Citation
Co-creation and transient advantages marketing strategy for short-lived opportunities

Material Information

Title:
Co-creation and transient advantages marketing strategy for short-lived opportunities
Creator:
Motsenbocker, Aaron
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
Metropolitan State University of Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
Metropolitan State University of Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
Co-Creation and Transient Advantages Marketing Strategy for Short-Lived Opportunities by Aaron Motsenbocker
An undergraduate thesis submitted in partial completion of the Metropolitan State University of Denver Honors Program
May 2014
Dr. Elizabeth McVicker Kristin Watson Dr. Megan Hughes-Zarzo
Primary Advisor
Second Reader
Honors Program Director


Co-Creation and Transient Advantages
Marketing Strategy for Short-Lived Opportunities
Aaron Motsenbocker Undergraduate Honors Thesis Metropolitan State University of Denver
April 1, 2015


Inspiration
My undergraduate education began at the perfect time for a paradigm shift. As the true impact of the 2008-market crash came further into clarity, critical debates and skepticism amongst professionals haunted society. But, what is always the case with turbulence is it is temporary. We know if we hold tight, it will pass. This however begs the question, what comes after the turbulence? With regard to our global and national economies, a lot changes, because whatever was in practice before was faulty. So, theres this presence of transferability or transferring from one period of time to another. And it leads one to ask, what will make it out of the turbulence? and what will be created and added as new norms in the market, once we can move on? I focused on this issue, and other current trends relevant to what is redefining the major differences between what is today and what will be tomorrow.
In exploring how business and society were transferring, there were requirements. An argument had to establish itself with originality, innovation, and practicality. I began searching for material discussing the future of business, business and consumer interaction, paradigm occurrence(s), etc. The first source I found was a lecture during the summer of 2013 by a Harvard history professor to the Harvard School of Business. She discussed the massive transfer long in the making and presented the issue of turbulent times, high stress, and social hunger for leadership. According to her, we are intensely re-constructing the new frame for society and all the factors within it, results of a paradigm shift. The frame? The frame is societal norms and standards. Its how we exist in a commercialized global economy. So, what goes on the frame? Even she admits, I dont know, but we need it. For the intensive purposes of my paper, this justified entertaining an evaluation of what a marketer could or will take to and from the new frame. Many months later this lead to the findings of co-creation, a strategy or study that involves the consumer more with value creation and ideation, and transient advantage, the strategy or theory that businesses no longer have sustainable competitive advantages. Both are separate strategies that compliment each other well. So I married them.
Hopefully this argument will grant me admission to a graduate program and function as something applicable with our personal and professional planning in the future. I would like to extend my most sincere appreciation to the committee and everyone who assisted and guided me throughout the difficulties of my own doing.
Thank you.
1


Table of Contents
Abstract 3 Literature Review 4 Introduction 7
The Changes for Business Today 7 Customer Centric Concepts 8 Transient Advantage Concepts 9 Simplifying the Phenomena 10 Methods for Tomorrow 11
Significance 13 Observations for Review 13 A Timeline for Co-Creation and Transience 14 Origins of Customers Centrality 16
Origins of Transient Advantages 17
Defining Co-Creation 22
Co-Creation as a Strategy 25
DART (Dialogue, Access, Risk-Reduction, and Transparency) Experience Environment and Experience Co-Creation 28 Co-Creative Environment Model 29 Examples of Co-Creation 31
Material Co-Creation 31 Immaterial and Experience Co-Creation 32 Defining Transient Advantages 34 Co-Creative Transient Advantage Model 38 Conclusion 42 References 44


Abstract
Our understandings of marketing strategy and competitive advantages are undergoing redevelopments from two sequential paradigms. These shifts in thought are identified as from firm centric to customer centric and from sustainable to transient competitive advantages. These shifts in thought have delayed the title and definition of our current marketing era. Furthering the complexity of these issues are the preceding and succeeding interrelated concepts relevant to each shift. On the customer centric end, we note the reopening of the prosumer thesis and co models, in particular, co-creation as created by Prahalad and Ramaswamy in 2002. With regard to short-lived competitive advantages, we note the creation of transient advantages and the transient advantage model or lifecycle (McGrath, 2013), through which susceptible organizations move through five phases. These phases are known as the launch, ramp up, exploit, disengage, and reconfigure stages of a transient advantage model and are initiated by and managed with a firms adaptive capabilities. In recognizing theses paradigmatic concepts as sequential and interrelated, in that, they both require an outside in approach and continuous, as well as, instantaneous action, they inevitably must intersect and synergize. This nexus of customer centrality and transience is the solution to creating and maintaining value in a world of empowered prosumers who are ruled by abstractions afforded to them via the Internet, mobile technology, and information abundance. This paper proposes a solution to these paradigmatic problems, by conceptualizing a model through which co-creative concepts and the transient advantage lifecycle are merged. With this creation, the co-creative transient model (CCTM) presents itself as an igniter of and manager for transient advantages.


Literature Review
We are in the middle of defining a new era of marketing. It was recently proposed the current marketing era be titled the, Social and Mobile Marketing Era by marketing professor Dr. Steven White. It is a proposal indeed, because a common consensus amongst professionals is scattered by the noise of many transformational activities (White, 2010). Fueling the complexity of this definition, are the two sequential paradigms of from firm centric to customer centric and from sustainable to transient advantages. The customer centric shift is defined by a change in business structure as weve know it to be for over 100 years, in which, value is created from within the firm, to now being sourced from outside of the firm, through the customer (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002, 2004a, 2004b; Ramaswamy 2008; and Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2014). Some professionals have summarized this shift in thought as, a move from shareholder capitalism, to customer capitalism (Holmes, 2012), while others present it as a way to mass customization for conquering hypercompetitive markets (Tseng and Piller, 2003). Customer centrality is receiving more attention than ever before, but has been a developing concept since 1960, when Theodore Levitt challenged business to never forget what needs they are actually satisfying for their customers. Buzz discussion amongst strategist and other business professionals has lead to the mergence of the producer and consumer, which inevitably lead to the creation of the prosumer, one who produces and consumes their own value (Alvin Toffler, 1980, Ritzer et al. 2010, 2014; Ritzer 2012). Early analogies of the prosumer were material based, by which, the prosumer designed their own suit to be laser tailored and stitched instantly or prepared their own legal documents from templates without professional assistance (Banks, 1999). Modern day versions of this market player paradox however, have lead to a slew of interrelated concepts fueled by the creation of the Internet, mobile technology and information
4


abundance. The most dominant concept being co-creation, has been developed as a solution to empowered consumers who have access, networking capabilities, thematic communities, and the option to customization in world were more options than ever before provide less value than ever before (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2002, Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2014). Other customer centric concepts fueled by the Internet are seen by the reintroduction of the Prosumer, who is exploited through their free providence of information and content on the Internet and other shared platforms. Nevertheless, the prosumer remains both an innate and revolutionary function (Ritzer et al., 2014). We live in a world of prosumers, who co-create injecting their interests into the mix of offerings by a firm, and competitive advantage lies with those who co-create or recognize the prosumer the best (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b, Ritzer et al., 2014). In referencing the second paradigm, all focus shifts from understanding competitive advantages as sustainable to short-lived and temporary (DAveni 1995, 1995b; DAveni et al., 2010). This understanding has lead to the creation of the transient advantage model or lifecycle, which outlines five phases organizations susceptible to transient advantages move through (McGrath, 2013). Much like waves, each is different with its own unique factors. Transient advantages are launched, ramped up, exploited, disengaged and reconfigured in their specific arena (McGrath, 2013) or experience environment tailored to their unique thematic community (Ramaswamy 2013). Strategists have responded with such approaches to strategy, because markets are instable with hypercompetition (DAveni, 1995, 1995b). The original tools of strategy, specifically Michael Porters five forces analysis and the resource based view of the firm, are now mostly obsolete, as they are stuck defending the market as it were when the advantage was already found (McGrath, 2013). Other professionals have aided this new approach by emphasizing the use of adaptive capabilities (Day, 2013), to enhance a firms dynamic capabilities (DAveni, 2010) and identify new opportunities.


Inevitably, it appears these shifts in thought must intersect and synergize in the their relations of always looking to customers first to innovate (Prahalad et al. 2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2013; Ramaswamy et al. 2014; McGrath, 2013; Day, 2013) and solve their needs by being adaptive and constantly analyzing what is actually occurring. From these two interrelated paradigmatic problems with those of co-creative concepts, in which prosumers co-create and organizations find themselves susceptible to transient advantages, a model is created to conceptualize what value creation and competitive advantages look in the 21n century. This view is enhanced and guided with the creation of the co-creative transient model (CCTM).


Introduction
We are in the middle of defining a new era of marketing. Rapidly changing and hypercompetitive environments, accelerated advancements in technology, and empowered consumers have ignited a change in thought on what value is and how advantages are obtained. Currently, consumers are at a loss of value with more options than ever before and business continues to be unsustainable with inadequate returns on investment. Deepening the complexity of this paradox are two sequential paradigms forcing business to redevelop the playbooks of strategy and success evaluation. These paradigm shifts can be identified as, from firm centric to customer centric, and from sustainable competitive advantages to transient advantages. Each identifiable with their own nuances, are affecting every aspect of business management and have forced professionals to address the question, what now? For business to continue, we must develop improved strategies to successfully combat ambiguous environments and provide greater value to both businesses and consumers.
The Changes for Business Today
To solve these paradigmatic problems, it appears these shifts in thought must inevitably meet and synergize to move forward with a fresh ever-changing take on value creation. In discussing the paradigm shift of from firm centric to customer centric, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of Forbes Magazine presents it as, a shift from shareholder capitalism to, customer capitalism (Holmes Jr. 2012). As outlined by Holmes, value and our attempt to maximize it, is transferring from what that means for business, to what maximized value means to the consumer. Similarly, business professors Mitchell Tseng and Frank Pi Her address customer centric, as way to mass customization for conquering the growing demands of competition (Tseng, et al. 2003). With the customer centric thought, consistency does nothing in comparison to flexibility and
7


interaction. More evolutionary, the firm centric to customer centric shift is a move from focusing on the creation of value from within the firm, to focusing on the creation of value outside of the firm (Tseng and Piller, 2003; Holmes, 2012). At the other joint of the intersection, is from sustainability to transience. Not long ago, Rita McGrath professor of management at the Columbia Business School and a highly regarded consultant, declared the sustainable competitive advantage as no longer relevant to most industries (McGrath, 2013). Advantages obtained by the ability to provide value to customers and the firm, are no longer defensible. Essentially, if a firm has a competitive advantage, it is because the organization is successfully, surfing short-lived waves of opportunity (McGrath, 2013). More revolutionary, sustainable to transient completely redefines our understanding of what a competitive advantage is. And while emphasizing the occurrence and inevitable intersection of the customer centric and transience shifts is certainly intriguing, more imperative are the new ideas and approaches to creating and exchanging value -the ideas composing and ushering in these new ways of thought. An eruption of concept and theory ideation and research relevant to these separate paradigms, has lead to a vast amount of new approaches to the roles of producers and consumers and strategic management in whole.
Customer centric concepts.
On the customer centric end, we note the re-opening of the prosumer thesis -one who both produces and consumes their own value- created originally by futurist Alvin Toffler in 1980, and succeeding concepts of the prosumer, such as, prosumption and prosumerism by professor George Ritzer of the University of Maryland (2010, 2012, and 2014), to the introduction of co models, with value co-production by the resource manager Rafael Ramirez (1999) and co-creation by business professors C.K. Prahalad and Venkat
8


Ramaswamy (2002, 2004a, 2004b, and 2013), as well as, furthered work on co-creation by
Venkat Ramaswamy in 2008 and again in 2014 by Venkat Ramaswamy and Kerimcan Ozcan authors of The Co-Creation Paradigm, to lastly, service dominant logic, as discussed by business professors Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch (2008). Bearing these phenomenological concepts in mind as separate theories to the customer centric shift, it is noted they are interrelated and this paper recognizes them as concepts relevant to the challenges of the 2T' century marketer. Current work on all of these topics, addresses the need for dialogue between the business and the consumer. Because of the emphasis on the customers need, they are always at the forefront of or involved in the business s next move. Therefore, companies are or need to be transparent and easily accessible. Where value was once created at the end of the exchange process, value is now determined before, during and after the supply chain. Multiple channels of communication, transaction, and experience are utilized anywhere and at anytime within the customer business relationship (Prahalad et al. 2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2013; Ramaswamy 2008; Ramaswamy et al. 2014; Ramirez 1999). In some cases, we recognize the consumer as not just the receiver of the product or service from which they maintain value, but as the creator too -with or without the businesss resources, because we are innately prosumers (Ritzer, et al. 2010, 2012, 2014). Under this new approach, producer and consumer communication does not separate what the business wants or how it thinks, from what the consumer wants or how he or she thinks. It instead recognizes both sides, but especially the consumers.
Transient advantage concepts.
With regard to the transient shift, we note the proposition of short-lived opportunities or temporary advantages by business professor Richard DAveni (1995), and the transient advantage model, or, transient advantage lifecycle, as created by business professor and
9


consultant Rita McGrath (2013), to lastly, business professor George Days introduction of adaptive capabilities for enhancing a firms dynamic capabilities (2013). Similar to those of customer centrality, the preceding and succeeding concepts of transience are also interrelated. Current work by this way of thought, directs firms to focus first on innovation with the customer to obtain the advantage, as possible through their dynamic capabilities. The requirement then, is a valued product or service (the advantage) that is accepted by consumers. Per the transient model, this advantage is launched through an innovation or by an opportunity, is then ramped up for market segmentation and market share, exploited in the market, and then reconfigured to repeat the process all over again with a new innovation or opportunity. This is the new product or service lifecycle. According to McGrath (2013) the sustainable competitive advantage as we practice it does not deliver the results needed anymore, because it is stuck defending itself as the market were, when the advantage was originally found. Strategy now requires a continuous pursuit of where value can be obtained.
Simplifying the phenomena.
To provide an addition to the framework by which business conducts itself as a science, this paper proposes a model by which the ideas of customer centrality and of transience are married. By doing so, a supreme model for overcoming the problems plaguing value creation and exchange today is created. It is an invention for strategy. The intersection of from firm centric to customer centric and from sustainable to transient is not dichotomous. They are interrelated and complimentary. Both tip toe on and around the same problems affecting every business and every industry today. Customer centric approaches and transient advantages, both require firms to leave their organizational guidelines. They involve issues of instantaneous adaptation and or creation, with risk and benefit analysis for both the consumer and business. And both require the
m


input and acceptance of consumers through namely, innovation. Arguably, the primary attribute synergizing these two separate yet interrelated thoughts is the innovation requirement of the transient advantage model. One could say, to be competitive is to innovate constantly, as done by being customer centric, launching short waves of opportunity. Moving forward with this idea, technicalities must be established. First, the vast amount of work on customer centric concepts, such as, prosumerism or prosumption, value co-production, co-creation, and service dominant logic, are so interrelated, a single definition for the phenomena should function as a reference to the whole. For the sake of this thesis, that definition is co-creation. Clarifying this summation, co-creation is then synonymous with value-co-production, service dominant logic, and prosumerism or prosumption. Similarly, in referencing market members or economic actors, prosumers co-create or in other words co-creators are prosumers. With regard to the concepts of competitive advantages, transience and or the transient advantage model/lifecycle will subsume and serve as a definition for the ideas of short-lived opportunities, dynamic capabilities for adaptation, and transience itself. These simplifications are made for conciseness and foundationalism; it gives inclusive titles to parts of a new model for marketing strategy to come.
Methods for tomorrow.
The purpose of this paper is to combine co-creation as a strategy to the transient advantage lifecycle and propose an applicable model for addressing transient advantages -opportune waves outlining a lifecycle of value creation and exchange.
In defining the transient advantage model, we note the innovation phase, the ramping up phase, the exploitation phase and the disengagement phase (McGrath, 2013; Day 2013). The transient advantage begins with the discovery or reconfiguration of a valued product or service.
In the ramping up phase, business strategy and consumer excitement result in a market presence.


