A Service-Value Approach to Mobile Application Valuation

  • Maurizio Cavallari
  • Roberto Moro Visconti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 247)


Mobile Application Software (M-Apps) is increasingly popular and by now represents the interactive trendiest software. Investigations about their valuation paradigms are so increasingly common. Even if M-Apps belong to the broad category of Intellectual Property assets, underlying business model is so innovative and different from traditional intangibles that they require new valuation paradigms. The main research question of this paper is to investigate about Service as a primary value driver of M-Apps. A Service-Value-Approach is proposed as a new appraisal method, which embodies customers’ perception of M-Apps service value. The empirical evidence fully confirms the hypothesis of the mediating role of Service Quality on application value. This study has practical implications for both scholars and professionals as it provides significant empirical evidence of the role of Service Quality into M-Apps valuation, and value co-creation between providers and users.


M-Apps Valuation Technology value Service quality Application value 


  1. 1.
    Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G.: The internet of things: a survey. Comput. Netw. 54(15), 2787–2805 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moro Visconti, R.: Exclusive patents and trademarks and subsequent uneasy transaction comparability: some transfer pricing implications. Intertax 40(3), 212–219 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lagrost, C., Martin, D., Dubois, C., Quazzotti, S.: Intellectual property valuation: how to approach the selection of an appropriate valuation method. J. Int. Cap. 11(4), 481–503 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andriessen, D.: IC valuation and measurement: classifying the state of the art. J. Int. Cap. 5(2), 230–242 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moro Visconti, R.: Evaluating know-how for transfer price benchmarking. J. Fin. Acc 1(1), 27–38 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hussain, A., Abubakar, H.I., Binti Hashim, N.: Evaluating mobile banking application: Usability dimensions and measurements. In: International Conference on Information Technology and Multimedia (ICIMU), pp. 136–140. IEEE, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., Morgan, F.N.: Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. Calif. Manage. Rev. 50(3), 66–94 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hinterhuber, A.: Customer value-based pricing strategies: why companies resist. J. Bus. Strat. 29(4), 41–50 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson, C.K., Xie, X.: Improving hospitality industry sales twenty-five years of revenue management. Cornell Hosp. Q. 51(1), 53–67 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J., Gremier, D.D.: Service Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm. Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kimes, S.E., Wirtz, J.: Has revenue management become acceptable? findings from an international study on the perceived fairness of rate fences. J. Serv. Res. 6(2), 125–135 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Avlonitis, G.J., Indounas, K.A.: Pricing objectives and pricing methods in the services sector. J. Serv. Mark. 19(1), 47–57 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beldona, S., Kwansa, F.: The impact of cultural orientation on perceived fairness over demand-based pricing. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 27(4), 594–603 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiang, W.C., Chen, J.C., Xu, X.: An overview of research on revenue management: current issues and future research. Int. J. Rev. Manage. 1(1), 97–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coenen, C., von Felten, D., Schmid, M.: Managing effectiveness and efficiency through FM blueprinting. Facilities 29(9/10), 422–436 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmenner, R.W.: How can service business survive and prosper? Sloan Manage. Rev. 27(3), 21–32 (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tinnilä, M.: Efficient service production: service factories in banking. Bus. Proc. Manage. J. 19(4), 648–661 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Docters, R., Reopel, M., Sun, J.M., Tanny, S.: Capturing the unique value of services: why pricing of services is different. J. Bus. Strat. 25(2), 23–28 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faria, J.A., Nóvoa, H.: An agile BPM system for knowledge-based service organizations. In: Nóvoa, H., Drăgoicea, M. (eds.) Exploring Services Science. IESS 1.5. LNBIP, vol. 201, pp. 65–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borangiu, T., et al.: Service Oriented Architecture for Total Manufacturing Enterprise Integration. In: Nóvoa, H., Drăgoicea, M. (eds.) Exploring Services Science. IESS 1.5. LNBIP, vol. 201, pp. 95–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Militaru, G., Purcărea, A.-A., Borangiu, T., Drăgoicea, M., Negoita, O.D.: How social responsibility influences innovation of service firms: an investigation of mediating factors. In: Nóvoa, H., Drăgoicea, M. (eds.) Exploring Services Science. IESS 1.5. LNBIP, vol. 201, pp. 135–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 68(1), 1–17 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: From goods to service(s): divergences and convergences of logics. Ind. Mark. Manage. 37(3), 254–259 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Service dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36(1), 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hong, S.-J., Thong, J.Y.L., Tam, K.Y.: Understanding continued information technology usage behavior: a comparison of three models in the context of mobile Internet. Decis. Supp. Syst. 42(3), 1819–1834 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhou, T., Lu, Y.: Examining mobile instant messaging user loyalty from the perspectives of network externalities and flow experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(2), 883–889 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Borangiu, T., Oltean, V.E., Drǎgoicea, M., Cunha, J., Jacob, I.: Some aspects concerning a generic service process model building. In: Snene, M., Leonard, M. (eds.) Exploring Services Science. IESS 1.5. LNBIP, vol. 169, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–339 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahn, T., Ryu, S., Han, I.: The impact of web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of online retailing. Inf. Manage. 44(3), 263–275 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Varian, H.: System reliability and free riding. Adv. Inf. Sec. 12, 1–15 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petter, S., Straub, D., Rai, A.: Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Q. 31(4), 623–656 (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drăgoicea, M., Borangiu, T., Falcão e Cunha, J., Oltean, V.E., Faria, J., Radulescu, S.: Building an extended ontological perspective on service science. In: Snene, M., Leonard, M. (eds.) Exploring Services Science. IESS 1.4. 169, pp. 17–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shin, N.: Online learner’s ‘flow’ experience: an empirical study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 37(5), 705–720 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cavallari, M., Adami, L., Tornieri, F.: Organisational aspects and anatomy of an attack on NFC/HCE mobile payment systems. In: ICEIS 2015 − 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 685–700 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cavallari, M.: A conceptual analysis about the organizational impact of compliance on information security policy. In: Snene, M. (ed.) Exploring Services Science. IESS 1.2. LNBIP, vol. 103, pp. 101–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cavallari, M.: The role of extraordinary creativity in organizational response to digital security threats. In: D’Atri, A., Ferrara, M., George, J.F., Spagnoletti, P. (eds.) Technology and Innovation Trends in Organizations, pp. 479–486. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F.: Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control-Theory Approach to Human Behavior. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in IS adoption: a study of e-commerce adoption. JAIS 1(8), 1–28 (2000)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. CAIS 4(7), 1–77 (2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.M.: SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt (2015).
  41. 41.
    Straub, D.W., Bourdeau, M.C., Gefen, D.: Validating guidelines for IS positivist research. CAIS 13(24), 380–427 (2004)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A.: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 51(6), 1173–1182 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Podaskoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J., Podaskoff, N.: Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. App. Psychol. 88(5), 879–903 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chin, W.W.: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q. 22(1), 7–16 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations