8
Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic Loı ¨c Ple ´ IE ´ SEG School of Management, Lille, France, and Rube ´n Chumpitaz Ca ´ceres IE ´ SEG School of Management, Lille, France and ESAN University, Monterrico, Peru Abstract Purpose – Noting that a fundamental tenet of service-dominant (S-D) logic is the co-creation of value-in-use, this paper aims to explore the theoretical possibility that the interactions between service systems cannot only co-create value, but also have adverse consequences leading to actual value co-destruction. Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper critically reviews the dominance of value co-creation and value-in-use in S-D logic. Noting the relative lack of research in the converse possibility, the study proposes and explores the implications of value co-destruction as a new concept which should be introduced within the framework of S-D logic. Findings – The study proposes a formal definition for the new proposed concept of value co-destruction. It describes in detail the process by which it occurs, showing that value can be co-destroyed through the interactions between different systems, resulting in value destruction-through-misuse. Indeed, value co-destruction occurs when a service system accidentally or intentionally misuses resources (its own resources and/or those of another service system) by acting in an inappropriate or unexpected manner. Research limitations/implications – This paper is purely conceptual and exploratory. Empirical examination of the theoretical findings regarding value-co-destruction is required. Possible avenues of interest for such empirical research of value co-destruction are suggested. Practical implications – Limiting the occurrence of misuse by aligning the mutual expectations of interacting service systems should reduce the risks of value co-destruction. Recovering from misuse should also be considered. Originality/value – This study is apparently the first to have introduced the notion of value co-destruction into the conceptual framework of S-D logic. Keywords Customers, Services, Social interaction, Employees, Service delivery, Value chain Paper type Conceptual paper An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this issue. 1. Introduction Recently, some authors have suggested that the customer should primarily be seen as a co-creator of experience or value (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002, 2004), rather than a mere co-producer of the core offering (product or service) that enables the delivery of the experience (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003; Bitner et al., 1997; Lengnick-Hall, 1996; Thomke and Von Hippel, 2002). This shift in focus to the notion of the co- creation of value has been studied in depth by Vargo and Lusch (Lusch and Vargo, 2006a; Lusch et al., 2007; Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008b, c), who have contended: . that service has become the fundamental basis of exchange; and . that marketing has thus evolved from a good-dominant (G-D) logic that has prevailed for decades towards a new service-dominant (S-D) logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008a). According to S-D logic, the customer is always a co-creator of value, which is posited as being inherently interactional and phenomenological (Vargo and Lusch, 2008c). In other words, S-D logic holds that the value of a good or a service does not exist per se, but is a function of the way customers perceive the contextual experiences enabled by this good or service (Woodruff and Flint, 2006). As a consequence, firms can merely deliver value propositions, from which customers derive value-in-use. It also results from this distinction that the co-production of the core offering (through co-design, joint production, collaborative inventiveness ...) becomes a component of value co-creation (Lusch and Vargo, 2006a). The notion of service in S-D logic does not refer to a unit of output resulting from a (co-) production process. Rather, service is defined as “the application of specialized competences (operant resources knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm Journal of Services Marketing 24/6 (2010) 430–437 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] [DOI 10.1108/08876041011072546] Received: March 2009 Revised: June 2009 Accepted: December 2009 430

Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

  • Upload
    ruben

  • View
    215

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

Not always co-creation: introducinginteractional co-destruction of value in

service-dominant logicLoıc Ple

IESEG School of Management, Lille, France, and

Ruben Chumpitaz CaceresIESEG School of Management, Lille, France and ESAN University, Monterrico, Peru

AbstractPurpose – Noting that a fundamental tenet of service-dominant (S-D) logic is the co-creation of value-in-use, this paper aims to explore the theoreticalpossibility that the interactions between service systems cannot only co-create value, but also have adverse consequences leading to actual valueco-destruction.Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper critically reviews the dominance of value co-creation and value-in-use in S-D logic. Notingthe relative lack of research in the converse possibility, the study proposes and explores the implications of value co-destruction as a new concept whichshould be introduced within the framework of S-D logic.Findings – The study proposes a formal definition for the new proposed concept of value co-destruction. It describes in detail the process by which itoccurs, showing that value can be co-destroyed through the interactions between different systems, resulting in value destruction-through-misuse.Indeed, value co-destruction occurs when a service system accidentally or intentionally misuses resources (its own resources and/or those of anotherservice system) by acting in an inappropriate or unexpected manner.Research limitations/implications – This paper is purely conceptual and exploratory. Empirical examination of the theoretical findings regardingvalue-co-destruction is required. Possible avenues of interest for such empirical research of value co-destruction are suggested.Practical implications – Limiting the occurrence of misuse by aligning the mutual expectations of interacting service systems should reduce the risksof value co-destruction. Recovering from misuse should also be considered.Originality/value – This study is apparently the first to have introduced the notion of value co-destruction into the conceptual framework of S-D logic.

