European Business ReviewValue co‐creation: theoretical approaches and practical implicationsHannu Saarijärvi P.K. Kannan Hannu Kuusela

Article information:To cite this document:Hannu Saarijärvi P.K. Kannan Hannu Kuusela, (2013),"Value co#creation: theoretical approaches andpractical implications", European Business Review, Vol. 25 Iss 1 pp. 6 - 19Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287718

Downloaded on: 23 November 2014, At: 13:50 (PT)References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3449 times since 2013*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Robert Randall and Brian Leavy, Francis J. Gouillart, (2014),"The race to implement co-creation of valuewith stakeholders: five approaches to competitive advantage", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 42 Iss 1 pp.2-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SL-09-2013-0071Thorsten Roser, Robert DeFillippi, Alain Samson, (2013),"Managing your co#creation mix: co#creationventures in distinctive contexts", European Business Review, Vol. 25 Iss 1 pp. 20-41C.K. Prahalad, Venkat Ramaswamy, (2004),"Co#creating unique value with customers", Strategy &Leadership, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 4-9

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Value co-creation: theoreticalapproaches and practical

implicationsHannu Saarijarvi

School of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

P.K. KannanRobert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,

College Park, Maryland, USA, and

Hannu KuuselaSchool of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

Abstract

Purpose – Existing research suggests a multitude of approaches to value co-creation that bring withthem a range of different ideas on what constitutes the concept. The purpose of this paper is to identifythe sources of the differing approaches, and so reduce the complexity of the concept and develop abusiness-oriented analytical framework for assessing the opportunities presented by value co-creation.

Design/methodology/approach – Through exploration of the different theoretical approaches tovalue co-creation the sources of friction are identified. Addressing the conceptual complexity providesa sound basis for the development of a business-oriented analytical framework.

Findings – The multifaceted nature of value co-creation arises owing to the differing approaches towhat determines the value, the co-, and the creation elements of the concept. The study concludes thatboth scholars and practitioners should focus more on identifying and understanding what kind ofvalue is co-created for whom, using what resources, and through what mechanism.

Practical implications – A business-oriented analytical framework is developed that helpspractitioners to assess and approach the opportunities presented by value co-creation.

Originality/value – The paper introduces an analytical and fresh perspective on value co-creation.It helps to clarify the nuances in the nature of the concept and contributes to an enhancedunderstanding of it.

Keywords Value analysis, Service control, Value co-creation, Service dominant logic, Service science,Service logic, Analytical framework

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionThe roles of customers and firms are in continuous flux as technological advances andchanging managerial mind-sets facilitate unorthodox and innovative ways of integratingresources for the purpose of value creation. The conventional view on exchange is beingsuperseded by new forms and shapes of interaction. Understanding the logic of businessenvironments and ecosystems featuring value co-creation is a near prerequisite tobecoming and remaining competitive. To capture this phenomenon, value co-creationhas become a key concept within service marketing and business management.

Current research provides a multitude of approaches to value co-creation. Thoseapproaches embrace a variety of characteristics, and imply others, in attempting todetermine with some certainty what is the essence of the concept. The wide variety

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-534X.htm

EBR25,1

6

European Business ReviewVol. 25 No. 1, 2013pp. 6-19q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0955-534XDOI 10.1108/09555341311287718

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

of contributions – both in terms of scale and level of abstraction – has resulted in acomplex milieu of definitions, perspectives, and interpretations of how customerscreate value jointly with firms and other actors. Widely cited practical examples suchas Threadless, Lego, or Dell have further fuelled and diversified the discussion aroundvalue co-creation (Birkner, 2011; Di Gangi and Wasko, 2009; Hienerth et al., 2011;Malone et al., 2010; Miller and Lammas, 2010).

The conceptual complexity and the increasing number of case examples modifiedby industry-specific characteristics have made the concept complex and nuanced. Itsability to serve both scholars and practitioners is questionable. Business practitionersare often left wondering how value co-creation could enhance their firm’s businessperformance. The question of what value co-creation is fundamentally about and howit can serve business purposes remains largely unanswered. The relevance of theconcept in theory is poles apart from its practical relevance. The multifaceted nature ofthe concept endangers its theoretical development and can result in empirically emptystructures (Arndt, 1985). Without a systematic and analytical clarification of theapproaches and a shared understanding of their differences, both marketing scholarsand practitioners may diminish the applicability of the concept to business.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to identify the sources of thediffering approaches through a brief review of the theoretical approaches to valueco-creation, at the same time clarifying the concept. Second, a business-orientedanalytical framework is developed to assess the opportunities for value co-creation. Thepaper builds on the idea that the nuanced and multifaceted nature of value co-creationcan be viewed as a strength rather than a weakness. Different approaches to the conceptare viewed as complementary and enriching instead of contradictory and exclusionary.A synthesizing effort to reconcile these approaches is however necessary to actualizetheir collective potential in marketing scholarship and practice.

