See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257758459

Resource Integration

Article in Marketing Theory · June 2012

DOI: 10.1177/1470593111429512

CITATIONS READS
182 6,101

6 authors, including:

Roderick J. Brodie Pennie Frow

University of Auckland The University of Sydney
118 PUBLICATIONS 13,734 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 12,263 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tim Hughes Michael Kleinaltenkamp

University of the West of England, Bristol Freie Universität Berlin
53 PUBLICATIONS 1,778 CITATIONS 273 PUBLICATIONS 4,430 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Kleinaltenkamp on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Marketing Theory
http://mtq.sagepub.com/

Resource integration
Michael Kleinaltenkamp, Roderick J. Brodie, Pennie Frow, Tim Hughes, Linda D. Peters and
Herbert Woratschek
Marketing Theory 2012 12: 201 originally published online 3 April 2012
DOI: 10.1177/1470593111429512

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/12/2/201

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Marketing Theory can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mtq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://mtq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/12/2/201.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 27, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 3, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 28, 2012

Commentary
Marketing Theory
12(2) 201–205
Resource integration ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1470593111429512
mtq.sagepub.com

Michael Kleinaltenkamp
Marketing Department, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Roderick J. Brodie
Marketing Department, University of Auckland Business School, New Zealand

Pennie Frow
Discipline of Marketing, University of Sydney, Australia

Tim Hughes
Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, UK

Linda D. Peters
Nottingham University Business School, UK

Herbert Woratschek
Department of Services Management, Universität Bayreuth, Germany

Core to developing a general theory of markets, service-dominant (S-D) logic suggests that service
is the fundamental basis of exchange (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). In turn, ‘Service provision implies
the ongoing combination of resources, through integration, and their application’ (Vargo and
Lusch, 2010: 4); hence the central role of resource integration as the means through which resource
integrators (actors) co-create phenomenologically determined value.
We identify five themes relevant to gaining a clearer understanding of the role of social and
economic factors in resource integration. The themes and the broad relationships between them are
conceptualized in Figure 1. Here we identify actors who possess appropriate resources which they
are allowed and able to share, co-creating value using collaborative and integrative processes.
Their evaluation of each experience occurs within the context of each specific engagement and
provides continuous input into future collaborations. The resulting value may impact both the abil-
ity of actors to exercise agency and the processes involved in integrating resources.

Resource integrators
The modified foundational premise (FP9): ‘All social and economic actors are resource inte-
grators’ (Vargo and Lusch, 2008) recognizes the role of multiple actors in networks. It follows that
there is a need to better understand ‘the commonalities of the activities of actors that constitute the

Corresponding author:
Michael Kleinaltenkamp, Marketing Department, School of Business & Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, Otto-von-
Simson-Str. 19, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 28, 2012

202 Marketing Theory 12(2)

Figure 1. Resource integration framework

market(s)’ (Vargo and Lusch, 2010: 6) and the nature of networks that are linked together by ‘the
trinity of competences, relationships and information’ (Lusch et al., 2010: 21). The perspective
provided by structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) and subsequent work in sociology may be helpful
here in analyzing resource integrators’ practices and the social structures in which they take place.
A key question is the essentiality of human agency – seen as the ability of self-reflexive actors to
act with choice (Archer, 2000) – and specifically whether technology can itself be a resource inte-
grator and can forge relationships between other things embedded with knowledge capabilities.
This difficulty in conceptualizing the nature of the role of technology is a recurring theme in con-
sidering several aspects of resource integration.

Resources
Resource integrators utilize resources of which ‘Operant resources are the fundamental source of
competitor advantage’ (FP4, Vargo and Lusch, 2008). S-D logic with its emphasis on the resources
supplied by all actors (customer, supplier and other stakeholders within a network of relationships)
provides an interesting contrast with the established resource-based view (RBV), focusing only on
the resources of the supplying organization and the way they are deployed in creating a sustainable
competitive advantage (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). The emphasis in S-D logic on all those in the
network of actors raises new questions on the nature of resources and the need to understand how
resources are mobilized and utilized.
There are fundamental preconditions for resource integration, including actors possessing the
ability and allowance to use or integrate a resource. These preconditions enable actors to utilize a
resource and to make an exchange of ‘service for service’ possible (Haase and Kleinaltenkamp,
2011). Despite the useful distinction between operant and operand resources (Vargo and Lusch,

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 28, 2012

Kleinaltenkamp et al. 203

2004), these concepts require further clarification. As SD-logic views resources as a function of
human appraisal, this dual categorization can become confusing. In particular, the question
remains as to whether technology can provide an operant resource in certain circumstances (e.g.
machine to machine communication and learning) or whether the application of an operant
resource requires human agency.

Integrating resources
Integration requires process(es) and forms of collaboration. There is much to learn about the
practices of integrating resources and how to design and configure the integration process. Two
theories, effectuation theory (Read et al., 2009) and configuration theory (Miller, 1987), offer some
insights into this process. Effectuation theory questions the predictive rationale for organizational
behavior, suggesting collaboration occurs through commitments between networked actors.
Configuration theory seeks to explain how organizations configure their resources, responding to
the environment through the agency of their people. Technology is often central to the inte-
gration process, and the role of people interacting with technology is a key issue within service
systems research (Maglio and Spohrer, 2008). However, we need to look further than the
interaction to fully understand the co-creation of value. It is the human and social experience
resulting from the interaction with engagement platforms that is crucial (Ramaswamy, 2010).
Therefore, we need to understand more about the experiences of the actors within the integrating
process (Lemke at al., 2010).
Also important is the mechanism of relational governance that guides the collaboration
involved in resource integration (Heide, 1994). As the collaborations are usually voluntary, the
actors need to recognize the benefit from participation. If the benefit is not evident to the actors,
then collaborative activity is unlikely.

Evaluation
The phenomenological nature of value means that research methods include exploring the eva-
luation of the actors involved. Vargo and Lusch (2008) emphasize that value is determined
uniquely and phenomenologically by the beneficiary (FP10). This idea needs more investigation.
There may be a number of beneficiaries and the determination of value may be complex. Recent
findings highlight that value is not only the function of discrete events, but also relates to
multiple episodes in an overall relationship. Thus, resource integration may take place episo-
dically and the value appraisal of the resource integrators has an impact on relationship outcomes
as well as on the actors’ future behavior and future practices involved in integrating resources
(Ford, 2010; Lemke et al., 2010).

Value
The co-creation of value is portrayed in S-D logic as the outcome of resource integration. The sup-
plying organization can only make value propositions (FP7, Vargo and Lusch, 2008) and co-
created value is phenomenologically experienced when two or more actors integrate their
resources. But there is little consensus about the nature, meaning and measurement of value in the
general literature (Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). To what extend is it possible to
have a common conceptualization of a construct that is complex and subjective? Deconstructing
value into various forms of value co-creating activity, from co-conceiving ideas, through

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 28, 2012

204 Marketing Theory 12(2)

co-production to co-disposal, provides some insights into value collaborations. Yet much work
remains to unravel the nature of this intriguing construct.
From our brief discussion of these five themes and their relevance in understanding the role of
social and economic factors as resource integrators in the context of S-D Logic, we identify ten key
research challenges for investigation.

Theme 1: Resource integrators. A key task is defining resource integrators, especially in the
context of technology:

 What is the role of technology in resource integration – can technology be a resource integrator
and/or a resource?
 What do we know about the motivation and behavior of resource integrators and what are the
implications for theory and practice?

Theme 2: Resources. Research priorities include clarifying the nature of operant and operand
resources and the implications for their subjective, dual classification:

 What is the nature of a resource in the context of S-D logic and what is its relationship with
actors?
 Can technology provide an operant resource or does the application of an operant resource
require human agency?

Theme 3: Integrating resources. This theme offers challenges in understanding the nature of
interactivity and reciprocity of value co-creation:

 What is the role of practices in resource integration?

 How can business model design and configuration processes assist the resource integration
process?

Theme 4: Value. Although S-D logic offers a clearly articulated perspective of value, many ques-
tions remain, including:

 What is the role of value propositions in resource integration within a service system?
 Is value the outcome of resource integration or intrinsic within the interaction experience?

Theme 5: Evaluation. Understanding the evaluation process of networked resource integrators

poses interesting challenges, including:

 What tools assist in measuring value within a service system? What is the impact on co-created
value of the evaluation by each actor within a service system?
 What methods allow researchers to understand most clearly the nature and evaluation of phe-
nomenological value?

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 28, 2012

Kleinaltenkamp et al. 205

References
Archer, M. (2000) Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, D. (2010) ‘IMP and Service-dominant Logic: Divergence, Convergence and Development’, Industrial
Marketing Management doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.035.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press .
Haase, M. and Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2011) ‘Property Rights Design and Market Process: Implications for
Market Theory, Marketing Theory and S-D Logic’, Journal of Macromarketing 31(2): 148–59.
Heide, J.B. (1994) ‘Interorganizational Governance in Marketing Channels’, Journal of Marketing 58(Jan-
uary): 71–85.
Lemke, F., Clark, M. and Wilson, H. (2010) ‘Customer Experience Quality: An Exploration in Business and
Consumer Contexts Using Repertory Grid Technique’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
39(2011): 846–69.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and Tanniru, M. (2010) ‘Service, Value Networks and Learning’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 38: 19–31.
Maglio, P.P. and Spohrer, J. (2008) ‘Fundamentals of Service Science’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 36: 18–20.
Miller, D. (1987) ‘The Genesis of Configuration’, Academy of Management Review 12(4): 670–87.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation’, Harvard Business Review
May–June: 79–91.
Ramaswamy, V. (2010) ‘It’s about Human Experiences . . . and beyond, to Co-creation’, Industrial Mar-
keting Management doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.030.
Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S., Song, M. and Wiltbank, R. (2009) ‘Marketing under Uncertainty: The
Logic of an Effectual Approach’, Journal of Marketing 73(May): 1–18.
Sánchez-Fernández, R. and Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A. (2007) ‘The Concept of Perceived Value: A Systematic
Review of the Research’, Marketing Theory 7(4): 427–51.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing
68(1): 1–17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008) ‘Service-dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 36: 1–10.
Vargo, S. and Lusch, R.F. (2010) ‘It’s all B2B . . . and beyond: Toward a Systems Perspective of the Market’,
Industrial Marketing Management 40(2011): 181–7.

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on June 28, 2012

View publication stats