Keywords Customers, Services, Social interaction, Employees, Service delivery, Value chain

Paper type Conceptual paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this issue.

1. Introduction

Recently, some authors have suggested that the customer

should primarily be seen as a co-creator of experience or value

(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002, 2004), rather than a mere

co-producer of the core offering (product or service) that

enables the delivery of the experience (Bendapudi and Leone,

2003; Bitner et al., 1997; Lengnick-Hall, 1996; Thomke and

Von Hippel, 2002). This shift in focus to the notion of the co-

creation of value has been studied in depth by Vargo and

Lusch (Lusch and Vargo, 2006a; Lusch et al., 2007; Vargo

and Lusch, 2004, 2008b, c), who have contended:. that service has become the fundamental basis of

exchange; and

. that marketing has thus evolved from a good-dominant

(G-D) logic that has prevailed for decades towards a new

service-dominant (S-D) logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004,

2008a).

According to S-D logic, the customer is always a co-creator of

value, which is posited as being inherently interactional and

phenomenological (Vargo and Lusch, 2008c). In other words,

S-D logic holds that the value of a good or a service does not

exist per se, but is a function of the way customers perceive the

contextual experiences enabled by this good or service

(Woodruff and Flint, 2006). As a consequence, firms can

merely deliver value propositions, from which customersderive value-in-use. It also results from this distinction that

the co-production of the core offering (through co-design,

joint production, collaborative inventiveness . . .) becomes a

component of value co-creation (Lusch and Vargo, 2006a).The notion of service in S-D logic does not refer to a unit of

output resulting from a (co-) production process. Rather,

service is defined as “the application of specializedcompetences (operant resources – knowledge and skills)

through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm

Journal of Services Marketing

24/6 (2010) 430–437

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]

[DOI 10.1108/08876041011072546]

Received: March 2009Revised: June 2009Accepted: December 2009

430

Page 2: Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

another entity or the entity itself” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008a,

p. 26). Given that S-D logic posits the exchange of service asthe fundamental basis of exchange, tangible goods are held to

be mere appliances (that is, tools or distribution mechanisms)

that serve as alternatives to the direct provision of service.Moreover, the service systems involved in this service-for-

service exchange are more than mere combinations ofphysical equipment and technology; rather, such service

systems are “configurations of resources (including people,information, and technology) connected to other systems by

value propositions” (Vargo et al., 2008, p. 145). According tothis view, service systems include firms, customers, suppliers,

employees, and all the other partners in a firm’s network(Lusch and Vargo, 2006b; Spohrer et al., 2007). Each of these

service systems contributes to the creation of value for itselfand for the others (Vargo et al., 2008).Thus, a key premise of S-D logic is that value-in-use is

generated by a “collaborative process of co-creation betweenparties” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008b, p. 256). Implicit here is

the assumption that the interactions between the parties havean inherent tendency to result in value co-creation. However,

if it can be co-created, it seems logically possible that valuemight also be co-destroyed through such interactional

processes. But marketing thought remains deficient in itsunderstanding of value-related processes in general (Payne

et al., 2008; Vargo et al., 2008), or of their potential negativeoutcomes (Woodruff and Flint, 2006). Yet, just as it is

important to understand customers’ complaining behaviors tofurther improve service quality and recover unsatisfied

customers (Maxham, 2001; Snellman and Vihtkari, 2003),it is also self-evidently important to understand how value

might be co-destroyed – so that it can be identified, analyzed,

and potentially remedied.Against this background, this conceptual study proposes to

introduce the notion of value co-destruction in S-D logic. Theaim is to explore how such value co-destruction can occur

through the interactions between service systems. Theremainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next

section demonstrates that an over-optimistic view of theinevitability of value co-creation has led to the notion of value

co-destruction being relatively overlooked in thecontemporary discourse on S-D logic. The following section

provides a formal definition of value co-destruction anddepicts the process by which it occurs. We then show that the

value co-destruction process can result from accidental orintentional actions, which we label misuse of resources, by

service systems. The paper concludes with a summary of the

main contributions and implications of the study.

2. The absence of value co-destruction in S-D logic

2.1 An optimistic view of value

The results of a recent search of the EBSCO database and ofthe index of The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing book

(2006) reveal that the academic literature in marketing atlarge, then followed by the literature on S-D logic, has mainly

studied the possibilities of value creation and co-creation sofar (Table I).Explaining these differences goes far beyond this paper.

However, concerning S-D logic itself, they most probably lie

in an “optimistic” view of value processes and their outcomes.Indeed, the definition of service proposed by Vargo and Lusch

(2008a, p. 26) refer explicitly to “the benefit of another entity

or the entity itself” and “doing something beneficial”.

Moreover, the word “value” has inherently positiveconnotations, as reflected in the positive terminology used byVargo et al. (2008, p. 149) in defining value as “an improvementin system well-being”, which is measured in terms of “a

system’s adaptiveness or ability to fit in its environment”.These positive references to the beneficial nature of service

and value in the literature on S-D logic thus demonstrate an

inherently optimistic and favorable perspective on theoutcome of value-related processes. However, this implicitlyexcludes realistic alternatives which can result in value co-destruction, as it is not possible to ensure 100 percent error-free service (Dong et al., 2008).

2.2 The implicit possibility of value co-destruction

According to G-D logic, value can be seen as a two-stagesequence (Gronroos, 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2008a). First,value is created by the firm during the production process(hence the concept of added value). This value issubsequently destroyed by the consumer at the moment of

consumption. G-D logic thus posits that value creation andvalue destruction are separate and unilateral (that is, they arenot interactional).In terms of S-D logic, it would seem that the notion of value

co-destruction has been rather implicit until now. Forexample, Jaworski and Kohli (2006) mention that, undersome conditions, firms should not engage in the co-creation

of value with a customer because this exercise would besuboptimal for both parties. However, these authors do notanalyze the way in which value might be co-destroyed, butinstead insist on the factors and circumstances under whichthe two parties should not interact at all. Woodruff and Flint

(2006) also note that devaluation processes can occur, andthat these processes can diminish co-created value. However,these authors do not mention any potential for the actual co-destruction of value. Nor do they explore the dynamics of

devaluation, although they do acknowledge the need forfurther research on this topic.Finally, Etgar (2006, p. 129) studies the costs associated

with co-production, hence value co-creation. According tothis author, the customer seeks a trade-off between thesevarious costs and could thus engage in activities that would“minimize the costs of performing value co-creation

activities”. However, Etgar (2006) remains silent about thecontent of the interaction between the firm and the customer,as well as about the results for the firm in terms of value.

3. The concept and process of valueco-destruction

3.1 Defining value co-destruction

Given that the notion of value co-destruction has not beenaddressed directly in the literature (even though some recent

studies have alluded to it), the concept remains blurred and inneed of definition. To that end, the present study draws on thefamiliar terminology used in the aforementioned S-D logicdefinitions of value and service.Thus, we suggest that value co-destruction can be defined

as an interactional process between service systems thatresults in a decline in at least one of the systems’ well-being(which, given the nature of a service system, can be individual

or organizational). During this process, these service systemsinteract either directly (person-to-person) or indirectly (via

Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction

Loıc Ple and Ruben Chumpitaz Caceres

Journal of Services Marketing

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2010 · 430–437

431

Page 3: Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

appliances such as goods) through the integration and

application of resources. Moreover, following Woodruff and

Flint (2006) who suggest that an imbalance between a firm’s

level of co-created value and that of its customer can occur,

we propose that the level of value co-destruction that results

from the interactional process might not be the same for all of

the service systems involved. Given that S-D logic measures

value in terms of adaptiveness, this means that value co-

destruction might have a differential impact on the

adaptiveness (i.e. ability to fit in their environment) of the

systems involved in the process.Although it provides useful guidance on the nature of the

value co-destruction concept, this definition remains purely

formal. In other words, it does not explain how value is co-

destroyed through the interactions between service systems.

This process is explored below.

3.2 The process of value co-destruction

As noted above, S-D logic focuses on the notion of value-in-

use, which refers to the value that is co-created through the

interactions of service systems that integrate and apply both

their own resources, and those of other systems (Lusch and

Vargo, 2006b; Lusch et al., 2007). Most of these resources are

operant resources (resources such as knowledge and skills that

act on other resources), although some operand resources

(tangible and inert resources that are acted upon) can also be

used in the interactional process.Applying these ideas to the proposed concept of value co-

destruction, it is obvious that resources that are utilized

positively to the benefit of the service systems might also be

used in a detrimental manner for one or all of the parties

involved. For example, customers who buy cars but do not

maintain them destroy value for themselves. Moreover, they

also destroy value for the firm that sold it if they blame the

firm for the problems they experience with the car and

damage the image of the firm by communicating their adverse

opinion of the firm’s value proposition to other people

through negative word of mouth. Such customers therefore

trigger a value co-destruction process for both parties by

misusing the firm’s value proposition.To stick to the terminology of S-D logic, we suggest that the

available resources have been misused when one service

system (in this example, the customer) has failed to integrate

and apply the available operant and operand resources of at

least one of the service systems (the firm and the customer) in

an “appropriate” or “expected” manner from the other

system’s perspective (the firm). Of course, it is also

conceivable that the other service system (the firm) might

also misuse these available resources (its own and/or those of its

customer). It would thus seem reasonable to contend that value

co-destruction results from the misuse of resources during the

interactions between different service systems – that is, each of

these service systems can misuse its own resources and/or the

resources of the other service system, or both service systems

can misuse these resources. In each case, this misuse results in

value co-destruction for at least one of the two service systems.

