Skip to main content
Log in

The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy

  • Conceptual/Theoretical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Marketing’s evolution toward a new dominant logic requires the focus of marketing to be on the intangible, dynamic, operant resources that are at the heart of competitive advantage and performance. First, building on resource-advantage theory’s notion of basic resources and higher-order resources, this article proposes a hierarchy of basic, composite, and interconnected operant resources. Second, reviewing research on business strategy and marketing strategy, several resources that correspond to the proposed hierarchy are identified and discussed. Third, the notion of developing masterful operant resources is introduced. Fourth, based on the proposed hierarchy and the notion of masterful operant resources, some exemplars of potential research avenues for marketing strategy are provided. Finally, the article concludes with the discussion of implications for marketing practitioners, researchers, and educators. In sum, this article extends and elaborates the concept of operant resources in the service-dominant logic of marketing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnett, D. B., & Badrinarayanan, V. (2005). Enhancing customer-needs-driven CRM strategies: Core selling teams, knowledge management competence, and relationship marketing competence. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(4), 329–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D. J. (1994). How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 143–152, Winter Special Issue.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial-organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17, 121–154, (March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantin, J. A., & Lusch, R. F. (1994). Understanding resource management. Oxford, OH: The Planning Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 37–52, (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1999). Managing market relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 77–92, Summer Special Issue.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, G. (2002). Customer relationship management: In B2C markets, often less is more. California Management Review, 44(3), 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., & Rajiv, S. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities: Methodology and empirical application. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 277–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., Zbaracki, M. J., & Bergen, M. (2003). Pricing process as a capability: A resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 615–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federation Internationale des Echecs (2006). Available from: http://www.FIDE.com.

  • Goslar, M. D. (1986). Capability criteria for marketing decision support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(1), 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gounaris, S. P. (2006). Internal-market orientation and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 59, 432–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, D. A., Noble, S. M., & Chen, Q. (2006). The performance implications of entrepreneurial proclivity: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (1994). Making relationship marketing operational. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(5), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (1999). Total relationship marketing. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67, 63–76, (May–June).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heene, A., & Sanchez, R. (1997). Competence-based strategic management. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: Co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 961–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (1997). Competing through relationships: Grounding relationship marketing in resource-advantage theory. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(5), 431–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2000a). The competence-based, resource-advantage, and neoclassical theories of competition: Toward a synthesis. In R. Sanchez & A. Heene (Eds), Competence-based strategic management: Theory and research (pp. 177–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2000b). A general theory of competition: Resources, competences, productivity, economic growth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: Toward a general theory of marketing. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2004).On the service-centered dominant logic of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2004). Market segmentation strategy, competitive advantage, and public policy: Grounding segmentation strategy in resource-advantage theory. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(1), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2006a). The pedagogy of the service-dominant logic of marketing: Resource-advantage theory as an integrative theoretical foundation. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), Toward a service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2006b). Teaching marketing strategy: Using resource-advantage theory as an integrative theoretical foundation. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59, 1–15, (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (2004). The resource-advantage theory of competition: A review. Review of Marketing Research, 1, 153–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayachandran, S., Hewitt, K., & Kaufman, P. (2004). Customer response capability in a sense-and-respond era: The role of customer knowledge process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Orente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning capability: A proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58, 715–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., Pui-Wan Lee, R., Saini, A., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Market-focused strategic flexibility: Conceptual advances and an integrative model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 74–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., & Sohi, R. S. (2003). The development of interfirm partnering competence: Platforms for learning, learning activities, and consequences of learning. Journal of Business Research, 56, 757–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18, (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, K. M. (2006). Customer made. American Way Available from: http://americanwaymag.com.

  • Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance competence, resources, and alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40, 112–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., & Calantone, R. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 13–29, (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006a). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006b). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavaram, S., Badrinarayanan, V., & McDonald, R. E. (2005). Integrated marketing communication (IMC) and brand identity as critical components of brand equity strategy: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., Adidam, P. T., & Edison, S. W. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of marketing strategy making: A model and a test. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 18–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing 54, 20–35, (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltier, J. W., Schibrowsky, J. A., & Schultz, D. E. (2003). Interactive integrated marketing communication: Combining the power of IMC, the new media and database marketing. International Journal of Advertising, 22, 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. London: Basil Blackwell and Mott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1957). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Reid, M., Luxton, S., & Mavondo, F. (2005). The relationship between integrated marketing communication, market orientation, and brand orientation. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T., & Gemunden, H. G. (2003). Network competence: Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 56, 745–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, T., & Gemunden, H. G. (2004). The impact of a company’s business strategy on its technological competence, network competence and innovation success. Journal of Business Research 57, 548–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotegraaf, R. J., & Dickson, P. R. (2004). The paradox of a marketing planning capability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organizational Science, 13(3), 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sreedhar Madhavaram.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Madhavaram, S., Hunt, S.D. The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 67–82 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0063-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0063-z

Keywords

Navigation