Once established, the product or service is then exploited. It is marketed and its maximum value obtained. After return is no longer sustainable to strategic goals, and value is no longer obtained (for both the producer and consumer), the advantage begins disengagement. The focus then shifts to reconfiguring strategy, by either altering or finding a new product or service.
Defining co-creation, we understand it as a medium or offering of communication and experience. It is an implementable concept that is inclusive to every business. It involves dialogue, in which the producer and consumer communicate what needs to be created and what needs to be changed. It is a means by which consumers can instantaneously enhance their experience with a product or service through customization and interaction (Prahalad et al 2002, 2004a, 2004b, and 2013; Ramaswamy 2008; Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2014; Ramirez 1999;
Ritzer 2010, 2012, and 2014; and Vargo et al. 2008). It is beautiful, because it always provides what the consumer wants. Co-creation occurs through mobile technology, web 2.0, applications, information technology, face-to-face communication, and the experience itself. As stated earlier, it happens anywhere and at anytime.
This process of co-creating some unique value is innovative. Primarily, co-creation meets this model or lifecycle during the innovation stage. To restate the previous synergistic example, one could say, to be competitive is to innovate constantly, as done through co-creation, launching short waves of opportunity, while managing it with co-creation as a dynamic capability. Brilliantly, the consumer plays a hand in catching the wave of opportunity -which benefits both the consumer and producer-, because they assist in creating the valued product or service. With these definitions in place the argument of this paper, therefore, constitutes cocreation as the theory or strategy for addressing present day implications of value creation and exchange, and in being so, it both ignites and assists in managing transient advantages. Thus, the


proposed model of marketing strategy for short-lived opportunities is called the Co-Creative Transient Model (CCTM) and is presented later in the paper.
Significance.
With the construction of the co-creative transient model, three things are significant. Until, this paper, co-creation as created by C.K Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy, has not been used as an inclusive definition referring the vast amount of similar phenomena. Secondly, no strategy or theory has been added to the transient advantage model to function as an igniter of and tool for conducting transient lifecycles. Lastly, by developing the co-creative transient model, it logically is in an implementable way of thought and strategy for furthering success in a new and advanced marketing era. In this new era, the conceptualization of co-creation as a key strategy for the transient advantage model or lifecycle and as an approach to strategic marketing is revolutionary. It contradicts how we have known and practiced strategy and competitive advantages since the 1970s. With a more in-depth model guiding reconfiguration as an infinite process, the science of business is advanced.
Observations for review.
This paper does not argue that sustainable competitive advantages are obsolete or irrelevant. The co-creative transient model thesis composes itself based off of previous work supporting the importance of being adaptive and perceptive to short-lived advantages (DAveni 1995; McGrath 2013; and Day 2013). This paper does not argue or have the intention of proving the occurrence of the said paradigm shifts. It accepts that the shifts have already occurred, and uses new knowledge resulting from the shifts to join interrelated discussions.


A Timeline for Co-Creation and Transience
It was recently proposed by professor of marketing Dr. Steven White the most current eras be titled as the Social and Mobile Marketing Eras, the Social Era being from 1990 to 2010 and the Mobile Era being from 2010 to present (White, 2010). The fact that these are proposals, highlights the amount dynamism and noise occurring in the market making a conclusive definition nearly unattainable. Through exploring the mentioned phenomena of customer centrality and transience, we see just how complex these transitions in thought and into a new era are. Bearing in mind that marketing eras have evolved numerous times, producers and consumers remain constant, however, factors in the environment change. The trends they focus on and their activities in the market place evolve, leading to paradigm shifts, which segment new eras. This is because the entire foundation is phenomenological. As Edward Comor a professor of information and media studies at the University of Western Ontario emphasized in his discussion of Karl Marxs argument on capitalist political economies, individuals are ruled by abstractions (2010). These abstractions change with our interests and influence how we define what is valuable. Thus, marketing strategy changes too because our interests define the abstractions we appeal to through marketing. Currently, our abstractions are obtained and voiced through technology. The Internet in particular has empowered consumers to join thematic communities, fulfill their own needs via online services, seek information and make informed decisions. This is new to our current paradigms. But what has always been consistent to every marketing era is the concept of the market. The science of business owes its very existence to the concept of the market. Our purpose for analyzing this is to establish that, if it were not for the market, in which, producers and consumers were established as value exchangers, business would not be here. There would be no strategy to manage and no phenomena to discuss. None of
14


the resulting mechanics of business -strategic management, marketing strategy, competitive
advantage analysis, etc would exist. We give much credit to this scientific way of thought, to the two founding fathers of free market theory, aka capitalism. The first, Adam Smith (1776) in his work The Wealth of Nations, which attests that production and labor are essential to economic wealth, and of course, Karl Marx in his book Das Kapitak a continuous piece of literature developed from 1867 to 1894. As Classical Era members, they focused primarily on the processes and implications of production and the utility benefits of exchange. This makes sense given their time, but in both discussions -philosophical or not in their contexts- production and consumption are always present. They simply do not exist without one another, and what is always occurring, is an exchange of value. Up until the Marketing Company Era of the 1960s to the 1990s value was mostly measurable (White, 2010). Value had a monetary number with every exchange. But as technology advances, more options become available with opportunities to enhance ones self with both social and hedonic value. This ethos transformed the concept of value beyond what the bang for the buck was, to what the status, experience and utilitarian value of some exchange is. Differentiation for many companies then fell under their pricing strategy and positioning strategies for competitive advantages. These strategies were fueled first from within the company, for which market segments were then found. In present time, consumers dont want to scan through the options offered to them, they want to make their own additions to the product or service offerings and customize them. Well begin exploring the phenomena of customer centrality first to situate its inception and identify why it came about, followed by the origins of transient advantages.


Origins of Customer Centrality
Presently, there is an abundance of interrelated discussions meditating on customer centric practices, such as, value-co-production, stakeholder orientations, co-creation, service dominant logic, and the prosumer. Interestingly enough however, customer centric concepts are not all that new. The first and most notable critique to customer focused marketing was in 1960 by Theodore Levitt who wrote Marketing Myopia and asked the legendary question, What business are you really in (Levitt, I960)? This revolutionary article challenged managers to consider what needs they are actually satisfying for their customers. Levitt provides examples of what were once growth industries now failing. The most profound being the railroad industry:
The railroads did not stop growing because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined...not because the need was filled by others (cars, etc.)... But because they were railroad oriented instead of transportation oriented... they were product oriented instead of customer oriented (Levitt, 1960).
Levitt was certainty ahead of his time in his strategic forthcomings and advice to future managers. Unfortunately though, the direction Marketing Myopia outlined for business did not resonate until present day. The issue was not a rejection of this article. Practical and implementable systems were demonstrated in his thesis and well accepted. But the intention of creating customer-focused organisms as business models was misconstrued as marketers gained influence on strategy formulation. Quickly, the customer became king and the age-old saying, the customer is always right became our reality. Managers responded by heeding Levitts advice to establish customer-centered programs, but these programs were faulty. Reflecting on marketing strategy from the 1960s to present date, great advancements were made in terms of
16


customer relationship management and the perception of customer value, but such systems were
dominantly based around what the business perceived as valuable to the customer, not what the customer personally perceived and experienced as valuable. As strategists and managers continued to evolve, innovations in technology began influencing the unknown of the high tech future and the roles of producer and consumer begin merging. Appropriately so, it was time to redefine our titles as market members and economic actors. So in 1980, that is what futurist Alvin Toffler did with the creation of the Prosumer in his book The Third Wave. In moving through the waves as Toffler prophesied them, our species is destined to have evolved through three waves. Our existence in the first wave was dismal, and exemplified by the market structure of the trade era. Commodity and self-harvested and or self-created artifacts ruled the exchange of our daily lives. Growing tiresome of self-dependency, humans created systems of specialization in an industrialized society -the capitalistic society we are more accustom to today -, which Toffler named the second wave. But as technology advanced or continues to advance, it is Tofflers greatest and most popular prediction that the roles of producer and consumer will fully merge. With the availability of advanced technology, commodity and industrial resources will be at the disposable of each individual and the empowered prosumer will posses the ability to customize their products and services instantaneously in the third wave. Alvin Tofflers most famous demonstration of the almighty prosumer is given with his analogy of future retail shopping:
The most creative thing a person will do in 20 years from now, is to be a very creative consumer... Namely, youll be sitting there doing things like designing a suit of clothes for yourself or making modifications to a standard design, so the computer can cut one for you by laser and sew it together for you by machine right then (Toffler, 274, 1980).


Of Course, in this year (2015) we are not purchasing personally designed and laser tailored suits, but this raised eyebrows then and still does now. In 1986 Philip Kotler of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, reviewed Alvin Tofflers vision of the three waves outlining the recreation of the market as we know it post industrial era. His purpose was to describe Tofflers thesis, extend the prosumer concept further and to examine its validity and implications to the modem day marketer (Kotler, 1986). By examining Tofflers thesis through Kotlers lens, we identify the difference between producing for use and producing for exchange. In this distinction, producing for use is a marriage of the consumer and producer. While producing for exchange, is done by separating consumers from production. As a reflection to the time when this analysis of the future was written, most of Toffler and Kotlers examples of prosumer activities for use, involve basic physiological and safety based needs. E.g. Food production and consumption, shelter production and use, and blue-collar services such as hanging wallpaper, painting, and working on ones car. Herein lies the new challenge for the marketer. Kotlers point, is marketers will be at a loss of consumers to market to. The action of creating value through a product or service will decrease and marketers will have to research and develop products and services that assist prosumers in prosuming. Because of this drastic change in the structure and processes of the market, what is said to be a competitive advantage will be redefined (Kotler, 1986). Proving to be ahead of his time as well, Kotler advises that before it is acceptable to worry, marketers should not move to protect exchange in the market place, but rather work to synergize with prosumers and identify the new opportunities coming with the change(s). Kotler also reminds us, the market is human created and will serve our needs as long as we need it to (Kotler, 1986).
18


Theories of the customer centric firm have been in the works since the 1960s. Great
advancements in marketing were made putting consumers at the focus of strategy, but they were geared around what the firm viewed as valuable to the consumer. This unstable and conflicting relationship between producers and consumers in the market lead to the creation of the prosumer empowered by the promise of advanced and interactive technology. It was then and remains today a paradox for marketers to market products and services that assist prosumers in prosuming. Today, however, immaterial value creation is not harvested from the experience or utilitarian value of some product or service. The Internet, mobile technology, and thematic networks of prosumers have created and fostered and even more customer centric enterprise.
This adheres to an even more empowered prosumer society.
Origins of Transient Advantages
The original tools for strategy were designed to create sustainable competitive advantages. This idea of maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage is especially exemplified in Michael Porters five forces analysis and the resource based theory of the firm. Created in 1980 with its publication in the Harvard Business Review, the five forces analysis analyzes the level of competition, threat of substitution, bargaining power of buyers, level of supplier power, and threat of new entrants on a rating of low, moderate or high. It is said, if all forces within ones market are low, the firm has a sustainable competitive advantage (Porter, 1980). Adding to this concoction of sustainable recipes, the resource based theory promises such an advantage through the acquirement or development of valuable, unique, nonsubstitutable, nonimitable, and rare resources. Other tools of the time, which became the dominant analyses learned and practiced to present date include, the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) Growth Share Matrix (1970) and the McKinseys 7s model. These tools as McGrath refers to them are, the


biggies, that dont provide the results needed anymore because of their inadequate adaptability to the more volatile current time.
What is also surprising, is paradigmatic discussions responding to hypercompetitive markets with a focus on short-lived opportunities are not all that new either. The first critique to semi-permanent strategy was in 1995 by Richard DAveni who famously critiqued the McKinsey 7s model. As a strategist, DAveni reviewed the conditions of the market and compared it to what strategic tools mangers were using, as they deemed necessary. He proposed a new view of the market, in which we observe it as extremely hypercompetitive and so fierce, that competitive advantages are competed away or eroded rapidly, because of erratic conditions (DAveni 1995, 1995b, and DAveni et al. 2010). The proposal took the original application of the McKinsey 7s model, being a firms shared values, staff, style, systems, structure, skills, and strategy working in harmony to attain competitive advantages, and proposed the new 7s model. It emphasizes, superior stakeholder satisfaction, strategic soothsaying, positioning for speed, positioning for surprise, shifting the rules of the game, signaling strategic intent, and simultaneous and sequential strategic thrusts (DAveni, 1995b). The primary problem this new model solved was the ability to survive in instable market conditions, by being instable. With an emphasis on continuous change, the 7s model is designed to provoke, encourage, and guide continuous change with no solid recipe for success (DAveni 1995). Furthering this concept of short-lived advantages, he proposed the wave theory in 2010. DAveni designed a metaphor through which we observe that no ocean wave is the same. The air, the sun, the wind, and the moons gravitational pool all have an influence on the unique lifecycle, structure, and size of each independent wave. Correlating this to business, a competitive advantage in a hypercompetitive market has its own unique and separate lifecycle because of the many environmental factors
70


affecting it. The swift attack of a competitor, the establishment of a new substitution or an internal environment incapable of readjusting quickly, affects the length and quality of each companys ride on a wave (DAveni et al. 2010). Convincing and rationally sound, this theory furthered a better understanding of how to grow and combat a loss of market share. Consistent to McGraths (2013) argument, DAveni notes there are industries that do in fact have sustainable competitive advantages, such as oligopolies and monopolies, but the different concepts are mutually exclusive. Our understanding of conducting temporary strategies is furthered by understanding one concept cannot exist if the other is not there for comparison.
71


Defining Co-Creation
Co-creation is used as an inclusive definition to the stated customer centric phenomena primarily for two reasons. First, by its very word choice and definition, it is the most logically sound and concise term for the interrelated thoughts. Secondly, it as its own concept has been developed upon and published the most. Bearing in mind everything else, though co-creation has received the most attention, all other thoughts, especially those of the prosumer with its revolutionary and unique renaming of market members, are still relevant; that is to say cocreators are synonymous with prosumers. Simply put, prosumers co-create and co-creation is synonymous with service dominant logic, value co-production, prosumption, and anything else merging the roles of producer and consumer. Points of intersection and relation between these concepts, include a requirement to pursue value from outside of the firm, both material and immaterial value creation, an emphasis on experience, immeasurable returns of value, and in some facet or another the Internet, mobile technology, and information abundance.
Early discussions of customer centric activities were conducted under the concept of the prosumer and were solely material based. For example, Alvin Tofflers (1980) analogy of the laser tailored suite and Philip Kotlers (1986) extension of the prosumer thesis with the paradox of more do it yourself products and services, such as, working on ones own car, take home pizzas, and in store kiosks, etc. But as the turn of the century approached, an emphasis on revolutionizing the affordability and access of services became prevalent. Erik Banks of the University Center at the City University of New York described his thoughts in 1998 on the prosumer movement as, political in nature.. .but an opportunity for consumers to manifest a do-it-yourself ethos.. .in an economy that is a whole lot simpler than producers would like us to know (Banks, 1998). This opinion was essentially a response to a lack of affordability in
77


services and products. Foundational work on merging the producer and consumer afforded market players supplementation to replace a service with their own time and effort, to create their own value, and save money. With such buzz discussions occurring in the market a new sense of consumer self began spreading through society and professionals turned to a revaluation of business, which inevitably lead to co models.
The first co concept was in 1999 by Rafael Ramirez with his creation of value coproduction. His thesis analyzed the difference between what value creation looks like when it adheres to the inherited behaviors and thoughts of the industrial era, versus the ways of thought or processes of value creation with enhanced and new sociotechnical developments. Ramirez explored the definition of business and demonstrated how value-co-production requires reestablishing organizational structures and systems. This reestablishment of systems as emphasized by Ramirez, calls for firms to leave their internal boundaries and establish an outside-in approach to conducting exchange for utility (Ramirez, 1999). With reconfigured roles as economic actors (prosumers), new offerings have to be jointly created with innovative co-productive relationships through new value creation systems. This necessitates dialogue and engagement platforms, with value constellations composing different forms of value or types of value. According to Ramirez (1999), value cannot always be measured or monetized. Much of his work focused on creating systematic processes for reconfiguring strategy and organizational systems, which influenced much of Prahalad and Ramswamys work on co-creation in 2002, conveniently, shortly after the .com bust.
Differing from Ramirez, Prahalad and Ramswamys formulation of and focus on cocreation was geared towards solving the centurys paradigm of value deficit, fueled by the Internet empowered consumer. Prahalad and Ramaswamy concluded the Internet has forced
73


business to change its industrial, capitalistic, and firm centric ways, because it fosters customer centrality by its very nature. Through the Internet, consumers now have access to information, a global view, thematic networks, enhanced experimentation, and more opportunities to practice sociocultural and political activism (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002). And while this is a common consensus amongst customer centric authors, some argue immaterial and online prosumption activities actually exploit the empowered prosumer (Ritzer et al. 2010, 2012; Ritzer 2014).
Such empowerments and exploitations are demonstrated by the English professor of digital media studies at the University of Pittsburgh, Jamie Skye Bianco, who outlined some intriguing precarious affordances to the prosumer (Bianco, 1999). Biancos work exemplifies how the Internet and social media create an objective market place where knowledge can precede abstraction. Prosumer activity on social media, in particular, can lead and function as a source for communal disobedience and psychosocial avocation. This is shown whenever a thematic community joins an avocation page to stand up against suppression, oppression, or societal disapproval, such as supporting public breastfeeding (Bianco, 1999). On the flip side of this communal empowerment, are the exploitive forms of online and immaterial co-creation or prosumption, because prosumers of digital content provide free information. Demographics, social trends, tastes and preferences, and our personal insights are available to companies through social media platforms, such as Facebook, who sell that information (Bianco 2009).
George Ritzer and Nathan Jurgenson (2010) expanded on the ideas of immaterial and online prosumption by emphasizing how prosumers of online activities provide information and services for free and explored the exploitation of such activities in the capitalistic economy. Though their conclusion was capitalists have a difficult time controlling prosumers in the same
74


ways they have been able when the roles of producer and consumer are distinctly separate (Ritzer et al. 2010, 2012 and 2014), prosumers now fill a void once done by the firm. For example, in the oil and gas industry there is a distinct separation between the provider of gasoline (the producer) and the purchaser of gasoline (the consumer). In this scenario and as described by Ritzer et al. (2010), material prosumption in this market occurs when the purchaser takes on the role of prosumer by pumping his or her own gas. However, because this purchaser is inevitably at the mercy of he producer for what they will pay, their role is distinguished and they are exploited through their consumption of the gasoline, because their input on gas pricing is absent. With regard to immaterial (Ritzer, 2010) and experience co-creations of value (Ramaswamy 2008), the empowered 2F' century prosumer via the Internet and other forms of technology, is not easily exploited, because of their freedom afforded through self-generated content. Bearing the distinction of a consumer versus a prosumer in mind, it would appear exploitation only occurs when the resources of the individual are limited. Yet, it is still our reality that prosumption from the material view, is an innate function e.g. we build our own homes, harvest and prepare our food, and design and make our own clothing. Hence we are prosumers, who innately produce and consume our own resources and artifacts, but have found a new sense of empowerment with the Internet and mobile technology (Ritzer 2014; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2002; Ramaswamy 2008, Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2014).
Co-Creation as a Strategy.
Other models for co-creation are exemplified through service-dominant logic, created by Associate Professor Stephen Vargo and Professor of Marketing Robert Lusch from the University of Arizona. The two conceptualized and constructed theoretical work on an evolution occurring in the market transferring strategy from goods-dominant logic (GD-logic), to what


they refer as, service-dominant logic (SD-logic) (Vargo, 2007). Service-dominant logics salient relations to concepts of dialogue and of intimate interaction between the consumer and producer are found in its foundational premises (FP). These premises establish that the customer is always a co-creator of value and that value is uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary (Vargo et al., 2007).
As strategist, C.K. Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy were the first to establish an actual model and framework to apply to marketing strategy. Bearing the pillars of empowerment for the 21 prosumer in mind, they created the DART model (dialogue, access, risk-reduction, and transparency) as a building block for co-creation (2002 and 2004a) and the experience environment (2004b and 2013) as a medium for fostering and making co-creative activities more approachable and applicable to business. Ramaswamy who created experience co-creation (ECC) furthered the concept of the experience environment in 2008, and then again in 2014 with Kerimcan Ozcan, who both founded the co-creative environment model to include engagement platforms of APPI (persons, processes, interfaces, and artifacts), with co-creative actions powered by CITI (creativity, intendonality, integrativity, and transformativity).
DART (dialogue, access, risk reduction, and transparency).
Dialogue in the DART model is the creation of shared meaning. Its a whole other level of market research and development. Dialogue involves more than listening and reacting. It requires deep engagement, lively interactivity, empathetic understanding, and willingness of both parties to act (Prahalad, et al. 2002). For example, if companies would have listened in the music industry, there would not have been as much or any at all, illegally downloaded music. Instead, they should have changed their platform, the way it has been now with Spofity, Sound Cloud, Hype Machine, iTunes Radio, etc., offering easily purchasable and reasonably priced or
7 b


frankly, free music. With access, dialogue and services with the company need to be easily accessible. Music being another great example, it is not that consumers arent willing to pay for music. Instead, they want easily accessible music after they have paid a fare price. But it cannot be difficult to obtain. Car2Go is another great example. People are able to obtain transportation with a monthly fee and pay as you drive system. They can easily communicate with Car2Go, so both parties can enhance their experience and customers easily access a solution to their need, transportation. With risk reduction, there is always going to be a component of liability on both the business and consumer ends. Both parties have to assume responsibility and are obligated in some way throughout their relationships lifecycle. With co-creation, consumers will be more willing to take on more responsibility, if companies are more willing to reveal more information about the risks associated with the products and services they offer (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002). In a world with more information and technology making that information more readily available, consumers now demand opportunities to make better-informed decisions and reduce risk. -Risk reduction was later changed to risk-return, by Ramaswamy in 2008 to emphasize a return of value, and to reflexivity in 2014 by Ramaswamy and Ozcan to emphasis the necessity of instantaneous action on both partys halves-. Transparency is the component of the DART model relinquishing value creation before the traditional point of exchange. For example, the USPS allows current time packaging tracking and the option to re-route them to other people, and by doing this, the company improves the customer experience. With no secretes or lack of information in the value creation and supply process, consumers are able to customize and specialize their product or service. The DART model serves as a guiding systematic process and foundational core value to merge the views of the producer and consumer through co-creation.
77


Experience environment and experience co-creation.
The experience environment provides a framework allowing firms to facilitate co-creative experiences with millions of prosumers. The experience environment includes products and services, the interfaces by which the prosumer interacts with the company, including its multiple channels, modalities, employees, and communities (Ramaswamy, 2008). This environment itself is from where and how prosumers obtain value. Ramaswamy discussed this in 2008 with his analysis of the Nike case. Nike created an effective experience environment by teaming up with Apple, creating online and physical thematic communities, with interfaces for communication and customization. The Nike experience environment allowed experience cocreation because of their development of Nike-i- (Nike Plus), a system that synchronizes your shoes with your apple product to track your steps, distance, speed, geographic location, heart rate, and more. Through the Nike ID website, the runner could then upload their trails or tracks, distance ran, calories burned, their running goals and connect with other runners in their area, which creates a thematic community of runners (Ramaswamy, 2008, Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2013). An experience environment as a framework for a co-creative business model is necessary because of the complexity beyond simply embracing DART. Fueled by developments in technology and the changing demands of prosumers who value instantaneous customization and experience enhancement, an experience environment provides inclusive coverage to the nuances of merging producer and consumer.
In establishing the creation of the experience environment from which utility and experience value are obtained, we see it as a basis for innovation as well. That is to say, innovation now goes beyond a new product or service and now includes experience environment innovation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2013). And though co-creation can help with a product


or service innovation, by its nature, the experience environment encompasses much more. A
model of an experience environment as it was portrayed with the Nike case by Venkat Ramaswamy (2008) is displayed below:
Nodal
Firm
CO-CREATIVE STRATEGIC CAPITAL OF VALUE TO COMPANIES
CO-CREATIVE EXPERIENCES OF VALUE TO CUSTOMERS
CUSTOMER
CO-CREATIVE
INTERACTIONS
(Dialogue,
Access,
Risk-return,
Transparency
COMPANY
Global ECONOMIC VALUE
Resource TO COMPANIES
Networks
ECONOMIC VALUE TO COMPANIES
Global
Thematic
Communities
New locus of value creation
Co-creative environment model.
The co-creative environment model is the most innovative model of guidance for a co-creative system yet. With the new model, Venkat Ramaswamy and Kerimcan Ozcan developed three new components the, experience domain, engagement platform, and the capability ecosystem (Ramaswamy, et al. 2014). This model with its more in depth components, clarified what a market of co-creators looks like. Furthering the definitions of the market players, firms change from just enterprises, to stakeholding individuals and enterprises who instead of producing goods and services, co-create experiences. Instead of just market activities, co-creative engagement platforms function as a nexus of value creation (Ramaswamy et al. 2014). In short, experience domains contain APPI (persons, processes, interfaces, and artifacts), DART, and valued attributes of personalization, quality, novelty, and variety (Ramaswamy et al., 2014), from which co-creation occurs and an experience is derived. The authors use a fantastic example of the Apple store, in which, consumers enter to be greeted by a knowledgeable staff, with


efficient and customizable processes, a multitude of interfaces to utilize and enhance their interaction, with customizable and attractive artifacts (the iPod, iPhone, etc.) These experience domains are fueled by the capability ecosystem and the engagement platforms. In arriving at an actual experience domain or similarly an experience environment, the input of the stakeholder oriented enterprise and stake-holding-co-creator synergize by collaborating through the capability ecosystem and the engagement platforms of the market. Note the experience and product or service innovation occurs on the engagement platforms, which then affords an experience domain to be created.
Co-Created Outcomes of Value
Persona ization
Transparency *
Enterprise
and Private
Network Sector
Resources
Public Social
Sector Sector
Enterprises as a Nexus of Engagement Platforms >
Reflex ivity
Experiential Learning-lnsighcs-Knowledge and Building New Strategic Capital
Quality
EXPERIENCE
DOMAINS
Novelty
access* Dialogue
Variety
Offei ings
Intentlonality
Transformativity
Decisions
ENGAGEMENT
PLATFORMS
Relations
Integrativity Creativity
\ /
a w
Idea cion
Human Experiences of Value and Expansion of Wealth-Welfare-Wellbeing
Stakeholding Individuals as Co-Creators
Customers Employees Suppliers Partners Financiers Resourtes Citizens Others
Open
and
Social
Capacities of Enterprise Architectures
Cenerativity .Sustairjabjlity ^ Evolvability
Infrastructure
Governance
Capacities of Management Systems
Linkability -------------- Inclusivity
Development
Co-creation is the future of marketing and a firms ability to maintain a competitive
advantage. As stated earlier, co-creation as discussed in this paper subsumes the preceding, as
well as, current discussions of interrelated concepts, specifically, value-co-production, and


prosuming or prosumption. The prosumer thesis as a model for an actual economic actor or new definition for a market member is accepted to derive the conclusion that co-creation is something prosumers do; prosumers co-create their value. Since the inception of the prosumer and market activities marrying the roles of production and consumption, value creation has been majorly material and utility based. For example, prosumers take home sauce packets and create their own sauce at home, or prepare their own tax documents, etc. 21" co-creation is still in many cases material and utility based, but the Internet, mobile technology, and information abundance have created a new wave of value creation through the process of co-creation fostered by the customer centric enterprise. This new concept of value goes beyond measurable return, and is now notable by the experience and immaterial value a prosumer obtains from their interaction or exchange with a firm or the resources afforded to them. These conclusions lead to the primary attribute of the co-creative transient model (CCTM), being the co-creation component (CCC).
Examples of Co-Creation
Material co-creation.
In recognizing the prosumer as an innate function of the human condition (Ritzer, 2014), we can note more simplistic and evolutionary forms of prosumption. Such practices would include, building ones own home, planting, harvesting, and preparing ones own food, making our clothes, etc. Such forms of material co-creation and or prosumption would include:
Conducting a personal exchange on a kiosk machine independently.
Checking ones own blood pressure in the grocery store or pharmacy.
Taking group photos in photo booths.
Functioning as the DJ in your restaurant through wireless jukeboxes.
Participating in live broadcasts.
31


The square and cash applications and credit transaction devices.
Immaterial and experience co-creation
Material and physically experiential forms of co-creation are obviously going to continue as an innate function of the human condition. Immaterial and experience forms of co-creation, however, are more intriguing and prominent to such precarious times. These are the forms of cocreation afforded to modem day prosumers via the Internet, mobile technology, and information abundance. These forms empower prosumers, foster instantaneity and customization, and create experience environments of mass membership. Such examples include:
The experience environment of Nike+ and Nike ID.
Thematic online communities (e.g. dating websites, avatar profiles, nutrition and health web-based communities, Facebook groups, etc.).
The Google Maps location creator.
Spotify and other music platforms allowing users to add songs, create playlists, and share music.
iCal, Asana, Google Calendar and other cloud-based scheduling systems that are customizable buy the user.
Amazon, Etsy, craigslist and eBay, etc. which allow everyday people to sell their products and services online.
Social media platforms such as, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and YouTube, which allow users to join cohorts, voice themselves, provoke psychosocial avocation, and create their own marketing resources.
37


The Wayz mobile application in which users create new drive paths, report accidents, pull-overs, and longer drive times instantaneously on the road for a community of drivers to better navigate their commute.
The Robinhood application, which allows users to independently invest and trade American stocks from the convenience of their phone independently.
The Acorns application with allows users to invest in a portfolio with now minimum limit, by either rounding up daily purchases on their phone, or investing personally decided amounts whenever they want.


Defining Transient Advantages
The transient advantage model for this papers definition includes its existence as a shortlived opportunity phased through the transient advantage lifecycle/model (TAM) (McGrath, 2013), initiated by and managed with the firms adaptive capabilities for enhanced dynamism (Day, 2013). This concept so far as this paper is concerned recognizes that not all industries are subject to transient advantages. There are in fact some industries that capitalize on semipermanent strategies with sustainable competitive advantages. Such include, the oil and gas industry, high tech industries, and industries with loyal customer basis. Complex by its inclusive coverage of strategic management, the transient advantage model as created by McGrath (2013) is revolutionary because of its continuous redefining of the internal structure of the firm, with a never ending pursuit of out-side in approaches to action. With continuous internal reconfigurations of the organizational demographics and systems of a firm, the TAM necessitates more outside-in based approaches to value creating activities. Earlier forms of competitive advantage and market share analysis portrayed product and service or business models as defensible yet still finite. With McGraths view of the transient advantage, an offering by the firm (its advantage) goes through five stages or phases: the launch, ramp up, exploit, reconfigure, and disengagement phases. In the launch stage, the firm identifies a new opportunity, re-allocates its resources and assembles a team to create something new. This new obtainment is either an alteration to something already existing, an innovation, or a new market entirely (McGrath, 2013). During the ramp up phase, the new product or service benefits from a period of buzz and excitement leading to an established market presence. As more and more segments are captured, the business gains ground, and systems and processes designed to gain full-scale market dominance are implemented. McGrath notes speed to be a crucial factor during the ramp up
34


phase, because competitors can quickly match what is being done, steeling market share and destroying differentiation. In the third phase, this now established opportunity enters into exploitation. During exploitation, the company has effectively differentiated its strategy, customers are appreciative and everyones enjoying the benefits (McGrath, 2013). The key component to this phase, is mastering how to prolong the advantage as long as possible, while still being mindful it will eventually erode. Managers do this by constantly analyzing the market for threats and opportunities, while mindfully minimalizing assets and people specific to the function, because they will create barriers to the next innovation or opportunity. After exploitation, comes reconfiguration. During reconfiguration, assets, people and the capabilities of the firms begin making a transition from the current advantage to another. Employees shift from current assignments or activities to new ones and assets are moved (McGrath, 2013). Once it becomes clear the opportunity has begun eroding, the need to disengage is suggested. The firm then disposes of assets no longer relevant to its successful future, and either sells them, shuts them down, or disposes of them all together. The process then repeats itself, and is capable of doing so because of its adaptive capabilities. Below is the transient advantage model/lifecycle as created by Rita McGrath.


Transient Advantage Model/Life cycle
Launch
Reconfigure
Original resources that allowed firms to compete in unstable markets by being instable were proposed to be dynamic capabilities. Within the last few years the validity of dynamic capabilities has been proven to be inefficient in providing the dynamism needed to react in time. Richard DAveni (2010) discussed what were once conceivably effective tools to reconfigure and react, as incapable of providing the results necessary because of fatigue from initiation and misdirection from the noise and chaos of transitioning. Such capabilities required to reconfigure for a short-lived opportunity, as mentioned previously, are now referred to the adaptive capabilities, as created by Wharton business professor George Day. Adaptive capabilities are more or less malleable guidelines to enhance the dynamic capabilities of the firm, and they include, vigilant marketing learning, advanced warning systems, adaptive and planned experimentation, and inclusive marketing to forge relationships and anticipate change Day, 2013). These adaptive capabilities when practiced enhance those of dynamism discussed earlier by DAveni (2010) and Day (2010) which include sensing organizational change, scanning across markets and technologies, responding by combining, transforming or adding new


resources, and selecting an organizational reconfiguration and business model to deliver and capture economic profit [Kozlenkova 2013, as cited by Day (2013)]. Transient organizations must harness this view of strategy formulation and perfect a continuous process of reaction and adaptation. This continual reconfiguration requires companies to operate with ambition as a customer-focused organism, with strength in their identity and culture, a thriving organizational development program, flexibility with internal and external change, and a continuous pursuit of experience and product or service innovation.
With reference to the transient advantage model as an inclusive definition to interrelated phenomena, establishes the requirement of an organizationally transformative and strong firm, who embraces temporary advantages -acknowledging that each is different with its own unique factors- guided by its ability to enhance its dynamism through adaptive capabilities.
37


Co-Creative Transient Advantage Model
Using the co-creative transient advantage model (CCTM) conceptually, we see it as both an igniter of transient advantages and tool for managing them. It includes two components. The first is an alteration of the co-creative environment model (Ramaswamy et al. 2014) call the co-creative concept (CCC) and the second, is the transient advantage lifecycle as created by McGrath (2013), with its five phases. These two components are merged to demonstrate the process of creating a short-lived competitive advantage and its management throughout its lifecycle.
As the co-creative function to the CCTM, engagement platforms are the epicenter of the co-creative component, which exist as the environments artifacts, people, processes, and interfaces, which are always guided and influenced by DART (dialogue, access, risk reduction, and transparency). Differing from Ramaswamy and Ozcans (2014) co-creative environment model, in which, enterprises are distinguished by their sector, meeting stakeholding individuals as co-creators through the environments engagement platforms, the CCTM synergizes the interaction of customer centric organizations with prosumers on engagement platforms. Additionally, the ecosystem of capabilities in the CCTM is composed of adaptive capabilities (Day, 2013), outside resources (McGrath, 2013) and creativity (Ramaswamy et al., 2014), versus generativity, evolvabilitiy, inclusivity, linkability, infrastructure, development, sustainability, and governance (Ramaswamy, et al., 2014). We recognize the customer centric organization could be from any sector of society. Regardless its function, the organization must be an ambitious, agile, adaptive, strongly lead, reconfigurable, and a life-long learning organization. With prosumers merging at this nexus of engagement, we respect their role as stakeholders who are empowered from thematic communities. Interaction on the engagement platforms is either


direct or through the environments ecosystem of capabilities. At this junction, we distinguish the difference between general or direct interaction and a co-created product or experience environment innovation.
General exchange and interaction on an engagement platform include frequent or daily product use and value creation. For example, using a mobile phone to co-create a social media post, update a car accident on Wayz, taking an amazing photo, or preparing a new take home pasta. With established processes, the customer centric firm has to constantly engage in dialogue and analyze its performance to either make an alteration to an existing advantage or engage in innovation. When communication between the organization and prosumer concludes a change needs to be made, they work together to co-create an alteration to the existing transient advantage with adaptive actions. If it has become clear through constant analysis and dialogue that value is no longer obtained, the parties engage in innovation, which is fueled by the environments ecosystem of capabilities. The firm centric organization and prosumer arrive at this process from either the engagement platform, or through the ecosystem of capabilities itself, which directs them back to the engagement platforms, resulting in a new innovation and transient advantage. Refer to the co-creative component below:


Co-Created Outputs/
T ransient Advantages
t* Experience innovation Product or service innovation Adaptive action
Customer Centric
Agile and Adaptive
Strongly lead
Rcconligurablc
Learning organism
Engagement
platforms
DART
APPI
Prosumers
Stakcholder(s) Empowered Thematic communities
Dynamic and adaptive capabilities Creativity Outside resources
Ecosystem
of
Capabilities
The innovation process fostered and guided by the CCTM is the igniter of transient
advantages, while general and direct interaction via the engagement platforms is a function for managing the advantage throughout its life cycle. When innovation or an entirely new
opportunity presents itself or is found, the business and prosumer synergize in the communitys ecosystem of capabilities fueled by outside resources. As a nexus for recreating a new experience
environment or constructing an innovation, creativity and open-mindedness dictate the duets utilization of the dynamic and adaptive capabilities afforded. If an adaptive move has to be
made, the organization may reorganize its organizational demographics or discontinue a product line. Recognizing this a continual process, the co-creative component is present at every phase of
the transient advantage lifecycle and can be used to find additional transient advantages, while one continues to exist. Below is the CCTM as a conceptual model, demonstrating how one
4 n


advantage may continue to exist, while others are continuously found, with adaptive actions taken to prolong the transient advantage as long as possible.
The Co-Creative Transient Model
The co-created outputs of the CCTM are what mergers the paradigmatic problems of customer centrality and transience. Co-created outputs as made from the interaction of the customer centric organization and prosumer are what either creates a new transient advantage through innovation, or provokes adaptive action adhering to the prosumers desires which extend the transient advantages lifecycle. By applying the co-creative component (CCM) to every phases of the transient advantage model (TAM), market dominance is established, exploitation is fully utilized, disengagement queues are quickly identified, and the process of reconfiguration is done with ease.
41


Conclusion
The definition of our current business era has become increasingly complex with the sequential paradigms of from firm centric to customer centric and from sustainable to transient advantages. To solve our current paradigmatic problems, it appears these shifts in thought must inevitably intersect and synergize to provide a solution to creating value for a world of prosumers and organizations susceptible to transient advantages. Customer centric concepts such as service-dominant logic and value co-production have been thoroughly subsumed by the concept of co-creation and its succeeding building blocks, such as, the experience environment and DART. The market is now dominated by prosumers (co-creators) who inject their interests into the menu of products and services a company offers, to co-create not only their experience and utilitarian values, but also new product and experience environment innovations as well. Developments in technology with the Internet and mobile technology especially, have ushered in a new wave of empowered prosumers who are not as easily exploited with their freedoms of selfgenerated and customizable content. This new fabrication of the market has increased the amount of companys subject to transient advantages. Transient advantages as a model or concept inclusively converge other concepts relevant to short-lived opportunities or temporary advantages. These lifecycles or waves of opportunity are discovered and created by the enhanced dynamism of an organizations adaptive capabilities.
The intersection at which the paradigms of customer centrality and of transience meet is based on an outside in approach with constant change as derived from the prosumers input. As a paradox, industries who have sustainable advantages in stable markets who embrace little to no co-creative activity, is juxtaposed by industries operating in unstable environments who seek the customer first, to then innovate, and ignite a short-lived advantage. Simply put, transient
47


industries are already co-creative, while sustained industries, such as the oil and gas industry, are firm centric and do not have to be agile and adaptive. Herein lies one of the greatest connections between customer centrality and transience. As Prahalad and Ramaswamy established with their earliest work in 2002, the competitive advantage will now lie with those who co-create the best.
In conceptualizing a marriage of the solutions from the transient advantage model and those from co-creative concepts, the co-creative transient model (CCTM) exists as an applicable prototype for strategy formulation. The co-creative component (CCC) as an alerted version of Ramaswamy and Ozcans co-creative environment, added to the transient lifecycle as outlined by McGrath, conceptualizes the CCTM as both a provider of transient advantages and tool for managing and prolonging them. The engagement platforms of the CCTM are the epicenter of all co-creative transient activities. These platforms either provoke adaptive action or result in co-creative innovations that ignite new transient advantages. This nexus of interaction and creativity is fueled by and composed of customer centric organizations, empowered prosumers, and the environments ecosystem of capabilities.
With constant engaged communication, analysis, and action, many components of this new model will affect the future of business and employment opportunities for the 2T' century marketer. In light of Richard DAvenis (2010) discussion, data analysis and information interpretation will become increasingly more important. More current analyses reflecting what is really occurring in real time will open new portals of research and development opportunities to prolong advantages and identify new ones. It is concluded then, that much attention will continue to be given to the market place dominated by the prosumer, with co-creative bliss and short-lived opportunities. Further research on such topics will include the application of the CCTM to business models that have or will embrace concepts on co-creation and temporary advantages.
43


References
Banks, E. (1998). The Prosumer and the Productivity Paradox. Social Policy, 28(4), 5.
Bianco, J. S. (2009). Social Networking and Cloud Computing: Precarious Affordances for the "prosumer." Women Studies Quarterly, 37, 303-310. Retrieved from http: //www.j stor. org/stable/27655163
Comor, E. (2010). Contextualizing and Critiquing the Fantastic Prosumer: Power, Alienation and Hegemony. The Journal of Critical Sociology, 37(3), 309-327.
DAveni, RA. (1995). Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamic of Strategic Maneuvering.
Free Press: New York.
D'Aveni, R. I. (1995b). Coping with hyper competition Utilizing the new 7s framework. The Academy of Management, 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165272 D'Aveni, R., Daginino, G. B., & Smith, K. G. (2010). The Age of Temporary Advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1371-1385.
Day, G. (2013). An Outside-In Approach to Resource Based Theories. Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 42, 27-28. doi: 10.1007/s 11747-013-0348-3 Holmes, O. (2012, November 12). Why the Paradigm Shift in Management is so Difficult.
Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/ll/12/why-the-paradigm-shift-in-
management-is-so-difficult/
Kotler, P. (1986). The Prosumer Movement: a New Challenge for Marketers. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 510-513.
Levitt, T. (1960, July/August). Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Review, 1-15. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2004/07/marketing-myopia/ar/1 Marx, K. (1981). Capital: Volume Two. In (1884). Das Kapital. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
44


McGrath, R. G. (2013). The End of Competitive Advantage: how to keep your strategy moving as fast as your business (1). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2002). The Co-Creation Connection. Strategy and Business, 50-61.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. Strategy and Leadership, 32(3), 4-9.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b). Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14. doi: 10.1002/dir.20015
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2013). The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. Harvard Business Press.
Ramaswamy, V. (2008). Co-creating unique value through customers' experiences: the Nike case. Strategy and Leadership, 36(5), 9-14.
Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2014). The Co-Creation Paradigm. Stanford University Press.
Ramirez, R. (1998). Value Co-Production. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 49-68.
Ritzer, G. (2014). Prosumption: Evolution, revolution, or eternal return of the same? Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 3-24.
Ritzer, G., Dean, P., & Jurgenson, N. (2012). The Coming Age of the Prosumer. American Behavioral Scientist, 4(56), 380-389.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of
capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer.' Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13-36.
Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York, NY: William and Morrow and Company.
45


Tseng, M. M., & Piller, F. T. (2003). The Customer Centric Experience. Verlag Berlin: Springer Link: Springer-Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-55460-5_ l#page-1
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10.
White, D. S. (2010, October 7). The Evolution of Marketing. In dstevenwhite.com. Retrieved March 19, 2014, retrieved from: http://dstevenwhite.com/2010/06/18/the-evolution-of-marketing/
46


