=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2383/paper2
|storemode=property
|title=Towards Developing Measurement Indicator for Value
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2383/paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-2383
|authors=Satoshi Nishimura,Ken Fukuda
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/vmbo/NishimuraF19
}}
==Towards Developing Measurement Indicator for Value==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2383/paper2.pdf
Towards Developing Measurement Indicator for Value
Satoshi Nishimura and Ken Fukuda
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Tokyo, JAPAN
{satoshi.nishimura, ken.fukuda}@aist.go.jp
Abstract. Value is a key concept to model strategy of business. Company tends
to evaluate new business from a viewpoint of fundamental value. However, other
types of value, which includes subjective value, knowledge value and emotional
value, can be useful to consider long-term business. We aim to develop measure-
ment indicator for value to support decision making to select business strategy.
This paper describes our motivation and first step to develop ontology of value
type.
Keywords: Value, Service, Ontology.
1 Introduction
Service industry is a dominant industrial discipline among developed countries. And
the structure of service activities are recognized to be complex because co-creation is
an intrinsic part of the system. Vargo and Lusch proposed value co-creation to clarify
the importance of the interaction among customers and employees for value creation
[7]. Ueda et al. classified co-creation into three classes based on the network topology
between “producer”, “customer” and “environment” [12].
Quality of service activities should be measured to improve quality of service effects.
Economical value, which is also called fundamental value or functional value, is chosen
as a measurement indicator to decide business strategy in many cases. However, there
are considerable other types of value which should be considered when the management
of a company develop long-term business plan, such as expertise knowledge of em-
ployees and customers’ loyalty and emotion toward products, employees or brands, etc.
Toya defines Knowledge Value (KV) as the accumulated knowledge held by co-crea-
tors and Emotion Value (EV) as the affective value associated with customer and em-
ployee moods and perceptions in [8]. However, there are not enough discussion how to
measure the amount of those non-economical values and which indicator is appropriate
in a particular case.
On the other hand, the notion of “value” is used as various meanings in different
fields [1, 9, 10]. The notion of XaaS (X as a service such as Mobility as a Service) and
sharing economy are broadening the boundary between value creator and value receiver
even further. Therefore, we should clarify the notion of value to understand systems
that create values and to communicate with each other of different disciplines.
2
In this paper, we provide the first step towards developing measurement indicator
for knowledge value. In section 2, we describe our motivation more precisely. Section
3 provides related work about the notion of value. We start to survey from value mod-
eling and business ontology discipline. In section 4, we summarize this paper.
2 Motivation
Companies tend to evaluate the prospect of new business from economical view-
points. This strategy is simple and good to choose beneficial business activities for the
company. However, the strategy might be harmful from a sustainability point of view.
Some jobs may help the company to increase employees’ satisfaction, some jobs may
help their customers to gain understanding and loyalty toward the company, some jobs
may help the company to get customers information. And it can happen that all these
jobs do not contribute to make money directly. An example is servitization of manu-
facturing, which tends to fail without proper non-economical KPIs (Key Performance
Indicators) during the investment phase when profit is very low.
If the company’s evaluation of businesses are based on non-economical values (such
as KV and EV), the company is expected to select more various business strategies.
And when the company decides the strategy, the measurement methods and indicators
of value will be useful to assess the decision.
There is no standard notion of value yet [9]. This should prevent the managers of the
company decide what value they should increase. Therefore, we will classify types of
value in appropriate manner based on ontological engineering method. Then, we will
investigate what measurement indicator is measurable and suitable for each type of
value. For the first step, we start to survey the notion of value.
3 Related work
We picked up 4 related papers published in 12th International Workshop on Value
Modeling and Business Ontology as follows.
The main focus of Hruby is formation of coalitions and activities in a coalition in-
cludes value exchange [3]. Coalitions can be dealt as a kind of context. Under coalitions
context, people who want to exchange something valuable in the value exchange pro-
cesses. To model the value exchange should be beneficial to clarify the value type and
measure the amount of the value.
Proper et al. try to construct a modeling framework for design of value co-creation
constellation [4]. They employ the notion of value co-creation [5] and construct the
modeling framework to design the value co-creation in a particular service. The frame-
work distinct potential value in production context and real value in the context of value
creation in interaction and independent value creation context based on the research [6]
investigated by Grönroos et al. Customers and providers of services take different roles
in each context and create each value.
Andersson et al. focuses on value ascription [1]. The key notion of the paper is con-
text which value ascription occurs. They mentioned subjectivity of value as same as
3
other research [2, 3, 4]. Additionally, in the paper, the context is changed with the value.
And ascribing value to different value objects can be comparable in the same context.
For the comparison, they introduce “value structure.” However, the component of value
structure is not discussed well, and they do not clarify whether the value includes only
fundamental value or KV and EV.
da Silva Reis et al. proposes a notion to configure value networks based on subjective
business value [2]. The focused question is how to realize sustainable economy. They
also consider subjectivity of value to configure a value network. However, they just
consider only assurance, privacy and trust as subjective value.
