วีดีโอ

I totally agree. It's a kind of meta Framework of a highlevel perspective on economics … quite far from real life and very much "scientific". But in the end it's a) about how we perceive customers and b) how suppliers' attitude towards the market should develop.

Precisely the reason why no corporate marketing institution has adapted these 'so called' new thinking. This thinking had always been there in some of the best corporations.

A small book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, is the second most read book in the Western world (a quick read) and describes how few academics actually break paradigms. To that extent Aibek is correct but I really think his comment has somewhat missed the point....By understanding the complex facets of value allows both academics to analyze what is going on and firms to construct their value propositions, so I support Andreas' view. However, contrary to Padmaka's view, many firms, not just service firms, now think about their value propositions (and thus their business models, chain processes and org cultures) in terms of the reciprocal exchange of value and see their relationships as value ecosystems.....all of these terms are in the current lexicon of middle to senior managers of SMEs to multi-national corporations. I do agree with Padmaka though, that many of these concepts have been inherent in the mental models of the best managers for a long time. Academics rarely create such concepts (as per Kuhn whose book was published when he was a grad student and he had to debate it with the greatest philosophers of his era) ....their research finds such concepts in the practices of those that create the best performing businesses and then, through description and analysis, promulgate them as best practice. In this way, business practices generally are improved over time.