Towards a holistic view of customer value creation in Lean: A design science approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Comparisons of the selected CV models and the Lean CV analysis methods

Selected CV Models and CV analysis methods Nine Key CV Characteristics	Lean CV Analy.Met.		Influential CV Models/frameworks in the literature
	QFD	Lean Consumption Mapping	Garvin (1987)	Zeithaml (1988)	Keller (1993)	Ravald and Grönroos (1996)	Holbrook (1996)	Woodruff (1997)	Kim and Mauborgne (2000)	Woodall (2003)	Sweeney and Soutar (2001)	Smith and Colgate (2007)	Lemke et al. (2011)	Almquist et al.(2016)	Lemon and Verhoef (2016)
1. Subjective			●	●	●	●	●	●		●	●	●	●		●
2. Multiple attributes	●	●	●	●	●		●		●	●	●	●	●	●	●
3. Abstraction hierarchy			●	●	●	●	●	●		●	●	●	●	●
4. Longitudinal		●				●		●	●	●					●
5. Trade-off	●	●		●		●				●	●	●	●
6. Aggregated				●	●			●		●					●
7. Co-created													●		●
8. Relative	●						●		●				●	●	●
9. Dynamic								●							●
Managerial instrument included	●	●						●	●			●		●

Figure 1. CVM Model sub-structure as a (7 x 6)-matrix.

Table 2. The method of use- seven-step guideline

Steps	Description and incorporating some key ideas from Lean
1. Map the customer’s key actions from search to dispose	Womack and Jones (2005a) suggest that the best way to identify opportunities for improvement in the customer’s processes is to draw a map showing the consumption steps. Also, in using the CVM, the starting point is to capture the current status of the customer’s process, from search to dispose.
2. Identify the customer’s tasks in each key action and categorize them in the four forms of encounters	Identifying various sources of value, including information, products and interactions, Smith and Colgate (2007) suggest that firms can develop strategies to enhance each source of value at a functional, hedonic and symbolic level. In other words, each customer action should be projected from the four forms of encounters (sources of value) onto the value categories.
3. Identify perceived sacrifices and highlight the main issues (pain points)	The activities that do not add value should be identified, as described in the value stream mapping technique in Lean management (Rother & Shook, 1998). In addition to that, both monetary and non-monetary sacrifices should be identified at each stage and entered in the corresponding fields in the matrix.
4. Assess strategically cost and differentiation advantage in reducing customer’s sacrifices	Before allocating limited resources to improve the customer’s process, organizations should first check the prospects for realizing cost and/or differentiation advantage relative to the competition if the selected pain point is resolved. This requires close monitoring of market trends and competitors’ actions, which is generally known as ‘market orientation’ (e.g., Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Slater & Narver, 1994).
5. Inject value into five value categories (perceived benefits) to reduce perceived sacrifice and differentiate	As discussed earlier, firms need to focus both inward, at processes designed to improve efficiency (exploitation) and outward, towards market (exploration), to identify new opportunities. It is essential to combine the findings from step 3 and new insights from the market to decide in which areas to inject the right amount of value in the perceived benefits area. That way, the firm can both solve the customer’s problems and achieve differentiation.
6. Prioritize value elements that create synergy—reduce sacrifices, increase benefits and increase differentiation	After identifying value elements in the CVM, managers need to strategically refine and prioritize those value elements based on their importance to the customer, competition and the firm’s capabilities, and bring them to a more manageable level. QFD tool can be very effective for such purpose and complement CVM.
7. Experiment- test value elements by following PDCA	Drawing lessons from Toyota’s success, Spear (2004) states that proposed changes should always be structured as experiments, during which hypotheses are tested and the results are used to refine or reject the hypotheses. In this respect, the CVM should be seen as an instrument designed to formulate and test the hypothesis. Steps 1–6 can be seen as the plan part of a larger PDCA cycle. Step 7 has to do with testing the hypothesis (do), controlling results by analyzing customer feedbacks (check) and standardizing and expanding what works and learning from what does not work (act).