The concept of value destruction-through-misuse can thus be

set up in opposition to value-in-use. Figure 1 provides a

schematic illustration of the preceding discussion.We noted earlier that misuse can be understood as a failure

to use the resources in a manner that is appropriate or expected

by the other service system. Indeed, when two systems interact

(directly or indirectly), each party has certain expectations in

relation to its own role and to the role of the other party

(Bateson, 2002). This refers to script theory, which holds that

if each party is capable of foreseeing the behavior of the other,

in addition to knowing how to act and behave in its own right

(Solomon et al., 1985), then their interactions should be

successful. In S-D logic terms, following such a script enables

the co-creation of value-in-use through the appropriate

integration and application of resources. In other words,

value co-creation occurs when two service systems have

congruent expectations of the way in which the available

resources should be used in the course of their interactions.

However, such value co-creation is imperiled if there are

discrepancies between the systems with regard to expectations

of appropriate behavior (Hubbert et al., 1995).Against this background, it is reasonable to argue that

inappropriate or unexpected use of the available resources in

an interaction will result in value co-destruction for at least

one of the parties. We therefore propose that the key term

misuse of resources refers to the integration and/or

application of the available resources by one service system

in a manner that is considered unexpected and/or

inappropriate by the other interacting service system. Such

misuse might be purely accidental, but also intentional

(Harris and Ogbonna, 2002, 2006). This issue is considered

in greater detail below.

4. Accidental v. intentional misuse of resources

4.1 Accidental misuse

Most service systems presumably intend to co-create value

through their interactions, rather than co-destroy it. Since co-

Table I Quantitative evidence of the focus on value (co)creation in the academic literature

Source Keyword search item Result

EBSCO Database (field “Abstract or

Author-supplied abstract” – as of March 2009)

Value creation 805 results (about half related to marketing)

Creation of value 128 results (a large part refer to marketing)

Co-creation 72 results (all related to marketing)

Value destruction 17 results (none concerned marketing)

Destruction of value Eight results (none concerned marketing)

Co-destruction Two results (none concerned marketing)

Index of The Service-dominant Logic Value creation Studied in 17 chapters of 32

of Marketing book (2006) Value creation costs Studied in one chapter (refers to the costs associated with value co-creation,

so barely relevant to the value co-destruction concept)

Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction

Loıc Ple and Ruben Chumpitaz Caceres

Journal of Services Marketing

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2010 · 430–437

432

Page 4: Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

creation depends on congruent expectations of the manner in

which resources should be integrated and applied by the

service systems during their interactions, it seems logical to

assume that there will usually be no deliberate discrepancies

in these mutual expectations. Nonetheless, the reality is that

such discrepancies can occur (Christensen et al., 2007) and

cause what we label an accidental misuse of resources by at

least one of the interacting service systems. This is best

illustrated by providing two examples of accidental misuse

and the circumstances under which this might occur.The first example refers to the increasingly common process

of involving customers in the innovation process. Although

such “co-innovation” has been promoted as an efficacious

method for achieving innovation (Chesbrough, 2006), the

results can be disappointing because customers have limited

knowledge about new technologies/materials and are therefore

not necessarily well placed to predict the kinds of innovation

that should be pursued, or envisage the future usages of these

innovations (Ulwick, 2002). This means that some customers

engaged in co-innovation are unable to use their resources

(and/or the firm’s resources) as the firm expected, simply

because they are limited by their frame of reference. In these

circumstances, if customers do misuse the available resources,

such misuse is clearly accidental, rather than the result of

deliberate choice. From the firm’s perspective, if the outcome

of such accidental misuse merely leads to an incremental

innovation or a “me-too” product while a disruptive

innovation was expected, this leaves the field open for

competitors who are developing alternative innovations

(Ulwick, 2002). Accordingly, the intended process of co-

creating value thanks to co-innovation has become a value co-

destruction process, which has the potential to decrease the

firm’s competitive well-being – meaning in S-D logic terms

that it limits its capacity to adapt to its competitive

environment. From the customer’s standpoint, this relative

failure to produce effective innovation has “wasted” (that is,

misused) personal resources that might have been employed

for other more beneficial activities. This, in turn, might

provoke frustration and eventually have an adverse effect on

the customer’s personal well-being – in terms of the latter’s

ability to adapt to the environment. Thus, for the customer

also, the intended process of value-co-creation has become a

co-destruction process.The second example refers to the misuse of resources that

can occur in the context of the role conflict felt by front-line

service employees who are subject to competing expectations

from their employers and their customers (Eddleston et al.,

2002; Wetzels et al., 1999). For instance, if the firm has a

policy of minimizing the amount of time that employees

spend with individual customers, but certain customers insist

on employees devoting a lot of time to dealing with their

requirements, these customers are (from the firm’s

perspective) misusing a resource (in this case, the employee)

because they are not using it as the firm expected it to be

used. This misuse is likely to be unintentional (i.e. accidental

misuse) because the customers are probably not aware of the

firm’s policy about the desirable duration of customer–

employee interactions. However, since the firm presumably

suffers from the diminished efficiency of its employees, the

intended process of value-co-creation has, from the firm’s

position, become a co-destruction process. In contrast, from

the customers’ view, the prolonged interaction provides them

with greater value and improves their well-being. Thus, in this

instance, the accidental misuse of a resource during the

systems’ interaction actually co-creates value-in-use for one

party (the customers) while simultaneously causing value

destruction-through-misuse for the other party (the firm).This second example shows that an interaction does not

necessarily engender the same value-related effects for both

service systems. Indeed, it would seem that a process of value-

Figure 1 Sources of value co-destruction through service systems’ interactions

Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction

Loıc Ple and Ruben Chumpitaz Caceres

Journal of Services Marketing

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2010 · 430–437

433

Page 5: Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

co-destruction can clearly lead to differential effects,

generating value destruction-through-misuse for one systemand value-in-use for the other.

4.2 Intentional misuse

It might seem to be counter-intuitive for service systems to

misuse resources deliberately in the course of theirinteractions. Yet, one or other party sometimes has an

interest in misusing resources. Such intentional misuse ofresources usually occurs in the context of one service system

seeking to increase its own well-being and capacity foradaptiveness to the detriment of another system’s well-being

and capacity for adaptiveness. Intentional misuse thus impliesthe existence of deliberate value imbalances, for detrimental

effects (value co-destruction) will be experienced by one of

the service systems, whereas the other interacting system willexperience benefits (value co-creation). Four examples can be

offered to illustrate this phenomenon.The first one further explores the preceding case of role

conflict. A recent research across various industries showedthat when they contact firms for service, customers essentially

expect to find knowledgeable frontline employees and (ii) tohave their problem resolved on the first call (Dougherty and

Murthy, 2009). But the metrics used by these service centers(mostly, time on hold and minutes per call) encourage

frontline employees to hurry through calls. In fact, these twofactors which customers do care most about are usually

absent from customer-service managers’ dashboards! As aresult, 50 percent of the surveyed customers declare that

many of the firms they interact with do not understand or careabout them. This means that if the employee complies with

the firm’s wishes regarding a limitation on the time taken incustomer encounters, customers will perceive that this

resource (the employee) is not being used in the appropriatemanner that they had expected. Thus, from the customers’

perspective, the firm is intentionally misusing its ownresource, and the effect of this misuse is to diminish the

customers’ well-being. Hence, from the customer’s stance,this intentional misuse of resources has resulted in value co-

destruction. In contrast, from the firm’s perspective, theintentional misuse of resources enables the firm to co-create

value, since it is more efficient and productive (Singh, 2000).The second example of deliberate misuse of resources also

involves the employees’ behavior. Here, these front-lineservice employees are regarded as service systems in

themselves, rather than resources of the firm (Vargo et al.,2008). According to this view, the service system represented

by the front-line employees interacts with two other systems

– the firm and the customers. In these interactions,employees are in position to use, or intentionally misuse,

their own resources (e.g. skills and knowledge) and/or theresources of the firm and the customers. In other words, they

can choose to engage in “sabotage behaviors”, i.e. “behaviorsthat are intentionally designed negatively to affect service”

(Harris and Ogbonna, 2002, p. 166). In so doing, theyeffectively improve their well-being (i.e. co-create value) by

enhancing their personal self-esteem, perceived status, andjob satisfaction, while decreasing the well-being of the other

systems (i.e. co-destroy value) by adversely impacting on thefirm’s performance and the quality of service delivered to

customers (Harris and Ogbonna, 2002, 2006).Our third example concerns the intentional misuse of

resources in the context of managing distribution channels.

Many firms seek to reduce costs and improve productivity by

encouraging their customers to switch from person-to-personservice encounters to automated self-service (Curran and

Meuter, 2005). However, because customers vary in their

willingness and aptitude for such self-service (Lee, 2002), afirm that imposes self-service technology on all its customers

is intentionally using its resources in a manner that isperceived as inappropriate by those customers who are

reluctant to embrace the use of the technology. From thelatter’s standpoint, such an intentional misuse of resources by

the firm will adversely impact their well-being.The final example illustrates how customers can

intentionally misuse resources (the firm’s resources and/ortheir own resources) to obtain more value for themselves

while co-destroying value for the firm. For instance,customers misuse a firm’s resources and their own when

they complain illegitimately (Reynolds and Harris, 2005) or

when they adopt opportunistic behaviors to take advantage ofservice employees (Ple, 2006). A simple example of such

intentional misuse of resources is telling untruths to front-lineemployees with a view to benefiting from preferential

treatment. From the firm’s perspective, customers’ resources(e.g. cognitive skills) are used in an unexpected manner

resulting in value co-creation for one party (the customer)while causing value co-destruction for the other one (the

firm).

5. Contributions and implications

5.1 Theoretical contributions

The aim of this conceptual study has been to adopt theterminology and conceptual framework of S-D logic to

explore the notion that the interactions between servicesystems (such as firms and customers) do not necessarily

result in value co-creation. We argue that these interactionsbetween parties can also have adverse consequences, and that

they can actually co-destroy value. We propose that a co-

destruction process of value is triggered when at least one ofthe interacting service systems misuses its own resources and/

or the resources of another system. In this context, the term“misuse” refers to a failure to integrate and/or apply resources

in a manner that is appropriate and expected by the otherservice system. Such a co-destruction process results in value

destruction-through-misuse for at least one of the parties.The present conceptual study is apparently the first to have

introduced the notion of value co-destruction into theconceptual framework of S-D logic. Indeed, it is one of the

few to have explored the concept of value destruction in themarketing literature at large. In so doing, this paper has

responded to the call of Vargo and Lusch (2008c) for thefurther development of the emerging S-D logic of marketing.As a corollary to its main aim, this article has also

contributed to a better understanding of value-relatedprocesses in general, about which marketing thought has

remained relatively silent so far (Payne et al., 2008; Vargoet al., 2008). In this regard, we have noted that the process of

value destruction-through-misuse can result from eitheraccidental or intentional misuse of resources by service

systems. In addition, we have shown that this can engender animbalance in the levels of value achieved by different service

systems. In fact, it is apparent that the co-destruction processcan actually result in value co-destruction for one of the

systems and value co-creation for the other.

Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction

Loıc Ple and Ruben Chumpitaz Caceres

Journal of Services Marketing

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2010 · 430–437

434

Page 6: Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

5.2 Directions for further research

This study does not pretend to be exhaustive in any way, andcertainly raises more questions for future research than it

answers. Four possible directions for future empirical andtheoretical research are proposed below.First, it would be interesting to explore the potential

influence of the characteristics of service systems on the co-

destruction process. For example, the interactions between afirm and its customers who have a good understanding of a

product and its uses might differ from the interactionsbetween the firm and its customers who lack such an

understanding (Ulwick, 2002; Von Hippel, 1978). Similarly,the intensity of value-related processes (and hence the

likelihood of value co-creation or co-destruction) might varyin accordance with the customers’ interest in having a

relationship with a firm and the quantity and quality ofresources that they are prepared to bring to the interaction

(Ward and Dagger, 2007).Another promising area for future research is the long-term

dynamics of value-related processes. For example, although afirm might derive short-term value from a decision to force all

customers to accept self-service technology, such a decisionmight result in long-term co-destruction of value if too many

customers are disappointed and eventually leave the firm.Longitudinal research on value-related processes (and co-

destruction in particular) is therefore required (Woodruff andFlint, 2006).Third, given that the misuse of resources is at the heart of

value co-destruction, further study of the antecedents and

dynamics of the misuse of resources is of primary importance.It would be interesting to explore the circumstances that

induce a service system to misuse its own resources or thoseof others. Future research could also explore whether

accidental misuse becomes formalized over time to becomeintentional misuse.Finally, future research could explore the dynamics between

value co-destruction and value-in-exchange (that is, the

money that one service system gives to another to obtain itsvalue proposition). Given that the present study has shown

that a co-destruction process might produce an imbalance invalue between interacting service systems, it would be

interesting to know whether (and to what extent) thisimbalance has an impact on value-in-exchange.The sets of questions raised above, while covering a wide

array of issues, collectively point to a need for exploratory

research which would enable to develop measurement tools(e.g. scales) for the new concepts proposed here. It would also

enable to study the antecedents and relationships of theseconcepts, as a first step towards a theoretical framework of

value co-destruction that would complement the one of valueco-creation. As a starting point for such research, conducting

a carefully-designed in-depth qualitative research may bemore appropriate than doing a broad-based survey covering a

wide spectrum of industries and companies. To that extent,observations and interviews would be essential research

methods to gain useful insights into the four precedingdirections. All the same, given the lack of documentation of

the properties of the concepts and the need for identifying andclassifying them, the critical incident technique would be anappropriate research method (e.g. Bitner et al., 1994) to

collect descriptions of salient past experiences of value co-creation and co-destruction faced by service systems (the data

collection could concern either one system, or dyads).