4 Preliminary result: ontology of value types
4.1 Preliminary ontology construction
Toya [8] consider value including fundamental value (FV), KV and EV as we men-
tioned in the introduction. We follow this classification. To integrate current related
work’s notion, we start to create ontology using Hozo [11]. The part of ontology is
shown in Fig. 1.
To discuss what process is the source of value or what property of a thing contribute
to value, an ontology is necessary to describe the processes of an interaction among
agents. This discussion and the ontology help researchers and managers to clarify the
difference among various notions of value which are provided by many researches.
After that, we will be able to propose measurement indicators of each value.
Fig. 1. Ontology of value types under construction
4
4.2 Collection of concepts related to value
We are also collecting further concepts from [12, 13]. Table 1 shows the intermediate
result of the extraction. There are 34 terms describing a kind of values and they can be
organized in hierarchical structure based on the is-a relationship. For instance, eco-
nomic value is introduced in the context of history of economics. Value as the volume
of the net products, exchange value, surplus value and use value are also introduced
under the same context. For this reason, these four value types can be interpreted as
specific types of the economic value. We also found a homonym. Ueda uses a term
“economic value” as different meanings in the paper. As future work, we will organize
these extracted terms and collect further concepts.
Table 1. Extracted terms from [13]
Natural Value Absolute Value
Fundamental Value (nature) Subjective notion of good
Objective Value Value as intersubjective phenomena
Non-objective value Subjective Value
Human natural values Value from cognitive development
Behavioural Value Values from human fundamental needs
Value as the volume of net products Use value
Exchange value Surplus value
Economic value Marginal utility
Cardinal utility Ordinal utility
Functional value Value in Value Engineering
Values of human knowledge Sustainability
Ecological value Pragmatic value
Economic value 2 Psychological value
Meta-knowledge value Sustainable value
Provided value Adaptive value
Co-creative value Bland value
5 Summary
For the first step to development measurement indicators for value, we try to con-
struct an ontology of value types. We start to survey about value in value modeling and
business ontology workshop. Concurrently, we start to construct the ontology based on
the notion provided in [8]. We will integrate other contribution provided in related
work.
5
Contributions for the community of value modeling and business ontologies will be
(1) ontology of value types, and (2) how to measure each value for decision making by
managers of companies.
Acknowledgement
This paper is based on results obtained from a project commissioned by the New
Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).
References
1. Andersson, B., Johannesson, P.: Ascribing Value, 12th International Workshop on Value
Modeling and Business Ontologies, 8 pages (2018)
2. da Silva Reis, J., de Alencar Silva, P., Bukhsh, F. A., de Castro, A. F.: Configuring Value
Networks based on Subjective Business Value, 12th International Workshop on Value Mod-
eling and Business Ontologies, 12 pages (2018)
3. Hruby, P.: Value Exchange and Formation of Coalitions, 12th International Workshop on
Value Modeling and Business Ontologies, 6 pages (2018)
4. Proper, H. A., Bjekovic, M., Feltus, C., Razo-Zapata, I.: On the Development of a Modeling
Framework for Value Co-creation, 12th International Workshop on Value Modeling and
Business Ontologies, 10 pages (2018)
5. Lusch, R. F., Nambisan, S.: Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 155-175 (2015)
6. Grönroos, C., Voima, P.: Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-
creation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 133-150 (2013)
7. Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F.: Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of
Marketing, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1–17 (2004).
8. Toya, K.: A Model for Measuring Service Co-created Value, MBS Review, No. 11, pp. 29
– 38 (2015).
9. Anderson, B., Guarino, N., Johannesson, P., Livieri, B.: Towards an ontology of value as-
cription, 9th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Vol.
283, pp. 331 – 344 (2016).
10. Sales, T. P., Baião, F., Guizzardi, G., Paulo, J., Guarino, N., Mylopoulos, J.: The Common
Ontology of Value and Risk, In: Trujillo J. et al. (eds) Conceptual Modeling. ER 2018. Lec-
ture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11157. Springer, Cham, pp 121-135 (2018).
11. Kozaki, K., Kitamura, Y., Ikeda, M., Mizoguchi, R.: Hozo: An Environment for Build-
ing/Using Ontologies Based on a Fundamental Consideration of “Role” and “Relationship”,
In: Gómez-Pérez A., Benjamins V.R. (eds) Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Man-
agement: Ontologies and the Semantic Web. EKAW 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence, vol 2473. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 213-218 (2002).
12. Ueda, K., Takenaka, T. and Fujita, K.: Toward Value Co-creation in Manufacturing and
Servicing, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 53-
58 (2008).
13. Ueda, K., Takenaka, T., Váncza, J. and Monostori, L.: Value Creation and Decision-making
in Sustainable Society, CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 58, pp. 681-700
(2009).