Value co-creation dimensions in inter-organisational collaborative projects: the
case of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
Nick Yip1, Ainurul Rosli2, Muthu de Silva3 Federica Rossi4,
Abstract
We explore the process of value co-creation in the context of knowledge-intensive
collaborations between universities and businesses. Going beyond the current scope
of value co-creation research, which has so far focused on value co-creation between
producers and customers, we develop a framework to characterise the value cocreation process in the context of university-business collaborations and we identify
five key drivers that enable value co-creation. The framework is then validated
through original empirical evidence collected by means of in-depth interviews with 50
stakeholders involved in Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, a specific universitybusiness collaboration scheme funded by the UK government. The theoretical
contribution of this paper and managerial and policy implications are discussed.
Keywords: value co-creation, co-identification, co-capitalisation, inter-organisational
collaborative projects, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships
Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK,
E-mail: [email protected]
2
University of Wolverhampton Business School, University of Wolverhampton, MN Building, Nursery
Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1AD, UK E-mail: [email protected]
3
Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK E-mail: [email protected]
4
School of Business, Economics and Informatics, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street,
London, WC1E 7HX, UK E-mail: [email protected]
1
1
1.0
Introduction
A growing body of scholarly research in service marketing (including ServiceDominant Logic or S-D logic) (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008), consumer marketing
(Grewal et al. 2009; Holbrook 2006) and innovation services (Ordanini and
Parasuraman 2011) have discussed value co-creation (value co-creation) between
businesses and their customers. These past research is built upon the premise that
“value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary”
(Vargo and Lusch 2008), a view significantly supported not only by consumer
marketing research (Holbrook 2006; Tynan and McKechnie 2009) but also by other
business disciplines. Through value co-creation, firms innovate products and services
in collaboration with their customers (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004; Payne et al.
2007) and this enables them to generate and deliver value determined by customers.
While the customer–business value co-creation studied in these previous research is
applicable to a majority of business settings, it is difficult to differentiate between
customers and businesses when value co-creation occurs in various types of interorganisational collaborations such as university-business collaborations, where both
parties form “tightly knit” knowledge intensive collaborations (Andersen et al 2013).
From the point of view of entrepreneurship and innovation literature, the concept of
co-creation in knowledge-intensive collaborations is positioned as a new mechanism
for generating shared values (Lee et al. 2012); however, our understanding of how the
collaboration between universities and businesses can co-create value for all the
parties involved, and beyond, is limited. Moreover, contentious issues such as “what
facilitates value co-creation” and “what are the forms of governance and business
practices that firms could use” to capitalise on their collaborative engagement are still
broadly unanswered and under-researched (Gummesson et al. 2010).
In this paper, we address this gap in our knowledge by building on and extending the
growing S-D logic research and combining it with the innovation and
entrepreneurship literature to develop a theoretical framework explicating the value
co-creation process and its drivers in knowledge-intensive collaborations. We
empirically test this theoretical framework by adopting a qualitative methodology.
Indeed, previous investigations of value co-creation focusing on customer-business
co-creation have been geared towards the theoretical and conceptual domain (Baker
and Sinkula 2007), prompting calls for broader empirical evidence of the
phenomenon. Our evidence base comprises a sample of 50 different stakeholders
involved in a university-business collaboration scheme supported by the UK
government called Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs). KTPs are collaborative
partnerships formed between a UK university and a business who would recruit an
associate (i.e. a recent graduate) tasked with working within the business to deliver a
project of strategic value. Each project lasts between 12 and 36 months, and involves
the associate working under the direction of an academic and a business supervisor.
KTPs represent a form of value co-creation since both university and business
partners are working together very closely to achieve set objectives. Using the
resultant qualitative insights, we investigate five drivers that enable the parties to
successfully co-create value, which ultimately increases the impact of the interorganisational collaboration.
2
The rest of the paper is structured in the following manner. The next section
introduces the literature on value co-creation in university-business collaboration
projects. Section 3 presents our theoretical framework, which defines the process and
identifies the drivers of successful value co-creation processes. In section 4, we
present our methodology and in section 5, we discuss the results from our empirical
analysis. Section 6 addresses the implications of the research and proposes some
points for further research.
2.0
Value co-creation in university-business collaboration projects
2.1. Why is it important to focus on value co-creation in university-business
collaboration?
The study of value co-creation in general has been developed from a view that
separates firms as producers and customers as consumers and adopters of market
offerings, who first create value independently and later combine these to co-create
value together (Vargo and Lusch, 2011). This conventional view has limited the
understanding of how multiple collaborators contribute to value co-creation. To
highlight the dynamic interaction between collaborators going beyond producerscustomers, this paper focuses on collaborations between universities and businesses.
It is well known that universities and businesses are increasingly working together by
forming tightly-knit collaborations to address academic, social and business
challenges. There is a growing recognition within research communities, businesses
and government that more direct and close interactions between the stakeholders can
magnify benefits for participants and foster innovation and growth. This form of close
interactions involves going beyond individual and institutional roles in strengthening
the interplay between partners as a mechanism for unleashing growth (Andersen et al
2013; Curley and Salmelin, 2013).
Focusing on university–business collaborations in the context of the KTP programme
allows us to go beyond the distinction between “firms as producers” and “customers
as adopters” of value, as all parties similarly co-create value by enacting integrative,
normative, and representational practices and drawing on phenomenological
interpretations of value (Vargo et al, 2014). Also, this form of co-creation is not far
from the S-D logic perspective, as it clearly shows that “all social and economic
actors are resource integrators” (Vargo and Lusch 2008). In this context, we need to
understand what are the catalysts that enable partners to work together to achieve
shared goals (Andersen et al 2011; Ternouth et al., 2012; Eggington, Osborn and
Kaplan, 2013).
2.2 Value co-creation: what we know so far
The concept of co-creation as a new mechanism of generating shared values (Lee et
al. 2012) is important to heighten our understanding of how the collaboration process
between universities and businesses can generate value for all the parties involved,
and also beyond. Vargo and Lusch’s (2008) proposed S-D logic significantly changes
the dynamics of the relationship between the firm and the customer as it requires the
3
customer to be a co-producer in the production process, and as a result, value is
created by both parties.
What is significant in this proposed argument is that the customer’s perception of
“value in-use” is critical in determining how the value is unlocked. This argument
then leads to the idea that “value is created by experiences rather than from goods or
services” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). This is an important consideration
because “value” is shown to be a perceived construct.
Some studies that have attempted to discuss these issues include the DART Model
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004) which assess the “Dialogue, Access, Risk and
Transparency” of engagement. In their model, the authors argued that the role of the
customer in modern management has changed from being “isolated to connected,
from unaware to informed and from passive to active”. This is the result of dramatic
changes in the business environment such as advanced communications in the form of
the Internet which allows the customer to make better informed decisions by having
greater, faster, more accurate access to information from a global perspective,
networking among other customers, experimenting with their choices and being active
in terms of feedback to the firm.
