2018 Embrace - Before - It - Is - Too - Late - Prediction - of - Future

Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 14, No.
1, 2018 121
Embrace, before it is too late! Prediction of future

studies on value co-creation
Kumkum Bharti*
Indian Institute of Management Kashipur,
Bazpur Road, Kashipur,
Uttarakhand, 244713, India
Email: kumkumbharti.iitr@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Rajat Agrawal and Vinay Sharma

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Uttarakhand, 247667, India
Email: rajatfdm@iitr.ac.in
Email: vinayfdm@iitr.ac.in
Abstract: Over the last decade, value co-creation emerged as a strategy for
attaining sustained competitive advantage. Literature of marketing highlight
that owing to a growing academic and practitioner’s interest in the concept of
value co-creation, there is a need to do a comprehensive assessment and
synthesis of future direction for research. This article assesses this need and
forecast the trends of the academic literature of value co-creation. Mixed
method approach was used to construe the findings. In the first phase, selected
literature of value co-creation was reviewed to find the prospective studies on
value co-creation suggested by the scholars past one decade. In the next phase,
seven themes for future studies on value co-creation are proposed as an
outcome of the research.
Keywords: value co-creation; Delphi technique; future research directions;

literature review; marketing; mixed method research.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bharti, K., Agrawal, R. and
Sharma, V. (2018) ‘Embrace, before it is too late! Prediction of future studies
on value co-creation’, Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.121–151.
Biographical notes: Kumkum Bharti is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at

the Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, Uttarakhand and has a BBA
(Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan), MBA (National Institute of Technology
Surathkal, Karnataka) and PhD (Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Uttarakhand). Her research interests include bottom of the pyramid (BOP)
market, value co-creation, and S-D logic. She has published her work in
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, International Journal of Market Research,
International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, International
Journal on Spirituality and Organizational Leadership, etc. She received
scholarship from the University Grant Commission (UGC) for her PhD.
Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

122 K. Bharti et al.
Rajat Agrawal is a Visiting Fellow of Copenhagen Business School,

Copenhagen, Denmark. He is working as a member of faculty at the
Department of Management Studies, IIT Roorkee. He has a teaching
experience of 15 years aside from his two years industry experience. He has
published more than 75 papers in different proceedings and refereed journals.
He has published his work in Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Journal of
Promotion Management, Global Journal of Emerging Marketing Economics,
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, International Journal of
Law and Management, Global Business Review, Journal of Policy Modelling,
Safety Science, International Journal of Management in Education,
International Journal of Automation and Logistics, Journal of Supply Chain
Management etc.
Vinay Sharma is presently working as a member of the faculty of the

Department of Management Studies at Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee, Uttarakhand (India). He has a considerable experience of working
with various organisations in the fields of media, information technology and
social development along with having worked with the largest read newspaper
of India. He has around 20 years of experience, in the areas of strategic
management, business opportunity development, co-creation of value, market
prosperity through capability development and spirituality of marketers,
marketing, rural marketing, business opportunity development, brand
development, IT-enabled services and has been teaching for the past 12 years.
1 Introduction
The marketing literature witnessed a paradigm shift from goods-dominant (G-D) logic of
marketing to service-dominant (S-D) logic in 2004 when the article of Vargo and Lusch
entitled ‘Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing’ published in Journal of
Marketing won the best paper award. The S-D logic concept is built on the premise of
value-in-use, against G-D logic of value-in exchange. The value co-creation is an integral
part of the S-D logic proposed by Vargo and Lusch (2004) where it is defined as, “a
process through which value is co-created through the combined efforts of suppliers,
employees, customers, stockholders, government agencies, and other entities related to
any given exchange, but always determined by the beneficiary (e.g. customer)”. The
significance of value co-creation is foreseen because of its wide acceptance as a business
strategy to earn the customer loyalty, market share in the exchange of customer
experiences, and development of the right offerings. Researchers posit that value
co-creation in the service organisations open avenues for innovation and integration
(Rihova et al., 2013). In addition, the significance of service innovation is long
established in the literature where customer co-creation, collaborative efforts, information
sharing, and process sharing suggested as four drivers (Voorberg et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, organisations can improve and differentiate their offerings by incorporating
the broad range of resources that customer and other stakeholders are willing to invest
through co-developing or augmenting behaviour (Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014). In a
larger context, organisations should aim for co-creation of value between societal and
corporate interests for the promotion of corporate responsibility (Rotter et al., 2012).
Embrace, before it is too late 123
Organisations such as Philips, GE, Godrej, ITC, IBM, etc., to name a few but not limited
to, imbibed value co-creation in the culture and work practices. Despite the recognition of
value co-creation by practitioners as a strategy for competitive advantage; limited
academicians have investigated this concept over the last one decade (Zwass, 2010;
Kristensson et al., 2008). The limited studies conducted over the last one decade were
moreover, fragmented (Matthing et al., 2004). Paradoxically, the novice nature of the
value co-creation still attracted academicians from various streams of disciplines
resulting in publications ranging from IT, service marketing, interactive marketing,
relationship management, electronic commerce, virtual interaction, cultural studies,
tourism, and games such as football, high street fashion, newspaper industry, museum
studies, music creation, mobile social media, child content creation, and so on. Such
diverse studies brought with it a plethora of confusion about the direction of the value co-
creation literature in the future years. The S-D logic potency over G-D logic blended with
confusion among various terminology such as value creation, co-creation, and co-creation
of value, among others, further instigated researcher(s) to carry out a study that can
contribute in the literature and build an understanding for the academicians and
practitioners about the future researches on value co-creation. Thus, a need for a
comprehensive assessment and synthesis of the future research on value co-creation is
foreseen. This research assesses this need and forecast the trends of the academic
literature of value co-creation.
This article is divided into five parts. Part one, as explained above explains the
rationale of performing this research. In part two, literature review was undertaken to find
out where published literature on value co-creation suggests certain direction for future
research areas where it can be expanded. In Section 3, methodology of the proposed
research is explained. The findings and analysis constitutes part four of the study. The
article is concluded with discussions, implications for academia and industry, limitations,
and future scope.
2 Literature review: value co-creation
Value co-creation is one of the outcomes of the S-D logic paradigm of marketing and
gained attention since it was first introduced in 2004. The wide application of the concept
in the industry and growing interest of academia witnessed a sharp escalation over the
last one decade. Therefore, it is pertinent to investigate which would be the future areas
of research in value co-creation. Seven data sources including EBSCO, Scopus, Emerald,
T&F, Springer-Verlag, JSTOR, and Science Direct were referred to find out the studies
published during 2004 to 2014. The author used ‘value co-creation’ as a keyword to
select the research papers from the various data sources. The cumulative results from the
seven search directories gave 188 full text articles. Abstracts from all articles were read
to determine their relevance. Only 101 articles were found relevant and studied in detail.
Most of the excluded articles discussed value co-creation in different contexts, like
country, modelling etc., and were not found suitable for review purposes. The literature
was reviewed on the basis of country wise publications (Table 1), journal-wise
publications (Table 2), proposed future areas for undertaking value co-creation studies
(Table 3) and prospective studies on value co-creation (Table 5).
Table 1 Country-wise publication of value co-creation articles
S. no. Country Region-wise classification No. of publications

1 Argentina Buenos Aires 01
2 Austin Dallas 01
3 Australia Callaghan, Victoria, Sydney 03
4 Brazil Sao Polo 01
5 Canada Quebec, Montreal 02
6 China Beijing 01
7. Finland Helsinki (6), Tempere, Oulu, Turku 09
8 France Marseille Cedex, Montpellier 02
9 Germany Munster,Leipzig, Hamburg, Oestrich-Winkel 04
10 Indonesia - 01
11 Ireland Galway 01
12 Italy Milan, Evanston, Florence 03
13 Japan Nomi 03
14 Malaysia Selangor 01
15 Mexico Tlalpan (2) 02
16 New York Troy 01
17 New Zealand Dunedin (2), Auckland, Grafton 04
18 Norway Helsingborg, Haugesund 02
19 Portugal Covilha 01
20 Romania PiataRomana 01
21 Spain Barcelona, Sevilla, Naranjos 03
22 Sweden Helsingborg, Stockholm (2), Lund, Karlstad 10
(5), Umea
23 Switzerland Dudendorf, St.Gallen, Zurich (2) 04
24 Taiwan Taipei (3) 03
25 UK London(4),Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, 12
West Midlands, North East Somerset,
Canterbury, Exeter, Leeds, Leicester,
Cambridge
26 USA Hawaii (2), California, Washington DC, 25
Tempe, San Jose (2), Honolulu (2), Tucson (2),
Muncie, Ohio (2), Chapel Hill, Fayetteville,
Maryland, Phoenix, Columbus, Chicago,
Tuscaloosa, Waco, Knoxville
Total 101
Table 1 shows that developed countries such as USA, UK, Finland and Sweden
dominated the literature of value co-creation with highest number of publications i.e.
twenty five, twelve, ten and nine respectively. Countries such as Switzerland,
New Zealand, and Germany recorded four publications each in the same time period
followed by Taiwan, Spain, Japan, Italy and Australia with three publications each. One
publication is recorded in the literature from Canada, Mexico, Romania, Portugal,

New York, Ireland, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Argentina, and Brazil. These findings
show that there is a large scope to conduct studies on value co-creation in the developing
countries.
Table 2 Journal-wise classification of research articles
S. no. Journal name No. of publication(s)

1 Australasian Marketing Journal 01
2 Benchmarking: An International Journal 01
3 Cultural Trends 01
4 Current Issues in Tourism 01
5 Electron Markets 02
6 European Advances in Consumer Research 01
7 European Management Journal 01
8 Industrial Marketing Management 02
9 Information System and e- Business Management 05
10 Information Systems Frontiers 03
11 International Journal of Business Administration 01
12 International Journal of Business and Management 01
13 International Journal of Electronic Commerce 01
14 International Journal of Marketing 01
15 International Journal of Production Economics 01
16 International Journal of Production Research 01
17 International Journal of Service Industry Management 01
18 Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 10
19 Journal of Business Ethics 01
20 Journal of Business Marketing Management 04
21 Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 01
22 Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 01
23 Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 01
24 Journal of Interactive Marketing 02
25 Journal of International Entrepreneurship Management 01
26 Journal of Management Information Systems 04
27 Journal of Marketing Management 15
28 Journal of Non-profit & Public Sector Marketing 01
29 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 01
30 Journal of Relationship Marketing 01
31 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 01
32 Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 01
33 Journal of Service Management 04
Table 2 Journal-wise classification of research articles (continued)
S. no. Journal name No. of publication(s)

34 Journal of Service Science Research 01
35 Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 01
36 Journal of Strategic Marketing 02
37 Managing Service Quality 02
38 Marketing Theory 03
39 Production Planning & Control: The Management of 04
Operations
40 Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation 01
41 Public Management Review 01
42 Quality Management in Services 01
43 Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 01
44 Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics 01
45 The Marketing Review 01
46 The Service Industries Journal 06
47 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 01
Total 101
As presented in Table 2, majority of the research papers were published in the Service
Industries Journal (theory building), Production Planning & Control: The Management
of Operations (case studies), Journal of Service Management (focus on service
literature/theory and its applications), Journal of Marketing Management (marketing
theory and practice), Journal of Management Information Systems (conceptual/theory
building), Journal of Business Marketing Management (S-D logic and its development),
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science (theoretical building and conceptual
advancement) and Information System and eBusiness Management (empirical studies).
The selected journals publish conceptual and theory building researchers and not
empirical studies. This is true as the concept of value co-creation is still at an evolving
phase and need to be first developed conceptually.
In the next step, various themes for future research on value co-creation were
identified. After extensive reading of the selected 101 articles seven themes were
identified namely, theory building and expansion, resources, relationships, actors,
interaction, organisation, value and values. The details of the reviewed articles are
presented in Table 3. Findings suggested seven themes and increased curiosity and
interest to delve further and find areas for prospective research on value co-creation in
future. Interestingly, 64 out of 101 research articles advanced the thought for undertaking
value co-creation as a potential area and which are the areas that needed to be studied.
Here, ‘Delphi’ technique was used to ask the experts what are the areas where literature
of value co-creation can be expanded in future. This is discussed in the next part of the
manuscript.
Theory building and Value and
S. no Author(s) Year Resources Relationship Actors Interaction Organisation
expansion values
1 Abela and Murphy 2008 √ √ √
Table 3
2 Alter 2010 √ √ √ √ √
3 Andreu, Sanchez and Mele 2010 √
4 Baron and Warnaby 2011 √ √
5 Binkhorst and Dekker 2009 √ √ √
6 Blocker et al. 2011 √ √ √
7 Brocke et al. 2011 √ √
8 Butler and D’souza 2011 √ √
9 Campell et al. 2011 √ √
10 Chen et al. 2012 √
11 Crowther and Donlan 2011 √
12 Dabholkar and Sheng 2011 √
13 Dobrzykowski et al. 2012 √ √
Embrace, before it is too late
14 Echeverri and Skalen 2011 √ √

15 Edvardsson and Enquist 2011 √ √ √
16 Edvardsson et al. 2011 √ √
17 Edvardsson et al. 2011 √ √ √ √
18 Edvardsson et al. 2011 √ √
19 Enz and Lambert 2012 √
20 Ferguson et al. 2010 √ √
21 Gallan et al. 2013 √ √
22 Gegauer et al. 2010 √ √
23 Grönroos and Ravald 2011 √ √ √ √
24 Grönroos 2011 √
25 Grönroos 2012 √ √
Overview of proposed future research areas on value co-creation
26 Gummesson and Mele 2010 √

27 Harris and Daunt 2010 √ √
28 Helkkula et al. 2012 √ √
29 Hilton and Hughes 2013 √ √ √
30 Hilton 2008 √
31 Hilton et al. 2012 √ √
32 Janeschek et al. 2012 √
33 Jitpaiboon et al. 2013 √
127
Theory building and Value and
S. no Author(s) Year Resources Relationship Actors Interaction Organisation
128
expansion values
34 Kerrigan and Graham 2010 √ √
Table 3
35 Koelling et al. 2009 √
36 Komulainen et al. 2007 √ √ √ √
37 Kowalkowski et al. 2012 √
38 Lambert and Enz 2012 √
39 Lefaix-Durand and Kozak 2010 √
40 Lusch and Spohrer 2012 √ √
K. Bharti et al.
41 Michel et al. 2008 √ √ √ √

42 Nambisan and Baron 2007 √
43 Novani and Kijima 2013 √
44 Paulin and Ferguson 2010 √ √ √ √ √
45 Payne et al. 2008 √ √ √
46 Pihl 2013 √ √ √
47 Romero and Molina 2011 √ √
48 Sawhney et al. 2005 √
49 Schmidt-Rauch and Schwabe 2013 √ √
50 Smith, Maull and Ng 2012 √ √
51 Soltani et al. 2012 √ √ √
52 Spencer and Cova 2012 √
53 Stucky et al. 2011 √
54 Tung et al. 2012 √
55 Vargo and Lusch 2008 √
56 Vargo and Lusch 2010 √
57 Vargo et al. 2008 √ √
58 Walmsley 2013 √ √
59 Webster Jr. and Lusch 2013 √ √ √ √
60 Westergren 2011 √
61 Williams and Aitken 2011 √
62 Xie et al. 2008 √ √
Overview of proposed future research areas on value co-creation (continued)
63 Yi and Gong 2013 √ √

64 Zhang and Chen 2008 √
Total 42 14 11 27 11 12 10
3 Methodology
The mounting complexity and ambiguity in the literature of value co-creation created a
challenge for researchers to craft a mindful picture to demonstrate the future direction of
value co-creation literature. Thus, the objective of this study was, ‘to identify the themes
of future researches on value co-creation’.
Mere taxonomical literature review is neither sufficient nor justifiable to claim the
direction of future research. Therefore, a judgemental sampling technique, ‘Delphi’, was
used to identify the future trends of the value co-creation literature. In this article, this
type of study was undertaken for constructive and systematic use of informed intuitive
judgement (Kaynak et al., 1994) of experts to predict the future direction of value
co-creation literature. Use of Delphi technique is appropriate in this study as it will help
in quantifying variables which are tangible or shrouded in uncertainty (McColl et al.,
1994). Furthermore, Delphi is much accurate than traditional group meetings (Armstrong,
1999) and presents one representative opinion from the experts (Helmer, 1967), hence
used in this study. The steps proposed by Taylor and Judd (1989, p.96) were used in this
study.
3.1 Step 1: problem identification

In this research, the rationale for using Delphi was unavailability of precise information
about the unanimous judgement on the complexity in understanding where the literature
of value co-creation will transverse in future (Skutsch and Hall, 1973), and to arrive at a
consensus regarding future trends and projections of value co-creation studies. This
method is administered by using the systematic process of information gathering
(Yousuf, 2007).
3.2 Step 2: determine expertise required

The experts for consensus formation were selected through purposive sampling. Experts
with an in-depth knowledge in the area of value co-creation, and marketing were chosen.
This includes academicians with a significant contribution in the literature through book
publications, research article publication in journals, and practicing teachers. In addition,
practitioners with a priori experience practicing value co-creation were selected for the
consensus building process.
3.3 Step 3: select panel members based on expertise required

The responses from the experts were collected from October 2014 to April 2015. As
previously mentioned, the panellists were selected from academia and industry. The
panellists’ selection through purposive sampling was based on the characteristics that are
deemed critical to research (Hasson et al., 2000). This includes prior knowledge, practical
or theoretical, about the concept of co-creation of value, irrespective of the context.
Previously, Delphi studies have been carried out ranging from 20 initial respondents
(Masser and Foley, 1987) to 40 initial respondents (Green et al., 1990). For this study,
initially 168 academicians were identified from the vast literature published in the
selected journals from 2004 to 2013. The literature comprises of selected studies from the
seven data sources mentioned in the literature review section. From these published
articles, 84 academicians were selected on the geographical location, i.e. country wise
contribution in the areas of value co-creation (refer to Tables 1 and 2). Thereafter,
countries contributing with the highest number of publications in the literature of value
co-creation were selected. Additionally, an author with minimum one publication and
more than two citations was selected for consensus formation. Each of the eighty four
experts were contacted through e-mail and stating the purpose of study and rational to
carry out this study.
Of the 84 experts from academia, 73 agreed to participate in the study. Whereas,
16 industry experts were contacted of which 12 agreed to participate. However, in a
series of Delphi inquiries of three rounds, 49 academicians and 8 industry experts in the
field of value co-creation actually participated in the entire process of consensus
formation.
3.4 Step 4: distribute questionnaire

After identifying the panel of experts, following procedure is followed:
Each of the panel members was sent an e-mail with a request to participate in the
research and explanation of the study by a moderator. In this study, researcher acted as a
moderator.
In the first round, three open-ended questions were asked from academicians and
industry experts in separate questionnaires, allowing maximum freedom to the
participants in their responses. The questions to the experts were:
a What is the possible trend where the literature of value co-creation may move in
future?
b Did you observe any pattern, trend or inclination in the literature of value
co-creation?
c Is there anything else of relevance that you would like to tell us?
Following the mail, experts were re-contacted after a week to remind them of their
participation in consensus formation. Two weeks later, participants were re-contacted that
generated response from 57 experts. The high response rate of 78% is attributable to the
use of personalised method of contacting.
3.5 Step 5: analyse questionnaire responses

