d3.3 initial report on how to involve most ... - citadel

D3.3 Initial report on how to involve most effectively the private sector in public service co-creation. Version 1.0 – Final Date: 30.09.2017

Project Title: CITADEL Contract No. GA 726755

www.citadel-h2020.eu

of 27

Empowering Citizens to Transform European Public Administrations

Deliverable D3.3

Initial report on how to involve most effectively the private sector in public service co-creation

Editor(s): Gonzalo Llamosas, Judith Clifton

Responsible Partner: University of Cantabria (UC)

Status-Version: V1.0 - Final version

Date: 30/09/2017

Distribution level (CO, PU): Public




of 27

Project Number: GA 726755

Project Title: CITADEL

Title of Deliverable: Initial report on how to involve most effectively the private sector in public service co-creation

Due Date of Delivery to the EC: 30/09/2017

Workpackage responsible for the Deliverable:

WP3 – Co-create to transform

Editor(s): University of Cantabria

Contributor(s): UC, KUL, TIME.LEX, LU

Reviewer(s): Barbara Leenheer (ICTU)

Approved by: All Partners

Recommended/mandatory readers:

All WP’s

Abstract: This document sums up the initial findings which evaluated decisive business parameters, to facilitate the involvement of companies in the collaborative process of designing services, considering for example ownership, licenses costs, revenue sharing and so on.

Keyword List: Co-creation, private sector, enablers, barriers, firm, customer, systematic review

Licensing information: This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views and neither Agency nor the Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/




of 27

Document Description

Document Revision History

Version Date Modifications Introduced

Modification Reason Modified by

v0.1 15/08/2017 ToC & First draft version UC

v0.2 30/08/2017 ToC & second draft version UC

v.0.3 15/09/2017 Version submitted for internal review UC

V0.4 26/09/107 Addressed comments from internal reviewer

UC

V1.0 27/09/2017 Final version UC

.




of 27

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 4

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 4

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5

Terms and abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 About this deliverable ................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Structure of this Deliverable ......................................................................................... 9

2. Co-creation of value ............................................................................................................ 10

3. CITADEL definition of Co-creation ....................................................................................... 11

4. Customer influential factors to co-creation ........................................................................ 13

5. DART model ......................................................................................................................... 15

6. Method ................................................................................................................................ 16 6.1. Search strategy ............................................................................................................ 16 6.2 Eligibility criteria .......................................................................................................... 16 6.3 Flow Diagram............................................................................................................... 17

7. Results of the systematic review ......................................................................................... 19 7.1 Record characteristics ................................................................................................. 19

7.1.1 Diversity in journals ............................................................................................. 19 7.1.2 Records per year ................................................................................................. 19 7.1.3 Methods used ...................................................................................................... 19

7.2 Enablers and barriers .................................................................................................. 19 7.2.1 DART Model......................................................................................................... 20 7.2.2 Customer factors ........................................................................................................ 20 7.2.3 Business objectives.............................................................................................. 21

8. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 23

References ................................................................................................................................... 25

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. CO-CREATION FRAMEWORK ACCORDING TO THE CITADEL APPROACH ....................................... 11 FIGURE 2. CUSTOMER INFLUENTIAL FACTORS OF CO-CREATION ................................................................ 13 FIGURE 3. MAIN BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE DART MODEL ...................................................................... 15 FIGURE 4. FLOW DIAGRAM ................................................................................................................ 18




of 27

List of Tables

TABLE 1. DART MODEL’S BUILDING BLOCKS ........................................................................................ 20 TABLE 2. CUSTOMER'S INFLUENCING FACTORS TO CO-CREATE ................................................................. 21 TABLE 3. OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... 21




of 27

Terms and abbreviations

ATM Automated teller machine

EC European Commission

WP3 Work Package 3




of 27

Executive Summary

This report provides insights into the factors which influence the co-creation process from a customer perspective. This employs a systematic review of the academic literature on co-creation and co-production with customer in private sector. A double search strategy is used to ensure a high quality and reliable conclusion as regard the main enablers of and barriers to co-creation. The first strategy consists of digging into electronic bases (Scopus) to scan a reference list of published journal articles (thus we exclude books, chapters, conference papers and so on). The second strategy consists of collecting documents using WP3 partners’ contributions to accomplish objectives in the project. By taking advantage of their knowledge and field of expertise, this search is focused on not only published articles but also on other types of relevant information on co-creation following the CITADEL approach. Regarding the conclusions, the document reflects that the current literature is mainly focused on enablers and less on barriers. Some enablers can be explained in terms of dialogue and communication between participants in the service delivery process. On the other hand, barriers can be found when there is a lack of engagement and misunderstanding in the interaction between customers and firms. Finally, co-creation is viewed as a means for achieving greater efficiency and customer satisfaction.




of 27

1. Introduction

In recent years, discussion about concepts such as open innovation, co-creation and user-centered innovation have gained considerable salience, especially among scholars. Recent literature on customer-firm cooperation has focused on the benefits of increasing the extent to which customers are actively involved in service production and delivery [1]. Within this collaborative engagement, co-creation has become a central concept understood to open up greater opportunities to achieve competitive advantages by way of a major collaboration between firms and their customers [2] [3].

Co-creation is an open innovation concept which consists of providing innovation to the service delivery process through engaging the active participation of users [2]. It encompasses all interactions that take place associated with the participation of various actors. This includes processes such as searching, purchasing, consuming and seeking products or service support [4]. Co-creation means that firms are not the only provider of value; customers should be viewed as active participants in creating value to the process, in addition to contributing to customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and business efficiency [5]. This scenario enables consumers who are better in tune with and sensitive to their own needs to participate in the development of customizing products, exerting and developing then their own experience as co-producers. By integrating customers in product development, firms are better able to anticipate new challenges related to the customer channel and respond more appropriately to their specific needs [6].

The role of co-creation in the development of products, however, has generated some controversy. Some studies show that users may have difficulties in meeting their needs [7] that can be explained by the increasing complexity of specific products [8]. For example, empirical studies of retail and banking industries show that customer contributions to service efficiency vary significantly among customers [15]; [10]. However, other studies point out the importance of customer participation. For instance, [11] show that customer involvement affects customer perception of service quality and satisfaction with the service. If customer participation is considered as a necessary condition for co-creation in the private sector, it is important that we have systematic knowledge regarding factors, especially as regards enablers and barriers, under which customers are prepared to contribute with their motivations, knowledge and needs into the service delivery process [1].

1.1 About this deliverable

The CITADEL approach is concerned on the understanding of the behaviour and characteristics of customers participating in the co-creation process. This report provides insights into the factors which influence the co-creation process from a customer perspective. The focus is particularly geared to answering the following research questions:

A) Which influential factors from a customer perspective act as enablers in co-creation process?

B) Which influential factors from a customer perspective act as barriers in co-creation process?

C) Which business objectives should a process of co-creation achieve?

To answer these questions, we conducted a systematic review of the academic literature on co-creation and co-production with customers in private sector. The relevance of this approach for CITADEL is twofold. First, we provide an evidence-based overview regarding factors under which customers co-create with firms under certain conditions. Second, we conduct a systematic review that provides insights into more transparent and reproducible




of 27

knowledge on private sector engagement with customers. During the systematic review, we adopt PRISMA guidelines [12] as a set of protocols to improve the reporting and analysis of studies which review a specific body of research.

1.2 Structure of this Deliverable

The remainder of this report is organized as follows. First, we introduce a co-creation of value framework including a set of elements that may be key to understanding how co-creation works in the case of private services. Second, we consider influential factors that determine the extent to which customers may engage in co-creation with the firm, specifically, focusing on those widely accepted factors that have been highlighted in the conceptual literature. Third, we describe the methodology employed to conduct the review. Fourth, we present the results of our review. We conclude our analysis with conclusions and implications for future research agenda.




of 27

2. Co-creation of value

The very roots of the co-creation concept are to be found in the private sector. The origins of the co-creation concept were originally developed as an approach to innovation through the involvement of stakeholders in the design and delivery of products in the private sector sphere, mostly commonly, in the manufacturing sector [13]. Co-creation of value is closely related to the customer experience that results from interacting with the relational, virtual and physical elements of a specific service system [14]. Customers respond to interactions differently depending on their own characteristics, the service context and the determinants of the service settings [14]. This suggests that a customer experience should be addressed differently as each may require specific attention. High-quality interactions that allow an individual customer to co-create unique experiences with the firm are key to providing new sources of competitive advantage [3]. One of the main characteristics of co-creation is that value is jointly co-created by both the firm and the customer, thereby facilitating the co-creating experience [3]. In the delivery of private sector, this practice can be found in different ways. For instance, through the process of “self-checkout”: ATM’s, online banking, mobile banking [15] [5] and through the involvement of customers in the process of service delivery: meeting with advisors, client provision of inputs to decision making processes, and timely and accurately responses to advisor requests for information [1]. Given the strong levels of competition found in certain industries, firms have an obvious need to innovate and to be closer to their customers. Firms may be interested, for instance, to develop a customer-centered approach to collaborate with customers with the aim of reducing uncertainty and risk [5].

On the basis of co-creation of value, interaction between firms and customers appears to be key to facilitate the co-creation experience [16]. The DART model is considered an important tool to develop effective knowledge on the engagement and interaction between the customer and the firm from a co-creation perspective. The emerging interaction between company and customer becomes the locus of value creation to understand the process of co-creation through its key building blocks [3], which represents dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency to lessen the conventional information asymmetry between the customer and the firm. Dialogue represents interactivity and engagement. Dialogue does not just consist in listening to customers but also implies learning and communication between all the participants within a specific market [3]. Access implies facilitating the process by offering proper tools, information and support to participate effectively in co-creation. Dialogue is not easy if consumers do not have the same degree of transparent information to participate in the process [2]. Risk assessment refers to the need to inform people about risks and responsibilities during involvement in joint activities [2]. Transparency is focused on the symmetry between different members by supplying complete information on the co-creation process [2]




of 27

3. CITADEL definition of Co-creation

The H2020 CITADEL proposal supports the principles of collaboration, transparency and participation of the Open Government concept. Co-creation is understood as a collective process in which government, organizations and citizens actively share ideas to reap a major benefit of that interaction. Based on the principles of collaboration and innovation systems, the Open Innovation 2.0 paradigm provides relevant insights into the capabilities to create innovation by sharing knowledge. One of the main advantages of this paradigm is the capability to create valuable ideas both inside and outside the company by placing ideas from non-market institutions and individiduals and introducing them into the market. This paradigm is based on the Quadruple Helix Model [17]. This encompasses different stakeholders working together to co-create: government, industry, academia and citizens. The perspective is focused on co-creating shared value that assumes a specific service does not have any intrinsic value for the user, rather, this value dependes on the total value co-created as aggregation during the co-creation process [18]; for instance, the experiences acquired by the user during the service provision.

We propose a H2020 CITADEL definition of co-creation based on this Open Innovation 2.0 approach:

Co-creation is defined as an integrated mix of activities through which different stakeholders – government, industry, academia and groups of individual citizens – work actively and directly together towards the provision of public services. Co-creation with citizens may include co-design and co-implementation of core and/or complementary services. It may take advantage of innovation ecosystems and emerging technologies, but is not limited to digital tools.

1. The definition of co-creation adopted here is based on the paradigm Open Innovation 2.0

that is compatible with the CITADEL approach (Public Administration + Private sector + Academia + Citizens) using cultivated innovation ecosystems.

2. This definition reflects the idea of co-creation as a mix of activities [19][20] in which inputs are supplied by participants as an integrated process comprising both the design and the implementation of services.

Figure 1. Co-creation framework according to the CITADEL approach




of 27

3. We propose a broad definition that considers the context of CITADEL use cases and their

differences and specificities to address different requirements.

4. Regarding the debate on voluntariness ([21]; [22][23] [22] [18], we find several examples in the case studies investigated showing that co-creation is not exactly voluntary. Thus, we do not introduce the “voluntariness” term in our definition and we prefer to refer to it as an active involvement.




of 27

4. Customer influential factors to co-creation

Studies dedicated to the identification of actors which may influence the co-creation have gained academic attention in recent years. [24] studies how incentives such as sanctions, material rewards and non-material rewards influence the participation of individuals in social programmes. [25] and [26] show that motivations for engagement in co-creation are essential for building trust and open relations between participants both customers and firm employees. The participation of users in the design, production and implementation of products and services in the private sector is influenced by specific factors that can be understood in terms of “enablers” of and “barrier” to co-creation. Enables fundamentally consist of factors that may hinder the success of the co-creation process and erode the collaboration and interaction between partners. Barriers, on the other hand, consist of factors that may go towards slowing down the co-creation process and even preventing co-creation from happening at all. This means that the success or failure of the co-creation process has generally speaking two possible options, which are dependent upon the demographic characteristics of customers, their attitudes towards co-creation, their relationship with the service providers and other factors which involve both customers and firms, such as the learning process. These drivers can be seen as relevant enablers and barriers of co-creation depending on the function each one assumes within the process, either as enhancer or as constraining factor [27].

Figure 2. Customer influential factors of co-creation

The advantages of the co-creation of value are well recognized in the service context and they are often related with customer satisfaction, loyalty, demographic characteristics and word of mouth [5]. Other customer factors such as willingness to participate and customer empowerment depend on the individual capacity of control which, in turn, is related to positive behavioral intentions to participate [28]. Different demographic profiles may influence different customer behaviors. This means that certain variables such as gender, age, education or income, can display different patterns and help filter the perception of satisfaction differently [29]. On the other hand, customers may participate in co-creation with the purpose of maximizing efficiency or minimizing costs [30]. Customers who are more able to participate in co-creation will potentially experience a lower cost in adopting and using new technologies in banking services [15]. After all, co-creation is considered a source of improved service quality and efficiency [31]. There seems to be an implicit assumption that involvement of




of 27

customer in the service delivery process is a virtue in terms of efficiency and improvement of the product quality [32].