5.3 Managerial implications

When contemplating the potential benefits of co-creating

value, managers should not neglect the possibility of value co-

destruction. The stakes are high: “40 percent of the customers

who suffer through bad experiences stop doing business with

the offending company [. . .] without the slightest warning”

(Dougherty and Murthy, 2009, p. 22). To do so, we propose

that managerial thinking and actions should strive to avoid or

at least limit the misuse of resources, which we argue is at the

heart of value co-destruction. This means that it is essential to

align the mutual expectations of the interacting service

systems (that is, to reduce or eliminate the discrepancies

between these mutual expectations), or to be prepared to

recover from the occurrence of misuse.To prevent misuse, firms should communicate precisely prior

to the interaction about the manner they expect their

customers to integrate and apply the resources needed for

co-creating value. Such information about the nature and

content of the interaction can be provided via detailed

brochures, on websites through text, audio, pictures, video,

etc. But due to their “unidirectional” nature (from the firm to

the customer), such socialization techniques (Kelley et al.,

1990) are not enough to align the mutual expectations, for it is

important that the customers do not feel that they are imposed

a specific behavior in the interaction. Hence, they must also be

convinced that the firm shares their own view of value-in-use.

Interviews, surveys, observations and experimentations of

actual and potential customers’ behaviors are useful tools to

know and understand how the customers expect resources to

be integrated and applied in interactions.However, given that it cannot be systematically avoided,

practitioners should consider methods to identify misuse, and

to recover from it. To that aim, training and empowering

frontline employees may offer some assistance. These

employees should be able to recognize the occurrence of

misuse and to learn how to align the parties’ mutual

expectations. If the alignment proves to be impossible to

reach, empowered frontline employees can finally offer the

customer appropriate solutions. Technology too can help to

identify and recover from misuse, even though it must be

carefully managed. For example, customers can send e-mails

to complain about misuse-related problems. But nowadays,

they can also rely on the power of blogs or social websites such

as Twitter and Facebook to share these problems with

potentially hundreds or thousands of people. This obliges

firms to be more and more reactive, or even pro-active, to

avoid brand image adverse consequences (and thus increased

value co-destruction).

6. Conclusion

The potential for co-creating value through interactions is

huge, but the possibility of interactional value co-destruction

should not be overlooked. Managers and academics alike

must recognize that value co-creation is not the only possible

outcome of the interaction between service systems. Adverse

consequences can occur for a variety of reasons during the

process, and it is therefore essential, before implementing a

strategy based on S-D logic, to consider where, how, and to

what extent co-destruction might occur.

Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction

Loıc Ple and Ruben Chumpitaz Caceres

Journal of Services Marketing

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2010 · 430–437

435

Page 7: Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

References

Bateson, J.E. (2002), “Are your customers good enough for

your service business?”, Academy of Management Executive,Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 110-9.

Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P. (2003), “Psychological

implications of customer participation in co-production”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 14-28.Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.B. and Mohr, L.A. (1994), “Critical

service encounters: the employee’s viewpoint”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 95-106.

Bitner, M.J., Faranda, W.T., Hubbert, A.R. and Zeithaml, V.A.

(1997), “Customer contributions and roles in service

delivery”, International Journal of Service Industry

Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 193-205.Chesbrough, H. (2006), Open Business Models: How to Thrivein the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard Business School

Press, Boston, MA.Christensen, C., Anthony, S.D., Berstell, G. and Nitterhouse, D.

(2007), “Finding the right job for your product”, MIT

Sloan Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 38-47.Curran, J.M. and Meuter, M.L. (2005), “Self-service

technology adoption: comparing three technologies”,

Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 103-13.Dong, B., Evans, K.R. and Zou, S. (2008), “The effects of

customer participation in co-created service recovery”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1,

pp. 123-37.Dougherty, D. and Murthy, A. (2009), “What service customers

really want”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 No. 9, p. 22.Eddleston, K.A., Kidder, D.L. and Litzky, B.E. (2002),

“Who’s the boss? Contending with competing expectations

from customers and management”, Academy of ManagementExecutive, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 85-95.

Etgar, M. (2006), “Co-production of services: a managerial

extension”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), TheService-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and

Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, NY,

pp. 128-38.Gronroos, C. (2006), “What can a service logic offer

marketing theory?”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds),

The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate andDirections, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, NY,

pp. 354-64.Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2002), “Exploring service

sabotage: the antecedents, types and consequences of

frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors”, Journal of Service

Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 163-83.Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2006), “Service sabotage: a

study of antecedents and consequences”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 543-58.

Hubbert, A.R., Sehorn, A.G. and Brown, S.W. (1995),

“Service expectations: the consumer versus the provider”,

International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6No. 1, pp. 6-21.

Jaworski, B. and Kohli, A.K. (2006), “Co-creating the voice

of the customer”, in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), TheService-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and

Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, NY,

pp. 109-17.Kelley, S.W., Donnelly, J.H. and Skinner, S.J. (1990),

“Customer participation in service production and

delivery”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 315-35.