A listing of future areas of research in value co-creation was carried out through
consensus formation from different experts. While applying Delphi technique in this
study, we considered consensus when 75% responses were similar. However, the
literature suggests the range of 55% to 100% similarity for consensus (Powell, 2003).
The responses from the round one identified 16 broad areas that may direct value
co-creation in future.
3.6 Step 6: has a consensus been reached, if no

Three or four iterations between participants and the panel are usually adequate to reach
consensus on important points (Robertson et al., 2000). It is seen to be a fair method for
identifying areas of consensus. The individuals are free to modify views previously
expressed without embarrassment (ibid.).
3.7 Step 7: provide requested information and tabulated responses

A tabulation and classification of the 16 identified factors were made from the results
identified from round one.
Table 4 Results from round one
S. no. Themes
1 Theory development.
2 Organisation’s willingness to perform co-creation of value.
3 How, with whom interaction shall be done?
4 Role of relationship in creation of value? New relationships are developed or it
strengthens existing relationships.
5 Who are the participants of value co-creation?
6 What should be the process of value co-creation? It can’t be similar for all then is line of
commonality and demarcation in the process of value co-creation in its applicability
7 Where value co-creation shall be performed? Physical environment of value
co-creation?
8 Are there any intellectual property right issues in value co-creation? Should participants
be paid in cash or kind, after all they are partial employees and helping organisations on
a continuous basis?
9 Does organisations value system influence the decision to perform value co-creation in
BOP market or in other complex markets or services?
10 How value co-creation is performed i.e. process of value co-creation?
11 Impact of value co-creation on firm’s financial performance?
12 Who to benchmark for value co-creation in a respective industry? Successful examples
of value co-creation, cases.
13 Which servicescape is best for value co-creation to take place?
14 What could be most influential methodologies to study value co-creation?
15 What could be various ways to integrate resources?
16 What are the possible outcomes of value co-creation on stakeholders, firms and
consumers?
3.8 Step 8: prepare the second round questionnaire

In the second round, a copy of the summary results including classified factors was sent
to all the experts. This provided an opportunity to change or alter their responses
considering assumptions of other experts. Sixteen factors, identified from round one were
further reduced to seven. With the consensus of the experts, seven categories were
classified as the potential areas of research and two factors could not find a place in either
category.
3.9 Step 9: recalculate first round responses based on new information and
disseminate results
Finally, a third mail was sent to the experts with the summary lists prepared on the basis
of the second round. The experts were asked to revise their results again in the light of the
outcome of the second round. In addition, they were requested to rank each of the
tabulated seven categories (refer to Table 5) in the order of their importance.
Table 5 Authors consensus view (after three iterations) on the future researches on value
co-creation and rankings
Category Items ranked in order from most important to least important

Theory building and expansion 1
Resources 2
Relationship 3
Actors 4
Interaction 5
Organisation 6
Value and values 7
4 Results and analysis
Seven categories were obtained as a result of the ‘Delphi technique’ of consensus

formation. On the basis of the panel consensus, theory building on value co-creation,
resources, relationship, actor(s), interactions, organisation, value and values were
identified as the potential areas for future researchers in the value co-creation. Moreover,
during the third round of consensus building, experts were questioned for the meaning of
the concepts identified as the potential research areas in value co-creation. The meaning
of concepts as proposed by experts is found similar to few author’s view such as meaning
of interaction as defined by experts is similar to Grönroos definition of interaction. Thus,
in this article, interaction is defined as, “a mutual or reciprocal action where two or more
parties have an effect upon one another. The parties involved are in some contact with
each other. Interactions are situations where the interacting parties are involved in each
other’s practices, and have opportunities to influence each other” (Grönroos, 2012).
Whereas, according to Ford (2011) interaction is defined as a “process over time that
involves relationship specific investments by either or both counterparts”.
Whereas, meaning of relationship defined by experts is found similar to the
definitions given by Scott and Carrington (2011), Granovetter (1983) and Vargo (2009).
From the sociological perspective relationship is defined as, “a bond between two or
more social actors” (Scott and Carrington, 2011). These bonds may exist as either weak
or strong bonds. Granovetter (1983) suggests that the strength of a bond is a function of
time spent, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services rendered. Whereas,
Vargo (2009) defines relationship as, “a complex, collaborative, unfolding and reciprocal
when viewed as elements embedded within value co-creation processes”.
The third concept ‘value’ raised a debate among the experts and found its meaning in
the work of Ravald (2008), Williams and Aitken (2011), Rokeach (1973, p.5),
Hofstede (1985) and Holbrook (1999). Experts opine that value is determined by the
values (terminal or instrumental values) (William and Aitken, 2011), therefore, personal
preference of one object over another is driven by the values and not value per se. In
other words, it can be said that “value depends upon the role an object can play in an
individual’s life” (Ravald, 2008) and an individual preference of an object is due to “an
end state of existence which is personally and socially preferable to an alternative modes
of conduct or end state of existence” [Rokeach, (1973), p.5]. Thus, the decision to choose
or prefer a value is driven by the values held by an individual. Therefore, we posit value
is a derivate of values.
The meaning of organisation is inferred as, “a coherent system of beliefs, rules, goals,
narratives, norms, and organisations that characterise a collective pattern of behaviour”
(Greif, 2006).
The fifth concept ‘resource’ has congruency with Hunt and Morgan (2004)
classification of resources into operant and operand resources. But, in this article we have
considered Madhavaram and Hunt (2008) classification of resources. Here, operant
resources as, defined as “typically human (skills and knowledge of employees),
organisational (controls, culture, competences), informational (knowledge of market
segments, competitors, and technology), and relational (relationships with competitors,
suppliers, and customers) while operand resources are defined as ‘characteristic of G-D
logic and are static, tangible, depletable, and primarily physical’”.
‘Actor’ is another concept that gained importance in the entire process of consensus
building. According to Vargo and Lusch (2008), entities involved in the value co-creation
are called as ‘actors’ and these actors-social and economic, are resource integrators. But,
out of all the given set of actors ranging from customer, supplier, retailer, government,
marketers and firm we elaborate here, only in context of customer, because customer is
the co-creator of value and discussing the role of other actors is out of the scope of this
article. ‘People’ and ‘entities’ are other words used to represent ‘actors’ by participants.
According to Gebauer et al., (2010), consumer is defined as an entity that “engages in the
act of consumption (as distinct from buying) to realise a set of benefits, using a seller’s
offering to satisfy some need or to get some particular job done. A consumer focus is thus
a focus on value in use. An offering must promise or propose utility (usefulness) to
someone to stimulate and justify an exchange; higher value in use should lead to a high
value in exchange (or monetised demand)”. Use of synonym terms is made by the experts
like customers, people, crowd, partners, entities, stakeholders, etc.
Interestingly, it has been identified that strong literature support exists and shows a
congruency between present findings and literature. Figure 1 describes sub-themes under
which studies on value co-creation can be performed.
Theory Building and Conceptual Advancement
134
Theory generation, Theory extension, Concept clarification, Process, Outcomes and Measures of value co-creation Figure 1
Actors Resources Interaction Relationship Organisation Value and values

1
Customers Nature of resources Role of interaction Role of customer related factors in Role, approach and perception of management Value
2 building relationships about value co-creation
Role of various Application of Study interaction with Definition and determination of value
actors operant and operand C2C, B2C, B2B, Distribution of costs and financial Willingness and extent of organisation to adopt from customer and from various
3 B2many, many to gains achieved in a relationship customer engagement in product development stakeholders’ perspective
resources
K. Bharti et al.
many, hybrid social

Customer spaces, hybrid social Study the workable parity between Role of organisational culture in developing Perception of value by different
4behaviour- Understanding the spaces, customer dyadic relationship of individual intercultural interaction customers and in different service
misbehaviour in gap between interaction level and client and industrial client for large contexts
available and service workers. versus small firms as well as firms Role of organisations' character in building
5servicescape, in different industries.
neutralisation demanded resources relationship with the customer Does value gets affected when the mode
Find means to close of interaction changes? For example,
6Network and the interaction gaps Role of service characteristics in Service provider’s collaboration with other from face to face to electronic or hybrid
Understanding
strengthening service system actors in value constellation to benefit customers platform
communities resource integration Study value that relationships
7 emerges from Changes in macro environment on service Research methods to study value
Customer Methods of resource interactions like Customer and service systems
Future studies on value co-creation
systems and actors in S-D logic

involvement integration emotional value relationships across multiple Measurement of delivery of customer
8 (experiences, etc.) interactions value
Investigate various organisations' willing and
Customer Study of employee interest to invest in pilot settings to design co-
resources like Negative interaction in Study service system in context of Measurement of value co-creation and
9participation creation experiences and its measurement.
C2C interaction experiences and relationship value in use
knowledge and building
skills Find an overlap Understanding the service Do functional managers change perceptions
10 when they are provided with financial Measurement of value using conjoint
between consumer and ecosystems nature of relationship analysis and discrete choice
Utilisation of event producer in service measurements of the value co-creation in a
space for interplay system using a value Relationship between marketing relationship?
11 What is the role of relational norms in
of resources network approach decision making and financial
Study the possible outcomes of customer value communicating knowledge and
accounting practices that hinder the understanding about other party's value
Role of ICT development of a long range co-creation in the form of outcome variable and
12 should include gross/net profit expectations?
(social media) for systems perspective
interaction with
children and content Study the interconnectedness Study the role of companies, internal & external Values of customers
creation between relational norms and customers or both in encouraging consumer
process of trust development in misbehaviour, associated factors that an How values of customer be taken into
How resources value co-creation process organisation trigger towards customer account by organisations, and reason
misbehaviour and explore the firm-controllable why people have this value?
enhance value for
How to reconcile the different contextual factors that are linked to
stakeholders?
approaches to relationship assets- misbehaviour in a servicescape. Do values determine how value is
brand equity, customer equity and perceived by various authors in various
reputation? Find antecedents and Investigate factors that enable and inhibit cross- service context and logic behind it?
consequences of each and extent of functional teams to transition through three
overlap. phases of value co-creation cycle i.e., joint How values create stakeholder value
crafting of value propositions, value and contribute to perform in terms of
actualisation and value determination. innovation, sustainable profits and long
term profitability?
5 Discussions and managerial implications
Solely relying on the existing literature of value co-creation and predicting the future
studies could have left some research opportunities unexplored. The adoption of Delphi
helped in mitigating such possibility. The seven themes will immensely helpful for
understanding the research possibilities under this concept. It will also build clarity in the
concept of value co-creation which is still shrouded in complexity and duality. Each of
the seven themes and sub-themes are described in the next section of the article. This will
act as a ready reckoner for the beginners interested in understanding this concept.
Whereas for the practitioners, this will act as a catalyst to divert the resources to improve
the robustness in the adoption of value co-creation processes in the organisation.
5.1 Theory building and conceptual advancement

5.1.1 Theory generation
The creation of middle range theories of value creation like customer engagement and
customer gratitude is suggested by Chen et al. (2012). It is proposed that use of
qualitative case studies with a particular focus on theory building could add value to the
existing understanding of the service quality (Soltani et al., 2012). Additionally, the work
of S-D logic and market-shaping theory could be combined with an empirical focus
on solution marketing (Spencer and Cova, 2012). Conceptualisation of co-creation
by combining practice theory and S-D logic to understand other constellations
resource-integrating actors and contexts of value co-creation, such as supplier networks,
private public partnerships, and user communities is proposed by Kowalkowski et al.
(2012).
5.1.2 Theory extension

Due to dual or network nature of the value co-creation, further studies need to be
performed on conceptualisation, measurement, antecedents and consequences (Paulin and
Ferguson, 2010). An exploration of the value co-creation purpose from a hedonic
consumption and experiential marketing perspective (Walmsley, 2013) can be made.
Interesting study could be performed to understand the socio-ethical context of value
creation (Vargo et al., 2008) and study the impact of value co-creation on traditional
capabilities (Zhang and Chen, 2008). It is important to study the processes and activities
that instigate the process of product development in the S-D logic (Alter, 2010). It is
pertinent to study the complex business models (Loss and Crave, 2011) and relevance of
practices and experiences in the context of value co-creation (Helkkula et al., 2012). An
interesting study in the context of service co-creation could be performed on
unfavourable service experiences and service recoveries where human interaction plays
an important role (Edvardsson et al., 2011b). Does S-D logic approach be adopted for
durable goods and whether value co-creation concept is applicable to the whole
demand-supply chain (Andreu et al., 2010)?
Schmidt-Rauch and Schwabe (2013) propose to investigate the mechanisms of trust
organisational perspective and integration of business model in co-creation. Gallan et al.,
(2013) calls upon a need to study the impact of positivity and participation in various
service contexts. A validation of the dimensional structure of customer value co-creation
behaviour across distinct cultures (Yi and Gong, 2013) can be an interesting study for
marketing theorists.
Study the application of S-D logic and service systems approach in marketing issues
like product designing, searching sales avenues, transactions with customers, establishing
relationships with customers and performing market research (Alter, 2010). Study the
effect of different value propositions on the two service systems and how value is
co-created between the two is a proposed topic of research (Smith et al., 2014).
5.1.3 Concept clarification

Building of an understanding and crystallisation of ‘value creation’ (Chen et al., 2012;
Grönroos and Ravald, 2011) and ‘co-creation of value’ (Grönroos and Ravald, 2011) is a
promising research topic. Grönroos and Ravald (2011) invites future researches on
studying the mechanisms of value facilitation and co-creation of value (Grönroos and
Ravald, 2011). Edvardsson et al. (2011a) recommend expanding the understanding of
service recovery and further research on double service recovery. A revisit of ‘marketing
audit’ concept is proposed by (Webster and Lusch, 2013).
Grönroos and Ravald (2011) suggest to distinguish between value facilitation and
value co-creation, identify the similarity and dissimilarity between value creation, service
life cycle and service productivity (Janeschek et al., 2013), study the difference between
co-creation and co-production (Hilton and Hughes, 2013), and differentiate between
initiator (motive to enter the process) and lead (motivation to actively engage in the
process) (Chen et al., 2012) in the process of value co-creation. Pihl (2013) recommend
to identify the value networks in technology driven markets.
5.1.4 Process of value co-creation

It is impertinent to find the processes involved in value co-creation (Vargo et al., 2008),
processes where value is co-created and how the different characteristics of the actors
influence that process and the net value derived from that process (Komulainen et al.,
2007). An interesting study is anticipated on the various mechanisms of S-D logic,
service logic, value co-creation and the antecedents and inhibitors that characterise
various stages of value co-creation (Gebauer et al., 2010). An in-depth research is
proposed by Grönroos (2012) to study the processes of value creation and co-creation and
how they are related to each other. How to build and optimise mass co-creation
(Zhang and Chen, 2008) is an important topic of research. It is suggested to describe and
analyse co-creation for customer relationship management (CRM), new product
development (NPD), customer support, sales, marketing communication and brand
building, and to devise a process of collaboration (Sawhney et al., 2005). More specific
research, for instance, studying the relevance and role of processes, participants,
information, and technologies through which service systems operate in S-D logic is
proposed by Alter (2010).
5.1.5 Measures of co-creation

Identify the key measures of co-creation and how measures can be organised into systems
to monitor, track and improve performance (Payne et al., 2008). Loss and Crave (2011)
calls upon a need to study the levers and uncertainties associated with co-creation and try
to build a model using organisational, social and technological dimensions. According to

Butler and D’souza (2011) develop and refine various ways to measure the design
elements. Also, social impact measurement and reporting of value co-creation needs to be
done (Abela and Murphy, 2008). How it should be done remains an important study
domain. An attractive research on adoption of social reporting, firm behaviour and
perception of the firm among various stakeholders is proposed by Abela and Murphy
(2008).
5.1.6 Outcome of co-creation

Of all the actors, retailers are the face of the company with whom a customer interacts
with and shares a relationship beyond economic transactions, therefore, it is vital to study
the efforts of retailers and service providers to understand different outcomes of the value
co-creation process (Komulainen et al., 2007). Finding the answers on how to measure
the tangible outcome of value co-creation will be an attractive research topic for the
future researches on value co-creation (Dobrzykowski et al., 2012).
5.2 Resources
The literature of value co-creation conveys that future researches shall be directed
towards a better understanding of resource integration, nature of resources and how
resources will be integrated with each other to perform co-creation (Hilton et al., 2012).
Moreover, empirical studies can be conducted to investigation methods through which
diverse resources can be integrated and managed to resonate within the event space and
to maximise the value creation potential of all organisational events (Crowther and
Donlan, 2011).
Understanding the gap between the cognitive resources available with the customers
and cognitive resources demanded by the features of self-service technology (SST) is a
proposed research topic by Hilton and Hughes (2013). Furthermore, Grönroos (2012)
recommends studying how effectively the accessibility of various resources in service
encounters enhance value for the customer, and for the service provider in a reverse
model, as well as how well interactive communications support value creation for the
service-providing parties. Additionally, future researches can be performed to study how
accessibility of resources and systems, interactive communication between service
employees and customers, and systems, interactive communication between customers
influence the flow of the service process.
Marketing theorists on value co-creation have shown an inclination to study how
customer co-creation applies operant resources to create value and experiences (Michel
et al., 2008) and whether consumers use and integrate various resources for different
needs (Baron and Warnaby, 2011). It is appealing to study resources, like knowledge and
skills of individual employees and the unique type of data requirement that interact to
formulate proactive customer orientation (Blocker et al., 2011). Crowther and Donlan
(2011) suggested finding ways through which diverse resource can be integrated and
managed to resonate within an event space, to maximise the value creation potential of all
organisational events.
According to Baron and Warnaby (2011), it would be interesting to study the resource
integration so as to find out the relationship and relevance of consumption and
production, if any, in context of value co-creation. Additionally, it would be equally
interesting to examine how the event space can be best designed to facilitate the wider,
and virtuous, interplay of the operant resources embodied by all parties and participants
(Crowther and Donlan, 2011).
Indirect but emerging significance of information and communication technology
(ICT) in terms of social media in value co-creations studies is proposed. A research can
begin with the study of social networking dynamics; how social networking begins, who
are the main instigators (Baron and Warnaby, 2011)? What forms of communications are
used (Baron and Warnaby, 2011)? Specifically, the impact of social media on customers,
other operant and operand resources and how companies can adopt and proactively
influence changing social realities can be studied (Edvardsson et al., 2011b). Another
important dimension to study value co-creation from social media context is expressed
in terms of identifying and measuring the impact of social media on children and
content creation in social network and interaction with other users and companies
(Edvardsson et al., 2011b).
5.3 Relationship
As mentioned in Table 1, the role and relevance of a relationship is important and widely
acknowledged by the researchers in the literature of value co-creation. Moreover, there
are several areas where the research on relationship can be extended and new dimensions
can be discovered. According to Hutchinson et al. (2012), increasing the commitment to a
relationship generally involves an increase in time and money invested in the
relationship, which increases the risk. The more resources committed to a relationship
might suggest more attention to details, requirements or specifications of the partnership.
This is helpful in value co-creation. A successful relationship hinges on trust, satisfaction
and commitment, which are intended to be increased by the implementation (Sundharam
et al., 2013).
Two of the proposed topics that could be undertaken for the research are
understanding the service ecosystems nature of relationship (Vargo and Lusch, 2010) and
determining the role of service characteristics in strengthening service system
relationships (Edvardsson et al., 2011a). The research can also be performed to explore
the evolution of customer and service systems relationships across multiple interactions
(Edvardsson et al., 2011a). According to Blocker et al. (2011), an investigation of the
customer related factors fostering success in a relationship in value co-creation context
can be made. An in-depth study can be performed to study the distribution of costs and
financial gains achieved in a relationship during value co-creation (Lambert and Enz,
2012). A workable parity between the dyadic relationship of individual client and
industrial client can be examined for large versus small firms as well as firms in different
industries (Jitpaiboon et al., 2013).
Specific researches can be conducted to study the interconnectedness between
relational norms and process of trust development in value co-creation process
(Paulin and Ferguson, 2010). An exploration of the potential relationships among the
collaborative and IT integration variables can provide attractive research insights in
future (Dobrzykowski et al., 2012). According to Webster and Lusch (2013), a research
can be performed to understand the relationship between marketing decision making and
financial accounting practices that hinder the development of a long range systems
perspective.
It would be interesting to empirically investigate whether service system set apart an

organisation from its competitors and help building a strong foundation for memorable
experiences and hence sustained relationships (Edvardsson et al., 2011a). How to
reconcile the different approaches to relationship assets-brand equity, customer equity,
and reputation is another area of research? It would be interesting to find out what are the
antecedents and consequences of each and extent of overlap (Abela and Murphy, 2008)?
Should ethical or societal behaviour be explicitly incorporated into these measures, to
assist in diagnosing what changes in intangibles value can be attributed to socially
responsible actions (Lemon and Seiders, 2006)?
5.4 Actors
In the co-creation of value the role of consumer is pivotal because according to the
proponents the success of value co-creation depends upon the customer participation,
involvement, integration, and contribution. It signifies that consumer is the heart of value
co-creation. The review of the value co-creation literature exhibit that interest of scholars
is towards study of customers, role of various actors in value co-creation, customer
behaviour, network and communities, customer involvement and customer participation
in co-creation of value.
5.4.1 Customer
A few of the interesting studies can be conducted to find answer for
a How a customer co-produce value (Alter, 2010)?
b How does value co-creation looks like from a customer perspective (Hilton, 2008)?
c How to determine the priorities of the customers from a given service (Campbell
et al., 2011)
d Do customers prefer interacting with technology (Campbell et al., 2011)? Study the
clients/user practices to implement co-creation (Baron and Warnaby, 2011).
e Does personality plays any role in value co-creation and find out the customers with
agreeable and extraverted personality and socially oriented traits (Ferguson et al.,
2010).
f Examine the influence of power relationships on service exchange and value
co-creation, and how various actors perceive the value being created in the service
exchange (Edvardsson et al., 2011b).
g Find out the value co-creation process ‘outputs’ desired by the customers (Hilton,
2008).
h It is imperative to understand and study how the different characteristics of the actors
influence value co-creation process and the net value derived from that process
(Komulainen et al., 2007).
Furthermore, specific researches can be conducted through a large scale survey to
propose a statistically valid analysis of the differences between customers and suppliers’
opinion on customer participation in value co-creation (Lefaix-Durand and Kozak, 2010).
Moreover, future research should consider how factors such as enduring personality traits
(including agreeableness, extraversion, and locus of control) might influence an
individual’s positivity (Gallan et al., 2013). What are the consumer’s perception of the
provider after double service recoveries, employee recovery and role clarity (Edvardsson
et al., 2011c)? More careful definition and identification of the citizen customer is
required (Webster and Lusch, 2013). In future, it is pertinent to study the impact of
customer feedback on the proposed model of how service providers facilitate creation of
value in use (Grönroos, 2012). Studying the proactive customer orientation in context of
value co-creation can be a significant study for the practitioners (Blocker et al., 2011).
Amidst, it would be interesting to find out relevance of practices and experiences, why
people perform practices and what value actors assign (Helkkula et al., 2012).
5.4.2 Role of various actors

Future researches can be performed on
a What is the role of customers in value co-creation process (Grönroos and Ravald,
2011)?
b What role providers and customers play in value facilitation and co-creation of value
(Grönroos and Ravald, 2011)?
c It would be significant to find out the constructs that can link customers’ role,
customer value co-creation, satisfaction and loyalty to understand the antecedents
and consequences of discontinuous innovations (Michel et al., 2008).
d Find out whether user has any role to play as antecedents for buyer-related constructs
(Michel et al., 2008)?
e Does increase in the customer co-production role has an effect on the customer
perception of the value they experience (Hilton and Hughes, 2013)?
f Does increase in the customer co-production role affect the resources that customers
and service organisations contribute to the integration process and how might the
resources required change the customer and service employee roles (Hilton and
Hughes, 2013)?
Since, various actors are involved in value co-creation; therefore, study of the means that
strengthens integration of the non-customer stakeholders in co-creation shall be made
(Abela and Murphy, 2008).Moreover, studying the role of non-supplier partners and
intermediaries in co-creation is a suggested research topic (Payne et al., 2008).
5.4.3 Customer behaviour

A research can be conducted to examine the customer behaviour, for instance, while
travelling, during the service realisation and needs of the customer at the time of service
realisation, before, during and after (Schmidt-Rauch and Schwabe, 2013). It would be
interesting to investigate the long term and dynamic effects of customer behaviour on
customer value co-creation (Yi and Gong, 2013). An additional research can be
performed to examine the role of moderators such as customer personality and
relationship age on customer behaviour in value co-creation (Yi and Gong, 2013). A
research shall be performed to test customer value co-creation behaviour within a more
comprehensive model that integrates theoretically related constructs, for instance,

additional consequences (e.g. return on equity, sales and Tobin’s q) of customer value
co-creation behaviour should receive more research attention (Yi and Gong, 2013). Also,
it would be pertinent to examine of the influence of culture on customer value co-creation
behaviour in the future studies (Yi and Gong, 2013).
5.4.4 Networks and communities

It would be interesting to find out how to leverage the customer communities by
providing more visibility to the norms of peer customers and establishing more
opportunities for customer networking (Nambisan and Baron, 2007). What will be an
outcome of a research, if conducted, when partners in value constellations collaborate
synergistically to create network of operant resources (Michel et al., 2008).
5.4.5 Customer involvement

Customer involvement is referred as, “consumer behaviours related to their relationships
with producers from production to consumption. This updated perspective is participatory
and dynamic, and it emphasises an iterative learning process on the part of both the
company and the consumer” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Dalli and Romani (2007) define
customer involvement as, “the level of importance a customer attributes to an object, an
action or an activity and the enthusiasm and interest they can generate”.
It is proposed that research shall be conducted to find out the practice and strategies
of customer involvement in product development to enhance perceived benefits and thus
promotion of active participation (Nambisan and Baron, 2007). A research in the
intellectual property management is required; especially in the field of customer
involvement in value co-creation processes (Romero and Molina, 2011).
5.4.6 Customer participation