The paper is structured as follows. The extant literature on value co-creationis briefly discussed next in order to identify where the differences between theapproaches to value co-creation originate. Three central issues are introduced to reducethe conceptual complexity and reconcile the discussion surrounding value co-creation.Then, a business-oriented analytical framework is developed and illuminated with caseexamples. A discussion and conclusions are provided at the end of the paper.

The complex nature of value co-creationA common feature of most current approaches to value co-creation is the shift towarda broader perspective on value creation. Traditionally, what is referred to as agoods-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008a; Lusch and Vargo, 2006a, b) orvariously the manufacturing logic, the old enterprise logic, or (particularly in themarketing context) product orientation or marketing myopia (Vargo and Lusch,2008b, p. 25) has prevailed. The inadequacy of then-current marketing theory toilluminate value creation was reported many years ago by Normann and Ramirez(1993). They argued that “[. . .] traditional thinking about value is grounded in theassumptions and the models of an industrial economy” (Normann and Ramirez, 1993,p. 65) and driven by the notion of marketing as a value-adding activity (Porter, 1985).The focus should be on reinventing value in terms of the value-creating system itselfwhere different actors – suppliers, business partners, allies, and customers – worktogether to co-produce value.

Value co-creation

7

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Value creation should certainly no longer be viewed as taking place during themanufacturing process, but as something that customers govern in their ownconsumption context (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008a; Gronroos, 2008a, b; Strandvik et al.,2012). Customers are not passive targets of marketing actions, but are perceived more asactive operant resources that eventually determine and create value in their variousvalue-creating processes; customers can reconfigure their roles from consumer tocontributor and creator (Tapscott and Williams, 2006). Despite the shared understandingof the more active role of the customer and the subjective and processual nature ofcustomer value, the theoretical discussion adopts more controversial characteristics, asthe focus is shifted from value creation toward value co-creation.

The S-D logic approach to value co-creationThe discussion around value co-creation was intensified due to research onservice-dominant (S-D) logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2006, 2008a, 2011). S-D logic canbe regarded as a logic or a mind-set that incorporates many loose ends resulting fromthe fragmentation of the marketing field (Gummesson, 2008a). According to S-D logic,marketing has absorbed a logic based on goods-centric thinking including howvalue and value creation are perceived. Service – instead of goods – should be thefundamental unit of exchange. Goods are only transmitters of service and act as meansfor the customer to benefit from firm competences (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Vargo et al.,2008). In order to actualize the value of the goods, customers need to continue themarketing, consumption, and value creation process (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, p. 11):“for these services to be delivered, the consumer still must learn to use, maintain,repair, and adapt the appliance to his or her unique needs, usage situations, andbehaviors”. As operant resources are heterogeneous and individual, the amount andquality of customer skills and knowledge affects the way value is created. Hence,following Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2004a, b), value becomes a joint function ofthe actions of the provider(s) and the consumer(s) and is therefore always co-created(Vargo and Lusch, 2008a).

A service science approach to value co-creationService science was originally an IBM-led discipline that largely overlaps with S-Dlogic. It has even been suggested that it is theoretically based on S-D logic (Maglio andSpohrer, 2008); that is, however, a slightly misleading argument due to the fact that S-Dlogic is not considered to be a theory (Vargo, 2007). Service science explores valueco-creation as occurring through “the integration of existing resources with thoseavailable from a variety of service systems that can contribute to system well-being asdetermined by the system’s environmental context” (Vargo et al., 2008, p. 150; Baronand Harris, 2008). It investigates how participants, processes, and resources interact toco-create value in service systems (Vargo et al., 2008). Service systems are understoodas value co-creation configurations composed of people, technology, and valuepropositions. Owing to specialization and exchange, every service system is dependenton other entities; each service system can be regarded as both a customer and aprovider and together they can interact to co-create value (Spohrer et al., 2008).In comparison with the S-D logic, the service science approach advocates a somewhatmore macro perspective on value co-creation. It emphasizes larger configurations ofresources and interaction as well as identifying the increasingly important role

EBR25,1

8

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

of technology in facilitating value co-creation. It aims to understand the valueco-creation process taking place within and between different service systems.

The service logic approach to value co-creationService logic makes a clear distinction between customer service logic and providerservice logic (Gronroos, 2008b, 2011). The former relates to customers combining theresources provided by the firm with other resources in their everyday practices and intheir value-creating processes. Hence, the customer is in charge of the value creationprocess and consequently, value is not co-created (Gronroos, 2008b; Heinonen et al.,2010). It is the customer who creates value, and only in some cases – if the firm adoptsprovider service logic and establishes interactions between the supplier and thecustomer – is value co-created (Gronroos, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008b). Interactions aremutual or reciprocal actions through which the parties can affect each another(Gronroos and Ravald, 2011; Gronroos, 2011; Gronroos and Helle, 2010). Throughinteractions the firm is able to affect the customer’s value actualization process andmake sure that value-in-use equates to the value proposition (Gronroos, 2008b). Duringinteraction, both the firm and the customer are active participants, that is, dual subjects(Gronroos and Ravald, 2011), in the customer’s value creation. Normatively, firms needto find innovative ways to become part of the consumption process and createinteraction points with customers. As Gronroos (2008b, p. 307; Gronroos, 2011) argues:

[. . .] it is not the customer who becomes a value co-creator with a supplier, rather, it is thesupplier which, provided that it adopts a service logic and develops firm-customer interactionsas part of its market offerings, can become a co-creator of value with its customers.

