6.1. A Process Model of Value Co-Creation
The proposed model (see
Figure 2) starts by considering the three building blocks proposed by Durugbo and Pawar [
12], but adds the insights peculiar to the value co-creation approach, like individuals, and not only suppliers and encounters or engagement platforms, where the “co-creation dialogue” takes place and value co-creation among partners is achieved. Value co-created within a process is the starting point of the following process and becomes a never ending cycle.
The model is divided into three columns: the first one is dedicated to firms willing to embrace the value co-creation approach in which both the “co-creation involvement strategy” and “co-creation technique selection” building blocks of the Durugbo and Pawar [
12] model have been included, together with the “structure and process, employee and HRM” block.
In point of fact, “co-creation involvement strategy” concerns the strategy to involve the right individuals who, for their part, are willing to collaborate in firm value co-creation activities. Obviously, it must be set as part of the whole firm strategy and fundamentally at its core, given that the firm’s willingness to open its boundaries is a pre-requisite to embrace value co-creation. In this sense, the role of top management is really important in stating that the value co-creation approach will drive the entire activity (i.e., [
8]). Nonetheless, it is clear that the “co-creation involvement strategy” could also be suggested and/or shaped by employees who directly collaborate with individuals outside the firm, in that the mind-set required to implement value co-creation throughout the entire organization is individual experience centric (i.e., [
90,
91]). In this domain, it is also important to point out that collaboration can lead to value co-creation, following the homonym approach, only if individuals outside the firm play active roles (i.e., [
92,
93]) since human experiences are the heart of value creation processes (i.e., [
82,
88,
94,
95]) and benefit from their collaboration in the value co-creation process carried out with the firm [
5].
Linked two-fold with the “co-creation involvement strategy”, in the left-hand part of
Figure 1, the “co-creation technique selection” can also be found. This block considers that the most suitable co-creation technique must be chosen each time to achieve value co-creation with selected partners, bearing in mind that they must not only play active roles, but also obtain the expected benefits from their collaboration. In addition, in this context, employees directly involved in co-creation activities with individuals outside the firm could play a role in suggesting what partners desire/expect/ would like to develop/have suggested, etc., to help top management co-create with them, adopting the most suitable technique on each occasion.
“Structure and processes, employee and HRM” is a new block, with respect to the building blocks proposed in the Durugbo and Pawar model. It considers that also the most suitable organizational structures, roles and processes must be put in place to allow the co-creation of value with individuals outside the firm. Just think about the new skills employees should have, or new employee roles created inside the organization, or at the intersection with the engagement platform, or the management of co-creation within the latter. Bearing in mind that co-creation can also involve shared norms and rules to co-create, employees should also be fully and effectively involved in these activities and skilled to do so.
The engagement platform has been placed in the central part of
Figure 1, as it supports valuable and effective interactions among individuals [
8]. Engagement platforms include persons, processes, interfaces and artifacts, which represent the infrastructure necessary for individuals to interact: they are “purposely designed as a system of engagements” [
16] (p. 284). Clearly, “co-creation dialogue” can only develop and value co-creation can only be achieved within them; for this reason, they are also considered the “
locus of value creation”, as interactions are the “
locus of value” [
81] (p. 11). Engagement platforms are almost always created by firms, even though they can be modified through continuously developing interactions with individuals outside the firm, as value co-creation can also focus on these firm activities.
Value co-created within the engagement platform must be shared among participants, a concept made clear by the two curved arrows below the whole model, which, in the authors’ view, can illustrate how this already co-created value is just a factor to be added to the next value co-creation process in “a continuous cycle” [
87] (p. 29).
6.2. CSFs in a Value Co-Creation Process Model towards Sustainability
The discussion of the most important CSFs to be included in the co-creation model begins with the strategy and activities firms willing to co-create value must put in place.
As value co-creation is a new approach, it requires a new mind-set (i.e., [
8,
96,
97]), embracing the new perspective of the human experience domain [
8] as stated above. This requires a direct and strong commitment by top management, which should impress and communicate its willingness to shift to a new management approach. Therefore, top management must be fully committed towards these aims whilst showing a coherent leadership style [
8], which will shape not only the “co-creation involvement strategy,” but also firm “structures and processes” to effectively implement the new approach (CSF No. 1 in the model). Top management will also be involved in the “co-creation technique selection” in that it should allocate the most suitable resources to enable these processes and check their correspondence to its value co-creation goals. The role of top management and its leadership style is the most cited CSF and is recognized as essential in the sustainability, TQM and value co-creation literature.
Initially analyzing “co-creation involvement strategy”, it must be said that, according to Durugbo and Pawar [
12] (p. 4373), “products, services and experiences are developed jointly by companies and their customers through collaboration” and participation. The value co-creation approach considers that collaboration should be at an individual level, focusing on individual/human experiences [
82], thus between peers. Indeed, it is essential that firms and their employees focus on customers/individuals. However “customer focus” is one of the key factors in implementing TQM and should be considered a strategic firm choice, in order to maintain competitive advantage over time. “Customer focus” (sometimes combined by some TQM authors with customer satisfaction (i.e., [
98,
99]; see below for the discussion on customer satisfaction) has therefore a meaningful impact on the “co-creation involvement strategy” to be designed and implemented by the firm, as well as on the “co-creation technique section” and in the “co-creation dialogue” blocks of the model (CSF No. 3 in the model). Indeed, the selection technique should be part of co-creation activities and therefore be designed by individuals participating in the process from both within the firm and outside it; as value co-creation is an activity among peers, also norms, rules and techniques should be shared. “Co-creation dialogue” is also shaped by the customer/individual focus of employees participating in the value co-creation process, in that individuals participating outside firm boundaries must have the opportunity to actively participate and receive the expected benefits for their collaboration; the basic assumption of the value co-creation approach.
These same thoughts, obviously, also apply to supplier partnership (CSF No. 4 in the model). The choice of partners in the supplier domain shapes the “co-creation involvement strategy”, as well as the “co-creation technique selection”, all participants being aware that collaborating will generate gains for both parties.
Culture and communication are really important for firms willing to implement value co-creation. Schein [
100] defined organizational culture as a “pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 12). Several studies, in the literature on quality management have analyzed the concept of organizational culture, and Kanji and Yui [
101] claim that “total quality management is the culture of an organization committed to customer satisfaction through continuous improvement” (p. 417). Company/internal culture has been recognized as one of the most important CSFs for the implementation of IMS to enhance environmental performance and sustainable development [
76]. Cultural aspects are also really important in shaping “co-creation involvement strategy”, as well as “co-creation dialogue”; openness for example, in the value co-creation domain, is responsible for enabling effective collaboration with partners [
102] (CSF No. 7 in the model).
Communication tools allow the diffusion of organizational culture; therefore, this factor should also be considered among factors able to support effective co-creation participation and dialogue. In this domain, also the tools considered most useful for communication should be chosen by the firm to create the best “co-creation technique”.
According to Juran [
103] “strategic quality planning” is a systematic approach to set and achieve quality objectives throughout the company (p. 128). Quality should be understood as related to customer/individual needs and therefore encompass employees, customers and other individuals participating in the value co-creation process, given that they must work side-by-side continuously and is a focal point in the value co-creation approach, which can shape a more effective “co-creation involvement strategy” (CSF No. 8 in the model).
The willingness of individuals to co-create with firms surely depends on employee involvement, but only where continuous improvement impetus exists and is nurtured. Indeed, continuous improvement (CSF No. 9 in the model) enables involvement by everyone, managers and workers alike, in a cycle of continuous knowledge in order to generate excellence in firm activities and, as a consequence, also in value co-creation processes, not forgetting the “environmental focus” [
50] (CSF No. 12 in the model). Moreover, according to Mehra et al. [
50], firms “will have to plan perpetual growth processes based upon innovation, improvements, and knowledge creation” if they want to provide customer satisfaction (p. 870); a key issue in management and sustainability. Value co-creation participating customer/individual satisfaction is also a key factor in maintaining involvement nurtured by performing active roles and gaining some benefits, as well as enhancing “co-creation dialogue”. Indeed, value co-creation generates customer satisfaction [
104], or individual satisfaction, and is one of the key CSFs to generate firm competitive advantage, in that firm success depends on the ability to understand and satisfy the needs of customers and consumers [
105,
106], as well as all the other stakeholders as suggested by the literature on IMS [
74,
77]. Therefore, in the value co-creation approach, satisfaction should be reinterpreted so that firms nurture an “active and ongoing dialog [which] is about engaging customers[/individuals] on their terms and allowing them to co-construct the experience to suit their own context” [
96] (p. 32).