Customer participation is defined as, “The degree to which the customer is involved in
producing and delivering the service” [Dabholkar, (1990), p.484]. Does social-cultural
circumstance constitute motivation for customer participation in co-creation (Payne et al.,
2008)? Empirically test to build our knowledge of how customer participate in
‘co-creating value’ and how they evaluate their respective roles within the value co-
creation process and whether increasing or decreasing their role influences their overall
perception of value gained from use, consumption or experience (Hilton, 2008). How
willing are human beings to participate in people research in order to co-create
meaningful tourism experiences (Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009)? How willing are the
entrepreneurs and governmental bodies to co-create the design of meaningful tourism
experience environments (Binkhorst and Den Dekker, 2009)? Future research question is
that research should be conducted on profiling consumer engagement with news media
and investigating changing perceptions of value in the digital age (Kerrigan and Graham,
2010). Examine the boundary condition for the positive impact of customer participation
on satisfaction and trust by investigating potential moderating variables (Dabholkar and
Sheng, 2012). Test the relative importance of service quality and customer participation
in building satisfaction and trust using RAs (Dabholkar and Sheng, 2012). Study the
drivers of consumer participation to understand what makes consumers want to
participate and what keeps them from wanting to participate (Dabholkar and Sheng,
2012). Such factors could range from design features of the online RA to personality
variables related to the consumer (Dabholkar and Sheng, 2012). Investigate which factors
influence the level of customer participation in using online RAs (Dabholkar and Sheng,
2012).
Apart from the various areas of proposed researches, value co-creation concept needs
to be developed conceptually too. Therefore, for conceptual advancement the proposed
topics and questions are discussed in the subsequent section of the manuscript.
5.5 Interaction
A study on interaction in the context of value co-creation and the role it plays in value
creation is a promising research area (Grönroos and Ravald, 2011). An interaction
between the provider and the customer is a suggested topic of research (Echeverri and
Skålén, 2011). Additionally, future researches shall be conducted to find out how
suppliers can develop interactions with the customers and how such interaction can be
used as a promise-keeping marketing activity (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011). Since, the
gaps in interaction could lead to failure of the entire value co-creation process, therefore,
research shall also be conducted to find out the various means through which interaction
gaps can be closed that represent big obstacles for an effective involvement of customers
in communities and organisations in collaborative networks (Romero and Molina, 2011).
It would be relevant to do so because customer involvement will create a synergy
necessary to integrate both sides of experience centric networks capable of satisfying
customers’ needs, wants and aspirations, and at the same time organisation’s revenue
goals.
More specific researches can also be conducted to study B2C interactions in the
manufacturing context (Grönroos and Ravald, 2011). The quality of product and/or
customer interaction in hybrid social spaces to generate future online value chains and
business models is another area of study identified from the literature (Kerrigan and
Graham, 2010). According to Campbell et al. (2011), a determination of customer
interaction level with service workers can also be an interesting research.
For theory building and theory extension researches shall be conducted to explore the
value proposition interactions to investigate the concept of value co-creation between the
provider and the customer (Smith et al., 2014). Furthermore, it is pertinent to study
and address the emotional value of customer experiences that emerge from
interactions (Smith et al., 2014). In future, research can be conducted on C2C interaction
(Novani and Kijima, 2013). It is imperative to investigate whether negative interaction
(with company) had any relevance in the C2C interactions (Novani and Kijima, 2013)?
Also, future research can be performed to study the borderlands emerging between
consumer and producer by utilising a value network approach (Pihl, 2013).
5.6 Organisation
Future research shall be conducted to extend the clarification on the role of organisation
in value co-creation and what are the perceptions of organisation towards value
co-creation. Furthermore, it is imperative to find out whether and to what extent
organisations are willing to adopt customer engagement in product development
(Sawhney et al., 2005; Nambisan and Baron, 2007)? How service providers collaborate
with other actors in value constellation to benefit customers (Sawhney et al., 2005)? Also,
a need to study the role of companies, internal customers, external customers or both in
encouraging consumer misbehaviour, associated factors that an organisation trigger
towards customer misbehaviour and explore the firm-controllable contextual factors that
are linked to misbehaviour in a servicescape (Harris and Daunt, 2010). Harris and Daunt
(2011) suggests exploring different perspective of understanding customer neutralisation.
A study on the mismatch between a firm’s value proposition and its related service
system capabilities is foreseen (Alter, 2010). According to Paulin and Ferguson (2010),
firm’s operating with G-D lack relational competencies and close interaction with
consumers, thus, needs to be further investigated. A research can be performed on the
specific topics such as how an organisation will build relational norms to facilitate
inside-outside relationships (Paulin and Ferguson, 2010) and whether organisational
culture have any role to play in building relationship norms at the time of interaction
process of value co-creation and what are the implications. A study can be performed to
answer the proposition, ‘it would be interesting to develop intercultural interaction in the
process of co-creation and what role does organisational culture plays in it (Paulin and
Ferguson, 2010)? Inter-organisational exchanges in the areas on open-sourcing,
open-innovation and mass customisation are fruitful areas of relational norms research
(Paulin and Ferguson, 2010).
At an organisational level, researches can be conducted to study the impact and
influence of social media on changing the social realities on customers, other operant and
operand resources (Edvardsson et al., 2011b). According to Soltani et al. (2012), an
exploration and evaluation of the implications of adopted management approach for an
organisational bottom line like co-creation need to be studied in detail. An organisation
should present the possible outcomes of customer value co-creation in the form of
outcome variable and should include gross/net profit (Dobrzykowski et al., 2012). A
research can be performed to study the relevance of organisational configuration in
management of service quality context (Edvardsson et al., 2011a). Moreover, studying
the impact of changes in macro environment on service systems and actors in S-D logic is
a potential research topic (Edvardsson et al., 2011a).
Moreover, a study shall be made to find whether different functional managers
change perceptions when they are provided with financial measurements of the value co-
creation in a relationship (Lambert and Enz, 2012). It will be a great contribution for the
practitioners. Furthermore, it will be interesting to find out the factors that enable and
inhibit cross-functional teams to transition through three phases of value co-creation
cycle i.e.
a joint crafting of value propositions
b value actualisation
c value determination (Lambert and Enz, 2012).
An identification of the best practices of the forward leaning firms that have articulated
values, mission, and strategies that exemplify the ways in which long range, systems
thinking to marketing is a researchable topic (Webster and Lusch, 2013). Binkhorst and
Den Dekker (2009) suggest an investigation on who is interested and willing to invest in
pilot settings to design innovative co-creation tourism experiences and measure them at
the same time? An interesting topic of research (Webster and Lusch, 2013) would be to
explore how an organisation’s character can be incorporated into the firm’s branding
strategy with a growing relationship with the customer.
5.7 Value and values

In the previous studies of value co-creation, a deeper understanding of value and values is
suggested by Edvardsson and Enquist (2011). For instance, Habidin et al. (2014) suggest
that value in healthcare perspective is defined from customer view. This extends the view
that in services value realisation happens at the customer level and customer focus
significantly contribute to the innovation and organisational performance. The value,
however, could be extended to the customers in the value chain. The value chain
coordination is to create trust and communication among the supply chain members. This
in turn results in strong relationship building and value creation (Horg and Kim, 2012).
The researchers have foreseen a need to determine whether values will help marketers
in identifying how value is perceived by different customers in various service contexts
and the reasons behind it (Edvardsson et al., 2011a, 2011c)? It would be interesting to
investigate how value is perceived by different customers in different service contexts
(Edvardsson et al., 2011a, 2011c)? How a customer defines value and how various
stakeholders determine value and whether value is affected when the boundary is shifted
is a proposed topic for research (Campbell et al., 2011). Furthermore, it is proposed that
marketers should identify and study what are the values of the customers? And how can
the values of the customer can be taken into account? The reason why people have this
value (Williams and Aitken, 2011) is a suggested topic of research for marketing
theorists?
For scholars, it would be interesting to determine whether value remain the same, if
not, how value changes if interaction is mostly electronic (Komulainen et al., 2007)? A
gainful insight can be developed from the research, if conducted, to empirically find
whether global values are moderating variables in the antecedents of attitude and
behaviour (Xie et al., 2008). The practitioners can be greatly benefited if future research
can built avenues for measurement of value co-creation and value in use (Vargo et al.,
2008). According to Walmsley (2013) study shall be conducted on what could be the
improved ways of measuring the delivery of customer value? What are the research
methods appropriate for understanding value as an emergent quality (Vargo et al., 2008)?
More specific researches emphasise to determine the role of relational norms in
communicating knowledge and understanding about other party’s value expectations
(Paulin and Ferguson, 2010). An in-depth analysis of how values create stakeholder value
and contribute to perform in terms of innovation, sustainable profits and long term
profitability in airline and logistics industry (Edvardsson and Enquist, 2011)? According
to Butler and D’Souza (2011) the measurement of value is a challenge for the researchers
because of its idiosyncratic nature, therefore, shall be done using conjoint analysis and
discrete choice.
6 Discussions, implications, limitations, future scope and conclusions
Value co-creation is at an exciting stage. It has moved on from inception towards

development where lot of interesting work can be made. In this paper an attempt has been
made to provide a holistic portrayal of the value co-creation construct and proposed the
broad themes and classification of themes into categories that carries the potential to
conduct the future studies on value co-creation. Table 2 summarises most of the
important research areas. Use of mixed method research has helped in triangulation and
validating the findings of the present study. Identification of seven categories namely
theory development and theory advancement, value and values, organisation, interaction,
relationship, actors and resources have been a contribution in the literature of value co-
creation. Both, experts and literature, in consonance, opines studies on value co-creation
shall be performed on theory development and conceptual advancement but not much
work has been recorded in the good marketing journals so far.
6.1 Theoretical and managerial implications

This study’s result extends the current literature on value co-creation. It was
demonstrated that the seven themes of value co-creation direct the literature of value
co-creation. The study also shows that theory building and conceptual advancement as
one of the top priority themes for potential research in value co-creation. This suggests
that interpretivist and realism as the ideal approaches for theory development. The
identification of remaining six themes, namely actors, resources, interaction, relationship,
organisation and value(s), further proposes the sub areas of research. This research is
contribution to the literature as well as a contribution to the new researchers working in
this area. This research comes as respire to ambiguity and complexity associated with the
value co-creation literature.
The identification of seven themes for future direction of value co-creations studies
give impetus to the marketers to embrace the powerful concept of co-creation.
Nevertheless, when it comes to adoption of value co-creation in the organisation the
clarity of the concept as well as the seven themes will influence manifolds. This research
highlights the process and outcome of value co-creation that may also be negative in the
form of customer misbehaviour in servicescape, negative interaction in C2C, B2C, B2B
interaction and ultimately leading to co-destruction. Furthermore, this research questions
practitioners that how resources can enhance value for stakeholders in a process of value
co-creation. In addition, this research explores a question for practitioners whether
functional managers change perceptions when they are provided with financial
measurements of the value co-creation in a relationship or not. From an organisational
perspective, this research seeks answers for the questions to be addressed by
practitioners, such as:
• What motivates organisations to have willingness and interest to invest in pilot
settings to design co-creation experiences and its measurement?
• What shall be the role of organisations’ character in building relationship with the
customer?
• What are the role, approach and perception of management about value co-creation?
• In what way shall willingness of organisations to adopt customer engagements in
product development be made?
• To explore the role of companies in encouraging customer misbehaviour – the
associated factors that an organisation trigger towards customer misbehaviour and
explore the firm controllable contextual factors that are linked to misbehaviour in a
servicescape.
Unlike any research this research too has certain limitations. Firstly, the category
formulation was done on the basis of the consensus formation of experts. This signifies
that a valuable category could have been ignored due to lack of consensus. Secondly, this
manuscript identifies the themes for potential area of research in the value co-creation
literature. However, it does not give the prioritisation of themes in the order of
importance. This is a limitation as well as an area where research can be advanced. It is
suggested that such prioritisation can be established by employing techniques such as
AHP and ISM. Thirdly, findings of the study are skewed towards academic perspective
as out of fifty one respondents, forty nice are from academia and remaining eight are
from industry. A low rate of participation from industry could be due to lack of
awareness of co-creation concept by the practitioners or less conviction to participate in
the consensus building process as no incentives, monetary or otherwise, was given. The
findings of the study could be generalised as experts from countries such as Denmark,
Brazil, U.K., USA, Philippines, China and India participated. However, one of the
biggest challenges was to engage experts in all the rounds of the consensus forming
process. This may be because Delhi technique application is not common in the
marketing literature.
To conclude, the domain of value co-creation offers a rich agenda for future research.
Research-based answer to the areas presented in Table 5 contribute significantly in the
interactive marketing theory and offer practical insights for the development and
implementation of effective value co-creation strategies.
References
Abela, A.V. and Murphy, P.E. (2008) ‘Marketing with integrity: ethics and the service-dominant
logic for marketing’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.39–53.
Alter, S. (2010) ‘Viewing systems as services: a fresh approach in the IS field’, Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.11–19.
Andreu, L., Sánchez, I. and Mele, C. (2010) ‘Value co-creation among retailers and consumers:
new insights into the furniture market’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17,
No. 4, pp.241–250.
Armstrong, J.S. (1999) ‘Introduction to paper and commentaries on the Delphi technique’,
International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.351–352.
Baron, S. and Warnaby, G. (2011) ‘Individual customers’ use and integration of resources:
empirical findings and organizational implications in the context of value co-creation’,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.211–218.
Binkhorst, E. and Den Dekker, T. (2009) ‘Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research’,
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 18, Nos. 2–3, pp.311–327.
Blocker, C.P., Flint, D.J., Myers, M.B. and Slater, S.F. (2011) ‘Proactive customer orientation and
its role for creating customer value in global markets’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.216–233.
Brocke, H., Uebernickel, F. and Brenner, W. (2011, January) ‘Customizing IT service agreements
as a self-service by means of productized service propositions’, in System Sciences (HICSS),
2011 44th Hawaii International Conference, pp.1–10, IEEE.
Butler, T.D. and D’Souza, G. (2011) ‘The role of antecedents and consequences of soft and hard
benefits in loyalty program success’, der markt, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp.201–217.
Campbell, C.S., Maglio, P.P. and Davis, M.M. (2011) ‘From self-service to super-service:
a resource mapping framework for co-creating value by shifting the boundary between
provider and customer’, Information Systems and e-Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp.173–191.
Chen, T., Drennan, J. and Andrews, L. (2012) ‘Experience sharing’, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 28, Nos. 13–14, pp.1535–1552.
Crowther, P. and Donlan, L. (2011) ‘Value-creation space: the role of events in a service-dominant
marketing paradigm’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27, Nos. 13–14,
pp.1444–1463.
Dabholkar, P. (1990) ‘How to improve perceived service quality by improving customer
participation’, Proceedings of the 1990 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual
Conference, Springer, pp.483–487.
Dabholkar, P.A. and Sheng, X. (2012) ‘Consumer participation in using online recommendation
agents: effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions’, The Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 32, No. 9, pp.1433–1449.
Dalli, D. and Romani, S. (2007) ‘Consumption experiences and product meanings’, Consuming
Experience, pp.65–78, Routledge, Abingdon.
Dobrzykowski, D.D., Hong, P.C. and Park, J.S. (2012) ‘Building procurement capability for firm
performance: a service-dominant logic view’, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 19, Nos. 4–5, pp.567–584.
Echeverri, P. and Skålén, P. (2011) ‘Co-creation and co-destruction: a practice-theory based study
of interactive value formation’, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11, No. 3,pp.351–373.
Edvardsson, B. and Enquist, B. (2011) ‘The service excellence and innovation model: lessons from
IKEA and other service frontiers’, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22,
No. 5, pp.535–551.
Edvardsson, B., Ng, G., Min, C.Z., Firth, R. and Yi, D. (2011a) ‘Does service-dominant
design result in a better service system?’, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22, No. 4,
pp.540–556.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T. (2011b) ‘Expanding understanding of service
exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.327–339.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Höykinpuro, R. (2011c) ‘Complex service recovery processes:
how to avoid triple deviation’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.331–349.
Enz, M.G. and Lambert, D.M. (2012) ‘Using cross-functional, cross-firm teams to co-create value:
the role of financial measures’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 41, No. 3,
pp.495–507.
Ferguson, R.J., Paulin, M. and Bergeron, J. (2010) ‘Customer sociability and the total service
experience: antecedents of positive word-of-mouth intentions’, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 21, No.1, pp.25–44.
Ford, D. (2011) ‘IMP and service-dominant logic: divergence, convergence and development’,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.231–239.
Gallan, A.S., Jarvis, C.B., Brown, S.W. and Bitner, M.J. (2013) ‘Customer positivity and
participation in services: an empirical test in a health care context’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.338–356.
Gebauer, H., Johnson, M. and Enquist, B. (2010) ‘Value co-creation as a determinant of success in
public transport services: a study of the Swiss Federal Railway operator (SBB)’, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.511–530.
Granovetter, M. (1983) ‘The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited’, Sociological
Theory, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.201–233.
Green, H., Hunter, C. and Moore, B. (1990) ‘Assessing the environmental impact of tourism
development: use of the Delphi technique’, Tourism Management, Vol. 11, No. 2,
pp.111–120.
Greif, A. (2006) ‘Family structure, institutions, and growth: the origins and implications of western
corporations’, The American Economic Review, Vol. 96, No. 2, pp.308–312.
Grönroos, C. (2012) ‘Conceptualising value co-creation: a journey to the 1970s and back to the
future’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28, Nos. 13–14, pp.1520–1534.
Grönroos, C. and Ravald, A. (2011) ‘Service as business logic: implications for value creation and
marketing’, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.5–22.
Gummesson, E. and Mele, C. (2010) ‘Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction
and resource integration’, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp.181–198.
Habidin, N.F., Shazali, N.A., Ali, N., Khaidir, N.A. and Jamaludin, N.H. (2014) ‘Exploring lean
healthcare practice and supply chain innovation for Malaysian healthcare industry’,
International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.394–410.
Harris, L.C. and Daunt, K.L. (2011) ‘Deviant customer behaviour: a study of techniques of
neutralisation’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27, Nos.7–8, pp.834–853.
Hasson, F., Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000) ‘Research guidelines for the Delphi survey
technique’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.1008–1015.
Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C. and Pihlström, M. (2012) ‘Characterizing value as an experience
implications for service researchers and managers’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 15,
No. 1, pp.59–75.
Helmer, O. (1967) Systematic Use of Expert Opinions (Report No. P-3721), The RAND
Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Hilton, T. (2008) ‘Leveraging operant resources of consumers: improving consumer experiences or
productivity?’, Marketing Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.359–366.
Hilton, T. and Hughes, T. (2013) ‘Co-production and self-service: the application of
service-dominant logic’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29, Nos. 7–8, pp.861–881.
Hilton, T., Hughes, T. and Chalcraft, D. (2012) ‘Service co-creation and value realisation’, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 28, Nos. 13–14, pp.1504–1519.
Hofstede, G. (1985) ‘The interaction between national and organizational value systems’, Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.347–357.
Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.) (1999) Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research,
Routledge, New York.
Hong, P. and Kim, S.C. (2012) ‘Business network excellence for competitive advantage: case of
Korean firms’, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp.448–462.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (2004) ‘The resource-advantage theory of competition: a review’,
in N.K. Malhotra (Ed.): Review of Marketing Research, pp.153–205, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk,
New York.
Hutchinson, D., Singh, J., Svensson, G. and Mysen, T. (2012) ‘Properties of quality constructs in
Canadian business relationships’, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp.429–443.
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M. (2014) ‘The role of customer engagement behavior in value
co-creation a service system perspective’, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17, No. 3,
pp.247–261.
Janeschek, S., Hottum, P., Kicherer, F. and Bienzeisler, B. (2013) ‘The dynamics of service
productivity and value creation: a service life cycle perspective’, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 33, Nos. 3–4, pp.366–377.
Jitpaiboon, T., Dobrzykowski, D.D., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Vonderembse, M.A. (2013)
‘Unpacking IT use and integration for mass customisation: a service-dominant logic view’,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51, No. 8, pp.2527–2547.
Kaynak, E., Bloom, J. and Leibold, M. (1994) ‘Using the Delphi technique to predict future tourism
potential’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 12, No. 7, pp.18–29.
Kerrigan, F. and Graham, G. (2010) ‘Interaction of regional news-media production and

