Posted Content•
Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic
TL;DR: This study is apparently the first to have introduced the notion of value co‐destruction into the conceptual framework of S‐D logic, showing that value can be co‐destroyed through the interactions between different systems, resulting in value destruction‐through‐misuse.
Abstract: – Noting that a fundamental tenet of service‐dominant (S‐D) logic is the co‐creation of value‐in‐use, this paper aims to explore the theoretical possibility that the interactions between service systems cannot only co‐create value, but also have adverse consequences leading to actual value co‐destruction., – This conceptual paper critically reviews the dominance of value co‐creation and value‐in‐use in S‐D logic. Noting the relative lack of research in the converse possibility, the study proposes and explores the implications of value co‐destruction as a new concept which should be introduced within the framework of S‐D logic., – The study proposes a formal definition for the new proposed concept of value co‐destruction. It describes in detail the process by which it occurs, showing that value can be co‐destroyed through the interactions between different systems, resulting in value destruction‐through‐misuse. Indeed, value co‐destruction occurs when a service system accidentally or intentionally misuses resources (its own resources and/or those of another service system) by acting in an inappropriate or unexpected manner., – This paper is purely conceptual and exploratory. Empirical examination of the theoretical findings regarding value‐co‐destruction is required. Possible avenues of interest for such empirical research of value co‐destruction are suggested., – Limiting the occurrence of misuse by aligning the mutual expectations of interacting service systems should reduce the risks of value co‐destruction. Recovering from misuse should also be considered., – This study is apparently the first to have introduced the notion of value co‐destruction into the conceptual framework of S‐D logic.
Citations
More filters
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
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.
723 citations
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
TL;DR: In this article, the role of social media content in facilitating engagement behavior within a social media context is discussed. But, theoretically based guidance concerning marketing practice and engagement in new media social networks is limited.
Abstract: The proliferation of social media platforms and corresponding consumer adoption in recent years has precipitated a paradigm shift, significantly altering the ways customers engage with brands. Organisations recognise the social and network value of engagement within social media, and practitioners are endeavouring to build engagement through their social media content. However, theoretically based academic guidance concerning marketing practice and engagement in new media social networks is limited. This article provides a theoretical model to explicate the role of social media content in facilitating engagement behaviour within a social media context. Based on uses and gratifications theory, it provides a model for how an organisation can stimulate positively valenced engagement behaviour through social media and dissuade negatively valenced engagement behaviour in this forum. A typology of social media engagement behaviour is proposed and a series of hypotheses exploring the relationships between social...
394 citations
Cites background from "Not always co-creation: introducing..."
...While co-creation refers to the process in which providers and customers collaboratively create value, co-destruction refers to the collaborative destruction, or diminishment of value by providers and customers (Plé & Cáceres, 2010)....
[...]
...This form of content is created within social media platforms, with the aim to vent negative brand-related feelings causing a destruction of brand value (Bowden et al., 2015; Hollebeek & Chen, 2014; Plé & Cáceres, 2010)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the theoretical underpinnings of co-production and co-creation are reviewed and discussed in a hotel context, and the benefits for hotels of moving from Co-production to Co-creation on this continuum are discussed.
383 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The authors argue that service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange and argue that the new perspectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for marketing, one in which service provision is fundamental for economic exchange.
Abstract: Marketing inherited a model of exchange from economics, which had a dominant logic based on the exchange of “goods,” which usually are manufactured output The dominant logic focused on tangible resources, embedded value, and transactions Over the past several decades, new perspectives have emerged that have a revised logic focused on intangible resources, the cocreation of value, and relationships The authors believe that the new perspectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for marketing, one in which service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange The authors explore this evolving logic and the corresponding shift in perspective for marketing scholars, marketing practitioners, and marketing educators
12,760 citations
Additional excerpts
...Lusch et al. , 2007; Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Vargo and Lusch, 2008b, 2008c)....
