ORCID Profile
0000-0002-9139-5030
Current Organisation
University Of Strathclyde
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2011
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 07-2011
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 13-10-2014
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 10-03-2015
DOI: 10.1002/MAR.20787
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2017
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 05-2016
DOI: 10.1509/JM.15.0109
Abstract: Many manufacturers look to business solutions to provide growth however, success is far from guaranteed, and it is unclear how such solutions can create superior perceived value. This article explores what constitutes value for customers from solutions over time—conceptualized as “value in use”—and how this arises from quality perceptions of the solution's components. The authors develop a framework for solution quality and value in use through 36 interviews combining repertory grid technique and means-end chains. The findings significantly extend the extant view of quality as a function of the supplier's products and services, and show that customers also assess the quality of their own resources and processes, as well as the quality of the joint resource integration process. The authors report that value in use corresponds not just to collective, organizational goals but also to in iduals’ goals, a finding that strongly contrasts with prior research. Four moderators of the quality–value relationship demonstrate customer heterogeneity across both firms and roles within what the authors term the “usage center.” When shifting toward solutions, manufacturers require very different approaches to market research account management solution design and quality control, including the need for value-auditing processes.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 13-02-2017
DOI: 10.1002/MAR.20988
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 08-10-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2015
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2017
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 13-10-2014
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-07-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2023
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 07-05-2015
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2020
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 23-11-2009
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2017
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-2011
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 02-06-2017
DOI: 10.1111/JPIM.12394
Abstract: Innovation for environmental sustainability requires firms to engage with external stakeholders to access expertise, solve complex problems, and gain social legitimacy. In this open innovation context, stakeholder engagement is construed as a dynamic capability that can harness differences between external stakeholders to augment their respective resource bases. An integrative systematic review of evidence from 88 scientific articles finds that engaging stakeholders in environmental innovation requires three distinct levels of capability: specific operational capabilities first‐order dynamic capabilities to manage the engagement (engagement management capabilities) and second‐order dynamic capabilities to make use of contrasting ways of seeing the world to reframe problems, combine competencies in new ways, and co‐create innovative solutions (value framing), and to learn from stakeholder engagement activities (systematized learning). These findings enhance understanding of how firms can effectively incorporate stakeholder perspectives for environmental innovation, and provide an organizing framework for further research into open innovation and co‐creation more broadly. Wider contributions to the dynamic capabilities literature are to (i) offer a departure point for further research into the relationship between first‐order and second‐order dynamic capabilities, (ii) suggest that institutional theory can help explain the dynamic capability of value framing, (iii) build on evidence that inter‐institutional learning is contingent on not only the similarity but also the differences between organizational value frames, and (iv) suggest that operating capabilities impact the effectiveness of dynamic capabilities, rather than only the other way around, as is usually assumed. A methodological contribution is made through the application of quality assessment criteria scores and intercoder reliability statistics to the selection of articles included in the systematic review.
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2017
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 08-04-2019
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Emma K. Macdonald.