Value co-creation practices and capabilities: Sustained purposeful engagement across B2B systems

Abstract

The paradigm of value co-creation in business markets is now well established in the marketing literature. However, the practices and capabilities for collaborative value co-creation are less understood, particularly in increasingly boundary-less interorganizational, network and ecosystem relationships. This paper describes sets of practices that organizations in business markets adopt to co-create value. We provide a theoretically-grounded, empirically-informed classification of value co-creating practices, identifying the underlying capabilities needed to realize value in B2B systems. We adopt a case study approach utilizing various methods of data collection to explore co-creation practices from four organizations. The analysis reveals that ‘sustained purposeful engagement’ underpins the organizations' ability to co-create and capture value. Implications for organizations willing to develop co-creation capabilities and practices are discussed

Open Service Innovation: The Role of Intermediary Capabilities

“…This purposeful engagement demands intermediary capabilities and related micro‐foundations that have not been specified in prior studies but are crucial so that service firms can effectively leverage their own open service innovation. Although previous research has identified specific CCs (Karpen et al, ; Marcos‐Cuevas et al, ), we lack knowledge about how these capabilities foster client‐engagement through other organizational capabilities, such as marketing and technological capabilities (Morgan, ; Zhou and Wu, ), to co‐create professional services. The results suggest that intermediaries need to develop and deploy CCs to involve clients in strategically co‐developing both the technology and market for open service innovation.…”

“…Previous research has highlighted the role of intermediaries in facilitating external collaboration and knowledge exchange between entities, acting as an “agent or broker in [some] aspect of the innovation process between two or more parties” (Howells, , p. 720). Innovation intermediaries have been referred to as third parties (Mantel and Rosegger, ), superstructure organizations (Lynn, Reddy, and Aram, ), brokers (Hargadon and Sutton, ), knowledge brokers (Hargadon, ), bridge builders (Lagnevik, Sarv, and Khalid Khan, ), boundary organizations (Guston, ), and innovation brokers (Klerkx, Hall, and Leeuwis, ).…”

“…Third, this study extends knowledge about organizational capabilities required to realize co‐creation (Wilden and Gudergan, ). Previous research has identified specific CCs (Karpen, Bove, and Lukas, ; Marcos‐Cuevas et al, ). However, knowledge is limited about how these capabilities foster client engagement through other organizational capabilities, such as marketing and technological capabilities (Morgan, ; Zhou and Wu, ), to co‐create a professional service that, in the here emphasized context, supports a client’s open service innovation.…”

“…Considerable research has discussed the importance of leveraging external service ecosystems to drive service innovation (e.g., Marcos‐Cuevas, Nätti, Palo, and Baumann, ; Lusch and Nambisan, ). Firms benefit from accessing external resources such as knowledge (e.g., Rusanen, Halinen, and Jaakkola, ), and interfirm collaboration has positive innovation implications (e.g., Schleimer and Faems, ).…”

Engagement, Empowerment and Patient Generated Health Data

“…Where patients are not currently creating data, it can be solicited by clinicians through practices and processes. Indeed when it is unsolicited it can be inhibited by clinicians who do not understand the foundational principles by which co-creation engagement occurs (Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014;Marcos-Cuevas, et al, 2016) causing provider led co-destruction, impacting on the patient engagement.…”