There are two distinct logics that could be used in the development of a service(s) science. One, goods-dominant logic, is based on the idea that services are special forms of intangible goods and therefore points toward a model concerned with the production of intangible units of output. The other is based on a concept of service as a process of the co-creation of reciprocal value, where the output of an entity is viewed as an input into a continuing process of resource integration. We argue that a service science built on the latter, service-dominant logic is more likely to result in a science that makes significant strides in the knowledge base than is a services science based on a goods logic. We then point toward additional foundational shifts that are indicated by the adoption of this service logic.


Economic Exchange Service Logic Logic Point Operant Resource Service Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Giarini, O. and W. R. Stahel (1989), The Limits of Certainty: Facing Risks in the New Service Economy, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Gronroos, C. (2006), “What Can a Service Logic Offer Marketing Theory?” In R.F. Lusch and S.L. Vargo (eds.) The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 354-364.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Gummesson, E. (2006), “Many-to-Many Marketing as Grand Theory: A Nordic School Contribution,” In R.F. Lusch and S.L. Vargo (eds.) The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 339-353.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hunt, S. (1991), Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science, Cincinnati: Southwestern Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hunt, S. (2000), A General Theory of Competition: Resources, Competences, Productivity, and Growth, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Lusch, R.F. and S.L. Vargo Eds. (2006), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Normann, R. (2001), Reframing Business, Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (1776), Reprint, London: Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Vargo, S.L. and R. F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68(January): 1-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Vargo, S.L. and F.W. Morgan (2005), “Services in Society and Academic Thought,” Journal of Macromarketing, 25(1): 42-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Service Science Management and Engineering (IBM). (
  12. [12]
    Yang, X (2003), “A Review of the Literature of Inframarginal Analysis of Networks and Division of Labor,” In Y. Ng, H. Shi, and G. Sun (eds.), The Economics of E-Commerce and Networking Decisions, New York: Palgrave, 69-100.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Zuboff, S. and J. Maxmin (2004), The Support Economy, New York: PenguinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen L. Vargo
    • 1
  • Robert F. Lusch
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Business AdministrationUniversity of HawaiiManoaHonolulu
  2. 2.Eller College of Management Department of MarketingUniversity of ArizonaTucson

Personalised recommendations