scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article•DOI•

Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation

Per Echeverri1, Per Skålén1•
Karlstad University1
03 Oct 2011-Marketing Theory (SAGE Publications)-Vol. 11, Iss: 3, pp 351-373
TL;DR: In this article, the authors studied interactive value formation at the provider-customer interface from a practice-theory perspective, and argued that interactive value creation is not only associated with value co-creation but also with value destroying.
Abstract: Drawing on an empirical study of public transport, this paper studies interactive value formation at the provider—customer interface, from a practice—theory perspective. In contrast to the bulk of previous research, it argues that interactive value formation is not only associated with value co-creation but also with value co-destruction. In addition, the paper also identifies five interaction value practices — informing, greeting, delivering, charging, and helping — and theorizes how interactive value formation takes place as well as how value is intersubjectively assessed by actors at the provider—customer interface. Furthermore, the paper also distinguishes between four types of interactive value formation praxis corresponding with four subject positions which practitioners step into when engaging in interactive value formation.

Summary (5 min read)

Jump to: [INTRODUCTION] – [THEORETICAL BACKGROUND] – [Practices] – [Praxis and practitioners] – [Data collection] – [Data analysis] – [FINDINGS] – [Co-creation] – [Greeting] – [Co-destruction] – [Delivering] – [Charging] – [Helping] – [DISCUSSION] – [Co-creation and co-destruction of value] – [Interaction value practices] – [Interactive value formation] – [Praxis and Practitioners] and [CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS]

INTRODUCTION

  • Understanding how value is formed has been a key research endeavour in marketing.
  • The authors argue that such a framework is lacking.
  • Key reasons for this can be found in two research limitations in previous research.
  • The empirical study and their theoretical orientation enable the outlining of a framework that explains interactive value formation in practice.
  • It argues, furthermore, that the relationship between interaction value practices, elements of practices, and dimensions of interaction value practices is associated with four types of praxis—characteristic patterns of interaction between providers and customers: reinforcing 3 value co-creation; recovery value co-formation; reductive value co-formation; and reinforcing value co-destruction.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

  • The authors review mainstream research into interactive value formation, discuss the limitations of this research, and outline a framework based on practice theory that is drawn on to address these limitations.
  • This definition implies that value; is a function of the interaction between subjects, or a subject, and an object; is contextual and personal; is a function of attitudes, affections, satisfaction, or behaviourally-based judgments; and resides in a consumption experience.
  • In the language of Oliver (2006), service encounter research has been “unidirectional”, implying that the co-creation of value between providers and customers has not been studied systematically.
  • The second research limitation that the authors identify in the research into interaction value concerns the fact that what can be referred to as the downside of value formation is not accounted for.
  • Unlike these critical studies, the present paper aims to outline a framework that explains how interactive value formation takes place.

Practices

  • When studying interaction between providers and customers, from the perspective of practice theory, the point of departure is the observable interactional practice itself (Holt, 1995; Schau et al., 2009; Warde 2005).
  • A key research endeavour in this study will be to identify which practices providers and customers draw on in order to co-create and co-destruct value when interacting with each other.
  • In addition, the link with the destructive side of interaction value is weak in the work of Schau et al. (2009).
  • The authors will refer to these parts as elements of practices, which will help us to articulate an understanding of how interaction value is inter-subjectively assessed by actors.

Praxis and practitioners

  • According to practice theory, practices structure praxis, i.e. the stream of activity in which different types of action are accomplished.
  • Recently, marketing research has developed rich descriptions of marketing practices and the link between these and actions (Schau et al., 2009; Skålén, 2009; 2010).
  • The paper aims to contribute knowledge in this area.
  • From a practice-theory perspective, practitioners (human actors) are conceived of as unique combinations of practices.
  • METHOD 12 Since interactive value formation is an empirically under-explored area of research, the authors decided to adopt an exploratory single-case study design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1984; Miles and Huberman, 1994) in order to address the research limitations reported above.

Data collection

  • The authors main data collection technique was conducting interviews.
  • Of the informants, 38 were men and 17 were women, reflecting the uneven gender distribution within the organization.
  • An initial round of interviews was conducted in May and June 2008.
  • The themes that emerged during the second round were probed during the third round, by asking informants to re-narrate specific driver-customer interactions— 13 both positive and negative.
  • The reason for interviewing instructors and managers was that these influence the practice of interactive value formation within the organization by means of different management activities, e.g. coaching and monitoring of service interactions in the field.

Data analysis

  • The authors transcribed and coded the interviews as quickly as possible after conducting them, Nvivo 7 being used as the data analysis software.
  • Accordingly, when empirical themes and codes capable of informing gaps in previous research were detected, subsequent data collection focused on developing—or probing—these themes and also structured itself around them.
  • Moreover, drawing on previous research (Schau et al., 2009), the conceptualizations of the anatomy of practices—as procedures, understandings and engagements—were used as selective coding categories and each constituent was identified in all narratives.
  • Similarly, the sensitizing concept of praxis was used to empirically identify streams of activities, specifically in relation to interactive value formation.
  • The concept helped us to define central patterns of interactions and to see the links to the two main dimensions of practices—co-creation and co-destruction.

FINDINGS

  • This section reports on the five interaction value practices—informing; greeting; delivering; charging and helping—that the authors have identified in their data.
  • Illustrated by quotations, this section describes each of these in relation to the procedures, understandings, and engagements constituting the elements of each practice.
  • In relation to each quotation, the authors show how configurations of these elements cause either value co-creation—i.e. when the elements are congruent—or value co-destruction—i.e. when the elements are incongruent.
  • Informing 16 Informing is the first interaction value practice that the authors identify in their data.
  • Informing implies that employees and customers share information regarding issues related to the service – in their case, timetables, prices, traffic jams, etc.

Co-creation

  • The most common example of helping in their data is when a driver helps an elderly person, a disabled person, or a parent with a pram to board a bus.
  • The following quote illustrates how this cocreation takes place.
  • Employees display a willingness to be of help to customers in their handling of resources during their consumption process.
  • Put differently, customer and provider draw on congruent elements associated with the practice of helping.

Greeting

  • The second practice that the authors identify is greeting, which refers to how employees and customers approach each other.
  • In their case, this usually takes place when the passenger boards the vehicle and employs both verbal (e.g. ‘hi’) and non-verbal communication (e.g. a nod).
  • Greeting is a way of mutually addressing an inherent and occasional relationship between provider and customer.

Co-destruction

  • Counter-intuitively, helping can also lead to the co-destruction of value in the provider-customer interface.
  • …Then …there might be prams wanting to travel but there won’t be any space for them on my tram – maybe they’ll have to take the one behind .
  • The reason to that helping leads to co-destruction is that the provider’s and the customers’ presupposed procedures of helping do not level out; the skills and actions of helping do not connect properly with the others’ needs and procedural understanding, e.g. making a fuss or losing one’s temper when assisting.
  • Further, drawing on previous 27 research (Schau et al., 2009), the five practices are divided into three elements of practices: procedures, understandings, and engagements relevant to both the co-creation and the codestruction of value.

Delivering

  • The third practice that the authors identify in their data is delivery of the core service—the actual transportation of people from A to B.
  • This may involve extensive interaction, especially in situations involving service breakdowns.
  • Even if the term “delivering” might seem associated with the provider side, it should be conceived as an interactive concept—i.e. both providers and customers are involved in realizing delivery.

Charging

  • Charging is the fourth central practice involving co-creation and co-destruction that the authors find in their data.
  • By the time the authors did their data collection, a change in charging procedures had taken place.
  • GS had implemented different types of self-service ticketing technologies—ticket machines, smart cards, 23 SMS ticketing, etc.
  • The reason for this is that the different selfservice payment possibilities caused the customers to ask the drivers a lot of questions.
  • The change also caused frustration and the need for assistance.

Helping

  • The fifth interaction value practice that the authors identify is helping.
  • By helping, the authors mean the help that the staff provide the customers with (e.g. helping an elderly person to board), the help the customers give each other (e.g. one customer helping another to board), and the help the customers give the staff (e.g. picking up litter off the floor).
  • This practice is frequently reported in the data and is clearly linked to interactive value formation.