The benefits of co-creation are not limited exclusively to high-involvement service though. Even in low and moderate involvement services, customers may find co-creation interesting because they enjoy increased participation and control over the service delivery process [1] and additional opportunities to make choices, offering at the same time a high level of service customization [33]. [1] suggest that co-creation leads to stronger perceptions of customization which in turn lead to more favorable assessment of the organization and an increase in customers’ intentions to spend money and time by collaborating with the organization. Customer interaction with internet technologies in the private sector has facilitated the achievement of a higher level of customer customization [34]. The firm’s ability to tailor private services according to individual customer preferences using technology is a firm value which helps obtain successful e-service innovation in online services.




of 27

5. DART model

The DART model is considered to be an important tool to develop effective knowledge on the engagement in value co-creation, both with customers in private sector and with citizens in the public sector. The emerging interaction between company/public administration and customer/citizen becomes the locus of value creation to understand the process of co-creation through its key building blocks [2]: dialogue, access, risk, assessment and transparency.

Dialogue: This represents interactivity and engagement. Dialogue does not just consist of listening to customers or citizens but also implies learning and communication between all the participants.

Access: This implies facilitating the process by offering proper tools, information and support to participate effectively in co-creation.

Risk assessment: This refers to the fact that people are informed about the risks and responsibilities of being involved in joint activities.

Transparency: This is focused on the provision of information symmetry between different members by supplying complete information on the co-creation process.

Figure 3. Main building blocks of the DART Model




of 27

6. Method

6.1. Search strategy

A search strategy is needed to ensure a high quality and reliable conclusion as regards the main enablers of and barriers to co-creation. Duplication should be avoided. We explore a search strategy based on transparent steps following the methodology of a systematic review. The first strategy consists of digging into electronic bases (Scopus) to scan a reference list of published journal articles (thus we exclude books, chapters, conference papers and so on). This search was applied to use the following keywords that appeared in the title, abstract and/or keywords of the papers: “co-creation”, “co-production”, “private sector”, “private services”, “business models”. In total 108 studies were identified according to the defined parameters without limits as regards languages and papers published around the entire world. The last search was run on 27 August 2017 and this includes papers from private sector. Regarding the period considered, this Scopus search covers the period between 2004 and 2017, both years inclusive. The wide variety of co-creation cases increases the value of the results obtained by providing multiple experiences in different context and countries.

The second strategy consists of collecting documents using WP3 partners’ contributions to accomplish objectives in the project. By taking advantage of their knowledge and field of expertise, this search is focused on not only published articles but also on other types of relevant information on co-creation following the CITADEL approach. To do so, a virtual repository was set up employing Microsoft Sharepoint to foster the interaction and collaboration between partners. Because “a systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specific eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question” [36], a choice box was set up to facilitate the subsequent information analysis. This choice box brings together a set of fields with several possible answers for each question in order to organize and classify the information collected by partners.

6.2 Eligibility criteria

Because key information is often poorly reported in systematic reviews, the potential usefulness of their conclusions can suffer [36]. We avoid this by following PRISMA. The PRISMA statement includes a set of items with essential and transparent information to report for a systematic review. Knowledge of the eligibility criteria is key in assessing the validity, applicability and comprehensiveness of a study analysis. On this basis, a set of criteria has been considered for the review of collected documents.

Type of studies: Articles included in the analysis should deal with the factors or determinants that influence customers’ co-creation with the private sector. Individual factors such as demographic characteristics and drivers of co-creation are viewed as likely to affect the results of co-creation processes [25].

Type of participant: Studies on co-creation included in the systematic review should consider the participation of both customers and firms. Both are important to understand the relationship of trust or loyalty that emerges during these initiatives and activities performed at a private sector’s level. Though the focus is on customers and firm members, this does not mean that the studies included here do not also include other co-creation stakeholders.

Study design: Only empirical studies (both qualitative and quantitative) are eligible for the analysis. We thus rule out theoretical approach for our purposes here, in order to be more focused on evidence-based understanding of aspects related to co-creation in private services.




of 27

This includes previous meta-analysis, case studies, questionnaires, interviews, experiments and so on.

Language: Those studies whose title and abstract are in English but the full paper is written in another language are ruled out from the systematic review. Only full papers in English are included therefore.

