services industry. In Proceedings of the FEDCIS 2011 conference, Szczecin, Poland.
[28] Mele, C., & Polese, F. (2010). Key Dimensions of Service Systems in Value-Creating Networks. In Demirkan, H., Spohrer, J. & Krishna, V. (Eds), The science of service systems, Springer, pp.37-59.
[29] Joshi, P.K., & Chebbiyam, M. (2011). Determining value co-creation opportunity in B2B services. In Proceedings of the annual conference of the service research and innovation institute, San Jose, California.
[30] Kutsikos, K., & Mentzas, G. (2012). Managing Value Creation in Knowledge-intensive Business Service Systems. In J. Kantola, W. Karwowski (Eds) Knowledge Service Engineering Handbook, CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, 123-138.
[31] Kutsikos, K., & Kontos, G. (2012). Enabling Business Interoperability: A Service Co-Creation Viewpoint. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Interoperability for Enterprise Systems and Applications (I-ESA 2012), Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia (Spain), Mar. 2012.
[31] Ng, I.CL., Nudurupati, S., & Williams, J. (2011). Redefining organizational capability for value co-creation in complex engineering service systems. In Ng, I. CL., Parry, G., Wild, P., MacFarlane, D., & Tasker, P . (Eds), Complex engineering service systems: concepts & research, ISBN: 978-0-85729-188-2. London: Springer.
[33] Rolland, E., Patterson, R.A. & Ward, K.F. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and e-service. Canadian journal of administrative sciences, 26(4), 301 - 315.
[34] Barney, J., (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99 - 120.
[35] Seppanen, M., & Makinen, S. (2010). Resources in academic discourse: An empirical investigation of management journals. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 3(1), 116 - 137.
[36] Haase, M., Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2011). Property rights design and market process: Implications for market theory, marketing theory, and S-D logic. 31(2), 148 - 159.
[37] Ehret, M., Wirtz, J. (2010). Division of Labor between firms: Business services, non-ownership value and the rise of the service economy. Service Science, 2(3), 136 - 145.[27] Cardoso, J., Barros, A., May, N. and Kylau, U. (2010). Towards a unified service description language for the internet of services: requirements and first developments. IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, Miami, USA, 602-609.
[38] Cardoso, J., Barros, A., May, N. and Kylau, U. (2010) 'Towards a unified service description language for the internet of services: requirements and first developments. IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, Miami, USA, 602-609.