DISCUSSION

  • The authors discuss the ways in which the present paper contributes to the discussion about value formation in marketing theory.
  • The authors specify the implications of their findings in relation to the practice-theory informed framework that they articulated in the literature review section.
  • The authors outline a framework that explains how interactive value formation takes place in practice.

Co-creation and co-destruction of value

  • The authors study supports the fundamental notion, in previous research, that value in service settings is collaboratively realized during interaction between providers and customers (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramírez, 1999; Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
  • Their notion of co-destruction is different from the notion of value destruction associated with the exchange view of value formation (Bagozzi, 1975; Hunt, 1976; Alderson, 1957).
  • This view holds that value is added during the production process, which does not involve the customer to any great extent.
  • Thus, while the exchange view separates the creation and destruction of value in time and space, their paper indicates that no such separation can be made in the case of interaction value.

Interaction value practices

  • In addition to introducing the notion that interactive value formation involves both co-creation and co-destruction, the authors have also identified five interaction value practices: informing, greeting, delivering, charging, and helping.
  • Their study elaborates on Schau et al. (2009) who identified 12 value creation practices.
  • Empirically, Schau et al. (2009) focused on brand communities: groups of consumers interacting on web forums with respect to a particular product or brand.
  • The authors contribution in relation to Schau et al. (2009) is that the authors have focused on practices that order face-to-face interactions between providers and customers.
  • The authors see this as a key locus for understanding interactive value formation, in particular co-creation and co-destruction in business relationships, not denying the fact that interactions taking place outside the customerprovider interface are also important.

Interactive value formation

  • As should be clear from the findings, the authors suggest that all five of the interaction value practices that they identified may foster both the co-creation and the co-destruction of value—i.e. these two dimensions are inherent in all five practices.
  • The authors conclusion is in line with the conceptual analysis of Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres (2010).
  • More specifically, the paper suggests that interactive value formation—value co-creation as well as value co-destruction—derives from providers and customers drawing on congruent (in the case of value co-creation) and incongruent (in the case of value co-destruction) elements of practices.
  • Elaborating on Oliver (2006), the authors 31 extend the understanding of value as a bidirectional construct that takes the assessment of both provider and customer into account.
  • The authors might think of this standpoint as being positioned between an objectivistic and a subjectivistic position (integrating objectivistic elements of social structures with subjectivistic elements of individuals’ experiences).

Praxis and Practitioners

  • The authors offer a more precise understanding of interactive value formation.
  • Accordingly, the authors make a distinction between four different subject positions and roles—one for each type of praxis.
  • The authors call the type of praxis characterizing a situation like this “reinforcing value co-creation”.
  • This could be illustrated by a driver welcoming a passenger aboard a bus, followed by the customer moaning about the bus being late with the driver then following up by barking back at the customer.
  • The authors call the type of praxis specific to a typical interaction like this “reductive value co-formation”, due to the reductive nature of the interaction value shifting away from the co-creation towards the co-destruction of value.

CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

  • The discussion concerning value formation has been at the heart of the marketing research agenda for several decades (Bagozzi, 1975; Hunt, 1976; Alderson, 1957).
  • The authors paper and its practice-theoretical framing have contributed to this general discussion vis-à-vis value formation.
  • Co-creation and co-destruction have been reported as interpreted and narrated by frontline employees.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Figures (1)

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

http://www.diva-portal.org
Postprint
This is the accepted version of a paper published in Marketing Theory. This paper has been peer-
reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination.
Citation for the original published paper (version of record):
Echeverri, P., Skålén, P. (2011)
Co-creation and co-destruction:: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation.
Marketing Theory, 11(3): 351-373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408181
Access to the published version may require subscription.
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.
Permanent link to this version:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-10292
Co-creation and co-destruction
A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation
Per Echeverri
and
Per Skålén
Service Research Center
Karlstad University
Phone: +46 54 700 1000
Fax: +46 54 836552
per.echeverri@kau.se
per.skalen@kau.se
ABSTRACT
Drawing on an empirical study of public transport, this paper studies interactive value formation
at the provider-customer interface, from a practice-theory perspective. In contrast to the bulk of
previous research, it argues that interactive value formation is not only associated with value co-
creation but also with value co-destruction. In addition, the paper also identifies five interaction
value practices – informing, greeting, delivering, charging, and helping—and theorizes how
interactive value formation takes place as well as how value is inter-subjectively assessed by
actors at the provider-customer interface. Furthermore, the paper also distinguishes between four
types of interactive value formation praxis corresponding with four subject positions which
practitioners step into when engaging in interactive value formation.
Keywords: Practice theory, Marketing, Value, Co-creation, Co-destruction, Interactive value
formation, Praxis, Subject positions.
1
INTRODUCTION
Understanding how value is formed has been a key research endeavour in marketing. Previous
research distinguishes between two major types of value formation. The first is non-interactive
value formation which holds that value is produced by providers and consumed by customers—
value is conceptualized as exchanged (Alderson, 1957; Bagozzi, 1975; Hunt, 1976). The second
is interactive value formation which stipulates that value is co-created during the interaction
between the provider and the customer (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Ramírez, 1999; Vargo
and Lusch, 2004)
1
.
In this paper, our aim is to outline a framework that explains how interactive value formation
takes place in practice. We argue that such a framework is lacking. Key reasons for this can be
found in two research limitations in previous research. The first concerns the lack of knowledge
of how interactive value formation actually takes place in practice. A major part of previous
research is conceptual and abstract. Empirical research has not been geared towards studying the
micro practice of interactive value formation. This makes previous research poor in terms of
theoretically explaining and practically guiding interactive value formation. The second
limitation concerns the abundance of positive, as well as the relative lack of negative, accounts of
interactive value formation in the literature (Bonsu and Darmody, 2008; Cova and Dalli, 2009,
Zwick et al., 2008). We argue that this resonates poorly with experiences that we have all had as
consumers, and with frontline employees’ experiences when serving their customers. Interactive
value formation is clearly not only linked to positive outcomes and connotations. Accordingly,
both the upside and the downside need to be explained and accounted for using an interactive
value formation framework.
2
In order to overcome these two limitations, we draw on a detailed empirical study of interactions
between the frontline employees of a Swedish public transport organization and their customers.
Theoretically, the study is based on practice theory, which helps us to illuminate and analyze the
micro practice of interactive value formation. In particular, we draw on practice theory as
elaborated on in previous marketing research, which has begun to address the above-noted
limitations (Schau et al., 2009; Skålén, 2009; 2010; Warde, 2005).
The empirical study and our theoretical orientation enable the outlining of a framework that
explains interactive value formation in practice. More specifically, the paper employs the notion
of value co-destruction (cf. Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres, 2010)
2
, capturing the downside of
interactive value formation. In addition, the paper also identifies five interaction value
practices—informing, greeting, delivering charging, and helping. It suggests that value co-
creation and co-destruction are two key dimensions of these interaction value practices. It also
argues that these five practices are made up of specific elements of practices. Drawing on Schau
et al. (2009), these elements are discussed in terms of procedures, understandings, and
engagements that make it possible to theorize how interactive value formation takes place and
how value is inter-subjectively assessed by agents. More specifically, the paper suggests that
interactive value formation derives from providers and customers drawing on congruent (in the
case of value co-creation) and incongruent (in the case of value co-destruction) elements of
practices. It argues, furthermore, that the relationship between interaction value practices,
elements of practices, and dimensions of interaction value practices is associated with four types
of praxis—characteristic patterns of interaction between providers and customers: reinforcing
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation

[...]

Christian Grönroos1, Päivi Voima1•
Hanken School of Economics1
01 Mar 2013-Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
TL;DR: The authors analyzes value creation and co-creation in service by analytically defining the roles of the customer and the firm, as well as the scope, locus, and nature of value and value creation.
Abstract: Because extant literature on the service logic of marketing is dominated by a metaphorical view of value co-creation, the roles of both service providers and customers remain analytically unspecified, without a theoretically sound foundation for value creation or co-creation. This article analyzes value creation and co-creation in service by analytically defining the roles of the customer and the firm, as well as the scope, locus, and nature of value and value creation. Value creation refers to customers’ creation of value-in-use; co-creation is a function of interaction. Both the firm’s and the customer’s actions can be categorized by spheres (provider, joint, customer), and their interactions are either direct or indirect, leading to different forms of value creation and co-creation. This conceptualization of value creation spheres extends knowledge about how value-in-use emerges and how value creation can be managed; it also emphasizes the pivotal role of direct interactions for value co-creation opportunities.

2,036 citations

Cites background from "Co-creation and co-destruction: A p..."

  • ...In addition, the outcome may be co-creative or co-destructive (Echeverri and Skålen 2011), so the firm must handle this interaction platform carefully....

    [...]

  • ...The implications of interaction for how value emerges for customers also have been emphasized recently in a practice-based study (Echeverri and Skålen 2011) that supports the definition of interaction we use, namely, that interactions are situations in which the interacting parties are involved in…...

    [...]

  • ...Echeverri and Skålen (2011) argue that this definition makes value a function of the interaction between subjects (or between subject and object), which is personal and contextual, depends on affections, attitudes, satisfaction, or behaviorally based judgments, and resides in the user’s consumption…...

    [...]

  • ...In summary, value creation during usage is a longitudinal, dynamic, experiential process that may include both construction and destruction phases (Echeverri and Skålen 2011) in different social and physical as well as temporal and spatial settings (Helkkula et al. 2012; Voima et al. 2010), where…...

    [...]

  • ...Therefore, value creation might be described more accurately as value emergence or formation (e.g., Echeverri and Skålen 2011; Grönroos 2011; Korkman 2006; Voima et al. 2010)....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context

[...]

Amy L. Ostrom1, A. Parasuraman2, David E. Bowen1, Lia Patrício3, Christopher A. Voss4 •
Arizona State University1, University of Miami2, University of Porto3, University of Warwick4
13 Apr 2015-Journal of Service Research
TL;DR: In this article, the authors engaged in an international and interdisciplinary research effort to identify research priorities that have the potential to advance the service field and benefit customers, organizations, and society.
Abstract: The context in which service is delivered and experienced has, in many respects, fundamentally changed. For instance, advances in technology, especially information technology, are leading to a proliferation of revolutionary services and changing how customers serve themselves before, during, and after purchase. To understand this changing landscape, the authors engaged in an international and interdisciplinary research effort to identify research priorities that have the potential to advance the service field and benefit customers, organizations, and society. The priority-setting process was informed by roundtable discussions with researchers affiliated with service research centers and networks located around the world and resulted in the following 12 service research priorities: • stimulating service innovation, • facilitating servitization, service infusion, and solutions, • understanding organization and employee issues relevant to successful service, • developing service networks and systems, • leveraging service design, • using big data to advance service, • understanding value creation, • enhancing the service experience, • improving well-being through transformative service, • measuring and optimizing service performance and impact, • understanding service in a global context, and • leveraging technology to advance service. For each priority, the authors identified important specific service topics and related research questions. Then, through an online survey, service researchers assessed the subtopics’ perceived importance and the service field’s extant knowledge about them. Although all the priorities and related topics were deemed important, the results show that topics related to transformative service and measuring and optimizing service performance are particularly important for advancing the service field along with big data, which had the largest gap between importance and current knowledge of the field. The authors present key challenges that should be addressed to move the field forward and conclude with a discussion of the need for additional interdisciplinary research.

1,168 citations

Cites background from "Co-creation and co-destruction: A p..."

  • ...A better understanding of when value cocreation might lead not to positive outcomes but to value codestruction is necessary (#3; Center L; Echeverri and Skålén 2011; Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres 2010)....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Value co-creation: concept and measurement

[...]