consumption through the social space’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26, Nos. 3–4,
pp.302-320.
Koelling, M., Neyer, A.K. and Moeslein, K.M. (2010) ‘Strategies towards innovative services:
findings from the German service landscape’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4,
pp.609–620.
Komulainen, H., Mainela, T., Tähtinen, J. and Ulkuniemi, P. (2007) ‘Retailers’ different value
perceptions of mobile advertising service’, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.368–393.
Kowalkowski, C., Persson Ridell, O., Röndell, J. G. and Sörhammar, D. (2012) ‘The co-creative
practice of forming a value proposition’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28,
Nos. 13–14, pp.1553–1570.
Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. and Johansson, N. (2008) ‘Key strategies for the successful
involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services’, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.474–491.
Lambert, D.M. and Enz, M.G. (2012) ‘Managing and measuring value co-creation in
business-to-business relationships’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28, Nos. 13–14,
pp.1588–1625.
Lefaix-Durand, A. and Kozak, R. (2010) ‘Comparing customer and supplier perceptions of value
offerings: an exploratory assessment’, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4, No. 3,
pp.129–150.
Lemon, K.N. and Seiders, K. (2006) ‘Making marketing accountable’, Does Marketing Need
Reform, pp.201–209, M.E. Sharpe, London.
Loss, L. and Crave, S. (2011) ‘Agile business models: an approach to support collaborative
networks’, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 22, Nos. 5–6, pp.571–580.
Lusch, R.F. and Spohrer, J.C. (2012) ‘Evolving service for a complex, resilient, and sustainable
world’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28, Nos. 13–14, pp.1491–1503.
Madhavaram, S. and Hunt, S.D. (2008) ‘The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant
resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.67–82.
Masser, I. and Foley, P. (1987) ‘Delphi revisited: expert opinion in urban analysis’, Urban Studies,
Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.217–225.
Matthing, J., Sandén, B. and Edvardsson, B. (2004) ‘New service development: learning from and
with customers’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15, No. 5,
pp.479–498.
McColl, E., Newton, J. and Hutchinson, A. (1994) ‘An agenda for change in referral – consensus
from general practice’, The British Journal of General Practice, Vol. 44, No. 381, p.157.
Michel, S., Brown, S.W. and Gallan, A.S. (2008) ‘Service-logic innovations: how to innovate
customers, not products (forthcoming)’, California Management Review, Vol. 50, No. 3,
pp.54–66.
Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2007) ‘Interactions in virtual customer environments: implications
for product support and customer relationship management’, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.42–62.
Novani, S. and Kijima, K. (2013) ‘Efficiency and effectiveness of C2C interactions and mutual
learning for value co-creation: agent-based simulation approach’, International Journal of
Business & Management, Vol. 8, No. 9, pp.50–59.
Paulin, M. and Ferguson, R.J. (2010) ‘Relational norms in interfirm exchanges: from transactional
cost economics to the service-dominant logic’, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing,
Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.365–405.
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P. (2008) ‘Managing the co-creation of value’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.83–96.
Pihl, C. (2013) ‘When customers create the ad and sell it – a value network approach’, Journal of
Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.127–143.
Powell, C. (2003) ‘The Delphi technique: myths and realities’, Journal of Advanced Nursing,
Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.376–382.
Ravald, A. (2008) How Does Value Emerge for the Customer?, in Swedish, Hanken School of
Economics Finland, Helsinki.
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M. and Beth Gouthro, M. (2013) ‘Social layers of
customer-to-customer value co-creation’, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24, No. 5,
pp.553–566.
Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S. and Thomas, S. (2000) ‘International students, learning
environments and perceptions: a case study using the Delphi technique’, Higher Education
Research and Development, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.89–102.
Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Romero, D. and Molina, A. (2011) ‘Collaborative networked organisations and customer
communities: value co-creation and co-innovation in the networking era’, Production
Planning & Control, Vol. 22, Nos. 5–6, pp.447–472.
Rotter, J.P., Özbek, N. and Mark-Herbert, C. (2012) ‘Private public partnerships: corporate
responsibility strategy in food retail’, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 5,
Nos. 1–2, pp.5–20.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005) ‘Collaborating to create: the internet as a
platform for customer engagement in product innovation’, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.4–17.
Schmidt-Rauch, S. and Schwabe, G. (2013) ‘Designing for mobile value co-creation – the case of
travel counselling’, Electronic Markets, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.5–17.
Scott, J. and Carrington, P.C. (Eds.) (2011) Handbook of Social Network Analysis, Sage, London.
Skutsch, M. and Hall, D. (1973) ‘Delphi: potential uses in educational planning’, ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, Vol. 84, No. ED, p.559.
Smith, L., Maull, R. and Ng, I.C. (2014) ‘Servitization and operations management: a service
dominant-logic approach’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.242–269.
Soltani, E., Barnes, B., Syed, J. and Liao, Y.Y. (2012) ‘Does management’s approach impede
service quality?’, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp.523–540.
Spencer, R. and Cova, B. (2012) ‘Market solutions: breaking free from dyad-centric logic and
broadening the scope of SDL’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28, Nos. 13–14,
pp.1571–1587.
Stucky, S.U., Cefkin, M., Rankin, Y., Shaw, B. and Thomas, J. (2011) ‘Dynamics of value
co-creation in complex IT service engagements’, Information Systems and E-Business
Sundharam, V.N., Sharma, V. and Stephan Thangaiah, I.S. (2013) ‘An integration of BSC and
AHP for sustainable growth of manufacturing industries’, International Journal of Business
Excellence, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.77–92.
Taylor, R.E. and Judd, L.L. (1989) ‘Delphi method applied to tourism’, in Witt, S. and
Moutinho, L. (Eds.): Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, pp.95–99, Prentice
Hall, New York.
Tung, W.F., Yuan, S.T., Wu, Y.C. and Hung, P. (2014) ‘Collaborative service system design for
music content creation’, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.291–302.
Vargo, S.L. (2009) ‘Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: a service-dominant
logic perspective’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 24, Nos. 5–6,
pp.373–379.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) ‘Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp.1–17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008) ‘Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution’, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.1–10.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2010) ‘From repeat patronage to value co-creation in service
ecosystems: a transcending conceptualization of relationship’, Journal of Business Market
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008) ‘On value and value co-creation: a service
systems and service logic perspective’, European Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3,
pp.145–152.
Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J. and Tummers, L.G. (2015) ‘A systematic review of co-creation and
co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey’, Public Management Review,
Vol. 17, No. 9, pp.1333–1357.
Walmsley, B. (2013) ‘Co-creating theatre: authentic engagement or inter-legitimation?’, Cultural
Trends, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.108–118.
Webster Jr, F.E. and Lusch, R.F. (2013) ‘Elevating marketing: marketing is dead! Long live
marketing!’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.389–399.
Westergren, U.H. (2011) ‘Opening up innovation: the impact of contextual factors on the
co-creation of IT-enabled value adding services within the manufacturing industry’,
Information Systems and e-Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.223–245.
Williams, J. and Aitken, R. (2011) ‘The service-dominant logic of marketing and marketing ethics’,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp.439–454.
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R.P. and Troye, S.V. (2008), ‘Trying to prosume: toward a theory of consumers
as co-creators of value’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36, No. 1,
pp.109–122.
Yi, Y. and Gong, T. (2013) ‘Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and
validation’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 9, pp.1279–1284.
Yousuf, M.I. (2007) ‘Using experts’ opinions through Delphi technique’, Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.1–8.
Zhang, X. and Chen, R. (2008) ‘Examining the mechanism of the value co-creation with
customers’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 116, No. 2, pp.242–250.
Zwass, V. (2010) ‘Co-creation: toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective’,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.11–48.

2018 Embrace - Before - It - Is - Too - Late - Prediction - of - Future

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2018 Embrace - Before - It - Is - Too - Late - Prediction - of - Future

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 Embrace - Before - It - Is - Too - Late - Prediction - of - Future

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Int. J. Business Excellence, Vol. 14, No.

Embrace, before it is too late! Prediction of future

Rajat Agrawal and Vinay Sharma

Keywords: value co-creation; Delphi technique; future research directions;

Biographical notes: Kumkum Bharti is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Rajat Agrawal is a Visiting Fellow of Copenhagen Business School,

Vinay Sharma is presently working as a member of the faculty of the

2 Literature review: value co-creation

Table 1 Country-wise publication of value co-creation articles

S. no. Country Region-wise classification No. of publications

publication is recorded in the literature from Canada, Mexico, Romania, Portugal,

S. no. Journal name No. of publication(s)

Table 2 Journal-wise classification of research articles (continued)

S. no. Journal name No. of publication(s)

14 Echeverri and Skalen 2011 √ √

26 Gummesson and Mele 2010 √

41 Michel et al. 2008 √ √ √ √

63 Yi and Gong 2013 √ √

3.1 Step 1: problem identification

3.2 Step 2: determine expertise required

3.3 Step 3: select panel members based on expertise required

3.4 Step 4: distribute questionnaire

3.5 Step 5: analyse questionnaire responses

3.6 Step 6: has a consensus been reached, if no

3.7 Step 7: provide requested information and tabulated responses

Table 4 Results from round one

3.8 Step 8: prepare the second round questionnaire

Category Items ranked in order from most important to least important

4 Results and analysis

Seven categories were obtained as a result of the ‘Delphi technique’ of consensus

Actors Resources Interaction Relationship Organisation Value and values

many, hybrid social

systems and actors in S-D logic

5 Discussions and managerial implications

5.1 Theory building and conceptual advancement

5.1.2 Theory extension

5.1.3 Concept clarification

5.1.4 Process of value co-creation

5.1.5 Measures of co-creation

to build a model using organisational, social and technological dimensions. According to

5.1.6 Outcome of co-creation

It would be interesting to empirically investigate whether service system set apart an

5.4.2 Role of various actors

5.4.3 Customer behaviour

comprehensive model that integrates theoretically related constructs, for instance,

5.4.4 Networks and communities

5.4.5 Customer involvement

5.4.6 Customer participation

5.7 Value and values

6 Discussions, implications, limitations, future scope and conclusions

Value co-creation is at an exciting stage. It has moved on from inception towards

6.1 Theoretical and managerial implications

Kerrigan, F. and Graham, G. (2010) ‘Interaction of regional news-media production and

You might also like