Resource integration, as it relates to value creation, has recently been a key aspect of the discussions about service-dominant (S-D) logic. However, the majority of research pays relatively little explicit attention to the process of theorizing and the epistomological and ontological assumptions upon which the theorizing process is based. This article addresses these issues. The processes that relate to theorizing and developing strong theory are discussed. We then examine how to conceptualize ‘resources’ and ‘resource integration’ following differing ontological and epistemological assumptions that guide the theorizing process. Research recommendations to help navigate through the finer details underlying the theorizing process and to advance a general theory of resource integration are developed.

This work offers a framework for researchers by linking service-dominant (S-D) logic to an intersubjective stream of philosophy of science. Service-dominant logic has resonated in marketing, but no existing research has attempted to link S-D logic with basic meta-theory to provide a framework. Since the range of philosophies of science (isms) referred to in the marketing literature is broad, varying from ‘realism’ to ‘relativism’, from ‘positivism’ to ‘constructivism’ and from ‘structuralism’ to ‘post-structuralism/postmodernism’, first the different isms are grouped into four main groups/streams and then S-D logic is analyzed and classified according to these streams. The four streams are: object-orientation (realism, positivism, empiricism, and so on); subject orientation (constructivism, interpretivism, and so forth); intersubjective orientation (social constructionism, pancritical rationalism, methodological constructivism, and so on); and sign orientation (post-structuralism, postmodernism, and variations). S-D logic is mainly underpinned by an intersubjective orientation and has a huge potential for further development both in and for marketing if seen from a sign-orientated, post-structural perspective and linked to the theory of practices.

Purpose – This article seeks to advance a novel service network perspective, based on the service-dominant logic, designated as service-dominant networks (SDN). Design/methodology/approach – Service-dominant logic components serve to build and describe SDN. Specifically, resources and actors are key components, combined with activities and the process by which they become resources. A case study details the features of SDNs. Findings – Service-dominant networks exhibit unique, previously unaddressed features. According to the service-dominant logic, components only become resources when they are integrated; thus, they disappear as resources after their integration, which means SDNs are fugacious: they (be-)come and go. In addition, SDNs comprise one or more main intended activities that explain their existence, though these intended activities do not necessarily initiate any particular SDN. Rather, other critical incidents can initiate SDNs. Research limitations/implications – The features of SDNs proposed in this article have not been a focus of prior research. In particular, the dynamics and fugaciousness of SDNs are challenges for research and management. Originality/value – This article offers the first proposal of a novel, service-dominant network perspective. In a very general and abstract form, it identifies the features of SDNs.

This work offers a framework for researchers by linking service-dominant (S-D) logic to an intersubjective stream of philosophy of science. Service-dominant logic has resonated in marketing, but no existing research has attempted to link S-D logic with basic meta-theory to provide a framework. Since the range of philosophies of science (isms) referred to in the marketing literature is broad, varying from ‘realism’ to ‘relativism’, from ‘positivism’ to ‘constructivism’ and from ‘structuralism’ to ‘post-structuralism/postmodernism’, first the different isms are grouped into four main groups/streams and then S-D logic is analyzed and classified according to these streams. The four streams are: object-orientation (realism, positivism, empiricism, and so on); subject orientation (constructivism, interpretivism, and so forth); intersubjective orientation (social constructionism, pancritical rationalism, methodological constructivism, and so on); and sign orientation (post-structuralism, postmodernism, and variations). S-D logic is mainly underpinned by an intersubjective orientation and has a huge potential for further development both in and for marketing if seen from a sign-orientated, post-structural perspective and linked to the theory of practices.

Purpose – This article seeks to advance a novel service network perspective, based on the service-dominant logic, designated as service-dominant networks (SDN). Design/methodology/approach – Service-dominant logic components serve to build and describe SDN. Specifically, resources and actors are key components, combined with activities and the process by which they become resources. A case study details the features of SDNs. Findings – Service-dominant networks exhibit unique, previously unaddressed features. According to the service-dominant logic, components only become resources when they are integrated; thus, they disappear as resources after their integration, which means SDNs are fugacious: they (be-)come and go. In addition, SDNs comprise one or more main intended activities that explain their existence, though these intended activities do not necessarily initiate any particular SDN. Rather, other critical incidents can initiate SDNs. Research limitations/implications – The features of SDNs proposed in this article have not been a focus of prior research. In particular, the dynamics and fugaciousness of SDNs are challenges for research and management. Originality/value – This article offers the first proposal of a novel, service-dominant network perspective. In a very general and abstract form, it identifies the features of SDNs.

Resource integration, as it relates to value creation, has recently been a key aspect of the discussions about service-dominant (S-D) logic. However, the majority of research pays relatively little explicit attention to the process of theorizing and the epistomological and ontological assumptions upon which the theorizing process is based. This article addresses these issues. The processes that relate to theorizing and developing strong theory are discussed. We then examine how to conceptualize ‘resources’ and ‘resource integration’ following differing ontological and epistemological assumptions that guide the theorizing process. Research recommendations to help navigate through the finer details underlying the theorizing process and to advance a general theory of resource integration are developed.