Other approaches to value co-creationIn addition to the three approaches discussed above, other approaches to valueco-creation that further illustrate the concept’s diverse nature have been suggested. Forexample, many-to-many marketing promotes the role of customer networks andunderlines the importance of a multitude of actors, such as intermediaries, employees,neighbours, and society in general in the co-creation of value. According toGummesson (2007, 2008b), it is not enough to focus only on the dyadic relationshipbetween the firm and the customer, instead the variety of actors involved in thevalue creation process should be acknowledged. Similarly, Edvardsson et al. (2011)have introduced a social constructionist approach to value co-creation by locatingvalue co-creation firmly within a social context. Instead of value-in-use they prefer touse the concept of value-in-social-context to capture the holistic nature of value.

Another approach to value co-creation has emerged within the new product andservice development stream of literature. Following the widely acknowledged shifttoward more active customers, firms are increasingly engaging customers in their newproduct/service development processes. To uncover the latent and hidden needs ofcustomers, firms are increasingly motivated to harness the creative potential of theircustomers in new product/service development – often referred to as value co-creation(O’Hern and Rindfleisch, 2010). For example, Nambisan and Nambisan (2008) haveidentified five customer roles in innovation and value co-creation that they label:product conceptualizer, product designer, product tester, product support specialist,and product marketer. Partly due to the recent technological advances and the rise ofthe internet (O’Hern and Rindfleisch, 2010) the active utilization of customer resources

Value co-creation

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

has gained momentum, which has been of interest to a wide variety of researchers(Magnusson et al., 2003; Matthing et al., 2006; Kristensson et al., 2008).

Within the postmodern marketing literature, in turn, the concept of valueco-creation is characterized, for example, in the writings of Bendapudi and Leone (2003)and Firat and Venkatesh (1993). The postmodern approach also acknowledges the shifttoward more tailored goods and services offered to the consumer “who takes elementsof market offerings and crafts a customized consumption experience out of these”(Firat et al., 1995, p. 50). Customers demand a more active role in production, and to fulfilthis emerging need and allow consumers’ active participation, marketers are forced toopen up more of their processes (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995; Bendapudi and Leone, 2003),often referred to as prosuming (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010). The consumer has attained aprivileged status previously accorded to the producer (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003).However, as consumption is increasingly viewed as a production process “it can nolonger be performed instinctively, naturally, without development of special skills”(Firat et al., 1995, p. 52). This can be compared with the suggestion of Gronroos (2008b)that customers’ value creation also consists of additional resources, such as informationand knowledge, not just the good or the service alone (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Humphreysand Grayson, 2008). The postmodern approach to value co-creation acknowledges thatthe product cannot be regarded as a “finished” object. On the contrary, it should beconsidered as a process “into which the ‘customer’ can immerse oneself (sic) and provideinputs” (Firat et al., 1995, p. 51). Auh et al. (2007) make a similar point.

Taken together, the different approaches, including S-D logic, service science, servicelogic, many-to-many marketing, social constructionist, new product development, orpost modernism offer diverse perspectives on the concept. They emphasize differentcharacteristics, shift the locus of attention between firms, customers, communities, andnetworks and consequently, lack a clear unified and shared basis for further development.However, given the diversity, they provide an interesting starting point for addressingthe research purpose by exploring and analysing their differences in more detail.

Identifying and clarifying conceptual complexityExploring the different approaches to value co-creation in detail contributes to a betterunderstanding of the concept’s nuances and multifaceted nature. The diversity of theconcept is due to differing interpretations of what constitutes the “value”, the “co-”, andthe “creation” within it (Figure 1). This is in line with Gronroos and Ravald (2011), whoargue that clarification in terms of the roles of different actors involved in value

Figure 1.Dismantling valueco-creation into itsconstituent parts

EBR25,1

10

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

creation is key when considering the concept’s implications for marketing researchand practice. Dismantling value co-creation into its constituent parts provides us withthree fundamental issues that help to comprehend the friction between the differentapproaches, clarify the conceptual complexity and provide a sound basis for thedevelopment of the business-oriented analytical framework for value co-creation.

Clarifying what kind of value for whomIn the current literature on value co-creation, it often remains unclear whether value isunderstood as customer value, firm value, or both. For example, under S-D logic valueco-creation is discussed in a broader sense than under the service logic, which argues thatonly through interactions can (customer) value be co-created. In addition, the discussionaround the concept hardly addresses the multidimensionality of value; whether valueco-creation results in value that is more utilitarian or more hedonic, or is characterizedby other value dimensions (Babin et al., 1994; Holbrook, 1999; Rintamaki et al., 2006;Sheth et al., 1991). Therefore, instead of only stating that value is co-created, in order toenhance our understanding of value co-creation, it is essential to clarify for whom whatvalue is co-created (what value there is for the customer and the firm), and furthermore,what kind of value is co-created (what kind of value).

