Value proposition as a framework for value co-creation in crowd-funding ecosystem

1 Value proposition as a framework for value co-creation in crowd-funding ecosystem ABSTRACT Purpose – The aim of the present paper is to explore whether the phenomenon of crowd funding can be considered a service ecosystem, where the constituent actors generate resources and co-create value for and within the system. Design/Methodology/approach – A qualitative, multiple case-study approach is used to analyze the two most representative crowdfunding platforms in Spain, Verkami and Lánzanos, in terms of amounts of funds provided Findings –The findings reveal how six categories of value propositions frame eight types of value co-creation processes when different actors interact and integrate resources at three levels: micro–meso–macro within crowdfunding service ecosystems Research limitations/implications – Certain limitations to the study arise from the research context. We chose to analyse specific cases of crowd-funding in the arts and cultural sector through the most representative platforms in Spain. The sampling design could be improved by broadening the type of cultural projects considered and by including experiences of crowd-funding projects in other countries in the analysis. Practical implications – From the present study, we can conclude that crowdfunding in the cultural sector in Spain acts as a service ecosystem. The unique approach that links the micro-meso and macro levels with specific types of value propositions assists service managers and practitioners, co-create value propositions and value with different actors within the service ecosystem. Originality/value – The present paper suggests that crowd-funding in the arts and cultural sector occurs within a complex service ecosystem, where six categories of value propositions frame eight value co-creation processes, namely through ideation, evaluation, design, testing, launch, financing and authorship. Managerial contributions include the development of a crowd-funding service ecosystem model for arts managers, which offers not only a method of financing or economic value, but which also offers opportunities for strengthening bonds with customers and other stakeholders. Our paper is innovative in that we integrate value propositions categories with the micro – meso and macro contexts and analyse the different kind of co-creation are framed in the crowdfunding context. Key words: Service ecosystems, network, crowd-funding, service-dominant logic, value propositions, value co-creation. Paper type – Research paper / 1. Introduction. 2 In the last years, several scholars have highlighted the interactive and networked nature of value creation (Gummesson, 2006a; Lusch and Vargo, 2006; Achrol and Kotler, 2012; Grönroos, 2006). Karpen et al, (2012: 21) point out that ‘A central implication of S-D logic is that the notion of superior value cocreation replaces the more prevalent one of superior value provision as the cornerstone of business strategy’. Some authors even refer to a new kind of buesiness model based on actors, interactions and networks (Gummesson 2008b,c, Laamanen and Skalen, 2014). In the present paper, we go in depth with the crowd-funding phenomenon, which we consider vey intresting as it can be considered a new kind of business model where actors are able to exchange value in a context that can be considered an example of value co-creation innovation (as new ways of value co-creation arise) and actors feel free to develop complex roles as the frontiers among buyers, sellers, investors, etc. can be developed by the same person/organization. The Eurpean Comission (2014: 3) has published a report where points out ‘Crowdfunding is a new financial system with its own particularities (...) But crowdfunding is also about atracting the emotional interest of users, setting up channels of identification with platform´s core values and purposes and exploiting the capabilities of social networks, community and proximity. This brings out new interactions between economic efficiency and democratic practices which are distinctive of the crowd-funding market’. The active role of actors in the crowd-funding business model can be considered an example of good practice because of its capacity to create superior value co-creation in a meaningful way for all the actors and in a continous change, as all the parties feel part of the project and feel free to make new proposals to improve the model. Although previous papers have analysed the crowd-funding phenomenon (Ordiani et al, 2011; Burtch et al, 2013; Quero and Ventura, 2015), there is scarce of information on the changing role of the actors, their capability to change and their interest on innovating on the way of co-creating value propositions. The research propositions whose answer we address in the present paper are: P 1. Crowd-funding phenomenon can be cosidered a service (eco)system. P 2. The 8 Co´s model integrates the eight ways value proposition is co-created among actors. The research questions are theoretically linked to FP 7 and FP 10, whose strategic themes are related to value in context. Karpen et al. (2012: 25), alingning S-D logic