Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This commentary addresses some common themes of the papers from the 3rd EMAC/ANZMAC Research Symposium track on service-dominant (S-D) logic: (1) issues and approaches to measurement, (2) the need for plural versus singular paradigms, and (3) questions concerning the boundary conditions of S-D logic. It suggests that since S-D logic is not a normative theory and is an alternative to the current (goods-) dominant logic, caution must be exercised in designing empirical tests. It also suggests that since S-D logic transcends the goods vs. services logics, it obviates the need for pluralism and is capable of spanning boundaries created by goods-dominant-logic…possible path for its development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen L. Vargo (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: