Involving customers in innovation: knowledgeability and agency as process variables

Abstract

Purpose: Recent research places an increased emphasis on the inclusion of the customer in value creation, learning, and innovation processes yet there remains a gap in our understanding of just how such customer involvement may work. This paper seeks to address this gap by examining two aspects of customer involvement; their knowledgeability and their agency. In addition, we explore three boundaries (semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic) across which relationship development occurs and which may facilitate and/or inhibit value cocreation, collaborative learning, and innovation processes.Design/methodology/approach: We utilised three case studies. Two were large scale construction projects in the UK, and one was a global professional accounting firm in the USA.Findings: Customers may become frustrated if not allowed to exercise their agency. However, their involvement can create tensions for suppliers who may have to become more tolerant of divergent goals. In respect of knowledgeability, we found that constraint satisfaction is important in allowing customers to reconcile their personal knowledge schema with that of the collective schema. However, we also noted that customer knowledgeability brings with it challenges for suppliers, who must find ways to add value for such customers. Research implications:We pose a number of further questions relating to the agency and knowledgeability of customers and their inclusion in value co-creation, collaborative learning, and innovation processes. We also highlight the need for guidance in identifying and minimising the barriers to crossing semantic, syntactic and pragmatic boundaries between customers and suppliers. Originality/value:We make an important contribution to research in the field in that we investigate how the inclusion of the customer in business networks alters current assumptions and practices.

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

“…[Insert Figure 2 about here] Additionally, this paper has supplemented the earlier work related to the dark-sides of business-to-consumer and business-to-business marketing relationships. That is, the extant literature has explored how organisations can yield negative relationships with customers (value co-creation manifesting into value co-destruction) (Patterson and Baron, 2010;Caru and Cova, 2015;Heidenreich et al, 2015;Chowdhury et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2018;Cabiddu et al, 2019), as well as failed relationships across interfirm strategies (Grayson and Ambler, 1999;Abosag et al, 2016;Grandinetti, 2017;Peters et al, 2018;Crick et al, 2019a). By investigating the non-linear (quadratic) links between coopetition and customer satisfaction performance, market performance, and financial performance, new evidence has emerged on the outcomes that could be harmed by firms engaging in "too little" or "too much" of such strategies.…”

“…Following on, value co-creation (and value co-destruction) has been incorporated into the business-to-business marketing literature (Gronroos, 2009;Komulainen, 2014;Peters et al, 2018;Cabiddu et al, 2019). For instance, Chowdhury et al (2016) linkedinter-firm tensions to some of the dark-sides of value co-creation.…”

“…If firms engage in value co-destruction (instead of value cocreation), it could be difficult to implement service recovery strategies to mitigate the damage from such poor-quality business-to-consumer marketing relationships (Caru and Cova, 2015). Following on, value co-creation (and value codestruction) has been incorporated into the business-to-business marketing literature (Gronroos, 2009;Komulainen, 2014;Peters et al, 2018;Cabiddu et al, 2019). For instance, Chowdhury et al (2016) linked inter-firm tensions to some of the dark sides of value co-creation.…”

Buyer relationships when developing new products: a contingency model

“…By clarifying the innovation’s capabilities up-front, sellers can reduce information asymmetries thereby dispelling any negative perceptions regarding the innovation (Hoyer et al , 2010). In addition, information dissemination can mitigate the adaptation problem by reducing potential requests for product redesigns or modifications (Peters et al , 2018). Collectively, these benefits can help sellers build switching costs (Pick and Eisend, 2014).…”

“…Seller–buyer relationships during NPD can lead to more innovative products (Chang and Taylor, 2016), enhanced product quality (Hoyer et al , 2010), and reduced time to market (Narayanan et al , 2015). In technology-based, industrial settings, such relationships can also hasten the diffusion process by reducing adoption risks (Peters et al , 2018).…”