Kumar Rakesh Ranjan, Stuart Read1•
Saint Petersburg State University1
01 May 2016-Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
TL;DR: This work conducts a rigorous review of the diverse scholarly literature on VCC, utilizing the results from this review to isolate the two main theoretical dimensions of VCC and expose the three conceptual elements which underlie each dimension.
Abstract: The surge in academic and practical interest in the topic of value co-creation (VCC) highlights an equivocal understanding of its conceptual boundaries and empirical constituents. Our search of the diverse scholarly literature on VCC identified 149 papers, from which we extract the two primary conceptual VCC dimensions of co-production and value-in-use. Though the combination of these two distinct dimensions is theoretically necessary to describe VCC, 79% of the studies in our dataset consider only one or the other. Such underlying theoretical ambiguity may explain conflicting results in earlier studies and motivates our effort to offer four contributions to the literature. First, we conduct a rigorous review, integrating existing work to expose the theoretical core of VCC. Second, we utilize the results from our review to isolate the two main theoretical dimensions of VCC and expose the three conceptual elements which underlie each dimension. Third, we apply our theoretical findings to derive empirical measurement constructs for each dimension. Fourth, we refine, analyze, and test the resulting measurement index in an investigation into consumer satisfaction.

734 citations

Cites background from "Co-creation and co-destruction: A p..."

  • ...Equity resists centralization tendencies to set in motion amorphous flows and unpredictable connections that enable joint action and congruence of interest and goals that in turn result in value actualization and superior integration of resources (Cova and Salle 2008; Echeverri and Skålén 2011; Fisher and Smith 2011; Grönroos 2008; Gummesson 2008; Karpen et al. 2012; Mele 2011; Peñaloza and Mish 2011; Vargo et al. 2008)....

    [...]

The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers

[...]

Subrata Biswas
01 Jan 2004
TL;DR: Prahalad and Ramaswamy as mentioned in this paper presented a framework for co-creation of value where customer is at the centre stage, and the authors have accomplished that with aplomb.
Abstract: THE FUTURE OF COMPETITION: CO-CREATING UNIQUE VALUE WITH CUSTOMERSC.K. Prahalad & Venkat RamaswamyThe authors - C.K. Prahlad and Venkat Ramaswamy, are known for their non-traditional approach and that has made possible to bring out this path breaking book. Unlearning age old management practices and understanding the changes that is sweeping the business world and giving a framework to the still evolving concept of co-creation of value where customer is at the centre stage is indeed a tough task. And authors have accomplished that with aplomb.Our industrial system is generating more goods and services than before but customer satisfaction remains low in spite of having overwhelming choices, profit level of companies is shrinking though many more decision making tools are at its disposal. What is going wrong and how to set this right? Companies are grappling with these issues and trying to fathom these problems. With the emerging technologies, customers are well informed, well connected with their peer groups and very active in their domain. Now customers have started playing dominant role in the value chain through co-creation of experience which enhances the value.The book can be divided into three distinct parts covering twelve chapters, highlighting future of competition and the role to be played by consumers, markets and companies. First six chapters develop the framework of consumers' role in the changing scenario. Early chapters give a brief account of the change that is taking place; how autonomy of companies in creating product value and satisfying consumers, is slowly and surely giving way to consumer-centric approach? How consumer and firm interact and co-create value, and how the cocreation experience becomes the very basis of value? The authors develop the co-creation experience framework in the subsequent chapters very cogently and lucidly. It goes like this, the co-creation experience depends highly on individuals. Each person's uniqueness affects co-creation process as well as co-creation experience. Dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency (DART) are the building blocks of value co-creation process and companies use this to engage customer effectively as collaborator. In the domain of competition, co-creation experience plays the most important role in decision making. This process further gains momentum in the later chapters of first part as co-creation experience is shaped by dimensions such as choice of channels, options made available, quality of transaction and price-experience relationship. This experience will vary from consumer to consumer due to the different traits of individual. To ensure that the transaction between the consumer and the firm produces positive co-creation experience, the presence of an appropriate environment is imperative, authors develop this concept very carefully. This environments accommodate the heterogeneity of consumer and facilitate a variety of co-creation experience. In the present day world, emerging technology acts as an experience enabler, facilitating innovation in experience environment. With intense competition, sky high consumer expectation; consumer looks for uniqueness which is possible only through personalized co-creation experience. …

657 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment?

