Value co-creation in

education -
A case study of Interspectral

Master’s Thesis 30 credits

Department of Business Studies
Uppsala University
Spring Semester of 2019
Date of Submission: 2019-05-29

Maria Resh
Supervisor: Jukka Hohenthal
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Interspectral for providing me with the opportunity to write this thesis
together. I am very thankful to Louise Lennersten for taking time off her busy schedule to
provide valuable feedback, support and guidance throughout the study process and for her
enthusiasm and encouragement during the thesis writing. I am grateful to Richard Bremer for
taking time to give me feedback and putting me in contact with Interspectral’s customer in
Australia.

At Uppsala University I want to thank my supervisor, Jukka Hohenthal, for giving me

guidance and valuable insights throughout the process of the thesis writing. Further, I would
like to thank the seminar group for their valuable discussions and feedback.

I am very grateful to all the teachers who participated in the study and the Australian school
for their contributions to this study through their knowledge and experience. I would also like
to thank all other employees at Interspectral who directly or indirectly contributed to this
study.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family for all the support and encouragement that
I have received throughout the thesis writing process.

Uppsala, May 2019

Maria Resh Date

Abstract

Technical SMEs develop products in isolation from customers in order to have shorter time to
market. However, this approach may result in a mismatch between customer needs and the
product value. This research paper investigates value co-creating activities which technical
SMEs can undertake with their customers to improve the value of the product and their
relationship with the customers. The research paper is a case study of a Swedish technical
SME, Interspectral, and their software product for the education market. The study uses a
qualitative approach through semi-structured interviews with teachers in Sweden and
Australia. A four-step process is used to first understand what value the product brings
customers (students and teachers), the current resource integration activities and co-
production activities done by customers and finally what value co-creating activities are
perceived as important for customers to grow the relationship with the company. The results
show that the dialogue between the customer and the firm is most important for customers
during value co-creation and facilitates information access and control. Furthermore, specific
co-production activities and resource integrating activities are outlined. The implication of the
study is that non-market actors’ value co-creation should be assessed by considering the
constraints placed by the service ecosystem.

Key words: Value co-creation, Education, EdTech, Dialogue, Customer Control, Information
Access
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Value co-creation .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Technical SMEs and value co-creation ................................................................................ 2
1.3 Research objective and research questions .......................................................................... 3
2. Literature review ............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Value in the Service dominant logic ..................................................................................... 4
2.2 Defining resource integration ............................................................................................... 5
2.3 Effective resource integration .............................................................................................. 5
2.4 Actors as co-producers ......................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Theoretical problematization ............................................................................................... 7
2.6 Co-creation of value in education ......................................................................................... 9
2.7 Effects of 3D interactive technology in education .............................................................. 10
2.8 Obstacles to value co-creation in education with technology ............................................. 11
3. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 12
4. Methodology............................................................................................................. 14
4.1 Research design .................................................................................................................. 14
4.1.1 Qualitative approach........................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.2 Case study design ............................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Data collection .................................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews ................................................................................................................. 15
4.2.2 Selection of respondents ..................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.3 Data collection.................................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Data processing .................................................................................................................. 17
4.3.1 Qualitative data processing................................................................................................................. 17
4.4 Ethical considerations ........................................................................................................ 18
4.5 Quality of research ............................................................................................................. 19
4.5.1 Reliability and validity in qualitative research ................................................................................... 19
4.5.2 Generalizability .................................................................................................................................. 20

5. Company description ................................................................................................ 21

5.1 The Inside Explorer............................................................................................................ 21
6. Main study results and analysis ................................................................................ 22
6.1 Value creation activities ..................................................................................................... 22
6.1.1 Teacher as a resource together with the software ............................................................................... 22
6.1.2 EdTech software together with other teaching materials .................................................................... 23
6.1.3 Analysis of the types of resource integration activities ...................................................................... 25
6.2 Types of co-production ....................................................................................................... 27
6.2.1 Individual access to the software ........................................................................................................ 27
6.2.2 Teacher guide ..................................................................................................................................... 27
6.2.3 Compare datasets................................................................................................................................ 27
6.2.4 Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 28
 6.2.5 Other co-production ........................................................................................................................... 28
6.2.6 Analysis of co-production activities ................................................................................................... 28
6.3 Perception of value ............................................................................................................. 28
6.3.1 Teachers’ value perception of the EdTech software ........................................................................... 28
6.3.2 Students’ value perception of the EdTech software ........................................................................... 32
6.4 Service ecosystem ............................................................................................................... 34
6.5 Analysis of perception of value for students, teachers and stakeholders ........................... 35
6.6 Perceived impact of value co-creation on the relationship ................................................. 36
6.7 Analysis of perceived impact of value co-creation on the relationship ............................... 37
7. Replication of the study ............................................................................................ 39
7.1 Value creation activities ..................................................................................................... 39
7.1.1 Resource integration ........................................................................................................................... 39
7.1.2 Types of co-production .................................................................................................... 41
7.1.2.1 Internet ............................................................................................................................................ 41
7.1.2.2 Adaptation of datasets ..................................................................................................................... 41
7.1.3 Perception of value .......................................................................................................... 42
7.1.3.1 Teachers’ value perception of the EdTech software ........................................................................ 42
7.1.3.2 Students’ value perception of the EdTech software ........................................................................ 42
7.1.3.3 Stakeholders’ value perception of the EdTech software.................................................................. 43
8. Cross-case analysis and discussion ........................................................................... 44
8.1 Similarities.......................................................................................................................... 44
8.1.2 Resource integration ........................................................................................................................... 44
8.1.2.3 EdTech software together with other teaching materials ................................................................. 44
8.1.3 Co-production..................................................................................................................................... 45
8.1.4 Perception of value ............................................................................................................................. 47
8.2 Differences .......................................................................................................................... 49
9. Discussion and revision of framework .......................................................................... 51
10. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 54
10.1 Managerial implications ................................................................................................... 54
11. Limitations and further research ................................................................................ 56
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 57
Appendicies...................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 62
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 63
Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix D .............................................................................................................................. 66
1. Introduction
1.1 Value co-creation
Value co-creation as a concept has and continues to transform marketing paradigm (Prahalad
and Ramaswamy, 2000; Vargo and Lusch 2004; 2008). Both practitioners and academics are
increasingly accepting the idea that value is created by customers together with firms for
customers (Hibbert et al. 2012) and that companies have the possibility to support value co-
creation by providing resources which customers may use to create value independently
(value creation) or together with firms (value co-creation) (Grönroos, 2008).

The importance of value co-creation for marketing research and practitioners is increasing
(Hibbert et al. 2012) and companies are able to implement value co-creation to distinguish
themselves from competitors by collaborating with customers to co-create unique value
during the product development stage.

The process of value co-creation entails customer participation in the service design process
together with the firm and consequently entails customer-firm cooperation (Auh, Bell,
McLeod and Shih, 2007; Hu and McLoughlin, 2012). Hence, value co-creation is the co-
production of value between customers and firms (Dziewanowska, 2017) and inherently
includes both the firm and the customer as co-creators of value (Grönroos, 2008).
The process of value co-creation occurs within a close relationship between the firm and the
customer in which both parties cooperate to create value (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, Ballantyne
and Varey, 2006). By treating the customer as a connected part of the value network of
customers and firms, the customer is empowered and becomes an informed and active co-
creator of value (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). This way the process of value co-creation becomes
a method to strengthen the role of the customer in the relationship with firms and empowers
the customer to tailor products and services for his own needs through a constant dialogue and
close relationship with the firm (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Grönroos and Voima, 2013;
Ballantyne and Varey, 2006). As a result, customers are viewed as active participants in value
co-creation.

On the other hand, customers may create value independently from firms by combining
material and immaterial resources to create value, including knowledge and skills (Grönroos,

1
2008). Resource integration may involve the customer’s resources and the resources of other
actors in the customer’s network. Hence, customers generation of value is both the process of
co-creating value with a firm and creating value independent of the firm.

Understanding how customers create value for themselves and others in the network allows
companies to stay ahead of changing market needs (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).
Customers’ knowledge about their own usage of products can be a source of innovation for
firms and the customer-firm collaboration can result in greater brand awareness and positive
word of mouth (Pétavy et al. 2012., Füller et al. 2006).

When discussing value co-creation, it is important to define value. The concept of value may
differ depending upon the context and actor who creates the value (Rutner and Langley,
2000). Consequently, value has been defined in relation to monetary outcome (Anderson and
Narus, 1998), the customer’s utility (Zeithaml, 1988; Wilson, 2003) and feelings (Grönroos,
2008). From a value co-creation perspective, and for the purpose of this study, value will be
defined as feeling or being better off than before through assisted self-service process or a
full-service process (Grönroos, 2008).

Though value co-creation and creation have been thoroughly discussed in different contexts
there is a need for studies to further elaborate the value co-creating activities in the EdTech
sector, encompassing digital solutions for educational purposes. This is because actors who
generate value in the education sector differ in terms of institutional arrangements from
customers who generate value in the market (Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson, 2012).

1.2 Technical SMEs and value co-creation

Technical SMEs (small-medium enterprises) focus on technological development in isolation
from customers to shorten time to market (Allocca and Kessler, 2006). Although decreased
time to market may be a strength for technical SMEs, innovation in isolation from customers
may result in poor integration of customer value into the product, resulting in a mismatch
between customer needs and the product (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000).

2
SMEs are companies with maximum 250 employees and less than €50 million in annual
turnover (Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC), and it is estimated that such
businesses represent 99 % of companies in the EU (European Commission, 2017).

Considering that value co-creation can be a source of innovation (Pétavy et al. 2012., Füller et
al. 2006) it is of interest to study technical SMEs’ development of technology. The benefits
from incorporating value co-creation are shorter innovation cycles and risk reduction when
launching new technologies (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000; Hitachi, 2018). Value co-
creating companies already have an engaged community which can be used for future
projects, direct marketing and to create positive word of mouth (Pétavy et al. 2012., Füller et
al. 2006). Consequently, it is of interest to investigate what possible value co-creation and
value creation activities exist for technical SMEs.

1.3 Research objective and research questions

The objective of this study is to investigate the value co-creating activities which technical
SMEs such as Interspectral, can undertake with their customers to improve the value of the
product and their relationship with the customers. To reach the objective, firstly the value of
the EdTech (education technology) product, Inside Explorer for customers was investigated.
Then, current resource integration activities and co-production activities used by customers
were investigated. This allowed for an understanding of how the customers currently use the
product to create value and how the product can provide them with more value. The last step
included investigating what value co-creating activities are perceived as important for
customers to grow the relationship with the company.

Together these findings are the foundation to understand the co-creating activities which the
company can undertake to improve their product for the education market and to improve the
relationship with the customers. To achieve the research objective the following research
questions were formulated:
1. What co-production and resource integration activities exist with the EdTech
software?
2. What is the perceived value of the EdTech software for end users?
3. What value co-creating activities are perceived as important for customers during the
first stages of the customer-firm relationship?

3
2. Literature review
2.1 Value in the Service dominant logic
Research on the customer as an active participant in co-creating value with firms, has been
increasing during the recent years (see for instance; Payne, Storbacka, and Frow 2008; Toffler
1980; Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye 2008, Vargo and Lusch, 2004, Grönroos, 2011). Today
marketing literature views the customer as central to both the customer’s and the firm’s value
creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2008).

The service dominant logic (S-D-logic) proposes that value is always co-created in a
continuous series of social and economic processes focused on immaterial resources (skills
and knowledge) with which the firm is constantly attempting to make better value
propositions than its competitors (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Value co-creation is a process of
deliberate creation of value in a controlled way rather than something which emerges in
customer-firm relationships (Gummerus and von Koskull, 2015).

There are several different definitions of value co-creation. Grönroos (2008) defines value co-
creation as the interaction between a customer and a firm. Subsequently, he also defines value
creation as a process where value is created among actors without the involvement of firm
(Grönroos, 2008). Creation of value may therefore include the interaction of a self-service
machine or another product to create value (Grönroos, 2008). Although value creation occurs
without the involvement of the company, it is the company that supports the process by
providing necessary resources for customers (Hibbert et al. 2012). On the other hand, Akaka
and Vargo (2015) treats value creation and value co-creation as the same process and does not
distinguish between the concepts. Grönroos’ distinction between value creation and co-
creation is important as the value generated from each process will differ.

For the purpose of this study value co-creation will be defined as co-production which is the
customer participation in the service design process (Auh, Bell, McLeod and Shih, 2007) and
the direct and indirect cooperation of customers and firms (Hu and McLoughlin, 2012) to
create value for themselves. Based on Dziewanowska’s (2017) study of value co-creation in
higher education, value co-creation is multidimensional and consists of customer-firm
dialogue, customer control and information access, in this study as well. On the other hand,

4
creation of value is defined according to Grönroos (2011) as the process of actors combining
their own and others’ resources to create value.

Simultaneously, Akaka and Vargo’s framework on service ecosystems is used in the study to
broaden the context of service exchanges and include actors outside the exchange who
influence the outcome of value co-creation (Akaka and Vargo, 2015). Considering the breadth
of service ecosystems, this study will delimit participating teachers’ service ecosystems by
allowing them to state the main actors which they interact with on a daily basis. Allowing the
teachers to delimit their service ecosystem will reduce the impact of the researcher.

2.2 Defining resource integration

The context of value co-creation and value creation goes beyond a simple dyadic relationship
between the customer and the firm. Service ecosystems includes “direct and indirect
interactions of multiple actors in value co-creation” which influence customer perception of
value (Akaka and Vargo, 2015 p. 8).

The service ecosystem encompasses resource-integrating actors connected by shared

institutional arrangements and mutual value creation through service exchange (Akaka and
Vargo, 2015). Within these networks of actors, individual customers integrate resources by
combining their own and others’ material and immaterial resources to create value (Vargo and
Lusch, 2004: 2008). As a result, resource integration will be defined as the combination of
tangible (books, people) and intangible resources (skills, knowledge) to create value.

Customers who integrate a larger number of resources from their service ecosystem to create
value have a higher willingness to create value and show greater satisfaction with the created
value (McColl-Kennedy’s (2012).

2.3 Effective resource integration

In order for customers to be efficient resource integrators they need sufficient knowledge and
skills to properly use available resources (Hibbert et al. 2012). Consequently, it is important
for firms to support customers learning which subsequently facilitates effective resource
integration (ibid.). Customers selectively use firms, other customers and actors in their
network as resources and combine the resources to meet their unique learning goals motivated

5
by the expected value of integrating resources and/or the value derived from the learning
activity itself (Hibbert et al. 2012).

Instances when individuals seize opportunities to create value but lack the skills to make
effective use of resources to create value, may prompt the individuals to learn how to use the
resources efficiently (Hibbert et al. 2012).

Customer learning to become a better resource integrator may be driven by intrinsic or

extrinsic interest (eg. firms compelling customers to learn) and depends upon whether or not
the customer anticipates the need to learn and the effort needed to learn (Clardy, 2000; Spear
and Mocker 1984). Customer learning initiated to develop knowledge and skills to engage in
resource integration activities varies considerably depending upon the extent to which it is
compelled or intrinsically driven. Customers selectively manage which resources to use to
meet their unique learning goals to become better resource integrators (Hibbert et al. 2012).
Thus, customers are in control of their learning process motivated by the value anticipated
from resource integration (Hibbert et al. 2012).

Time available to learn how to resource integrate (Ellinger et al. 2003) and the customer’s
existing knowledge of how to integrate resources to create value also impact the effectiveness
of resource integration (Hibbert et al. 2015). Customers often become part of communities
that share learned skills and knowledge among peers, instructors and the like.

2.4 Actors as co-producers

Customer participation in the service design process (Auh, Bell, McLeod and Shih, 2007) and
the direct and indirect cooperation of firms with customers (Hu and McLoughlin, 2012) is
defined as co-production of value between customers and firms. The co-production process
consists of three enablers; information access, dialogue and control (Dziewanowska, 2017).
Information access allows the customer access to necessary information which reduces
uncertainty in the co-production process and allows the customer to be more effective in the
value co-creating process (Kelley, Donnelley and Skinner, 1990; Yi and Gong, 2013).
Adequate information access results in the customer feeling well-informed (Dziewanowska,
2017).

6
The customer-firm dialogue involves a two-way communication where the aim is to
understand each other’s’ needs and intentions (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004, Hsieh and
Hsieh, 2015). Dialogue is necessary to obtain cooperation in the form of joint actions which
are aimed at satisfying customer needs (ibid.). Therefore, a positive outcome of customer-firm
dialogue is that both sides have understood each other’s intentions and aims with the
collaboration (Dziewanowska, 2017).

The third enabler of co-production is customer control over the process of value co-creation
(Jaakkola, Helkkula, & Aarikka-Stenroos, 2015). Customer control is a result of the
company’s willingness to share control with the customer and occurs as the firm gains trust
for the customer. Allowing customer control over the process is risky for the firm as the
customer may decide to act against company expectations (Fisher and Smith, 2011).
Customer control occurs when the customer feels that the result of the co-creation depends
upon the customer (Dziewanowska, 2017). For an operationalization of each dimension as
well as resource integration, see Appendix A.

2.5 Theoretical problematization

The literature on value co-creation views customers as performing several roles including the
role of the user, buyer and value co-creator (Michel, Brown, Gallan, 2008; Vargo and Lusch,
2004). However, literature doesn’t differentiate between business actors in service ecosystems
and non-business actors who value co-create and are part of the system but may take on
different roles than standard business actors. For instance, research treats students and
teachers as customers receiving and delivering education as a service (Krehbiel et al 1997;
Chung and McLearny, 2000; Lawrence and Sharma, 2002; Sanchez-Fernandez, 2010). This
approach is insufficient as it assumes that students and teachers take on the same roles as
customers whereas there are significant differences in the roles traditional service customer
and students take on (Díaz-Méndez & Gummesson, 2012). Consequently, the roles of non-
standard business actors, who are co-creating value with a firm but cannot be considered a
customer, are not sufficiently explored.

If actors are always value co-creators it suggests that they always seek to create value in their
network (Lusch and Vargo, 2014). Actors are motivated to integrate resources in their
network to reap the desired outcomes, i.e the anticipated value or utility at the end of the
process (Hibbert et al. 2012). Considering that customers buy goods and services to assist

7
them with a service which should create value for them, all actors essentially aim to reap
value when the offering is used (Grönroos, 2008). As actors obtain value from the resource
integration process, they automatically take on the role of the user, as suggested by S-D logic
value in-use (Michel, Brown, Gallan, 2008). Because value can only be created during value-
in-use, and actors co-create value to obtain value, all actors can be seen as users.

The value co-creation process is described as a service-for-service exchange (Lusch and

Vargo, 2014). An exchange entails that something is given in return for something else,
usually of equal value. Thus, in an exchange there will always be a form of payment,
otherwise it is not an exchange but a gift. In service logic, money and goods are viewed as
indirect forms of service. Therefore, money can be a part of a service-for-service exchange.
This is because money represents rights to a future service (Lusch and Vargo, 2014). In a
service-for-service exchange, the service can be viewed as a form of payment (although not
necessarily monetary) for the other service and this way the actor can take on the role of
buyer. If then, actors are always value co-creators it means that they always exchange service
for service (buyer role) and resource integrate with the intention to gain value from it (user
role). Consequently, actors always perform the role of the value co-creator, buyer and user.

The S-D logic literature doesn’t specify how value co-creation may differ depending upon
which sector it operates in. Studies show that customers take on other roles in the value co-
creation process such as co-implementers, co-designers and initiators (see for instance
Voorberg, Bekkers and Tummers, 2015). Nevertheless, per definition of value co-creation in
the S-D logic where value co-creation is defined as an exchange of service for service, all
actors are value creators (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). In line with the concept of value in-use
(Vargo and Lusch, 2014), actors are always users, buyers and value co-creators.

The S-D logic viewing actors’ roles as always being a user, buyer and a value co-creator,
doesn’t consider non-market actors’ roles in value co-creation. Especially, considering how
institutional arrangements in different service ecosystems constrain and enable actors’
behavior, the roles of non-market actors are not always that of a user, buyer and value co-
creator. Furthermore, the process of value co-creation differs in the private sector from the
public one (Voorberg, 2017). Value co-creation research in education research stresses that
students cannot be treated as traditional service customers because their role in relation to the
teacher differs to that of the role of a customer in relation to a service provider, in several

8
aspects (Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson, 2012). For instance, customers are not graded on an
exam from the service provider to see whether they are able to reap the value-in-use of the
service and students are not asked to evaluate their education because the students don’t have
the right criteria to evaluate the education, unlike a customer being asked to evaluate a
product for a company measuring customer satisfaction (Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson,
2012). Thus, the institutional arrangements of different service ecosystems will shape the
roles and relations between actors (Turner, 1997), enabling different roles for actors.

The education setting is representative of value co-creation because unless the students study
and put in their own work outside of class, they cannot benefit from the teacher’s lectures
(Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson, 2012). Consequently, value co-creation always occurs in
education because students are required to integrate resources from different sources to get
the value of the teaching, suggesting that value co-creation always occurs in education, to
some extent (Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson, 2012). This study aims to further understanding
of how non-market such as actors in the education system and market actors, such as
businesses interact during value co-creation processes. While research has focused on market
actors’ interactions during value co-creation or how non-market actors in the education
system interact during value co-creation, few studies focus on the interaction between the
market and non-market actors during value co-creation.

2.6 Co-creation of value in education

Literature on value co-creation in education (Giner and Rillo, 2016; Schumann, Peters, Olsen,
2013; Dziewanowska, 2017; Thuy, 2016; Judson and Taylor, 2014) show that scholars and
practitioners see value co-creation as having a positive impact on the education system (Díaz-
Méndez and Gummesson, 2012). However, most of the studies are conducted in higher
education settings where students are able to choose their own education and have more
control over it, thus allowing the universities to opt for value co-creation with students to
attract students to their universities (Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson, 2012). These studies
show that students are similar to customers as they are able to choose educational institutions
and the institutes are characterized as similar to firms as they capitalize on attracting students
to their facilities. Nevertheless, the results of these studies cannot be generalized to school
settings where students are underage. The present study is focused on underage students in

9
order to fill the age gap. Studies conducted in middle school settings where students have
lesser degree of choice of institution and the setting is similar to that of this study, are few.

2.7 Effects of 3D interactive technology in education

Although there are many studies investigating the impact of 3D teaching material on
education outcomes (Leung, Lee, Mark, Lui, 2012; Bower, Howe and McCredie, 2014), few
studies investigate the impact of value co-creation in 3D technological teaching aids in middle
school settings.

In the Swedish context a study performed on students grade 6-8, 3D visualization technology
was tested vis a vis traditional teaching material in mathematics. The results show that the 3D
technology increased the interaction and communication amongst the students about the
content displayed on the 3D technology and more senses were stimulated during the learning
process, compared to traditional teaching material (Díaz-Méndez and Gummesson, 2012,
Boström et al. 2018). Another benefit was students’ positive attitude towards the usage of the
technological aid. Nevertheless, the study reports technological issues which came up during
the installation of necessary software for the 3D technology to function (Boström et al. 2018).
Such setbacks affect the usability and end user motivation. Even though, such problems
resolve themselves overtime. The study concluded that 3D technology is an important
complement that provides enhanced understanding of the underlying material but is not used
on its own (ibid.). 3D visualization technology allows students to become more comfortable
with using technology, especially in schools where technology is not used in teaching (Díaz-
Méndez and Gummesson, 2012).

Studies on the effectiveness of 3D show that students using 3D content remembered more
than the students subjected to 2D teaching aids. The results showed a 17% improvement in
test scores compared to 8% for 2D material (Leung, Lee, Mark and Lui, 2012). 3D visual
teaching material aids in education has shown to improve understanding of functionality,
results, increased motivation and engagement, increased attention, memory and positive
comprehension from the teacher, compared to traditional forms of education in natural
science (Bamford, 2011). Students who are exposed to 3D visual teaching materials are better
at remembering details and sequences and their communication and behavior in class
improves (Bamford, 2011). Other benefits of 3D visualization aids are their benefit for

10
students with ADHD and other disabilities (Bamford, 2011; De Jager, 2017). 3D
visualizations are also compatible with different learning styles and are shown to improve
students’ abilities to reflect better on the learned content (Bronack et al. 2008). Nevertheless,
a risk with using 3D teaching material is that it may lead to cognitive overload (Gerjets and
Scheiter, 2003; Paas, Renkl and Schweller, 2003).

Considering the broad spectrum of educational technology in terms of modalities, tools and
strategies for learning, the effectiveness of the educational technology depends upon how well
it supports students and teachers to achieve desired educational goals (Ross, Morrisson and
Lowther, 2010; Tamim et al. 2011). As a result, the effectiveness of the EdTech software in
this study may be an important aspect of the perceived value of the software for teachers and
students.

2.8 Obstacles to value co-creation in education with technology

Obstacles to efficient value co-creation in education include teacher resistance to technology
(Boström et al. 2018) which can lead to a resistance towards effective resource integration
with the EdTech software. Such hinder could lead to students not getting full value out of the
resource integration. Other obstacles to value co-creation include software malfunctions
(Boström et al. 2018).

11
 3. Theoretical Framework
The literature suggests that value co-creation should be viewed in a service ecosystem, in
which multiple actors directly and indirectly influence the value co-creation between the
customer and the firm. When the customer involves more resources and actors in creating
value, higher value can be reaped (McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012). Value co-creation should
include customer interaction with the firm whereas value creation can occur between a
customer and for example, a self-service machine, where value is generated but not co-created
with the firm (Grönroos, 2011).

The literature highlights two aspects of value co-creation relevant for this study. Firstly, value
creation is the ability of customers to effectively integrate resources such as people and
physical resources to create value (Vargo and Lusch, 2004a). Second, value co-creation is the
co-production of value among actors (Normann and Ramirez, 1994) in the process which
dialogue and interaction between the firm and the customer allows the firm to learn about the
customer and eventually tailor offerings to match customer needs (Dziewanowska, 2017).
Similarly, the customer’s control over the process of value co-creation is an aspect of
interaction. Both resource integration and co-production can be influenced by the service
ecosystem as customers draw on relevant knowledge and resources from the service
ecosystem to create or co-create value. The literature above can be summarized in a
theoretical framework as shown below:

12
Figure 1. Theoretical framework adapted from (Dziewanowska, 2017 and Vargo and Lusch,
2004).

13
 4. Methodology
4.1 Research design
4.1.1 Qualitative approach
Based on the aim of the study, a qualitative case study was chosen to be the best suited
approach to conduct the research. Qualitative approach is characterized by emphasizing the
understanding of human behavior and aims to uncover the reasoning behind decision-making
(Bryman, 2012). The possibility of getting access to individual subjective feelings and
reasoning to understand their actions (ibid.) was suitable for the aim to study value perception
and value co-creation processes.

Alternatively, the research could have had a quantitative approach through survey research
where it would be possible to quantitatively establish a causal relationship between different
factors of value co-creation such as dialogue or customer control over the value co-creating
process. However, for this method to be applicable, a larger sample and a longer time-frame
of the study would have been needed, to establish any change in the relationship. As the
purpose of the study is to understand perception, a qualitative approach was deemed most
appropriate. Interviews were chosen over surveys to allow participants to be more
spontaneous and natural in their answers which was helpful to find honest answers (Payne and
Grew, 2005).

4.1.2 Case study design

This study was a case study of Interspectral and five teachers who were testing the EdTech
software during the course of one month. A case study research design allows the researcher
to obtain a detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The case
study design is research of a single organization, location or event (Bryman and Bell, 2011),
in cases where the study is dependent upon the case context and is characterized by not
having well-defined boundaries between the context and the phenomenon and aims to answer
questions of why and how (Yin, 2009). This was well-suited for this study as it is based on the
case of Interspectral and its value co-creation with several schools in Sweden and in
Australia. Furthermore, the study is guided by the aim to understand value co-creation and
value creation which is closely dependent upon the context of the case.

14
4.2 Data collection
4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews
The main source of empirical data for the study were interviews with five middle school
teachers in Sweden. To allow respondents to have an open discussion with the interviewer to
share as many insights about the value co-creation process as possible, a semi-structured
interview technique was used (Kajornboon, 2005). Semi-structured interviews are applicable
to study reasoning of individuals, as it provides both the structure around the conversation and
allows for researcher flexibility to ask follow-up questions (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This
allowed the researcher to obtain a depth and breadth in qualitative data, as follow-up
questions allowed for greater depth and the open questions allowed for breadth in answers
(Collis and Hussey, 2009). Semi-structured questions have the advantage of being comparable
across interviews (ibid.), which was beneficial for this study’s cross-case analysis.

Face-to-face interviews have been shown to be superior than telephone interviews as they
make interviewees more engaged in the interview process (Bryman and Bell, 2011) and make
respondents being less likely to express no opinion or express socially desirable answers
(Holbrook, Green and Krosnik, 2003). Although face-to-face interviews were not possible to
conduct due to the distance and availability of respondents, interviews were conducted over
Skype and Messenger video messaging application to resemble a face-to-face interview.

The interview guide (Appendix B) was developed based on a thorough account of the
literature review and the dimensions of value co-creation and value creation were
operationalized to connect theory to the interview questions (Appendix A).

Supplementary to the interviews, weekly reports from the participating teachers were gathered
in the form of an online quantitative and qualitative survey. The data gathered from the survey
was used to gain background and understanding of the resource integration and value co-
creation process of teachers.

To confirm the results from the main study, the interview guide was applied to a smaller case
of a technical school in Australia. The second study confirmed the results from the main study
and strengthened the generalizability of results across different contexts. The same interview

15
guide was used for both studies and the interview in the subsequent study was also conducted
through Skype during the same amount of time as the other interviews.

4.2.2 Selection of respondents

The participants of the study were teachers in middle schools in Linköping and Norrköping
municipalities in Sweden (Appendix C) and the second case involved a middle school in
Australia. Due to difficulties with getting access to students to be part of the study, the
teachers accounted for both the teacher and student perspective of value derived from value
co-creation with the software. Nevertheless, the teachers based their accounts of student
preferences on students’ reactions and comments about the software during class, making the
students perspective in the thesis based on students’ actual preferences.

The participants were contacted through their respective municipalities and asked to be part of
a user experience study with Interspectral. The main objective of the user experience study
conducted was to understand user needs with Inside Explorer software for educational
purposes in Sweden. This study was a part of a larger study conducted by Interspectral. It
should be noted that the participants in the study represent early adopters of technological
solutions for classroom use such as Inside Explorer and therefore they may have been more
positive towards the adoption and usage than the average user.

The study consists of two case studies; one conducted in Sweden with five middle school
teachers and one subsequent study conducted with a long-term customer of Interspectral in a
school in Australia. The Swedish study consisted of five teachers Participants A-E. To
encourage an open discussion between the interviewer and the participants, names and other
variables which could be used to identify the teachers were excluded from the study.
Nevertheless, a brief outline of the background of each participant is included in Appendix C.

Participants A-E have not purchased the EdTech software and as part of the study they have
borrowed the software to use during classes for a period of one month. Consequently, their
knowledge and relationship with Interspectral was limited and several of the participants did
not have any prior knowledge about Interspectral. The participants in the main study did not
co-produce value with Interspectral in the same way that Customer X in the subsequent
Australian study did. Instead co-production in the main study refers to participants providing

16
feedback to the company and the company responding to the feedback either through
discussion or tailoring the data sets to the need of the participants.

4.2.3 Data collection

The interview guide was based on the operationalization of the literature review (Appendix
A). This way interview questions were anchored in literature to increase their relevance and
contribution to the study. The interview guide was divided into seven sections based on the
literature and referred to resource integration, co-production, the service ecosystem and the
relationship with the company. Also, a brief introduction to the aim of the study and
background questions about the interviewee were included in the beginning. All interviewees
were asked whether they consent to record the interview and had the option of obtaining the
transcribed version of the interview to validate their answers.

Open questions were used where respondents were not provided with the alternative answers
from which they should choose the best match (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This allowed the
respondent to answer in their own words and allow for answers which the research may not
have thought about to emerge from the research. To avoid viability between the interview and
the responses, interviews were recorded and transcribed.

4.3 Data processing

4.3.1 Qualitative data processing
Data from the interviews was sorted and coded using Miles et al. (1994) qualitative data
processing. The first step of data analysis was data reduction which condensed gathered data
and focused on the relevant parts (Collis and Hussey, 2009). The reduced data was drawn
from the full range of people, events and processes under study, thus allowing for viewing the
whole data set, as recommended by Miles et al.

Miles et al. (1994) suggest an analysis of data based on three step model. All three steps were
followed in the data processing. The first step was to reduce the data into a matrix called data
display, either using a network display or a matrix of rows and columns. The data in this
study was displayed in a network where broad themes derived from the theory were broken
down into smaller themes and data from interviews was used to fill the matrix. The broad
themes from the theory of the study were value co-creation activities, perception of value and

17
service network. These were further broken down according the figure in Appendix D. This
way the data was connected to the theoretical framework during data processing (Collis and
Hussey, 2009). Next the data from each transcribed interview was sorted into categories
derived from the theory. The data was then coded and categorized based on the theory.
The second step of the data processing involves generating themes, noting patterns,
comparing and contrasting data and clustering it to draw primary conclusions, thus analyzing
the data. The last step involves using the data to draw and write up conclusions from the
study.

4.4 Ethical considerations

For this study harm to participants (Collis and Hussey, 2013) was limited by keeping the
records of participants confidential. The participants were told that the records are going to be
shared with the company and included in the study prior to the interviews giving them an
opportunity to understand the consequences. Further care for participants was taken by
making sure that the individuals are not identifiable by excluding names and any identifiable
features.

The study minimized lack of informed consent (Collis and Hussey, 2013) by allowing all
participants to know what the aim of the study was a couple of weeks prior to the start of the
study. Also, all participants were asked about previous statements in follow up interviews and
asked if those statements still felt correct, giving them the opportunity to change their answers
if they felt that they were misunderstood.

Consent to be part of the study was asked from the participants prior to each interview. This
was asked together with the consent to record the interview. This consent allowed the
participants to understand that their privacy during the interview is given up on the basis that
they understood what the involvement in the study included (Collis and Hussey, 2013).

No deception was included in the study as all participants had the knowledge of what the
research entailed prior to giving consent to participation (Collis and Hussey, 2013).

18
4.5 Quality of research
4.5.1 Reliability and validity in qualitative research
To increase the reliability of this study, a list of participants in both case studies and the
interview guide are presented in Appendix B and C. This ensures transparency, enabling the
reproduction of the results under the same methodology (Yin, 2009). All interviews were
recorded and transcribed and notes during meetings with study participants were collected and
sorted to create data displays during the qualitative data processing. The collected materials
such as transcripts and case notes, formed a case study database as advised by Yin (2009) to
obtain high reliability in case study research. To ensure high reliability, the research process
was motivated and defined (ibid.). Also, the company name was included in the study to
increase the reliability (ibid.).

The validity of the study was increased by applying the interview guide in a different context
in Australia and comparing the results to see similarities and differences (Bryman, 2012).
This way the results were tested for validity.

Another measure to increase the validity of the study was to allow respondents to validate the
answers that they had given during a previous interview by referring back to previous answers
(Bryman, 2012). This way, respondents were able to validate that the response was still true
and elaborate further if they felt that the response needed to be explained further.

Internal validity refers to the causal relationship between variables under study and whether
variables can logically support the results (Gilbert et al., 2008). Pattern matching makes sure
that empirically observed patterns are related to previous research on the topic (ibid.). In the
analysis pattern matching was used to establish similarities, differences and insights and
connect those to the previous research on the phenomena. Additionally, a cross-case analysis
of both cases in the main study was done.

Theory triangulation is another way to ensure internal validity and refers to the thoroughness
of the literature review and whether the phenomenon under study is observed from different
contexts (Gilbert et al., 2008). In the outline of previous research and literature on value co-
creation, a thorough literature review was conducted and findings from different educational
contexts were displayed. Using different areas of literature from value co-creation in higher

19
education, in connection to interactive technology in education and obstacles to value co-
creation in those settings were studied to ensure theory triangulation.

4.5.2 Generalizability
Generalizability reflects the possibility to generalize findings beyond the study context
(Bryman, 2012). Case studies are context based and therefore findings are difficult to
generalize. To increase the generalization of findings Yin (2009) claims that analytical
generalizations from empirical observations can be applied to theoretical propositions and not
to population. Therefore, when repeating the same phenomenon under different contexts it is
possible to compare individual cases and increase the external validity (Yin, 2009).
Nevertheless, the generalizability of findings beyond the product (software) of the study is
limited.

The main study conducted with five teachers and the subsequent study in a different market
allows for analytical generalizability of findings. The cross-case analysis of results from the
main study interviews compared and contrasted results of the subsequent study and the
similarities between the cases will therefore be applicable to different markets, hence
improving the external validity of the study.

20
 5. Company description
Interspectral is a Swedish 3D-visualization software company. The core business is to
develop and market a visualization software called Inside Explorer. The company transforms
complex 3D data to engaging interactive experiences and insights which can be viewed on the
interactive software (Interspectral, 2019). The company is present in three market segments;
education, museums & science communication and industrial applications (Interspectral,
2019). Currently Interspectral is adapting their software Inside Explorer for the education
market.

One of Interspectral’s largest customers in the education sector is a technical school for
students in the ages of 7-12 years old in Australia (Customer X). The school has had a
relationship with the company for a year and bought five sets of the product. During this time
the company has value co-created datasets tailored to the needs of the Australian school.

5.1 The Inside Explorer

Interspectral uses real 3D data by scanning real artefacts and produces 3D scans (datasets)
onto a software which enables users to interact with the content through a touch screen. For
instance, a scan of an animal reveals scans of the exterior skin, then a scan of the muscles,
bones and organs. All scans are possible to turn, zoom and cut through from different angles
revealing a thorough internal visual of each dataset. The software includes about 50 datasets
with scans of humans, Egyptian mummies, animals and meteorites and other objects
(Interspectral, 2019).

21
 6. Main study results and analysis
The main study consisted of 5 natural science teachers (Participants A-E) from middle
schools in Linköping and Norrköping. The participants represent early adopters of
technological solutions for classroom use such as Inside Explorer and therefore they may be
more positive towards the adoption and usage than the average user.

6.1 Value creation activities

6.1.1 Teacher as a resource together with the software
All participants stated that the teacher is the primary resource with which the EdTech
software is integrated with. This is because the teacher structures classes and prepares
resources to be integrated with the software. Consequently, the value from resource
integration during class depends upon the teacher and teacher’s ability to provide value for
different students and their learning styles.

Although all participants claimed that the teacher is responsible to generate value for the
students using resource integration with the EdTech software, there were divided opinions on
how to create most value. Based on participant responses, it is possible to detect a scale of the
need for a teacher during resource integration with the software. Participant A is the strictest
claiming that the teacher is essential to create value for the students with the software. A
similar impression of the teacher role is held by Participant B who claims that resource
integration should be done by qualified teachers who know how to integrate resources to
provide most value for the students.

“Without the teacher to explain to students what the take-away from each dataset is and what
they should look at and learn, the EdTech software has little value for students. Because they
are just scans of different animals or humans.” Participant A

Participant D allows the students to have a greater say in how resources are integrated to
generate most value for students. Therefore, he places value on students learning to use the
EdTech software before using it in exercises in a class. The opposite approach is utilized by
Participant C who claims that the difficulty for the teacher is to know at what level all
students are at and therefore he believes that there is more value in students’ own integration
of resources. Participant C believes that students are able to integrate resources with the

22
software on their own when given access to the necessary resources. By integrating resources
on their own students are able to create a unique value which fulfills their specific needs.
Thus, for Participant C the teacher role is merely supervisory during resource integration.

Participants who placed greater emphasis on the teacher having a primary role in resource
integration claimed that the teacher was necessary as students may not have enough
knowledge to integrate resources on their own.

“Since we have such qualified teachers the students shouldn’t need to reinvent the wheel. The
teachers should teach the students how to use the EdTech software and suggest how to use it
for most value generation.” Participant B

Nevertheless, Participant B also saw positive aspects of allowing students to integrate

resources on their own as he claimed that there may be a finesse with allowing students to do
it themselves.

To make more effective use of resources teachers reach out to each other to discus and learn
from each other in both formal and informal ways.

“It can be both formal and informal. If something really good has happened, then you can go
to the fika-room and discuss it with others and see how you can improve it. And if something
has gone badly, then you ask for advice. […] We have different types of on-the-job training
where you can discuss and develop the education as well.” Participant C

6.1.2 EdTech software together with other teaching materials

All participants claimed that the EdTech software can only be used as a complement to
existing classroom resources and is currently insufficiently developed to be used on its own.
For instance, Participant A claims that the software is a 3D complement to otherwise mainly
2D material such as books and posters. The only other 3D resource which was mentioned was
a model of the human torso. The value of the software lies in its rich details which was
difficult to match in any other teaching material and the possibility to view the data from
different perspectives by turning it in 3D.

23
Participant B mentioned the value of the software lies in obtaining different perspectives on
the same subject. Hence, the combination of being able to see an animal in a 2D book, then on
the software in 3D and be able to interact with it by turning it on the screen and zooming in on
specific parts and peeling off different layers, was complementary to then seeing the same
animal in real life on a farm during a class. Resource integration allows students to view the
animal in different contexts and engage with the content in different ways which reinforces
the knowledge and gives a real-life application of the subject. Combining resources together
creates a holistic perspective for students and sparks curiosity and questions which can be
answered using other resources. The software’s ability to engage students in the subject and
make them curious about the subject was most valuable for Participant B and C.

All participants agreed that resource integration with the software was an important source of
value for students and teachers. Nevertheless, students may not know how to integrate
available resources to create desired value for themselves in a classroom situation. Participant
B highlights this problem by stressing the role of qualified teachers who have been educated
to know how to teach and combine classroom resources to make students learn the most.

”We try to find more qualified applications of the software. And then it becomes more
teacher-focused. This is not a free tool to “play with” - it is a serious work tool. And then
there needs to be a teacher who at least initially steers the direction of what one does with it.”
Participant B

For Participant B the teachers were the primary resource integrators because they are highly
qualified. Time should not be taken from class in order for students to learn how to “reinvent
the wheel”, which the teachers already know and can guide the students in.

Participant B also highlighted the importance of datasets being tailored to the Swedish flora
and fauna.

“Value definitely lies in exploring Swedish flora and fauna because these are the things which
students will interact with later when the class will have a field trip to a farm. Then they get to
see the animals through the software, in a book and in real life. It reinforces that knowledge.”
Participant B

24
For participant B, most value for students was to create a fascination with the subject which
results in greater curiosity and learning.

6.1.3 Analysis of the types of resource integration activities

Resource integration allows customers to access resources internal to themselves and external
in their service network to create value for themselves and others (Vargo and Lusch, 2007).
Customers selectively use resources provided by different actors in their network to meet their
unique goals and create value (Hibbert, et al. 2012). The participants had varied approaches to
resource integration. Student resource integration on their own with little or no support from
the teacher focuses on the students’ meeting their unique goals through resource integration.
On the other hand, participants having greater focus on the teacher role, suggests a greater
focus on integrating different actors and their knowledge to create value. Consequently, all
participants found resource integration important, however there was a varied focus on how to
approach the process.

According to Hibbert et al. (2012) efficient resource integration hinges on the customer
having sufficient knowledge and skills to properly use available resources. Therefore, it is
important for firms to support customers learning which subsequently facilitates effective
resource integration (Hibbert et al. 2012). Among the participants in the study, only
Participant B seemed to consider that the students may not have enough knowledge to
integrate resources efficiently to produce desired value themselves which may lead to a need
for a teacher to support efficient resource integration. He claimed that the teacher role is
central in resource integration because the teacher is educated in tailoring resource integration
to differing student needs. For Hibbert et al. (2012) the role of the company in a market is to
provide the customer with knowledge about how to effectively use their product. In the
education setting, with different service ecosystem, the teacher has that role.

Hibbert et al (2012) also claim that when individuals seize opportunities to create value and
are motivated by potential value benefits but lack the skills to make effective use of resources
to create value, they may learn how to use the resources efficiently. This aspect is brought up
by Participant C who claims that resources should be provided to students who should
integrate them together with the EdTech software on their own. Participant B acknowledges
that this approach may have a certain finesse however he claims that the approach is time

25
consuming and that there is a lack of time during class to allow students to resource integrate
on their own. Instead Participant B claims that students should not focus on learning how to
integrate resources but learn the subject in class.

A lack of time and skills to learn to integrate resource is mentioned as an obstacle to effective
resource integration by previous researchers. To resolve the problem actors join communities
where they can learn to integrate resources by drawing on others’ knowledge (Ellinger et al.,
2003). While none of the participants mentioned reaching out to specific communities all
participants discussed the value in reaching out to other teachers inside the school for support
in effective teaching. Participant C mentioned both formal and informal ways to gain support
from the internal school community of teachers.

According to McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) increased number of resources combined to co-

create value suggests that the actors have a higher willingness to co-create, show greater
satisfaction with the value creation outcome and result in a higher quality of life, thus higher
generated value (McColl-Kennedy et al, 2012). This could be because each actor is able to
provide additional knowledge and skills to the co-creation (Ellinger et al. 2003).

All participants mentioned that combining several resources together with the software
resulted in better learning for the students. Participant B and C claimed that the combination
of being able to see an animal in a 2D book, then on the software in 3D and be able to interact
with it by turning it on the screen and zooming in on specific parts and peeling off different
layers was complementary to then seeing the same animal in real life on a farm during a class.
This resource integration allows students to view the animal in different contexts and engage
with the content in different ways by seeing it in 2D, 3D and in real life, touching it and being
able to change it through the software. This way the knowledge is reinforced and given a real-
life application which adds value to students. As a result, an increased number of resources
used would result in more perspectives for the students to interact with and therefore provide
higher value for the students.

26
6.2 Types of co-production
6.2.1 Individual access to the software
A reoccurring theme among all participants is the need to obtain the software online or
through individual iPads to allow each student to have individual access to the software
during and after class.

6.2.2 Teacher guide

All participants also mentioned the need for a teacher’s guide to the software which would
facilitate the understanding of each data set and its main take-aways for the students and
teachers. As this was not available, the teacher’s role became to guide the students, however it
was pointed out that a teacher guide would be helpful in order for the teacher to know what
the developers of the datasets found most useful in each dataset. This information would then
be passed on to the students by the teacher.

Participant D highlighted a need for a question bank with tasks and questions which the
teacher could do with each dataset for classes which included suggestions on how to use the
EdTech software in different classroom situations.

6.2.3 Compare datasets

Participants B, C and D expressed a need for comparable datasets:

“It would be incredibly interesting to compare the lungs of a smoker and a non-smoker or
that of a healthy person and one in a car accident. Now we only have access to the car
accident one and the sick one but if we can’t compare it to the norm, then it doesn’t give us a
lot.” Participant B

Participants B and C felt that the curriculum focuses on what the norm is (a healthy body) the
datasets of a body after a car accident has little value without being able to compare the
damages to a normal healthy body. Also, being able to compare datasets side-by-side on the
same device was suggested by Participant B and C, who claimed that learning through
comparison would be valuable for students.

27
6.2.4 Structure
Participants B and E suggested that the software needs a structure to provide value for
classroom teaching. Participant C suggested an atlas of anatomy, which implies providing a
structure for datasets which would sort and categorize datasets in a logical way.

6.2.5 Other co-production

All participants felt a need to have the software in Swedish as the version given to the
teachers was in English. Other needs included having a recorded speaker voice for all the
written information boxes on the datasets to help students with auditory learning styles and
for students who do not have Swedish as their first language to learn the pronunciation of
words (Participant B and C). Participants B and C also suggested a back key which would
allow the user to go back to a previous stage in the dataset.

6.2.6 Analysis of co-production activities

The results show that there is a lot of room for the company to pursue co-production activities
with the customers.

Three dimensions of co-production is customer-firm dialogue, customer information access

and customer control over the co-production process (Dziewanowska, 2007). As Participant B
and C gave more feedback to the company about the software, they showed willingness to
have a dialogue with the company and gain control over a part of the co-production process
by giving specific feedback to benefit their schools. In contrast, Participant A showed least
willingness to participate in co-production and showed least knowledge about how he aimed
to implement and use the software in class, showing least willingness to co-produce value
with the firm.

6.3 Perception of value

6.3.1 Teachers’ value perception of the EdTech software
6.3.1.1 Visualization and interaction
The most valuable aspect of the EdTech software was its ability to visualize aspects of
subjects which otherwise were hard to visualize. Participants B, C, D and E found that

28
relevant and accessible visualization were hard to obtain whereas visualizations were very
helpful for students in understanding.

“One of the large problems as a teacher is to visualize things. We draw and paint and find
bits of video in all possible places which we can. Because there is a truth to “a picture says
more than a thousand words.” Once you have seen it, you have a picture of it, it will be easier
to better understand the explanations.” Participant C

Participant E claimed that the value of the software was to visualize the abstract aspects of
natural sciences. For instance, visualizing hollow skeletons of birds and the concept of these
skeletons being less dense was helpful to visualize using the software.

6.3.1.2 Accessibility
The visualization aspect of the software is strengthened as the software
1) allows students and teachers to visualize a wide range of objects which are not otherwise
available in teaching aids

2) access to objects which could otherwise not be accessible to schools because the objects
are either too expensive, or unique, or because they are unavailable in Sweden (eg. exotic frog
species).

“The software allows us to look at the inside of things took the example of the Steinway grand
piano which we can’t afford to buy to the school and if we could buy, would be locked
somewhere. In such cases it is fantastic to have access to zoom inside unique artefacts.”
Participant B

And 3) it allows students to see inside animals and plants in a controlled environment of the
classroom instead of the butcher. This possibility saves time for the teacher who does not
have to take the class to a special place to conduct the dissection.

Although the software is based on real life data, rather than computerized data, Participant C
claims that it cannot replace dissections which students do in science class.

29
“I don’t think that the software can replace dissections in class completely, for instance. Part
of what you want the students to fulfill is testing how it feels. To be able to smell and feel what
it feels like to actually poke inside a heart.” Participant C

The value of real dissections was that the students get to subconsciously or consciously
understand whether they would want to pursue a career in fields where dissections are
important. With the software, this understanding is lost.

Value for teachers and students was the possibility to interact with the datasets by zooming
and turning the scans. This way students were able to engage with the subject in a new way.
For Participant B the most important aspect was that the software was able to make students
more interested in the subject and engage with the subject. Participant B explained the value
of the software in the following way:

“Most value is found in those tools which can increase the accessibility and approachability
of the subject to students. Those students who are able to engage and spin the subject to their
own interests are the most successful ones in school and later on.” Participant B

As the software makes subjects more accessible for students, they become interested in the
subject which is of value for teachers. The main value of the EdTech software, from a
teacher’s perspective was students’ fascination with the subject resulting in them wanting to
learn more.

6.3.1.3 Time saved

Both Participant C and D claimed that it is possible to obtain the same result as the software
provides, using other means however, it requires more time and effort from the teacher to
select the relevant materials.

Consequently, the value of the software for teachers lies in saving time to prepare visual
material for class. Participant B expressed concern that if teachers spend time preparing for
and during class, they will have less time to teach. Consequently, an important value for
teachers of the software is saved time in needing to find and show relevant visualizations for
students.

30
6.3.1.4 Power shift from teacher to student
Participants A, C, D and E all suggested that the software allows for greater autonomy of the
student over the learning when using the EdTech software instead of other resources.

“I decide that we will have a closer look at this part of the human body and therefore I have
prepared an enlargement of what this part looks like.” Participant C

In the traditional way described by Participant C, power over the students’ learning rests with
the teacher who decides what the students will learn and prepares material which allows them
to do so.

“While here [with the software] the students get more control over what he or she feels is
interesting and can have a look at what it looks like in an enlargement.” Participant C

As a result, the software shifts power and control over what, how and when things are
learned, to the student. Participants A and E suggested that access to the software after class
would result in students gaining control over when they would want to learn more about their
subject of choice. Through the software students would also gain greater control over the pace
of teaching and level of difficulty, making the subject more approachable for them and
resulting in increased enthusiasm about the subject and learning. Participants mentioned how
increased student autonomy over learning made it easier for the teacher to keep students’
attention during class. Participant C explains how the shift in power over learning to students
is a unique value:

“Teaching materials which are adaptable to students are very valuable for teachers.
Adapting to individual needs and levels is a very large and difficult job when using textbooks
and posters. It requires me to know how much the student knows and can learn and those are
actually just qualified guesses. If the student can control how deep they want to go then you
have won quite a lot.” Participant C

The software enables exploration which sparks curiosity, questions and discussions among
students. Questions from students are a sign of the powershift as students gain greater control
of what they are learning by directing the class onto new paths:

31
“When students ask questions during class which the teacher hasn’t thought about for the
class, it can lead the class onto new tracks.” Participant D

6.3.1.5 Fulfill course goals

Another value of the software was its possibility to support teachers to help students reach
course objectives. Participant C, D and E claim that the software is able to teach students to
use digital aids, gives students access to a diversity in biology, allows them to compare and
find similarities and differences among animals and other topics. This value is of importance
for the teachers as it allows them to create curiosity among students for the subject while
simultaneously supporting students’ fulfillment of course objectives.

Nevertheless, Participant B, has a different opinion as he claims that reaching course

objectives are less important than being able to create an interest for the subject among
students:

“When we want a tool for teaching then we don’t want a tool to reach the objectives. We need
the tool to help students discover the subject and take an interest in it and then the Central
Content will be fulfilled which results in the course objectives to automatically be met and
results in a high grade.” Participant B

Participant B’s student-centered perspective focuses on accessibility as the most important

value for the EdTech software as it allows students to take an interest in the subject, resulting
in high course objective fulfillment.

6.3.2 Students’ value perception of the EdTech software

6.3.2.1 Student autonomy and individualized learning
As discussed above, the shift of power from teacher to student results in students becoming
more autonomous in their learning which results in greater enthusiasm and desire to learn.
Increased enthusiasm about the software resulted in increased learning from the students,
according to all participants.

Participant A, B and C claimed that determining the value of the software for students is
difficult, as each student will experience the software individually and find the value to differ.

32
“Value is very individual and there is not one teaching method which is good for every
student. We need to be flexible with that and the software is good for visual and kinesthetic
students”. Participant B

Participant B further claimed that the software can be made even more valuable for students
with other learning styles than visual and kinesthetic if one could have recorded the
information texts on the software.

6.3.2.2 Visualization
For students the EdTech software allows to visualize subjects in a way which was not
possible previously. This results in increased understanding of the content among students
and combined with the autonomy which the software provides it results in increased
enthusiasm for the subject.

6.3.2.3 Increased enthusiasm for the subject

All participants mentioned increased students’ enthusiasm for the subject as a value generated
by the software. Participants B, C and D claimed that enthusiasm for the subject will emerge
as a result of increased student autonomy and control over their own learning combined with
the accessibility for students to interact with the datasets.

However, Participant A feared that the enthusiasm would be short-lived if the teachers do not
find new ways to implement the software into classroom activities and said that the
responsibility to implement the software rested on the teacher.

“They [the students] thought that it was very exciting to see scans which they hadn’t seen
previously. The risk is that it may become a gimmick, that it becomes a wow and then it cools
off. One needs continuity in the usage so that it doesn’t become a one-time thing.”
Participant A

6.3.2.4 Stakeholders’ value perception of the EdTech software

All participants apart from Participant B represented municipal schools, thus schools where
the municipalities were major stakeholders. Participant A claimed that the municipality

33
provides resources for the schools and influence the future of the relationship between the
school and the company by deciding whether to buy the software for the schools.

Participant C claimed that the municipality is a large stakeholder through the board and the
principals, and that the municipality had an initially large influence on his relationship with
Interspectral.

“Technically speaking they are the ones who put me in contact with Interspectral. But they
don’t influence the relationship I have with the company now. If we think a couple of steps
ahead and if we decide that this [the EdTech software] is something that we want to have at
the school, then it depends upon actually getting the resources. And then you need the at least
the principal, maybe even the municipality depending upon what the price tag is.”
Participant C

For Participant B there were no other actors in their network which could influence their
relationship with the company and none of the stakeholders of Participant B’s school found
that the EdTech software was of value to the organization and the stakeholders.

6.4 Service ecosystem

Although each teacher’s service ecosystem differed, several common internal and external
stakeholders were found. All participants stated that the teachers mainly interact with other
teachers internally at the school. Interactions with other teachers are mainly about getting help
and support in teaching.

The internal interactions with other teachers could be both formal and informal. Informal
interactions among teachers were those in the “fika-room” where teachers share their
experiences of the day. Formal internal interactions included sharing problems or successes
which could be implemented in other departments, with principals or higher positioned staff.
The interaction between internal and external actors in the service ecosystem of teachers can
be described as follows:

“Most of us teachers have our network constricted to the school and then a few of us tie that
network further to other schools and publishers of school material.” Participant C

34
This way, external interactions occur through few selected teachers who act as gatekeepers of
information between the internal and external. Participant C also mentioned restrictions on the
service network placed by their largest stakeholder, the municipality.

“There are limitations based on purchasing agreements from which publishers etc. that we
can buy stuff from. So unfortunately, we are often locked in with worse alternatives than what
we would have wished both from of practical and quality reasons.” Participant C

All participants mentioned the constrictions imposed by the municipalities, such as

purchasing agreements. Participant D also mentioned how school activity is controlled
through the curriculum set by the government and through availability of resources provided
by the municipality.

Participant B, being a private school, reported a larger service ecosystem than the other
municipal schools. Although the internal network with teachers and the principal was the
same at Participant B’s and the other schools, Participant B’s external service network was
larger. The external contacts included publishers, Skolinspektionen and Skolverket, who set
rules about air quality and similar issues which the school has to comply with. Outside of
Sweden, Participant B also reported having contacts with other schools in Lithuania, Poland,
Germany, Italy and Spain with which students and teachers have contact with and do
exchanges with. Participant B also mentioned that because the school is not a municipal
school, they have to be especially careful with their outside contacts as the contacts and
stakeholders are important to the school’s functioning.

6.5 Analysis of perception of value for students, teachers and stakeholders

Students and teachers had similar perceptions of value of the software and several values
overlapped between the groups. The possibility to visualize a teaching subject such as
biology, through the software was valuable for both students and teachers. Teachers gained
access to a broader range of visualizations which resulted in saved time and support in
fulfillment of course goals. Both of these aspects had indirect impact on students. For
instance, time saved to prepare classes indirectly resulted in more time for teachers to
individualize classes for students, which allowed students to learn more. For students, the

35
visualizations allowed increased interaction with the subject which generated enthusiasm to
learn.

Value for students and teachers were also found in the powershift from teachers to students
which the software facilitated. The powershift could be used if the teacher allowed it to occur,
by allowing more student-initiated questions to guide the class. However, the shift was also
possible to suppress. For students, this power shift entailed increased autonomy over their
own learning and an increased potential to individualize learning to the specific needs and
goals of each student. As a result, teachers claimed that students were more enthusiastic about
the subject and wanted to learn more, creating a win-win situation for students and teachers.

For internal stakeholders, value from the software was obtained when the software supported
teaching. For external stakeholders the value perception was minimal as long as the schools
continued to show positive learning results. Nevertheless, the continued usage of the EdTech
software, after the study, would depend upon the municipality.

6.6 Perceived impact of value co-creation on the relationship

All of the participants perceive that increased customer-firm communication positively
developed the relationship between the actors. Main forms of communication which
participants found valuable were email conversations (Participants D and E) and physically
meeting the company representatives (Participants B and C). Both Participants B and C claim
that meeting the company representatives in person developed the relationship significantly
during the initial stages. General communication was mentioned as an important factor to
improve and develop the relationship with the firm:

“Had I received more communication from the company, then I think the relationship would
have improved as well.” Participant C

Participant C also gives a thorough account of how a physical meeting improved his
relationship with the firm. At first, he felt that the information from the company “came from
very far away and was passed on to him from a board member at the school”.

36
“So when I got to see the faces [of the company representatives] and the communication
started to work then it is easier to understand what kind of relationship is expected and what
both sides can gain from it. Explicitness and a physical meeting was important to improve the
relationship.” Participant C

Participant C also demonstrates the importance of sharing intentions and aims of the
relationship as a form of communication to improve closeness in the relationship.

Participant A found this lacking in the communication from the company and felt that it could
have improved the relationship.

“I would like to know what the thought is behind the software so that I can explain how I
think it can be improved for classroom use. I think my relationship could have been closer
with the company if they had told me that.” Participant A

6.7 Analysis of perceived impact of value co-creation on the relationship

For both Participant A and C it was important to understanding the intentions with the
relationship to better position themselves in the relationship with the company. Knowing the
intentions and aims allowed the participants to know what to expect from the relationship and
what each side could gain from it.

Participant A claimed that knowing the intentions of the company with the software, would
allow him to better contribute to their aim by providing more relevant feedback. By providing
more feedback, he would simultaneously gain more control of the value co-creating process
because he would be able to contribute more to the end result of the co-creation. Sharing
intentions and aims refer to the dialogue between the parties and the subsequent
understanding of the role of the participants in the value co-creation which allows for
customer control (Dziewanowska, 2017). Participants A and C felt a lack of dialogue and
control and felt that increased dialogue about intentions and aims, and the subsequent increase
in customer control over the value co-creation process would result in a better relationship
between the parties.

37
Increased information from the company was perceived as gaining more control for
participants. Therefore, meeting company representatives in person was important as it would
allow the participants to feel that they have some control over the value co-creation.

Connections can also be made between the co-production outcomes of the participants,
discussed in 8.2.2 and the factors which they comprise of (dialogue, control and information
access). For instance, in the analysis of co-production it was found that Participant A was
least willing to participate in the co-production as he shared least amount of co-production
suggestions. Dziewanowska (2017) argues that co-production hinges on the customer having
adequate information which allows to customer to be effective in co-production and reduce
uncertainty. Customers choose their level of involvement in the co-production process based
on available information (ibid.) The results show that a lack of dialogue in the form of shared
intentions and aims of the relationship with the participants, resulted in Participant A having
an inadequate understanding of his role in the relationship causing him to significantly
withdraw his participation in the co-production process. This supports Dziewanowska (2017)
that customers choose their level of involvement based on having adequate information which
occurs through dialogue and information access.

Participant B who provided most feedback claimed that his interaction with the company was
adequate for him to gain enough information. He was satisfied with the information from the
company and understood that the relationship would grow over time which would allow him
to gain more information. At the same time, Participant B was the most proactive participant
and asked the company questions about the software and about them. This increased the
dialogue, information access and control which he had in the value co-creating process,
because he proactively sought out that information.

The results also show that different aspects of value co-creation are more important to spur
the relationship in the beginning. Dialogue, which includes sharing intentions and needs,
allows the customer to understand their role in the relationship and is found to be of more
importance than control which was a subsequent step after establishing the intentions.
Although the participants expressed that the relationship with the company is individual and
may develop individually, email conversations and a physical meeting seems to be of
perceived importance to the development of the relationship with the company in this context.

38
 7. Replication of the study
To confirm the results in the main study in Sweden, a smaller version of the study was
conducted with a school in Australia. The Australian school was a long-term customer of
Interspectral in the education sector and had more experience of resource integration and co-
production with the company. The school had done extensive co-production projects with
Interspectral to tailor datasets to fit the school’s and its stakeholders’ needs. All of these
factors were of interest when choosing to replicate the study in the Australian market.
Consequently, the replication allowed for a greater understanding of the generalizability of
the study through confirmation of results.

7.1 Value creation activities

7.1.1 Resource integration
7.1.1.1 Resource integration EdTech software together with Virtual Reality
Customer X uses the EdTech software with their Virtual Reality (VR) technology to view
objects and compare different perspectives given by each resource. The different perspectives
provided by the resources allow for a guided discussion about the differences. This resource
integration provides value for students in several ways. While the VR allows students to move
through space and be inside what they are studying such as the human brain, the EdTech
software is complementary as it allows them to see an overview of the systems of the human
brain which they will be travelling through in the VR.

“I think the VR is interesting when combined with [the EdTech software]. [The students] have
been inside the circulatory system [using the virtual reality] and then they are able to have a
look at the bodies on the table and then go “when I was travelling near the heart these were
the other elements which I was actually seeing.”.” Customer X

Customer X highlights that this combination provides value for students as it allows for
different perspectives and contexts to learn about the data and being able to visualize the
subject which is very powerful for some students. The combination of VR and the EdTech
software allows for guiding discussion around what is being seen from inside (VR) and as a
part of the system (EdTech software) and why that is. This way students not only learn about

39
the subject they are studying but also about what different technological applications allows
them to view.

7.1.1.2 Resource integration with students and facilitators

Most value for students was generated through discussion among students and teachers as
well as combining all different resources together. When students interact with each other and
their teacher, they are able to compare and exchange knowledge using the EdTech software.

Another valuable aspect of integrating resources with the software is discussions among
students and the subsequent reinforcement of knowledge. This way the students become
resources to each other as they exchange knowledge and combine it with the EdTech
software. Discussion allow students to connect what they already know and what is seen on
the EdTech software and cooperate to find answers to their questions. Consequently, the
EdTech software generates curiosity about the subject triggering the need to continue
research. This makes students learn how to make further research as well as gaining the
necessary knowledge from further investigating the subject. Customer X highlights how
students are important resources because they have different information in them which is
valuable to discuss.

”We’ve had indigenous students who have been able to look at a stingray and understand
why they have been taught to hunt the way they have. When they are back on land and to
actually understand structure of the stingray and what’s happening with the skeleton. To go
“oh that’s why we aim for here because there are no bones”. So yes, there’s different ways in
which you can use it to really guide the discussions.” Customer X

7.1.1.3 Resource integration with guided booklets

Resource integration is an important aspect of Customer X’s school as guided booklets
together with the EdTech software and VR technology are used together to reinforce students’
knowledge from different perspectives. The reinforcement comes from “seeing it from
different perspectives in the VR and EdTech software, writing it and discussing it and having
those layers of information” are of value for both students and facilitators. The different
perspectives brought by the VR technology, the EdTech software and discussion allows
students to obtain a holistic approach to what they are learning.

40
7.1.2 Types of co-production
7.1.2.1 Internet
Customer X has co-produced the possibility to have internet on the EdTech hardware and use
with the datasets. This allows students and facilitators to get more value from the software as
it allows for instant access to further information about the content of the data sets, found on
the internet. It also allows or the flexibility of using the hardware to access the internet or the
software or both.

7.1.2.2 Adaptation of datasets

Primary adaptations of datasets on the software were requested by Customer X. Secondary
adaptations were made to tailor content to the program which Customer X was going to
launch. The secondary adaptations were made based several steps. Firstly, the stakeholder
schools’ needs were defined and articulated to Customer X. Secondly, Customer X and the
stakeholder schools developed a program based on the articulated needs and thirdly, the
necessary data sets were edited together with Interspectral to meet Customer X’s wishes. The
stakeholder schools were local schools and stakeholders of Customer X and therefore had
influence in the service network of Customer X. The adaptations of data sets for new
programs allowed Customer X to fulfill the needs of the stakeholders in their service network
which was a unique opportunity to create a tailored program with the help of Interspectral.

“So we find when teachers come through and see the potential of the tables they say “oh, that
would be good for this”. So then we were able to design a program around that and work
with the partner schools to meet their needs. That worked well. And that is very unique.
Because I can’t do that anywhere here.” Customer X

The co-production between Customer X and Interspectral also created value for the students
by enabling Customer X to create a program which would otherwise not be possible for the
students to experience.

41
7.1.3 Perception of value
7.1.3.1 Teachers’ value perception of the EdTech software
One of the main value perceptions of the EdTech software was its possibility to enable
students to work in groups around the datasets. Considering that Customer X also reported
that discussions among students and facilitators around the content of the EdTech software
provided students with most value, the possibility for students to work in groups around the
EdTech software was a major benefit.

For teachers, value lied in the software allowing teachers to see the students’ learning
progress by using the EdTech software to test students’ understanding and adapting teaching
to their individual plans to scaffold students’ learning.

The EdTech software allowed teachers to brainstorm ideas about new ways to apply the
datasets in teaching to create new programs. Especially empowered by the knowledge that
datasets could be modified with Interspectral, the possibilities to adapt the datasets to specific
stakeholder and student needs became more realistic and possibilities became broader.

7.1.3.2 Students’ value perception of the EdTech software

For students, access to the EdTech software meant having an experience which students
would normally not get. Both in terms of the engagement with the material through a touch
screen and the possibility to visualize the material in 3D was valuable especially for students
who learn through visualization or kinesthetically.

For students the EdTech software also generated curiosity about the subject and generated
questions which facilitated further learning. Customer X pointed out that whereas the EdTech
software is a starting point to create curiosity, it wasn’t necessarily needed to continue the
curiosity as students could use other resources outside the school to continue exploring and
answering the questions generated during interaction with the EdTech software. Therefore,
resource integration with the EdTech software was valuable for students’ curiosity and
learning.

Another valuable aspect was the real-world application which the software enabled. Also,
allowing students to discuss, compare knowledge, cooperate and test themselves by

42
answering questions and comparing the answers to the EdTech software datasets, was
valuable.

7.1.3.3 Stakeholders’ value perception of the EdTech software

Customer X claimed that the influence of the partner schools as stakeholders in the programs
created and taught by Customer X, was significant. As a result, the co-production of new
datasets tailored to Customer X’s and the partner schools’ needs were valuable for Customer
X and the partner schools.

43
 8. Cross-case analysis and discussion
8.1 Similarities
8.1.2 Resource integration
8.1.2.3 EdTech software together with other teaching materials
Participant B in the main study and Customer X both said that the value of resource
integration with the software lied in obtaining different perspectives of the same object.

According to McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) increased number of resources combined to co-

create value suggests the actor’s higher willingness to co-create, shows greater satisfaction
with the value creation outcome and results in a higher quality of life, thus higher generated
value (McColl-Kennedy et al, 2012). This could be because each actor is able to provide
additional knowledge and skills to the co-creation (Ellinger et al. 2003).

Participant B, C and Customer X confirmed McColl-Kennedy et al.’s (2012) findings and

mentioned that combining different resources on the same subject was complementary and
added value. Among the participants in the main study, Participant B and C were both most
inclined to co-produce value as they both shared most ideas on how to implement the
software in class and how to improve it to suit their needs. For instance, participants B, C and
Customer X gave the examples of seeing an animal in a 2D book, then on the software in 3D
while interacting with it by turning it on the screen and zooming in on specific parts and
peeling off different layers, as complementary to then seeing the same animal in real life on a
farm during class. This resource integration allows students to view the animal in different
contexts and engage with the content in different ways by seeing it in 2D, 3D and in real life,
touching it and being able to change it through the software. Customer X and Participant B
claimed that such resource integration allowed for knowledge to be reinforced and given a
real-life application which adds value to students. As a result, an increased number of
resources used would result in more perspectives for the students to interact with and
therefore provide higher value for the student.

Hibbert et al. (2015) claim that obstacles to effective value co-creation with technology in the
education setting includes teacher resistance. Teachers need to be familiar with the
technology to be able to effectively integrate resources with it. Participant B and Customer
X’s background as technical schools may have impacted their ability to value co-create better

44
than average. Their experience with technological teaching aids could have made them more
inclined to value co-create, because they had already overcome the barrier of using the
technology and could focus on value co-creation. However, this does not explain how
Participant C also was more inclined to co-create, as he was not additionally experienced with
technology.

8.1.3 Co-production
8.1.3.1 Teacher guide
All participants in the main study mentioned the need for a teacher’s guide to the software
which would facilitate the understanding of each dataset and its main take-aways for students
and teachers. As this was not available, participants described that the teacher’s role was to
guide the students, however it was pointed out that a teacher’s guide would be helpful for the
teacher to know what the developers of the datasets found most useful in each dataset. This
information would then be passed on to the students by the teacher.

Customer X who had had the software for a year had solved this issue by creating guided
booklets with exercises to perform with the software and the other available resources. This
possibility had generated value for students and teachers. The short timespan during which the
main study participants had used the software, had not been sufficient for them to solve the
issue, however their suggestion of creating a teacher’s guide was similar to Customer X’s
solution. The booklets guided students to integrate resources on their own and create
individually tailored value with available resources, allowing students to have more power
over their learning. In the main study, the power shift was obtained without guided booklets
but with the teacher in a supervisory role. This shows that combining the software with a
resource such as the guided booklet could at least partially replace the need for a teacher to
effectively integrate resources.

The study shows that the software in itself doesn’t create enough value for the end users on its
own. Students and teachers needed to integrate other resources with the software to generate
desired value. This finding supports previous research that resource integration provides more
value than stand-alone resources (Vargo and Lusch, 2007, McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012).

45
Mc Coll-Kennedy et al (2012) also argue that a higher degree of interaction and number of
value co-creating activities which the customer is involved in, shows a higher willingness to
co-create value. However, understanding of the obstacles to value co-creation should be
considered when comparing the results with McColl-Kennedy et al’s conclusions. For
instance, in this study, teachers were constrained by municipalities in terms of choosing
resources to integrate with the software. Similarly, students were constrained in their
possibility to integrate resources on their own, as teachers may decide not to allow or not to
teach students to integrate resources. Consequently, the study shows that in a non-market
environment such as schools, participants in value co-creation cannot be judged the same way
as customers. Hence, the willingness to co-create value cannot be determined by the amount
of resources and co-creating activities that a non-market actor such as a student or teacher
pursues because these actors operate within institutional arrangements which constrain their
actions. As a result, it was found that non-market actors have different relationships among
each other than market actors. This finding is confirmed by Díaz-Méndez and Gummeson
(2012) in the higher education context and similarly to them, this study shows that there is a
need for an understanding of how non-market actors behave differently from market actors
when co-creating value.

8.1.3.2 Compare datasets

Both Customer X and Participant B and C claimed that the possibility to compare datasets
side-by-side would be valuable for end users. Currently this is not possible on the software
and Participants B, C and Customer X found this to be valuable to spur student learning.
Customer X had partially solved the issue by comparing datasets on two identical software
side-by-side, however comparison of two datasets on one software was mentioned as being of
great future value.

8.1.3.3 Information to effectively co-produce value

Dziewanowska (2007) claims that customers decide their level of involvement in co-
production based on available information, which the results confirm. Customer participation
in service design process (Auh, Bell, McLeod and Shih, 2007) and the direct and indirect
cooperation of firms with customers (Hu and McLoughlin, 2012) are two aspects which
define co-production.

46
Participant B and C were most willing to share ideas of how to improve the software, showing
high willingness to cooperate with the company and participate in the service design process.
These participants were satisfied with the dialogue with the company and understood their
role in the relationship with the company, provided more feedback in the co-production
process, showing that they were more active in the process than other participants. They also
had more information about the technical and practical needs of students and teachers in their
schools. On the other hand, Participant A felt that dialogue was lacking, as he didn’t know
what the company aimed for and what their intentions were with the relationship. This caused
him to withdraw from the co-production because he didn’t know what was expected of him.

This study also shows that the information which a customer uses to determine its level of
involvement may come from the service ecosystem. In the case of Customer X, the school
combined the needs of stakeholder schools and their own needs as information utilized to
engage in extensive co-production. Customer X also mentioned how they had discussions
with the company to find out in what ways the company could tailor datasets. This combined
information came from the company and the service ecosystem and resulted in an extensive
project to co-produce datasets. Consequently, Customer X was able to gather expectations
from stakeholders and the company to determine the intentions and aims of the relationship,
which resulted in their active participation in the co-production process.

8.1.4 Perception of value

8.1.4.1 Accessibility
One value of the software is that it makes the subjects studied by students more accessible to
them. This was mentioned by both Participant B and Customer X. Participant B claimed that
accessibility of the subject leads to greater student interest in the subject which is of value for
teachers and students. According to Participant B, the accessibility would lead to “students
who are able to engage and spin the subject to their own interests are the most successful
ones in school and later on.”. This was a notion which was confirmed by Customer X.

8.1.4.2 Time saved

Participants C and D as well as Customer X claimed that it is possible to obtain the same
result as the software provides, using other means. Consequently, there seem to be many
substitutes in the classroom environment for the software. For instance, Customer X claimed

47
that similar results can be obtained using the VR technology. In the main study the teachers
claimed that the downside of using other means to obtain the same result was that it took
longer time for the teacher to get access and compile the necessary materials to create the
same result. Therefore, the software has a unique value of saving time for teachers to prepare
class. This results in teachers having more time to do the actual teaching, according to
Participant B.

For Customer X using other means such as the VR technology had downsides including that
the VR didn’t allow for cooperation and discussion among students while using the
technology because it was a single headset. Contrary to the main study, the substitute resource
for the EdTech software in the replication study, had mild downsides compared to the
workload that was described by teachers in the main study to obtain the same result as the
software.

Although teachers claimed that it was possible to substitute the software with other resources,
both Participant C and D claimed that there were downsides with doing so and therefore they
preferred the software. For Customer X the downsides of using the VR resulted in facilitators
needing to integrate the software and the VR so that students could get the value out of each
resource. This shows that customers sometimes integrate resources to mitigate the downsides
of each resource used, rather than obtaining greater value because the value of each resource
is combined when integrated.

8.1.4.3 Power shift

The possibility of an explorative, student-led classroom discussion was brought up as
valuable by Participants C, D and Customer X. Like Participants C and D, Customer X
claimed that when the EdTech software generates questions among students, valuable
discussions are created, and students may seek out other resources apart from the software to
answer their questions. Customer X talked about students being able to integrate a lot of
resources including the VR, the local zoo, books and the internet to find answers to questions
generated by the software. The possibility to combine resources to create a holistic picture of
the answer and use different perspectives to keep their curiosity alive and to learn more, was
considered most valuable both by Customer X, Participant B and C.

48
Hibbert et al. (2012) suggests that customers may not always know how to integrate resources
effectively to generate the desired value. Participant B highlights this paradox by stressing the
role of qualified teachers who have been educated to know how to teach and how to combine
classroom resources to make students learn the most. The problem was partially solved
through the guided booklets by Customer X where students were guided to engage in
exercises using different resources and discussing the consequences. Unlike the participants in
the main study, Customer X also placed great importance on teaching students how to
integrate resources effectively by teaching them what different technologies can do for them.
This led to Customer X having a more positive attitude towards students resource integrating
on their own, compared to Participants A and B in the main study. It can be argued that the
information of what each resource can provide to students, was lacking among the main study
participants and students, which was the reason for some teachers to place importance on the
teacher role as resource integrator instead of allowing students to do it themselves.

Hibbert et al. (2012) claims that firms may support customers who learn how to efficiently
integrate resources. Customer learning supported by firms, facilitate value co-creation as
customers learn to selectively manage which resources to use to meet their unique aims
(ibid.). This study shows that teaching students to integrate resources is done by teachers
with guided booklets. However, resource integration may not always be taught in schools,
which the participants in the main study claimed.

8.2 Differences
8.2.1. Individual access to the software
A reoccurring theme among all participants in the main study was the need to obtain the
software online or through individual iPads to allow each student to have individual access to
the software during and after class.

This is a finding which contradicts with Customer X. Having the software on five separate
devices was valuable for Customer X because it enabled students to cooperate and discuss
together while sharing the software. This difference among needs is therefore interesting as
Customer X has had the software for a longer time than the participants in the main study and
yet didn’t find sharing of the software sets among students problematic, but rather valuable.
Customer X explained that the class set up often consisted of half of the students working

49
with the VR and the other half with the software and then switching, which may explain how
a whole class of students were able to share few software sets. Customer X’s approach to
using the software by allowing students to cooperate is in line with the school’s aim to teach
students how to integrate resources. The school facilitated students’ resource integration by
teaching them which resources can support them in what way and provided guided booklets to
allow students to learn how to integrate resources. Customer X’s claim that there is a great
value in sharing the software with other students as it facilitates discussion and comparing and
contrasting knowledge, is another example of how the school scaffolds students through
learning how to integrate resources themselves.

Most of the main participants’ reluctance towards allowing students to integrate resources
themselves may suggest that the students won’t get tailored value out of the integration. As
individual resource integration allows the customer to tailor resources to their needs, students
the main study will have a harder time obtaining individualized value as they will not have the
opportunity or the knowledge to do so on their own.

50
9. Discussion and revision of framework
Based on the results and analysis, the theoretical framework was revised to show that
dialogue is of greater importance than the variables customer control and information access.
The interviews from the main study show that all participants claimed that communication
with the company was important to positively evolve the relationship and sharing intentions
was specifically important. Thus, dialogue was a major factor facilitating increased closeness
in relationship to the company. Dialogue was perceived as a prerequisite to give and receive
more information regarding the relationship and the software. It was also perceived as an
enabler for improved communication and information exchange between the parties.
Nevertheless, the foundation for future information exchange lied in firstly understanding the
intentions. Dialogue was also perceived as a prerequisite for gaining more control over the
relationship as being informed about the intentions allowed the customers to understand their
role and contribution to the relationship.

Without dialogue, it was hard for participants to understand their role in the relationship,
resulting in them holding back information and withdrawing from the co-production.
Participants who felt that they had enough information about the company intentions and
aims, contributed more than the others to co-production. These participants provided more
feedback about the user experience and had a deeper discussion about possible developments
of the product to benefit students and themselves. This study also shows that the information
which a customer uses to determine its level of involvement may come from the service
ecosystem. In Customer X’s case, the customer was the one who initiated the co-production
and had already formulated the aims of the co-production with the stakeholders, prior to
contacting the company. This could have made it easier to understand their role in the co-
production because they had initiated it. For the teachers in the main study, the company had
initiated the co-production which is why it may have been harder for the participants to
understand their roles.

Consequently, dialogue was shown to be a stronger facilitator of co-production than

information access and control. Without dialogue the co-production was minimized
significantly among participants. Whereas dialogue could facilitate greater information access
among participants in other respects, the information which was already entailed in dialogue
(sharing of intentions and needs) was most important. Lack of dialogue hindered the

51
participants to co-produce value with the company, because they didn’t know what the
company wanted them to do. Consequently, information access (other information than
intentions and aims of the relationship) and customer control were seen as secondary in
importance to co-produce value.

The theoretical framework is improved as follows:

Figure 2. Revised theoretical framework.

The study confirms that a combination of several resources provide more value than
separately, confirming the results of McColl-Kennedy. However, McColl-Kennedy et al’s
results should be considered with an understanding that there are obstacles such as
institutional arrangements and teacher reluctance to students resource integrating themselves.
These obstacles constrain the actors’ possibility to integrate resources, leading to a smaller
number of resources being integrated during value creation, but not necessarily reflecting a
smaller willingness to co-create because they integrate few resources.

52
For co-production, a teacher guide was perceived as most important as it facilitates the usage
of the software in class by guiding students to understand the main take-aways from each
dataset. Comparing datasets was also important. Regardless of the context of value co-
creation, the results show that if the customer is satisfied with the dialogue from the company
it will be easier for the customer to engage in co-production. Therefore, dialogue facilitates
value co-creation. In both contexts, accessibility to a variety of animals, plants and other
datasets was a unique value. Also, the time saved by teachers to prepare for class due to
having access to the software and its wide range of datasets and 3D scans, was valued in both
markets. Although not valued by all participants, it was found that the software could give
students more power over their own learning in terms of what was learned and when. The
students could also influence their learning by asking questions in class which directed the
teacher onto new tracks and allowed students to guide the aim of class. This was an aspect of
the software, which was possible to be controlled by the teachers, depending upon the framing
exercise which was given to the students. A major difference between the contexts was
whether individual student access to the software was seen as valuable or not. This did not
differ within the Swedish context, as most participants wanted to have individual access to the
software but differed between the markets. Hence, it is not individual perception of value
which differs (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) but possibly a difference in approach to teaching
which may be cultural.

The study also shows that institutional arrangement of the service ecosystem may constrain
non-market actors in their value co-creation. Major stakeholders may constrain teachers’
access to resources or impose their needs into the outcome of the value co-creation as well.
With this finding, the study fills the research gap about providing a better understanding of
non-market actors’ value co-creation process. Previous literature has treated students and
teachers as customers (Krehbiel et al 1997; Chung and McLearny, 2000; Lawrence and
Sharma, 2002; Sanchez-Fernandez, 2010) which is insufficient because students and teachers
may not take on the same roles as traditional customers (Díaz-Méndez & Gummesson, 2012).
This study confirms Díaz-Méndez & Gummesson’s (2012) findings that students and teachers
differ from traditional customers through the constraints placed by the stakeholders and
through institutional arrangements.

53
10. Conclusion
The aims of this study included understanding resource integrating activities with the software
and co-production activities for Interspectral with their customers. The study outlines several
co-production and resource integrating activities which seemed to be non-contextual and
therefore applicable in other contexts outside of this study as well.
The study also found several valuable aspects of the software for students and teachers which
are non-contextual.

The study also aimed to investigate the perceived impact of value co-creation on customers’
relationship with the company. To answer the research questions, interviews were conducted
with five middle school teachers in Sweden who got to use the software in classes for a
month. The results of the study were also confirmed by applying the same interview guide to
the Australian context where the school had used the software for a year in curriculum.

An important take-away from the study is that value co-creation in the context of schools
differs from value co-creation between firms and customers in the market. In the schools,
teachers may constrain students’ learning to resource integrate on their own and the
subsequent creation of unique value for each student. The possibility of students to create
unique value rests on their knowledge of how to integrate resources effectively, which the
teachers decide if they allow the students to do or not. Furthermore, it was found that
teachers are constrained by their service ecosystem when municipalities and government
agencies such as Skolverket constrain the schools’ access to resources through purchasing
agreements.

10.1 Managerial implications

The study finds that dialogue is perceived as the most important factor of value co-creation
and inadequate dialogue may result in customer withdrawal from the value co-creation
process whereas if the customer perceives the dialogue to be sufficient, he will engage in co-
production.

As a result, companies which aim to co-create value with their customers are advised to focus
on having adequate dialogue with their customers, especially at the beginning of the
relationship to make sure that customers have enough information about the intentions and

54
aims of the relationship and subsequently understand their role in the relationship. This will
ensure that customers do not withdraw from the co-production process and are able to pass on
important user experience knowledge to the firm who can improve their products and tailor
products to the needs of customers.

55
11. Limitations and further research
There are a couple of limitations of this study. The study’s sample size was a total of six
semi-structured interviews on average about 45 minutes long, which is too small sample size
to draw significant conclusions and generalize the results.

It is important to note that the participants are early adopters of technological solutions such
as the EdTech software for education and therefore the result do not reflect the general
population’s view of the software.

Another limitation comes from the all respondents being from the same geographical area in
Sweden and in Australia. Since the study did not include respondents from larger cities in
either country, the study is not representative of larger cities where participants may be more
familiar with technological classroom solutions which may impact their value co-creation. To
control for this bias, familiarity with technical classroom solutions were measured and is
presented along with other participant information (Appendix C).

Another limitation is that the study investigates students’ and teachers’ opinions of value co-
creation, through teachers’ perspectives on student opinions. Students opinions were
accounted for by teachers, based on the teachers’ observations of the students in class together
with the software and based on teachers’ questions and discussions about the software with
the students.

Considering the small sample of the study it is suitable for future research to study value co-
creation in other contexts and include schools with different sizes of service ecosystems, as
these were shown to constrict the schools’ value co-creation through access to resources.

56
Bibliography
Akaka, M. A. and Chandler J. D., 2011, Roles as resources: A social roles perspective of
change in value networks. Marketing Theory 11(3) pp. 243-260

Allocca, M. A., and Kessler, E. H. 2006. Innovation speed in small and medium‐sized
enterprises. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(3), pp.279-295.

Anderson, C. J., & Narus, A.J. 1998. Understand what customers value. Harvard Business
Review, 76(6), pp. 53-65.

Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., and Shih, E. 2007. Co-production and customer loyalty in
financial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), pp. 359-370.

Baker, T.L. 1994. Doing social research. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Ballantyne, D. and Varey R.J. 2006. Creating Value-in-Use through Marketing Interaction:
The Exchange Logic of Relating, Communicating and Knowing, Marketing Theory,
Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 33-348.

Bamford. A. 2011. The 3D in Education White Paper.

Boström, L., Sjöström, M., Karlsson H., Sundgren M., Andersson M., Olsson, R., Åhlander
J., 2018. Digital visualisering in skolan. Mittuniversitets slutrapport från förstudien.

Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. and Bell E. 2011. Business Research Methods. 3rd Ed. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Bronack, S., R. Sanders, A. Cheney, R. Riedl, J. Tashner, and N. Matzen. 2008. “Presence
Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning in a 3D Virtual Immersive World. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20(1) pp.59–69.

Chandler, J.D. and Lusch, R.F. 2015. Service systems: a broadened framework and research
agenda on value propositions, engagement and service experience.” Journal of Service
Research 18(1), pp. 6-22

Clardy, A. 2000. Learning On Their Own: Vocationally Oriented Self-Directed Learning

Projects, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11 (2), pp. 105-126.

Collis, J., and Hussey, R. (2013). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and
postgraduate students. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of

micro, small and medium-sized enterprises.

Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4. ed., intern. student ed). Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE.

57
Crosswaite, C., and Curtice, L. 1994. Disseminating research results-the challenge of bridging
the gap between health research and health action. Health Promotion
International, 9(4), pp. 289-296.

De Jager, T. 2017. Perceived advantages of 3D lessons in constructive learning for South

African student teachers encountering learning barriers. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 21(1), pp. 90-102.

Díaz-Méndez, M. and Gummesson, E., 2012. Value co-creation and university teaching
quality: Consequences for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Journal of
Service Management, 23(4), pp.571-592.

Dziewanowska, K. 2017. Value types in higher education–students’ perspective. Journal of

Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(3), 235-246.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger A.E. and Keller B.S. 2003, Supervisory Coaching Behavior,
Employee Satisfaction, and Warehouse Employee Performance: A Dyadic Perspective
in the Distribution Industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (4), pp.
435-458.

European Commission. 2017. What is an SME?. [Online]. [Accessed: 4 Jan 2019]. Available
from: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/sme-
definition_sv.

Fisher, D., and Smith, S. 2011. Co-creation is chaotic: what it means for marketing when no
one has control. Marketing Theory, 11(3), pp. 325-350.

Füller, J., Bartl, M., Ernst, H. and Mühlbacher, H. 2006. Community based innovation: How
to integrate members of virtual communities into new product development.
Electronic Commerce Research. 6(1), pp. 57-73.

Galvagno, M., and Dalli, D. 2014. Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature
review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), pp. 643-683.

Gerjets, P., and Scheiter, K. 2003. Goal configurations and processing strategies as
moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: evidence from hypertext-
based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38, pp.33–41.

Gilbert, L.S. 2002. Going the distance: Closeness in qualitative data analysis software.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(3), pp. 215-28

Giner, G, and Rillo A.P. 2016. Structural equation modeling of co-creation and its influence
on the student’s satisfaction and loyalty towards university. Journal of Computational
and Applied Mathematics, 291, pp. 257-263

Gummesson, E. 1995 Relationship Marketing: Its Role in the Service Economy,

Understanding Services Management 244, pp. 68.

Grönroos, C. 2008. Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-
creates?. European Business Review, 20(4), pp. 298-314.

58
Grönroos, C. and Voima, P., 2013. Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and
co-creation. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 41(2), pp.133-150.

Hibbert, S.A., Piacentini, M.G. and Hogg, M.K. 2012, Service recovery following
dysfunctional consumer participation, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4), pp.
329-338.

Hitachi. 2018. [Online]. [2018-12-04]. Available from: http://social-

innovation.hitachi/eu/about/whitepaper/pdf/cocreatingthefuture.pdf

Hsieh, J.-K., and Hsieh, Y.-C. 2015. Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance
in high-tech companies. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), pp. 2266-2271.

Holbrook, A., Green, M. C., and Krosnick, J. A. 2003. Telephone versus Face-to-Face
Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons
of Respondent Satisfying and Social Desirability Response Bias, Public Opinion
Quarterly, 67: pp. 79–125.

Hu, Y., and McLoughlin, D. 2012. Creating new market for industrial services in nascent
fields. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(5), pp. 322-331.

Interspectral.(2019). [Online]. [2018-12-04]. Available from: http://www.interspectral.com

Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., and Aarikka-Stenroos, L. 2015. Service experience co-creation:
conceptualization, implications, and future research directions. Journal of Service
Management, 26(2), pp. 182-205.

Judson, K.M. and Taylor, S.A., 2014. Moving from marketization to marketing of higher
education: The co-creation of value in higher education. Higher Education
Studies, 4(1), pp.51-67.

Kajornboon, A. B. 2005. Using interviews as research instruments. E-journal for Research

Teachers, 2(1), pp. 1-9.

Khalil, M. K., Paas, F., Johnson, T. E., and Payer, A. F. 2005. Interactive and dynamic
visuali-zations in teaching and learning of anatomy: a cognitive load perspective. The
Anatomical Record (Part B, New Anat.), 286(1),pp. 8–14.

Korakakis, G., Boudouvis, A., Palyvos, A., Pavlatou, E, A. 2012. The impact of 3D
visualization types in instructional multimedia applications for teaching science.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, pp. 145-149.

Leung, H., Lee, H., Mark, K. P., and Lui, K. M. (2012). Unlocking the secret of 3D content
for education. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Teaching,
Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE).

McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Vargo, S.L., Dagger, T.S., Sweeney, J.C. and Kasteren, Y.V., 2012.
Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. Journal of Service
Research, 15(4), pp.370-389.

59
Michel, S., Brown, S. and Gallan, A. 2007. An expanded and strategic view of discontinuous
innovations: deploying a service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36(1), pp.54-66.

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Sage
Publications: Sage Publications.

Normann, R. 2001, Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape. West
Sussex, England: John Wiley.

Normann R. and Ramirez R. 1993. From value chain to value constellation. Harvard Business
Review. 71 (4). pp. 65-77.

Pétavy, F., Céré, J., Tan, C. and Roth, Y. (2012). Online Co-creation to accelerate marketing
and innovation. eYeka, white paper.

Pollock, P.H. III. 2016. The essentials of political analysis. (5. ed.). New York: CQ press.

Prescott, P. A., & Soeken, K. L. 1989. The potential uses of pilot work. Nursing
Research, 38(1), pp. 60.

Prahalad C.K. & Ramaswamy V.2004. Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy &
Leadership, 32(3), pp. 4 – 9.

Prahalad C.K. & Ramaswamy V. 2000. Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business
Review. 78(1), pp. 79-90.

Payne, G., & Grew, C. 2005. Unpacking ‘Class Ambivalence’ Some Conceptual and
Methodological Issues in Accessing Class Cultures. 39(5), pp. 893-910.

Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., and Lowther, D. L. 2010. Educational technology research past
and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 1, pp. 17–35.

Rutner, S. M., & Langley, J. C. 2000. Logistics Value: Definition, Process and Measurement.
International Journal of Logistics Management, 11(2), 73-82.

Schumann, D. W., Peters, J., and Olsen, T. 2013. Cocreating value in teaching and learning
centers. New directions for teaching and learning, 2013(133), pp. 21-32.

Spear, G. E. and Mocker D. W. 1984, The Organizing Circumstance: Environmental

Determinants in Self-Directed Learning, Adult Education Quarterly, 43 (1), pp. 1-10.

Taylor, S. A., & Judson, K. (2014). The Nature of Stakeholder Satisfaction with Marketing
Education. Higher Education Studies, 4(4), pp.89-107.

Tamim, R. M., et al. 2011. What forty years of research says about the impact of technology
on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of
Educational research 81(1) pp. 4-28.

60
Tartaglione, M.A., Cavacece Y., Cassia, F., and Russo, G. 2018. The excellence of patient-
centered healthcare: Investigating the links between empowerment, co-creation and
satisfaction. The TQM Journal, 30(2), pp. 153-167.

Thuy, P. N. (2016). Customer participation to co-create value in human transformative

services: a study of higher education and health care services. Service
business, 10(3),pp. 603-628.

Turner, J. 1997, The Institutional Order: Economy, kinship, religion, polity, law, education in
evolutionary and comparative perspective, New York: Longman Publishing Group.
Sweeney, J. C., Danaher, T. S. and McColl-Kennedy, J. R., 2015. Customer effort in value
cocreation activities: improving quality of life and behavioral intentions of health care
customers. Journal of Service Research, 18(3), pp. 318-335.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal
of marketing, 68(1), pp.1-17

Vinnova. [No date]. Vinnova projektbeskrivning Inside Explorer för skolan. Unpublished.

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers V. J. J. M., Tummers L.G., 2015. A systematic review of co-
creation and co-production. Public Management Review 17 (9), pp. 1333-1357.

Wilson, D. T. 2003. Value exchange as the foundation stone of relationship marketing.

Marketing Theory, 3(1), pp.175-177.

Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: design and methods, 4th edition, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Zeithaml, V. A. 1988. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means- End
Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), pp. 2-22.

61
Appendicies
Appendix A

Fig. 1. Operationalization of the dimensions of the value co-creation process, based on the
literature review.

62
Appendix B

Interview guide for Swedish study

Introduction
- Thank you!
- Clarification of the aim of the study
- Confidentiality agreement - information from the interview will be shared with
Interspectral and included in the thesis however, interviewee names will be excluded.
- Is there a possibility to ask potential follow-up questions per email?
- For the specific purpose of transcription, I would like to have your consent in recording
the interview.

Background of interviewee
1. What is your position at the school?
2. How long have you been with the school?
3. How long have you been working with Inside Explorer?
4. Can you tell me about your organisational chart so that I can understand the interfaces
between different groups?

Relationship with Interspectral

5. How did the collaboration between the school and Interspectral start?

Usage of Inside Explorer

6. What is the age group of students who interact with Inside Explorer?
7. What does the students’ access to the tables look like? Are there any limitations on
students regarding access and use of Inside Explorer?
8. Are there always teachers present by the Inside Explorer to assist students?
9. Tell me about the purposes for which Inside Explorer is currently used at the school?
10. In which subjects is Inside Explorer used at the school?
11. How is Inside Explorer currently used by students?
12. What are the main objectives of the school?
13. What role does Inside Explorer have in meeting these objectives?
14. What is needed for Inside Explorer to support the school in reaching the objectives?
15. What objectives does Inside Explorer fulfil which would not be fulfilled as easily or at all
by normal teaching aids?
16. Are there other ways/substitutes which generate the same results as Inside Explorer does?
17. Does Inside Explorer generate unique value which no other teaching aid/method can
generate? If yes, then what value is that? (It may be beyond the school curriculum)

Value creation process

18. What value do you believe that Inside Explorer provides teachers?
19. What value do you believe that Inside Explorer provides students?
20. Which resources are used in combination with Inside Explorer when teaching?
(Resources defined as teaching material, teachers, parents, other students etc.)
21. Which combination of resources do you think generate most value for the students?
22. Which combination of resources do you think generate most value for teachers?
23. How many different resources do you use together with Inside Explorer when teaching?

Service ecosystem

63
24. Can you tell me about who the main actors (individuals, firms or other organizations) in
a teacher’s network are?
25. What does the interaction between the stakeholders of the school and the
school look like? What are the roles of the main stakeholders? (Stakeholders my include the
municipality, any partner schools etc.)
26. What are the expectations of your stakeholders on the school and how does Inside
Explorer fit into that?
27. Do any of the stakeholders influence the teaching at the school? If yes, then can you
describe in what way? Is there a given process for the interaction?
28. Do any stakeholders influence the relationship of the contact person with Interspectral? If
yes, then in what way?

This part was only used in the Australian case study:

Value co-creation process
29. Can you tell me about the collaboration between the school and Interspectral?
30. Can you tell me about the process of tailoring content of Inside Explorer to the needs of
the school?
31. Who is involved in the process from the school?
32. Are the students involved? In what way? If not, are students’ opinions included when
tailoring the content?
33. Tell me about what value you think that teachers get out of the possibility to tailor the
contents of Inside Explorer?
34. What value do students get out of the possibility for the school to tailor the
contents of Inside Explorer?
35. How does the possibility to tailor the content of Inside Explorer impact teachers?
36. How does the possibility to tailor the content of Inside Explorer impact students?

Ending
- Thank you for your time!
- Possibility to send over the transcribed version of this interview to you, should you want
that.

64
Appendix C

Participant Experience with Age of students Type of

technology similar to taught school
the EdTech software
(on a scale of 1-7,
where 1 = none, 7 = a
lot)
Participant A 4 13-16 years Municipal
Participant B 7 10-11 years Private
technical
school
Participant C 6 15-16 years Municipal
Participant D 6 10-11 years Municipal
Participant E 6 11-12 years Municipal
Table 2. Background of participants in the main study.

Participant Age of students Type of

taught school

Customer X 7-12 Government

sponsored
technical
school
Table 3. Background of Customer X in the second study.

65
Appendix D

Fig. 2 Qualitative data processing from research questions, to broad theoretical themes to
smaller themes.

66