Value Encounters
Paul Johannesson
In a value encounter, some exchanges (i.e. transfers) are emergent, in
the sense that there is no contract stating that they should take
place. For example, an agent may improve their negotiation skills in a
certain industry by participating in value encounters in that
industry. Should we make explicit this special status of the improved
negotiation skills? By saying and noting that they are emergent. Or
should we view this as any other co-created resource?
What happens to services?
When looking at the examples in the paper, it can be noted that there
are almost no services left, i.e. there are almost no services as
labels on value transfers. Is this a general phenomenon?
It seems like the services are moved into the value encounters. Are
the following two statements equivalent?
"I offer you a service"
"I am prepared to co-create value with you in a value encounter"
If so, services should indeed go away. If so, the value object "care"
in the last diagram is fishy. Care looks like a service, and it is
very close to the value encounter "Medical treatment". So maybe we
should skip "care", on the other hand it then becomes unclear what the
patient receives in the value encounter. This takes us to the next
question.
What are the resources created?
Look again at the last diagram with doctors and patients. If we remove
the "care" transfer, the value encounter seems to be underspecified.
But what about adding resources like improved health, increased
feeling of safety, better knowledge on health conditions? In the
BUSITAL paper, we moved these inside the patient meaning that they
were produced in conversion processes. But it looks at least as
natural to say that these resources are co-created in a value
encounter. It is the patient and doctor that together, in their
interactions, make the patient to feel safer.
Does this mean we should take away services and replace them by value
encounters and the resources that the services produce?
ba
the last version of the paper. The comments here refer to the earlier
version.
* I think it's a wise decision to focus on sorting out the nature of
Value Encounters. My intuitive understanding is that they are
fundamentally value activities common to several actors. Is this a
correct 'one-liner' to think about them?
* Can one find a criterium for when to include transctions via a VE in
a model xor when to treat them as normal economic transactions? My
guess is that such a criterium is hard to find as possibly _all_ value
creation can be seen as in part done through conversions and in part
through co-creations (but the relations between the parts differ from
case to case, of course).
Consider, for example the case where a patient visits a health care
provider's web site to get infomation about her percieved problem,
perhaps searching a FAQ. One can argue that there is no co-creation of
value in this case. There is a strict one-way transfer of info from
the care provider to the patient -- "Euros for Pre-fab'ed Info". There
is not much of co-creation here, just one actor that produces info and
one actor consuming the same info.
On the other hand, one can argue that a co-creation of value really
takes place if the hospital gathers statistics about searches in order
to increase the understanding of the health status of the population.
For the patient the session at the web site results in an increased
feeling of safety.
Thus, by inputting 'Euros' (or, if it is gratis her input is at least
'time')into the VE the patient gains not only 'information' but also
'Feeling of safety'. By inputting 'Information' the hospital gains not
only Euros (or 'attention' but also 'Knowledge' (or data that becomes
knowledge depending on how you look at it). The 'Feeling of safety'
and 'Knowledge' are emergent, co-created values resulting from the VE.
* In figure 3 the VE 'membership' is better called 'enrollment' as
that name is more natural for a value activity.
Hans Weigand
This is a good point. When a certain service S is provided, this typically
means that provider uses resource R in order to add value to some resource
P of the customer.
If we consider the service as being created in the value encounter, then
it is most natural to see the input into the value encounter as R and the
output to the customer as P. The value encounter itself can be labelled as
S. The models in the paper may have to be updated to reflect this
principle.
It is a bit more complicated when the value encounter is more than a
single service provision. Then some appropriate name has to be given to
the value encounter. The service name may get lost then. Or we could
insert a value activity in the encounter with the service name, or a
number of value activities if needed.
In general, the way the inputs and outputs are related in the value
encounter must be accounted for, perhaps in a table apart from the
diagram.
We may account for a special case in which the output is not directly
related to some input, but the result of the interaction itself (what you
call emergent value).
In the same way, some resource may only support the interaction (input)
and not affect a stakeholder directly (demergent?)