[...]

Stephen P. Osborne1, Zoe Radnor2, Kirsty Strokosch1•
University of Edinburgh1, Loughborough University2
09 Mar 2016-Public Management Review
TL;DR: A conceptualization of co-production that is theoretically rooted in both public management and service management theory is presented in this paper. But this conceptualization is limited to the case of public service reform.
Abstract: Co-production is currently one of cornerstones of public policy reform across the globe. Inter alia, it is articulated as a valuable route to public service reform and to the planning and delivery of effective public services, a response to the democratic deficit and a route to active citizenship and active communities, and as a means by which to lever in additional resources to public service delivery. Despite these varied roles, co-production is actually poorly formulated and has become one of a series of ‘woolly-words’ in public policy. This paper presents a conceptualization of co-production that is theoretically rooted in both public management and service management theory. It argues that this is a robust starting point for the evolution of new research and knowledge about co-production and for the development of evidence-based public policymaking and implementation.

607 citations

References
More filters
Book•
Case Study Research: Design and Methods

[...]

Robert K. Yin
01 Oct 1984
TL;DR: In this article, buku ini mencakup lebih dari 50 studi kasus, memberikan perhatian untuk analisis kuantitatif, membahas lebah lengkap penggunaan desain metode campuran penelitian, and termasuk wawasan metodologi baru.
Abstract: Buku ini menyediakan sebuah portal lengkap untuk dunia penelitian studi kasus, buku ini menawarkan cakupan yang luas dari desain dan penggunaan metode studi kasus sebagai alat penelitian yang valid. Dalam buku ini mencakup lebih dari 50 studi kasus, memberikan perhatian untuk analisis kuantitatif, membahas lebih lengkap penggunaan desain metode campuran penelitian, dan termasuk wawasan metodologi baru.

78,012 citations

"Co-creation and co-destruction: A p..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...Since interactive value formation is an empirically under-explored area of research, we decided to adopt an exploratory single-case study design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1984) in order to address the research limitations reported above....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Building theories from case study research

[...]

Kathleen M. Eisenhardt1•
Stanford University1
01 Feb 2009
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe the process of inducting theory using case studies from specifying the research questions to reaching closure, which is a process similar to hypothesis-testing research.
Abstract: Building Theories From Case Study Research - This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies from specifying the research questions to reaching closure. Some features of the process, such as problem definition and construct validation, are similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others, such as within-case analysis and replication logic, are unique to the inductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described here is highly iterative and tightly linked to data. This research approach is especially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory is often novel, testable, and empirically valid. Finally, framebreaking insights, the tests of good theory (e.g., parsimony, logical coherence), and convincing grounding in the evidence are the key criteria for evaluating this type of research.

40,005 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Building theories from case study research.

[...]

Kathleen M. Eisenhardt1•
Stanford University1
01 Oct 1989-Academy of Management Review
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors define a leadership event as a perceived segment of action whose meaning is created by the interactions of actors involved in producing it, and present a set of innovative methods for capturing and analyzing these contextually driven processes.
Abstract: �Traditional, hierarchical views of leadership are less and less useful given the complexities of our modern world. Leadership theory must transition to new perspectives that account for the complex adaptive needs of organizations. In this paper, we propose that leadership (as opposed to leaders) can be seen as a complex dynamic process that emerges in the interactive “spaces between” people and ideas. That is, leadership is a dynamic that transcends the capabilities of individuals alone; it is the product of interaction, tension, and exchange rules governing changes in perceptions and understanding. We label this a dynamic of adaptive leadership, and we show how this dynamic provides important insights about the nature of leadership and its outcomes in organizational fields. We define a leadership event as a perceived segment of action whose meaning is created by the interactions of actors involved in producing it, and we present a set of innovative methods for capturing and analyzing these contextually driven processes. We provide theoretical and practical implications of these ideas for organizational behavior and organization and management theory.

