A light in the dark: The benefits of co-production in service failures

Pacheco, Natália Araújo; Becker, Larissa; Brei, Vinícius Andrade

doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.012

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The potential psychological response of lay actors to participation and the self-serving bias effect (Bendapudi and Leone, 2003) have to be taken into consideration when designing the co-production process. Specifically, an increase in the users' perceived control can mitigate the bias and increase satisfaction (Stevens et al, 2017, Pacheco et al, 2017. The level of perceived co-production intensity (i.e., nonmonetary customer input, such as perceived effort and time invested) can negatively affect customer satisfaction with the co-production process (Wu, 2011).…”

Section: Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bovaird 2007; Bovaird and Loeffler, 2012;Kershaw et al, 2018;Ryan, 2012;Sicilia et al, 2016;Tuurnas 2016Tuurnas , 2015Verschuere et al, 2012;Williams et al, 2016. (2016), Etgar (2008), Fledderus et al, 2015, Flores andVasquez-Parraga (2015), Haumann et al (2015), Mende et al (2017), Pacheco et al (2017), Stevens et al (2017), Stokburger-Sauer et al (2016, Wu (2011), Wu (2011. Zolfagharian et al (2018).…”

Section: Management Of Professionals Traning and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comprehensive framework for the activation, management, and evaluation of Co-production in the public sector

Cepiku

Marsilio²,

Sicilia³

et al. 2022

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Management Of Professionals Traning and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive framework for the activation, management, and evaluation of Co-production in the public sector

Cepiku

Marsilio²,

Sicilia³

et al. 2022

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Co-production continues to generate research interest as an important and expanding element of the economy (Dellaert, 2019; Jung and Yoo, 2019; Pacheco et al , 2017). Prior scholars have noted that, while sharing similarities, co-production is different from co-creation in that co-production is concerned with the product offering itself and potential value generated from participating in the production process, whereas consumers are always co-creators of value (Chaney, 2019; Chathoth et al , 2013; Etgar, 2008; He et al , 2017; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo and Lusch, 2014; Voorberg et al , 2015).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In any case, consumers engage in co-production when the purchase situation is advantageous for doing so – that is, when the consumer can attain greater value through co-production, then the consumer is likely to co-produce when that option is available (Etgar, 2008). Co-production has been shown to enhance consumer responses in many contexts, including media communication (Bacile et al , 2014; Namin et al , 2017a) and services (Chathoth et al , 2013; Jung and Yoo, 2019; Namin, 2017; Pacheco et al , 2017; Torres et al , 2018), as well as goods.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-production or DIY: an analytical model of consumer choice and social preferences

Dargahi

Namin

Ketron

2020

JPBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how consumers choose among three different options offered by a firm in a monopolistic setting, namely, to buy a standard product with a non-customizable design, to ask the firm to customize a product using the consumer’s ideal design or to do the entire design task by themselves. The authors also investigate how social preference intensity and the possibility of reselling a product influence a consumer’s decision. Design/methodology/approach The authors develop an analytical (game theoretical) consumer choice framework and incorporate a psychological factor into the model. The authors also empirically validate the analytical findings using simulations. Findings The authors find that as social preference intensity increases, the number of co-producers can either decrease or increase. The authors offer a closed-form solution and interval graphs showing that when the setup price is large (small), the proportion of the market that chooses to do-it-yourself (DIY) is large (small) and an increase in social preference intensity leads to a decrease (increase) in co-production. Originality/value This is the first paper to incorporate a social factor into an economic model in a consumer behavior setting. It is also the first paper to explain how customers’ preferences among possible options, such as DIY (without the firm’s help), co-production (with the firm’s help) and a standard product might change while considering other people’s preferences, as well as given associated costs.

show abstract

“…So service failures are seemingly inevitable. Moreover, Pacheco et al (2017) show that companies and customers can benefit even when failures occur. Prior research on service failures has focused on how to manage them (e.g., Chen et al, 2012; Dong et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In‐store service decisions under consumer disappointment aversion

Wang

2021

Manage Decis Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates how retailers invest in‐store service by considering the possible service failure that occurs in a store, and consumers' disappointment concerns it causes. Specifically, we establish an analytical framework to examine several competitive scenarios. The results reveal that, first, the presence of disappointment concerns always decreases the in‐store service level in equilibrium, while ignoring it by retailers may result in their overinvestments in in‐store service. Although conventional wisdom may suggest offering more in‐store service to consumers helps the traditional retailer compete with online rivals, this may not be true in the presence of disappointment aversion.

show abstract

A light in the dark: The benefits of co-production in service failures

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

A comprehensive framework for the activation, management, and evaluation of Co-production in the public sector

A comprehensive framework for the activation, management, and evaluation of Co-production in the public sector

Co-production or DIY: an analytical model of consumer choice and social preferences

In‐store service decisions under consumer disappointment aversion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About