Value co-destruction in interfirm relationships

Prior, Daniel D.; Cuevas, Javier

doi:10.1177/1470593116649792

Cited by 112 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous research, the present study suggests that value co-destruction not only takes place between PSOs and users, but between multiple types of interacting actors (Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres 2010;Prior and Marcos-Cuevas 2016). The great majority of the incidents causing value co-destruction could be traced back to one single actor.…”

Section: Actors' Responsibility For Value Co-destructionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Continuing the development of the public service logic: a study of value co-destruction in public services

Engen

Fransson

Quist

et al. 2020

Public Management Review

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on a study of value co-destruction in public services, i.e. diminishment of value by interaction between providers, users, and other actors. The goal is to contribute to the public service logic (PSL) that suggest a shift from linear coproduction to dynamic value co-creation. However, PSL has devoted scant attention to value co-destruction. The paper contributes by identifying four dimensions representing causes of value co-destruction in public services. The paper also shows how value may be co-destroyed in the interaction between several types of actors, thus advancing a service ecosystems perspective for understanding value co-destruction.

show abstract

Section: Actors' Responsibility For Value Co-destructionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Continuing the development of the public service logic: a study of value co-destruction in public services

Engen

Fransson

Quist

et al. 2020

Public Management Review

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Plé and Cáceres, 2010, p. 431). Value co-destruction is interactional between a firm and a customer (Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2016). Interaction refers to resource exchange and resource development through adaptation, coordination and communication (Gummesson and Mele, 2010).…”

Section: Value Co-destructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the context of this study, the level of service failure varied in gravity from being something serious, such as waiting for four hours for an Uber taxi, to something trivial, such as a short delay. In addition, because of the service failure, some customers experienced a net deficit, the difference between perceived benefits and costs from the interaction in which excessive costs can be psychological and emotional (Prior and Marcos-Cuevas, 2016).…”

Section: Uber Drivers' Bad Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of value co-destruction: Uber customer perspectives

Sthapit

Björk

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -This study aims to explore the antecedents that generate value co-destruction, the negative outcomes resulting from interactive value formation, in the sharing economy context, particularly taxi services. The focus of the study is on customers' Uber reviews that are written in English and posted online. Three keywords, ''bad'', ''terrible'' and ''awful'', were used to capture online narratives linked to customers' negative experiences with Uber. Out of the 758 online reviews, 75 negative reviews were analysed in this study. Design/methodology/approach -A grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. Findings -Two distinct themes resulted in value co-destruction: Uber drivers' bad behaviour and poor customer service. The managerial implications include that Uber clearly should invest more resources to minimise the negative experiences of its customers by clearly defining the taxi drivers' tasks and responsibilities. In addition, when customers report their dissatisfaction, they should be dealt with promptly and effectively through good customer service.Research limitations/implications -First, the netnography study, by its nature, was restricted to those customers who shared their reviews online. The study did not consider those customers who have not posted their reviews online. Second, the focus of the study was on customer reviews that were written in English. Third, only three keywords (''bad'', ''terrible'' and ''awful'') were used in the data selection process, limiting the number of review posts (75) that were analysed in this study. In addition, even if this study does not produce statistically generalizable findings, the findings are valuable in an analytical sense. Practical implications -From a managerial perspective, Uber clearly should invest more in resources to minimise the negative experiences of its customers (both domestic customers and tourists) by clearly defining the taxi drivers' tasks and responsibilities. If the drivers' tasks are unclear, then customers cannot be served in an effective manner and with consistent service quality. The taxi drivers, regardless of their full-time or part-time work shifts, should ensure that quality services are offered to customers. Providing high-quality service might reduce the number of complaints and result in positive comments and compliments. Originality/value -This study addresses the gap in previous literature by examining customers' negative experiences during the overall service encounter and antecedents of value co-destruction in the context of Uber. This study contributes to a better understanding of value co-destruction within the sharing economy.

show abstract

“…However, it is unclear how SI and RI affect value. Our study, drawing on practice theory approach ( (Prior and Marcos-Cuevas 2016;Plé 2016;Wilden et al 2017;Hoyer et al 2010), our data suggest that VCC/VCD derives from the impact of actors' SI and RI practices on the variations in the amount of the four forms of capital owned by any given actor. The results also show a broad typology of VCD practices, each affecting different forms of capital: economic, cultural, social, or symbolic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Toxic Collaborations: Co-Destroying Value in the B2B Context

Cabiddu

Frau

Lombardo

2019

Journal of Service Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Service research and marketing theory have found value co-creation to be a key element in the business-to-business (B2B) context. Value can also be co-destroyed by the same actors who interact to create it. However, very few studies have examined service provider-customer work practices when value co-destruction (VCD) occurs. In this qualitative study, we approach VCD by combining social interactions and resource integration practices with a notion of value that reveals its multiform nature. We adopt a value definition that enables us to show that the notion of co-creation and co-destruction should be viewed conceptually as representing a value variation space rather than as being dichotomous or mutually exclusive. Our research allows practitioners to recognize and contrast VCD, as it emerges and impacts their B2B relations.

show abstract

Value co-destruction in interfirm relationships

Cited by 112 publications

References 51 publications

Continuing the development of the public service logic: a study of value co-destruction in public services

Continuing the development of the public service logic: a study of value co-destruction in public services

Sources of value co-destruction: Uber customer perspectives

Toxic Collaborations: Co-Destroying Value in the B2B Context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About