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

TLDR: 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.

Figures

Table 1. Five interaction value practices: Detailed descriptions, core dimensions and elements (definitions based on Schau et al, 2009).

Full text

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

Frequently asked questions

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. 

Q2. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "A practice-theory based study of 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. 

Q3. What is the co-creative dimension of the practice of delivering?

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. 

Q4. What does Warde (2005) argue that practices comprise?

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

Q5. What was the reason for interviewing instructors and managers?

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. 

Q6. What made us sensitive to observable interactions in public transport?

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. 

Q7. What did the driver and the customer do to improve their understanding of the procedure of charging?

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. 

Q8. What do the authors argue about the different types of praxis?

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. 

Q9. What is the common way of displaying disappointment about poor performance?

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. 

Q10. What was the purpose of the initial group interviews?

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.