Ordanini and Pasini (2008) on the other hand outlined a service-oriented architecture
(SOA) environment with their empirical support of co-creation of value in
outsourcing IT services. Payne et al. (2008) suggested that value is created when
different players come together and transact, dependent upon their own satisfaction
and quality of the service. It can be seen from the discussion above that not only
customers’ role in attaining benefits for themselves is important in creating value, but
also bi-directional thinking and reciprocity in joint value co-creation between all
parties are important. However, what is clearly lacking in current research is the
dynamics and specification of value co-creation. What are the key drivers to
understanding how these interactions impact on value co-creation?
Early service research in value co-creation has studied themes such as interactions
(Kotze and Plessis 2003), relationships (Harris and Baron 2004), experience (Prahalad
and Ramaswamy 2004) and organisations (Oliva and Kallenberg 2003) from specific
contexts. Recently, there have also emerged value co-creation studies in bi-directional
and reciprocity relationships (Woodruff and Flint 2006), customer orientation
(Rowley et al. 2007) and “working consumers” (Cova & Dalli 2009; Zwick et al.
2008),, all of which seemingly aim to describe how value co-creation occurs rather
than to advance the design of a service to enable value co-creation from the outset.
Similarly, studies identifying value co-creation as “spontaneous, collaborative and
dialogical interactions” (Ballantyne and Varey 2006) may well be useful for
understanding its content but then, less useful for understanding successful value cocreation processes.
Alternatively, some value co-creation studies in marketing literature focused more on
the complementarity of tangible and intangible resources (Mele and Corte 2013) but
less on the symmetry of roles between all parties involved in order to achieve
benefits. Nonetheless, it can be argued that value co-creation may appear to be
symmetric in power but may be asymmetric in tasks, resources and processes from
each party (Woodruff and Flint 2006). For example, it is important not only for
collaborating parties to contribute more in terms of tasks and resources, but they also
4
need to contribute their evaluation, expectations and needs. Despite the asymmetry in
contribution, the value co-created may result in a higher level of benefit, which is
highly dependable upon value-in-use through consumption and confirmation
(Gronroos 2008).
This implies that while all collaborating parties have the power to co-create better
value, they therefore also have the power to not do so. In this respect, while they are
able to co-create value, they are also capable of co-destroying it (Echeverri and
Skalen 2011; Ple and Caceras 2010), which may lead to reduced benefits and an unoptimal outcomes.
Under these circumstances, not all value co-creation processes result in the highest
benefits and in some cases, may even result in benefits that are lower than what was
expected or proposed. Bi-directional thinking, together with current thinking in
relationship marketing, has to consider that the co-production towards mutual
satisfaction (i.e. the relationship) does not always lead to optimal benefits for the
customer and the firm, suggesting that relationships are important in value co-creation
and must include incentive compatibility that are commonly aligned towards
delivering outcomes.
This then suggests that value co-creation transcends dyadic exchange between two
parties, but requires an understanding that value is co-created within configurations
that involve economic and social actors within networks interacting and exchanging
across and through networks. Consequently, value co-creation takes place within and
between systems at various levels of aggregation. As such, the concept of value cocreation does not only impact two parties; it may extend to all entities that exchange
to improve their own state such as individuals, families, firms, societies and nations
(Vargo and Lusch 2008a). This represents a major strategic challenge, as transforming
from a transaction-based business model to a relationship-based model is critical to
the competitiveness of the firm. Significantly, this transitioning requires a reevaluation of organisational principles, structures, and processes, and consequently
represents a major managerial challenge (Oliva and Kallenberg 2003). Recent
research on value co-creation has also begun to discuss its examination from a “social
construction approach” to determine how value-in-use can be influenced by social
factors as determined by social structures and systems (Edvardsson et al. 2011).
3.0
A framework to capture the drivers of value co-creation in universitybusiness collaborations.
3.1. Value co-creation as co-identification and co-capitalisation
Shane and Venkataraman (2000)’s definition of entrepreneurship as a process of
capitalising on perceived opportunities by matching these with resources as a means
of accumulating value is very useful to help us gain some insight to extend our
understanding of the value co-creation process in university-business collaborations.
Since the process of perceiving and capitalising on opportunities is not restricted to
5
start-up formation (de Silva et al 2013), this definition opens up opportunities for
wider applications.
Vargo and Lusch (2008) emphasised that in delivering “value” and “exchange”, an
array of resources are required in the marketplace. These resources, both the tangibles
and intangibles, are necessary in delivering benefits. In that respect, these resources
then work together to achieve the optimum benefit for both parties contingent upon
how they function and interact together internally and externally between the different
parties. It can then be argued that by working together, “processes” are created in
order for the creation of value to occur, and it is through these processes that different
values emerge for the different stakeholders.
Hence, by drawing on Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) definition, we suggest that
value co-creation in collaborative projects, especially projects between universities
and businesses, can be best viewed from two process dimensions: co-identification
(where both organisations identify opportunities for value co-creation) and cocapitalisation (where co-identified opportunities are capitalised on through matching
opportunities with resources).
This process involves collaborators engaging in new ways of combining resources to
produce innovative products (means), which result in all partners generating value
(ends), which Shane et al., (2003) coined as “means-ends” relationships. The
formation of new means, ends and means-ends relationship also highlight that new
organising methods, services and markets can be introduced (Eckhardt and Shane,
2003); either created or discovered naturally (Sarasvathy, Venkataraman, Dew and
Velamuri 2002). The opportunities to co-create value in the environment and firms’
strategy co-exist and co-evolve because they are not only co-shaped by all partners,
but also by other stakeholders too (Tan and Tan, 2005). As explained in the earlier
section, the dyadic exchange between two parties, where value co-creation takes place
within and between systems at various levels of aggregation, clearly highlight the
challenges of the value co-creation process.
Co-capitalisation involves both parties participating, interacting and implementing
shared intentions (Colin 2009). This requires them to match co-identified
opportunities with the resources. All actors in this process are resource integrators,
tied together in shared systems of exchange – service ecosystems or markets (Vargo
2011). Co-capitalisation enables all parties that collaborate, such as universities and
businesses, to derive new combinations of physical resources, knowledge and skills
(Hoffmann and Schlosser, 2001), capabilities and networks (van de Vrande, de Jong,
Vanhaverbeke and de Rochemont, 2009), thereby enabling them to achieve something
that none of the parties could have attained on their own. Clearly, what's crucial for
co-capitalisation is an active role in service offerings by integrating each party’s set of
resources and competences into any activity (Zeithaml, Bitner, and Gremler 2009)..
3.2 The drivers of value co-creation processes
What are the factors that determine the ability of project collaborators such as
universities and businesses to successfully co-create valuable knowledge, which
requires them to move from the stage of the co-identification of opportunities to their
co-capitalisation?
6
On the basis of inter-firm, entrepreneurship and university-business interaction
literature, we identified five important drivers that facilitate co-capitalisation of
knowledge: we call them, respectively, strategic, organisational, interactional,
systemic and dynamic drivers. Figure 1 illustrates the framework.
Figure 1: Conceptual model of value co-creation process
3.2.1. Strategic drivers
There is a need for organisations to align their strategic direction with the type of
internal projects they are carrying out. Nevertheless, having a long-term strategy for
co-creation is not only about having a strategy to co-create with external partners, but
also about aligning the overall strategy and future direction of an organisation with its
internal strategy (De Silva et al 2014; Hardy, Phillips, & Lawrence, 2003). Having
strategic fit (Dietrich and Lehtonen, 2005) – which means not only the extent to
which the project portfolio reflect the overall business strategy, but also includes the
alignment of project objectives and resources with strategy (Dietrich and Lehtonen,
2005) - is important for co-creation processes.
This is done by making sure that the collaboration projects in which the organisation
participates, and the organisation's strategic direction, complement each other. This
will escalate its commitment to achieve collaboration outcomes. In this way, the
organisation is able to select the right partners to achieve a higher level of
complementarity between them in terms of resources, knowledge and skills and
networks which ensures greater interdependence and successful partnerships (Gulati
et al 2012; De Silva et al 2014).
3.2.2. Organisational drivers
In the co-creation process, particularly those that involve two different types of
partner institutions – universities and businesses - working together from concept to
delivery, the partners are bound to experience difficulties when attempting to
collaborate due to their differences in cultures (Ambos et al., 2008, Barnes et al.,
2002) and internal structures (Paulraj, Lado, and Chen, 2008). Therefore, having
strong leadership (San Martín-Rodríguez, et a l. 2005) may facilitate the co-creation
7
process. In this context, strong leadership encompasses not only those who are
managing the project, but also include those who are overseeing and leading the
direction of the organisation. This is of paramount importance, especially in the role
to help shape the nature of collaboration (Watkins and Horley 1986); a key element in
positioning and understanding the needs and cultures of different parties, mainly
universities and businesses, who may otherwise find it difficult to engage with one
another.
Also, since individuals are the key for co-creation, recruiting the right people,
incentivising them for co-creation and helping them to develop relevant skills such as
multidisciplinary and boundary-spanning skills will increase the organisation’s ability
to co-capitalise on opportunities (Andersen et al 2013; De Silva and Rossi 2014).
Having a high absorptive capacity also facilitates coordination and communication
between internal and external partners, making co-creation in projects more likely to
be successful (Schmiedeberg, 2008). Clearly, there is a need for organisational
support for all parties in the collaboration – both universities and also businesses – by
being more open, more networked, more collaborative, and more absorptive of
external ideas. Having the organisational capacity and space to provide facilities that
constitute the configuration of people, technologies, and other resources that as an
integrated whole will enable value co-creation (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber
2011; Patricio et al. 2011).
3.2.3. Interactional drivers
The value literature highlights the importance of firm conditions required for
successful value co-creation, emphasising strong relationships (Jaworski and Kohli
2006; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004), and high-quality interactions and dialogue
(Auh et al. 2007). These can be achieved through increasing the level of openness
(Chakrabarti and Santoro, 2004), transparency (Andersen et al 2013; De silva and
Rossi 2014), trust (Howells 2006) and shared understanding (Siegel et al., 2003,
Chakrabarti and Santoro, 2004; Powell, 1990) between partners as well as having a
room for negotiation (Andersen et al 2013; De Silva and Rossi 2014; Blumenthal et
al., 1996).
In stimulating stronger relationships, it is important to closely link concepts of cocreation with the level of engagement between partners, whereby Jaakkola and
Alexander (2014) highlighted that engaged partners may contribute a broader range of
resources including physical labour, skills and relationships. Their empirical cases
showcased that it is plausible that different types of physical and face-to-face
interactions and contributions are able to prominently influence the interactional
settings. Adopting good practices that improve communication between partners
including reducing a top-down approach and inducing more team-level
communication (Siegel et al., 2003; Blumenthal et al., 1996) as well as collaborating
with partners with whom they already have had good relationships (Barge-Gil and
Modrego 2011), can positively influence the strength of the interaction and thus their
ability to co-capitalise on co-identified opportunities.
8
3.2.4. Systemic drivers
Recent research regarding systemic views on innovation (eg: Sundbo and Gallouj,
2000) may be able to provide some insights on the importance of taking into account
the market interaction in collaborative creation of value (Vargo and Lusch, 2011).
Despite the fact that co-creation of value is being determined by the partners, market
conditions (Coombs and Miles, 2000) and social interactions as well as roles and
positions within a social system (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber 2011) matter.
Clearly, interactions among various partners are not only influenced by, but also may
influence, the institutional setting in which they occur (Coombs and Miles, 2000). The
influence of wider social, cultural, educational and professional systems in which cocreation occurs (San Martín-Rodríguez, et a l. 2005); (Uzzi, 1997) determine its
success. The availability of open innovation networks for example (Ternouth et al,
2012), framework conditions and support infrastructure (e.g. government supportpolicy and funding in favour of co-creation etc.) (Curley & Salmelin, 2013) could also
play a major role. A more dynamic view of market interactions, which has helped to
bring together a different component to value co-creation, also requires the
acceptance of a value proposition as well as the continued exchange during the cocreation process. This suggests that all value co-creation activities take place within
social systems and that collaborators have the potential to learn, adapt, and make
choices based on their perceptions, depending on the dynamics of the political, market
and environmental changes (Giddens, 1984).
Co-capitalisation, then, is driven by the combinatorial evolution of opportunities,
propositions and the emergence and institutionalisation of new solutions. It is when
collaborators can adapt the internal-external driving forces to reconfigure resources
and coordinate processes promptly and effectively to meet market and environment
demand (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). It is important for each party to engage with
their partners, suggesting that not all collaborations will have the same mental model
of their world, in particular their view of their role as a resource integrator within the
given context.
3.2.5. Dynamic drivers
The co-creation process is not static; learning and adaptation by partners during the
co-creation process (e.g. based on feedback) (Gulati, 2007; Faems et al., 2008; Gulati
et al 2012a), could invariably increase its success. However, it clearly involves an
ongoing and dynamic maintenance, change, and disruptions of the institutional
arrangements that enable and constrain integrative practices for co-creation (Vargo
and Lusch, 2012). The importance of continual application and redevelopment across
the value co-creation process may be implemented through human action. Such
mechanisms to foster change as collaborative competence may include both parties
successfully coordinating the sharing of tacit knowledge, and also accepting to
implement change (Argote, McEvily, and Reagans 2003).
9
Table 1: The drivers of the value co-creation process
Drivers
Authors
Strategic driver
Alignment with internal strategy - De Silva et al 2014; Hardy, Phillips, &
between co-creation project and the Lawrence, 2003; Madhok & Tallman,
strategic direction
of the
each 1998
organisation involve in collaboration
Complementarity between partners
De Silva et al 2014; Gulati et al, 2012;
Powell, 1990
Organisational dimension
Organisational culture
Ambos et al., 2008; Barnes et al., 2002
Support structure for collaboration
Paulraj, Lado, & Chen, 2008
Absorptive capacity of organisations
Bougrain & Haudeville, 2002
HR and leadership
San Martín-Rodríguez, et a l. 2005
Andersen et al 2013; De silva and Rossi
2014
Interactional driver
Openness and transparency between Chakrabarti and Santoro, 2004; Andersen
partners
et al 2013; De silva and Rossi 2014
Trust between partners
Howells 2006; Flor et al. 2013
Quality of communication between Chakrabarti and Santoro, 2004; Siegel et
partners; shared understanding
al., 2003; Blumenthal et al., 1996;
Powell, 1990
Previous relationships between partners
Barge-Gil and Modrego 2011
Systemic driver
Social and environmental influence- San Martín-Rodríguez, et a l. 2005; Uzzi,
Wider social, cultural, educational and 1997
professional systems in which co-creation
occurs
Political and market influence -Adapting Giddens, 1984; Coombs & Miles, 2000;
the internal-external driving forces
Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004
Dynamic driver
Learning by partners during the co- Gulati, 2007; Faems et al., 2008
creation process (e.g. based on feedback)
Adaptation by partners during the co- Gulati et al, 2012
creation process
4.0
Methodology
Our qualitative research design enables us to explore value co-creation through the
use of different methods including participant observation, analysis of texts and
documents, interviews, recording and transcribing (Dooley, 2001). The logic behind
using multiple methods is to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in
10
question. We made an attempt to construct comprehensive ways to capture the drivers
of value co-creation through a comparative and inductive multiple case study
approach, where we use the naturalistic inquiry to obtain insights (Keupp et al, 2012;
and Garud et al, 2002).
Although case study methods have been criticised as lacking in precision
(quantification), objectivity and rigour (Yin 1981), this approach was selected for a
few reasons. First, the research context of KTP projects examined is unique in its
service provision practices, especially with its tri-partnership collaboration project.
This provided an opportunity to study the distinct characteristics of the collaboration
in contrast to the significant theory (Eisenhardt, 1989) located in the value co-creation
literature. Second, the objective of the research project was to identify and verify
emergent themes and patterns, and to provide a more rigorous understanding of the
dynamics underlying the theoretical relationships between them. Next, as in all
applied social science research, the usefulness of case studies would depend on their
analytic generalisability and whether or not they shed new light on phenomena of
interest.
4.1
Data collection
With our qualitative research approach, we conducted in-depth interviews to probe
actors’ views, engagements, and challenges during their involvement in KTPs.
Emphasising on the co-creation process described by interviewees, the paper relies on
the role of actors as resource integrators, describing the phenomenon. The interview
selection was not concerned with representing an overall population, but driven by
purposeful sampling, which ensured that all interviewees were sufficiently
experienced to describe value co-creation as the phenomenon under investigation
(Eisenhardt 1989; Miles and Huberman 1994; Yin 1981).
Specifically, we ensured that we (1) gained access to individuals that have experience
with KTPs, either as academic advisor, business advisor, associate or even individuals
responsible for managing KTPs in universities or at a regional level; (2) only included
academic advisors who had experience with two or more KTP projects; and (3) only
included interviewees whose involvement in KTPs was completed in the last five
years.
In order to increase the robustness of the findings we also considered several
interviewees who were currently working on KTP projects, which allowed us to
analytically generalise issues and categories together with the phenomenon described
by other interviewees (Russell and Gilson, 2006). This criterion was imposed because
it was assumed that the more recent the KTP project was held, the more lucid the
recall of the participant and therefore the higher the probability for an increased
chance of accurate recall of the services rendered about the collaboration.
Through snowballing effect, some of the academic advisors who were interviewed at
the first stage recommended the business advisors and/or associates that they
hadworked with previously in delivering the KTP service. This activity increases
validity to the phenomenon described by the academic supervisor that can provide
important insights into the detailed functioning of a university-business collaboration.
The sampling techniques involved in this study were necessary, as the study required
11
a degree of flexibility and pragmatism due to the resources involved and the
researchers’ practical knowledge of the researched area in the KTP services. Two of
the researchers were also previous KTP advisers.
In total, we interviewed 50 individuals from all stakeholders, with the interviews
lasting between 45 – 90 minutes.
Table 2: Interview Participants
Interview Groupings
A
B
C
D
E
F
Academic Advisers
Associates
Business Advisers
University KTP Administrators
KTP regional manager
Other Stakeholders
Total
No of
interviewees
25
13
7
3
1
1
50
During the interview, the respondents were encouraged to share their own
information, opinions and suggestions to enable us to capture the emerging
explanations (Eisenhardt, 1989). We used open-ended questions which allow us to be
more flexible in engaging in unanticipated questions and to relate to respondents’
specific experience while handling the collaboration project and reflect more on facts
and events, rather than interpretations (Bryman and Bell, 2007; Eisenhardt, 1989). We
also asked the respondents to reflect on periods both before and after the KTP project
to create a greater depth of understanding of how the collaboration impacted them and
other stakeholders. All interviews were conducted in English and were transcribed by
an independent third party.
4.2
Data analysis
We distinguish three separate phases in our analysis and interpretation of the dataset
(see Table 3). In phase 1, we categorised the themes of the value co-creation drivers,
(1) inductively by identifying categories emerging from the data and (2) deductively,
drawing on categories identified in our literature review. Our coding approach was
based on Miles and Huberman’s (1994) descriptive, interpretive and pattern codes.
We then grouped the categories into abstract, conceptual classes (Spiggle 1994),
which produced sub-categories. We explored differences and similarities in the
phenomenon mentioned by the interviewees, which we then used to develop the
coding scheme further. In phase 2, we did a systematic comparison (Spiggle 1994), in
relation to the positive and negative phenomenon described by the interviewees.
Although we are only focusing on the positive drivers of the value co-creation
process, this step is crucial in making sure that the drivers are positively influencing
co-capitalisation of value. Three authors participated independently in this process,
and then compared the results to resolve discrepancies through discussion in a series
of feedback sessions. This phase is crucial to obtain inferences (Moeller et al 2013),
12
not only through moving back and forth between each interview and the entire set, but
also between the two or more participants connected through the same KTP services.
Finally, we were able to analyse and interpret the data, which was also facilitated by
simultaneous literature review. Regular reflections by the author not involved in the
data analysis validated the results and further refined our interpretation.
Table 3: Overview of data analyses phases
Phase Objective
Develop a coding scheme
1
2
Systematic comparison
3
Analyse and interpret the
coding results
5.0
Empirical evidence
Main techniques
Categorisation, abstraction, comparison,
iteration
Comparison, dimensionalisation, integration,
refutation
Integration, iteration, refutation
We made an attempt to have an in-depth understanding of the value co-creation
phenomenon based on the insights provided by the interviewees. Following the
deductive and inductive approach, the evidence helps us to clarify the drivers in
greater detail.
5.1
Strategic driver
Data analysis revealed three factors that may reinforce the importance of the strategic
driver in supporting the value co-creation process. Actors that collaborate in the KTP
service have to align their strategic aims for the success of the collaboration. The
academic advisors interviewed emphasised the importance of having a clear strategy
to co-create with external partners, which also aligned with the overall strategy of the
partner organisation. For example, the interviews highlight the fact that in order to cocreate, each actors needs to be clear in saying; “This is what we want to do”, and
putting together perspectives from various partners so that it can constantly be
referred to from time to time. It is also important to align practices and activities at the
strategic and operational level, whereby “the people who are responsible for
developing strategies [and] the people on the ground; so there are two different
management levels but they’re both just as important so I’ve had to make sure I have
them on board”.
See Table 4 for some highlights from the interviews supporting the findings.
Table 4: Strategic driver
Factors
Quotations
13
Complementarity
“So we use our facilities here to provide them with analytical skills. So
they do all the sound playing, we do all the analysis… of their samples.
So that’s been an ongoing thing and as a consequence of the KTP of
course that increased their business outputs which increased our
consultancy level with the company. So it was a win / win situation for
both of us really.”
“So they were looking at developing their [own] capability so they
would measure in [their specialty] but they had very little...all they could
do was just pass on the data. They could not interpret it and they
couldn’t offer guidance and advice. So with the associate being a
[scientist] and with my input we could then develop the methodology,
improve the methodology. [The business] could then offer their clients
not just data but also an interpretation of the data and potentially then
solutions.”
Alignment with
internal strategy
“it probably wouldn’t be realistic for me to do it completely
independently because having just started with the [business] I have to
keep it in line with everything else that’s going on and it’s not something
that’s happening in isolation”
“But the real challenge in the KTP I think is that you get that integration
and you can have associate, the university and ourselves are all heading
in the same direction - that's the challenge - and if something productive
comes from it for all”
Long term impact
5.2
“The quick wins, yes and that isn’t always the case you know the wings
sometimes come after the KTP. What I try and do now is to think about
that more when you design the project so you try and build into quick
wins as well as some long-term wins because that then tends to keep
everybody happy.”
Organisational driver
Our data analysis also revealed that value co-creation does impact on the successful
organisation through various efforts within the organisation such as maintaining a
balanced “culture”, strong leadership, and providing support structure to the
collaboration. As it is already known, the cultural differences between universities
and businesses somehow pose interesting challenges “bringing organisations like
local authorities partially into higher academic culture” and having a statement like
“And us into their culture” also highlights the challenges in co-creating value.
Although sometimes, having some structure and strong leadership in managing the
process might help, emphasising that “this is where we need to be going” and even
though with failure lying ahead, “we need to be big enough and strong enough to
recognise how we work through that”.
14
In order to work through the challenges, usually working as a team can support the
co-capitalisation of value even further. “Right, we need to sort this out,” and you go
in as a team and… you go in as a team”.
These factors showcase the importance for the organisation to maintain levels of
effectiveness and to some extent, efficiency in supporting the value co-creation
process. Table 5 provides some highlights of the findings.
Table 5: Organisational support drivers
Factors
Support structure
Quotations
“The people who are responsible for developing strategies but they’re []
Officers so they’re the people on the ground so there are two different
management levels but they’re both just as important so I’ve had to
make sure I have them on board so the people who are delivering the []
work need to be behind my work so that when it’s rolled out it can be
successful”
Culture
“I’ve really been embedded with the culture at [the organisation] and
treated like an employee so I’ve got access to the council tax records
which has been the most vital in terms of the data and what we use”
HR & leadership
“Yeah and I have to say that this is where I feel lucky because both
[Director A] and [Director B] the other director understand the value of
the KTP and actually want me to use the budget, use the time, go out
there and go to conferences and meet with people. It’s not about
restricting what I do it’s about encouraging me to do whatever I feel is
necessary.”
Absorptive Capacity
“working with a kind of a almost like a multi-skilled and disciplined
team has you know opened me up to loads of new experiences”
“but that’s largely down to having a very very good Associate who’s
picked up the project and really started to interpret what we wrote in the
submission”
5.3
Interactional driver
The insights from our data analysis also enabled us to outline four dominant factors
that reinforce the importance of the interactional driver in order to co-create value.
This supports our argument that value co-creation requires an understanding that
value is co-created within configurations of knowledge exchanges through
interactions across actors and networks. Relationship management matters in order to
facilitate value co-creation. From our data analysis, the phenomena are being
mentioned and discussed in all the interviews that we examined, particularly
emphasising the importance of being open and transparent with collaboration
partners, which also then transcribes to the issue of trust. These two factors can only
be achieved once both parties have some sort of shared understanding and clear
communication approach; unfortunately this mostly comes down to the personalities
of the individuals. “I think the success of mine has been the personalities of my
supervisors.”
15
Having a very good previous relationship with collaborators also helps. Scholars have
observed the importance of having a bi-directional thinking (Ordanini and Pasini
(2008) and reciprocity relationship (Woodruff and Flint 2006) in generating shared
value, and clearly our findings support that. See Table 6 for some highlights from the
interviews supporting the findings.
Table 6: Interactional driver
Factors
Openness
Quotations
“I mean if I ever want to sit with him I can and it’s just a very open
relationship. I’d like to think if they wanted to come and see me it’s the
same way.”
“I think the success of mine has been the personalities of my
supervisors. They’ve kind of driven it and in that way they’re very open
to all the knowledge transfers so we’ve been … my supervisors have
been linking up to look at different projects for instance that wouldn’t
have happened hadn’t they been in a KTP arrangement.”
“I think it is this question of building trust and building those links and
it is important to have success, because I think once, I think a lot of
industry if they have not worked with Universities before, are
distrustful and think we are weird. They do don’t they, they think
academics are weird.”
Trust
“But I’m really lucky to have a real close-knit team for my KTP,
[Academic advisor] from the university is my technical adviser. I have
weekly meetings with him and they are really informative. I have
regular monthly meetings between the industry team and the KTP team
as well.”
Communication
“… but the reality is like how you compromise with people on an idea
that you came up with to produce something that’s probably going to
get the best result”
“I mean having a good line of communication within the company is
clearly really important and to some degree we were quite lucky in
terms of [the business] in that they’re a small organisation and our
contacts at [the business] were at the top level of that organisation so
we didn’t have issues in terms of getting things done or getting
permissions to do anything but in bigger organisations that’s obviously
more challenging if you like.”
Previous
relationship
5.4
“It’s funny that I’ve worked with [the University] for probably 30
years and obviously we’re now really closely ... a close relationship
with them, so I’ve known [Academic advisor] for 25, 26 years, so
we’re good friends as well as being equals on the KTP as well.”
Systemic driver
16
Data analysis revealed three factors that may reinforce the importance of the systemic
driver in supporting the value co-creation process; social and environmental
influence, political and market influence, and the importance of external networks.
Conducive social, political, and market conditions positively influence cocapitalisation of opportunities: “there was a good market for the product that we
developed together”. This increased our ability to successfully complete the project’.
It was also evident that adapting to the changes in the environment is crucial to
achieving success. In the context of co-creation projects, both parties regularly
analysed the environment and changed the agenda: “Yeah, so the agenda changes in
reflection of what’s happening in the economic environment really”. The success of
the co-capitalisation process also involves developing useful external networks:
“she’s built a network and she’s brought people together, without which it would
have been very difficult to complete the project successfully”. Table 7 provides some
highlights of the findings.
Table 7: Systemic driver
Factors
Social and
environmental
influence
Quotations
So the objectives at the beginning are slightly different towards the end
because they have to be because it’s a two-year thing and you have to
be agile and flexible enough to adapt to your environment.
Political and market
influence
“Yeah, so the agenda changes in reflection of what’s
happening in the economic environment really”, AA-MK
“we didn’t get to that point… but you know, when you are talking with
the [National] Agency and that kind of thing, I think is going to take
more than a one man band or a small company to sort of pioneer…. So
we didn’t hit it, but you know we were on the way there so in a
roundabout way.”
External network
5.5
“The KTP we’ve got in mind is the best KTP associate and she has
made a network... She’s made an absolute network of people. She’s
contacted people, “What are you doing here? And she’s built a
network and she’s brought people together, without which it would
have been very difficult to complete the project successfully
Dynamic driver
Evidence also emerged on two important factors for the dynamic driver; learning by
feedback and adaptation. The findings highlight that value co-creation requires the
collaborators to constantly evaluate each other's skills and resources and reconfigure
their own resources due to dynamic interactions between co-creation dimensions; one
of the interviewee refers to it as “human dynamics process improvements.” Also, the
interviews indicate that in order to enable positive feedback and allow positive
dynamism across all dimensions, the individual needs to be able to learn, adapt and
go through an “ongoing discontinuous change”. This can only be achieved once each
17
individual acknowledges each partner’s expertise, without in any way feeling
threatened by the change that is being implemented. Table 8 provides some highlights
of the findings.
Table 8: Dynamic driver
Factors
Quotations
Learning on
feedback
“So what I did find is the concepts and ideas wouldn’t change and
wouldn’t be applicable, you had to change the language you were
using to describe those so that people got it basically”
“There was a bit of a challenge and a bit of a learning curve there for
me just because I’ve understood it and I could grasp the academic
terms and phrases and were used to then reading papers and all that
sort of stuff…”
Adaptation
“You can see how technical improvements can come about from a KTP
and turn out to be long-lasting, but these are not the same as human
dynamics process improvements.”
“…at the same as you’re working in a…in something that’s, you
know, subject to kind of ongoing, and discontinuous change”
6.0
Discussion
6.1
Main Contributions
Firstly, our framework (Figure 1) provides a theoretically and empirically informed
basis for understanding the value co-creation process in knowledge-intensive
collaborations. We argue that successful value co-creation requires the actors to both
co-identify opportunities and co-capitalise on them. The framework, in which we
outline the value co-creation process from co-identification to co-capitalisation of
value, supports Vargo and Lusch’s (2006, 2008) explanation that value is always cocreated, where all actors are resource integrators and have a symmetry of roles
between them. We make an original contribution by extending the focus from
producer and customer co-creation in service contexts (where these approaches
originated) to knowledge-intensive collaborations, where we highlight that successful
co-creation is possible only through co-capitalisation of co-identified opportunities.
We highlight that it is important for all collaborating parties to be committed by
willingly contributing not only in terms of tasks and resources, but also their
evaluation, expectations and needs. We also find that these types of commitment may
be asymmetric in tasks, resources and processes from each party (Woodruff and Flint,
2006).
Secondly, we highlight an avenue for the literature to expand further on dyadic
exchanges between collaborating parties, by extending the literature to include drivers
that reflect a relationship-based model of value co-creation rather than one that is
transactional-based. As such, the concept of value co-creation does not only impact
18
the actors directly involved in the collaboration; it may extend to all entities that are
indirectly involved in the activity, such as individuals, firms, societies and nations
(Vargo and Lusch 2008a). Our proposal of multiple drivers supporting the value cocreation process, consisting of the five broad themes of strategic, organisational,
interactional, systemic and dynamic drivers, facilitates an improved understanding of
value co-creation than has been possible so far.
As our findings have shown, all the drivers stipulated in the framework are
instrumental in supporting the parties in co-capitalising to achieve the intended
outcomes. They also highlight another important element of what we are proposing;
the importance of interlinking not only internally, such as between strategic,
organisational, interactional and dynamic drivers, but also externally through the
systemic driver.
Having a strategic fit helps: we note that the value of co-creating activities also accrue
from ‘‘looking inside’’ the organisation on its readiness to co-create with others (ie:
how organisational structure, culture, and leadership shape co-creation, especially
with outside organisations). Actors face challenges in gaining insight into the
resources that other collaborators contribute to value co-creation (Baron and Warnaby
2011).
The interactional driver, which addresses openness, trust and how all parties
communicate admirably across their relationship (previous or current), is also
important.
The framework further outlines the importance of economic and social actors within
networks through the systemic driver. This is because actors interacting and
exchanging across and through networks somehow influence the level of value cocreation being capitalised, whereby value co-creation is no longer between the
collaborators but is also connected to how they interact with their external actors in
general (eg: local government, society etc). This features an important mark in the
proposed value co-creation process, as although value is being co-identified, only
once it goes through various co-creation experiences and business environments
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), can it then be capitalised.
6.2
Managerial implications
Our findings offer several insights for value co-creation, particularly in complex, tripartnership contexts such as the university-industry collaboration projects (KTPs)
which was our study context. We suggest that practitioners could adopt this
framework in order to view, analyse, and ultimately improve their value co-creation
process, particularly in knowledge-intensive collaborative projects. By focusing on
the process, and by paying attention to the factors that promote co-capitalisation of
value, we envisage that the five drivers could help practitioners to understand the
factors that they should improve upon. This guides them on re-evaluating
organisational principles, structures, and processes, and consequently represents a
major managerial challenge (Oliva and Kallenberg 2003) to support value co-creation
in knowledge-intensive collaboration activities.
19
With regard to policy implication, policy makers have a role to play in terms of
providing systemic support, which encourages value co-creation. We advocate the
importance of the systemic driver in our framework, as clearly it influences the
outcome of the value co-creation process. For example, policy makers could ensure e
the implementation of a positive cultural environment, and provide an avenue for
facilitating collaboration. Not only that, having a support network across the region
such as Local Enterprise Partnerships may help.
6.3
Limitation and further research
Through in-depth interviews, the data we collected consist of specific, cross-sectional
investigations of insights from our interviewees. It would be interesting to not only
adopt a longitudinal perspective, but also to implement dyadic research. However,
dyadic research can be challenging as it requires deep access to both sides of a
relationship, some of which we had attempted to include in some of our interviews,
and uses substantial researcher time (Ryals and Humphries, 2007).