Figure 2. Evaluation stages and corresponding versions of the CVM instrument under construction.

Table 3. Analysis across evaluation stages

	Phase 1: Proof-of-concept		Phase 2: Formal Evaluation
	[E1], [E2] and [E3]	[E4]		[E5]	[E6]	[E7]	[E8]
CVM Model version	V1	V2		V2	V2	V2	V3
Method of use version	n/a	n/a	CODES	informal instructions given during the workshop	V1	V2	V3
Validity			Overall rating	High	Medium-Low	Medium	Medium-High
The instrument works and does what it is meant to do—developing a broader understanding of CV	High interest	High interest	Survey score average	4.1	3.7	3.6	4.0
			VAL-THINK(+)	v1, v2, v3		v1, v2, v3	v4, v5
			VAL-GUI(-)		v1, v5
			VAL-ORIE(-)		v2, v3, v4
			VAL-SCOP(-)			v4, v5	v1, v2, v3, v7, v8
Quality			Overall rating	High	Medium-Low	Medium	Medium
The instrument captures broad nature of CV completely and accurately	n/a	n/a	Survey score average	4.1	3.7	3.5	3.6
			QUAL-STRUC(+)	q1	q5, q6	q1,q3,q6	q1, q2, q4, q7
			QUAL-VIS(+)		q4	q2	q3, q5, q6
			QUAL-COMP(+)			q4,q5
			QUAL-VAG(-)		q1, q3, q7, q8	q7, q8	q8
			QUAL-INCOMP(-)		q2	q9
Utility			Overall rating	High	Medium	Medium-Low	High
The instrument can be useful for organizations to develop a broader understanding of CV	n/a	n/a	Survey score average	4.0	3.5	3.1	4.0
			UTI-HELP(+)	u1, u2	u1		u1
			UTI-IRRE(-)			u1, u2
Efficacy			Overall rating	N/A	Low	Medium-Low	Medium-Low
The instrument is easy to use and efficient way to develop a broader understanding of CV	n/a	n/a	EFF-EASY(+)	n/a		e1,e2,e3	e1,e3,e4
			EFF-COMPX(-)		e1	e4, e5, e6	e2
			EFF-TIME(-)		e2, e3	e7	e5, e6, e7

High: Average rating ≥4 AND number of positive feedbacks > number of negative feedbacks

Medium-High: (4> Average rating ≥3 AND number of positive feedbacks significantly higher than the number of negative feedbacks) OR (Average rating ≥4 AND number of positive feedbacks < number of negative feedback)

Medium: 4> Average rating ≥3 and number of positive feedbacks > number of negative feedbacks

Medium-Low: 4> Average rating ≥3 and number of positive feedbacks < number of negative feedbacks OR

Low: 3> Average rating AND negative feedbacks are significantly higher than positive feedbacks.