For the “co-creation technique selection”, apart from the CSFs already cited above, also Human Resource Management (HRM) must be considered relevant in that it is one of the few CSFs that is studied in all streams of the literature at the intersection of sustainability and TQM. In point of fact, HRM, as a whole, has been recognized as “vital for successful IMS implementation” (i.e., [
74,
77] (p. 1393)), even if it also encompasses some other CSFs, and from the literature review section above, it is clear how different authors have made a deeper analysis of some aspects of it instead of others (see
Figure 1 and
Appendix A,
Appendix B,
Appendix C and
Appendix D). For the paper aim, especially training, learning and education are of particular value. Indeed, the ability of employees to interact shapes co-creation activity and outcomes; therefore, firms must develop programs to train their employees to make interaction easy and effective for both customers/individuals and themselves. “Employee training and learning”, following Kassicieh and Yourstone [
107], should be considered as “a key to successful implementation of TQM along the dimensions of cost reduction and profit increase” (p. 36) (CSF No. 5 in the model). Moreover, having trained and therefore skilled employees enables effective communication, which is essential to carry on the “co-creation dialogue”, as well as enhance “co-creation participation” between individuals internal/external to the firm. In point of fact, training and education, as well as communication must be considered jointly with the employee involvement strategy the firm must put in place to foster willingness to participate and co-create with customers. Employee involvement is critical to success in TQM implementation, in EM and at the interface between the two [
108]. Indeed, it is necessary to ensure excellence for all quality dimensions, such as design, production, sale, delivery, after-the-sale, safety and security, as well as perceived quality [
109]. According to Mehra et al. [
50] “quality must become the responsibility of everyone in the organization in order to succeed in the marketplace” (p. 861) and, it can be added, in co-creating value. Therefore, employee involvement has a meaningful impact on helping top management select and shape the most suitable co-creation technique on each occasion and is essential for an effective “co-creation dialogue” to co-create value/values.
HRM has been mentioned in the “co-creation technique selection”, but must also be considered part of the internal features of the organization in which only firm structures and processes must be put in place to implement its strategy and have not as yet been discussed.
Coming to “structure and processes”, the first important CSF is “process management”. Process management can be defined as a set of behavioral and systematic principles essential for quality management itself. This CSF is more about processes than results [
110,
111] and encompasses tools through which firms can promote and encourage innovation and creativity, giving rise to continuous improvement [
112]. The process management approach allows easy communication inside and outside firms and helps to run effective “co-creation dialogue” and co-create value (CSF No. 2 in the model).
“Information/analysis/data” CSF are critical because firms must monitor their activities, measuring quality before and after improvement activities. In the value co-creation domain, the measurement issue is at an early stage, and few papers have created and validated DART (Dialogue, Access, Risk, Transparency) measurement scales either partially or as a whole (i.e., [
113,
114]). This is an interesting avenue for future research in re-interpreting CSFs of TQM, above all because the value co-creation approach can also be understood as “a new information and communications productivity standard” [
115] (p. 17) (CSF No. 6 in this model).
The last CSF considered of particular value in the “structure and process” block of the model is prevention/audit. Prevention comes from audit, which can be defined as “a systematic, independent and documented process aiming at the collection of evidence and assessment of an MS concerning the fulfillment, and to the extension of that fulfillment, on the criteria defined by the standard” [
80] (p. 1326). Many processes could be covered by audits also in IMS, among them: provision of adequate resources, employee training, definition and review of customer requirements, control of design and development, identification of environmental aspects and impacts, measurement of customer satisfaction, etc. [
80]. Clearly, the above list indicates that audits could be really effective in improving the quality of value co-creation processes and, therefore, are essential in the “structure and process” domain (CSF No. 13 in the model).
It must be remembered that “co-creation dialogue” develops over time on engagement platforms and among important CSFs to co-create value where both design conformance and QFD (Quality Function Deployment) should be considered. The design and conformance CSF is important to implement TQM and essential to create and maintain an effective “co-creation dialogue” (CSF No. 10 in the model). In fact, understanding customer needs and nurturing an effective and lasting dialogue with consumers, firms should also design and develop new products/services to satisfy their expectations, able to enhance customer satisfaction and customer value, also because of their participation in that innovation process. In other words, the last missing link for integration between selected co-creation models and TQM CSFs, looking at customer needs, is QFD, able to translate customer needs into products/services with technical characteristics. According to Govers [
116], “QFD encompasses some activities that people did before but it replaces erratic, intuitive decision making processes with a structured methodology that establishes all relevant information and experiences that are available throughout the organization” (p. 576). In particular, QFD is essential towards effective “co-creation dialogue” and to co-create value sharing individuals/information/ideas/experiences, the latter being the basis of value (CSF No. 11 in the model).