Clarifying by what kind of resourcesThe “co-” in value co-creation defines the actors that are involved in the value co-creationprocess, or more specifically, the additional resources – whether deployed by individualcustomers, firms, groups of customers, brand communities, or other configurations ofactor roles – that are put together for the purpose of enhanced value creation. Servicelogic is more focused on the dyadic relationship between the customer and the firm,whereas many-to-many marketing emphasizes the role of networks of networks. Servicescience, in turn, is interested in the service systems consisting of people, technology, andvalue propositions. These approaches underline different conceptualizations of theresources that are integrated in the value co-creation process (e.g. customer-firm,networks, system). Instead of stating only that value is co-created, it would be morehelpful if we know who is involved in the joint creation of value, and more importantly,what resources are being deployed in that joint creation (B2B, B2C, C2B, C2C).

Clarifying through what kind of mechanismThe “creation” in value co-creation is the third source of friction between the approaches.Creation refers to the process of integrating different resources from different actors inorder to actualize their value potential. It captures the activity or way; the mechanismthrough which the resources provided by different actors are integrated into valuecreation processes and then developed into value-in-use. Mechanisms are firm-,customer-, or even community-led activities through which additional resources areoffered for the use of other actors. They reconfigure the traditional roles of customersand firms in order to harness the resources of each in new and innovative ways.Consequently, mechanisms challenge existing ways of conducting exchanges byextending the locus of attention from goods and money towards the provision ofadditional resources to aid another’s value-creating processes.

In relationships between firms and customers, co-production, co-design, andco-development (Frow et al., 2010; Sheth and Uslay, 2007) are examples of mechanisms

Value co-creation

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

through which customer resources are engaged in the value creation for a firm. Here,that value creation is supported by the customer. However, mechanisms can also bedesigned through which additional firm resources are provided for the support of thecustomer. These might include refining and returning customer data back to customersor setting up a call-centre service. Technology is often seen as facilitating theemergence of different types of mechanisms by enabling the transfer of new resourceseffectively and efficiently for the use of other actors. It is important to identify andunderstand the wide variety of “co-processes” through which various resources can beengaged in one another’s value creation. This puts the emphasis onto understandingthrough what kind of a mechanism is value co-created (what kind of mechanism).

A business-oriented analytical framework for value co-creationThe different approaches to value co-creation are not so very contradictory per se, butinstead operate at complementary levels of analysis. The three issues discussed aboveoffer a reconciled synthesis of value co-creation and provide a basis for thedevelopment of the business-oriented analytical framework.

The framework integrates customer and firm perspectives with the concept’sconstituent elements (“value”, “co-”, and “creation”) (Table I). It is driven by a desire toprovide guidance for firms on approaching the central aspects and characteristics ofthe value co-creation phenomenon; it enables firms to establish their own interpretationof value co-creation and helps in assessing its opportunities. Instead of merely statingthat value is co-created, the framework challenges firms to consider and reflect upon amore business-oriented question: what kind of value is co-created for whom, by whatresources, and through what mechanism?

First, as Gupta and Lehman (2005) note, value creation has always two sides,which is why both the customer and firm perspectives on value co-creation must beaddressed concurrently. This does not, however, mean that value is necessarilyalways co-created. To serve managerial purposes, value co-creation is not consideredonly as a lens through which a phenomenon is viewed. On the contrary, it is aconcept that seeks to capture a current marketing phenomenon characterized by theevolving roles of customers and firms. For value co-creation to occur, there have to bemutual incentives for establishing a change in the traditional resource integrationprocess. These incentives can include either monetary rewards or more subjectiveand intrinsic benefits. For example, engaging customer resources with the firm’snew product development process should not be done without considering

“Value”What kind of value forwhom?

“Co”By what kind of resources?

“Creation”Through what kind ofmechanism?

Customer What is the customerbenefit? How is thecustomer’s value creationsupported?

What firm resources areintegrated into thecustomer’s value-creatingprocesses?

What is the mechanismthrough which firmresources are integrated intothe customer’s processes?

Firm What is the firm benefit?How is the firm’s valuecreation supported?

What customer resources areintegrated into the firm’svalue-creating processes?

What is the mechanismthrough which customerresources are integrated intothe firm’s processes?

Table I.Analytical frameworkfor practitioners

EBR25,1

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

customer incentives in terms of what realistic benefit the customer derives fromproviding the firm with additional resources. This brings pressure to understandcustomers’ intrinsic, extrinsic and social motivations for co-creation with the firm(Antikainen, 2011).

