Co-creation and co-destruction of experiential value: A service perspective in projects

Fuentes, M E G (2019) Co-creation and co-destruction of experiential value: A service perspective in projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(1), pp. 100-117. ISSN 2044-124X

Abstract

Purpose: One way in which to induce an advantageous position is to improve the value outcomes experienced from commissioned projects. The purpose of this paper is to consider project stakeholders, such as end-users, as active co-creators of value. This may be achieved by taking into account interactive capabilities and service design practices. This may influence experiential and financial value outcomes for a range of project stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach: A single case displayed as a pilot study helps to establish the transferability of the co-creation and the service experience to the construction context. Findings: Findings show that project managers pay insufficient attention to the service experience. The analysis demonstrates users are treated as destroyers of value, rather than as co-creators of value. In addition to this, the findings suggest contextual aspects, such as unethical behaviour, misalignment of values, power asymmetry and lack of contextual awareness, may ultimately affect the project outcomes. Practical implications: The implication for the construction context is to create awareness of interactive capabilities and service design practices, which permit the enhancement of experimental value outcomes. Originality/value: Service-dominant logic is used as a variant perspective to analyse the project usefulness and benefits for a range of stakeholders. The originality comes from the initial exploration of how benefits could be collaboratively configured through interactive capabilities and service design practices with a range of stakeholders.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: co-creation; co-creation capabilities; co-destruction; service; service experiences; value
Index terms: misalignment, co-creation, project stakeholder, exploration, methodology, service-dominant logic, project outcome, project manager, design practice
Subjects: environmental resource management, project completion, organization, engineering problems, profession, sociology, design process, research methods
Topics: Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here