Table

	Illustrative Contributors
1. Subjective	Garvin (1987): Among nine quality dimensions, aesthetics and perceived quality are the most subjective. Zeithaml (1988): Perceived quality is a consumer’s assessment of the superiority of a product; value is more individualistic than quality, therefore it is higher-level concept than quality. Keller (1993): Brand equity model is conceptualized from the perspective of the individual consumer. Ravald and Grönroos (1996): Perceived customer value is related to a person’s own value chain and highly contextual. Holbrook (1996): CV varies from one individual to another. Bowman and Ambrosini (2000): Judgments about user value are subjective, they pertain to the individual consumer. Eggert and Ulaga (2002): Different customer segments perceive different values within the same product. Gummesson (2002): The traditional marketing management approach is mass marketing, however each customer is an individual; heterogeneity, not homogeneity, is the key concept. Priem (2007): The differences in consumer valuations of the same event are not due simply to differences in taste; instead, they are due to asymmetries in knowledge and expertise across potential customers. Grönroos and Voima (2013): “Value is always uniquely and both experientially and contextually perceived and determined by the customer”
2. Multiple attributes	Garvin (1987): Eight dimensions of quality: Performance, Features, Reliability, Conformance, Durability, Serviceability, Aesthetics and Perceived Quality Zeithaml (1988): Intrinsic attributes (e.g., flavor, color); extrinsic attributes (e.g., price, brand name) Keller (1993): Product related attributes (e.g., product/service composition); non-product related attributes (e.g., price, packaging) Ravald and Grönroos (1996): Physical attributes; service attributes; purchase price; perceived quality Woodruff (1997): Desired product attributes and attribute performances Anderson and Narus (1998): Value elements could be technical, economic, service and social in nature. Kim and Mauborgne (2000): Six utility levers (customer productivity, simplicity, convenience, risk, fun and image, environmental friendliness) Sweeney and Soutar (2001): Functional value (price/value for money) and functional value (performance/quality) Eggert and Ulaga (2002): Combination of physical attributes, service attributes and technical support in relation to particular use situation Woodall (2003): Goods Quality, Service Quality, Core Product Features, Added Service Features, Customization Lemke et al. (2011): Product quality (variety, value for money), service quality (SERVEQUAL dimensions) and network quality Almquist et al. (2016): 30 ‘elements of value’—fundamental attributes of value in their most essential and discrete forms. Lemon and Verhoef (2016): customer experience is a multidimensional construct focusing on a customer’s cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sensorial, and social responses to a firm’s offerings
3. Abstraction hierarchy	Garvin (1987): Perceived quality is a high level abstraction (e.g., image, reputation) Zeithaml (1988): At low level—perceptions of int./ext. attributes of the simple product; at high level—personal value Keller (1993): Three categories: 1. Attributes; 2.Benefits (personal value attached to the attributes); 3.Attitudes: highest abstraction level, overall evaluative judgment (less thoughtful decision-making process) Ravald and Grönroos (1996): Relationship benefits are deeper than episode benefits. Safety, credibility, continuity and security increase trust thereby increases loyalty Woodruff (1997): CV hierarchy-At the bottom attribute level, in the middle consequences in use, and at the highest level customers‘ goal Parasuraman (1997): CV becomes increasingly more abstract as new buyers progress toward becoming long-term customers. Anderson and Narus (1998): One intangible elements of value is peace of mind Sweeney and Soutar (2001): Emotional value (feelings a product generates; Social value (enhancement of social self-concept) Vargo and Lusch (2004): Focus is shifting from tangibles (goods) to intangibles (e.g., skills, information) in exchange process. Smith and Colgate (2007): Experiential Value; Symbolic Value Lemke et al. (2011); Macdonald, Wilson, Martinez, and Toossi (2011):Goal Hierarchy; Value-in-use Magids, Zorfas, and Lemon (2015): Emotional motivators (e.g., “helps me be creative”, “feel revived and refreshed”) Almquist et al. (2016): 30 value elements fall into four categories: functional; emotional; life changing and social impact. The authors emphasize the analogy between Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ and their model.