Full Text

PAGE 1

Co Creation and Transient Advantages Marketing Strategy for Short Lived Opportunities by Aaron Motsenbocker An undergraduate thesis submitted in partial completion of the M etropolitan State University of D enver Honors Program May 2014 Dr. Elizabeth McVicker Kristin Watson Dr. Megan Hughes Zarzo Primary Advisor Second Reader Honors Program Director

PAGE 2

Co Creation and Transient Advantages Marketing Strategy for Short Lived Opportunities Aaron Motsenbocker Undergraduate Honors Thesis Metropolitan State University of Denver April 1, 2015

PAGE 3

! Inspiration My undergraduate education began at the perfect time for a paradigm shift. As the true impact of the 2008 market crash came further into clarity, critical debates and skepticism amongst professionals haunted society. But, what is always the case with turbu lence is it is temporary. We know if we hold tight, it will pass. This however begs the question, what comes after the turbulence? With regard to our global and national economies, a lot changes, because whatever was in practice before was faulty. So, there 's this presence of transferability or transferring from one period of time to another. And it leads one to ask, "what will make it out of the turbulence?" and what will be created and added as new norms in the market, once we can move on? I focused on thi s issue, and other current trends relevant to what is redefining the major differences between what is today and what will be tomorrow. In exploring how business and society were transferring, there were requirements. An argument had to establish itself with originality, innovation, and practicality. I began searching for material discussing the future of business, business and consumer interaction, paradigm occurrence(s), etc. The first source I found was a lecture during the summer of 2013 by a Harvard history professor to the Harvard School of Business. She discussed the massive transfer long in the making and presented the issue of turbulent times, high stress, and social hunger for leadership. According to her, we are intensely re constructing the new frame for society and all the factors within it, results of a paradigm shift. The frame? The frame is societal norms and standards. It's how we exist in a commercialized global economy. So, what goes on the frame? Even she admits, "I don't know, but we ne ed it." For the intensive purposes of my paper, this justified entertaining an evaluation of what a marketer could or will take to and from the new frame. Many months later this lead to the findings of "co creation," a strategy or study that involves the c onsumer more with value creation and ideation, and "transient advantage," the strategy or theory that businesses no longer have sustainable competitive advantages. Both are separate strategies that compliment each other well. So I married them. Hopefully this argument will grant me admission to a graduate program and function as something applicable with our personal and professional planning in the future. I would like to extend my most sincere appreciation to the committee and everyone who assisted and guided me throughout the difficulties of my own doing. Thank you.

PAGE 4

! # Table of Contents Abstract 3 Literature Review 4 Introduction 7 The Changes for Business Today 7 Customer Centric Concepts 8 Transient Advantage Concepts 9 Simplifying the Phenomena 10 Methods for Tomorrow 11 Significance 13 Observations for Review 13 A Timeline for Co Creation and Transience 14 Origins of Customers Centrality 16 Origins of Transient Advantages 17 Defining Co Creation 22 Co Creation as a Strategy 25 DART (Dialogue, Access, Risk Reduction, and Transparency) 26 Experience Environment and Experience Co Creation 28 Co Creative Environment Model 29 Examples of Co C reation 31 Material Co Creation 31 Immaterial and Experience Co Creation 32 Defining Transient Advantages 34 Co Creative Transient Advantage Model 38 Conclusion 42 References 44

PAGE 5

! $ Abstract Our understandings of marketing strategy and competitive advantages are undergoing redevelopments from two sequential paradigms. These shifts in thought are identified as from firm centric to customer centric and from sustainable to transient competitive advantages. These shif ts in thought have delayed the title and definition of our current marketing era. Furthering the complexity of these issue s are the preceding and succeeding interrelated concepts relevant to each shift. On the customer centric end, we note the reopening of the prosumer thesis and "co" models, in particular, co creation as created by Prahalad and Ramaswamy in 2002. With regard to short lived competitive advantages, we note the creation of transient advantages and the transient advantage model or lifecycle (M cGrath, 2013), through which susceptible organizations move through five phases. These phases are known as the launch, ramp up, exploit, disengage, and reconfigure stages of a transient advanta ge model and are initiated by and managed with a firm's ada ptiv e capabilities. In recognizing theses paradigmatic concepts as sequential and interrelated, in that, they both require an outside in approach and continuous, as well as, instantaneous action they inevitably must intersect and synergize. This nexus of cust omer centrality and transience is the solution to creating and maintaining value in a world of empowered prosumers who are ruled by abstractions afforded to them via the Internet, mobile technology, and information abundance. This paper proposes a solution to these paradigmatic problems, by conceptualizing a model through which co creative concepts and the transient advantage lifecycle are merged. With this creation, the co creative transient model (CCTM) presents itself as an igniter of and manager for tra nsient advantages.

PAGE 6

! % Literature Review We are in the middle of defining a new era of marketing. It was recently proposed the current marketing era be titled the, "Social and Mobile Marketing Era" by marketing professor Dr. Steven White. It is a proposal indeed, because a common consensus amongst professionals is scattered by the noise of many transformational activities (White, 2010). Fueling the complexity of this definition, are the two sequential paradigms of from firm centric to customer centric and from sustainable to transient advantages. The customer centric shift is defined by a change in business structure as we've know it to be for over 100 years, in which value is created from within the firm, to now being sourced from outside of the firm, thro ugh the customer (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002, 2004a, 2004b; Ramaswamy 2008; and Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2014). Some professionals have summarized this shift in thought as, "a move from shareholder capitalism, to customer capitalism" (Holmes, 2012), while ot hers present it as a way to mass customization for conquering hypercompetitive markets (Tseng and Piller, 2003). Customer centrality is receiving more attention tha n ever before, but has been a developing concept since 1960, when Theodore Levitt challenged business to never forget what needs they are actually satisfying for their customers. Buzz discussion amongst strategist and other business professionals has lead to the mergence of the producer and consumer, which inevitably lead to the creation of the prosumer," one who produces and consumes their own value (Alvin Toffler, 1980, Ritzer et al. 2010, 2014; Ritzer 2012). Early analogies of the prosumer were material based, by which, the prosumer designed their own suit to be laser tailored and stitched ins tantly or prepared their own legal documents from templates without professional assistance (Banks, 1999). Modern day versions of this market player paradox however, have lead to a slew of interrelated concepts fueled by the creation of the Internet, mobil e technology and information

PAGE 7

! & abundance. The most dominant concept being co creation, has been developed as a solution to empowered consumers who have access, networking capabilities, thematic communities, and the option to customization in world were more options than ever before provide less value than ever before (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2002, Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2014). Other customer centric concepts fueled by the Internet are seen by the reintroduction of the Prosumer, who is exploited through their free providence of information and content on the Internet and other shared platforms. Nevertheless the prosumer remains both an innate and revolutionary function (Ritzer et al., 2014). We live in a wor ld of prosumers, who co create inject ing their interest s into the mix of offerings by a firm, and competitive advantage lies with those who co create or recognize the prosumer the best (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b, Ritzer et al., 2014). In referencing the second paradigm, all focus shifts from understanding competi tive advantages as sustainable to short lived and temporary (D'Aveni 1995, 1995b; D'Aveni et al., 2010). This understanding has lead to the creation of the transient advantage model or lifecycle, which outlines five phases organizations susceptible to tran sient advantages move through (McGrath, 2013). Much like waves, each is different with its own unique factors. Transient advantages are launched, ramped up, exploited, disengaged and reconfigured in their specific arena (McGrath, 2013) or experience enviro nment tailored to their unique thematic community (Ramaswamy 2013). Strategists have responded with such approaches to strategy, because markets are instable with hypercompetition (D'Aveni, 1995, 1995b). The original tools of strategy, specifically Michael Porter's five forces analysis and the resource based view of the firm, are now mostly obsolete, "as they are stuck defending t he market as it were when the advantage was already found" (McGrath, 2013). Other professionals have aided this new approach by emphasizing the use of adaptive capabilities (Day, 2013), to enhance a firm's dynamic capabilities (D'Aveni, 2010) and identify new opportunities.

PAGE 8

! Inevitably, it appears these shifts in thought must intersect and synergize in the their relations of always looking to customers first to innovate (Prahalad et al. 2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2013; Ramaswamy et al. 2014; McGrath, 2013; Day, 2013) and solve their needs by being adaptive and constantly analyzing what is actually occurring. From these two interrelated para digmatic problems with those of co creative concepts, in which prosumers co create and organizations find themselves susceptible to transient advantages, a model is created to conceptualize what value creation and competitive advantages look in the 21 st ce ntury. This view is enhanced and guided with the creation of the co creative transient model (CCTM).

PAGE 9

! ( Introduction We are in the middle of defining a new era of marketing Rapidly changing and hypercompetitive environments, accelerated advancements in technology, and empowered consumers have ignited a change in thought on what value is and how advantages are obtained. Currently, consumers are at a loss of value with more options than ever before and business continues to be unsustainabl e with inadequate retu rns on investment Deepenin g the complexity of this parado x are two sequential paradigms forcing business to redevelop the playbooks of strategy and success evaluation These paradigm shifts can be identified as from f irm centric to customer centric, and from sus tainable competitive advantages to transient advantage s Each id entifiable with their own nuances, are affect ing every aspect of busin ess management and have forced professionals to a ddress the question, what now? For business to cont inue, we must develop improved strategies to successfully combat ambiguous environments and provide greater value to both businesses and consumers. The Changes for Business Today To solve these paradigmatic problems, it appears these shifts in th ought must inevitably meet and synergize to move forward with a fresh ever changing take on value creation In discussing the paradigm shift of from firm centric to customer centric, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of Forbes Magazine presents it as, "a shift fro m shareholder capitalism to, customer capitalism (Holmes Jr. 2012). As outlined by Holmes, value and our attempt to maximize it, is transferring from what that means for business, to what maximized value means to the consumer. Similarly, business profess ors Mitchell Tseng and Frank Piller address customer centric, as way to mass customization for conquering the growing demands of competition (Tseng, et al. 2003). With the customer centric thought, consistency does nothing in comparison to flexibility and

PAGE 10

! ) interaction. More evolutionary, the firm centric to customer centric shift is a move from focusing on the creation of value from within the firm, to focusing on the creation of value outside of the firm (Tseng and Piller, 2003; Holmes, 2012). At the other joint of the intersection, is from sustainability to transience. Not long ago, Rita McGrath professor of management at the Columbia Business School and a highly regarded consultant, declared the sustainable competitive advantage as no longer relevant to mo st industries (McGrath, 2013). Advantages obtained by the ability to provide value to customers and the firm, are no longer defensible. Essentially, if a firm has a competitive advantage, it is because the organization is successfully, "surfing short lived waves of opportunity" (McGrath, 2013). More revolutionary, sustainable to transient completely redefines our understanding of what a competitive advantage is. And w hile emphasizing the occurrence and inevitable intersection of the customer centric and tra nsience shifts i s certainly intriguing, more imperative are the new ideas and approaches to creating and exchanging value the ideas composing and ushering in these new ways of thought. An eruption of concept and theory ideation and research relevant to th ese separate paradigms, has lead to a vast amount of new approaches to the roles of producers and consumers and strategic management in whole. Customer centric c oncepts On the customer centric end, we note the re opening of the prosumer thesis one who both produces and consumes their own value created originally by futurist Alvin Toffler in 1980 and succeeding concepts of the prosumer, such as, prosumption and prosumerism by professor George Ritzer of the University of Maryland (2010, 2012, and 2014), to the introduction of "co" models, with "val ue co production" by the resource manager Rafael Ramirez (1999) and "co creation" by business professors C.K. Prahalad and Venkat

PAGE 11

! Ramaswamy (2002, 2004a, 2004b, and 2013), as well as, furthered work on co creation by Venkat Ramaswamy in 2008 and again in 2014 by Venkat Ramaswamy and Kerimcan Ozcan authors of The Co Creation Paradigm to lastly, "service dominant logic," as discussed by business professors Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch (2008). Bearing these phenomenological concepts in mind as separate theories to the customer centric shift, it is noted they are interrelated and this paper recognizes them as concepts relevant to the challenges of the 21 st century marketer. Current work on all of these topics, addresses the need for dialogue between the business and the consumer. Because of the emphasis on the customer's need they are always at the forefront of or involved in the busi ness's next move. Therefore, companies are or need to be transparent and easily accessible. Where value was once created at the end of the exchange process, value is now determined before, during and after the supply chain. Multiple channels of communicati on, transaction, and experience are utilized anywhere and at anytime within the customer business relationship (Prahalad et al. 2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2013; Ramaswamy 2008; Ramaswamy et al. 2014; Ramirez 1999). In some cases, we recognize the consumer as not just the receiver of the product or service from which they maintain value, but as the creator too with or without the business's resources because we are innately prosumers (Ritzer, et al. 2010, 2012, 2014). Under this new approach, producer and consume r communication does not separate what the business wants or how it thinks, from what the consumer wants or how he or she thinks. It instead recognizes both sides, but especially the consumers. Transient advantage c oncepts With regard to the transient shift, we note the proposition of "short lived opportunities" or "temporary advantages" by business professor Richard D'Aveni (1995), and the "transient advantage model," or, "transient advantage lifecycle," as created by business professor and

PAGE 12

! "+ consultant Rita McGrath (2013), to lastly, business professor George Day's introduction of "adaptive capabilities" for enhancing a firms dynamic capabilities (2013). Similar to those of customer centrality, the preceding and succeeding concepts of transience are also interrelated. Current work by this way of thought, directs firms to focus first on innovation with the customer to obtain the advantage, as possible through their dynamic capabilities. The requirement then, is a valued product or service (the advantage) t hat is accepted by consumers. Per the transient model, this advantage is launched through an innovation or by an opportunity, is then ramped up for market segmentation and market share, exploited in the market, and then reconfigured to repeat the process a ll over again with a new innovation or opportunity. This is the new product or service lifecycle. According to McGrath (2013) the sustainable competitive advantage as we practice it does not deliver the results needed anymore, because it is stuck defending itself as the market were, when the advantage was originally found. Strategy now requires a continuous pursuit of where value can be obtained. Simplifying the p henomena To provide an addition to the framework by which business conducts itself as a s cience, this paper proposes a model by which the ideas of customer centrality and of transience are marri ed. By doing so, a supreme model for overcoming the problems plaguing value creation and exchange today is created. It is an invention for strategy. The intersection of from firm centric to customer centric and from sustainable to transient is not dichotomous. They are interrelated and complimentary. Both tip toe on and around the same problems affecting every busi ness and ev ery industry today. Customer centric approaches and transient advantages, both require firms to leave their organizational guidelines. They involve issues of instantaneous adaptation and or creation, with r isk and benefit analysis for both the consumer and business. And both requi re the

PAGE 13

! "" input and acceptance of consumers through namely, innovation. Arguably, the primary attribute synergizing these two separate yet interrelated thoughts is the innovation requirement of the transient advantage model. One could say, to be competitive is to innovate constantly, as done by being customer centric, launching short waves of opportunity. Moving forward with this idea, technicalities must be established First, the vast amount of work o n customer centric concepts, such as, prosumerism or prosumption, value co production, co creation, and service dominant logic, are so interrelated, a single definition for the phenomena should function as a reference to the whole. F or the sake of this thesis, that definition i s co creati on. Clarifying this summation, co creation is then synonymous with value co production, service dominant logic and prosumerism or prosumption. Similarly, in referencing market members or economic actors, prosumers co create or in other words co creators a re prosumers. With regard to the concepts of competitive advantages, transience and or the transient advantage model/lifecycle will subsume and serve as a definition for the ideas of short lived opportunities, dynamic capabilities for adaptation, and trans ience itself. These simplificat ions are made for conciseness and foundationalism; it gives i nclusive titles to parts of a new model for marketing strategy to come. Methods for t omorrow The purpose of this paper is to combine co creation as a strategy to the transient advantage lifecycle and propose an applicable model fo r addressing transient advantages opportune waves outlining a lifecycle of value creation and exchange In defining the transient advantage model, we note the innovation pha se, the ramping up phase, the exploitation phase and the disengagement phase (McGrath, 2013; Day 2013). The transient advantage begins with the discovery or reconfiguration of a valued product or service. In the ramping up phase, business strategy and cons umer excitement result in a market presence.

PAGE 14

! "# Once established, the product or service is then exploited. It is marketed and it's maximum value obtained. After return is no longer sustainable to strategic goals, and value is no longer obtained (for both the producer and consumer), the advantage begins disengagement. The focus then shifts to reconfiguring strategy, by either altering or finding a new product or service. Defining co creation, we underst and it as a medium or offering of communication and expe rience. It is an implementable concept that is inclusive to every business. It involves dialogue, in which the producer and consumer communicate what needs to be created and what needs to be changed. It is a means by which consumers can instantaneously en hance their experience with a product or service through customization and interaction (Prahalad et al 2002, 2004a, 2004b, and 2013; Ramaswamy 2008; Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2014; Ramirez 1999; Ritzer 2010, 2012, and 2014; and Vargo et al. 2008). It is beautifu l, because it always provides what the consumer wan ts. Co creation occurs through mobile technology, web 2.0, applications, information technology, face to face communication, and the experience itself. As stated earlier, it happens anywhere and at anytim e. This process of co creating some unique value is innovative Primarily, co creation meets this model or lifecycle during the innovation stage. To restate the previous synergistic example, o ne could say, to be competitive is to innovate constantly, as done through co creation launc hing short waves of opportunity, while managing it with co creation as a dynamic capability.' Brilliantly, the consumer plays a hand in catching the wave of opportunity which benefits both the consumer and producer because they assist in creating the valued product or service. With these definitions in place the argument of this paper t herefore, constitutes co creation as the theory or strategy for addressing present day implications of value creation and exchange, and in being so, it both ignites and assists in managing transient advantages. Thus, the

PAGE 15

! "$ proposed model of marketing strategy for short lived opportunities is called the Co Creative Transient Model (CCTM) and is presented later in the paper. Significance With the construction of the co creative transient model, three things are significant. Until, this paper, c o creation as created by C.K Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy, has not been used as an inclusive definition referring the vast amount of similar phenom ena. Secondly, no strategy or theory has been added to the transient advantage model to function as an igniter of and tool for conducting transient lifecycles. Lastly, by developing the co creative transient model, it logically is in an implementable way o f thought and strategy for furthering success in a new an d advanced marketing era. In this new era, the conceptualization of co creation as a key strategy for the transient advantage model or lifecycle and as an approach to strategic marketing is revolutionary. I t contradicts how we have known and practiced strategy and competitive advantag es since the 1970's. With a more in depth model guiding reconfiguration as an infinite process, the science of business is advanced. Observations for r evie w This paper does not argue that sustainable competitive advantages are obsolete or irrelevant. The co creative transient model thesis composes itself based off of previous work supporting the importance of being adaptive and perceptive to short lived ad vantages (D'Aveni 1995; McGrath 2013; and Day 2013). This paper does not argue or have the intention of proving the occurrence of the said paradigm shifts. It accepts that the shifts have already occurred, and uses new knowledge resulting from the shifts t o join interrelated discussions.

PAGE 16

! "% A Timeline for Co Creation and Transience It was recently proposed by professor of marketing Dr. Steven White the most current eras be titled as the Social and Mobile Marketing Eras, the Social Era being from 1990 to 20 10 and the Mobile Era being from 2010 to present (White, 2010). The fact that these are proposals highlights the amount dynamism and noise occurring in the market making a conclusive definition nearly unattainable. Through exploring the mentioned phenomen a of customer centrality and transie nce, we see just how complex the s e transition s in thought and into a new era are. Bearing in mind that marketing eras have evolved numerous times, producers and consumer s remain constant, however, factors in the environment change. The trends they focus on and their activities in the market place evolve, leading to par adigm shifts, which segment new eras. This is because the entire foundation is phenomenological. As Edward Comor a professor of information and medi a studies at the University of Western Ontario emphasized in his discussion of Karl Marx's' argument on capitalist political economies, "individuals are ruled by abstractions" (2010). These abstractions change with our interests and influence how we define what is valuable. Thus marketing strategy changes too because our interests define the abstractions w e appeal to through marketing. Currently, our abstractions are obtained and voiced through technology. The Internet in particular has empowered consumers to join thematic communities, fulfill their own needs via online services, seek information and make informed decisions. This is new to our current paradigms But w hat has always been consistent to every marketing era is the concept of the market. The sci ence of business owes its very existenc e to the concept of the market. Our purpose for analyzing this is to establish that if it were not for the market, in which, producers and consumers were established as value exchangers, "business" would not be here. There w ould be no strategy to manage and n o phenomena to discuss. None of

PAGE 17

! "& the r esulting mechanics of business strategic management, marketing strategy, competitive advantage analysis, etc. would exist. We give much credit to this scientific way of thought, to the two founding fathers of f ree market theory, aka capitalism The first, Adam Smith (1776) in his work "The Wealth of Nations," which attests that production and labor are essential to economic wealth, and of course, Karl Marx in his book Das Kapital a continuous piece of literature developed from 1867 to 1894. As Classical Era members, they focused primarily on the processes and implications of production and the utility benefits of exchange This m akes sense given their time, but in both discussions philosophical or not in their contexts production and consumption are always present. They simply do not exist without one another, and what is always occurring, is an exchange of value. Up until the Marketing Company Era of the 1960's to the 1990's value was mostly measurable (White, 2010). Value had a monetary number with every exchange. But a s technology advances, more options beco me available with opportunities to enhance one s self with both social and hedonic value This ethos transformed the concept of value beyond what the bang for the buck was, to what the status, experience and utilit arian value of some exchange is Differentiation for many companies then fell under their pricing strategy and positioning strategies for competitive advantag es. These strategies were fueled first from within the company, for which market segments were then found. In present ti me, consumers don't want to scan through the option s offered to them, they want to make their own additions to the product or service of fering s and customize them. We'll begin exploring the phenomen a of customer centrality first to situate it s inception and identify why it came about, followed by the origins of transient advantages.

PAGE 18

! "' Origins of Customer C entrality Presently, there is a n abundance of interrelated discussion s meditating on custo mer centric practices, such as, value co production, stakeholder orientations, co creation, service dominant logic, and the prosume r Interestingly enough however, customer centric concepts are not all that new. The first and most notable critique to customer focused marketing was in 1960 by Theodore Levitt who wrote Marketing Myopia and asked the legendary question, What business are you really in (Levitt, 1960)? This revolutionary article challenged managers to consider what needs they are actually satisfying for their customers. Levitt provides examples of what were once growth industries now failing T he most profound being the railroad industry: "The railroad s did not stop growing because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined...not because the need was filled by others (cars, etc.) But because they were railroad oriented instead of transportation orientedthey were product oriented instead of customer oriented" (Levitt, 1960). Levitt was certainty ahead of his time in his strategic forthcoming s an d advice to future managers. Unfortunately though, the direction Marketing Myopia outlined for business did not resonate until present day. The issue was not a rejection of this article. Practical and implementable systems were demonstrated in his thesis and well accepted But the intention of creating customer focused organisms as business models was misconstrued as marketers gained influence on strategy formulation. Quickly, the customer became king and the age old saying, "the customer is always right" became our reality. M anagers responded by heeding Levitt's advice to establ ish customer centered programs, but these programs were faulty. Reflecting on marketing strategy from the 1960's to present date, great advancements were made in terms of

PAGE 19

! "( customer relationship management and the perception of customer value, but such syste ms were dominantly based around what the business perceived as valuable to the customer, not what the customer personally perceived and experienced as valuable As strategists and managers continue d to evolve, innovations in technology began influencing th e unknown of the "high tech future" and the roles of produ cer and consumer begin merging. Appropriately so, i t was time to redefine our titles as market members and economic actors S o in 1980, that is what futurist Alvin Toffler did with the creation of t he "Prosumer" in his book The Third Wave In moving through the waves as Toffler prophesied them our species is destine d to have evolve d through three waves. Our existence in the first wave was dismal, and exemplified by the market structure of the trade era. Commodity and self harvested and or self created artifacts ruled the exchange of our daily lives. Growing tiresome of self dependency, humans created system s of specialization in an industrialized society the capitalistic society we are more accustom to today which Toffler na med the second wave. But as technology advanced or continues to advance it is Toffler's greatest and most popular prediction that the roles of producer and consumer will fully merge With the availability of advanced technology, commodity and industrial resources will be at th e disposable of each individual a nd the empowered prosumer will posses the ability to customize their product s and services instantaneously in the third wave. Alvin Toffler's most famous demonstration of the almighty prosumer is given with his analogy of future retail shopping: "The most creative thing a person will do in 20 years from now, is to be a very creative consumerNamely, you'll be sitting there doing things like designing a su it of clothes for yourself or making modification s to a standard design, so the computer can cut one for you by laser and sew it together for you by machine right then (Toffler, 274, 1980).

PAGE 20

! ") Of Course, in this year ( 2015 ) we are not purchasing personally d esigned and laser tailore d suits, but this raise d eyebrows then and still does now. In 1986 Philip Kotler of the Kellogg School of Management at North western University, reviewed Alvin Toffler's vision of the three waves outlining the recreation of the mar ket as we know it post industr ial era. His purpose was to describe Toffler's thesis, exte nd the prosumer concept further and to examine its validity and implications to the modern day marketer (Kotler, 1986). By examining Toffler's thesis through Kotler's lens, we identify the difference between producing for use and producing for exchange. In this distinction, producing for use is a marriage o f the consumer and producer. While producing for exchange, is done by separating consumers from production. As a reflection to the time when this analysis of the future was written, most of Toffler and Kotler's examples of prosumer activities for use involve basic physiological and safety based needs. E.g. Food production and consumption, shelter production and use, and blue collar services such as hanging wallpaper, painting, and working on ones car. Herein lies the new challenge for the marketer. Kotler's point is marketers will be at a loss of consumers to market to. The action of creating value through a pro duct or service will decrease and m arketers will have to research and develop products and services that assist prosumers in prosuming. Because of this drastic change in the structur e and processes of the market, w hat is said to be a competitive advantage will be redefined (Kotler, 1986) Proving to be ahead of his time as well, Kotler advises that b efore it is acceptable to worry, marketers should not move to protect exchange in the market place, but rather work to synergize with prosumers and iden tify the new opportunities c oming with the change(s). Kotler also reminds us, "the market is human created and will serve our needs as long as we need it to" (Kotler, 1986).

PAGE 21

! "* Theories of th e customer centric firm have been in the works since the 1960's. Great advancements in marketing were made putting consumers at the focus of strategy, but they were geared around what the firm viewed as valuable to the consumer. This unstable and conflicti ng relationship between produce rs and consumers in the market lead to the cr eation of the prosumer empowered by the promise of advanced and interactive technology. It was then and remains today a paradox for marketers to market products and service s that a ssist prosumers in prosuming. Today, however, immaterial value creation is not harvested from the experience or utilitarian value of some product or service. The Internet, mobile technology, and thematic networks of prosumers have created and fostered and even more customer centric enterprise This adheres to an even more empowered prosumer society. Origins of Transient A dvantages The original tools for stra tegy were designed to create sustainable competitive advantages. This idea of maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage is especially exemplified in Michae l Porters five forces analysis and the resource based theory of the firm Created in 1980 with its publication in the Harvard Business R eview the five forces analysis analyzes the level of competition, threat of substitution, bargaining power of buyers, level of supplier power, and threat of ne w entrant s on a rating of low, moderate or high. It is said, if all forces within ones market ar e low, the firm has a sustainable competitive advantage (Porter, 1980). Adding to this concoction of sustainable recipes, the resource based theory promises such an advantage through the acquirement or development of valuable, unique, nonsubstitutable, non imitable, and rare resources. Other tools of the time, which beca me the dominant analyses learned and practiced to present date include the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) Growth Share Matrix (1970) and the McKinsey's 7s model. These tools as McGrath refers to them are, "the

PAGE 22

! #+ biggies," that don't provide the results needed anymore because of their inadequate adaptability to the more volatile current tim e What is a lso surprising is paradigm atic discussions responding to hypercompetitive markets with a focus on s hort lived opportunities are not all that new either. The first critique to semi permanent strategy was in 1995 by Richard D'Aveni who famously critiqued the McKinsey 7s model. As a strategist, D'Av eni rev iewed the condition s of the market and compared it to what strategic tools mangers were using, as they deemed necessary. He proposed a new vi ew of the market, in which we observe it as extremely hypercompetitive and so fierce, "that competitive advantages are competed away or eroded rapidly, because of erratic conditions (D'Aveni 1995, 1995b, and D'Aveni et al. 2010). The proposal took the original applic ation of the McKinsey 7s model, being a firm's "shared values, staff, style, systems, structure, skills, a nd strategy" working in harmony to attain competitive advantages, and proposed the new 7s model. It emphasizes "superior stakeholder satisfaction, strategic soothsaying, positioning for speed, positioning for surprise, shifting the rules of the game, sign aling strategic intent, and simultaneous and sequential strategic thrust s (D'Aveni, 1995 b ) The primary problem this new model solved was the ability to survive in instable market conditions by being instable. With an emphasis on continuous change, the 7 s model is designed to prov oke, encourage, and guide continuous change with no solid "recipe for success" (D'Aveni 1995). Furthering this concept of short lived advantages, he proposed the "wave theo ry" in 2010. D'Aveni designed a metaphor through which we observe that no ocean wave is the same. The air, the sun, the wind, and the moons gravitational pool all have an influence on the unique lifecycle, structure, and size of each independent wave. Correlating this to business, a competitive advan tage in a hy percompetitive market has its own unique and separate lifecycle because of the many environmental factors

PAGE 23

! #" affecting it The swift attack of a competitor, the establishment of a new substitution or an internal environment incapable of readjusting quickly, a ffects the length and quality of each company's ride on a wave (D'Aveni et al. 2010). Convincing and rationally sound, this theory furthered a better understanding of how to grow and combat a loss of market share. Consistent to McGrath's (2013) argument, D 'Aveni notes there are industries that do in fact have sus tainable competitive advantages, such as oligopolies and monopolies, but the different concepts are mutually exclusive. Our understanding of conducting temporary strategies is furthered by understan di ng one concept cannot exist if the other is not there for comparison.

PAGE 24

! ## Defining Co Creation Co creation is used as an inclusive definition to the stated customer centric phenomena primarily for two reasons. First, by its very word choice and definition, it is the most logically sound and concise term fo r the interrelated thoughts. S econdly, it as its own concept has been developed upon and published the most. Bearing in mind everything else, though co creation has received the most attention, all other thoughts, especially those of the prosumer with its revolutionary and uni que renaming of market members, are still relevant; t hat is to say co creators are synonymous with prosumers. Simply put, prosumers co create and co creation is synonymous w ith service dominant logic, value co production, prosumption, and anything else merging the roles of producer and consumer. Points of intersection and relation between these concepts include a requirement to pursue value from outside of the firm, both mat erial and immaterial value creation, an emphasis on experience, immeasurable returns of value, and in some fa cet or another the Internet, mobile technolog y and information abundance Early discussions of customer centric activities were conducted under the concept of the prosumer and were solely material based. For example, Alvin Toffler's (1980) analo gy of the laser tailored suite and Philip Kotler's (1986) extension of the prosumer thesis with the paradox of more do it yourself products and services s uch as working on ones own car, take home pizzas, and in store kiosks, etc But as the turn of the century approached, an emphasis on revolutionizing the affordability and access of services became prevalent. Erik Banks of the University Center at the Cit y University of New York described his thoughts in 1998 on the prosumer movement as, "poli tical in naturebut an opportunity for consumers to manifest a do it yourself ethos in an economy that is a whole lot simpler than pr oducers would like us to know" (B anks, 1998). This opinion was essentially a respons e to a lack of affordability in

PAGE 25

! #$ services and products. Foundational work on merging the producer and consumer afforded market players supplementation to replace a service with their own time and effort, to create their ow n value, and save money. With such buzz discussions occurring in the market a new sense of consumer "self" began spreading through society and professionals turned to a revaluation of business, which inevitably lead to "co" models. The first "co" concept was in 1999 by Rafael Ramirez with his creation of value co production. His thesis analyzed the difference between wha t value creation looks like when it adheres to the inherited behavior s and thoughts of the industrial era, versus the ways of thought or p rocesses of value creation with enhanced and new sociotechnical developments. Ramirez explored the definition of business and demonstrated how value co production requires reestablishing o rganizational structure s and systems. This reestablishment of system s as emphasized by Ramirez, calls for firms to leave their internal boundaries and establish an outside in approach to conducting exchange for utility (Ramirez, 19 99). With reconfigured ro les as economic actors (prosumers) new offerings have to be jointly created with innovative co producti ve relationships through new value creation systems. This necessitates d ialogue and engagemen t platforms, with value constellations composing different f orms of value or types of value. According to Ramirez (1999), value cannot always be measured or monetized. Much of his work focused on creating systematic processes for reconfiguring strategy and organizational systems, which influenced much of Prahalad and Ramswamy's wor k on co creation in 2002 conveniently shortly after the .com bust. Differing from Ramirez, Prahalad and Ramswamy' s formulation of and focus on co creation was geared towards solving the cent ury's paradigm of value deficit, fueled by t he Internet empowered consumer. Prahalad and Ramaswamy concluded the Internet has forced

PAGE 26

! #% business to change its industrial, capitalistic, and firm centric ways because it fosters customer centrality by its very nature. Through the Internet, consumers now have access to information, a global view, thematic networks, enhanced experimentation, and more opportunities to practice sociocultural and political activism (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002). And while this is a common consensus amongst customer centric au thors, some argue immaterial and online prosumption activities actually exploit the empowered pros umer (Ritzer et al. 2010, 2012; Ritzer 2014). Such empowerments and exploitations are demonstrated by the English professor of digital media studies at the University of Pittsburgh, Jamie Skye Bianco, who outlined some intriguing "precarious affordances t o the prosumer (Bianco, 1999) Bianco's work exemplifies how the Internet and social media create an objective market place where kno wledge can precede abs traction. P rosumer activity on social media in particular, can lead and function as a source for communal disobedience and psychosocial avo cation. This is shown whenever a thematic community joins an avocation page to stand up against suppression, oppress ion, or societal disapproval, such as supporting public breastfeeding (Bianco, 1999). On the flip side of this communal empowerment, are the exploitive forms of online and immate r ial co creation or prosumption, because p rosumers of digital content provide free information. Demographics, social trends, tastes and preferences, and our personal insights are available to companies through social media platforms, such as Facebook, who sell that information (Bianco 2009) George Ritzer and Nathan Jurgenson (2010) expanded on the ideas of immaterial and online prosumption by emphasizing how prosumers of online activities provide information a nd services for free and explored the exploitation of such activities in the capitalistic economy. Though their conclus ion was capitalists have a difficult time controlling prosumers in the same

PAGE 27

! #& ways they have been able when the roles of produc er and consumer are distinctly separate (Ritzer et al. 2010, 2012 and 2014) prosumers now fill a void once done by the firm For e xample, in the oil and gas industry there is a distinct separation between the provider of gasoline (the producer) and the purchaser of gasoline (the consumer). In this scenario and as described by Ritzer et al. (2010), material prosumption in this market occurs when the purchaser takes on the role of prosumer by pumping his or her own gas. However, because this purchaser is inevitably at the mercy of he producer for what they will pay, their role is distinguished and they are exploited through their consum pt ion of the gasoline, because their input on gas pricing is absent. With regard to immaterial (Ritzer, 2010) and experience co creation s of value (Ramaswamy 2008), the empowered 21 st century prosumer via the I nternet and other forms of technology, is not easily exploited, because of their freedom afforded through self generated content. Bearing the distinction of a consumer versus a prosumer in mind, it would appear exploitation only occurs when the resources of th e individual are limited. Yet, i t is still our reality that prosumption from the material view, is an innate function e.g. we build our own homes, harvest and prepare our food, and design and make our own clothing. Hence we are prosumers, who innately produce and consume our own resources and arti facts, but have found a new sense of empowerment with the Internet and mobile technology (Ritzer 2014; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2002; Ramaswamy 2008, Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2014). Co Creation as a S trategy Other models for co creation are exemplified through service dominant logic, created by Associate Professor Stephen Vargo and Professor of Marketing Robert Lusch from the University of Arizona. The two conceptualized and constructed theoretical work on an evolution occurring in the market transferring strat egy from goods dominant logic (GD l ogic), to what

PAGE 28

! #' they refer as, ser vice dominant logic (SD logic) (Vargo, 2007). Service dominant logic's salient relations to concepts of dialogue and of intimate interaction be tween the consumer and producer are found in its foundational premises (FP). These premises establish that "the customer is always a co creator of value and that value is uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary" ( Vargo et al. 2007). As strategist, C.K. Prahalad and Venkat Ram aswamy were the first to establish an actual model and framework to apply to marketing strategy. Bearing the pillars of empowerment for the 21 st prosumer in mind, they created the DART model (dialogue, access, risk reduction, and transparency) as a buildin g block for co creation (2002 and 2004a) and the "experience environment" (2004b and 2013) as a medium for fostering and making co creative activities more a pproachable and applicable to busin ess. Ramaswamy who created experience co creation (ECC) furthere d the concept of the experience environment in 2008, and then again in 2014 with Kerimcan Ozcan, who both founded the co creative environment model to incl ude engagement platforms of APPI (persons, processes, interfaces, and artifacts), with co creative ac tions powered by CITI (creativity, intentionality, integrativity, and transformativity). DART (dialogue, access, risk reduction, and transparency). Dialogue in the DART model is the creation of shared meaning. It's a whole other level of market resear ch and development. "Dialogue involves more than listening and reacting. It requires deep engagement, lively interactivity, empathetic understanding, and willingness of both parties to act" (Prahalad, et al. 2002). For example, i f companies would have list ened in t he music industry, there would no t have been as much or any at all, illegally downloaded music. Instead, they shou ld have changed their platform, the way it has been now with Spofity, Sound Cloud, Hype Machi ne, iTunes Radio, etc., offering easily purchasable and reasonably priced or

PAGE 29

! #( frankly, free music. With access, dialogue and services with the company need to be easily accessible. Music being another great example, it i s not that consumers aren't willing to pay for music. Instead, they want eas ily accessible music after they ha ve paid a fare price. But it cannot be difficult to obtain. Car2Go is another great example. People are able to obtain transportation with a monthly fee and pay as you drive system. They can easily communicate with Car2Go, so both parties can enhance their experience and customers easily access a solution to their need, transportation. With risk reduction there is always going to be a component of liability on bot h the business and consumer ends Both parties have to assum e responsibility and are obligated in some way throughout their relationship's lifecycle With co creation, consumers will be more willing to take on more responsibility, if companies are more willing to reveal more information about "the risks associated with the products and services they offer" (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002). In a world with more information and technology making that information more readily available, consumers now demand opportunities to make better informed decisions and reduce risk. Risk reduction was later changed to "risk ret urn," by Ramaswamy in 2008 to emphasize a return of value and to "reflexivity" in 2014 by Ramaswamy and Ozcan to emphasis the necessity of inst antaneous action on both party's halves Transparency is the com ponent of the DART model relinquishing value creation before the traditional point of exchange. For example, the USPS allows current time packaging tracking and the option to re route them to other people, and by doing this, the company improves the custom er experience. With no secretes or lack of information in the value creation and supply process, consumers are able to customize and specialize their product or service. The DART model serves as a guiding systematic process and foundational core value to m erge the views of the producer and consumer through co creation.

PAGE 30

! #) Experience environment and experience co creation The experience environment p rovides a framework allowing firms to facilitate co creative experi ences with millions of prosumers The expe rience environment includes products and services, the interfaces by which the prosumer interacts with the company, including its multiple channels, modalities, employees, and communities (Ramaswamy, 2008) This environment itself is from where and how prosumers obtain value. Ramaswamy discussed this in 2008 with his analysis of the Nike case. Nike created an effective experience environment by teaming up with Apple, creating online and physical thematic communities, with interfaces for communication and customization. The Nike experience environment allowed experience co creation because of their development of Nike+ (Ni ke Plus), a system that synchronizes your shoes with your apple product to track your steps, distance, speed, geographic location, heart rate, and more. Through the Nike ID website, the runner could then upload their trails or tracks, distance ran, calories burned, their running goals and connect w ith other runners in their area, which creates a thematic community of runners (Ramaswamy, 20 08, Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2013). An experience environment as a framework for a co creative business model is necessary because of the complexity bey ond simply embracing DART. F ueled by developments in technology and the changing demands of prosumers who value instantaneous customization and experience enhancement an experience environment provides inclusive coverage to the nuances of merging producer and consumer. In establishing the creation of the experience environment from which utility and experi ence value are obtained we see it as a basis for innovation as well. That is to say, innovation now goes beyond a new product or service and now includes experience environment innovation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2013). And t hough co creation can help wit h a pro duct

PAGE 31

! #* or service innovation, by its nature, the experience en vironment encompasses much more A model of an experience environment as it was portrayed with the Nike case by Venkat Ramaswamy (2008) is displayed below: Co creative environment mod el The co creative environment model is the most innovative model of guidance for a co creative system yet. With the new model, Venkat Ramaswamy and Kerimcan Ozcan developed three new components the, "experience domain, engagement platform, and the c apab ility ecosystem (Ramaswamy, et al. 2014). This model with its more in depth components, clarified what a market of co creators looks like. Furthering the definitions of the market players firms c hange from just enterprises to s takeholdi ng individuals and enterprises who instead of producing goods and services co create experiences. Instead of just market activities, co creative engagement platforms function as a nexus of value creation (Ramaswamy et al. 2014). In short, experience domai ns contain APPI (persons, processes, interfaces, and artifacts), DART, and valued attributes of "personalization quality, novelty, and variety (Ramaswamy et al., 2014), from which co creation occurs and an experience is derived. The authors use a fantast ic example of the App le store, in which, consumers enter to be greeted by a knowledgeable staff, with

PAGE 32

! $+ efficient and customizable processes, a multitude of interfaces to utilize and enhance their interaction, with customizable and attractive artifacts (the iPod, iPhone, etc.) These experience domains are fuel ed by the capability ecosystem and the engagement platforms.' In arriving at an actual experience domain or similarly an experience environment, the input of the stakeholder oriented enterprise and st ake holding co creator synergize by collaborating through the capability ecosystem and the engagement platforms of the market. Note the experience and product or service innovation occurs on the engagement platforms, which then affords a n experience domain to be created. Co creation is the future of marketing and a firm's ability to maintain a competitive advantage. As stated earlier, co creation as discussed in this paper subsumes the precedi ng as well as current discussion s of interrelated concepts specifically, value co production, and

PAGE 33

! $" prosuming or prosumption. The prosumer thesis as a model for an actual economic actor or new definition for a market member is accepted to derive the conclusion that co crea tion is something prosumers do; p rosumers co create their value. Since the inception of the prosumer and market activities marrying the roles of production and consumption value creation has been majorly material and utility based. For example, prosumers take home sauce packets and create their o wn sauce at home, or prepare their own tax documents, etc. 21 st co creation is still in many cases mater ial and utility based, but the I nternet, mobile technology and information abundance have created a new wave of value creation through the process of co creation fostered by the customer centric enterprise. This new concept of value goes beyond measurable return, and is now notable by the experience and immaterial value a prosumer obtain s from their interaction or exchange with a firm or the resources afforded to them. These conclusions lead to the primary attribute of the co creative transient model (CCTM), being the co creation component (CCC). Example s of Co Creation Material co c re ation In recognizing the prosumer as an innate function of the human condition (Ritzer, 2014), we can note more simplistic and evolutionary forms of prosumption. Such practices would include, building one's own home, planting, harvesting, and preparing one's own food, making our clothes, etc. Such forms of mat erial co creation and or prosumption would include: Conducting a personal exchange on a kiosk machine independently. Checking one's own blood pressure in the grocery store or pharmacy Taking group photos in photo booths. Functioning as the DJ in your restaurant through wireless jukeboxes. Participating in live broadcasts

PAGE 34

! $# The square and cash applications and credit transaction devices Immaterial and experience co creation M aterial and physically experiential forms of co creation are obviously going to continue as an innate function of the human condition. I mmaterial and experience forms of co creation, however, are more intriguing and prominent to such precarious times. These are the forms of co creation afforded to modern day prosumers via the Inter net, mobile technology, and information abundance. These forms empower prosumers, foster instantaneity and customization, and create experience environments of mass membership. Such examples include: The experience e nvironment of Nike+ and Nike ID Themat ic online communities (e.g. dating websites, avatar profiles, nutrition and health web based communities, Facebook groups, etc.) The Google Maps location creator Spotify and other music platforms allowing users to add songs, create playlist s, and share m usic. iCal Asana, Google Calendar and other cloud based scheduling systems that are customizable buy the user. Amazon, Etsy, craigs list and eBay, etc. which allow everyday people to sell their products and service s online. Social media platforms such as, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and YouTube, which allow users to join cohorts, voice themselves, provoke psychosocial avocation, and create their own marketing resources.

