Mills, G R W and Razmdoost, K (2016) Managing value co-creation/destruction: A longitudinal education capital programme/project case study. Construction Management and Economics, 34(4-5), pp. 286-301. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Drawing on a longitudinal empirical study of an education capital programme/project, value interactions are investigated at the interface between programme customers, project stakeholders and construction providers. Empirical evidence is provided that value formation is not only associated with value co-creation, but also with value co-destruction. The case study showed that a mature and synergistic network relationship (that successfully aligned the expectations of a strong key account management team (KAM team), multi-headed customer and wider project stakeholders) could, if not well managed, turn into incongruent relationships, relationship uncoupling and resource withdrawal. These findings suggest that project managers must drive strong KAM team relationships, so that they can align and adapt to customer requirements, and control the response to often changing wider stakeholder expectations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-creation; expectations; key account management; relationships; stakeholders; value |
| Index terms: | empirical study, interaction, co-creation, project manager, case study, value co-creation, project stakeholder, evidence, drawing, key account management, programme |
| Subjects: | design process, research methods, behavioral psychology, project controls, sociology, value management, profession, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, relationship management, technical documentation |
| Topics: | Time Control, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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