Value co-destruction: a typology of resource misintegration manifestations

Abstract

Purpose Actors who participate in co-created service experiences typically assume that they will experience improved well-being. However, a growing body of literature demonstrates that the reverse is also likely to be true, with one or more actors experiencing value co-destruction (VCD), rather than value co-creation, in the service system. Building on the notion of resource misintegration as a trigger of the VCD process, this paper offers a typology of resource misintegration manifestations and to present a dynamic conceptualization of the VCD process. Design/methodology/approach A systematic, iterative VCD literature review was conducted with a priori aims to uncover the manifestations of resource misintegration and illustrate its connection to VCD for an actor or actors. Findings Ten distinct manifestations of resource misintegration are identified that provide evidence or an early warning sign of the potential for negative well-being for one or more actors in the service system. Furthermore, a dynamic framework illustrates how an affected actor uses proactive and reactive coping and support resources to prevent VCD or restore well-being. Originality/value The study presents a typology of manifestations of resource misintegration that signal or warn of the potential for VCD, thus providing an opportunity to prevent or curtail the VCD process.

The Potential Pitfalls of Co-production: An Overview on the Co-design of Public Services with and for Family Caregivers Living in Rural and Remote Area

“…Third, in our research we saw that the two dynamic processes (co-creation and co-destruction) coexist [17]. Caregivers were involved in and contributed to the new services, but in some cases their scepticism inhibited their active involvement.…”

“…The existing literature reports several and different de nitions of co-destruction [17], making the concept confused and imprecise [11]. To make the scenario even more complex, academics refer to the codestruction concept by means of different terms, such as: 'value destruction' [26], 'value diminution' [27], 'value no creation' [28] and 'destruction of common value' [17,29]. However, almost all the de nitions agree on considering co-destruction to be an 'interactional process' in which different stakeholders are involved and fail to integrate each other parties' resources, reducing the well-being of one or more stakeholders [13].…”

“…Although co-creation and co-destruction generate opposite results, they are considered two dynamic processes that may coexist [17] and alternate with each other over time [33]. The concurrence and dynamics of these opposite processes can be explained by three main factors.…”

“…For instance, an interactional process between users and providers may fail because users do not have enough information about the topic of discussion [16]. On the contrary, it may fail because the organization does not want to share some information with users [15] or because the local rules and regulations do not allow organizations to share that information [17]. Finally, the failure may be caused by all these three reasons together, demonstrating the intricacy of this eld.…”

Co-production as a co-creation or co-destruction process? An internal evaluation of a co- production exercise with family caregivers living in a rural and remote area  

“…For instance, an interactional process between users and providers may fail because users do not have enough information about the topic of discussion [15]. On the contrary, it may fail because the organization does not want to share some information with users [14], or because the local rules and regulations do not allow organizations to share that information [16]. Finally, the failure may be caused by all these three reasons together, demonstrating the intricacy of this eld.…”