Lee, J. (2002), “A key to marketing financial services: the

right mix of products, services, channels and customers”,

Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 238-58.Lengnick-Hall, C. (1996), “Customer contributions to

quality: a different view of the customer-oriented firm”,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 791-810.Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006a), “Service-dominant

logic: reactions, reflections and refinements”, MarketingTheory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-8.

Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2006b), “Service-dominantlogic as a foundation for a general theory”, in Lusch, R.F.

and Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-dominant Logic ofMarketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, M.E. Sharpe,

Armonk, New York, NY, pp. 406-20.Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and O’Brien, M. (2007),

“Competing through service: insights from service-

dominant logic”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1,pp. 5-18.

Maxham, J.G. III (2001), “Service recovery’s influence on

consumer satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth, andpurchase intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54No. 1, pp. 11-24.

Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P. (2008), “Managingthe co-creation of value”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 83-96.

Ple, L. (2006), “Managing multichannel coordination in retailbanking: the influence of customer participation”,

International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5,

pp. 327-45.Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2002), “The co-creation

connection”, Strategy þ Business, Vol. 2, pp. 50-61.Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), The Future ofCompetition, Co-creating Unique Value with Customers,Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Reynolds, K. and Harris, L.C. (2005), “When service failureis not service failure: an exploration of the types and

motives of ‘illegitimate’ customer complaining”, Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 321-35.

Singh, J. (2000), “Performance productivity and quality of

frontline employees in service organizations”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 15-34.

Snellman, K. and Vihtkari, T. (2003), “Customercomplaining behavior in technology-based service

encounters”, International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 217-31.

Solomon, M.R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J.A. and Gutman,

E.G. (1985), “A role theory perspective on dyadic

interactions: the service encounter”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 99-111.

Spohrer, J., Maglio, P.P., Bailey, J. and Gruhl, D. (2007),

“Steps towards a science of service systems”, Computer,Vol. 40, pp. 71-7.

Thomke, S. and Von Hippel, E. (2002), “Customers as

innovators, a new way to create value”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 74-81.

Ulwick, A.W. (2002), “Turn customer input into innovation”,

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 91-7.Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new

dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R. (2008a), “Why ‘service’?”, Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1,

pp. 25-38.

Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction

Loıc Ple and Ruben Chumpitaz Caceres

Journal of Services Marketing

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2010 · 430–437

436

Page 8: Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R. (2008b), “From goods toservice(s): divergences and convergences of logics”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 254-9.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R. (2008c), “Service-dominant logic:continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008), “On valueand value co-creation: a service systems and service logicperspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26,pp. 145-52.

Von Hippel, E. (1978), “Successful industrial products fromcustomer ideas: a paradigm, evidence and implications”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 39-49.

Ward, T. and Dagger, T.S. (2007), “The complexity ofrelationship marketing for service customers”, Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 281-90.

Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K. and Lemmink, J. (1999), “Rolestress in after-sales service management”, Journal of ServiceResearch, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 50-67.

Woodruff, R.B. and Flint, D.J. (2006), “Marketing’s service-dominant logic and customer value”, in Lusch, R.F. andVargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing:Dialog, Debate and Directions, M.E Sharpe, Armonk, NewYork, NY, pp. 183-95.

Further reading

Jacob, F. and Ulaga, W. (2008), “The transition from productto service in business markets: an agenda for academicinquiry”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37 No. 2,pp. 247-53.

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

About the authors

Loıc Ple is Assistant Professor and Director of the New

Educational Technologies Department at IESEG School of

Management, France. He received his PhD in 2006 from the

University of Paris-Dauphine (France). His research topics

deal with customer participation, the integration of the

customer in organizations and the way this influences their

business models. His research has been published in academic

and professional journals such as M@n@agement, the

International Journal of Bank Marketing, and L’Expansion

Management Review. He also won the 2010 M@n@gement

award delivered to the best paper of the AIMS Conference

(Association Internationale de Management Strategique).

Loıc Ple is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:

[email protected] Chumpitaz Caceres is Full Professor and Head of

the Department of Marketing at IESEG School of

Management, France. He received his MBA in 1995 and

PhD in 1998, both from the Louvain School of Management

at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. Prior to

entering academia, Dr Chumpitaz worked for several years in

management in the telecommunication industrial sector and

for almost 15 years he has served as an analytical consultant

for marketing research projects and agencies. His research

focuses on service quality, customer satisfaction, brand

loyalty, service recovery and market orientation. His

research has been published in academic and professional

journals such as Managing Service Quality, International

Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,

European Business Forum, European Journal of Marketing,

Recherche et Application en Marketing, and Annals of Operations

Research.

Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction

Loıc Ple and Ruben Chumpitaz Caceres

Journal of Services Marketing

Volume 24 · Number 6 · 2010 · 430–437

437

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints