Barriers for Entering the Digital World: Exploring Customer Value Co-destruction in Self-Service Technologies

Abstract

The value co-creation scholarly work has been criticized for neglecting the possible failures in the collaborative value creation process, which is termed as ‘value co-destruction’. Additionally, both the value co-creation and available limited research work in value co-destruction have overly attended on actor-to-actor interactions taking place in traditional service encounters, disregarding the practical movement towards the provision of services via technological platforms. Though there are ample studies that recognize factors influencing customer acceptance or rejections of technologies, a very limited number of studies have focused on exploring how and why customer collaboration with self-service technologies (SSTs) goes wrong due to the failures in the co-creation process. Therefore, this study attempts to understand how ‘value co-destruction’ takes place in the SSTs. Following a qualitative inquiry, using semi-structured interviews with 25 individuals, 15 reasons for co-destruction that vary among different customer demographics were found and classified into four integrative themes as ‘inabilities in co-learning’, ‘poor co-operation’, ‘problems with connecting’ and ‘poor corrective actions’. The findings fill the gap in the literature by addressing value co-destruction in technological interfaces, particularly in the SST context. Further, it will help practitioners to design and deliver value-enhancing self-service technological interfaces, resulting in none or minimum difficulties for customers.

Keywords

Value co-destruction service failures self-service technologies value co-creation

Introduction

Value co-creation takes place when a customer accepts and integrates their resources with value propositions offered by the service provider (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). It indicates that the success or the failure of co-creation process depends on ‘how adaptive an actor is, that is, an actor’s ability to work with others (either actors or resources) in a mutually beneficial manner’ (Fyrberg Yngfalk, 2013, p. 1165). It suggests that if a person cannot interact with the organization or the resources provided by the organization (e.g., automated teller machine—ATM) appropriately to obtain the outcome as expected, it results in value co-destructions. Ertimur and Venkatesh (2010) criticize the pre-assumption of positive outcomes in value co-creation, showing the customer’s opportunistic behaviours, while Ple and Cáceres (2010) argue that value can be destroyed through interactional process. In practice, when a supermarket shopper uses a self-checkout, and is successful in using the technology on their own without the help of firm employees, value co-creation takes place as the shopper has accepted and executed the value propositions offered by the service provider (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). However, it is also not uncommon for such interactions to not go as intended, and they result in failures, which Ple and Cáceres (2010) termed as ‘value co-destruction’. While value co-creation has received widespread attention in the literature, exercises in understanding failures in customer resource integration are sparse.

In a situation where a customer partakes face-to-face interactions with the service provider, both parties can collaborate with each other to enhance value co-creation, providing more opportunities for customers to clarify on the issues they face during the co-creation process. However, in technological interfaces, when a customer interacts with self-service technologies (SSTs), the customer needs to collaborate with the resources (resource integration) provided by the organization (technological interfaces) with or without the presence of organizational service employees. Therefore, there are high possibilities for failures during the customer value co-creation process (co-destructions) at SSTs. Echeverri and Skalen (2011), prove that co-destruction as an equally likely outcome of interactive value formation.

Previous studies discretely recognized SST characteristics (Curran & Meuter, 2005; Eriksson & Nilsson, 2007) and customer characteristics (Curran & Meuter, 2005; Dean, 2008; Demoulin & Djelassi, 2016; Elliott & Hall, 2005; Harris et al., 2006; Reider & Voss, 2010) as leading factors for the success or failures in SST transactions. Apart from those, matters such as risks associated with SSTs (Featherman & Hajli, 2016), reluctance of use (Hanks et al., 2016) and service failures (Holloway & Beatty, 2003) were mainly investigated in the previous literature. Deviating from those, the aim of this study is to understand failures in customer value co-creation process termed as ‘value co-destructions’ takes place in SSTs due to customer inabilities. The study does not attempt to understand customers’ purposeful value co-destructions such as customer misbehaviours, damaging SSTs, stealing via SSTs, etc. Additionally, the study extends to understand how value co-destruction varies among different customers, based on their demographic characteristics, focusing on age, gender and education. Thus, this study contributes to fill the gap in the literature by reviewing value co-destruction in SSTs from customers’ viewpoint, addressing their inabilities, and understanding the association of value co-destruction with different customer demographics.

Accordingly, through a qualitative inquiry, the study found 15 customer interactive value co-destructions in SSTs. These findings were reclassified into four themes as ‘customer’s inabilities in co-learning, poor cooperation, poor connection with service staff and poor corrective actions’. Further, the study extends to understand the role of customer demographics, mainly the age, gender and education in value co-destructions. Accordingly, females are recognized as poor in co-learning, elderly people are poor in all aspects, less educated people are poor in co-learning and co-operation with SSTs and all types of customers are unhappy with poor connections with service staff when they need service employee’s assistance. These findings will help service providers to understand common problems that customers face during their interactions with SSTs and then design and launch their SST provisions to minimize chances for customer value co-destructions. Furthermore, understanding the associations between value co-destructions and customer demographics will help service organizations to determine customer support service programmes appropriately.

In the second section, the article presents the literature review and the conceptual background of the study. In the third section, the methodology of the study is elaborated before providing the findings and discussion. In the fourth section, theoretical and practical contributions are discussed along with the limitations and future research directions.

Literature Review

In developing the conceptual background, first, it discusses the concepts of value, value co-creation and value co-destruction. Next, it elaborates on SSTs as the technological platforms, where customers collaborate in value creation. Finally, it moves to specifically understand how value co-destruction takes place in SST context.

Value Creation, Value Co-creation and Value Co-destruction

Value

Vargo et al. (2008, p. 149) recognize value as ‘an improvement in system well-being’, while pointing out that well-being is ‘system adaptiveness or ability to fit in its environment’. Therefore, value creation is something that necessarily enriches the well-being of a system. In a similar note, Diener et al. (1999, p. 276) describe well-being as a range of incidents that include ‘people’s emotional responses and judgements of life satisfaction’. Similarly, Seligman (2002) in Diener and Seligman (2004, p. 1) characterize well-being as ‘peoples’ positive evaluations of their lives’. In such a backdrop, Diener et al. (2006, p. 10) show the importance of improving well-being in order to guarantee the value to the customer through ‘engagement, joy, trust, and affection’.

Value Co-creation

Roser et al. (2009) and Roser et al. (2013) identify customer value co-creation as a process that occurs in between the customer and the service providers in a way that both the parties enhance their well-being. Resource integration is the fundamental practice in value co-creation (Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola, 2012; Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Vargo, 2008, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). When co-creation occurs, ‘service providers’ role is converted into ‘value facilitators’ (Vargo et al., 2008) who provide ‘value propositions’ (Payne et al., 2008) for the clients who do their role as ‘active participator’ than behaving as a ‘passive value receiver’. SSTs cause the business organizations to replace their employees with potentially low-cost technological devices (Hilton et al., 2013). SSTs are recognized as ‘operand resources’ (Barnes et al., 2009; Payne et al., 2009) that are entrenched with explicit knowledge (operant resource), which need to provide robust guidance to their customers when they perform service with machines in the absence of an organization’s employees’ support (Hughes et al., 2011).

Value Co-destruction

Depending on the literature on value, value co-creation and system well-being, Ple and Cáceres (2010, p. 431) define value co-destruction as ‘an interactional process between service systems that results in a decline in at least one of the systems’ well-being (which, given the nature of a service system, can be individual or organizational)’. According to them, misuse of resources either purposefully or unintentionally in a way that is inappropriate or unexpected by the other service system could be a key reason for the failures in the value co-creation process. Though this study outlines the value co-destruction aligning with Ple and Cáceres (2010, p. 431), it only focuses on customers’ unintentional value co-destructions due to inabilities in the co-creation process. Stieler et al. (2014, p. 72) identify value co-destruction as ‘not only an actual decline in value experienced but also the negative deviation from the expected enhancement of well-being’. Further, it is viewed as ‘a process by which value can be destroyed when two parties interact with each other to create value’ (Terblanche, 2014, p. 7). According to Smith (2013, p. 9), the customer’s well-being can be reduced, resulting in value co-destructions due to three main reasons: (a) failures of the business organizations to provide appropriate value propositions; (b) failures of integrating resources in an expected manner; and (c) unexpected resource loss like loss of materials, including either tangible and/or intangible objects such as social support, time, money, knowledge, etc.

Value Co-destruction in Services

Co-creation does not always results in positive outcomes, and therefore, co-destruction also would be a natural outcome of the customer value co-creation process. Chan et al. (2010) viewed encouraging customers to practice co-creation as a double-edged sword due to the fact that though it reinforces the employee’s and customer’s bond through enhancing ‘interaction enjoyment’, it can similarly cause job stress, which finally result in decreasing job satisfaction of employees, which is naturally higher among the people who are ‘highly individualistic’ and have ‘lower power distance in value creation’ (Chan et al., 2010, p. 22). Further, as they noted, ‘cultural value orientation’ of both parties can influence the co-creation success in which mismatches in cultural values result in failures and dissatisfactions.

Echeverri and Skalen (2011) acknowledge the duality of value outcomes, revealing how the same value practice can result in different outcomes like value co-creation to some people, while causing co-destruction to some others, depending on the differences in expectations, perceptions, situations and personal characteristics. The quality of interactions would be central in value co-creation; therefore, the absence of necessary skills and resources would be disadvantageous (Echeverri & Skalen, 2011). Similarly, duality of customer interactions, which result in both co-creation and co-destruction, points out in recent literature (Keeling et al., 2021) and particularly in technology platforms (Kirova, 2021), including in SSTs (Hsu et al., 2021).

Carù and Cova (2015) grouped value outcomes as ‘co-creation’, ‘mixed’ and ‘co-destruction’, highlighting the possibility of both positive and negative outcomes of the same value practice. Smith (2013) notes that misuse of customers’ resources by the organizations cause a loss of well-being, while Cova and Paranque (2016) point out lessening relationships also as a reason. Similarly, Corsaro (2020) shows how value co-destruction damages business relationships, while Ukeje et al. (2021) point out that, sometimes, it can be the end point of the co-creation process. Stieler et al. (2014) view diverse range of outcomes in value co-destructions, in which one reason for destruction could easily cause another. Gursoy et al. (2017) point out how customer misbehaviours cause poor service experience, while Shin et al. (2017) show the significance of proactive customer interactions in preventing service failure rather than finding ways to recover service failures.

Laamanen and Skalen (2014) explore collective as well as conflictual value creations, referring to conflictual perspective as the dark side of value co-creation. According to them, conflicts in value co-creation take place due to disparities between ‘perceived’ and ‘experienced’ values and the inability of fulfilling customers’ value-in-use by the service provider’s value propositions. Mele (2011) recognizes five types of conflicts in value co-creation related to tasks, process, role, effectiveness and value, which can have positive or negative impacts, resulting in constructive or destructive critical events. Finally, unanswered disputes diminish the well-being of both parties, damaging trust, commitment and cooperation.

The co-creation success will be damaged by opportunistic behaviours of consumers (Pathak et al., 2020). Violating the agreements that administers the relationship between firm and the consumer is recognized as ‘active opportunisim’, while a situation like customers do not expend the necessary information and effort in participating in the value creation is viewed as ‘passive opportunism’ (Ertimur & Venkatesh, 2010, p. 259). Misalignment of role scripts among customers and providers in service organizations also was identified as a reason for value co-destruction (Järvi et al., 2020).

Parasuraman (2000) notes that high levels of customer involvement increase the level of complexity, which leads service failures. Similarly, Heidenreich et al. (2015) point out that increased customer participation causes the decrease in firm’s control over the outcomes, which lead to increased uncertainty and the risks associated in transactions. Therefore, in highly co-created services, customers need to get the responsibility over failures, whereas customers can transfer the responsibility over service failures to the service provider in low co-created services. Bitner et al. (1990) further explain this situation taking SST as an example, that customers fully or partly blame themselves for the failure, and this occurs when using SSTs since it is an outcome of their involvement. However, typically, value co-destruction causes dissatisfaction, disconfirmation and distrust (Nam et al., 2020). Thus, organizations must effectively manage interactions between customers and service providers to offer cutting-edge values (Ukeje et al., 2021).

Self-Service Technologies in Service Transactions

SSTs have altered the service encounter by allowing customers to perform transactions through technological interfaces without human contact from the firm (Meuter & Bitner, 1998; Verhoef et al., 2009). This causes a change in the way of managing customers’ interpersonal interactions by asking customers to ‘do it yourself’(Ding et al., 2007, p. 246). SSTs are now becoming common (Kelly et al., 2017), while future frontline service experiences are expected to be provided by ‘humanoid robots’ (van Doorn et al., 2017).

SSTs provide a chance for customers to produce the service as they wish (Saarijärvi et al., 2013), becoming a ‘full participator’ (Bitner et al. (1997). SSTs range from ATMs to automated check in at airports (Meuter et al., 2000), and many businesses, today, have accepted SSTs to provide more tasks with minimum effort (Hilton et al., 2013). Although, initially, only routine and simple transactions were allowed via SSTs, now they are used in performing more complex and non-routine work. Adequately designed self-service technology systems allow relatively inexperienced people to perform very sophisticated tasks quickly (Quinn et al., 1990).

SSTs provide benefits to the customers and the firm as well. Service providers are benefited with cost savings (Ding et al., 2007), increased efficiency via standardization of service (Meuter & Bitner, 1998), fast service and productivity (Dabholkar, 1996). On the other hand, it saves customers’ time and cost (Beatson et al., 2006; Meuter & Bitner, 1998), while providing convenience, self-satisfaction (Dabholkar, 1996; Hsieh, 2005), efficiency (Bitner et al., 2000) and ease of use (Meuter et al., 2000).

Wei et al. (2017) propose the importance of extrinsic and intrinsic attributes of SSTs to provide customer satisfaction. ‘Trust’ has become vital in maintaining e-loyalty (Bilgihan, 2016), and customer relational value (Nijssen et al., 2016) is higher among the customers who are highly benefited with SSTs. According to Robertson et al. (2016), ‘interactive voice response (IVR) SST’ and ‘online SST’ increase customer satisfaction. However, Nijssen et al. (2016) found that SSTs damage relationships between less advantaged people and the firm. Technology failures and process failures are recognized as major factors causing customer complaints (Meuter et al., 2000), while reduced face-to-face interaction and constraints of social experience (Meuter & Bitner, 1998) also are identified as potential disadvantages of SSTs.

Value Co-destruction in Self-Service Technologies

Although the term ‘value co-destruction’ is rarely used in the context of SST, previous researchers have reported similar facts as failures of customers’ interactions with SSTs. Parasuraman (2000) reports growing customer frustration when customers interact with technology-based systems. Among the many reasons for SST failures, the key factors were found as ‘the failures in technologies, personal faults, or the combination of both’ (Snellman & Vihtkari, 2003). Lack of regular interpersonal interactions in SSTs cause customer’s poor understanding about the services (Kristensson et al., 2008). According to Reider and Voss (2010), customers’ inabilities and lack of skills in performing in technologies result in avoiding SSTs, which give an additional expenditure and time consumption for service organizations.

Zhang et al. (2018) identify online value co-destruction as ‘negatively valenced engagement behaviours emerge from rude employee behaviours, indifference, confrontation with company representatives, technological failure, the lack of complaint outlets and customers’ desire for revenge’. In a similar note, Featherman and Hajli (2016) found risks, Hanks et al. (2016) found unwillingness and Holloway and Beatty (2003) found service failures, which diminish the customer value in SSTs. SSTs are recognized as weakening social bonds (Selnes & Hansen, 2001) and making people disloyal (Fernandez-Sabiote & Roman, 2016). Fan et al. (2016) found various customer reactions to SST failures, while people less blame for service firms, since the service outcome is self-generated (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003; Harris et al., 2006).

Summarizing the literature, value co-destruction occurs when both the customer and service organizations misuse resources (Ple & Cáceres, 2010), find faults in the service process (Worthington & Durkin, 2012), when incongruence is observed between the customer and the service provider (Echeverri and Skalen (2011), there is obstinacy of practices (Carù & Cova, 2015), opportunistic behaviour is observed (Ertimur & Venkatesh, 2010), there is high customer involvement (Heidenreich et al., 2015) and there are customer misbehaviours (Gursoy et al., 2017).

Provided the studies on customer value co-destructions taking place during the process of customer interactions through technological interfaces are rare, this study explores customer value co-destruction in SSTs. Acknowledging the prior research work (Carù & Cova, 2015; Echeverri & Skalen, 2011; Schau et al., 2009), this study also views value co-destruction as an equally likely consequence of customer value co-creation process, which diminishes their well-being. Therefore, this study investigates how value co-destruction takes place when customers attempt to integrate their resources with SSTs in creating value due to his/her inabilities.

Methodology

The study used qualitative research method, given the paucity of extant research in value co-destruction at technological interfaces. A non-probabilistic purposeful sampling method was used in selecting participants. This is because researcher’s judgement on which respondents provide the best viewpoints on the research interest (Abrams, 2010) helps to identify information-rich cases (Palinkas et al., 2015). A range of socio-demographic groups, including different ages, sex and employee categories in the North East area of the UK were included in the sample. A total of 25 semi-structured interviews were conducted, using an interview guide with flexibility in probing (Rowley, 2012), until reaching data saturation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Palinkas et al., 2015; Silverman, 2010). Respondents were encouraged to talk about the activities they frequently carry out in different SSTs and failures or bad experiences they had with SSTs, with possible reasons for such failures, which they think happened due to their (customers’) inabilities. The interviews resembled a conversation, with the duration ranging from 30 minutes to 45 minutes per subject. Table 1 summarizes the sample profile of the study.

Table 1.

Sample Profile of the Study

Respondent’s Characteristics		Frequency (n)
Gender	Male	13
	Female	12
Age	18–24 years	4
	25–34 years	5
	35–44 years	5
	45–54 years	4
	55–64 years	5
	65 or older	2
Education background	GCSE level	5
Education background	GCE AL or equivalent	6
	University Degree or equivalent	8
	Postgraduate Degree	6
Employment	Full-time employed	10
	Part-time employed	4
	Unemployed	4
	Retired	3
	Student	4

Source: The author.

All the interviews were audio recorded with the permission of the respondents and transcribed into word documents. Data analysis was mainly carried out, through a rigorous process of data familiarization, coding and theme development, using thematic analysis approach since it is the best method to analyse repeated patterns (Joffe, 2011; Lacey & Luff, 2009). Finally, these identified themes were categorized under common groups, considering their commonness (Aronson, 1995) and, thereby, refined themes for common groups (Bazeley, 2009; Clarke & Braun, 2013). Further, comparative analysis was undertaken to compare the identified themes with different demographic profiles. Findings were reported with customer interview quotations to enhance the trustworthiness.

Findings

The respondents pointed out many problems related to SSTs as unnecessary delays, out-of-service conditions, not having adequate number of machines and poor connectivity as reasons for failures in their service transactions via SSTs. However, the aim of this study was to understand customer inabilities, which result in co-destructions, rather than understanding general failures related to SSTs. Customers revealed 15 typical inabilities that they have, which result in failures in their interactive value creation process in SSTs. Those factors were reclassified into four key themes. Figure 1 summarizes the study findings, followed by descriptions and interview quotes.

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

Poor Co-learning

This study focused on understanding how customer interactions in service transactions with SSTs go wrong due to the customer’s inability in their collaboration. The study found that customers face value co-destruction since they are not collaborative in learning on SST transactions. However, having previous experience in similar technologies will be an advantage in successfully completing their transactions via SSTs. According to the study findings, the inability in searching the most correct information, inability in following instructions, unwillingness in sharing the needed information and inability in recalling information are the main reasons for customers’ poor learning on SST transactions, which then lead to value co-destructions.

Though technological platforms like the Internet are renowned as a provision of a vast range of opportunities for information searching, most of the customers find it difficult to search the most relevant information for better decision-making, recognized as one of the main reasons for value co-destruction in SSTs. The following quotations illustrate this issue:

In self-services we have to learn many things by ourselves with the given information or search through the internet or their websites. Sometimes I am not good at searching for what I exactly want. There might be some other better options than what I receive. Why I am saying this, it happened to me many times. So, I miss the best option. If I could go and talk with these people, they would recommend me the best option. (50 years, male)

Sharing information, such as passwords, bank account information and contact details with the service providers/websites/machines, is a mandatory requirement in many SST transactions. However, some people, particularly the older generation and those who do not trust technology platforms, were identified as not willing to share information with service providers. Some people were recognized as unwilling to use basic types of SSTs like ATMs, assuming that using the personal information as pin numbers is a potential risk:

To be honest, I think I am not. I do not tell my stuff to others. I guess my opinion may not be valid for all. I have heard lots of frauds about internet, stealing money from cards. So, I need to keep them as private. (67 years, Female)

Recalling frequently needed information such as pin numbers, passwords, etc., also were identified as a simple but important requirement to practise SST transactions. Some of the respondents shared their experiences of service failures in SSTs due to inabilities of recalling relevant information:

Once my card (ATM) locked. It was totally my fault. I typed the wrong pin number for all three times. You know I wrote it on a piece of paper and keep it in my purse. My bad luck, it also went somewhere. (28 years, male)

According to the views of respondents, following instructions is a key task in the successful completion of SST transactions. Since the customer is performing the service in the absence of service employees, all the instructions should be clear and sequential. Some respondents criticized SSTs as inviting errors by providing confusing instructions. Therefore, inabilities in following instructions also have been recognized as one of the key reasons, which diminish the use of SSTs:

Sometimes instructions are confusing. You know they might have the whole set of instructions that may confuse, and then once you stop pressing the buttons, you’ve lost the instructions halfway through you think, ‘hang on what did it say?’ certain instructions are not step by step. Some instructions are inviting mistakes. Yeah…I understand many. But I don’t know where it goes wrong. (38 years, male)

Poor Cooperation

This study found customers’ poor cooperation with SSTs also as a reason for value co-destructions in SSTs. Generally, not conforming to the requirements, not accepting the terms and conditions, unwillingness to take responsibility and unwillingness to change habits were recognized as the main types of customer poor co-operation that caused value co-destruction in SSTs.

Inabilities in fulfilling basic requirements, which need to perform some SST transactions such as having a permanent address, a telephone number, an email address and an own bank accounts, and credit/debit cards, were recognized as other reasons for customers not performing well in SSTs:

It happened when I was in another country. I wanted to hire a taxi. I didn’t know where these places were. You know, I tried to do it online. They asked for my phone number. It was mandatory. My number was not working there. I had only WhatsApp. They did not accept that number and couldn’t do that. (36 years, male)

Accepting terms and conditions is also another essential activity in accomplishing various SST transactions. Many of the online and Internet-based self-services cannot perform without accepting relevant terms and conditions. It is evident that, generally, people accept these conditions in order to proceed with the transaction, without understanding them in detail, sometimes causing value co-destructions. As the study found that some people do not perform SST transactions, since they are not willing to accept the terms and conditions:

I guess like me all of you agree to those terms without reading anything in it. I don’t know whether anyone reads it…how can you read them all? We just agree since we cannot proceed otherwise. At the end we don’t know what we agreed to. After something happens, then they will say, didn’t you see that condition? coz I experienced such situations. I couldn’t say anything against them because it was totally my negligence. (38 years, male)

The attitude of taking responsibility for service transactions is identified as an important co-operative behaviour in SSTs, since the outcome is self-generated. Some customers are unwilling to take the responsibility over their self-generaterated service transactions and therefore fail to proceed with SSTs transactions and rather prefer transactions with service employees:

I’m never quite 100% certain that I have done everything right until the rail ticket arrives or whatever has got confirmation. It’s certainly while I actually get the ticket physically in my hand or can see the proof. Once I booked a train ticket online and they asked me to wait 24 hours since it had not been updated in their system. Anyway, I did not receive it. So, I had to cancel it and go and buy another one. I had to wait many days till the refund money got to my account. I am a bit worried to get that responsibility…it is better to go and take it from the counter so that I have no need to wait and see whether it proceeds well or not. (58 years, male)

Changing habit from using traditional service interfaces to technologically advanced operations has been identified as an essential co-operative behaviour of customers. The study identifies the younger generation as more cooperative in changing habits towards adopting SSTs, whereas older age groups are unwilling to do so. Unwillingness to change their old habits and not willing to adopt SSTs may cause lengthy queues and an unnecessary waste of time and effort at the service premises:

Technology is changing day by day. Have many to learn. I don’t want to learn and do it. This is enough for me. I know that others will go fast with machines while I am staying hours in the till. But I am used to this. (67 years, female)

Tolerating failures is also viewed as an important cooperative behaviour of customers when performing self-service transactions with technologies, especially during service delays or failures. This study found that with the inabilities of tolerating, people usually get stressed and annoyed with unexpected service delays and failure in SSTs:

I think there is more stress than any happy moments when you use it (SSTs). Just because you do something without any help …often no person dealing with you. Quite literally annoying if it’s going slower than planned. It’s a stress really. (48 years, male)

Poor Connections with Service Employees

Customers’ relationships with the service provider in the context of SST is typically limited to a situation where customers face problems or difficulties in SST performance. If they cannot contact the service staff at crucial points of time, it causes annoyances:

In a failure with SST transactions in online or if it’s a bank or a hotel, we have to contact the staff through phone. See how hard to find a phone number that connects you to a person rather than an automated answering service. so, you almost feel like they’ve got all these services up and running and you almost feel like there’s no human being behind it. (62 years, female)

Poor Correcting Skills

The study found customer inabilities in preventing errors and recovering errors in SSTs as other key reasons for value co-destructions.

Respondents pointed out that many SSTs typically indicate possible errors and provide warnings so that customers can recognize and respond early to such warnings to prevent errors. However, customers’ inabilities in error prevention and not paying enough attention to such warnings cause value co-destruction in SSTs:

It’s my fault, I didn’t notice it and did the same over and over again. They (ATM) blocked my card. (36 years, male)

If errors occurred in SSTs, there are, nevertheless, possibilities for recovering by simply cancelling the process or using different mechanisms through interactions with the service firm. However poor recovery skills of both customers and the service provider cause value co-destruction in SSTs:

In many situations responses to recoveries are only by email. It takes more time. They may respond within 48 hours. 48 hours is a long time. If they do not respond, you have to send another one (email). It is another 48 hours. It is not instant. (55 years, male)

Association of Value Co-destruction with Different Customer Demographics

The study further focuses on understanding how value co-destruction varies among different people based on their demographic characteristics. It mainly focuses on customer age, gender, and education. Accordingly, the study has found that less educated people are a more vulnerable group who find it difficult to interact with SSTs. Furthermore, compared to males, females are also found to be more vulnerable towards value co-destruction in SSTs. As many previous studies found, this study also found that elderly people face value co-destruction in SSTs.

Gender

The study found that females are poor in collaborative learning, especially in searching relevant information and following instructions. When referring to the co-operative behaviour, compared to males, females are unwilling to accept terms and conditions in many SST transactions. Further, females are recognized as poor in preventing errors in (identifying and responding to early warnings, suggestions) SSTs; however, they work towards getting different actions in recovering errors (continuing interactions with the firm to recover failures) than males. Irrespective of gender, all the people are unhappy with the opportunities they receive to connect with the service providers when required.

Age

Elderly people are identified as poor in all aspects of co-learning (searching information, following instruction, sharing information and recalling needed information), which cause value co-destruction. Further, they are recognized as less co-operative with SSTs, especially not willing to change their habits to move from traditional service encounters to SSTs, accepting terms and conditions and taking the responsibility over their own SST transactions. In addition, most of them are unable to prevent errors by recognizing early warnings as well as obtaining recovery actions to re-correct the error. All age categories have faced with many difficulties due to the inability in connecting with the service staff when they need assistance while performing SST transactions.

Education

According to the findings, inability in co-learning is higher among less educated people. Furthermore, they are less co-operative with SSTs as compared to the educated people. Irrespective of the level of education, most of the customers face difficulties in connecting with service employees and correcting the service failures via error preventing and recovering mechanisms.

Table 2 describes how customer value co-destruction associates with their demographic factors.

Table 2.

Association of Customer Value Co-destructions with Their Demographic Factors

Customer Value Co-destructions in SSTs		Gender		Age				Education
Customer Value Co-destructions in SSTs		Female	Male	>25	25–45 years	45–65 years	<65	GCSE or below	GCE A/L equivalent	University degree	Postgraduate
Poor Co-learning	Inabilities in searching information	10/13	5/12	1/4	2/10	4/9	2/2	4/5	4/6	1/8	1/6
Poor Co-learning	Inabilities in searching information	Higher among females		Higher among elderly people				Higher among less educated people
	Inabilities in following instructions	7/13	4/12	0/4	2/10	4/9	2/2	3/5	3/6	2/8	1/6
	Inabilities in following instructions	Higher among females		Higher among elderly people				Higher among less educated people
	Inabilities in recalling information	2/13	2/12	1/4	1/10	3/9	1/2	2/5	1/6	1/8	1/6
	Inabilities in recalling information	No association		Higher among elderly people				No association
	Unwillingness in sharing information	5/13	4/12	1/4	2/10	4/9	2/2	2/5	3/6	1/8	1/6
	Unwillingness in sharing information	No association		Higher among elderly people				Higher among less educated people
Poor Corporation	Not conforming to requirements	4/13	4/12	1/4	0/10	2/9	1/2	1/5	1/6	1/8	1/6
Poor Corporation	Not conforming to requirements	No association		No association				No association
	Unwillingness to accept terms and conditions	8/13	2/12	1/4	2/10	5/9	1/2	2/5	3/6	2/8	1/6
	Unwillingness to accept terms and conditions	Higher among females		Higher among elderly people				Higher among less educated people
	Unwillingness to taking the responsibility	5/13	4/12	1/4	2/10	5/9	2/2	2/5	3/6	2/8	0/6
	Unwillingness to taking the responsibility	No association		Higher among elderly people				Higher among less educated people
	Unwillingness to changing habits	2/13	3/12	0/4	0/10	2/9	2/2	1/5	1/6	2/8	0/6
	Unwillingness to changing habits	No association		Higher among elderly people				No association
	Not tolerating failures	5/13	5/12	2/4	4/10	2/9	1/2	3/5	2/6	2/8	1/6
	Not tolerating failures	No association		No association				No association
Poor Connection	Inabilities in connecting to service employees	10/13	9/12	2/4	6/10	6/9	1/2	3/5	3/6	4/8	2/6
Poor Connection	Inabilities in connecting to service employees	No association		No association				No association
Poor Corrective actions	Poor error preventing	7/13	4/12	1/4	1/10	4/9	2/2	1/5	2/6	2/8	1/6
	Poor error preventing	Higher among females		Higher among elderly people				No association
	Poor error recovering	4/13	7/12	1/4	1/10	3/9	2/2	2/5	2/6	3/8	2/6
	Poor error recovering	Higher among males		Higher among elderly people				No association

Source: The author.

Discussion

In line with Ple and Cáceres (2010, p. 431), this study outlines value co-destruction as ‘an interactional process between service systems that result in a decline in at least one of the systems’ well-being’. As explained, this study shows that customer interactions with the SSTs in creating value can result in co-destruction, mainly due to the customer’s inabilities and unwillingness.

Though the literature on value co-destruction in interactive value formation process in the context of SST is rare, many studies prove possibilities for value co-destruction during customer–service provider interactions. As an example, Echeverri and Skalen (2011) view value co-destruction as the dimension of the same value co-creation practices that can cause value co-creation to some people and value co-destruction to others. Similarly, Camilleri and Neuhofer (2017), Carù and Cova (2015), Echeverri and Skalen (2011) and Laamanen and Skalen (2014) also found the potential for both optimistic and pessimistic effects of the same value practice. According to Smith (2013), value co-destruction takes place when the organization cannot provide matching value propositions or unexpected resource loss. Mele (2011) also explains the possible conflicts in value co-creation, which damage interpersonal relationships.

In value co-creation literature, ‘information seeking’ was found to be important (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012; Neghina et al., 2015; Yi & Gong, 2013). Similarly, Yi and Gong (2013) proposed ‘seeking’ and ‘sharing’ information, while Neghina et al. (2015) accepted ‘knowing’ as important for success on value co-creation. Equally, ‘knowledge sharing’ (Higuchi & Yamanaka, 2017) and informing Carù and Cova (2015) were found as needed to co-create value. Though these facts have not been found in the value co-destruction research work, this study found that inabilities in performing such practices reduce customer co-learning ability, which finally result in value co-destruction in SSTs.

McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) and Tommasetti et al. (2015) found ‘compliance with basics’ and ‘responsible attitude’ as important in customer value co-creation. Further, ‘tolerance’ (Yi & Gong, 2013) and compliance (Ind & Coates, 2013) were also found to be important. Similarly, this study found that not being cooprative with SSTs was the major reason for value co-destruction takeing place in the context of SST.

Maintaining relationships (Tommasetti et al., 2015) was found as essential for the success in value co-creation. Similarly, Randall et al. (2011) and Kristensson et al. (2008) also found that a lack of regular personal interaction with customers in terms of SSTs leads to poor understanding of the customers. Dong et al. (2008, p. 126) outline the service recovery in co-creation as ‘the degree to which the customer is involved in taking actions to respond to a service failure’. Shin et al. (2017) and Hilton and Hughes (2013) found proactive customer involvement to be important in ‘self-service recovery’. As this study found, an inability to take appropriate error prevention or recovery action results in customer value co-destruction in SSTs.

Although the literature is rare in scholarly work on the relationship between customer value co-destruction and customer demographics in SSTs, some of the previous studies found that the potential for co-creation depends on the adaptability of the customer (Fyrberg Yngfalk, 2013). Dean (2008) reported that older people were less confident to perform in SSTs, while Elliott and Hall (2005) found significant effect of gender on intention to use SSTs. However, insignificant impacts of demographics on SST acceptances were observed in some literature (Blut et al., 2016; Dabholkar et al., 2003; Eriksson & Nilsson, 2007; Weijters et al., 2007).

Theoretical and Practical Contributions of the Study

Value co-creation research work in the past were largely limited to study the traditional service encounters, while very few studies have paid attention to technological interfaces (Hilton et al., 2013). Similarly, most of the previous value co-creation research work studied the positive side, while neglecting the possible failures of the value co-creation process—known as ‘co-destruction’. Filling that theoretical gap, this study focused on exploring customer value co-destruction taking place in interactive value co-creation process at SSTs.

This study has many practical implications. Since customer interactions in SSTs cause value co-destructions, service providers should take necessary steps to assist customer value creation practices by managing their self-service technological interfaces in a user-friendly manner, since customers often perform these practices by themselves, without any support from the organization’s employees. For example, this study recognized that some of the customers find it difficult to search information cause to value co-destructions in SST. Thus, service providers can effectively enhance customers’ ability of self-performing at SSTs through effectively managing the sources of information/instructions such as websites, SST screens, keyboards and audio/visual elements attached to SSTs.

Furthermore, ‘connecting’ with service employees, especially in situations where customers face problems in performing in SSTs, was recognized as a key source of value co-destruction. Therefore, this study strongly recommends service providers to provide personalized solutions to customers, especially when they face problems with SSTs rather than providing another standard SST-based solution through automated voice recordings. Simply connecting the call (customer grievances) to a service employee to provide personalized solution can create a very positive attitude in the customer’s mind rather than neglecting their problems by asking them to listen to an automated voice response, wasting their time and effort. Therefore, this study recommends service organizations to manage proper ‘customer support service’ to educate customers on their SSTs and support them when they need any assistance, especially at the stage of recovering errors through ‘connecting’ and ‘correcting’.

Furthermore, we suggest business organizations to aid customers’ error prevention process by making them more aware of possible errors by using appropriate mechanisms such as warning messages, red lights, underlining the warnings (in red), highlighting the important information/conditions in an eye-catching manner, obtaining confirmation for the second time for important information and asking the customer’s confirmation before the final decision. If a customer is unable to prevent failures, as the next step, the organization should provide a proper ‘recovery’ mechanism, such as simple apologies, quick replies to calls/emails, refunds, product to product, etc., without any delays. In addition, it is advisable for organizations to confirm the customer’s preferred method of service recovery strategy. This is because, as we found, many service organizations use ‘product to product’ as the error recovery strategy, but this takes considerable time, whereas the customer might prefer to obtain a similar product/service from another service provider for immediate satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study was geographically confined to a developed context (the UK). As Lee (2016) reports, the findings may slightly vary in different geographical or cultural settings, especially between developing and developed contexts. Further, this is only a qualitative inquiry to explore how people engage with value co-destructions due to problems in their engagement behaviour in creating value. Therefore, in the future, this study can be extended to the quantitative stage to ensure statistical validation and generalization.

Second, as this study recognizes, value co-destruction in SSTs is very common, yet focus of scholarly work on it is rare. Therefore, it recommends future studies to explore customer value co-destruction in SSTs in detail, especially (a) why value co-destruction takes place, (b) how it happens, (c) how customers feel/experience such situations and (d) how such value co-destruction affects customer loyalty/word-of-mouth communication, etc.

Third, this study investigated value co-destruction from a customer interactive value formation perspective, with the aim of understanding how performing value creation in SSTs can result in value co-destruction. However, customer misbehaviours like frauds and cheating are evidenced in SSTs. Therefore, it is worth exploring how such customer misbehaviours cause value co-destruction, particularly to the service provider, other customers and/or other parties in the service system. Additionally, it would be worthwhile to extend that understanding to investigate prevention mechanisms of customer misbehaviour in SSTs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Aarikka-Stenroos

, & Jaakkola

(2012). Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.11.008

Abrams

L. S.

(2010). Sampling ‘hard to reach’ populations in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 9(4), 536–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010367821

Aronson

(1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 02(01), 1–3.

Barnes

D. C.

, Collier

J. E.

, & Lueg

J. E.

(2009). Reevaluating the theoretical reasoning regarding market-entry position from a service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170205

Bazeley

(2009). Analysing qualitative data: more than ‘identifying themes’. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(2), 6–22.

Beatson

, Coote

L. V.

, & Rudd

J. M.

(2006). Determining consumer satisfaction and commitment through self-service technology and personal service usage. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(7–8), 853–882.

Bendapudi

, & Leone

R. P.

(2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14–28.

Bilgihan

(2016). Gen Y customer loyalty in online shopping: An integrated model of trust, user experience and branding. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.014

Bitner

M. J.

, Booms

B. H.

, & Tetreault

M. S.

(1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252174

10.

Bitner

, Faranda

W. T.

, Hubbert

A. R.

, & Zeithaml

V. A.

(1997). Customer contributions and roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3), 193–205.

11.

Bitner

M. J.

, Brown

S. W.

, & Meuter

M. L.

(2000). Technology infusion in service encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 138–149.

12.

Blut

, Wang

, & Schoefer

(2016). Factors influencing the acceptance of self-service technologies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 19(4), 396–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516662352

13.

Camilleri

, & Neuhofer

(2017). Value co-creation and co-destruction in the Airbnb sharing economy. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2322–2340. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-09-2016-0492

14.

Carù

, & Cova

(2015). Co-creating the collective service experience. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-07-2014-0170

15.

Chan

K. W.

, Yim

C. K.

, & Lam

S. K.

(2010). Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.3.48

16.

Clarke

, & Braun

(2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.

17.

Corsaro

(2020). Value co-destruction and its effects on value appropriation. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(1–2), 100–127.

18.

Cova

, & Paranque

(2016). Brand value creation versus destruction: The relationship between consumers, marketers, and financiers. In Paranque

, & Pérez

(Eds.), Finance Reconsidered: New Perspectives for a Responsible and Sustainable Finance (Vol. 10, pp. 245–261). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

19.

Curran

J. M.

, & Meuter

M. L.

(2005). Self-service technology adoption: comparing three technologies. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040510591411

20.

Dabholkar

P. A.

(1996). Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options: An investigation of alternative models of service quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), 29–51. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00027-5

21.

Dabholkar

P. A.

, Michelle Bobbitt

, & Lee

E. J.

(2003). Understanding consumer motivation and behaviour related to self-scanning in retailing: Implications for strategy and research on technology-based self-service. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(1), 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310465994

22.

Dean

D. H.

(2008). Shopper age and the use of self-service technologies. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 18(3), 225–238.

23.

Demoulin

N. T. M.

, & Djelassi

(2016). An integrated model of self-service technology (SST) usage in a retail context. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 44(5), 540–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijrdm-08-2015-0122

24.

Diener

, & Seligman

(2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x

25.

Diener

, Suh

E. M.

, Lucas

R. E.

, & Smith

H. L.

(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.

26.

Diener

, Lucas

R. E.

, & Scollon

C. N.

(2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.61.4.305

27.

Ding

, Verma

, & Iqbal

(2007). Self-service technology and online financial service choice. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(3), 246–268.

28.

Dong

, Evans

K. R.

, & Zou

(2008). The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0059-8

29.

Echeverri

, & Skalen

(2011). Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408181

30.

Elliott

K. M.

, & Hall

M. C.

(2005). Assessing cconsumers propensity to embrace self-service technologies: Are there gender differences? Marketing Management Journal, 15(02), 98–107.

31.

Eriksson

, & Nilsson

(2007). Determinants of the continued use of self-service technology: The case of internet banking. Technovation, 27(4), 159–167.

32.

Ertimur

, & Venkatesh

(2010). Opportunism in co-production: Implications for value co-creation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(4), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.07.004

33.

Fan

, Wu

L. R.

, & Mattila

A. S.

(2016). Does anthropomorphism influence customers’ switching intentions in the self-service technology failure context? Journal of Services Marketing, 30(7), 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-07-2015-0225

34.

Featherman

M. S.

, & Hajli

(2016). Self-service technologies and e-services risks in social commerce era. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2614-4

35.

Fernandez-Sabiote

, & Roman

(2016). The multichannel customer’s service experience: Building satisfaction and trust. Service Business, 10(2), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-015-0276-z

36.

Fyrberg Yngfalk

(2013). ‘It’s not us, it’s them!’—Rethinking value co-creation among multiple actors. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9–10), 1163–1181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.796318

37.

Gursoy

, Cai

, & Anaya

G. J.

(2017). Developing a typology of disruptive customer behaviours Influence of customer misbehaviour on service experience of by-standing customers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2341–2360. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-08-2016-0454

38.

Hanks

, Line

N. D.

, & Mattila

A. S.

(2016). The impact of self-service technology and the presence of others on cause-related marketing programs in restaurants. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 25(5), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2015.1046536

39.

Harris

, Lois

A. M.

, & Kenneth

L. B.

(2006). Online service failure, consumer attributions and expectations. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(7), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040610704883

40.

Heidenreich

, Wittkowski

, Handrich

, & Falk

(2015). The dark side of customer co-creation: Exploring the consequences of failed co-created services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 279–296.

41.

Higuchi

, & Yamanaka

(2017). Knowledge sharing between academic researchers and tourism practitioners: A Japanese study of the practical value of embeddedness, trust and co-creation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(10), 1456–1473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1288733

42.

Hilton

, & Hughes

(2013). Co-production and self-service: The application of service-dominant logic. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(7–8), 861–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.729071

43.

Hilton

, Hughes

, Little

, & Marandi

(2013). Adopting self-service technology to do more with less. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041311296338

44.

Holloway

B. B.

, & Beatty

S. E.

(2003). Service failure in online retailing. Journal of Service Research, 6(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670503254288

45.

Hsieh

C.-T.

(2005). Implementing self-service technology to gain competitive advantages. Communications of the IIMA, 5(1), 9.

46.

Hsu

P.-F.

, Nguyen

T. K.

, & Huang

J.-Y.

(2021). Value co-creation and co-destruction in self-service technology: A customer’s perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 46, 101029.

47.

Hughes

, Hilton

, Little

, & Marandi

(2011). Resource integration using self-service technology: The customer perspective. Paper presented at the Academy of Marketing Conference 2011, Marketing Field Forever, Liverpool.

48.

Ind

, & Coates

(2013). The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review, 25(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287754

49.

Järvi

, Keränen

, Ritala

, & Vilko

(2020). Value co-destruction in hotel services: Exploring the misalignment of cognitive scripts among customers and providers. Tourism Management, 77, 104030.

50.

Joffe

(2011). Thematic analysis. In Harper

, & Thompson

A. R.

(Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy (pp. 209–223). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

51.

Keeling

D. I.

, Keeling

, de Ruyter

, & Laing

(2021). How value co-creation and co-destruction unfolds: A longitudinal perspective on dialogic engagement in health services interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 236–257.

52.

Kelly

, Lawlor

, & Mulvey

(2017). Customer roles in self-service technology encounters in a tourism context. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 34(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1156612

53.

Kirova

(2021). Value co-creation and value co-destruction through interactive technology in tourism: The case of ‘La Cité du Vin’wine museum, Bordeaux, France. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(5), 637–650.

54.

Kristensson

, Matthing

, & Johansson

(2008). Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(4), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230810891914

55.

Laamanen

, & Skalen

(2014). Collective-conflictual value co-creation: A strategic action field approach. Marketing Theory, 15(3), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593114564905

56.

Lacey

, & Luff

(2009). Qualitative research analysis. National Institute for Health Research.

57.

Lee

L. Y. S.

(2016). Hospitality industry web-based self-service technology adoption model: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 40(2), 162–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013495695

58.

Lincoln

Y. S.

, & Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

59.

Lusch

R. F.

, & Vargo

S. L.

(2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593106066781

60.

McColl-Kennedy

J. R.

, Vargo

S. L.

, Dagger

T. S.

, Sweeney

J. C.

, & Kasteren

Y. V.

(2012). Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service Research, 15(4), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670512442806

61.

Mele

(2011). Conflicts and value co-creation in project networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1377–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.033

62.

Meuter

M. L.

, & Bitner

M. J.

(1998). Self-service technologies: Extending service frameworks and identifying issues for research. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association.

63.

Meuter

M. L.

, Ostrom

A. L.

, Roundtree

R. I.

, & Bitner

M. J.

(2000). Self-service technologies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.50.18024

64.

Nam

, Baker

, Ahmad

, & Goo

(2020). Dissatisfaction, disconfirmation, and distrust: An empirical examination of value co-destruction through negative electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). Information Systems Frontiers, 22(1), 113–130.

65.

Neghina

, Caniels

M. C. J.

, Bloemer

J. M. M.

, & van Birgelen

M. J. H.

(2015). Value cocreation in service interactions: Dimensions and antecedents. Marketing Theory, 15(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593114552580

66.

Nijssen

E. J.

, Schepers

J. J. L.

, & Belanche

(2016). Why did they do it? How customers’ self-service technology introduction attributions affect the customer-provider relationship. Journal of Service Management, 27(3), 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-08-2015-0233

67.

Palinkas

L. A.

, Horwitz

S. M.

, Green

C. A.

, Wisdom

J. P.

, Duan

, & Hoagwood

(2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

68.

Parasuraman

(2000). Technology readiness index (Tri). Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001

69.

Pathak

, Ashok

, & Tan

Y. L.

(2020). Value co-destruction: Exploring the role of actors’ opportunism in the B2B context. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 102093.

70.

Payne

, Storbacka

, Frow

, & Knox

(2008). Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 379–389. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.013

71.

Payne

, Storbacka

, Frow

, & Knox

(2009). Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 379–389. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.013

72.

Ple

, & Cáceres

(2010). Not always co-creation: Introducing interactional co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011072546

73.

Quinn

J. B.

, Doorley

T. L.

, & Paquette

P. C.

(1990). Beyond products: Services-based strategy. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 64–68.

74.

Randall

W. S.

, Gravier

M. J.

, & Prybutok

V. R.

(2011). Connection, trust, and commitment: Dimensions of co-creation? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2010.537760

75.

Reider

, & Voss

(2010). The working customer—An emerging new type of consumer. Psychology of Everyday Activity, 3(2), 2–10.

76.

Robertson

, McDonald

, Leckie

, & McQuilken

(2016). Examining customer evaluations across different self-service technologies. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(1), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-07-2014-0263

77.

Roser

, DeFillippi

, & Samson

(2013). Managing your co-creation mix: Co-creation ventures in distinctive contexts. European Business Review, 25(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287727

78.

Roser

, Samson

, Humphreys

, & Cruz-Valdivieso

(2009). New pathways to value: Co-creating products by collaborating with customers. LSE Enterprise.

79.

Rowley

(2012). Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, 35(3/4), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211210154

80.

Saarijärvi

, Kannan

P. K.

, & Kuusela

(2013). Value co-creation: Theoretical approaches and practical implications. European Business Review, 25(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287718

81.

Schau

H. J.

, Albert

M. M.

Jr. , & Arnould

E. J.

(2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30

82.

Selnes

, & Hansen

(2001). The potential hazard of self-service in developing customer loyalty. Journal of Service Research, 4(2), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050142001

83.

Shin

, Ellinger

A. E.

, Mothersbaugh

D. L.

, & Reynolds

K. E.

(2017). Employing proactive interaction for service failure prevention to improve customer service experiences. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(1), 164–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-07-2015-0161

84.

Silverman

(2010). Doing qualitative research. Sage Publications.

85.

Smith

(2013). The value co-destruction process: a customer resource perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 47(11/12), 1889–1909. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2011-0420

86.

Snellman

, & Vihtkari

(2003). Customer complaining behaviour in technology-based service encounters. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310474174

87.

Stieler

, Weismann

, & Germelmann

C. C.

(2014). Co-destruction of value by spectators: The case of silent protests. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2013.865249

88.

Terblanche

N. S.

(2014). Some theoretical perspectives of co-creation and co-production of value by customers. Acta Commercii, 14(2), 1–8, https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v14i2.237

89.

Tommasetti

, Troisi

, & Vesci

(2015). Customer value co-creation: A conceptual measurement model in a Service Dominant Logic perspective. Paper presented at the Naples Forum on Service, Naples.

90.

Ukeje

U. E.

, Lasisi

T. T.

, Eluwole

K. K.

, Titov

, & Ozturen

(2021). Organizational level antecedents of value co-destruction in hospitality industry: An investigation of the moderating role of employee attribution. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(6), 842–856.

91.

van Doorn

, Mende

, Noble

S. M.

, Hulland

, Ostrom

A. L.

, Grewal

, & Petersen

J. A.

(2017). Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines and customers’ service experiences. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516679272

92.

Vargo

S. L.

(2008). Customer integration and value creation: Paradigmatic traps and perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 11(2), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670508324260

93.

Vargo

S. L.

(2011). Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111095667

94.

Vargo

S. L.

, & Lusch

R. F.

(2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036

95.

Vargo

S. L.

, & Lusch

R. F.

(2008). Why “service”? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0068-7

96.

Vargo

S. L.

, Maglio

P. P.

, & Akaka

M. A.

(2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003

97.

Verhoef

P. C.

, Lemon

K. N.

, Parasuraman

, Roggeveen

, Tsiros

, & Schlesinger

L. A.

(2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001

98.

Wei

, Torres

E. N.

, & Hua

(2017). The power of self-service technologies in creating transcendent service experiences The paradox of extrinsic attributes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6), 1599–1618. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-01-2016-0029

99.

Weijters

, Rangarajan

, Falk

, & Schillewaert

(2007). Determinants and outcomes of customers’ use of self-service technology in a retail setting. Journal of Service Research, 10(1), 3–21.

100.

Worthington

, & Durkin

(2012). Co-destruction of value in context: Cases from retail banking. The Marketing Review, 12(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934712X13420906885476

101.

, & Gong

(2013). Customer value co-creation behaviour: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279–1284. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.026

102.

Zhang

, Lu

, Torres

, & Chen

P.-J.

(2018). Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-destruction online. Journal of Services Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2017-0027