scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

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

Per Echeverri, +1 more
- 03 Oct 2011 - 
- Vol. 11, Iss: 3, pp 351-373
Reads0
Chats0
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.

read more

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 helpingand 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
practicesinforming, 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 praxischaracteristic patterns of interaction between providers and customers: reinforcing

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Value co-creation between the 'inside' and the 'outside' of a company: Insights from a brand community failure

TL;DR: In this article, the authors focused on the case of a company-managed online brand community in the soda drink sector, which failed in facilitating value co-creation and explored the meaning-making process.
Journal ArticleDOI

Customer boundary work to navigate institutional arrangements around service interactions: Exploring the case of telehealth

TL;DR: In this article, customer perceptions of the key differences between the healthcare system's technological, professional and bureaucratic processes compared to family and community institutions that shape customers' life worlds are examined.
Journal ArticleDOI

Engaging in knowledge exchange

TL;DR: In this article, the authors apply the psychological ownership theory and posit that psychological ownership of knowledge is instrumental to increased knowledge exchange intentions of professionals in open innovation community context, and evidence how personal outcome expectations, organizational innovativeness and affective community commitment are associated with psychological ownership.
Journal ArticleDOI

Motivation: The missing driver for theorizing about resource integration:

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors focus on competencies as enablers of resource integration and the social aspects that guide them, and propose a literature review based on a literature survey.
Journal ArticleDOI

Examining the relationship between language divergence and word-of-mouth intentions

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the consumers' word-of-mouth intentions after a service provision in a second language and reveal a negative halo effect, such that consumers served in second language perceive the service provider as less responsive in general.
References
More filters
Book

Case Study Research: Design and Methods

Robert K. Yin
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.
Journal ArticleDOI

Building theories from case study research

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.
Journal ArticleDOI

Building theories from case study research.

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.
Journal ArticleDOI

Outline of a Theory of Practice

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.
Related Papers (5)
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.