Second, it is imperative to understand the change that takes place in both thecustomer’s role as a resource provider (usually money) and the firm’s role as a resourceprovider (usually goods/services). As a result of the adjusted roles additional resourcesare engaged in either the firm’s or the customer’s value creation. Hence, it is imperativeto identify and understand what kinds of resources are eventually engaged in oneanother’s value creation as a result of this change. So, for example, is it customercreativity that is engaged in the firm’s value-creating processes or does the firmprovide customers with resources that go beyond the traditional exchange?

Third, it would be wise to identify the mechanism through which these resourcesare integrated with the customers’ or the firm’s value creation. We should ask what themechanism is that eventually evokes the change in the customer and/or firm roles andreleases new resources for the value creation process. That mechanism might be, forexample, co-design, co-development, or co-distribution. Table II illustrates the basicidea of the framework with the help of three value co-creation examples.

The famous example of Dell’s Ideastorm illustrates how customer resources maybe engaged in the new product development process. Ideastorm exemplifies achange in the traditional roles of the firm (as a provider of computers for customers)and the customers (as a provider of money for the firm): additional customerresources are engaged in the firm’s value-creating processes as customers sharetheir ideas about the firm’s products. This change is enabled by the internet as thecustomers are provided with an easy and convenient channel to share and developtheir ideas about how to make Dell’s computers better. As a result, customers areprovided with sense of belonging and empowerment and the firm gains access tocustomer resources; customers’ thoughts and ideas about Dell’s products. Here,co-development is the mechanism through which customer resources are integratedinto the firm’s value creation. Customer insight is used as an additional inputresource to the firm’s internal value-creating processes – and thereby it supportsthe firm’s value creation.

Threadless.com uses the creativity of its customers by encouraging them to designT-shirts and submit their sketches to its web site where people can vote for theirfavourites. In this way, in addition to using co-designing as the mechanism throughwhich resources are integrated, the firm is also able to utilize customer resources toknow in advance which designs are likely to be most in demand by its customers, soaiding demand forecasting. The customer provides additional resources for thesupport of the firm’s demand management. Hence, customer resources are engagedthrough voting – another mechanism for integrating customer resources into thefirm’s internal value-creating processes.

The examples discussed above represent cases where customer resources areengaged in support of the firm’s various value-creating processes. They capturedifferent mechanisms through which customer resources are engaged in the firm’svalue creation. However, customers too can benefit from value co-creation as a result ofengaging additional firm resources in their value-creating processes. Nutrition code isan internet-based service application through which customers are provided with

Value co-creation

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

“Val

ue”

Wh

atk

ind

ofv

alu

efo

rw

hom

?“C

o”B

yw

hat

kin

dof

reso

urc

es?

“Cre

atio

n”

Th

rou

gh

wh

atk

ind

ofm

ech

anis

m?

Del

l’sId

east

orm

Cu

stom

erT

he

cust

omer

can

par

tici

pat

e,sh

are

idea

sw

ith

pee

rsan

dg

etb

ette

rp

rod

uct

sin

the

futu

rere

sult

ing

in,

for

exam

ple

,so

cial

and

hed

onic

cust

omer

val

ue

Cu

stom

erre

sou

rces

(cu

stom

erk

now

led

ge

and

exp

erti

se)

are

eng

aged

inth

efi

rm’s

own

val

ue-

crea

tin

gp

roce

sses

.Th

eex

isti

ng

cust

omer

bas

eis

har

nes

sed

tog

etin

-dep

thcu

stom

erin

sig

ht

into

the

dev

elop

men

tp

roce

ssof

bet

ter

com

pu

ters

Co-

dev

elop

men

tis

the

mec

han

ism

thro

ug

hw

hic

htr

adit

ion

alro

les

ofth

ecu

stom

eran

dth

efi

rmar

ead

just

ed.

As

are

sult

ofth

isch

ang

e,ad

dit

ion

alcu

stom

erre

sou

rces

are

pro

vid

edfo

rth

efi

rm’s

reso

urc

ein

teg

rati

onp

roce

ssF

irm

Th

efi

rmb

enefi

tsfr

omg

etti

ng

cust

omer

insi

gh

tth

atca

nb

eu

sed

init

sn

ewp

rod

uct

dev

elop

men

tp

roce

sses

.T

his

con

trib

ute

sto

the

firm

hav

ing

mor

ecu

stom

er-o

rien

ted

offe

rin

gs

Thre

adle

ss.c

omC

ust

omer

Cu

stom

ers

are

able

tog

etso

cial

reco

gn

itio

nfo

rth

eir

des

ign

s.T

he

bes

tsk

etch

esar

eal

sore

war

ded

wit

hm

oder

ate

mon

etar

yco

mp

ensa

tion

Cu

stom

erre

sou

rces

(cu

stom

ercr

eati

vit

yan

din

sig

ht)

are

eng

aged

inth

efi

rm’s

own

val

ue-

crea

tin

gp

roce

sses

.C

ust

omer

sh

ave

the

tool

s(s

oftw

are

and

har

dw

are)

and

the

kn

owle

dg

eto

sub

mit

sket

ches

toth

ew

ebsi

te

Co-

des

ign

and

vot

ing

are

the

mec

han

ism

sth

rou

gh

wh

ich

trad

itio

nal

role

sof

the

cust

omer

and

the

firm

are

adju

sted

.A

sa

resu

ltof

this

chan

ge,

add

itio

nal

cust

omer

reso

urc

esar

ep

rov

ided

toth

efi

rm’s

reso

urc

ein

teg

rati

onp

roce

ssF

irm

Th

efi

rmis

able

tog

etin

nov

ativ

ed

esig

ns

and

fres

hid

eas

for

T-s

hir

ts.