6.3 Flow Diagram

The process of selecting studies is undertaken using the PRISMA flow diagram to summarize the study selection process. A flow diagram depicts the flow of information of identified records through different phases showing in details how the eligibility criteria is applied by the authors. During the information gathering phase, the eligibility assessment of co-creation studies is carried out independently in an unblinded standardized manner by two reviewers to guarantee consistency and objectivity of authors in the coding process. Once the coding phase is ended, authors are focused on identifying the number of documents screened, included and excluded using the flow diagram proposed by PRISMA. The screening of all documents has included a total of 74 studies. Figure 2 shows the flow diagram with our selecting process.

Exclusion of papers with reasons is applied using the eligibility criteria. Some of the reasons why an article should be excluded from the systematic review are the following:

• No empirical evidence

• Papers no available to read




of 27

Figure 4. Flow diagram




of 27

7. Results of the systematic review

7.1 Record characteristics

Before addressing the main questions, we summarize here a set of descriptive statistics related to the search phase. These statistics present a preliminary understanding of the data found on Scopus.

7.1.1 Diversity in journals

The articles found are published in a large number of different journals. The journals which contain most studies on co-creation in financial services according to our search were Journal of Service Management (12), Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (8) and International Journal of Bank Marketing (6).

7.1.2 Records per year

As stated in the introduction, co-creation and user-centered innovation have gained increasing scientific attention in recent years. It is perhaps no coincidence that this interest in co-creation and other ways of introducing social innovation has become more intense after the onset of the recent financial crisis, bringing important changes to the financial sector. The review shows that papers on co-creation in private sector have noted a considerable growth in the aftermath of the financial crisis (since 2011). Some 85 per cent of papers considered in the systematic review were published during the period between 2011 and 2017.

7.1.3 Methods used

When deciding on the optimum research strategy, we opted to include scientific articles with empirical approaches taking in both qualitative and quantitative studies. Interviews appear to be the most often used method with 43 per cent of documents deploying this approach. According to [37], an interview has the purpose of obtaining descriptions of the interviewee’s life world with respect to interpreting the meaning of the described phenomena”. Since co-creation cases are mainly focused on descriptive examples where participants interact themselves to produce a common output, qualitative interviews may be a valid method to extract relevant information from participant answers to a certain problem. Following interviews, other empirical methods often used are surveys (33 per cent) and document analysis (19 per cent). While a survey consists of including variables provided beforehand by the researcher, the document analysis is defined as a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating printed and electronic documents [38], for example, a state of art, a systematic review and a meta-data analysis.

7.2 Enablers and barriers

Drivers of co-creation in the private sector can be seen as relevant enablers and barriers of co-creation depending on the function each one can assume within the process, either as enhancer or as constraining factor [38]. Based on the literature, we have found the following aspects that could function as important enablers and barriers of co-creation:

• DART Model: dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency

• Customer factors: willingness to participate, loyalty, customer satisfaction, customer empowerment, word of mouth, customer characteristics, learning process and relationship with service providers.

• Business objectives: efficiency gains, service product quality and product service customization




of 27

7.2.1 DART Model

Considering the co-creation experience from a firm perspective, the company can reduce uncertainty in commitments and even identify and rationalize resources to achieve a deeper understanding of consumer aspirations [39]. [2] claim that a customer-firm interaction should be focused on four key blocks that enable companies to measure the level of co-creation with their customers: dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency. Table 1 presents the results of the systematic review related to the DART Model. Results show that most studies referring to DART Model concepts find them to positively influence co-creation private sector, including dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency. As an exception, [40] find that while access, risk assessment and transparency contribute positively to co-creation in private sector, dialogue does not seem to have any influence in either direction. In this regard, [41] indicate that dialogue is not always positive to co-creation since having a severe contact with firms and their employees may decrease the learning rate related to co-creation.

Table 1. DART Model’s building blocks

N

Enablers Barriers No effect

Dialogue 12 (57%) 1 (5%) 8 (38%)

Access 14 (67%) 0 7 (33%)

Risk assessment 2 (10%) 0 19 (90%)

Transparency 8 (38%) 0 13 62%)

7.2.2 Customer factors

A closer look at the influencing factors displayed in table 1 and 2 shows that, in general, enablers predominate over barriers. This means that studies seem to be more interested in reporting those factors which affect positively the process of co-creation than those that negatively affect it. Table 1 illustrates the drivers of co-creation most often cited by the literature on private services. Willingness to participate is the factor with most studies referring to it as enabler of co-creation. On the other hand, demographic characteristics such as age, education, gender and income levels appear as the exception to the general pattern with almost as many enablers as barriers (9 and 8, respectively). In relation to age we can surmise that different life-stages generate different needs, perceptions and behaviors. In the case of the retail banking sector, [5] find that younger consumers seek to satisfy their needs for needs, credits or mortgages, while older consumers may be interested in saving plans and pensions. An age constraining factor could be related to the difficulties of older consumer to access online banking or mobile banking [42]. Our findings show loyalty and word of mouth as influencing factors that contribute positively to co-creation. Loyalty is key to understand the relationship between customers and firms in order to maintain a long-term relationship. [43] show that trustworthiness and communication between customers and firms simplify decisions and reduce risks, and in its absence their willingness to participate with the private services may be significantly reduced. Word-of-mouth consists of involving person-to-person communication as regards a service, product or brand [5]. This mechanism leads to real value of customers with their individual purchase behavior to make an impact on other consumers. Our research show most articles including this factor as enabler of co-creation, which means




of 27

that word-of-mouth is viewed as another means of achieving success in private services’ co-creation.

Table 2. Customer's influencing factors to co-create

N

Enablers Barriers No effect

Willingness to participate

18 (85%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%)

Customer satisfaction 8 (38%) 1 (5%) 12 (57%)

Loyalty 8 (38%) 0 13 (62%)

Word of mouth 6 (30%) 0 15 (70%)

demographic characteristics

9 (42%) 8 (38%) 4 (20%)

Relationship with service provider

15 (70%) 2 (10%) 4 (20%)

Consumer satisfaction and the relationship with service providers are also viewed as enhancing factors to co-create. Customer satisfaction is directly related to perceptions and experiences so a good product/service experience should produce a positive individual assessment of outcomes for the customer. A customer satisfaction barrier is associated with dissatisfaction and complaints when the expectations with the product/service experience are not fulfilled. Regarding the relationship with service provider, dialogue (one of the building blocks of the DART model) is a necessary condition to maintain a proper relationship with the service provider. However, this dialogue sometimes is not sufficient to make customers more heavier users with some co-creation applications.

7.2.3 Business objectives

Approximately half of the articles included in our analysis show co-creation as an involvement process focused to increase efficiency gain and service/product quality.

Table 3. Objectives

N

Efficiency gain 9 (42%)

Service/product quality 10 (47%)

Service/product customization 8 (38%)

Our systematic review presents eight studies including service/product customization as an objective of co-creation. [1] suggest that co-creation leads to stronger perceptions of customization which in turn lead to more favorable assessment of the organization and increase customers’ intentions to spend money and time by collaborating with the




of 27

organization. Customer interaction with internet technologies in the private sector has allowed to achieve a higher level of customer customization [34]. The firm’s ability to tailor specific services according to individual customer preferences using technology is a firm value to obtain successful e-service innovation in online services.




of 27

8. Conclusions

Many organizations view the centered-customer approach as a strategic priority for their business [44]. Co-creation is considered a cornerstone to address the continual challenges encountered when providing customer service and creating competitive service that improve firm value [34]. But what do we empirically know about co-creation, given its proclaimed importance? How evidence can provide new insights into co-creation as a renewal strategy in private sector?

In order to increase our empirical and conceptual understanding of the literature on co-creation in private sector, we conducted a systematic review of: a) the influential factors affecting positively co-creation (enablers); b) the influential factors affecting negatively co-creation (barriers); c) the business objectives that a co-creation process in private sector should achieve. In this section, some conclusions will be drawn regarding the customer involvement in service production and delivery. However, before doing so, we must acknowledge an important limitation: we selected journal articles containing the word: ‘co-creation’ or ‘co-production’ in the title, abstract and keywords. It is possible that studies on co-creation or co-production, but did not mention the words in the title, abstract and keywords, and we may have overlooked relevant studies.

Regarding the first research question, we observe that the current literature is mainly focused on enablers and less so on barriers. This might be due to two reasons: 1) the perspective on barriers is not as interesting for the literature on co-creation as the approach based on enablers. 2) there are no significant factors influencing negatively co-creation in private sector. According to the DART Model approach, dialogue and access are the building blocks most cited by articles regarding enablers on co-creation. Dialogue is identified as a necessary element for real engagement between customers and business [40]. If this happens, the firm can establish a communication that is essential to encourage trust by identifying the desires and needs of customers. On the other hand, access is essential to allow customers to have all information and requirements needed to perform the co-creation process. According with the customer factors, willingness to participate and relationship with service providers are the drivers of co-creation most cited by articles included in the systematic review. Willingness to participate is directly related to the desire to belong, to socialize, to be a member of a group and it is also associated with the enjoyment of working together. Although very little empirical attention has been paid to this, willingness to participate is likely to strongly affect the outcomes of co-creation processes [25]. Furthermore, willingness to participate implies dialogue and interactivity as necessary requirement of a deep engagement. This interaction between firms and customers can be of several types: one-way communication, part interaction and fully interaction. One way communication consists of selling products and service to customers without worrying about their feedback. Part interaction is to pay attention to collecting customer feedback and full interaction is focused on a total integration of customer into the delivery process [11]. The relationship with service provider is especially important in the last type of interaction. Trust, loyalty, bi-directional communication and dialogue should be requirements of this interaction to be successful in co-creation.