The setting of this paper is knowledge-intensive collaborations between universities
and businesses. Further research could apply the framework and the drivers further to
university-businesses collaborations through different collaboration mechanism
beyond KTPs, such as consultancy and joint R&D projects. It would also be
interesting to involve different types of actors in the collaboration, such as
government and intermediaries (e.g: Catapult centres).
7.0
References
Argote, L., McEvily, B., and Reagans, R. (2003). ‘Introduction to the special issue on
managing knowledge in organizations: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring
knowledge’. Management Science, 49(4).
Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., D’Este, P., (2008). ‘When does university
research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions.’
Journal of Management Studies 45(8), pp.1424-1447.
Andersen, B., M. De Silva and C. Levy (2013). ‘Collaborate to innovate: How
business can work with universities to generate knowledge and drive
innovation’. London Big Innovation Centre.
Andersen, B., Brinkley, I. and Hutton, W. (2011) ‘Making the UK a Global
Innovation Hun. How Business, Finance and an Enterprising State can
transform the UK.’ Big Innovation Centre report
Auh, Seigyoung., Simon J Bell, Colin S McLeod, and Eric Shih (2007), ‘Coproduction and Customer Loyalty in Financial Services. Journal of Retailing, 83
(3), pp.359-370.
Ballantyne, D., and Varey, R.J. (2006) ‘Creating Value-in-Use through Marketing
Interaction: The Exchange Logic of Relating, Communicating and Knowing’,
Marketing Theory 6 (3): pp.335-48.
Baker, W. E., and Sinkula, J. M. (2007). ‘Does Market Orientation Facilitate
Balanced Innovation Programs? An Organizational Learning Perspective.’ The
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24: pp.316-334.
Barge-Gil, A., and Modrego, A. (2011) ‘The impact of research and technology
organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants.’ The
20
Journal of Technology Transfer. 36 (1), pp.61-83
Barnes, T., I. Pashby and A. Gibbons (2002). ‘Effective University – Industry
Interaction: A Multi-case Evaluation of Collaborative R&D Projects’, European
Management Journal, 20: pp.272–285.
Baron, S. and Warnaby, G. (2011) ‘Individual Customers' Use and Integration of
Resources: Empirical Findings and Organizational Implications in the Context
of Value Co-Creation.’ Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (2). pp. 211-218.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., (2007) Business Research Methods revised edition. Oxford
University Press.
Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Soto, M. A., and Wise, D. (1986).
‘University-industry research relationhships in biotechnology: Implications for
the university’. Science 232: pp. 1361-1366.
Chakrabarti, A. K. and M. D. Santoro (2004). ‘Building social capital and learning
environment in university–industry relationships’, International Journal of
Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1, pp. 19-36.
Curley, M., and Salmelin, B. (2013). Open Innovation 2.0: A new paradigm.
Academic Press
Collins, C. J. and K. G. Smith (2006). ‘Knowledge exchange and combination: The
role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms’,
Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp. 544-560.
Coombs, R., Miles, I., (2000). ‘Innovation, measurement and services: the new
problematique.’ In Metcalfe, J.S., Miles, I. (Eds.), Innovation Systems in the
Services Economy: Measurement and Case Study Analysis. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, pp. 85-103.
Cova, B., and Dalli, D. (2009) ‘Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing
Theory?’, Marketing Theory, 9 (3): pp.315-339.
Dietrich P., Lehtonen P. (2005) ‘Successful Management of Strategic Intentions
through Multiple Projects – Reflections from Empirical Study’. International
Journal of Project Management, 23(6): pp.386-391
Dooley, D. (2001), Social Research Methods, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
De Silva, L., R., Uyarra, E. and Oakey, R (2012) ‘Academic Entrepreneurship in a
Resource Constrained Environment: Diversification and Synergistic Effects’.
In: Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., Link, A. N., Starnecker, A. and
Audretsch, D. (eds) Technology Transfer in a Global Economy. New York:
Springer.
De Silva, L., R., and Rossi, F (2014) ‘Industry practices supporting knowledge
exchange; Lessons from firms that successfully interact with universities’.
Academy of Management Conference
Echeverri, P. & Skalen, P., (2011). ‘Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory
based study of interactive value formation’. Marketing Theory, 11(3) pp. 351373.
Edvardsson, Bo, Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T., (2011), ‘Expanding Understanding of
Service Exchange and Value Co-creation: A Social Construction Approach’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (2), pp. 327-339
Eggington, E., Osborn, R., and Kaplan, C (2013) ‘Collaborative Research between
Business and Universities: The Lambert Toolkit 8 Years On’, Intellectual
Property Office.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy of
Management Review. 14(4) pp. 532-550.
21
Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A. and Van Looy, B. (2008). ‘Towards an
integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design,
contract application and trust dynamics’. Academy of Management Journal, 51:
pp. 1053- 1078.
Gibson, C. B., and Birkinshaw, J. (2004). ‘The antecedents, consequences and
mediating role of organizational ambidexterity’. Academy of Management
Journal, 47: pp. 209-226.
Giddens, A. (1984). ‘The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of
structuration.’ Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Gummesson E, Lusch R F and Vargo SL (2010) ‘Transitioning from Service
Management to Service-Dominant Logic: Observations and Recommendations’.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 2 (1): pp. 8-22.
Grönroos, C. (2008) ‘Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who cocreates?’ European Business Review, 20 (4) pp.298-314.
Gronroos, C. (2000) ‘Service marketing and management: Customer relationship
management approach.’ Chester: John Wiley & Sons
Garud, R. & Jain, S. & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in
the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun
Microsystems and Java’. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): pp. 196214
Gulati, R. (2007) ‘Silo Busting: Transcending Barriers to Build High Growth
Organizations.’ Harvard Business Review 85(5) pp. 98–108
Gulati, R., Sytch, M. and Tatarynowicz, A.(2012) ‘The Rise and Fall of Small
Worlds: Exploring the Dynamics of Social Structure’. Organization Science.
23(2): pp. 449–471.
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F. & Zhelyazkov, P., (2012). ‘The Two Facets of
Collaboration: Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Alliances’. The
Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): pp. 531-583.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). ‘Resources, knowledge and
influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration’.
Journal of Management Studies, 40(2): pp. 321-347.
Harris, K. and Baron, S. (2004) ‘Consumer-to-consumer conversations in service
settings’. Journal of Service Research, 6 (3): pp. 287-303.
Hoffmann, W. H. & Schlosser, R. (2001). ‘Success Factors of Strategic Alliances in
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: An Empirical Survey.’ Long Range
Planning, 34, pp. 357-381.
Holbrook, M.B (2006) ‘Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective
personal introspection: an illustrative photographic essay’, Journal of Business
Research 59, pp. 714-725
Jaakkola, E. and Alexander, M., (2014) ‘The Role of Customer Engagement
Behaviour in Value Co-Creation: A Service System Perspective’, Journal of
Service Research, 17(3) pp. 247-261
Jaworski, B. and Kohli, A. (2006), ‘Co-creating the Voice of the Customer’, in The
Service-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, Robert
F Lusch and Stephen L Vargo, eds. Delhi, India: Prentice Hall, 109-117.
Keupp, M. M., Palmié, M., Gassmann, O. (2012). ‘The Strategic Management of
Innovation: A Systematic Review and Paths for Future Research.’
International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, pp. 367-390.
22
Mele, Cristina and Corte, Valentina Della (2013) ‘Resource-based view and Servicedominant logic: Similarities, differences and further research,’ Journal
Business Marketing Management 6(4): pp. 192-213
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd edn.), Sage:London & Thousand Oaks, California.
Moeller, S., Ciuchita, R., Mahr, D., Odekerben-Schroder, G., and Fassnacht, M.,
(2013) ‘Uncovering Collaborative Value Creation Patterns and Establishing
Corresponding Customer Roles,’ Journal of Service Research
16(4) pp. 471-487
Ojasalo, K., (2010) ‘The Shift from Co-Production in Services to Value Co-creation’,
The Business Review. 16(1) pp. 171.
Olivia, Rogelio and Kallenberg, Robert (2003) ‘Managing the transition form
products to services’, International Journal of Service Industry Management.
14 (2) pp. 160-172
Ordanini, a, & Parasuraman, A. (2010). ‘Service Innovation Viewed Through a
Service-Dominant Logic Lens: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical
Analysis’. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), pp. 3-23
Ordanini, A., and Pasini, P., (2008) ‘Service co-production and value co-creation: The
case for a service-oriented architecture.’ European Management Journal,
26(5), pp. 289-68
Patrício, Lia, Raymond P. Fisk, João Falcão e Cunha and Larry Constantine (2011),
‘Multilevel Service Design: From Customer Value Constellation to Service
Experience Blueprinting’, Journal of Service Research, 14 (2) pp. 180-200
Paulraj, A., Lado, A. A., & Chen, I. J. (2008). ‘Interorganizational communication as
a relational competency: Antecedents and performance outcomes in
collaborative buyer-supplier relationships.’ Journal of Operations
Management, 26: pp. 45-64.
Payne, A, Storbacka, K, and Frow, P. (2008) ‘Managing the co-creation of value.’
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1): pp. 83-96.
Payne, Adrian, Kaj Storbacka, and Pennie Frow (2007), ‘Managing the Co-creation of
Value’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), pp. 83-96.
Plé, L. and Cáceres, R. C. (2010) ‘Not always co-creation: introducing interactional
co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic’, Journal of Services
Marketing, 24(6) pp. 430 - 437.
Perkmann, M. and K. Walsh (2007) ‘University–industry relationships and open
innovation: Towards a research agenda.’ International Journal of
Management Reviews 9(4) pp. 259–280
Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V., (2004). ‘Co-creation experiences: The next
practice in value creation.’ Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3) pp. 5-14.
Powell, W.W(1990) ‘Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organizations’.
Research in Organizational Behaviour, 12, pp. 295-336
Russell S & Gilson L (2006) ‘Are health services protecting the livelihoods of the
urban poor in Sri Lanka? Findings from two low-income areas of Colombo.’
Social Science and Medicine 63, pp. 1732–1744.
Ryals, L. J., and Humphries, A. S. (2007). ‘Managing Key Business-to-Business
Relationships: What Marketing Can Learn From Supply Chain Management.’
Journal of Service Research 9, pp. 312-326.
San Martín-Rodríguez, L. et al., (2005). ‘The determinants of successful
collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies’. Journal of
interprofessional care, 19 (1), pp.132-147.
23
Shane S and Venkataraman, S (2000).’ The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of
Research’. The Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 217-226
Sarasvathy, S. D., Venkataraman, S., Dew, N., & Velamuri, R. (2002). ‘Three Views
of Entrepreneurial Opportunity.’ Invited chapter in The Handbook of
Entrepreneurship Research, edited by Acs et.al. Dordecht, NL; Kluwer.
Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D., Link, A. (2003). ‘Assessing the impact of organizational
practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an
exploratory study’. Research Policy 32 (1), pp. 27-48.
Sundbo, J. and Gallouj, F. (2000). ‘Innovation as a loosely coupled system in
services’. International Journal of Services Technology and Management. 1(1)
pp. 15-36
Spiggle, Susan (1994) ‘Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer
Research,’ Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 194-203
Tan, J and Tan, D (2005) ‘Environment strategy co-evolution and co-alignment: A
staged model of Chinese SOEs under transition.’ Strategic Management
Journal. 26: pp. 141-157
Kotze, T. G. and du Plessis, P.J (2003). ‘Students as “co-producers” of higher
education: a proposed model of student socialization and participation at tertiary
institutions.’ Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 11(4) pp. 186-201
Ternouth, P., C. Garner, L. Wood and P. Forbes (2012). Key Attributes for Successful
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships. Commissioned by the Technology Strategy
Board and the Research Councils.
Tynan, C. & McKechnie, S., (2009). ‘Experience marketing: a review and
reassessment.’ Journal of Marketing Management, 25(5-6), pp.501-517.
Uzzi, B. (1997). ‘Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox
of embeddedness.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: pp. 35-67.
Vargo, S. L. (2011), ‘Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions: Toward a
service-dominant logic-based theory of the market,’ European Journal of
Marketing, 45 (1/2) pp. 217 – 222.
Vargo, S. L. (2008). ‘Customer integration and value creation Paradigmatic Traps and
Perspectives.’ Journal of Service Research, 11(2), pp. 211–215.
Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2008a), “From Goods to Service(s): Divergences and
Convergences of Logics,” Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254-259
Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2008b). ‘Service-dominant logic: Continuing the
evolution.’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp. 1-10.
Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2006). ‘Service-Dominant Logic: What it is, what it is
not, what it might be’. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The ServiceDominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions (pp. 43–56).
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe
Vrande, V. van de, Jong, J. P. J. de, Vanhaverbeke, W., & Rochemont, M. de. (2009).
‘Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges.’
Technovation, 29(6-7), pp. 423-437.
Watkins, D. and Horley, G. (1986). ‘Transferring technology from large to small
firms: the role of intermediaries’. In T. Webb, T. Quince. And D. Watkins
(Eds.), Small Business Research: 215–251.
Wu, F. and Cavusgil, S.T., (2006). ‘Organizational learning, commitment, and joint
value creation in interfirm relationships.’ Journal of Business Research, 59(1),
pp.81-89.
24
Woodruff R B, and Flint DJ (2006) ‘Marketing’s service-dominant logic and
customer value.’ In: Lusch RF, Vargo SL (eds) The service- dominant logic of
marketing: dialog, debate, and directions. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, pp 183–195
Yin, R. K. (1981) ‘The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers,’ Administrative Science
Quarterly (26) pp. 58-65
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.O., and Gremler, D.E. (2009) ‘Services Marketing:
Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm’, Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
Zwick, D., Bonsu, S.K., and Darmody, A. (2008) ‘Putting Consumers to Work: `CoCreation` and New Marketing Govern-Mentality’, Journal of Consumer
Culture 8 (2): pp. 163 - 96.
25