22,673 citations

"Co-creation and co-destruction: A p..." refers methods in this paper

  • ...Since interactive value formation is an empirically under-explored area of research, we decided to adopt an exploratory single-case study design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1984) in order to address the research limitations reported above....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Outline of a Theory of Practice

[...]

Andrew P. Lyons, Pierre Bourdieu, Richard Nice
01 Jan 1980
TL;DR: Bourdieu as mentioned in this paper develops a theory of practice which is simultaneously a critique of the methods and postures of social science and a general account of how human action should be understood.
Abstract: Outline of a Theory of Practice is recognized as a major theoretical text on the foundations of anthropology and sociology. Pierre Bourdieu, a distinguished French anthropologist, develops a theory of practice which is simultaneously a critique of the methods and postures of social science and a general account of how human action should be understood. With his central concept of the habitus, the principle which negotiates between objective structures and practices, Bourdieu is able to transcend the dichotomies which have shaped theoretical thinking about the social world. The author draws on his fieldwork in Kabylia (Algeria) to illustrate his theoretical propositions. With detailed study of matrimonial strategies and the role of rite and myth, he analyses the dialectical process of the 'incorporation of structures' and the objectification of habitus, whereby social formations tend to reproduce themselves. A rigorous consistent materialist approach lays the foundations for a theory of symbolic capital and, through analysis of the different modes of domination, a theory of symbolic power.

21,227 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.

[...]

David W. Tarbet, Michael Foucault, Alan Sheridan
22 Jan 1978-Eighteenth-Century Studies

19,485 citations

Related Papers (5)
Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing

[...]

01 Jan 2004-Journal of Marketing
Stephen L. Vargo, Robert F. Lusch
Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution

[...]

01 Mar 2008-Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Stephen L. Vargo, Robert F. Lusch
Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation

[...]

01 Mar 2013-Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Christian Grönroos, Päivi Voima
Managing the co-creation of value

[...]

01 Mar 2008-Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Adrian Payne, Kaj Storbacka, Pennie Frow
On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective

[...]

01 Jun 2008-European Management Journal
Stephen L. Vargo, Paul P. Maglio, Melissa Archpru Akaka
Frequently Asked Questions (10)
Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation" ?

Drawing on an empirical study of public transport, this paper studies interactive value formation at the provider-customer interface, from a practice-theory perspective. In addition, the paper also identifies five interaction value practices – informing, greeting, delivering, charging, and helping—and theorizes how interactive value formation takes place as well as how value is inter-subjectively assessed by actors at the provider-customer interface. Furthermore, the paper also distinguishes between four types of interactive value formation praxis corresponding with four subject positions which practitioners step into when engaging in interactive value formation. 

Their paper suffers from several limitations which need to be addressed in future research. Future research needs to more closely observe interactions between providers and customers. Future research needs to study whether or not their conclusions are generalizable to other contexts, e. g. long-lasting relationships in business-to-business contexts or in e-commerce contexts. Future research needs to have a broader scope. 

the co-creative dimension of the practice of delivering appears when employees remain flexible towards organizational instructions, and when customers voluntarily simplify the work of the employees, adapting to the flow of service production. 

Warde (2005) argues that practices comprise a temporally unfolding and spatially dispersed nexus of behaviours that include practical activities, performances, and representations or talk. 

The reason for interviewing instructors and managers was that these influence the practice of interactive value formation within the organization by means of different management activities, e.g. coaching and monitoring of service interactions in the field. 

the concept of practice in practice-theory and the constant comparison of interview-narratives made us sensitive to observable interactions central to service encounters in public transport. 

the driver and the customer worked towards levelling out their understandings with regard to charging, resulting in positive engagements and congruent elements in the practice of charging. 

The authors also argue that, in order for practitioners (both driver and customer in their case) to be able to carry out these different kinds of praxis, they need to step into specific subject positions and play certain roles. 

More generally, their findings suggest that the co-destructive dimension of this practice is displayed when interactants disagree with each other, obstruct responses, misinterpret or keep information to themselves, displaying disappointment about poor performance. 

These initial group interviews were rather unstructured and were aimed at getting an overview of the organization and identifying the locus of the value formation processes.