Co-creation of services: an online network perspective

Abstract

Purpose In the co-creation process from a network perspective, service is produced, designed, and evaluated entirely by the actors with dynamic roles and with less participation by the firm's employees in the service process. The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical model that represents environmental stimuli and value perceptions that contribute to service co-creation behaviour in an online network. Design/methodology/approach A total of 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of two online programming communities – GitHub and Stack Overflow co-creators, with the data analysed using thematic analysis. The stimulus-organism-response model guided the development of the final model. Findings Social influence and trust are influential in actor value perceptions, including primary and network value, the interplay of which leads actors to co-production, supportive, and administrative behaviour. Environmental factors do not directly drive actors; rather it is the value that initiates and drives actors, which, by extension, initiates and drives the co-creation of services. Research limitations/implications The service co-creation behaviour model provides a basis for future research in the co-creation and co-destruction context to model behaviours within the online network organisation setting and thereby enable improvement of such systems. This model can be operationalised in a network environment through design features. Originality/value This paper provides a rich understanding of environmental stimuli and value perception factors that contribute to the co-creation of services, and identifies different types of behaviours in dynamic online networks. This paper presents a new model of different types of behaviours emerging from actor participation in the co-creation process.

The effects of AI service quality and AI function-customer ability fit on customer's overall co-creation experience

“…Both customer participation behaviors and customer citizenship behaviors in co-creation have been investigated (Torkzadeh et al, 2021;Yen et al, 2020;Yi et al, 2011). Innovativeness, co-creation attitude, consumer engagement, perceived value and sense of virtual community were found to be the influencing factors of customer co-creation behaviors (Ahn et al, 2019;Bidar et al, 2022;Chou et al, 2016;Nambisan and Baron, 2009). Employee's role in customer co-creation has also been investigated (Lee and Van Dolen, 2015;Li et al, 2017).…”

“…Innovativeness, co-creation attitude, consumer engagement, perceived value and sense of virtual community were found to be the influencing factors of customer co-creation behaviors (Ahn et al. , 2019; Bidar et al. , 2022; Chou et al.…”

The dynamics of value co‐creation behavior: A systematic review and future research agenda

“…Most of the reviewed studies focused on the influence of antecedents on VCCB (as a secondorder construct comprising CPB and CZB, like Chen & Lee, 2023;Wu et al, 2023). Depending on the research objectives, Yi and Gong (2013) suggest that either of these two dimensions may be employed indepen- advocacy [Yoon & Lee, 2019]), willingness to participate and co-create (Bhatti et al, 2020), knowledge sharing and integration (Zhang et al, 2019), feedback failure and service co-innovation (Rubio et al, 2021b), supportive behavior, co-production behavior, and organizational behavior (Bidar et al, 2022), environmental citizenship behavior, dialogue communication behavior, knowledge-sharing behavior, and coopetition behavior (Nie & Tang, 2022). Tourists' physical and mental cocreation (Xie et al, 2020) and co-creation experiences (Meng & Cui, 2020) have also been examined in specific contexts such as tourism (Meng & Cui, 2020;Xie et al, 2020).…”

“…Table 6 presents a list of mediators (43) and moderators (38) that were extracted from the reviewed studies. Commonly used constructs that mediate the relationship between VCCB (as a dependent variable) and various antecedents (identified in Table 4) include social identity and corporate authenticity (Yoon & Lee, 2019), perceived value (Bidar et al, 2022; Cui & Meng, 2021; Morosan & DeFranco, 2016), trust (Casper Ferm & Thaichon, 2021; Roy et al, 2020), and customer‐company identification (Paulssen et al, 2019; Roy et al, 2020; Tuan, 2017). The mediating roles of customer satisfaction (Kim et al, 2019; Manzoor et al, 2021) and co‐creation attitudes (Weretecki, Greve, & Henseler, 2021) have also been explored.…”

How features and affordances of a metaverse portal engage users? Evidence from exergames

“…Thereafter, we went through two rounds of data analysis. The data were first analyzed by one of the authors employing the techniques of In Vivo coding using the exact words from the interviewees' own language in their statements as codes and latent coding using the underlying meaning of the interviewees as codes (Bidar et al, 2021;Flick, 2014). For example, following the principles of In Vivo coding, we coded the statement of P24: "Its whole 360-degree display of the surrounding made me feel like I was really there" as "360-degree display".…”