With regard to BA's comment on economic transaction: my opinion is that
indeed there is no strict separation. Every economic transaction is a
value encounter (but not vice versa). It is a borderline case in so far
nothing is done in the value encounter itself (but is that really
possible?). Relating to the previous comment: if there is not value
activity within the encounter, and input = output.
Hans
ba
circle in the causal ordering. 'doctor visit -> 'equipment sales' ->
'equipment usage' -> 'doctor visit'. Is this intended?
* This question is somewhat unrelated to VE's, but still interesting.
Can
a resource, such as recognitinon be said to be 'stored' in a community
or
can communal resources always be modeled as emergent resources
stemming
from VE's?
The question relates to the ontology figure. In it the beneficiary of
a
value derivation is an agent. This is intuitively correct in the case
a
hospital joins a community of care takers thereby gaining recognition.
But
does it work in the other direction? Can a community be said to gain
in
recognition when an actor enrolls in it?
I guess this question is really about the ontological status of a
community vs. an economic agent. Reformulated, the question becomes:
does
non-economic agents belong in a value model?
* To enroll in a recognized, high-status community (say, the ACM)
creates
the value 'recognition' as modeled in fig. 4. But can one also think
about
it as the enroller becomes 'tainted' with a resource? In the first
case a
resource is created, in the second case a resource is transfered.
* In figure 4, can one also argue that the 'insurance contract' causes
the
'medical treatment'?
Hans Weigand
> * Figure 2 and the causal relation between the VE. There seems to be a
> circle in the causal ordering. 'doctor visit -> 'equipment sales' ->
> 'equipment usage' -> 'doctor visit'. Is this intended?
Circles are not excluded. It is not a causal ordering in the physical
sense, but an influence relationship, and these can be self-reinforcing.
>
> * This question is somewhat unrelated to VE's, but still interesting.
> Can
> a resource, such as recognitinon be said to be 'stored' in a community
> or
> can communal resources always be modeled as emergent resources
> stemming
> from VE's?
I am not sure I get it, see below.
> The question relates to the ontology figure. In it the beneficiary of
> a
> value derivation is an agent. This is intuitively correct in the case
> a
> hospital joins a community of care takers thereby gaining recognition.
> But
> does it work in the other direction? Can a community be said to gain
> in
> recognition when an actor enrolls in it?
I see that it is perhaps a bit confusing, and I could change it into
something related. But basically, yes, a community gains in status or
whatever the more hospitals join it.
>
> I guess this question is really about the ontological status of a
> community vs. an economic agent. Reformulated, the question becomes:
> does
> non-economic agents belong in a value model?
Why not? However, I have interpreted the community here as something with
some identity, like ACM. If there is nothing more than hospitals meeting
each other, it is better to model a value encounter between hospitals
only.
> * To enroll in a recognized, high-status community (say, the ACM)
> creates
> the value 'recognition' as modeled in fig. 4. But can one also think
> about
> it as the enroller becomes 'tainted' with a resource? In the first
> case a
> resource is created, in the second case a resource is transfered.
I think this question is not as easy as it sounds. It is more than
transfer. E.g. there is a network effect.
> * In figure 4, can one also argue that the 'insurance contract' causes
> the
> 'medical treatment'?
Perhaps yes, although it might look a bit insane. Of course, there are
other causes for the medical treatment. But there is also an influence
relationship: the more contracts, the more treatments the insurance
company will have to cover.
Hans Weigand
A new version of the paper.
Hans
Dr. Hans Weigand
Infolab, Tilburg University
email: H.We...@uvt.nl phone: +31 13 4662806 fax +31 13 4663069
Paul Johannesson
Value encounters and services
Should a value encounter be viewed as a value activity (conversion
process ala Hruby), as Birger asked? If so, could a service be an
input to a value encounter? This would be useful if we would like to
be more abstract - instead of specifying barber and scissors, we just
specify hair cut service. I could agree with this, but a service
should never be an output from a value encounter. Argument for this:
if a service were an output from a value encounter, then it should be
used in a value activity inside an actor, but this never holds for
services - they are always used in co-creating processes. If we agree
on this, some namings in the models may need to change.