Mor

eov

er,

ascu

stom

ers

vot

efo

rth

eb

est

idea

s,th

efi

rmis

bet

ter

able

tofo

reca

stfu

ture

dem

and

Nutr

itio

nco

de

Cu

stom

erN

utr

itio

nal

adv

ice

isg

iven

tocu

stom

ers

tou

sein

thei

rq

ues

tfo

ra

new

hea

lth

y-e

atin

gb

ased

life

sty

le.

As

are

sult

,cu

stom

ers’

val

ue

crea

tion

dev

elop

sin

toso

met

hin

gm

ore

uti

lita

rian

orh

edon

ic

Cu

stom

ers

are

pro

vid

edw

ith

add

itio

nal

firm

reso

urc

es.

Th

efi

rmco

mb

ines

poi

nt-

of-s

ale

dat

aw

ith

the

nu

trit

ive

sub

stan

cean

dof

fers

that

info

rmat

ion

tocu

stom

ers,

i.e.

firm

reso

urc

es(r

efin

edcu

stom

erd

ata)

are

eng

aged

inth

ecu

stom

er’s

own

val

ue-

crea

tin

gp

roce

sses

Refi

nin

gan

dth

enre

turn

ing

cust

omer

dat

ato

cust

omer

sis

the

mec

han

ism

use

dto

mod

ify

the

trad

itio

nal

role

sof

the

cust

omer

and

the

firm

.As

are

sult

ofth

isch

ang

e,ad

dit

ion

alfi

rmre

sou

rces

are

pro

vid

edto

the

cust

omer

’sre

sou

rce

inte

gra

tion

pro

cess

Fir

mC

ust

omer

sar

em

ore

wil

lin

gto

tie

inth

eir

futu

reg

roce

rysp

end

wit

hth

efi

rmin

ord

erto

get

am

ore

det

aile

dp

ictu

reof

thei

rov

eral

ld

ieta

ryh

ealt

h.

Th

efi

rm’s

val

ue

crea

tion

issu

pp

orte

dth

rou

gh

incr

ease

sin

cust

omer

loy

alty

Table II.Analysing thepossibilities of valueco-creation

EBR25,1

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

information about the nutritional value of their groceries. The service is based on theidea of combining point-of-sale data with the nutritional values of the groceries.Customer data is refined and then returned to the customers. As a result, customers areable to monitor how nutritious their groceries are and get advice on how to eat morehealthily. From the value co-creation perspective, in accordance with the other valueco-creation examples, there is a change in the traditional role of the retailer (as aprovider of goods) and the customer (as a provider of money). Instead of merely sellinggroceries, the firm provides customers with information about the nutritional value ofthose groceries.

Discussion and conclusionsThe purpose of this paper was first, to identify the sources of the differing approaches tovalue co-creation and reduce the complexity surrounding the concept. Second, abusiness-oriented analytical framework was developed to assess the opportunities ofvalue co-creation. To achieve this, the extensive theoretical discussion around valueco-creation was briefly reviewed to explore and illuminate the nuances and multifacetednature of the concept. Existing research provided a basis for the introduction of threeelements to address the conceptual complexity and to develop the analytical framework.This paper hopes to advance shared understanding of the conceptual differencesbetween the different approaches to value co-creation. Only through an in-depthunderstanding of the different approaches employed in the discussion, can researchersengage in a collective effort to develop the concept further. In this joint effort, thedifferences should be regarded as complementary rather than contradictory.

Technological advances and managers adopting a service orientation are leadingto fundamental changes in the roles of both customers and firms. The proposedframework helps to address these changes by capturing the central issues and aspectsrelated to value co-creation. Instead of uncritically accepting the all-encompassingcharacteristics of value co-creation, firms should carefully assess its opportunities.In this assessment, the proposed framework and the guiding questions will help firmsunderstand the central characteristics of the phenomenon and consider whether theircustomers possess resources that could be engaged – through a mechanism – in thefirm’s diverse range of value-creating processes. These include, for example, designand development of new products, production, logistics, and demand forecasting.Similarly, in their quest to better support customer’s value creation, firms couldintroduce such value co-creation mechanisms through which additional firmresources can be engaged in a customer’s value-creating processes. It follows thatconsidering the opportunities of value co-creation is fundamentally about identifyingnew ways to support either the customer’s or the firm’s value-creating processes.These can take place through customer value co-creation mechanisms (such asrefining and then returning customer data to customers) or firm value co-creationmechanisms (such as co-production, co-development, and co-design). The perspectiveon value creation is extended as both firms and customers are inventing new andinnovative ways to support each other’s value-creating processes. These mechanismsshift the focus beyond the traditional exchange. Value co-creation as a businessconcept strives to capture this critically important and topical evolution where theboundaries between firms and customers become more blurred owing to thecontinuous redefinition of their roles.