[...]
TL;DR: This article highlights and clarifies the salient issues associated with S-D logic and updates the original foundational premises (FPs) and adds an FP.
Abstract: Since the introductory article for what has become known as the “service-dominant (S-D) logic of marketing,” “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” was published in the Journal of Marketing (Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a)), there has been considerable discussion and elaboration of its specifics. This article highlights and clarifies the salient issues associated with S-D logic and updates the original foundational premises (FPs) and adds an FP. Directions for future work are also discussed.
6,323 citations
"Not always co-creation: introducing..." refers background in this paper
...Lusch et al. , 2007; Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Vargo and Lusch, 2008b, 2008c )....
[...]
...interactional by nature ( Vargo and Lusch, 2008c )....
[...]
...fundamental basis of exchange ( Vargo and Lusch, 2008c, 2008a )....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the nature of value co-creation in the context of service-dominant (S-D) logic and develop a conceptual framework for understanding and managing value cocreation.
Abstract: Central to service-dominant (S-D) logic is the proposition that the customer becomes a co-creator of value. This emphasizes the development of customer–supplier relationships through interaction and dialog. However, research to date suggests relatively little is known about how customers engage in the co-creation of value. In this article, the authors: explore the nature of value co-creation in the context of S-D logic; develop a conceptual framework for understanding and managing value co-creation; and utilize field-based research to illustrate practical application of the framework. This process-based framework provides a structure for customer involvement that takes account of key foundational propositions of S-D logic and places the customer explicitly at the same level of importance as the company as co-creators of value. Synthesis of diverse concepts from research on services, customer value and relationship marketing into a new process-based framework for co-creation provide new insights into managing the process of value co-creation.
3,114 citations
"Not always co-creation: introducing..." refers background in this paper
...remains deficient to fully understand value-related processes ( Payne et al. , 2008; Vargo et al. ,...
[...]
TL;DR: The authors argue that value is fundamentally derived and determined in use -the integration and application of resources in a specific context, rather than in exchange, embedded in firm output and captured by price.
2,861 citations
"Not always co-creation: introducing..." refers background in this paper
...processes, about which marketing thought has remained relatively silent so far (Payne et al. , 2008; Vargo et al. , 2008 )....
[...]
...these parties. Therefore, each system of this proce ss contributes to the creation of value for itself and for the other ( Vargo et al. , 2008 )....
[...]
...technology) connected to other systems by value pro positions” ( Vargo et al. , 2008, p. 145 )....
[...]
...In our second example, employees are regarded as service systems, and not merely as firm’s resources ( Vargo et al. , 2008 )....
[...]
Book•
01 Dec 2006
TL;DR: Chesbrough's Open Business Models as mentioned in this paper provides a diagnostic instrument to assess a company's current business model, and explains how to overcome common barriers to creating a more open model.
Abstract: In his landmark book Open Innovation, Henry Chesbrough demonstrated that because useful knowledge is no longer concentrated in a few large organizations, business leaders must adopt a new, "open" model of innovation. Using this model, companies look outside their boundaries for ideas and intellectual property (IP) they can bring in, as well as license their unutilized home-grown IP to other organizations. In Open Business Models, Chesbrough takes readers to the next step--explaining how to make money in an open innovation landscape. He provides a diagnostic instrument enabling you to assess your company's current business model, and explains how to overcome common barriers to creating a more open model. He also offers compelling examples of companies that have developed such models--including Procter & Gamble, IBM, and Air Products. In addition, Chesbrough introduces a new set of players--"innovation intermediaries"--who facilitate companies' access to external technologies. He explores the impact of stronger IP protection on intermediate markets for innovation, and profiles firms (such as Intellectual Ventures and Qualcomm) that center their business model on innovation and IP. This vital resource provides a much-needed road map to connect innovation with IP management, so companies can create and capture value from ideas and technologies--wherever in the world they are found.
2,050 citations