Figure 2
I am a bit uneasy with the analysis of the membership value encounter
in fig. 2. Should we say that "name" is the resource given by the
community? Would not it be better to say that "recognition" or
"status" is what the community brings to the value encounter? By
bringing its high status to the value encounter, the community helps
to create even more status and recognition. (OK, I can understand that
in daily parlance you can say that you bring your high status "name"
to the table, but this way of speaking may vary from language to
language.) Furthermore, the community will also get status/recognition
from the value encounter, not only the hospital.
Capacities and services
And what about "arrangement capacity" in fig. 2? Should not it rather
be "arrangement service"? This would be consistent with the above
discussion. Then again, we could say that capacities are more
appropriate than services here. The community brings a resource to the
value encounter, its capacity to arrange meetings. This is good if we
want to be abstract; if we preferred to be more concrete, we could
instead specify labour, facilities, etc. Now we could try this line of
reasoning:
In an ordinary e3value model, you have services transferred from one
agent to another. This is fine if you are happy with a rough analysis.
But if you want to be more detailed/accurate/precise, you need to
flesh it out. You do this by replacing the service (or rather the
transaction in which the service occurs) with a value encounter.
Furthermore, you figure out what resources are created for the service
receiver and specify these. And you state that the service provider
offers some capacity (is capability a better word?) if you want to be
abstract, but you can also spell out the resources offered by the
service provider.
If we do like this, services disappear. Instead, we have capabilities,
which are just like services except that there is no receiver. This
would help explaining resources like "negotiation support" in figure 1.
Hans Weigand
Paul, thanks for your sharp analysis.
We need to clarify the role of value encounter input and output.
It seems that there are several possible patterns.
In the following I will describe them as triples, consisting of the input,
the encounter (or value activity within encounter) and output.
G stands for G, S for service, R for resource, V for value adding
X for anything
1. G - (transfer) - G
Example: presents are provided by provider and given to doctor
2. R - (conversion or service) - X
Example: arrangement capability of community used in setting up a meeting
3. S - (conversion or service) - X
Example: arrangement service used to set up a meeting.
Note that the arrangement service is an enhancing service in this case
If we use this pattern for the hair-dressing case, then we must be more
precise about the conversion/service within the encounter.
The barber provides a hair-dressing service to the value encounter.
What is done in the encounter itself?
We could say: the delivery of this service.
The the pattern comes close to 1, in the sense that the value encounter is
basically the transfer or delivery of a service:
S (transfer) S
But this is is a weak form of co-creation of value.
(value encounter of the first kind..)
4. X - (service) - V
Example: hair-dressing adds value to hair.
Doctor visit provides publicity
Sometimes there is a word for V (like publicity), but what if there is not
such a word? Then we might express the V in terms of the R to which value
is added, e.g [hair++] to say that value is added to the customer's hair.
---
A basic choice is whether we see customer services like hair-dressing
being performed *within* the value encounter (using resources provided) or
being provided *to* the value encounter.
The argument for the first is: the service is a co-creation of value, by
axiom.
The argument for the second is: the service provider does not just bring
in a bunch of resources (chair, scissors, ..) but a service. Perhaps in
some cases the service provider is passive and brings in a resource
only, but the more active he is, the more natural to see his contribution
in terms of a service.
I see two ways out of this dilemma:
a. a compromise by saying that the exchange process for the service (cf
CAISE paper) is always performed within the value encounter, but that the
service itself, as REA resource, is brought in by the provider. So this
weakens the axiom (it does not exclude there might be services performed
within the value encounter; we only say that not necessarily all services
are performed within the encounter)
b. accepting a duality that sometimes we prefer to highlight the service
process (or service as activity) and sometimes the service as value object
(or resource in REA terms), but we should not try to see them both in the
same picture. In the second cas, the axiom would not be applicable. This
means that we may put the hair-dressing service within the encounter if we
want (e.g. because multiple actors contribute, the barber, the assistant,
..) but we may also put it on the flow into the encounter (e.g. when the
encounter is a complete make-over and hair-dressing is one of the
ingredients).