Designing organizational eco-map to develop a customer value proposition for a "slow tourism" destination

Čirjevskis, Andrejs Article Designing organizational eco-map to develop a customer value proposition for a "slow tourism" destination Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Čirjevskis, Andrejs (2019) : Designing organizational eco-map to develop a customer value proposition for a "slow tourism" destination, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 9, Iss. 3, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030057 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/239954 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ administrative sciences Article Designing Organizational Eco-Map to Develop a Customer Value Proposition for a “Slow Tourism” Destination Andrejs ˇ Cirjevskis Business Department, RISEBA University of Applied Sciences, Riga LV-1048, Latvia; [email protected] Received: 25 May 2019; Accepted: 6 August 2019; Published: 9 August 2019   Abstract: Despite the widespread agreement on the importance of customer value proposition (CVP) as one of the most critical aspects of business models (BM), little is known about how strategically valuable organizational resources may contribute to the transformation of CVP. This paper aims to develop and to test a new research framework: The organizational eco-map to explore how strategically valuable resources are underpinning a new customer value proposition of a focal company. Customer value proposition hence is an encapsulation of a strategic management decision on what the company believes its customers value the most and what it can deliver in a way that gives it a competitive advantage. Being a research-based paper, the topic is approached by theoretical analysis, conceptual development, and empirical justification. The presented organizational eco-map model encourages practitioners to grasp an exact relationship between strategically valuable resources of the organization and customer value proposition. Empirically, the paper examines the role of Latvian cultural resources in the forthcoming transformation of the customer value proposition for Riga Central Market of Latvia, a huge infrastructural establishment. Therefore, marketing practitioners will find new ways of understanding customers’ value creation for a “slow tourism” destination to develop marketing strategies to engage cultural resources of suppliers with their customers’ consumption processes to enhance better customer satisfaction. Keywords: business model; customer value proposition; organizational eco-map; cultural resources; slow tourism 1. Introduction In recent years, business models have received increasing attention of strategy researchers. Business models characterize the focal firm’s plan for its value creation and capture (Adner 2017). From Johnson et al. (2008), a business model consists of four main elements, the synthesis of which delivers value: Customer value proposition, profit formula, key resources, and key processes. Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) with 470 real business practitioners from 45 countries extended several elements and developed Business Model Canvas with nine building blocks: Customer segment, value proposition, channels, customer relationship, revenue stream, key resources, key activities, key partners, cost structure. Slightly adapted from Johnson et al. (2008) and Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), Teece proposed three main components of the business model: “Cost Model: Core Assets and Capabilities; Core Activities; Partner Network. Revenue Model: Pricing Logic; Channels; Customer Interaction. Value proposition: Product and Service; Customer Needs; Geography” (Teece 2018, p. 41). Therefore, a customer value proposition (CVP) is a central building block of the business model by opinions of almost all researchers. With respect to great contributors to business models’ frameworks, there is still a gap in understanding what and how strategically valuable resources of organization foster new value proposition of a focal company and how to design it as a transformation Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57; doi:10.3390/admsci9030057 www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 2 of 17 process. Zott et al. (2011) argue that future research on business models should seek to overcome these limitations. “We need more clarity about the theoretical building blocks of the business model, and customer value proposition, particularly, its antecedents and consequences, and the mechanisms through which it works” (Zott et al. 2011, p. 20). When it comes to research in tourism business models, this is still in its infancy (Reinhold et al. 2018). The tourism sector and its business models are an interesting area of investigation because of the complexity of the value creation, capture, and dissemination processes (Reinhold et al. 2018). What’s more, Reinhold et al. argue that business modeling in tourism in a state of art (Reinhold et al. 2018). The multiplicity of approaches toward studying business models in tourism benefits a richer phenomenological understanding. However, “a recent review of business model studies in tourism and the collection of articles in the recent special issue of Tourism Review journal (2018) demonstrate that work on business models as tools and schemas is underrepresented to date” (Reinhold et al. 2018, p. 10). Although this is a shortcoming of existing works, it offers opportunities for future contributions (Reinhold et al. 2018). In designing a new slow tourism destination’s business model, it is necessary to understand this relevant cognitive tool for partaking actors and how those tools enable collaborative innovation efforts (Reinhold et al. 2018). The current paper contributes to the theoretical discussion on the business model (BM) in tourism, by providing new tools needed for BM innovation, clarifying resources-based antecedences of a CVP’s as well as visualizing new tools in the frame of the organizational eco-map through which it works. The research will indicate whether (and how) an organizational eco-map can underpin a business model innovation in tourism destinations. The paper proceeds as follows. The introductory section outlines the main problem of the research and provides reasons for conducting the study. The literature review introduces the reader to the concept of CVP as a part of business modeling and to the importance of strategically valuable resources in underpinning a new value proposition. The paper continues with an empirical (illustrative) case study research on Riga Central Market, a current and recommended CVP developed with the help of an organizational eco-map. Finally, the paper discusses research findings and formulates the theoretical and managerial contributions of the research. The paper ends with a list of study limitations and opportunities for future research. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Business Models, Business Model Innovation, and Customer Value Proposition In recent years, the business models and business model innovation have received increasing attention from strategy researchers (ˇ Cirjevskis 2016,2017,2019). “Business model innovation is a new or significantly improved architectural configuration of the system of creation, capture, and delivery of value” (Souto 2015, p. 148). Researchers perceive the level of innovation of the BM differently. For example, Johnson et al. (2008) believe that BMI is pointless unless it is new to the company and novel or game-changing to the industry and market in a certain way. On the other hand, Amit and Zott (2016) suggest that BMI can also be only incremental in its characteristics, when a company finds a way to realize the economy of scale and affect the efficiency or boost the quality, for example. The BMI often implies reinforcing some of the components or complementing the core business. Therefore, the new BM does not imply that the existing business model is threatened or should be changed dramatically (Foss and Saebi 2018). Amit and Zott argue that focal company can innovate BM by redefining (a) content (adding new activities), (b) structure (linking activities differently), (c) governance (changing parties that do the activities) (Amit and Zott 2012), and therefore developing new customer value proposition ( ˇ Cirjevskis 2019). The issue of business models in tourism is rarely discussed in the literature. In general, it is analyzed in the context of another major subject, such as knowledge and technology or in the scope of innovations. As an example can be mentioned the work of Souto (2015), who focuses on the Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 3 of 17 research on the innovation in the scope of business modeling and implementation of innovations. Most tourism studies operationalized the business model as a theoretical concept that represents real, directly observable firm attributes. For example, Souto (2015) considers the role of new business models in tourism and hospitality firms’ pursuit of competitive advantage. The case study in Africa (Weigert 2018) uses the business model concept as a theoretical lens to analyze the local and social dimensions of regional tourism and hospitality businesses. Tham and Huang (2018) consider the synergies of linking the integrated resort business model to smart tourism ecosystems management. However, the reinvention of business models in tourism is still an open area for research due to the following reasons. Johnson et al. (2008) gave excellent ideas on a reinvention of business models and their building blocks for focal companies, but still, a question remains: What cultural resources are needed in the reinvention of business models for tourist destination? Pursuing scientific rigor and helping practitioners to re-invent their BMs, Amit and Zott (2016) integrated dynamic capabilities with the business model design process but what about re-invention of building blocksofbusinessmodelsandtheroleofculturalresourcestodevelopanewcustomervalueproposition in tourism business? There are a few pieces of research on business model innovation in tourism. There is a need for research on processes by which tourism actors build business models that bridge the demands of actors with different interests and goals of other stakeholders. What exactly is meant by the reinvention of building blocks of BM? The reinvention of building blocks of business is meant to be the process of transformation of the most important activities and the orchestration of valuable and unique resources of the company to increase revenue stream and to deliver a new customer value proposition (CVP), and thereby, to sustain competitive advantages. Business models outline the core of the business and provide a clear understanding of its business logic. According to Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), a business model can be used as a detailed description of the way the elaborated strategy will be followed. The first and most important element is the CVP. Another component of a business model outlined by Johnson et al. (2008), and Teece (2018), is the profit or profit formula. This element is described by Johnson et al. as “ . . . the blueprint that defines how a company creates value for itself providing value to the customers” (Teece 2018, p. 60). The next element of a business model is key resources. Lambert argues that key resources include not only information technology hardware and software and intellectual property but also cultural resources (Lambert 2008). These resources allow the company to build a CVP, reach market segments, maintain relationships with stakeholders, and gain profits (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). The last component of a business model is key processes. Johnson et al. (2008) state that key processes are operational and managerial activities that allow the company to deliver value in a way it can successfully repeat and increase in scale. To conclude, these four components are the foundation of any business model. The CVP and profit formula explain the value for the customers and the company, and key resources and processes show how the company delivers value to the customers and to itself. Having understood the concept of a business model and its four main elements, it is necessary to get further insight into the most important component of a business model, the CVP. To have a more in-depth understanding of the CVP concept, it is useful to look at several other reflections on the term. Based on Schumpeter’ s theory of economic development, value is created from a unique combination of resources that produce innovation (Schumpeter 1936). Talman argues that critical to making the CVP real is the internal value creation potential of a focal firm (Tallman et al. 2018). “Developing the CVP requires an explicit yet often unique configuration encompassing what potential customer need or want and what the firm can provide, depending on its internal assets and the resources andcapabilitiesthatitsnetwork ofvalue-addingsuppliers mightprovide” (Tallman et al. 2018, p. 523). Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) strongly believe that an analysis of CVP, based on CVP decomposition, not only may assist the company in the evaluation of its CVP but can also help it to compare the value proposition with the competitors’ offerings in a qualitative way. A recent study carried out by Lindiˇc and Silva (2011) has come up with a new PERFA (Performance, Ease of use, Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 4 of 17 Reliability, Flexibility, and Affectivity) framework, which outlines five components of CVP generated by innovations. According to Lindiˇc and Silva (2011), this framework can assist both academics and practitioners in understanding the value proposition concept, its structure and its role in the innovation process and strategic planning. To summarize the above theoretical discussion, we conclude that a customer value proposition should build on resources and competencies that the company can utilize more effectively than its competitors and be recognizably unique from the competition. If strategically valuable resources are inputs into the value-creation process to provide CVP, we have to explore the linkage between strategically valuable and unique resources and a customer value proposition of the business model of a focal company. 2.2. Resources Based View on Competitive Advantage, Cultural Resources, and the Organizational Eco-Map Challenging elements of business models in tourism “still need further research to detect possible directions for concrete sustainable implementation” (Battistella et al. 2018, p. 5). “The first challenge is related to the customer value proposition of the business model innovation, i.e., finding business purposes and offerings that can guarantee a long-term competitive advantage. The second challenge is related to create value, i.e., developing a sustainable business model employing specific practices, and resources oriented to sustainability” (Battistella et al. 2018, p. 4). So far, this paper has discussed the business model and its most important component—the CVP, which leads to sustained competitive advantages. In this section key resources and capabilities will be discussed that can underpin the CVP and thus create and sustain a competitive advantage. Recourses and capabilities are vital sources for underpinning competitive advantages, which are tough to spot, especially in changing economic and social environments. Roots of resource-based theory come from Penrose (1959) whose theory of firm growth viewed organizations as bundles of resources, administered by a certain network of individuals and groups. “The theory of the growth of the firm is considered by many scholars in the strategy field to be the seminal work that provided the intellectual foundations for the modern, resource-based theory of the firm” (Rugman and Verbeke 2002, p. 769) This theory has illuminated and inspired thinking in strategy, entrepreneurship, and innovation (Penrose and Pitelis 2009). Thereby, the theoretical foundation of the current paper is Penrose’s intellectual contribution to resource-based on competitive advantage. Later studies of the 1980s and 1990s gave way to modern resource-based firm theories. Barney (1991, p. 101) defines firm resources as “all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc. controlled by a firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and effectiveness.” Resources can be viewed by categories. For example, Capron et al. (1998) have categorized them into research and development (R&D), manufacturing, marketing, managerial, and financial. One more evaluation model of resources that underpins sustained competitive advantages should be mentioned, which is the most important one in terms of this study. This is Barney’s VRIN framework for resources and capabilities analysis. Barney argues that sustained competitive advantages must be found in the valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable—the so-called VRIN resources already controlled by a firm (Barney 1991). Per Barney, each resource can be a source of sustained competitive advantage only if it creates value, is unique, is hard to imitate or substitute, and the focal company has reporting structures, formal and informal management control systems, hiring and retention policies, and compensation policies, which allows exploiting (to organize) those resources. Barney calls VRIN resources “idiosyncratic firm attributes”. According to a resource-based view (RBV) on competitive advantage, the irreplaceable Latvian historical and cultural resources (stories and rituals; local food, drinks, and cuisine; historical and cultural heritage; community image and identity; the overall unique atmosphere and environment), given in Table 1, are important VRIN resources (Chirjevskis and Ludviga 2009). Those cultural resources are imperfectly immobile—path-dependent, socially complex, and casually ambiguous—and can be used as sources of sustained competitive advantages and underpin a CVP (Chirjevskis and Ludviga 2009). Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 5 of 17 Table 1. Key resources (tangible and intangible). Key Resources Definition Physical Assets like manufacturing facilities, buildings, vehicles, machinery, point-of-sales, and distribution networks Intellectual Brands, proprietary knowledge, patents and copyrights, partnerships, and customer databases Human Talented management and employees Financial Cash, lines of credit, or a stock option pool Cultural Stories and ritual; local food, drinks, and cuisine; historical and cultural heritage, community image and identity, overall unique atmosphere and environment (Chirjevskis and Ludviga 2009). Source: Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), adopted and extended by the author. Heterogeneous idiosyncratic (VRIN) resources and their linkage with CVP and thus with competitive advantages can be visualized as an organizational eco-map. Eco-map has many uses in social work practice (Hartman 1995). Initially applied in social work, eco-maps are diagrams that depict an object within a societal context, demonstrating the linkage between resources necessary to deliver a customer value proposition. It can enable the management of a focal company to identify some resources that exist but which managers have never thought about applying. It also includes relationships characterized as strong, weak or conflicting, thus allowing the company to analyze these relationships and interactions. The arrows represent the direction of the relationships—one way or two ways—thus identifying sources of conflict or opportunities. More symbols and relationships can be added to the map if necessary, as shown in Figure 1. Thus, an organizational eco-map can visualize resources and a firm’s relationships with these resources. The resources can be categorized as follows: Available and applicable resources as horizontal scrolls; available, but not currently applicable resources (7-points stars); and resources that are not available now but which could be applicable in the future (plaques). Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17 Figure 1. Organizational eco-map. Source: developed by the author. According to Dallen and Boyd (2003), tourism is the largest industry in the world as crossing borders to see new places has become a common lifestyle for thousands of people. Moreover, due to significant differences in people’s interests, tourism has become highly categorized and cultural heritage and food tourism have become very popular categories in the industry. Regarding food tourism, Boniface believes that food and drinks are an integral part of any culture, society, and even cultural heritage, which is why food tourism perfectly fits the purposes of heritage tourism (Boniface 2003). According to Lopez-Guzman and Sanchez-Canizares “… local and regional food, including beer and wine, could give added value to the destination and thus contribute to the competitiveness of the area …” (Lopez-Guzman and Sanchez-Canizarez 2012, p. 169). Boniface believes that tourists go to local public or farmers’ markets due to their uniqueness and distinctiveness and that tourists perceive public markets as traditional in concept: Historical, cultural and in the position to deliver a more valuable type of commodity than any supermarket (Boniface 2003). Szromek and Naramski found that several scholars’ researches as Kozak (2001), Akama (2003), and Ragavan et al. (2014) justified “the impact on tourist perception such attributes like accommodation and food, attractions, climate, culture, etc. have” (Szromek and Naramski 2019, p. 6). What is more, a study carried out in the USA on tourists’ preferences regarding food tourism revealed that 60% of US leisure travelers would like to engage in such activities as cooking classes, visiting farmers’ and public markets, and attending wine and food festivals on their vacations (Merritt 2007). Consequently, it becomes apparent that food, farmers’ and public markets are quite popular types of attractions for tourists, especially for culinary tourism lovers. The strategic tourism products defined above may be perceived as a motivation or purpose for traveling to Latvia, in other words, the reason why tourists choose Latvia as the destination for their vacation as a “slow tourism” destination. “Slow tourism” is defined by Caffyn as follows: “Tourism which involves making real and meaningful connections with people, places, culture, food, heritage, Cutomer Value Proposition VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources VRIN resources Figure 1. Organizational eco-map. Source: developed by the author. Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 6 of 17 The relationships, in turn, are characterized as follows: Stable relationships—the resource is utilized in full capacity (up-down arrows); unstable relationships—the resource is only partly utilized (up arrows); and conflicting relationships—the resource is not utilized at all, its value conflicts with the firm’s current values (curve up arrows) are as shown in Figure 1. In the previous scholars’ research, hospitality business models (Mihaliˇc et al. 2012; Høgevold et al. 2015 ), ecotourism(SarkarandSinha 2015), and winetourism business models(Hojman andHunter-Jones 2012) are discussed together with destination offerings but not for “slow tourism” destination. Therefore, despite the growing level of quality research in the field of business models in tourism, there seems to be a remarkable gap in the topic of tourism, especially in “slow tourism” research. Before empirical testing of organizational eco-map in practice, we observe one more important issue for current research, namely, cultural resources of localities (Chirjevskis and Ludviga 2009) and their strategic importance in “slow tourism” destination. 2.3. Cultural Heritage Tourism, Food, and Relaxation Are “Slow Tourism” Destination Even if the concept of business models has previously not been approached in slow tourism, or even other forms of tourism, i.e., cultural heritage tourism (Szromek and Herman 2019), the value proposition has been studied in various forms of tourism but in isolation of the cultural resources of localities (Szromek and Naramski 2019). We try to fill this gap in the current paper. Thus, there are also several avenues in terms of applications or settings of tourism business model studies: First, scholars should go beyond the analysis of transportation or hospitality firms or firm-like entities (e.g., hotels or destination marketing organizations) and apply business model concepts to destinations themselves (Reinhold et al. 2018); what we also try to contribute in the current paper. According to Dallen and Boyd (2003), tourism is the largest industry in the world as crossing borders to see new places has become a common lifestyle for thousands of people. Moreover, due to significant differences in people’s interests, tourism has become highly categorized and cultural heritage and food tourism have become very popular categories in the industry. Regarding food tourism, Boniface believes that food and drinks are an integral part of any culture, society, and even cultural heritage, which is why food tourism perfectly fits the purposes of heritage tourism (Boniface 2003) . According to Lopez-Guzman and Sanchez-Canizares “ . . . local and regional food, including beer and wine, could give added value to the destination and thus contribute to the competitiveness of the area . . . ” (Lopez-Guzman and Sánchez-Cañizar 2012, p. 169). Boniface believes that tourists go to local public or farmers’ markets due to their uniqueness and distinctiveness and that tourists perceive public markets as traditional in concept: Historical, cultural and in the position to deliver a more valuable type of commodity than any supermarket (Boniface 2003). Szromek and Naramski found that several scholars’ researches as Kozak (2001), Akama (2003), and Ragavan et al. (2014) justified “the impact on tourist perception such attributes like accommodation and food, attractions, climate, culture, etc. have” (Szromek and Naramski 2019, p. 6). What is more, a study carried out in the USA on tourists’ preferences regarding food tourism revealed that 60% of US leisure travelers would like to engage in such activities as cooking classes, visiting farmers’ and public markets, and attending wine and food festivals on their vacations (Merritt 2007). Consequently, it becomes apparent that food, farmers’ and public markets are quite popular types of attractions for tourists, especially for culinary tourism lovers. The strategic tourism products defined above may be perceived as a motivation or purpose for traveling to Latvia, in other words, the reason why tourists choose Latvia as the destination for their vacation as a “slow tourism” destination. “Slow tourism” is defined by Caffyn as follows: “Tourism which involves making real and meaningful connections with people, places, culture, food, heritage, and the environment” (Caffyn 2007, p. 11). Consequently, Latvia can be perceived by tourists as a destination for cultural heritage, food, and relaxation tourism. The concept of slow tourism is relatively new and, to date, defies an exact definition. Its origin traces back to some more institutionalized social movements such as slow food and slow cities Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 7 of 17 (CittaSlow) that started in Italy in the 1980s and 1990s (Fullagar et al. 2012). Although there is no definition for slow tourism that is widely agreed upon, Dickinson et al. define three different pillars of slow travel. The first pillar is “doing things in the right speed”, the second “changing the attitude towards speed” and the last one is “seeking quality over quantity” (Dickinson et al. 2010). As mentioned earlier, slow travelers tend to consume local food products more often than other tourists (Terhorst 2019). Sims argues that local food can enhance the tourist experience as consumers are connected to the region and its perceived culture and heritage. The study by Sims has been conducted in two different places in England (Sims 2009). Conclusively, it has been suggested that successful tourist destinations must develop products and services that distinguish the destination from others. Local food may be a successful tool for differentiation as tourists perceive food as authentic (Sims 2009). Sims only focused on two destinations in England (Sims 2009). It should be researched whether the outcomes are different in other cultural settings like Latvia, a small and pleasant Northern European country in the Baltic region (Estonian Word 2017). While the literature on slow tourism is still evolving, Latvia with its present tourism marketing brand “Latvia: Best enjoyed slowly” (see Figure 2) is officially promoted as an appropriate destination for slow tourism and is currently the only destination that has applied the slow philosophy in destination marketing at a national level, making the setting of the research unique (Serdane 2017). The new tourism brand claims to follow these principles since the “basic values of the Latvia tourism brand are characterized by truthfulness, profoundness, easiness and confidence grounded in the Latvian environment, culture and people” (Serdane 2017;Latvian Tourism Development Agency 2010, p. 15). Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 and the environment” (Caffyn 2007, p. 11). Consequently, Latvia can be perceived by tourists as a destination for cultural heritage, food, and relaxation tourism. The concept of slow tourism is relatively new and, to date, defies an exact definition. Its origin traces back to some more institutionalized social movements such as slow food and slow cities (CittaSlow) that started in Italy in the 1980s and 1990s (Fullagar et al. 2012). Although there is no definition for slow tourism that is widely agreed upon, Dickinson et al. define three different pillars of slow travel. The first pillar is “doing things in the right speed”, the second “changing the attitude towards speed” and the last one is “seeking quality over quantity” (Dickinson et al. 2010). As mentioned earlier, slow travelers tend to consume local food products more often than other tourists (Terhorst 2019). Sims argues that local food can enhance the tourist experience as consumers are connected to the region and its perceived culture and heritage. The study by Sims has been conducted in two different places in England (Sims 2009). Conclusively, it has been suggested that successful tourist destinations must develop products and services that distinguish the destination from others. Local food may be a successful tool for differentiation as tourists perceive food as authentic (Sims 2009). Sims only focused on two destinations in England (Sims 2009). It should be researched whether the outcomes are different in other cultural settings like Latvia, a small and pleasant Northern European country in the Baltic region (Estonian Word 2017). While the literature on slow tourism is still evolving, Latvia with its present tourism marketing brand “Latvia: Best enjoyed slowly” (see Figure 2) is officially promoted as an appropriate destination for slow tourism and is currently the only destination that has applied the slow philosophy in destination marketing at a national level, making the setting of the research unique (Serdane 2017). The new tourism brand claims to follow these principles since the “basic values of the Latvia tourism brand are characterized by truthfulness, profoundness, easiness and confidence grounded in the Latvian environment, culture and people” (Serdane 2017; Latvian Tourism Development Agency 2010, p. 15). Figure 2. “Latvian tourist brand and slogan in English, German, and Russian” (Serdane 2017, p. 7). The strategy envisages that “the development of Latvian tourism as a product is based on five core values: (1) quality, (2) sustainability, (3) individualization, (4) high added value and (5) tourist participation and experience-building” (Serdane 2017; Latvian Tourism Development Agency 2010, p. 27). Preserving local food traditions and supporting locally grown foods that are associated with particular geographical regions are at the core of the Slow Food philosophy (Mayer and Knox 2006). In the meantime, Latvia with its present tourism marketing brand “Latvia: Best enjoyed slowly” is officially promoted as a slow tourism destination making the setting of the research unique (Serdane 2017). Since CVP should be based on customers’ needs, it is reasonable to interact with the target customers through surveys, interviews with focal company management, and discussions with stakeholders, in other words, to do case study research. Figure 2. “Latvian tourist brand and slogan in English, German, and Russian” (Serdane 2017, p. 7). The strategy envisages that “the development of Latvian tourism as a product is based on five core values: (1) quality, (2) sustainability, (3) individualization, (4) high added value and (5) tourist participation and experience-building” (Serdane 2017;Latvian Tourism Development Agency 2010, p. 27). Preserving local food traditions and supporting locally grown foods that are associated with particular geographical regions are at the core of the Slow Food philosophy (Mayer and Knox 2006) . In the meantime, Latviawith itspresenttourism marketingbrand “Latvia: Bestenjoyed slowly”is officially promoted as a slow tourism destination making the setting of the research unique (Serdane 2017) . Since CVP should be based on customers’ needs, it is reasonable to interact with the target customers through surveys, interviews with focal company management, and discussions with stakeholders, in other words, to do case study research. However, this research is different than previous papers written on the same topic. This study, the first one that focuses on the issue of the customer value proposition of Riga central markets, not only fills a recognized research gap but also might be used to perform such comparisons for other studies in this field. The current paper demonstrates that, whereas customer value is always defined Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 8 of 17 by customers’ subjective perceptions and evaluations of the total customer experience, competitive advantage is defined by the company’s use of resources and capabilities to create a new customer value proposition, after all. 3. Case Study Research: Delivering New Customer Value Proposition of RCM 3.1. Research Design and Methodology This paper aims to develop and to test a new research framework, namely, the organizational eco-map, and to explore how strategically valuable resources are underpinning a new customer value proposition of a focal company. The object of analysis (a focal company) is the organization Riga Central Market JSC, which was established in 1994 and is owned by the Riga City Council. The main source of RCM income is the capital collected from the lease of trade areas to local merchants. The motivation of using the RCM as an object of research is as follows. RCM is a huge infrastructural establishment, which plays a crucial cultural and historical role in Riga, the capital of Latvia. However, the number of customers has been decreasing during the past four years due to the economic crisis, which in turn has led to a decline in the number of tenants and merchants at RCM. The case study research target is to identify a current customer value proposition (CVP) for Riga Central Market (RCM) with a help of an organizational eco-map, and on this basis, to make recommendations on how to increase RCM’s attractiveness to foreign visitors. This empirical case study asks two research questions. The first research question has been formulated as follows: What is the current CVP of RCM as a destination for foreign tourists? The answer to this question will reveal what RCM’s current value for the foreign tourist is and will help to identify what the main aspect is that should be emphasized in a new CVP to increase RCM’s attractiveness among tourists. The second research question is: What Latvian cultural resources can underpin the new CVP of RCM as a destination for foreign tourists? In answering the second research question, an organizational eco-map will help to clarify how the new CVP of RCM as a destination should be organized by exploiting Latvian cultural resources to attract more foreign tourists. The time horizon of the research is cross-sectional; the study will be conducted only once. The target population is adult foreign tourists (>18 years of age) visiting RCM. Non-probability sampling will be used in the study, specifically convenience and judgmental sampling, as the units of analysis will be certain and targeted. As the population increases, the sample size increases at a diminishing rate and remains relatively constant at slightly more than 380 cases (Krejcie and Morgan 1970, p. 610). When it comes to population size and sampling, the sample size has been defined according to information provided by RCM management that the average number of foreign tourist visitors per day is around 700 people ( ˇ Cirjevskis and Antonova 2013). On the one hand, the research has taken this number as a population; hence, the sample size is around 248 respondents with a confidence interval of 5% and a confidence level of 95%. (Sekaran and Bougie 2016, p. 263). On the other hand, the research attempts to study a case in the particular cultural settings and destinations and aims at offering a novel solution (a new customer value proposition) to a given problem (decreasing number of visitors and tenants of RCM). It is an analytical and qualitative study as available facts and information are used to carry out a critical evaluation of the problem and proposed solution. In this context, important factors that must be considered when determining the appropriate number of subjects to include in a sample are the answer to the questions whether the statistical analysis was planned and what constitutes an appropriate sample size (Clegg 1990). The current paper applies a case study research methodology that is used to explore a single phenomenon (a customer value proposition for a tourist destination) in natural setting (Riga Central Market) using a variety of methods (qualitative and/or quantitative) to obtain in-dept knowledge (about an appropriateness of an application of organizational eco-map to develop a customer value proposition for Riga Central Market). The method used to collect data in our case study includes interviews with foreign tourists, RCM management, and RCM tenants; observation; and documentary analysis. Eisenhardt (1989, p. 534) Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 15 of 17 Caffyn, Alison. 2007. Slow Tourism Alison Caffyn—Tourism Research Consultant. Available online: https: //www.slideserve.com/Jimmy/ludlow (accessed on 24 May 2019). Capron, Laurence, Pierre Dussauge, and Will Mitchell. 1998. Resource redeployment following horizontal acquisitions in Europe and North America, 1988–1992. Strategic Management Journal 19: 631–61. [CrossRef] Chassan, Jacob Bernard. 1979. Research Design in Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry. New York: Irvington Publishers Inc. Chesbrough, Henry. 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long-Range Planning 43: 354–63. [CrossRef] Chirjevskis, Andrejs, and Iveta Ludviga. 2009. Managing the Culture of Diversity: National and Cultural Identities as the basis of Sustained Competitive Advantages in Globalised Markets. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities & Nations 9: 85–97. ˇ Cirjevskis, Andrejs. 2016. Designing dynamically “signature business model” that support durable competitive advantage. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 2: 1–21. [CrossRef] ˇ Cirjevskis, Andrejs. 2017. Acquisition based dynamic capabilities and reinvention of business models: Bridging two perspectives together. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 4: 516–25. [CrossRef] ˇ Cirjevskis, Andrejs. 2019. The role of dynamic capabilities as drivers of business model innovation in mergers and acquisitions of technology-advanced firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 5: 12. [CrossRef] ˇ Cirjevskis, Andrejs, and Arina Antonova. 2013. Exploring the Interrelation of Heterogeneous Cultural Resources and Customer Value Proposition: Organizational Eco Map. Paper presented at 2nd International Conference on Social Sciences and Society (ICSSS 2012), San Diego, CA, USA, 1–2 November 2012. Clegg, Frances G. 1990. Simple Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dallen, Timothy J., and Stephen W. Boyd. 2003. Heritage Tourism. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Dickinson, Janet E., Les M. Lumsdon, and Derrek Robbins. 2010. Slow Travel: Issues for Tourism and Climate Change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19: 281–300. [CrossRef] Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14: 532–50. [CrossRef] Estonian Word. 2017. The UN Classifies Estonia as a Northern European Country. Available online: https: //estonianworld.com/life/un-reclassifies-estonia-northern-european-country/(accessed on 24 July 2019). Foss, Nikolai J., and Tina Saebi. 2018. Business models and business model innovation: Between wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long-Range Planning 51: 9–21. [CrossRef] Fullagar, Simone, Kevin Markwell, and Erica Wilson, eds. 2012. Slow Tourism: Experiences and Mobilities. Bristol: Channel View. Hartman, Ann. 1995. Diagrammatic Assessment of Family Relationships. Families in Society 76: 111–22. [CrossRef] Høgevold, Nils M., Göran Svensson, and Carmen Padin. 2015. A sustainable business model in services: An assessment and validation. International Journal of Services Sciences 7: 17–33. [CrossRef] Hojman, David, and Pippa Hunter-Jones. 2012. Wine tourism: Chilean wine regions and routes. Journal of Business Research 65: 13–21. [CrossRef] Jay Way Travel. 2016. Riga Central Market. Posted on April 2, by Stephan Delbo. Available online: https: //jaywaytravel.com/blog/riga-central-market/(accessed on 22 July 2019). Johnson, Mark W., Clayton M. Christensen, and Henning Kagermann. 2008. Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review 86: 57–68. Konrath, Jill. 2006. Selling to Big Companies. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing. Kozak, Metin. 2001. Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two nationalities. Tourism Management 22: 391–401. [CrossRef] Krejcie, Robert V., and Daryle W. Morgan. 1970. Determine sample size for research activities. Educational and Phycological Measurement 30: 607–10. [CrossRef] Lambert, Susan Ch. 2008. A Conceptual Framework for Business Model Research. Available online: https: //domino.fov.uni-mb.si/proceedings.nsf/0/1e893ee544d680fec12574810042ac2d/$file/22lambert.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2019). Latvian Tourism Development Agency. 2010. The Latvian Tourism Marketing Strategy 2010–2015. Riga: Latvian Tourism Development Agency. Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 16 of 17 Lindiˇc, Jaka, and Carlos M Silva. 2011. Value proposition as a catalyst for a customer focused innovation. Management Decision Journal 49: 1694–708. [CrossRef] Lopez-Guzman, Tom á s, and Sandra S á nchez-Cañizar. 2012. Culinary tourism in Cordoba (Spain). British Food Journal 114: 168–79. [CrossRef] Mayer, Heike, and Paul L. Knox. 2006. Slow Cities: Sustainable Places in a Fast World. Journal of Urban Affairs 28: 321–34. [CrossRef] Merritt, Jennifer. 2007. An Appetite for Travel. Available online: http://www.travelagentcentral.com/niche-specialneeds-travel/appetite-travel (accessed on 24 May 2019). Mihaliˇc, Tanja, Vesna Žabkar, and Ljubica Kneževi´c Cvelbar. 2012. A hotel sustainability business model: Evidence from Slovenia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20: 701–19. [CrossRef] Osterwalder, Alexander, and Yves Pigneur. 2010. Business Model Generation. Self-Published. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Penrose, Edith T. 1959. A Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Penrose, Edith T., and Christos Pitelis. 2009. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm Penrose. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 665. Ragavan, Neethiahnanthan A., Hema Subramonian, and Saeed P. Sharif. 2014. Tourists’ perceptions of destination travel attributes: An application to International tourists to Kuala Lumpur. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences 144: 403–11. [CrossRef] Reinhold, Stephan, Florian J. Zach, and Dejan Krizaj. 2018. Business models in tourism—State of the art. Tourism Review. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/TR-02-2018-0027/full/html (accessed on 24 July 2019). Rigas Centraltirgus. n.d. Available online: https://www.rct.lv/en (accessed on 24 May 2019). Roscoe, John T. 1975. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Rugman, Alan M., and Alain Verbeke. 2002. Strategic Management Journal, Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 23: 769–80. [CrossRef] Sarkar, Runa, and Anup Sinha. 2015. The village as a social entrepreneur: Balancing conservation and livelihoods. Tourism Management Perspectives 16: 100–6. [CrossRef] Scapens, Robert W. 1990. Researching management accounting practice: the role of case study. British Accounting Review 22: 259–81. [CrossRef] Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1936. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Translated from the German by Redvers Opie. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p. 255. Sekaran, Uma, and Roger Bougie. 2016. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. Chester: John Wiley & Sons, p. 420. Serdane, Zanda. 2017. Slow Tourism in a Slow Country: The Case of Latvia. Ph.D. thesis, Salford Business School, University of Salford, Salford, UK. Available online: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/43513/7/Zanda_ Serdane_SLOW_TOURISM_IN_SLOW_COUNTRIES.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2019). Sims, Rebbeca. 2009. Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17: 321–36. [CrossRef] Souto, Jaime E. 2015. Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the context of incremental innovation and radical innovation. Tourism Management 51: 142–55. [CrossRef] Szromek, Adam R., and Krzysztof Herman. 2019. A Business Creation in Post-Industrial Tourism Objects: Case of the Industrial Monuments Route. Sustainability 11: 1451. [CrossRef] Szromek, Adam R., and Mateusz Naramski. 2019. A Business Model in Spa Tourism Enterprises: Case Study from Poland. Sustainability 11: 2880. [CrossRef] Tallman, Stephen, Yadong Luo, and Peter J. Buckley. 2018. Business model in global competition. Global Strategy Journal 8: 517–35. [CrossRef] Teece, David J. 2018. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning 51: 40–49. [CrossRef] Terhorst, Julia. 2019. Discovering New Forms of Tourism: Slow Tourism. Breda University of Applied Science. Available online: http://www.tourism-master.com/2013/01/22/discovering-new-forms-of-tourismslow-tourism/(accessed on 24 July 2019). Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 57 17 of 17 Tham, Aaron, and Danny Huang. 2018. Game on! A new integrated resort business model. Tourism Review. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/TR-03-2017-0036/full/html?fullSc=1 (accessed on 24 July 2019). Weigert, Maxime. 2018. Jumia travel in Africa: Expanding the boundaries of the online travel agency business model. Tourism Review. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/TR-04-20170073/full/html (accessed on 24 July 2019). Zott, Christoph, Raphael Amit, and Lorenzo Massa. 2011. The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management 37: 1019–42. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).