PAGE 35

! $$ The Wayz mobile application in which users create new drive paths, report accident s, pull overs, and longer drive times instantaneously on the road for a community of drivers to be tter navigate their commute The Robinhood application, which allows users to independently invest and trade American stocks from the convenience of their ph one independently. The Acorns application with allows users to invest in a portfolio with now minimum limit, by either rounding up daily purchases on their phone, or investing personally decided amounts whenever they want.

PAGE 36

! $% Defining Transient Advantage s The transient advantage model for this paper's definition includes its existence as a short lived opportunity phased through the transient advantage l ifecycle/model (TAM) (McGrath, 2013), initiated by and managed with the firm's adaptive capabilities for enhanced dynamism (Day, 2013). This concept so far as this paper is concerned recognizes that not all industries are subject to transient advantages. There are in fact some industries that capitalize on semi permanent strategies with sustainable competitiv e advantages. Such include, the oil and gas industry, high tech industries, and indus tries with loyal customer basis Complex by its inclusive coverage of strategic management the transient advantage model as create d by McGrath (2013) is revolution ary bec ause of its continuous redefining of the internal structure of the firm with a never ending pursuit of out side in approaches to action. With continuous internal reconfigurations of the organizational demographics and system s of a firm the TAM necessitat es more outside in based approaches to value creating activities Earlier forms of competitive advantage and market share analysis portrayed product and service or business models as defensible yet still finite. With McGrath's view of the transient advanta ge, an offering by the firm (its advantage) goes through five stages or phases : t he launch, ramp up, exploit, reconfigure, and disengage ment phases In the launch stage, the firm identifies a new opportunity, re allocates its resources and assembles a team to create something new. This new obtainment is either an alteration to something already existing, an innovation, or a new market entirely (McGrath, 2013). During the ramp up phase, the ne w product or service benefits from a period of buzz and excitement leading to an established market presence As more and more segments are captured, the business gains ground, and systems and process es designed to gain full scale market dominance are impl emented. McGrath notes speed to be a crucial factor during the ramp up

PAGE 37

! $& phase, because compe titors can quickly match what i s being done, steeling market share and destroying differentiation. In t he third phase this now established opportunity enters into exploitation. During exploita tion, "the company has effectively differentiated its strategy, customers are appreciative and everyone's enjoying the benefits (McGrath, 2013). The key component to this phase is mastering how to prolong the advantage as lon g as possible, while still being mindful it will eventually erode. Managers do this by constantly analyzing the market for threats and opportunities, while mindfully minimalizing assets and people specific to the function, because they will create barriers to the next innovation or opportunity. After exploitation, comes reconfiguration. Du ring reconfiguration, assets people and the capabilities of the firms begin making a transition from the current advantage to another. Employees shift from current assign ments or activities to new ones and assets are moved (McGrath, 2013) Once it becomes clear the opportunity has begun eroding, the need to disengage is suggested. The firm then disposes of assets no longer relevant to its successful future, and either sell s them shuts them down, or disposes of them all tog ether. The process then repeats itself, and is capable of doing so because of its adaptive capabilities. Below is the transient advantage model/lifecycle as created by Rita McGrath.

PAGE 38

! $' Original resources that allowed firms to compete in unstable markets by being instable were proposed to be dynamic capabilities. Within the last few years the validity of dynamic capabilities has been proven to be inefficient in providing the dynamism need ed to react in time. Richard D'Aveni (2010) discussed what were once conceivably effective tools to reconfigure and react, as incapable of providing the results necessary because of fatigue from initiation and misdirection from the noise and chaos of trans itioning. Such capabilities requ ired to reconfigure for a short lived opport unity, as mentioned previously, are now ref erred to the adaptive capabilities, as created by Wharton business professor George Day. A daptive capabilities are more or less malleable guidelines to enhance the dynamic capabilities of the firm, and they include "vigilant marketing learning, advanced warning systems, adaptive and planned experimentation, and inclusive marketing to forge relationships and anticipate change" Day, 2013). T hese adaptive capabilities when practice d enhance those of dynamism discussed earlier by D'Aveni (2010) and Day (2010) which include "sensing organizational change, scanning across markets and technologies, responding by combining, transforming or adding n ew

PAGE 39

! $( resources, and selecting an organizational reconfiguration and business model to deliver and capture economic profit" [Kozlenkova 2013, as cited by Day (2013)]. Transient organizations mu st harness this view of strategy formulation and perfect a contin uous process of reaction and adaptation. This continual reconfiguration requires companies to operate with ambit ion as a customer focused organism, with strength in their identity and culture, a thriving organizational development program flexibility with internal and external change, and a continuous pursuit of experience and product or service innovation. With reference to the transient advantage model as an inclusive definition to interrelated phenomena establishes the requirement of a n organizationally transformative and strong firm, who embraces temporary advantages acknowledging that each is different with its own unique factors guided by its ability to enhance its dynamism through adaptive capabilities.

PAGE 40

! $) Co Creative Transient Adv antage Model Using the co creative transient advantage model (CCTM) conceptually, we see it as both an igniter of transient advantages and tool for managing them. It includes two components. The first is an alteration of the co creative environment model (Ramaswamy et al. 2014) call the co creative concept (CCC) and the second, is the transient advantage lifecycle as created by McGrath (2013) with its five phases. These t w o components are merged to demonstrate the process of creating a short lived competi tive advantage and its management throughout its lifecycle. As the "co creative" function to the CCTM, engagement platforms are the epic enter of the co creative component which exist as the environment's artifacts, people, processes, and interfaces, whi ch are always guided and influenced by DART (dialogue, access, risk reduction, and transparency). Differing from Ramaswamy and Ozcan's (2014) co creative environment model, in which, enterprises are distinguished by their sector meeting stakeholding ind ividuals as co creators through the environment's engagement platforms, the CCTM synergizes the interaction of customer centric organizations with prosumers on engagement platforms. Additionally, the ecosystem of capabilities in the CCTM is composed of ad aptive capabilities (Day, 2013), outside resources (McGrath, 2013) and creativity (Ramaswamy et al., 2014), versus "generativity, evolvabilitiy, inclusivity, linkability, infrastructure, development, sustainability, and governance" (Ramaswamy, et al., 2014 ). We recognize the customer centric organization could be from any sector of society. Regardless its function, the organization must be an ambitious, agile, adaptive, strongly lead, reconfigurable, and a life long learning organization. With prosumers mer ging at this nexus of engagement, we respect their role as stakeholders who are empowered from thematic communities. Interaction on the engagement platforms is either

PAGE 41

! $* direct or through the environment's ecosystem of capabilities. At this junction, we disti nguish the difference between general or direct interaction and a co created product or experience environment innovation. G eneral exchange and interaction on an engagement platform include frequent or daily product use and value creation. For example, u sing a mobile phone to co create a social media post, update a car accident on Wayz, taking an amazing photo, or preparing a new take home pasta. With established processes, the customer centric firm has to constantly engage in dialogue and analyze i ts per formance to either make an alteration to an existing advantage or engage in innovation When communication between the organization and prosumer concludes a change needs to be made, they work together to co create an alteration to the existing transient advantage with adaptive actions If it has become clear through constant analysis and dialogue that value is no longer obtained, the parties engage in innovation, which is fueled by the environment's ecosystem of capab ilities. The firm centric organization and prosumer arrive at this process from either the engagement platform, or through the ecosystem of capabilities itself, which directs them back to the engagement platforms resulting in a new innovation and transien t advantage Refer to the co creative component below:

PAGE 42

! %+ The innovation process fostered and guided by the CCTM is the igniter of transient advantages, while general and direct interaction via the engagement platforms is a function for managing the advant age throughout its life cycle. When innovation or an entirely new opportunity presents itself or is found, the business and prosumer synergize in the community's ecosystem of capabilities fueled by outside resources. As a nexus for recreating a new experi ence environment or constructing an innovation, creativity and open mindedness dictate the duets utilization of the dynamic and adaptive capabilities afforded. If an adaptive move has to be made, the organization may reorganize its organizational demograph ics or discontinue a product line. Recognizing this a continual process, the co creative compo nent is present at every phase of the transient advantage lifecycle and can be used to find additional transient advantages, while one continues to exist. Below i s the CCTM as a conceptual model, demonstrating how one

PAGE 43

! %" advantage may continue to exist, whil e others are continuously found, with adaptive actions taken to prolong the transient advantage as long as possible. The co created outputs of the CCTM are wh at mergers the paradigmatic problems of customer centrality and transience. Co created outputs as made from the interaction of the customer centric organization and prosumer are what either creates a new transient advantage through innovation, or provokes adaptive action adhering to the prosumer's desires which extend the transient advantage s lifecycle. By applying the co creative component (CCM) to every phases of the transient advantage model ( TAM ) market dominance is established, exploit ation is fully utilized, disengagement queues are quickly identified, and the process of reconfiguration is done with ease.

PAGE 44

! %# Conclusion The definition of our current business era has become increasingly complex with the sequential paradigms of from firm centric to customer centric and from sustainable to transient advantages. To solve our current paradigmatic problems, it appears these shifts in thought must inevitably intersect and syn ergize to provide a solution to creating value for a world of prosumers and organ izations susceptible to transient advantages. Customer centric concepts such as service dominant logic and value co production have been thoroughly subsumed by the concept of co creation and its succeeding building blocks such as, the experience environme nt and DART The market is now dominated by prosumers (co creators) who inject their interests into the menu of products and services a company offers, to co create not only their experience and utilitarian values, but also new product and experience envir onment innovations as well. Developments in technology with the Internet and mobile technology especially, have ushered in a new wave of empowered prosumers who are not as easily exploited with their freedoms of self generated and customizable content. Thi s new fabrication of the market has increased the amount of company's subject to transient advantages. Transient advantages as a model or concept inclusively converge other concepts relevant to short lived opportunities or temporary advantages. These lifec ycles or waves of opportunity are discovered and created by the enhanced dynamism of an organization's adaptive capabilities. The intersection at which the paradigms of customer centrality and of transience meet is based on an outside in approach with co nstant change as derived from the prosumer's input. As a paradox, industries who have sustainable advantages in stable markets who embrace little to no co creative activity, is juxtaposed by industries operating in unstable environments who seek the custom er first, to then innovate, and ignite a short lived advantage. Simply put, transient

PAGE 45

! %$ industries are already co creative, while sustained industries, such as the oil and gas industry, are firm centric and do not have to be agile and adaptive. Herein lies o ne of the greatest connections between customer centrality and transience. As Prahalad and Ramaswamy established with their earliest work in 2002, the competitive advantage will now lie with those who co create the best. In conceptualizing a marriage of the solutions from the transient advantage model and those from co creative concepts, the co creative transient model (CCTM) exists as an applicable prototype for strategy formulation. The co creative component (CCC) as an alerted version of Ramaswamy and Ozcan's co creative environment, added to the transient lifecycle as outlined by McGrath, conceptualizes the CCTM as both a provider of transient advantages and tool for managing and prolonging them. The engagement platforms of the CCTM are the epicenter o f all co creative transient activities. These platforms either provoke adaptive action or result in co creative innovations that ignite new transient advantages. This nexus of interaction and creativity is fueled by and composed of customer centric organiz ations, empowered prosumers, and the environment's ecosystem of capabilities. With constant engaged communication, analysis, and action, many components of this new model will affect the future of business and employment opportunities for the 21 st century marketer. In light of Richard D'Aveni's (2010) discussion, data analysis and information interpretation will become increasingly more important. More current analyses reflecting what is really occurring in real time will open new portals of research and d evelopment opportunities to prolong advantages and identify new ones. It is concluded then that much attention will continue to be given to the market place dominated by the prosumer, with co creative bliss and short lived opportunities. Further research on such topics will include the application of the CCTM to business models that have or will embrace concepts on co creation and temporary advantages.

PAGE 46

! %% References Banks, E. (1998). The Prosumer and the Productivity Paradox. Social Policy, 28 (4), 5. Bianco, J. S. (2009). Social Networking and Cloud Computing: Precarious Affordances for the "prosumer." Women Studies Quarterly, 37 303 310. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27655163 Comor, E. (2010). Contextualizing and Critiquing the Fantastic Prosumer: Power, Alienation and Hegemony. The Journal of Critical Sociology, 37 (3), 309 327. D'Aveni, RA. (1995). Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamic of Strategic Maneuvering. Free Press: New York. D'Aveni, R. I. (1995b). Coping with hyper competition Utilizing the new 7s framework. The Academy of Management, 9 (3). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165272 D'Aveni, R., Daginino, G. B., & Smith, K. G. (2010). The Age of Temporary Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31 1371 1385. Day, G. (2 013). An Outside In Approach to Resource Based Theories. Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 42 27 28. doi:10.1007/s11747 013 0348 3 Holmes, O. (2012, November 12). Why the Paradigm Shift in Management is so Difficult. Forbes Magazine Retrieved from h ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/11/12/why the paradigm shift in management is so difficult/ Kotler, P. (1986). The Prosumer Movement: a New Challenge for Marketers. Advances in Consumer Research, 13 (1), 510 513. Levitt, T. (1960, July/August). Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Review 1 15. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2004/07/marketing myopia/ar/1 Marx, K. (1981). Capital: Volume Two. In (1884). Das Kapital New York, NY: Vintage Books.

PAGE 47

! %& McGrath, R. G. (2013). The End of Competitive Advantage: how to keep your strategy moving as fast as your business (1). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2002). The Co Creation Connection. Strategy and Business 50 61. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co Creating Unique Value with Customers. Strategy and Leadership, 32 (3), 4 9. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b). Co Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 5 14. doi:10.1002/di r.20015 Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2013). The Future of Competition: Co Creating Unique Value with Customers Harvard Business Press. Ramaswamy, V. (2008). Co creating unique value through customers' experiences: the Nike case. Strategy and Leadersh ip, 36 (5), 9 14. Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2014). The Co Creation Paradigm Stanford University Press. Ramirez, R. (1998). Value Co Production. Strategic Management Journal, 20 49 68. Ritzer, G. (2014). Prosumption: Evolution, revolution, or eternal re turn of the same? Journal of Consumer Culture, 14 (2), 3 24. Ritzer, G., Dean, P., & Jurgenson, N. (2012). The Coming Age of the Prosumer. American Behavioral Scientist, 4 (56), 380 389. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumptio n: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer.' Journal of Consumer Culture, 10 (1), 13 36. Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave New York, NY: William and Morrow and Company.

PAGE 48

! %' Tseng, M. M., & Piller, F. T. (2003). The Customer Centric Experi ence Verlag Berlin: Springer Link: Springer Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978 3 642 55460 5_1#page 1 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. The Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 1 10. White, D. S. (2010, October 7). The Evolution of Marketing. In dstevenwhite.com. Retrieved March 19, 2014, retrieved from: http://dstevenwhite.com/2010/06/18/the evolution of marketing/