Value co-creation

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

To that end, technology provides marketers with tools to offer customers additionalresources to deploy for value creation. Customers, on the other hand accept a firm’sinvitation to support that firm’s value creation, through, for example, engaging in jointactivities such as crowdsourcing. These fundamental changes in resource integrationprocesses challenge the traditional roles of customers and firms (Humphreys andGrayson, 2008; Tapscott and Williams, 2006) and pressurize management to revitalizeexisting business logics and managerial mind-sets. Customers are increasingly seen asa critically important operant resource for firms – not only as the ultimate determinantof customer value – but as a source of creative, knowledgeable, and motivatedresources that can be harnessed to work with the firm in co-creation. However,customer input cannot be taken for granted or go unrewarded – engaging them in thefirm’s activities must be done in a way that is enticing and beneficial for both parties.

References

Antikainen, M. (2011), Facilitating Customer Involvement in Collaborative Online InnovationCommunities, VTT Publications 760, Edita Prima Oy, Helsinki.

Arndt, J. (1985), “On making marketing science more scientific: role of orientations, paradigms,metaphors, and puzzle solving”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 11-23.

Auh, S., Bell, S.J., McLeod, C.S. and Shih, E. (2007), “Co-production and customer loyalty infinancial services”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 359-70.

Babin, B.J., Darden, Q.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic andutilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-56.

Baron, S. and Harris, K. (2008), “Consumers as resource integrators”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 113-30.

Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P. (2003), “Psychological implications of customer participationin co-production”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 14-28.

Birkner, C. (2011), “Finding inspiration in awesomeness”, Marketing News, Vol. 45 No. 3,pp. 10-12.

Di Gangi, P.M. and Wasko, M. (2009), “Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of userinnovations from a user innovation community: a case study of Dell IdeaStorm”, DecisionSupport System, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 303-12.

Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T. (2011), “Expanding understanding of serviceexchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 327-39.

Firat, A.F. and Venkatesh, A. (1993), “Postmodernity: the age of marketing”, InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 227-49.

Firat, A.F. and Venkatesh, A. (1995), “Liberator postmodernism and the reenchantment ofconsumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 239-67.

Firat, A.F., Dholakia, N. and Venkatesh, A. (1995), “Marketing in a postmodern world”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 40-56.

Frow, P., Payne, A. and Storbacka, K. (2010), “Co-creation: a framework for collaborativeengagement”, paper presented at the 18th International Colloquium in RelationshipMarketing, Reading, MA, 27-30 September.

Gronroos, C. (2006a), “Adopting a service logic for marketing”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 317-33.

EBR25,1

16

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Gronroos, C. (2006b), “On defining marketing: finding a new roadmap for marketing”, MarketingTheory, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 395-417.

Gronroos, C. (2007), In Search of a New Logic for Marketing: Foundations of ContemporaryTheory, Wiley, Chichester.

Gronroos, C. (2008a), “Adopting a service business logic in relational business-to-businessmarketing: value creation, interaction and joint value co-creation”, paper presentedat the Otago Forum 2, Dunedin, 9-12 December, available at: www.business.otago.ac.nz/Marketing/Events/OtagoForum/Final%20forum%20papers/Otago%20Forum%20Paper%2015_Gronroos.pdf (accessed 15 May 2011).

Gronroos, C. (2008b), “Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates?”,European Business Review, Vol. 4, pp. 298-314.

Gronroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis”, Marketing Theory,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 279-301.

Gronroos, C. and Helle, P. (2010), “Adopting a service logic in manufacturing: conceptualfoundation and metrics for mutual value creation”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 21No. 5, pp. 564-90.

Gronroos, C. and Ravald, A. (2011), “Service as a business logic: implications for value creationand marketing”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-22.

Gummesson, E. (2007), “Exit services marketing – enter service marketing”, Journal of CustomerBehaviour, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 113-41.

Gummesson, E. (2008a), “Customer centricity: reality or a wild goose chase?”, European BusinessReview, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 315-30.

Gummesson, E. (2008b), “Quality, service-dominant logic and many-to-many marketing”,The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 143-53.

Gupta, S. and Lehman, D.R. (2005), Managing Customers as Investments, in Gronroos, C. andRavald, A. (2011), “Service as a business logic: implications for value creation andmarketing”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-22.

Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K.-J., Edvardsson, B., Sundstrom, E. and Andersson, P.(2010), “A customer-dominant logic of service”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 21No. 4, pp. 531-48.

Hienerth, C., Keinz, P. and Lettl, C. (2011), “Exploring the nature and implementation processof user-centric business models”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 44 Nos 5/6, pp. 344-74.

