Value co-destruction: Exploring the role of actors’ opportunism in the B2B context

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102093Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Value co-creation happens when alliance partners share resources, support value propositions and have perceived value in the ecosystem.

  • Successful alliances show strong governance strategies and channel policies play a key role in facilitating value co-creation in the ecosystem.

  • Value co-destruction happens due to conflictual interactions between alliance actors resulting in win-lose or lose-lose outcomes.

  • Alliance actors show strong- and weak-forms of opportunism, which weakens the foundation of collaboration and results in value co-destruction.

  • This research is more encompassing because it explores factors that lead to both value co-creation and co-destruction.

Abstract

This exploratory study investigates value co-destruction in the Business-to-Business (B2B) context and examines the impact of actors’ opportunistic behaviour on value co-creation. The research undertakes an in-depth case study based approach. It uses data triangulation, where multiple sources of evidence (interviews, conference audio recordings and documents) are collected from the case organisation (a vendor) and its service ecosystem partners in the ICT sector. The partners included in the study are distributors, channel partners, competitors, and customers. B2B alliances are driven by the motivations to maximise strategic value and minimise transaction cost. Thus, using the ecosystem lens, we find that actors’ capabilities (resources and perceived value), vendor's approach to achieving strategic benefit and the channel governance mechanism enable value co-creation. However, using the transaction cost theory lens, we report that actors’ opportunistic behaviour, technological disruptions and new business model challenges lead to value co-destruction (in the form of termination of relationship, conflict and business liquidation). Alliance partners need to evaluate the strategic benefits of collaboration, knowledge sharing, learning, trust building, market expansion and technology sharing, considering partners’ self-serving behaviour driven by transaction cost economies. All ecosystem actors are seeking to develop capabilities, exhibit knowledge differentiators, demonstrate technology leadership, reduce uncertainty and respond to new business model challenges thus causing value co-destruction. Thus, this research is more encompassing because it explores factors that lead to both value co-creation and co-destruction.

Introduction

Value is increasingly co-created by multiple participants including firms, customers, suppliers, partners and other stakeholders (Ashok, Narula, & Martinez-Noya, 2016; Ashok, Narula, & Martinez-Noya, 2014; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Value co-creation (VCC) takes place within inter-organisational interactions, which may include dyadic relationships, value networks, and entire ecosystems. VCC is not limited to dyadic relationships, but extends to service ecosystems (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). The central point of a service ecosystem is to enhance VCC (Mele, Russo-Spena, & Colurcio, 2010). This type of systemic, networked and ecosystem level perspective seems valuable, yet is seldom applied in the B2B co-creation research (Kohtamaki & Rajala, 2016).

Several research gaps and business needs underpin this research. Although, VCC is intrinsic to the customer’s experience in a B2C context (Chuang & Lin, 2015), VCC is deemed as a value proposition in the B2B context (Kohtamaki & Rajala, 2016). Academic research of VCC in B2B context is a small fraction of the VCC research in the B2C context (Lilien, 2016). Further, the significance of value co-creation in the B2B context has grown due to globalisation, digitalisation, servitisation, technological advances, market turbulence, and innovative business models (Cortez & Johnston, 2017).

Dismantling VCC into its constituent parts highlights the differences of VCC in B2B versus B2C context: “kind of value and for whom, kind of resources, kind of mechanism of resource integration” (Saarijärvi, Kannan, & Kuusela, 2013:11). This paper, thus, responds to research gaps relating to the drivers of VCC and to the lack of understanding of VCC constituents in different contexts (McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, Sweeney, & van Kasteren, 2012; Tommasetti, Troisi, & Vesci, 2017).

Value co-creation is a dynamic yet complex process of assimilating, applying and transforming resources between ecosystems actors (Chuang & Lin, 2015; Senyo, Liu, & Effah, 2019; Vargo & Lusch, 2011), where technological advances are not only facilitating VCC but also enabling innovative mechanism of resource integration (Saarijärvi et al., 2013; Tommasetti et al., 2017). Since technology enables knowledge transfer (Ashok et al., 2016) and helps ecosystem actors to develop capabilities, it results in bounded rational behaviour.

Thus, collaborations don’t always result in benefits for all the actors involved, in fact some alliances lead to destruction or diminishment of value for one or more actors – this concept is called value co-destruction (VCD) (Echeverri & Skalen, 2011; Farquhar & Robson, 2017; Ple, 2017). Despite the academic and business interest in VCC and VCD research, empirical investigation of factors influencing value co-destruction is lagging (Cabiddu, Moreno, & Sebastiano, 2019; Chowdhury, Gruber, & Zolkiewski, 2016). Further, limited studies examine the role of actors’ opportunistic behaviour (also called opportunism) in the B2B context, a gap addressed by this research.

According to transaction cost theory, contracts and transactions between ecosystem actors are affected by behavioural assumptions; and since firms seek to minimise economic transaction costs, they show bounded rationality and opportunistic behaviour. Unlike rationality, opportunistic behaviour is simple, self-centred, and a source of troublesome behaviour such as dishonesty and misinformation presented by actors in inter-firm relationships (Williamson, 1985, 2007). Such behaviour can generate challenges for ecosystems actors wishing to maximise gain in the turbulent B2B market (Cortez & Johnston, 2017; Martinez-Noya & Narula, 2018). This paper, thus explores alliances in the B2B context from the perspectives of both service ecosystems and transaction cost theory to explore the antecedents of value co-creation and co-destruction.

First, using the service ecosystems lens, this study explores the factors that enable B2B ecosystem actors to collectively create value. The VCC process helps organisations to screen partners for collaboration, reconfigure resources and technology, take advantage of partners’ capabilities, enhance learning through alliances, and re-evaluate strategic position in the market (Ashok, 2018; Maglio, 2017; Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2018). However, past studies have mostly focused on value co-destruction in the context of a firm and its customers, thus ignoring other actors in the ecosystem (Leclercq, Hammedi, & Poncin, 2016; Ostrom, Parasuraman, Bowen, Patricio, & Voss, 2015; Prior & Marcos-Cuevas, 2016), a research gap addressed by this study.

Second, using the transaction cost theory lens, this research examines the impact of actors’ opportunistic behaviour on value co-creation/co-destruction in the B2B context. Transaction cost literature has long acknowledged that actors’ opportunistic behaviour leads to diminishing value (Noordhoff, Kyriakopoulos, Moorman, Pauwels, & Dellaert, 2011; Wathne & Heide, 2000; Williamson, 1985). Thus, it is not a surprise that many B2B alliances do not realise their full potential, fail to capture value and do not fully appreciate collaborative business practices (De Man & Luvison, 2019).

Thus, this study investigates the determinants of value co-creation and co-destruction, an approach that makes this research more encompassing, less biased and closer to real business life (Cabiddu et al., 2019; Ple, 2017). In their literature review of the theory and practices of value co-creation in a B2B context, Kohtamaki and Rajala (2016) identify the need for a single case study approach to develop an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. Thus, a comprehensive exploratory case study is adopted, involving an ICT vendor and its channel ecosystem actors in the B2B context. The research setting is very relevant because technological advances and volatile socio-economic-political conditions make ICT ecosystems dynamic and fiercely competitive (Basole, Park, & Barnett, 2015). Further, research shows that main vendors in ICT ecosystems face challenges in enabling value co-creation and collaboration across their B2B network partners (Ritala, Agouridas, Assimakopoulos, & Gies, 2013).

Recent scholarly work in ICT (ICT-enabled) ecosystems have adopted in-depth case study methodology using data triangulation (multiple sources of data like qualitative interviews, company documents, workshop presentations) approach (Jha, Pinsonneault, & Dubé, 2016; Ritala et al., 2013); this study uses a similar methodology. Data triangulation enhances validity of the research process, improves reliability and credibility of the study results, and reduces bias (Bryman, 2016; Creswell, 2009; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

The paper is structured as follows: the next section discusses the theoretical background of value co-creation in the context of ecosystems and transaction cost theory. The following section presents a description of the case study and the research methodology. This is followed by the findings and discussion on value co-creation and value co-destruction in the B2B context. The final section concludes with the research contribution, limitations and future direction.

Section snippets

Service ecosystem

Value creation does not just take place through the activities of a single actor or between a firm and its customers but among a whole host of actors, where rules and regulations work as building blocks for the ongoing formation and reformation of increasingly complex assemblage (of ecosystem actors) (Vargo & Lusch, 2016: 9). These loosely coupled social economic actors are connected by shared institutional logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2011; Lusch & Nambisan, 2015). Such logic and arrangement may

Methodology and research context

This exploratory study investigates (using the ecosystem lens) the factors that enable an ICT organisation and its ecosystem to co-create value in the B2B context, and examines (using the transaction cost theory lens) the impact of actors’ opportunistic behaviour on value co-destruction. Given the limited understanding of the determinants of VCC and VCD in service ecosystems (Neghina, Caniels, Bloemer, & Van Birgelen, 2015; Ostrom et al., 2015), we use an in-depth case study method (Jha et al.,

Results

This study analysed channel policy documents, audio recordings and interview transcripts to identify the determinants of VCC and VCD in the B2B context in the ICT sector. A priori themes from literature review were amended to construct detailed factors leading to VCC and VCD amongst service ecosystem partners. The findings of this study show that B2B alliances are driven by the motivation to maximise value and minimise transaction costs. In response to RQ1, using the ecosystem lens, we find

Discussion and contributions

We explore how an ICT hardware enterprise vendor and its ecosystem partners co-create and co-destroy value in the B2B context. Using an in-depth case study, we find that vendor organisations invest in their channel ecosystem partners, who deliver products and services to customers. We find that value is co-created through actors’ capabilities, both resources and perceived value, vendor's approach to achieving strategic benefit, and a channel governance mechanism. However, the incentive-rewards

Conclusion, limitation and future research

To summarise, B2B alliances are driven by the motivations to maximise strategic value and minimise transaction costs. Thus, there is scope for both value co-creation and value co-destruction to coexist in an alliance. We contribute to the VCC literature on two fronts. First, through the ecosystem lens, we find that actors’ capabilities (resources and perceived value) and channel governance mechanism enable value co-creation. We highlight the benefits of the tiering approach, non-monetary

Author statement

Credit author statementDr. Buddhi PathakDr Mona AshokDr Yin Leng Tan
ConceptualizationXX
Data curationXX
Formal analysisXX
Funding acquisition
InvestigationXXX
MethodologyXXX
Project administrationXX
ResourcesXXX
SoftwareXX
SupervisionX
ValidationXX
VisualizationXX
Roles/Writing – original draftX
Writing – review & editingX

References (96)

  • M. Kohtamaki et al.

    Theory and practice of value co-creation in B2B systems

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2016)
  • G.L. Lilien

    The B2B knowledge gap

    International Journal of Research in Marketing

    (2016)
  • V. Ramaswamy et al.

    What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation

    Journal of Business Research

    (2018)
  • P.K. Senyo et al.

    Digital business ecosystem: Literature review and a framework for future research

    International Journal of Information Management

    (2019)
  • J.C. Spohrer

    On looking into Vargo and Lusch’s concept of generic actors in markets, or “it’s all B2B …and beyond!”

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2011)
  • E. Uppström et al.

    Explaining value co-creation and co-destruction in e-government using boundary object theory

    Government Information Quarterly

    (2017)
  • S.L. Vargo et al.

    It’s all B2B... and beyond: Toward a system perspective of the market

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2011)
  • D. Waseem et al.

    Value co-creation: The role of actor competence

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2018)
  • L. Aarikka-Sternroos et al.

    Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2017)
  • E.J. Arnould

    Rudiments of a value praxeology

    Marketing Theory

    (2014)
  • M. Ashok

    Role of digitisation in enabling Co-creation of value in KIBS firms

    International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations

    (2018)
  • M. Ashok et al.

    End-user collaboration for process innovation in services: The role of internal resources

    (2014)
  • M. Ashok et al.

    How do collaboration and investments in knowledge management affect process innovation in services?

    Journal of Knowledge Management

    (2016)
  • R.E. Boyatzis

    Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development

    (1998)
  • V. Braun et al.

    Using thematic analysis in psychology

    Qualitative Research in Psychology

    (2006)
  • A. Bryman

    Social research methods

    (2016)
  • F. Cabiddu et al.

    Toxic collaborations: Co-destroying value in the B2B context

    Journal of Service Research

    (2019)
  • J.A. Cantrill et al.

    The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research

    The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice

    (1996)
  • J.A. Chatman et al.

    Parsing organizational culture: How the norm for adaptability influences the relationship between culture consensus and financial performance in high-technology firms

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2014)
  • J. Christoffersen

    A review of antecedents of international strategic alliance performance: Synthesized evidence and new directions for core constructs

    International Journal of Management Reviews

    (2013)
  • T. Clohessy et al.

    The impact of cloud-based digital transformation on IT service providers: Evidence from focus groups

    International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing

    (2017)
  • R.M. Cortez et al.

    The future of B2B marketing theory: A historical and prospective analysis

    Industrial Marketing Management

    (2017)
  • J.W. Creswell

    Research design; qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches

    (2009)
  • M.T. Dacin et al.

    The legitimacy of strategic alliance: An institutional perspective

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2007)
  • T.K. Das

    Strategic alliance temporalities and partner opportunism

    British Journal of Management

    (2006)
  • P. Echeverri et al.

    Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation

    Marketing Theory

    (2011)
  • B. Edvardsson et al.

    Service systems as a foundation for resource integration and value co-creation

    Review of Marketing Research

    (2012)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt et al.

    Theory building from cases: Opportunitees and challenges

    The Academy of Management Journal

    (2007)
  • J.D. Farquhar et al.

    Selective demarketing: When customers destroy value

    Marketing Theory

    (2017)
  • C. Gronroos et al.

    Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation

    Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science

    (2013)
  • R. Gulati

    Alliances and networks

    Strategic Management Journal

    (1998)
  • R. Gulati et al.

    Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts

    Strategic Management Journal

    (2012)
  • J. Hartley

    Case study research

  • J. Hietanen et al.

    Against the implicit politics of service-dominant logic

    Marketing Theory

    (2017)
  • N. Ind et al.

    Building brands together: Emergence and outcomes of co-creation

    California Management Review

    (2013)
  • S.D. Jap et al.

    Low-stakes opportunism

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (2013)
  • S.K. Jha et al.

    The evolution of an ICT platform-enabled ecosystem for poverty alleviation: The case of eKutir

    MIS Quarterly

    (2016)
  • F. Karimi-Alaghehband et al.

    An assessment of the use of Transaction Cost Theory in information technology outsourcing

    The Journal of Strategic Information Systems

    (2011)
  • Cited by (55)

    • Organizational climate in B2B: A systematic literature review and future research directions

      2022, Industrial Marketing Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Since B2B transactions are numerous, and the type of knowledge required to be exchanged is varied (Lambert & Enz, 2012), research has highlighted the role of organizational climate in facilitating, integrating, and transmitting information, by way of a better understanding of learning, innovation, as well as value co-creation that takes place in an organization. Value co-creation arises through inter-organizational interactions, which may include dyadic relationships, value networks, and entire ecosystems, including service ecosystems (Pathak, Ashok, & Tan, 2020; Vargo & Lusch, 2016). The central point of a B2B ecosystem is to enhance value co-creation, much like in a service ecosystem (Gummesson, Lusch, & Vargo, 2010).

    • The more engagement, the better? The influence of supplier engagement on new product design in the social media context

      2022, International Journal of Information Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, the extent and frequency of SE have also increased significantly with the advent of social media (Cheng & Shiu, 2020). SE brings new technologies and knowledge but also new challenges, including the risk of information overload (Dwivedi et al., 2021), higher costs of coordination and search (Chowdhury, Gruber, & Zolkiewski, 2016), and opportunistic behaviours (Pathak, Ashok, & Tan, 2020). More recently, a handful of studies (e.g., Pathak et al., 2020; Suurmond, Wynstra, & Dul, 2020) have found that SE has not only failed to identify the positive performance, but also reported the negative impacts in a social media context, such as increasing the complexity of innovation, and delaying the R&D cycle.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text