4. Longitudinal	Garvin (1987): Reliability and durability are related to the longitudinal aspect of quality. Zeithaml (1988): Depending on the availability, intrinsic and/or extrinsic attributes are evaluated during pre-purchase, point of purchase and consumption. Keller (1993): Brand knowledge can be linked to past experience; belief association is created on the basis of direct experience with the product/service. Holbrook (1996): CV resides not in the purchase but rather in the consumption. Ravald and Grönroos (1996): “…customer-perceived value of an offering, seen through the eyes of the customer and related to his own value chain, must also be highly situation specific.” Woodruff (1997): Customers may perceive value differently at different times, such as when making a purchase decision or experiencing product performance during or after use. Parasuraman (1997): Research shows that customers attach new meanings to products after using them for some time. Anderson and Narus (1998): Entire life-cycle of the offering has to be considered (from acquiring the offering to disposal)—total solution package. Slater and Narver (2000): Life-cycle costs include search costs, operating costs and disposal costs, as well as purchase price. Eggert and Ulaga (2002): CV has pre-/post-purchase perspectives, whereas customer satisfaction has a post-purchase perspective. Kim and Mauborgne (2000): Six stages of the buyer experience cycle: purchase, delivery, use, supplements, maintenance and disposal. Woodall (2003): CV could be perceived in four distinct temporal forms: Ex-ante CV (pre-purchase), Transaction CV, Ex-poste CV (post-purchase) and Disposition CV. Verhoef et al. (2009): “the customer experience encompasses the total experience, including the search, purchase, consumption, and after-sale phases of the experience” Lemke et al. (2011); Macdonald et al. (2011); Grönroos and Voima (2013):Value-in-use (i.e., customer assesses value in a longitudinal and experiential process of usage). Lemon and Verhoef (2016): Customer journey consists of three stages: pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase
5. Trade-off	Garvin (1987): Ranking high on all quality dimensions requires consumers to pay a price premium. Zeithaml (1988): Monetary price is not the only sacrifice perceived by consumers. Ravald and Grönroos (1996): CV is the ratio between perceived benefits and perceived sacrifice. Eggert and Ulaga (2002): CV in business markets is the trade-off between the multiple benefits and sacrifices. Anderson and Narus (1998): Customers evaluate benefits and cost with the best alternative on the market to make decision. Oh (1999): Perceived price and perceived service quality are the antecedents of perceived customer value. Bowman and Ambrosini (2000): Perceived use value and exchange value. Slater and Narver (2000): Benefits minus life-cycle costs. Woodall (2003): Net CV (a utilitarian balancing of benefits and sacrifices) includes Benefits (Attributes and Outcomes) and Sacrifices (Monetary and Non-monetary)
6. Aggregated	Zeithaml (1988): Perceived value is the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions. Keller (1993): The agreement among the subcategories (brand associations) of the brand image determines ‘cohesiveness‘. “The cohesiveness of the brand image may determine consumers‘ more holistic or gestalt reactions to the brand” p. 8. Woodall (2003): Consumers are largely unconscious about the valuation process and this ‘overall’ perspective may best be represented as a gestalt (an organized whole in which each part affects every other part). “It is likely that a succession of different CV determinations and associated critical incidents may influence the customer’s ‘overall’ CV perception, and that CV will be accumulated and/or aggregated through a largely non-rational process.” p. 20. Khalifa (2004): “The customer value accumulates as the satisfied needs advance from utility to psychic, as the customer benefits offered transcend tangibles to intangibles. This accumulation of value may take one of four distinct forms: functionality; solution; experience; and meaning. Verhoef et al. (2009): “the customer experience construct is holistic in nature and involves the customer’s cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to the retailer” Lemke et al. (2011): Customers assess their experience holistically and this assessment includes a judgment of the quality of their experience. Grönroos and Voima (2013): “Value-in-use accumulating from past, current, and future experiences” p. 139. Lemon and Verhoef (2016): ‘’Customer experience construct is holistic in nature’’ p.70