with S-D orientation refer to this research area as one strategic capability, specifically they name it “Individuated interaction capability”, defined as ‘an organization´s ability to understand the resource integration processes, contexts and desired outcomes of individual customers and other value network partners’. We interpret crowd-funding penomenon as a new generation of service (eco)system as defined by Wieland et al (2012), that has been able to adapt resource integration processes to new contexts meeting all partner´s changing desires/outcomes. In order to better understand how value is exchanged, we identify actors and ways of value cocreation, resulting on eight categories of co-creation that integrates all the possible ways value is co-created. Building on this, our purpose is to contribute to the development of a general theory SD logic, specifically on FP 7 and FP 10 by exploring: 3 - The ecosystem approach is needed to undestand new service models. - The crowd-funding platforms are an example of individuated generation capability, where the organization have the ability to understand the resource integration process in a way that benefits all parties in the context. - The value propositiona approach offer different interpretations for every level in the service ecosysten, where eight different ways of co-creating value take place. The results of the present paper can also contribute to enviroments different from crowd-funding, as the new ways of value co-creation can be transformed into different way of actions that could be used by organizations to stength their relationships with actors (stakeholders). The paper is divided into seven sections in which research questions are developed in detail. First we analyze the carowd-funding phenomenon and the actors involved on it, second, we study crowdfunding from a network, system and ecosystem perspecvtive; On the fourth section, we adapt the value proposition approach and planning framework to crowdfunding ecosystems and afterwards we connect value co-creation as the basis for valur proposition. Finally, a qualitative empirical approach, where three platform directors in Spain participated, is the baiss for creating the crowdfunding ecosystem model based on value propositions. Some discussion, limitations and directions for future research conclude are offered. 2. Crowd-funding phenomenon: concept and actors involved. Though the literature on crowd-funded markets is quite limited, there is a growing interest on the different way on which value is exchanged among actors. Ordanini et al. (2011: 444) define crowd-funding as ‘an initiative undertaken to raise money for a new project proposed by someone, by collecting small to medium size investments from several other people (i.e. a crowd)’. In the same sense, Schwienbacher and Larralde (2010: 370) have conceptualised crowd-funding as ‘the financing of a project or a venture by a group of individuals instead of professional parties’; according to Lawton and Marom (2013), crowd-funding platforms facilitate sophisticated service ecosystems, which rely on the participation of expert actors who interact with crowdfunders in order to attain the proposed objectives. Crowd-funding platforms in the arts sector consumers and other actors to actively participate in value co-creation processes, exchanging much more than just money (Burtch et al, 2013; Alves, H., 2013; Russo-Spena and Mele, 2012; Ordanini, et al, 2011). Rather, they provide arts organisations with collaborative value co-creation spaces or service ecosystems with certain unique characteristics, which set it apart from other organisational solutions: ‘(…) crowd-funding, although sharing some characteristics of traditional resourcepooling and social-networking phenomena, has some unique elements related to creating service platforms through which individual consumers can pool monetary resources to support and sustain new projects initiated by others’ (Ordanini et al.,2011: 445). Ramos (2014) identifies four different types of crowdfunding platforms: - Equity-based platforms, which specialize in projects that provide investors with tangible benefits. 4 - Lending based platforms, which seek to lend capital in exchange for interests. - Rewards-based platforms, which provide rewards, usualy products like DVD, t-shirts, etc in exchange for user´s capital contributions. - Donation-based platforms, whish seek to attract donations by specific project, mainly of social character, and rewards are non material (solidarity, sense of belonging, etc.). According to data from Forbes (11/05/2012), the world crowdfunding market 2014 could be broken down as follows: donations (49 %), loans (22%), equity (18%) and rewards (11%). In Spain (where our research is framed), the structure is the same. In 2013 the crowdfunding investments increased 100% and reached the quantity of 19,1 million euros (Infocrowdsourcing, 2013). Belleflamme, Lambert and Schwienbacher (2012) distinguish between two types of crowd-funding, depending on the actors involved. In the first type of crowd-funding project, the fundamental objective of participating actors is to raise enough money to get the project financed. In such cases, crowd funding is understood as a pre-sale mechanism, in which the financing actor adopts the role of consumer (financing consumer). Alternatively, participation in crowd-funding projects may be motivated by potential financial reward, and the role of participating actors is strictly that of an investor (investors). Ordanini et al. (2011) identify three kinds of actors in the crowdfunding contexts: actors who propose ideas and/or projects to be funded; the ‘crowd’ that decide to finally support certain projects (bearing a risk and expecting a certain payoff) and crowd-funding organizations (platforms), who bring together those who want to deliver and finance new initiatives. Furthermore, Belleflamme et al. (2012) characterises expert actors as actors who have domain expertise and a particular interest in the field or phenomenon in question. Experts often act as advisors for projects and can make informed predictions or require changes to be made in the project. Regarding research question 2, literature identifies up to seven kind of actors in the crowd-funding context: Table 1. Actors in the crowd-funding context literature. Actor name Literature A 1. Creative core Ordiani et al (2011); Belleflamme et al (2012); Burtch et al (2013); Quero and Ventura, 2015. A.2. Platforms Ordiani et al (2011) and Quero and Ventura (2015) A.3. Financing customer Ordiani et al (2011); Belleflamme et al (2012); Burtch et al (2013); Quero and Ventura, 2015. A 4. Non-financing customers. Quero and Ventura (2015) A.5. Investors Belleflame et al. (2012); Quero and Ventura (2015) A.6. Experts Belleflame et al. (2012) and Quero and Ventura (2015) A.7. Crowdfunding associations World Crowdfunding Federation (WCF); Asociación Española de Crowdfunding (AEC) Source: the authors. 5 As the crowdfunding phenomenon has grown in markets. A new actor that literature didn’t include up to this paper is crowdfunding associations. Their role is increasing its importance as they exchange knowledge and experience and invest to benefit all parties in the value co-creation process. Table 1 describes the actors identified in crowd-funding context and their actions and intentions as described in the literature. As a result of the growing interest of crowdfunding, governments are starting to create new laws to regulate the process, what has given the crowdfunding associations still more importance in their role as lobbies to guarantee the benefits of all the actors. 3. Crowd-funding Network, System and (eco)systems. The terms Network, System and (eco)system, have a common perspective on their approach to the market. Early approaches previous highlighted the importance of value creation in networks (Normann, 2001), and pioneers on this area of research like Gummesson (2006a) and Groonroos (2006) afforded the importance of introducing complexity and networks into the market system approach, like the “Many to many marketing theory” (Gummesson, 2006a), The Viable System Approach (Barile and Polese, 2010), the “context” as a ‘set of unique actors with unique reciprocal links among them’(Chandler and Vargo, 2011: 40), the Systems Thinking as a holistic market conceptualization (Mele et al, 2015) and “The Collective Consumption Network” (Närvänen et al, 2014). Gummesson (2008b) was one of the first scholars to highlight to identify levels in market relationships (‘special’, ‘mega’ and ‘nano’ relationships). Frow et al. (2014 : 332) conceptualise service ecosystem as ‘the interdependence between actors, their adaptation and evolution’, and, in the same perspective Chandler and Vargo (2011) purpose a multi-level conceptualization of context based on three levels: (1) microlevel; (2) meso-level; and (3) macro level. Above these three levels, there is a metalayer, that frames exchange among complex networks as service ecosystem. Wieland et al. (2012:13) argue that ‘an actor-to-actor orientation is essential to the ecosystem perspective’. Following Frow et al. (2014), three levels of relationships are identified to analyse the crowdfunding context: focal actor (micro-level), stakeholder system (meso-level) and service ecosystem (macro-level). Adopting the service ecosystems theory perspective, actors in service ecosystems cocreate value in at micro, meso and macro levels, configuring a dynamic Service Ecosystem (Frow et al. 2014; Di Maggio et al., 1983; Chandler et al., 2011). Crowdfunding phenomenon can be considered as a way of innovation through institionalization, as platforms and platforms associations can be considered as institutions that guide forces of value determination, as described by Vargo et al. (2013). This way, platforms offer value co-creation opportunities framed on different concepts of value propositions at every stage of the ecosystem and for all the actors. 4. Value proposition and the crowd-funding ecosystem The ecosystem approach to the crowdfunding phenomenon requires to go in depth with the concept of value propositions. Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008a,b) have highlighted the importance of the value proposition concept as a related issue of co- 6 creation of value. Vargo (2011: 220) posit ‘S-D logic is essentialy a value co-creation model that sees all actors as resource integrators, tied together in shared systems of exchange –service ecosystems or markets-. In this way, markets are characterised by mutual value propositions and service provision, governes by socially constructed institutions’. Frow and Payne (2011) propose a iterative planning framework, consisting of five steps coupling the stakeholder concept and value co-creation with the objetive of cocreating value propositions. We have changed thoe concept of stakeholder by “actor” (As suggested by the S-D logic literature) and adapted the plannig to the crowdfunding context as follows. See the process for value proposition planning framework on Figure 2. Figure 2. Value proposition planning framework in crowd-funding ecosystems Source: Adapted from Frow and Payne (2011:233). (1) Identify actors Literature on crowdfunding identifies seven actors (described in previous sections). But the innovative and open nature of the crowdfunding phenomenon will probably regiter changes as it evolves in time. The capacity of each actor to offer and receive value propositions will determine its permanence o elimination in the process. (2) Determine core values. Previous research on crowdfunding (Quero and Ventura, 2015) pointed out the importance given to the system equlibrium by the actors in the decission process, what Gummesson (2008a) addresses as “balanced centricity”. In the same sense, Frow and Payne (2011:234) ‘advocate an approach aimed at increasing company value rather than profit maximization’. (3) Facilitate dialogue and knowledge sharing. Identify actors Determine core values Facilitate dialogue and knowledge sharing Identify value cocreation opportunitie s Co-create actors value proposition s 7 Innovative open services (Chesborough, 2003) are inherently based on communication and knowledge sharing. This capacity for dialogue and collaborative capacity is labeled by Lusch et al. (2006) as “mega-competencies”. (4) Identify value co-creation opportnities. The open and active nature of all the actors participating in the crowdfunding context offer a context where all agents are “active players”, in the sendse described by Prahalad and Ramashwamy (2004) and they are free to continuouly create new value co-creation opportunities (Frow and Payne, 2011). (5) Co-create actors´ value propositions. Finally, SD Logic literature offers different ways to co-create value depending on the context. Russo Spena and Mele purpose a 5 Co´s model in which five ways of value co-creation are described. Quero and Ventura (2015) describe 7 kind of value cocreation but lack to frame exchanges into a ecosystem that better describes the complex and interconected nature of the crowdfunding phenomenon. We adopt Frow et al.(2014: 340) definition of value proposition to frame our research: ‘dynamic and adjusting mechanism for negotiating how resources are shared within a service ecosystem’. Drawing on this definition, we will analyse how differnt ways of value co-creation in crowd-funding contexts allow the possibily to arise value propositions as the basis for crowd-funding ecosystem. 5. Value co-creation as the basis for value proposition. To account for the colective dimension of value co-creation, Vargo and Lusch (2008a:5) argue: ‘while we initially fucused on exchange between two parties, we have increasingly tried to make it clear that it needs to be understood that the venue of value (co) creation is the value configurations –economic and social actors within networks interacting and exchanging across and through networks’. In this sense, crowd-funding can be seen as a collective action where the actors offer value propositions through cocreation. Value cocreation concept has been addressed by diferent autors in service-dominant logic literature. For Karpen et al (2012, p. 15) “the notion of cocreating value refers to asisting customers in co-constructing and engaging in superior experiences”. And Laamanen and Skalén (2014:3) refer to ‘the collective dimension of prectces arguing that value is co-created when firmas and consumers enact prectices congruently’. Frow et al (2014:332) make an intresting analysis of the concept ‘value proposition’ from a service ecosystem perspective: ‘Within a service ecosystem, exchange occurs because no one actor has all the resources to operate in isolation and is therefore required to participate in resource integration practices(...)’. This perspective is in line with the context in crowd-funding ecosystems. It is very intresting how this paper identifies seven kind of value propositions which are linked to the micro-meso-macro level in the ecosystem. Russo Spena and Mele (2012) conceptualize co-creation as a way for innovation in service and create the ‘5 Co´s Model’ where five categories of co-cretion are found: (1) co-ideation, (2) co-evaluation of ideas, (3) co-design, (4) co-test, (5) co-launch, and Quero and Ventura (2015:125) add two more categories when applying the value co-creation to crowd-funding context: (6) co-investment, (7) co-consumption. Recent literature also purposes new ways of co-creating value that could be added: (8) coauthorship (Kumar, 2015:55) wich refers to ‘a key mechanism that links different sets of talent to produce a research output’. Althoug their empirical approach is fron the scientific collaborations for research, it can be also applied to the cowdfunding 8 context, which is characterised by a great flexibility where actors can easily change roles. 6. Illustration of Rewards-based crowd-funding platforms in Spain. Crowd funding is a recent phenomenon, which is transforming how value is cocreated in the arts sector. Taking into account the complexity of the information relating to the relationship between actors, this study employs a qualitative methodology, based on an analysis of cases that facilitate the exploration of responses in context, and using a variety of information sources (Yin 2009; Gummesson, 2006b). Gummesson (2006b, p. 171) writes, “(…) addressing the complex reality of management issues, qualitative methodology supported by modern natural sciences is superior to quantitative methodology emanating from traditional natural sciences”. Along the same lines, other authors (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) consider qualitative methods to be the most appropriate for obtaining in-depth information on new phenomena (as is the case of crowd-funding). In designing and structuring the qualitative research in terms of case analysis, the method referred to by Yin (2009) has been used. As the scope of the study being limited to the cultural sector, case selection was carried out according to a review of cases published on the most dynamic crowdfunding platforms in Spain in terms of proposals of a cultural nature. Following this, purposive sampling was used to select two highly known crowdfunding platforms in Spain: Verkami (http://www.verkami.com/), and Lánzanos (http://www.lanzanos.com/). Informal interviews with the managers of these three platforms allowed us to confirm that they manage around 70 % of the crowd-funding projects in Spain. They also had a common idea of each other´s positioning: Verkami only accepts arts and design projects, and Lánzanos accepts all king of projects (social cultural, technological, etc.). In the cultural context, Verkami represents 70% of the crowd-funding projects. In 2013, Verkami financed 953 projects, 61% more than 2012 and the money raised out of these projects is almost 5 millions €, 89% more than 2012 and 122.000 of financing customers (A3). Verkami has a success level of 70%. Information gathering was carried out using a variety of information sources, with the objective of achieving a more complete and complex understanding of the phenomenon (Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010). The use of multiple data sources ensured a large number of perspectives, which were required for the qualitative methodology (Yin, 2009). The information analysed contained primary data from indepth interviews and secondary data obtained from a netnographic study of forums and three crowd-funding platforms selected and the impact of each of the platforms and projects on social networks. The context in which the process of crowd-funding takes place is limited to the Internet and online platforms created to facilitate interaction between participants. This situation meant that a netnographic study, along the lines developed by Kozinets (2002: 62), emerged as the most suitable approach, given that, as the author indicates, ‘(…)“Netnography”, or ethnography on the Internet, is a new qualitative research methodology that adapts ethnographic research techniques to study the cultures and communities that are emerging through computer-mediated communications’. The information obtained from the Internet was coded and analysed using ATLAS.ti software. 9 7. The crowdfunding ecosystem model based on value proposition The first question to be addressed was to confirm that the actors identified on the crowd-funding literature matched the reality of crowdfunding in Spain. Both platforms, Lánzanos and Verkami agreed to add one more actor: Public institutions. When asking about the characterisation of this relationship, Lánzanos said ‘There was a big need for regulation. I think is good for the market, not to be on an unknown terrain”. About the actions and intentions that describe each actor, the table 1 has the information for each of them, following the answers of the platforms´ leaders. Table 2. Actors, actions and intentions in corowdfunding. Actor name Actor actions / intentions A 1. Creative core Propose ideas and/or projects to be funded Wants his/her project financed A.2. Platforms Bring together those who want to deliver and finance. They get a benefit from the intermediation process. A.3. Financing customer Pay to finance the product they want to consume A 4. Non-financing customers. They don´t pay, but promote and help to get the project´s success A.5. Investors Fund the project in order to get a potential financial reward. In cultural projects is very unusual, although, as Lánzanos noted “The creative core always has the possibility to decide the kind of reward. One of them can be a financial reward, as it was the case of El Cosmonauta”. A.6. Experts Have a particular interest in in the field of the phenomenon in question. A.7. Crowdfunding associations Represents the institutionalization of crowd-funding. They work to improve the processes creating links among actors (mainly platform). A 8. Public institutions They have increased their presence on the markets, regulating crowd-funding phenomenon and offering a legal context. Answering the first research proposition, the results of the qualitative research showed that crowdfunding phenomenon can be considered an ecosystem (See figure 2), where different gropus of actors co-create value at a micro – meso and macrolevel. When the platform directors were asked about the relationship among actors and the ecosystem concept, Lánzanos answered: ‘every actor on the crowd-funding context is equally important’ and Verkami “I agree with the idea of ecosystem, as all the actors are important” Figure 2. Crowdfunding ecosystem model. 16 Jarvensivu T and Törnroos JA (2010) Case study research with moderate constructionism: conceptualization and practical illustration. Industrial Marketing Management 39(1): 100-8. Karpen IO, Bove LL, and Lukas BA (2012) Linking Service Dominant Logic and Strategic Business Prectice: A conceptual Model of a Service-Dominant Orientation. Journal of Service Research 15(1): 21-38. Kought B (2009) The network of knowledge: Generative rules and the emergende of structure. Strategic Management Journal 21:405-25. Kozinets R (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research 39(1): 61-72. Kumar S (2015) Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature. Aslib Journal of Information 67(1): 55-73. Laamanen M and Skalen P (2014) Collective-conflictual value co-creation: a strategic action field approach. Marketing Theory 14 (3): 1-20. Lánzanos (2015) Available at: http://www.lanzanos.com/ (accessed 10 September 2014). Lawton K and Marom D (2013) Crowd-funding Revolution, USA: Mc-Graw Hill. Leith JM (2013) What is an enterprise ecosystem Available at http://www.jackmartinleith.com/enterprise-ecosystem/ (accessed 01/09/2015). Lusch RF and Vargo SL (2006) Service-dominant logic as a foundation for a general theory. In: Lusch R and Vargo S (eds) The service dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions. NY: ME Sharpe, pp 406-420. Lusch RF, Vargo SL and Malter AJ (2006) Marketing as a service exchange: taking a leadership role in global marketing management. Organizational Dynamics 35(3): 264-278. Madhavaran S and Hunt S (2008) The service dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36: 67-82. Mele C, Pels J and Storbacka K (2015) A holistic market conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 43:100-114. Närvänen E, Gummesson E and Kuusela H (2014) The collective consumption Network. Managing Service Quality 24(6): 545-564. Normann R (2001) Reframing Business: when the map changes the landscape. Chichester. UK: John Wiley and Sons. Ordiani A, Miceli L, Pizzetti M, and Parasuraman A (2011) Crowd-funding: transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms, Journal of Service Management 22 (4): 443-470. Prahalad CK and Ramashwamy V (2004) Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review 78 (1): 79-90. Quero MJ and Ventura R (2009) The Role of Stakeholders in the Management of Cultural Organisations. The Case of Performing Arts Organisations in Spain. Journal of Relationship Marketing 8: 19 – 37. Quero MJ and Ventura R (2015) The role of balanced centricity in the Spanish creative industries adopting a crowd-funding organizational model. Journal of Service Theory and Prantice 25(2): 122-139. Ramos J (2014) Crowdfunding and the role of managers in ensuring the sustainability of crowdfunding platforms. Institute for prospective technological studies. European Union. Russo-Spena T and Mele C (2012) Five Co-s” in innovating: a practice-based view. Journal of Service Management 23(4): 527-553. 17 Schwienbacher A and Larralde B (2010) Crowdfunding of Entrepreneurial Ventures. In: Cumming D (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vargo SL (2011) Market Systems, stakeholders and value propositions. Towards a service-dominant logic-based theory of the market. European Journal of Marketing 45(1/2): 217-222. Vargo SL and Lusch RF (2008b) Why “service”? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36: 25–38. Vargo SL and Lusch RF (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of Marketing 68(1): 1–17. Vargo SL and Lusch RF (2008a) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36: 1–10. Vargo SL, Wieland H and Akaka MA (2013) Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 44(1): 63-72. Verkami (2015) Available at: http://www.verkami.com/ (accessed 10 September 2014). White H (2002) Business mobilize production through markets: Parametric modeling of path-dependent outcomes in oriented network flows. Complexity, 8(1): 87-95. Wieland H, Polese F, Vargo and Lusch R (2012) Toward a service (eco)system perspective on value creation. International Journal of Service Science, Management Engineering, and Technology 3(3): 12-25. World Crowdfunding Federation (2015). Available al: http://www.worldcrowdfund.org/ (accessed 11 January 2015). Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, USA, Los Ángeles: SAGE.