Holbrook, M.B. (1999), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge,New York, NY.

Humphreys, A. and Grayson, K. (2008), “The intersecting roles of consumer and producer:a critical perspective on co-production, co-creation and presumption”, Sociology Compass,Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 963-80.

Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. and Johansson, N. (2008), “Key strategies for the successfulinvolvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 474-91.

Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006a), “Service-dominant logic as a foundation for a generaltheory”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing:Dialog, Debate and Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 406-20.

Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006b), “Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections andrefinements”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-8.

Maglio, P.P. and Spohrer, J. (2008), “Fundamentals of service science”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 18-20.

Value co-creation

17

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Magnusson, P.R., Matthing, J. and Kristensson, P. (2003), “Managing user involvement in serviceinnovation: experiments with innovating end users”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6No. 2, pp. 111-24.

Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R. and Dellarocas, C. (2010), “The collective intelligence genome”, MITSloan Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 21-31.

Matthing, J., Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A. and Parasuraman, A. (2006), “Developing successfultechnology-based services: the issues of identifying and involving innovative users”,Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 288-97.

Miller, R. and Lammas, N. (2010), “Social media and its implications for viral marketing”,Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 1-9.

Nambisan, S. and Nambisan, S. (2008), “How to profit from a better ‘virtual customerenvironment’”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 53-61.

Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. (1993), “From value chain to value constellation: designinginteractive strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 65-77.

O’Hern, M. and Rindfleisch, A. (2010), “Customer co-creation: a typology and research agenda”,Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, pp. 84-106.

Porter, M.E. (1985), The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance,The Free Press, New York, NY.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000), “Co-opting customer competence”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 79-87.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004a), “Co-creating unique value with customers”, Strategy& Leadership, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 4-9.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004b), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in valuecreation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.

Rintamaki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H. and Spence, M.T. (2006), “Decomposing the value ofdepartment store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions: evidencefrom Finland”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 6-24.

Ritzer, G. and Jurgenson, N. (2010), “Production, consumption, presumption”, Journal ofConsumer Culture, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 13-36.

Sheth, J.N. and Uslay, C. (2007), “Implications of the revised definition of marketing: fromexchange to value creation”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 302-7.

Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory ofconsumption values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-70.

Spohrer, J., Anderson, L., Pass, N. and Ager, T. (2008), “Service science and service-dominantlogic”, paper presented at the Otago 2 Forum, Dunedin, 9-12 December, available at: www.business.otago.ac.nz/Marketing/Events/OtagoForum/Final%20forum%20papers/Otago%20Forum%20Paper%202_Spohrer.pdf (accessed 13 September 2010).

Strandvik, T., Holmlund, M. and Edvardsson, B. (2012), “Customer needing: a challenge for theseller offering”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 132-41.

Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. (2006), Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration ChangesEverything, Portfolio, New York, NY.

Vargo, S.L. (2007), “Paradigms, pluralisms, and peripheries: on the assessment of the S-D logic”,Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 105-8.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

EBR25,1

18

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2006), “Service-dominant logic: what it is, what is not, what itmight be”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing:Dialog, Debate and Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 43-56.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008a), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 1-10.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008b), “Why service?”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 25-38.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2011), “Service-dominant logic: a necessary step”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 7/8, pp. 1298-309.

Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008), “On value and value co-creation: a servicesystems and service logic perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 145-52.

About the authorsHannu Saarijarvi is a Program Manager at the University of Tampere, Research and EducationCentre Synergos. His research interests lie in value co-creation, service marketing andcustomer relationship management. He has published in Industrial Marketing Managementand in his doctoral dissertation he focuses on reverse use of customer data. Hannu Saarijarvi isthe corresponding author and can be contacted at: hannu.saarijarvi@uta.fi

P.K. Kannan is Professor of Marketing at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at theUniversity of Maryland. He has published a vast number of research papers in top tier journals,such as Marketing Science, Management Science and Journal of Marketing Research. His currentresearch focuses on new product/service development, design and pricing digital products andproduct lines, marketing and product development on the internet, e-service, and customerrelationship management and customer loyalty.

Hannu Kuusela is a Professor of Marketing at the University of Tampere. His researchinterests lie in consumer behaviour and marketing strategy. In addition to textbooks andchapters for books (focusing on marketing of services, customer value, and risk management), hehas published articles in the American Journal of Psychology, European Journal of Marketing,Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management and Journal of Financial Services Marketing.

Value co-creation

19

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Evert Gummesson, Cristina Mele, Francesco Polese, Marco Galvagno, Daniele Dalli. 2014. Theory ofvalue co-creation: a systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 24:6,643-683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Estelle de Beer. 2014. Creating value through communication. Public Relations Review 40, 136-143.[CrossRef]

3. Pekka Puustinen, Hannu Saarijärvi, Peter Maas. 2014. What is being exchanged? Framing the logic ofvalue creation in financial services. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 19, 43-51. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

Sant

a B

arba

ra A

t 13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)