The second question is focused on barriers of co-creation. Some of the barriers identified are related to tensions that can arise when partners are setting up a trust relationship and when a high level of involvement ends up in the misuse of resources during the interaction. [40] report difficulties in specific companies to fully open their structure to dialogue and collaborate with customers. The absence of total engagement from the business perspective may cause lack of trust and loyalty in the interaction with the customer by affecting negatively their involvement in co-creation. [11] point out that only a good relationship with customers help to increase




of 27

purchase intention, resulting in customer satisfaction, commitment and trust. Therefore, the communication between partners should be always a priority to avoid misunderstanding during the process of co-creation. Other barriers are related to demographic characteristics such as age or education. Our systematic review reflects 8 studies in which these factors are viewed as barriers to co-create. For instance, financial knowledge and technological expertise related to education attachments seem to be requirements for banks to select users to co-create [6]. Furthermore, [15] show a positive correlation between age, online services adoption and older customers finding more troubles to access this kind of services, influencing negatively the co-creation process.

The third question is focused on the objectives that co-creation must achieve. Nearly half of the eligible contributions show that co-creation is an important value to gain efficiency and service/product quality. From a private sector perspective, the focus has been on finding more cost-efficiency methods to service needs for transactions services [45]. The effective means of achieving these objectives has consisted of developing new channels for the customer using information technology such as ATMs and the online services.

This study has reviewed all scientific articles available in Scopus on co-creation in private services since 2004 to 2017. However, there remains a lack of studies focused on barriers of co-creation. It would be valuable for future research to expand this body of knowledge to show the ‘dark side’ of co-creation in private sector, as shown by [46] in public services.




of 27

References

[1] S. Auh, S. J. Bell, C. S. McLeod, and E. Shih, “Co-production and customer loyalty in financial services,” J. Retail., vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 359–370, Aug. 2007.

[2] C. K. Prahalad and V. Ramaswamy, “Co-creating unique value with customers,” Strategy Leadersh., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 4–9, 2004.

[3] C. K. Prahalad and V. Ramaswamy, “Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation,” J. Interact. Mark., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 5–14, Jan. 2004.

[4] Frederic Ponsignon, Philipp Klaus, and Roger S. Maull, “Experience co-creation in financial services: an empirical exploration,” J. Serv. Manag., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 295–320, Apr. 2015.

[5] J. Cambra-Fierro, L. Pérez, and E. Grott, “‘Towards a co-creation framework in the retail banking services industry: Do demographics influence?,’” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 34, pp. 219–228, Jan. 2017.

[6] A. Martovoy and J. Dos Santos, “Co-creation and co-profiting in financial services,” Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag., vol. 16, no. 1–2, pp. 114–135, Jan. 2012.

[7] G. J. Avlonitis, P. G. Papastathopoulou, and S. P. Gounaris, “An empirically-based typology of product innovativeness for new financial services: Success and failure scenarios,” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 324–342, 2001.

[8] P. Vermeulen, “Managing product innovation in financial services firms,” Eur. Manag. J., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2004.

[9] M. Xue and P. T. Harker, “Customer Efficiency: Concept and Its Impact on E-Business Management,” J. Serv. Res., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 253–267, 2002.

[10] M. Xue, L. M. Hitt, and P. T. Harker, “Customer efficiency, channel usage, and firm performance in retail banking,” Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 535–558, 2007.

[11] Y. Hui and H. Xian, “Customer participation in personal financial business of Chinese commercial banks and its influence factors,” Biotechnol. Indian J., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1605–1612, 2014.

[12] D. Moher et al., “Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement,” Syst. Rev., vol. 4, no. 1, 2015.

[13] C. H. Lovelock and R. F. Young, “Look to Consumers to Increase Productivity,” Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 57, pp. 168–78, 1979.

[14] F. Lemke, M. Clark, and H. Wilson, “Customer experience quality: An exploration in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique,” J. Acad. Mark. Sci., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 846–869, 2011.

[15] M. Xue, L. M. Hitt, and P. Chen, “Determinants and Outcomes of Internet Banking Adoption,” Manag. Sci., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 291–307, Feb. 2011.

[16] Seyedeh Khadijeh Taghizadeh, Krishnaswamy Jayaraman, Ishak Ismail, and Syed Abidur Rahman, “Scale development and validation for DART model of value co-creation process on innovation strategy,” J. Bus. Ind. Mark., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 24–35, Jan. 2016.

[17] H. W. Chesbrough, Open Innovation, the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston (USA): Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003.

[18] S. P. Osborne, Z. Radnor, and K. Strokosch, “Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment?,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 639–653, 2016.

[19] E. Ostrom, R. B. Parks, G. P. Whitaker, and S. L. Percy, “The Public Service Production Process: A Framework for Analyzing Police Services,” Policy Stud. J., vol. 7, pp. 381–381, 1978.

[20] R. B. Parks et al., “Consumers as Coproducers of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations,” Rick Policy Stud. J., pp. 1001–1011, 1981.




of 27

[21] J. Alford, Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. 2009. [22] T. Bovaird and E. Loeffler, “From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of

Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value,” Voluntas, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1119–1138, 2012.

[23] J. L. Brudney and R. E. England, “Toward a definition of the co-production concept,” Public Adm. Rev., no. 43, pp. 59–65, 1983.

[24] J. Alford, “Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 337–346, 2002.

[25] E. van and T. P. S. Steen, “Why People Co-Produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 358–382, 2014.

[26] J. Fledderus and M. Honingh, “Why people co-produce within activation services: the necessity of motivation and trust – an investigation of selection biases in a municipal activation programme in the Netherlands,” Int. Rev. Adm. Sci., vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 69–87, 2016.

[27] V. J. J. M. Bekkers, L. G. Tummers, and W. H. Voorberg, “From public innovation to social innovation in the public sector: a literature review of relevant drivers and barriers,” Rotterdam, 2013.

[28] Herm Joosten, Josée Bloemer, and Bas Hillebrand, “Is more customer control of services always better?,” J. Serv. Manag., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 218–246, Apr. 2016.

[29] P. C. Verhoef, “Understanding the Effect of Customer Relationship Management Efforts on Customer Retention and Customer Share Development,” J. Mark., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 30–45, 2003.

[30] F. Jacob and B. Rettinger, “The role of customer co-production in value creation,” ESCP Europe Campus Berlin, Berlin, 2011.

[31] E. Ostrom, “Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development,” World Dev., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1073–1087, Jun. 1996.

[32] W. H. Voorberg, V. J. J. M. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers, “A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1333–1357, Oct. 2015.

[33] B. Schneider and D. E. Bowen, Winning the Service Game. Boston (USA): Harvard Business School Press, 1995.

[34] S.-H. Chuang and H.-N. Lin, “Co-creating e-service innovations: Theory, practice, and impact on firm performance,” Int. J. Inf. Manag., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 277–291, Jun. 2015.

[35] H. Chesbrough, “Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers,” Long Range Plann., vol. 43, no. 2–3, pp. 354–363, 2010.

[36] A. Liberati et al., “The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration,” Ital. J. Public Health, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 354–391, 2009.

[37] S. Kvale, Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications, Inc, 1996.

[38] G. A. Bowen, “Document analysis as a qualitative research method,” Qual. Res. J., vol. 9, 2009.

[39] M. Etgar, “A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process,” J. Acad. Mark. Sci., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 97–108, Mar. 2008.

[40] E. W. Mainardes, A. Teixeira, and P. C. S. Romano, “Determinants of co-creation in banking services,” Int. J. Bank Mark., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 187–204, 2017.

[41] J. M. Field, M. Xue, and L. M. Hitt, “Learning by customers as co-producers in financial services: An empirical study of the effects of learning channels and customer characteristics,” Oper. Manag. Res., vol. 5, no. 1–2, pp. 43–56, Jun. 2012.

[42] Federal Reserve, “Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2016,” Washington DC, 2016.




of 27

[43] C.-Y. Wang, H.-C. Lee, and L.-W. Wu, “Co-production and the roles of dependence and service importance,” Asia Pac. Manag. Rev., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 148–155, Sep. 2015.

[44] F. Ponsignon, “Experience co-creation in financial services: an empirical exploration,” J. Serv. Manag., vol. 26(2), pp. 295–320, 2015.

[45] J. Coughlan, E. Shale, and R. Dyson, “Including the customer in efficiency analysis: Evidence of a hybrid relational‐transactional approach,” Int. J. Bank Mark., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 136–149, 2010.

[46] B. N. Williams, S.-C. Kang, and J. Johnson, “(Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-Production: Public value failures in co-production processes,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 692–717, 2016.

d3.3 initial report on how to involve most ... - citadel

Documents