7. Co-created	Normann and Ramirez (1993): “Successful companies do not just add value, they reinvent it…Their focus of strategic analysis is not the company or even the industry but the value-creating system itself, within which different economic actors-suppliers, business partners, allies, customers- work together to co-produce value.” pp. 65–66 . “if the key to creating value is to co-produce offerings that mobilize customers (e.g., IKEA), then the only true source of competitive advantage is the ability to conceive the entire value-creating system and make it work” p. 69. Vargo and Lusch (2004): “The customer is always a co-producer” is one of the eight foundational premises of S-D logic. More specifically, “an enterprise can only offer value propositions; the consumer must determine value and participate in creating it through the process of coproduction.” p. 11. Gummesson (2008a): “[…] co-creation of service is a necessity. We therefore have to move away from one-party centricity—either supplier-centric or customer-centric—to two-party centricity, which simultaneously zooms in on both suppliers and customers.” p. 16. Payne et al. (2008): This study develops a framework for understanding and managing value co-creation. “…value proposition exists in order to facilitate the co-creation of experiences. Creating customer experiences is less about products and more about relationships which the customer has vis-à-vis the total offering.” p. 86. Grönroos and Voima (2013): “The customer’s resources/processes interact with the service provider’s resources/processes/outcomes in a merged dialogical process” p. 143. Lemon and Verhoef (2016): Customer interact with following touch points: brand-owned, partner-owned, customer-owned and social/external touch points
8. Relative	Zeithaml (1988): Perception of quality changes due to increased competition. Keller (1993): Brand associations can be easily changed by competitive actions. Slater and Narver (1994): Firms should continuously examine competitive threats. Competitive intelligence is part of everyone’s job. Ravald and Grönroos (1996): To achieve sustainable competitive advantage, the firm must provide a greater net value than its competitors. Butz and Goodstein (1996): An important piece of information to obtain during customer understanding process is how much of the total budget the customer spends with you as compared to the competition. Holbrook (1996): CV is relativistic; comparative (among objects), personal (across people) and situational (specific to context). Anderson and Narus (1998): Gauge the differences in functionality and performance compared to the next best alternative. Bowman and Ambrosini (2000): It is the idiosyncratic ways of doing things in the organization, and notably entrepreneurial labor, that allows an organization to offer more consumer surplus than its competitors, and that may enable it to achieve above average profits. Kim and Mauborgne (2000): “An innovation can increase customers’ productivity by helping them do their thing faster, better, or in different ways.” p. 30. Eggert and Ulaga (2002): Value is relative to competition. Better trade-off between benefits and sacrifices help company to create competitive advantage.
9. Dynamic	Zeithaml (1988): The cues signal quality changes over time. Keller (1993): Consumer knowledge about brand changes over time. Slater and Narver (1994): “To create superior value for buyers continuously requires that a seller understand a buyer’s entire value chain, not only as it is today but also as it evolves over time.” p. 22. Butz and Goodstein (1996):“The first goal is to determine how the customer decides today’s ‘best value’; the second, to begin the process of discovering how to provide unanticipated value in the future.” p. 73. Slater (1997): One aspect of market orientation is continuously learning about customers and generating new intelligence about their needs and how best to meet those needs. Woodruff (1997): Customer value changes over time. Although hard to predict, patterns of change in the market can be used as a predictor. Parasuraman (1997): Customer value changes over time as the attributes customers use to judge value may also change. Vargo and Lusch (2004): Being consumer-oriented means learning from customers and adapting to their individual and dynamic needs. Verhoef et al. (2009): Customer experience can be influenced by a combination of experiences, which evolve over time. Macdonald et al. (2011): Customer perception of value changes over time (demonstrated through the case study Year 1 vs Year 4). Flint et al. (2011): Customers expect suppliers to anticipate their needs and desires (even if they themselves cannot). Lemon and Verhoef (2016): ‘’preferences, and the influence of specific touch points, may change over time.’’ p.88

Table

Perceived Benefits	Symbolic Value	1. The repair facility is highly reputable-customer satisfaction score 9.2	3. Operator speaks in an assuring tone; high level of expertise	Parking space marked with the brand plates The look of the person and the reception area match with the firm’s brand	7. Caller speaks in an assuring tone and demonstrates high level of expertise	9. Reinforcing trust with the level of expertise	11. Reinforcing brand during the check up call	12.Thank you letter- reinforcing the brand image
	Relational Value	1. Offering some loyalty programs; peer recommendations	3. Friendly voice	5. Friendly and personal approach	7. Friendly and personal approach	9. Friendly and personal approach	11. Nice that they check after 3 days how things are	12. Thank you letter with a feedback request—strengthening the bond
	Experiential Value	1. It is a pleasure to browse at the website	3. Pleasant and comforting conversation	5. Nice reception area; well designed waiting arean with coffie machines	7.Visual documents about the diagnosis are provided	9. Repair is explained through a video	11. Nice that they leave a gift on the seat	12. Nicely prepared a thank you letter
	Utility Value (II)- Operational Attributes	1. Website is easily accessible through google search	3. Earliest availability meets customer’s expectation	5. No queueing; person is available;expertise level is high	7. Quick and accurate diagnosis	9. Repair is effective and quick	11. No second visit is needed	12. Timely letter to say thank you
	Utility Value (I)- Product Attributes	Well-designed website providing all necessary information FAQ	3. Operator asks all necessary information; nothing is missed	Easy parking Full understanding of the problem Provide a loaner	7. Full description of the diagnostic	9. Detailed description of the repair	11. The repair is effective	12. Thank you letter
Customer’s Process		Searchearch for a repair facility	Select and book	Visit	Authorize	Receive	Consume	Dispose
		Learn about the problem	3. Select a facility and book repair	4. Drive to the facility 5. Queue and discuss the problem 6. Leave the car and drive home	7. Authorize repair	8. Drive to the facility 9. Queue, be briefed about the repair and pay 10. Drive home	11. Use the car	12. End of service (no second visit or call needed)
Encounters	Provider-led encounters	Website, internet advertisements Website, technical information	-	-	7. Authorization request	-	-	-
	Customer-led Encounters	Ask friends/families Read online customer forums	3. Call for an appointment	4 and 6. Driving to/from facility 5. Queue up	-	8 and 10. Driving to/from facility 9. Queue up 9. Pay	11. Asking about the noise just noticed	12. Appointment for a second visit?
	Dialogical Encounters	-	3. Setting time for drop off	5. Discussion about the problem; customer provides the full story; Q&A	7. Agreement about diagnosis and repair	9. Discussion about the repair and instructing customer how to listen to the noise	-	-
	Service Encounters	-	-	-	-	-	11. Driving the (fixed) car	12. Assessment of the repair outcome
Perceived Sacrifice	Monetary Sacrifices	-	-	Travel cost; Opportunity cost of the visit	-	10. Agreed repair amount 10. Unexpected cost emerged during the repair; Travel cost; Opportunity cost of the visit	-	-
	Non-monetary Sacrifices	Searching for a facility Trying to understand the complicated technical issue; worrying about the safety of driving	3. Waiting on the line (too long?); waiting for the repair day; need to reschedule the agenda to drop off the car; anxiety in case of no availability in expected time	4. Driving time 5. Queueing time; waiting for the diagnosis 5. Complexity of the issue – cannot visualize; insecurity due to lack of understanding 6. Finding alternative transport and driving home	7.Waiting for the repair 7. Checking the price estimate 7. Lack of confidence about authorization; “Was it a fair price?”-mistrust	8. Finding alternative transport and driving to the facility 9. Queueing time; the complexity of the repair – cannot fully comprehend; “It is not fair to pay that much”-mistrust 10. Driving time to home	11. Worry about the problem; “will that occur again?”- perceived risk	12. “Is problem fully fixed?”- worry

Table

EVALUATION CRITERIA	CODES	DESCRIPTION
Validity: The instrument works and does what it is meant to do—developing a broader understanding of CV	VAL-THINK(+)	CVM encourages thinking from a customer perspective
	VAL-GUI(-)	The method of use does not provide sufficient guidance to use the instrument properly
	VAL-ORIE(-)	The method of use does not provide sufficient customer orientation to use the instrument properly
	VAL-SCOP(-)	The method of use does not provide sufficient process and customer scoping
Quality: The instrument captures broad nature of CV completely and accurately	QUAL-STRUC(+)	CVM design is well-structured
	QUAL-VIS(+)	CVM makes CV visual
	QUAL-COMP(+)	CVM provides complete view of CV
	QUAL-VAG(-)	CVM’s value categories are vague (e.g., brand value)
	QUAL-INCOMP(-)	CVM is incomplete (e.g., does not incorporate all the stakeholders)
Utility: The instrument can be useful for organizations to develop a broader understanding of CV	UTI-HELP(+)	CVM is effective and useful
	UTI-IRRE(-)	CVM is irrelevant for my context (e.g., public services)
Efficacy: The instrument is easy to use and efficient way to develop a broader understanding of CV	EFF-EASY(+)	CVM is easy to use
	EFF-COMPX(-)	CVM is too complex/theoretical to use
	EFF-TIME(-)	CVM approach is time consuming

Garvin, D. A. (1987). Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review, 65(6), 101–109.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. doi:10.1177/002224298805200302

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. doi:10.1177/002224299305700101

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19–30. doi:10.1108/03090569610106626

 Google Scholar

Holbrook, M. B. (1996). Customer value – A framework for analysis and research. Advances in Consumer Research, 23(1), 138–142.

 Google Scholar

Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153. doi:10.1007/BF02894350

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2000). Knowing a Winning Business Idea When You See One. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 129–138.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woodall, T. (2003). Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: An attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12(1), 1–42.

 Google Scholar

Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Smith, J. B., & Colgate, M. (2007). Customer value creation: A practical framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 15(1), 7–23. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679150101

 Google Scholar

Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience quality: An exploration in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 846–869. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0219-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Almquist, E., Senior, J., & Bloch, N. (2016). The elements of value: Measuring-and delivering- what consumers really want. Harvard Business Review, 94(9), 46–30.

 Google Scholar

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0420

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2005a). Lean consumption. Harvard Business Review, 83(3), 58–68.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rother, M., & Shook, J. (1998). Learning to see. Brookline, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.

 Google Scholar

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53. doi:10.1177/002224299305700304

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Market orientation, customer value, and superior performance. Business Horizons, 37(2), 22. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(94)90029-9

 Google Scholar

Spear, S. J. (2004). Learning to lead at Toyota. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 78–91.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture: Towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–15. doi:10.1111/bjom.2000.11.issue-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 107–118. doi:10.1108/08858620210419754

 Google Scholar

Gummesson, E. (2002). Relationship marketing in the new economy. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1(1), 37–57. doi:10.1300/J366v01n01_04

 Google Scholar

Priem, R. L. (2007). A consumer perspective on value creation. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 219–235. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.23464055

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1998). Business marketing: Understand what customers value. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 53–65.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 154–161. doi:10.1007/BF02894351

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Macdonald, E. K., Wilson, H., Martinez, V., & Toossi, A. (2011). Assessing value-in-use: A conceptual framework and exploratory study. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5), 671–682. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.05.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Magids, S., Zorfas, A., & Lemon, D. (2015). The new science of customer emotions. Harvard Business Review, 93(11), 1–8.

 Google Scholar

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). Intelligence generation and superior customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 120. doi:10.1177/0092070300281011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67–82. doi:10.1016/S0278-4319(98)00047-4

 Google Scholar

Khalifa, A. S. (2004). Customer Value: A review of recent literature and an integrative configuration. Management Decision, 42(5), 645–666. doi:10.1108/00251740410538497

 Google Scholar

Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 65–77.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gummesson, E. (2008a). Extending the service-dominant logic: From customer centricity to balanced centricity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 15–17. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0065-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Butz, H. E., Jr, & Goodstein, L. D. (1996). Measuring customer value: Gaining the strategic advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 63–77. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90006-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Slater, S. F. (1997). Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 162. doi:10.1007/BF02894352

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Flint, D. J., Blocker, C. P., & Boutin, P. J., Jr. (2011). Customer value anticipation, customer satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical examination. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 219–230. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.034

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar