Who is doing Value Management?

Three Value Managers came to my attention today:

1. Following the Port Phillip Council : Have your Say page, lead me to Bang the Table, a private group building community engagement websites. Partly driven by Dr Crispin Butteriss PhD New England (Stakeholder engagement in public policy 1997 - 2003)

2. Bang the Table had created an interest group on Linked In (Online Community Engagement), which lead to NCDD.org (no not the North Dallas Chamber of Commerce, but) National Centre for Dialogue and Deliberation, established 2002, and now in 39 countries.


3. Lastly, the Victorian Churchill Club described one of their recent sessions (28 April) as Member Value Management. Collingwood membership manager described Value management processes. See a couple of quotes on the ValueMgmt twitter feed for details.

---

On a separate note, some Telstra / broadband problem / solution notes:


BAG 2002 Report: Broadband Advisory Group Report to Govt broadband Goals and Vision:
(see also background info at: Intro to FTTH)

Australia should adopt the following national vision for broadband:
"Australia will be a world leader in the availability and effective use of broadband, to deliver enhanced outcomes in health, education, commerce and government and to capture the economic and social benefits of broadband connectivity."

Goals (Section 3)
"2. Australia should adopt the following national goals for broadband:
(a) Broadband should be available to all Australians at fair and reasonable prices."

Encouraging Take-up
"17. The Government, in cooperation with state and territory governments and industry stakeholders, should develop and provide detailed information to key sectors about the benefits of broadband applications, such as educational opportunities, improved health care, business process improvement, productivity gains and better government services."

So far, so good. What's the problem?


The problem comes from Paul Fletcher's (2009) book Wired Brown Land which suggests:

"Telstra was able to suppress the take-up of broadband in Australia for many years…. Telstra said that Australia's low broadband penetration was a symptom of an over-regulated industry.... In fact, Australia's low broadband take-up had a much simpler explanation. Telstra kept prices sky high. Once they fell, take-up rocketed." Fletcher 2009, p.227

Are Telstra doing Value Management? Well yes and no. Telstra were protecting their $8B annual landline revenue. SO Telstra were protecting their SHV (shareholder value), but unfortunately it came at the price of consumer/customer revenue, through delay, and higher prices. This thesis argues consumers adopt new technology when consumers see value, but high prices will delay adoption. Telstra provides evidence of this.

Final Thesis Review presentations

Title: A consumer value theory of innovation: a grounded theory approach

Find links to the PDF presentations:

Final thesis presentation 2.7Mb

Fourth draft, focussing on results 2.1Mb

http://www.mediafire.com/file/1w6xn386vab49lk/thesisReview2011A.pdf (few pics) 2.5Mb

http://www.mediafire.com/file/i8l5xuxy5jikwh1/thesisReview2011B.pdf (more pics) 4.5Mb

A third briefer simpler version follows:..... here (fewer slides and pics) 2.4Mb

For completeness, older presentations:

• To follow: DRUID 2008, HBS 2008, UQBS Colloquium 2008...
  
• Confirmation presentation Mar 2007 0.1Mb, 5 pages.
  
• Nov 2006 - pre-confirmation musing 0.4Mb, 11 pages, B&W
  
• May 2005: Academic methods class 0.1Mb, 2 page, colour
  
• STEPS conference 2004 (Science, Technology and Economic Progress) PhD students 1.2Mb, 9 pages
  
• Prior PhD home page 2004 - 2007

References Draft 4.

• Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy. [ACIMO] (2008). Innovation Measurement: tracking the state of innovation in the American economy. Viewed 28.02.2008 at: http://www.innovationmetrics.gov/Innovation%20Measurement%2001-08.pdf .
  
• McKinsey & Company. [McKinsey] (2010). National Broadband Network Implementation Study. Viewed 06.05.2010 at: http://data.dbcde.gov.au/nbn/NBN-Implementation-Study-complete-report.pdf
  
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. (Earlier editions in 1962, 1971, 1983, 1995).
  
• Woodruff R., & Flint, D. (2006). Marketing’s Service-Dominant Logic And Customer Value. In R. F. Lusch, & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, And Directions (pp. 183–195). New York: M.E. Sharpe

References early draft:

• Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy. [ACIMO] (2008). Innovation Measurement: tracking the state of innovation in the American economy. Viewed 28.02.2008 at: http://www.innovationmetrics.gov/Innovation%20Measurement%2001-08.pdf .
  
• Bass, F. (1969). A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science, 15, January, 215-227.
  
• Bijker, W. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  
• Christensen, C. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
  
• Drucker, P. (1999). Management Challenges for the 21st Century. Harper Business: New York, NY.
  
• Fagerburg, J. (2005). Innovation: a guide to the literature, in Fagerburg, J, Mowery DC, & Nelson, RR (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  
• Flint, D., Woodruff, R., & Gardial, S. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of customers' desired value changes in a business to business context. Journal of Marketing, 66, (October) 102-117.
  
• Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley CA: Sociology Press.
  
• Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley CA: Sociology Press.
  
• Glaser, B. (2001). The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Mill Valley CA: Sociology Press.
  
• Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
  
• Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press: Boston MA.
  
• Holbrook, M. (1996). Customer Value - A framework for analysis and research (Special Session Summary). Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 138-142.
  
• Kim, W. & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Value Innovation : The Strategic Logic of High Growth. Harvard Business Review, 75, 1, 103-112.
  
• Kim, W. & Mauborgne, R. (1999). Strategy, Value Innovation, and the Knowledge Economy. Sloan Management Review, 40, 3, 41-54.
  
• Kim, W. & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  
• Moore, G. (1991/2002). Crossing The Chasm : Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. (Rev. ed.). New York: Harperbusiness Essentials.
  
• McKinsey & Company. [McKinsey] (2010). National Broadband Network Implementation Study. Viewed 06.05.2010 at: http://data.dbcde.gov.au/nbn/NBN-Implementation-Study-complete-report.pdf
  
• Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press: New York.
  Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating Shared Value: How to Reinvent Capitalism and Unleash a Wave of Innovation and Growth. Harvard Business Review, 1, 62-77.
  
• Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  
• Prahalad, C.K. & Krishnan, M. (2008). The New Age of Innovation: Driving Co-created Value through Global Networks. McGraw-Hill: New York.
  
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. (Earlier editions in 1962, 1971, 1983, 1995).
  
• Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: an Enquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  
• Woodruff, R. (1997). Customer Value: the next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 2, 139-153.
  
• Woodruff R., & Flint, D. (2006). Marketing’s Service-Dominant Logic And Customer Value. In R. F. Lusch, & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, And Directions (pp. 183–195). New York: M.E. Sharpe
  
• Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, (July) 2-22.
  
• Zuboff, S. & Maxmin, J. (2002). The Support Economy: why corporations are failing individuals and the next episode of capitalism. New York: Viking.

Value as a resolution of forces

Value can be considered the process and outcome of three value concepts (forces), resolving as action. Dynamic tension between and within the concepts drives the process. The currency of the process is emotion and the outcome emotion and action.

Metaphors. I use three metaphors: (1) the infinity symbols, (2) the rose, and (3) the rose window. I use the infinity symbol to represent the dynamic tension within a value concept with the consumer at the centre, the subject of the tension.

The infinity symbol represents dynamic tension between aspects of a value concept focussed on a consumer.

I use the rose as a second metaphor to indicate the multiple forces affecting value. The multiple forces I visualise as multiple overlapping infinity signs (slightly turned), forming an eight petalled rose. I therefore use a rose window (though a flower could be used) to visualise multiple forces acting on the consumer at the centre (the stamen) of the rose. I use four colours to distinguish the forces: red (action), blue (value meanings), green (value practices), and yellow (value conversations). As an aside, the flower metaphor contrasts the petals and the stamen. The petals collect energy (information and emotion) to channel to the consumer (the stamen and the stem).



The three value concepts in the rose are: (1) the value conversation, (2) the value practices and (3) the value meanings.

Dynamic Tension
The value conversation reflects tension between sources of information; telco or social information, external (power) and internal (beauty) information.


Value practices reflect tension in accepting new value information for consideration. Value practices gather or reject new value information in a process of filtering.



Value meanings reflect tension in the importance, weight or value consumers give collected value information. Value Meanings reflect tension in what consumers value.



These three sets of tension are resolved as action. But action is itself a tension between waiting (inaction) and action.



Thus value is four forces, powered by the dynamic tension (emotion), resolved as action.



However, inherent or within this model are two further, if not forces then dimensions. Firstly, value(ing) occurs in relation to a value target of which we have many. Rokeach (1973) for instance says consumers have dozens of values (value meanings), but thousands of attitudes (value targets). Attention is a tension between competing value targets. Secondly, the whole value process also takes place through time. It is currently unclear (at least to me from my data) to what extent value (or attitude) can change spontaneously without new value information. The fading of grief ("time heals all wounds") is one colloquial expression of spontaneous change in value (attitude) over time at consumer level. Over a broader time scale, new value meanings emerge. Examples are equal rights (1960s), and more recently concern about global warming.

I visualise all six forces (calling time and value target forces for ease) as the rose window moving through space and time to a value target.



Conclusion. Thus I see value as the resolution of forces on the consumer, driven by dynamic (emotional) tension, expressed and resolved as action (buying, waiting; even recommending), as consumers navigate their contextual world.



Contrasting Figure 8 from my thesis (below) with the rose window model shows strong similarity. The value conversations are split between internal and external, while the telco and social conversation are merged. Figure 8 shows a strong cyclical nature to show the dynamics, while the rose window model emphasises the centrality of the consumer, with multiple forces acting upon them. Both models have emotion (attitude) as an important central aspect of value.


Figure 8:A value theory of innovation. An emotional theory of value. Value is at the core of innovation. Emotion is at the core of value.p.156

Surprising absences. Absent from this model (of value), and missing from the data are two things. Firstly, consumers are not goal-driven. Secondly, consumers do not talk about decisions in my data. Action arises more spontaneously from accumulated emotional tension.

As an observation, since value is emotional, the value process is significantly individual. Though Collins (1999) cites shared emotion as an important driver and sustainer of group action. For instance, church groups and separated work groups use ritual to bind and motivate group members separated by distance and time. Families and partners are also likely affected by such rituals. Workgroups, religious groups, families and partners are likely to have different levels of goal importance, shared and communicated. Workgroups and churches will have stronger shared goals which bind their groups and give them value. Families and partners have value without goals.

For completeness, the value meanings as a rose window are shown below.


References:
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. Free Press: New York.
Collins, R. (1999). The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA.