here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

23.08.2013 Views
A validation Study of House of Quality key performance indicators “virtual communities” in which social spaces and mind spaces are formed in the virtual environment. People are articulating their mind space by means of information technology, and direct one to one interactions are mediated (“co-presence”). Gutek (2003) argues that there are three patterns of interaction, namely; relations, encounters and pseudo relationships. Relations exist when consumers have repeatedly contact with an organization. In this context, both sides know each other in a more personal way. Encounters, on the other hand, are patterns of interaction that happens once and episodically. Nowadays interactions shift more and more from relationship to encounter but a relationship will not disappear. It is possible to deal with “encounter” customers like they are “relation” customers. This is mainly a result of the changing media. Within the so called pseudo relations there is no need for face-to-face interaction between the organization and the customer. This implies that the relationship can be social and technical at the same time. The relationship of the online union with her members can be described as a pseudo relationship as there are in the first place no face-to-face interactions, interactions are mainly through new media types but are still based on a more personal relation between De Unie and the members. Information space space Mind space Material space Figure - 3 Polyinclusion (Go & Fenema, 2003) It is argued by Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004: p.5), that the processes of value creation are rapidly shifting from a product view to personalized co-experiences. As value shifts to experiences, the market is becoming a forum for conversation and interactions between consumers, consumer communities, and firms. Therefore and in contrast to Gutek (2003), Prahalad and Ramaswany also take into account the existence of networks. They distinguish four different dimensions of interaction: dialog, access, risk-benefits, and transparency. A dialog implies interactivity, deep 24 Social space

A validation Study of House of Quality key performance indicators engagement and the ability and willingness to act on both sides. But a dialog will be difficult if consumers do not have the same access and transparency to information. Nowadays it is possible to connect to information as much as people needs from the community, from other consumers but also from the organization. Both access and transparency are important to have a dialog. Furthermore, these dialog, access and transparency can lead to a clear assessment of the risk- benefits of a course of action and decision (Phahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004: p.9). The internet has got a primary role in this ongoing process as the internet makes is possible to share personalized experiences in an easy way by for example virtual communities. Research has consistently shown that “who you know” has a significant impact on what you come to know, as relationships are critical for obtaining information solving problems and learning how to do your work. Particularly in knowledge intensive work, creating an informational environment that helps employees solve increasingly complex and often ambiguous problems holds significant performance applications (Cross et al 2001). A lack of collaboration is typically a product of people not knowing what other people know. In order to create a strategic pay-off for the organization it is important that the organization first recognizes and secondly understands how to cope with knowledge and information flows. Cross et all expect emerging collaborative technologies to facilitate virtual work and skill profiling systems to help with the location of relevant expertise. However these emerging technologies are very important; to be effective and efficient just technology is not enough and organizations need more information on how people seek out knowledge, learn from and solve problems with other people in organizations. Within this context Cross et al indentify four features that distinguish effective from ineffective relationships: - 1 knowledge; knowing what another person knows and thus when to turn to them; - 2 Access; being able to gain timely access to that person; - 3 Engagement; willingness of the person sought out to engage in problem solving rather than dump information, - 4 Safety; i.e., a degree of safety in the relationship that promoted learning and creativity. 25

Page 1 and 2: A validation Study of House of Qual











Page 23: A validation Study of House of Qual










































unie

virtual

validation

indicators

communities

vakbond

analysis

internetvakbond

survey

interaction

erim

erasmus

universiteit

rotterdam

www.erim.eur.nl

here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam ... View more here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

Delete template?

Save as template ?

here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam here - ERIM - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam