Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-
0577-6

ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Initiating value co-creation: Dealing with non-receptive

customers
1
Avinash Malshe & Scott B. Friend
2

Received: 13 February 2017 / Accepted: 9 February

2018
# Academy of Marketing Science
2018

Abstract
Scholarly emphasis on the significance of integrating customer and supplier work processes to co-create customer value
is increasingly important. While suppliers and customers working closely is imperative for the success of the value co-
creation (VCC) process, customers’ reluctance at times to allow suppliers into their environments has not been fully explored.
The present study is an expansive qualitative inquiry consisting of 114 in-depth interviews across 57 business-to-business
evaluations that aims to understand both the nuanced nature of customer non-receptivity to specific VCC initiatives and
those strategies suppliers may adopt to successfully manage it. Findings elicit three potential kinds of customer non-
receptivity: apathy, ambivalence, and annoyance. Furthermore, conclusions propose six strategies suppliers may use to
manage customer non-receptivity: intrinsic initiative, inspiration and implementation, complexity absorption, value
alignment, credibility building, and objective centrality.

Keywords Value Co-Creation . Customer Non-Receptivity . Customer–Supplier Relationships . Qualitative

Research

1
Introduction Opus College of Business, University of St. Thomas, 1000
LaSalle
Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403, USA
Superior value creation has long been a cornerstone of 2
market- ing and business (e.g., Drucker 1954; Ranjan and Farmer School of Business, Miami University, 800 E. High
Street, Oxford, OH 45056, USA
Read 2016). Scholarly emphasis within the value creation
domain urges the field to focus less on the thing exchanged
and more on the process of exchange (Vargo and Lusch
2004). In this regard, those examining value co-creation
(VCC) within business-to- business (B2B) settings have
emphasized aligning customer and supplier work
processes. Conducting substantial conver- sations
surrounding customer context and the stakeholders in-
volved in VCC, as well as defining customer problems
and customizing solutions, are essential before the
customer and supplier embark on work process integration
(Töllner et al.

Avinash Malshe and Scott B. Friend contributed equally to this

work. Michael Ahearne served as Area Editor for this article.

* Scott B. Friend
friendsb@miamioh.ed
u
Avinash Malshe
amalshe@stthomas.ed
u
2011; Tuli et al. 2007). Such conversations subsequently
allow suppliers to better understand their customers’ latent
and artic- ulated needs, as well as operating processes, in
order to facil- itate the customer–supplier alignment and
integration at the heart of VCC (Blocker et al. 2011; Tuli et
al. 2007).
While a set of economic and psychological rationales
may motivate the customer to participate in the VCC
process (Bendapudi and Leone 2003), customers may not
be univer- sally receptive each and every time a supplier
attempts to analyze their business needs and subsequently
to integrate work processes. Customers may lack
enthusiasm for sup- pliers’ attempts to better understand
their business (Dong et al. 2008) and not allow suppliers
into their social, political, and operational environments
(Payne et al. 2008; Tuli et al.
2007; Vargo and Lusch 2016). Customer passivity toward
VCC may stem from various rationales, including fear of
val- ue co-destruction, potential for resource misuse, or
internal- ized strain if co-created activities fail (e.g.,
Bendapudi and Leone 200 3 ; E t g a r 2 008 ; H eid
enre i ch et a l . 20 15 ; Macdonald et al. 2011; Payne et
al. 2008; Petri and Jacob
2016; Plé and Cáceres 2010; Smith 2013). In turn, such
cus- tomer inertia toward engagement jeopardizes the
supplier’s ability to initiate VCC.
Extant VCC literature has emphasized the importance of
a deeper-level engagement and the subsequent work
process integration between customers and suppliers, and
has simul- taneously implied the potential for customer
passivity toward
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
supplier-initiated efforts. However, no scholarly work to (deLeon and Chatterjee 2017; Edvardsson et al. 2011).
date has closely examined the exact nature of what we From a managerial standpoint, such insights support
term cus- tomer non-receptivity. As the customer’s role in suppliers initiating and managing collabora- tive VCC
VCC garners more focus (Friend and Malshe 2016; Payne et processes that facilitate access to their customers’
al. 2008; Vargo
2008), there is an urgency to address the following
research questions: How do customers conceptualize the
nature of non- receptivity toward the supplier during the
initiation of the VCC process? What behaviors manifest
the customer’s non- receptivity? What are the underlying
reasons for customer non-receptivity? What strategies may
suppliers employ to abate customer non-receptivity and
facilitate VCC initiation?
Against this backdrop, our study examines customer
non- receptivity toward supplier VCC efforts during the
initiation stage. This study uses a discovery-oriented
approach (Deshpande 1983) to understand the customer’s
perspective, which informs each of the stated research
questions. The sam- ple comprises customer informants
from B2B organizations engaged in VCC processes with
long-term suppliers. The data includes 114 in-depth
interviews across 57 B2B evaluation cases. Based on our
findings, we propose that VCC initiation with non-receptive
customers follows a two-part process. The first part
consists of customer non-receptivity assessment, wherein
suppliers pinpoint the exact nature of customers’ non-
receptivity, of which we identify three forms: apathy, am-
bivalence, and annoyance. The second part consists of
cus- tomer non-receptivity management, during which
suppliers may use six strategies to mitigate antecedents
specific to the various forms of customer non-receptivity:
intrinsic initiative, inspiration and implementation,
complexity absorption, value alignment, credibility
building, and objective centrality.
This research brings into sharper focus the customer’s
per- spective on VCC engagement (Verleye et al. 2014),
the di- mensional value of co-production strategies and
drivers that motivate co-creation (Hakanen and Jaakkola
2012), and a broader knowledge regarding how customers
participate in collaborative VCC activities (Jaakkola and
Alexander 2014; Lemke et al. 2011; Payne et al. 2008).
Improved comprehen- sion of customer non-receptivity
may reframe the initiation stage in VCC from
understanding and responding to customer needs (Töllner et
al. 2011; Tuli et al. 2007) to assessing and managing
customer receptivity toward specific VCC overtures.
As assessing customer non-receptivity improves, the
ability to surpass this VCC initiation hurdle also advances.
This study’s efforts align with extant VCC perspectives,
which encourage a process orientation (e.g., improving
cus- tomer involvement, augmented operant resources such
as hu- man capital investments that facilitate a value
mindset) rather than an output perspective (e.g., improving
goods and service, core operant resources such as
instrumental service that facil- itate technical mastery)
environments and help build resistance to competitive
J. of the Acad. Mark. effectiveness and responding to evolving customer
J. of the Acad. Mark.
threats (Ballantyne and Varey 2008; Payne et al. 2008; requirements. These themes represent stage
Vargo and Lusch 2011, 2016).

Literature review

Value co-creation

VCC has been defined as Breciprocal promises of value,

op- erating to and from suppliers and customers seeking an
equi- table exchange^ (Ballantyne and Varey 2006, pp.
344–345). This reciprocal process represents the mutual
expenditure of resources and effort by co-creators
(Heidenreich et al. 2015; McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012;
Sugathan et al. 2017). As such, VCC requires combining
and aligning multiple functions across multiple levels of
the customer–supplier exchange (Storbacka 2011),
facilitating quality interactions between parties (Fryberg
and Jüriado 2009), and combining knowl- edge and skills
(Enz and Lambert 2012; Ramírez 1999).
In their synthesis of the VCC literature, Ranjan and
Read (2016) reveal VCC as a third-order construct
consisting of value co-production (VCP: knowledge,
equity, interaction) and value-in-use (ViU: experience,
personalization, relation- ship). VCP occurs through
collaboration (Lusch et al. 2007) and dialog (Aarikka-
Stenroos and Jaakkola 2012), which rep- resent interactivity
and the motivation for both sides to partic- ipate (Prahalad
and Ramaswamy 2004b). Value is co- produced as a
result of shared problem solving and design, along with
the shared implementation of the core offering (Hakanen
and Jaakkola 2012). Beyond co-production, VCC is fully
defined only when customers have learned how to use and
maintain the offering (Ranjan and Read 2016; Sandström et
al. 2008). Thus, value is determined by the customer, and
value generation leads to ViU (Grönroos 2011). Because
ViU takes place in the customer’s environment, the
supplier must be invited to engage with the customer’s
usage processes to support value creation (i.e., outside-in-
approach; Grönroos
2011).

Customer and supplier engagement in value

co-creation processes

Table 1 provides an overview of select VCC process

frame- works advanced in the literature. In the second
column of this table, we present the phases identified by
each framework. A holistic assessment suggests that the
frameworks collectively embody four stages: (1) define
solutions based on understand- ing customer needs, (2)
design solutions that fit with other customer offerings, (3)
deploy solutions by conforming to the customer during
delivery, (4) debrief solutions by inquir- ing about solution
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
Table 1 Value co-creation initiation and impediments
Source VCC Process VCC Stage Depictions and Equivalencies
Framework
Ballantyne and Varey 1. Relating Relationships occurring over time that give
(2006) – MT support to the creation and application of
knowledge resources [A/D]
2. Communicating Communicative interaction central to
developing relationships [A/D]
3. Knowing Knowledge needed to improve the service
experience obtained through dialogue
and learning together [A/D]
Tuli et al. (2007) – 1. Customer Understanding of the customer’s business
JM Requirements needs and environmental evolutions
Definition leading to future needs [A]
2. Customization Designing, modifying, or selecting
and Integration products to fit into a customer’s
environment that
3. Deployment work well
Delivery together [B] of products
and modification
and their installation into a
customer’s environment [C]
4. Post- Solution maintenance and deployment
Deployment of new products in response to
Customer evolving customer requirements [D]
Support
Pawar et al. (2009) – 1. Defining Value Identifying customer value, needs, and the
IJOPM cost of meeting them in order to
determine the benefits of a solution to the
customer and other stakeholders [A]
2. Designing Value Designing a product-service system
and
identifying the organizational
requirements and capabilities which are
available
or required [B]
3. Delivering Value Selecting the network of partners which
can deliver required capabilities and
Kindström and managing performance to ensure
Kowalkowsk uninterrupted access to value for
i (2009) – customers [C]
JSM 1. Market Sensing Continuous process within the supplier and
in dialogue with the customer to
drive value innovations [A/D]
2. Development Coordinated involvement of front- and
back-end functions across functional and
organi- zational elements to develop value
innovations [B]
3. Sales Commercialization of offering via
visualization of value created and
depiction of customer benefits [B]
4. Delivery Localized value created with the
customer over the duration of the
interaction and integration [C]
Storbacka (2011) – 1. Develop Combining customer value process
IMM Solutions insights and supplier resource
configurations to
create solution portfolios [A/B]
2. Create Demand Communicating available solutions in
order to identify sales opportunities [B]
3. Sell Solution Engaging in a process that turns opportunities
into orders for customer specific solutions
[B]
4. Deliver Solution Delivering the solution and securing long-
term value creation for customer and value
Echeverri and Skålén capture for supplier [C/D]
(2011) – MT 1. Informing Process of supplier and customer
sharing information regarding issues
related to the solution [A]
2. Greeting Manner in which the supplier and
customer approach and address each
other [A/B]
3. Delivering Extensive interaction between supplier and
customer in realization of actual solution
[B/C]
J. of the Acad. Mark.
Non-Receptivity Implications for VCC
Initiation and Progression of the VCC Process
Non-receptive customers may obstruct the initiation of
value-creating activities such that the customer does
not provide necessary support or resources (relating),
interactions central to developing collaborative
relationships (communicating), and/or learning
needed to improve the co-created experience together
(knowing).
Non-receptive customers may be unwilling to share
requisite information with the supplier and/or let the
supplier inside their environment in order to identify
trending requirements (customer requirements
definition), therefore likely stunting the ability to
co-design solutions to fit a customer’s environment
(customization and integration), deliver products
which conform to customer requirements (deployment),
and deploy new products in response to the customer’s
evolving needs (post-deployment customer support).
Non-receptive customers may not offer the necessary
perspective regarding needs or access to relevant
stakeholders to define the benefits required
(defining value),
therein plausibly compromising the understanding of the
system of capability requirements (designing value) and
availability of network partners requisite to facilitate
delivery and performance management (delivering
value).
Non-receptive customers may inhibit exploration
activities needed for learning from the customer and
structuring the supplier offerings in a manner that
generates value
(market sensing). As a result, the design of value
offerings with customer input (development),
advancement of value
measures and sales tools (sales), and making of value
offerings visible for customers (delivery) may be
damaged.
Non-receptive customers may inhibit regular
planning with the customer, research on and
discussions with
the customer into what is valuable, and the involvement
4. Charging Interactive procedure of collecting
payments [C]
5. Helping Supplier assistance to
customers, customer
assistance to suppliers, and
customer members assisting
each other [D]
 ofJ. customers in Mark.
of the Acad. J. of the Acad. Mark.
idea creation and
value
development
(develop
solutions).
Without such
insights, ability
to communicate
available
solutions (create
demand), convert
solution
opportunities into
orders (sell
solution), and
secure long-term
value creation
(deliver solution)
may be all
impaired.

Non-receptive
customers may
inhibit co-
creation by not
sharing insights
with suppliers
and not allowing
suppliers to
bring meaning
or alignment to
information at
hand
(informing). As
a result, adverse
consequences
may ensue with
regard to how
the supplier
approaches the
customer
(greeting),
interacts with
the customer in
order to realize
value provision
(delivering),
collects
on the co-
created
value
(charging)
, and
oversees
interactio
ns with
customers
, between
customers
,
and from the
customers in value
formation (helping).
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.

Table 1 (continued)
Source VCC Process VCC Stage Depictions and Equivalencies Non-Receptivity Implications for VCC
Framework Initiation and Progression of the VCC
Process

Marcos-Cuevas et al. 1. Linking Continuous process of facilitating
(2016) – IMM customer connections and mobilizing
networks by collecting and circulating
knowledge that could be used
collaboratively [A]
2. Materializing Operational practices tightly related to
the demonstration, creation, and
realization
of co-created value offerings [B]
3. Institutionalizing Coordination of institutional design
and structures to continually
capture and retain the value created
[C/D]
Petri and Jacob 1. Problem and Specification of solution deliverables
(2016) – IMM Need Definition through identification of customer
reasons for engaging with a
supplier and analysis of internal
2. Signaling factors [A]
Activities Introductory sequence of inter-process
3–6. See Tuli et management toward the customer
al. (2007) above [A]
See Customer Requirements Definition
[A], Customization and Integration [B],
Deployment [C], and Post-Deployment
Support [D] above
Co-creation practices can take place simultaneously
and not necessarily linearly. Non-receptive
customers who inhibit insights from shared
knowledge (linking) may thus directly mitigate both
the creation of artifacts that realize elements of co-
created value offering (materializing)
and the design of structures to capture and retain
the value created (institutionalizing).
Non-receptive customers may not provide reasons for
engaging with the supplier (problem and need
definition), therein not allowing the supplier to
demonstrate expertise, competence, and commitment to
reducing the customer’s perceived co-creation risks
(signaling activities). Subsequent VCC stages (see Tuli
et al. 2007) would
be restrained as previously depicted.

Journal Key: MT = Marketing Theory; JM = Journal of Marketing; IJOPM = International Journal of Operations & Production Management;
JSM = Journal of Service Management; IMM = Industrial Marketing Management
Stage Equivalencies: A = DEFINE (define solution, understand customer needs); B = DESIGN (design solution, fit with other customer offerings);
C = DEPLOY (deploy solution, conformance to customer during delivery); D = DEBREIEF (debrief of solution effectiveness, respond to evolving
customer requirements)

equivalencies across VCC frameworks (see column three). and cus- tomers gain access to their partners’ resources
A closer look at the stage equivalencies depicted in Table 1 (Kindström
re- veals that the acts of defining and designing are 2010; Payne et al.
instrumental to initiating VCC and require extensive 2008).
engagement from both customers and suppliers. While suppliers may use multiple strategies to cultivate
Extant frameworks generally agree that the supplier VCC, the process inherently relies on customer
must first deeply understand the customer in order to meet engagement (Grönroos 2008; Hakanen and Jaakkola 2012;
its needs (Grönroos and Voima 2013; Payne et al. 2008; Homburg et al.
Petri and Jacob
2016), organize and share information from different
sources
to enable VCC (Grönroos 2011; McColl-Kennedy et al.
2012), and clarify service requirements as VCC
prerequisites (Hakanen and Jaakkola 2012; Nätti et al.
2014). Thus, sup- pliers must start with understanding
customers’ value-creating processes in order to assess their
requirements, and then de- sign processes that align with
customers’ aims (Payne et al.
2008; Powers et al. 2016; Tuli et al. 2007). VCC further
re- quires that suppliers are an integrated element of the
cus- tomers’ business processes (Grönroos 2011) and that
greater opportunities to innovate solutions exist as suppliers
2017; Vargo
J. of the Acad. and
Mark. Lusch 2004). However, suppliers may J. of the Acad. Mark.
strug- gle at times to engage customers in co-creating
solutions (Petri and Jacob 2016) for a variety of reasons,
including (1) value propositions that do not motivate
customers’ active involve- ment (Dong et al. 2008;
Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000); (2) poor VCC process
experiences for customers (Echeverri and Skålén 2011;
Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004c); (3) the po- tential for
misused or deficient resources (Vafeas et al. 2016); (4)
customers that are not motivated to invest the necessary
efforts to co-create (Bendapudi and Leone 2003;
Macdonald et al. 2011; Payne et al. 2008; Petri and Jacob
2016); or (5) prior VCC episodes that have resulted in
value co-destruction (e.g., Prior and Marcos-Cuevas 2016),
value diminution (e.g., Vafeas et al. 2016), and VCC
failures (e.g., Heidenreich et al.
2015; Sugathan et al.
2017).
When customers show an unwillingness to engage with
suppliers, each of Table 1’s four stage equivalencies are
jeop- ardized. As conceptualized in the fourth column,
customer non-receptivity may hamper VCC initiation,
which subse- quently brings the feasibility of latter VCC
process stages into question. Further, a cyclical process
may then reinforce non- receptivity in subsequent VCC
initiation efforts. Such a pro- cess recognizes that VCC is
ongoing as either a series of successive VCC efforts or
multiple VCC initiatives being
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
undertaken simultaneously (see Kohtamäki and Partanen This study utilizes a discovery-oriented qualitative
2016; Vargo and Lusch 2008). Customers and suppliers methodol- ogy, which is appropriate given that the
en- gage in multiple VCC episodes over the course of their literature lacks an
rela- tionship, each one involving supplier and customer
exchanges that focus on specific outcomes (Grönroos and
Voima 2013; Payne et al. 2008; Powers et al. 2016). The
multiplicity of these ongoing efforts means that Beach
instance of resource integration, service provision, and
value creation changes the nature of the system to some
degree and thus the context for the next iteration and
determination of value creation^ (Vargo and Lusch 2011, p.
185).
Viewed collectively, current research recognizes the
impor- tance of customer and supplier engagement in VCC
and iden- tifies a variety of reasons for why a customer may
not be mo- tivated to participate in VCC. Further, research
recognizes VCC as an ongoing endeavor with suppliers and
customers engaged in either a series of successive VCC
efforts or multiple VCC initiatives being undertaken
simultaneously (see Kohtamäki and Partanen 2016; Vargo
and Lusch 2008). Moving forward, however, research is
needed to understand not just the notion that VCC does
not always go satisfactorily, but also that a customer may
recall their shared history of outcomes when a supplier is
attempting to initiate a new VCC episode.
Against this backdrop, our research extends the VCC
liter- ature stream by explicating the different ways in
which cus- tomers may exhibit their non-receptivity to
initiation of a VCC episode. Specifically, our research
recognizes the existence of varied levels of customer non-
receptivity, not as an outcome stemming from sources of
VCC dissatisfaction (Komulainen
2014; Macdonald et al. 2011; Payne et al. 2008), but rather
as a starting point when initiating value co-creation
episodes. Further, we propose recommendations for
suppliers to over- come this initial hesitation toward VCC
propositions in order to proceed with subsequent VCC
processes. In proposing strategies suppliers may
implement to abate customer non- receptivity, our research
addresses the need to identify ways in which suppliers may
encourage their customers to assume an active role in VCC
(e.g., Breidbach and Maglio 2016; Enz and Lambert 2012;
Lambert and Enz 2012; Marcos-Cuevas et al. 2016) when
facing non-receptivity to VCC initiation.
Within Table 1, we highlight the nuances of VCC
stages across each framework, reconsider customer
engagement as- sumptions, and identify how non-
receptivity could therein in- hibit VCC initiation.
Additionally, as stage equivalencies are presented in Table
1, more universal insights are qualified and can be derived
with regard to the impact of non-receptivity on VCC.

Methodology
established theoretical
J. of the Acad. Mark. framework (Deshpande 1983) for of customer receptivity to- ward supplierJ. ofVCC overtures.
the Acad. Mark.
assessing the nature of customer non-receptivity when The diverse points of view we captured facilitated a deep
sup- pliers initiate VCC. Semi-structured interviews with understanding of the phenomenon of interest and
B2B or- ganizational buyers provide data from those strengthened the robustness of our qualitative
involved in the phenomenon of interest, uninfluenced by
past research (Creswell 2007), and void of the imposition
of foreign mean- ings (Gioia et al. 1994). Thus, the
emergent conceptual model is shaped by the views of
customer informants involved in the VCC process (Strauss
and Corbin 1990, 1998).

Sample and data

collection

Discovery-oriented approaches require informants with

knowledge and varying perspectives about the selected
topic and research questions (Creswell 2007; Strauss and
Corbin
1998). To recruit informants, B2B service suppliers
provided a list of current customers and decision makers
within each customer organization. All customers in our
sample had a working history with their suppliers, and the
average contract value within the sample was $11.2 M.
Further, sampled cus- tomers were either currently or
previously engaged in a col- laborative project of
importance with the supplier. Thus, as a starting point, we
had access to a large number of key decision makers across
a range of strategic B2B customers.
From this list, key informants across multiple
industries, companies, and decision-making levels were
theoretically sampled. Specifically, researchers coded data
from an initial round of 10 interviews, and the preliminary
analytical insights directed what data we would
subsequently assemble as the research progressed. As an
example, our initial analysis re- vealed that a wide range of
individuals from within the cus- tomer organization interact
daily with suppliers, make impor- tant supplier-related
decisions, and influence the VCC pro- cess. Accordingly,
we sampled those informants with broad job
responsibilities within customer organizations.
Theoretical sampling also enabled us to capture a
diversity of perspectives on the phenomenon of interest
(Strauss and Corbin 1998). Specifically, our initial
analysis revealed that customers exhibit varying levels of
receptivity toward collab- orative projects with their
suppliers, which in part determines whether or not a
collaborative project succeeds. This insight directed us to
sample data from both successful collaborations wherein
customers were receptive and cases where non- receptive
customers required suppliers’ strategic attempts to abate
such sentiment. Our final sample has a balanced mixture of
cases with receptive and non-receptive customers that ex-
perienced VCC successes and failures. Viewed
collectively, theoretical sampling allows us to capture
perspectives not only from a diverse mix of informants but
also from a diverse set of cases manifesting varying levels
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
findings by allowing us to pinpoint when the emergent quence continues until no new data relationships are
cate- gories hold true (Creswell 2007; Eisenhardt and identified (Malshe and Sohi 2009).
Graebner As an example of this analytical process, the initial data
2007). analysis indicated that some customers are not necessarily
Data were collected through depth interviews with inclined to welcome suppliers into the co-creation process.
decision makers within the customer organizations via
telephone. After general questions initially put informants at
ease, the interview launched into the Bgrand tour^ questions
(McCracken 1988). An interview protocol comprising 25
questions guided the conversations across six domains: (1)
customer needs and expectations from their suppliers, (2)
customer initiatives and strategic planning, (3) supplier
value proposition and cus- tomer solutions, (4)
communication dynamics between cus- tomers and
suppliers, (5) competitor monitoring, and (6) sup- plier
account team effectiveness. Conversations focused on
exploring decision makers’ beliefs and perceptions (e.g.,
Frankwick et al. 2001; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Tuli et
al.
2007) surrounding their collaborative work with the
supplier and the effort the supplier made to integrate work
processes and resources with the customers’ business
during the collab- orative projects. Interview questions were
individuated, mean- ing probing questions encouraged
informants to offer exam- ples, anecdotes, clarifications,
and other details.
Our informants were not introduced to the extant VCC
definitions or prevalent VCC frameworks before or during
the interview. This was done to ensure that the emergent
the- oretical framework of customer non-receptivity during
VCC initiation was shaped by the views of informants
involved in the collaborative VCC process (Strauss and
Corbin 1990,
1998) and not imposed upon by foreign meanings (Gioia
et al. 1994). All interviews were audio-recorded and tran-
scribed, resulting in a dataset of over 1400 pages of
double- spaced transcripts. The final sample consists of
114 infor- mants across 57 business customers (see
Appendix A).

Data analysis

We used QSR International’s NVivo software to manage

the data. Data were coded using open coding and axial
coding. Open coding classifies and organizes quotations
(in-vivo codes, i.e., the actual language used by
informants) into first-order categories based on likenesses
and parallels. Axial coding examines these in-vivo codes to
identify relationships between and within the first-order
categories, resulting in the grouping of second-order
themes (Strauss and Corbin 1998), which provide the basis
for the emergent theoretical model. Specifically, the
progression from second-order themes to each of the
theoretical model parts emerges from the underly- ing
relationships among the various themes. The iterative se-
Subsequent
J. of the Acad.analysis
Mark. revealed that such non-receptivity Across our data, VCC is evident in myriad forms.
J. of the As an
Acad. Mark.
varies in nature and underscored the need to identify factors ex- emplar VCC episode, Case 21 presents a customer
that may engender and influence this phenomenon. (hospital)
Subsequent analy- sis revealed a variety of strategies that
address specific ante- cedents of customer non-receptivity.
As we investigated this phenomenon further, our
informants’ insights revealed that when certain conditions
are met, customers’ non-receptivity toward the suppliers’
VCC initiation overtures may abate. Table 2 provides a
summary of the in-vivo codes, first-order categories, and
second-order themes that are the basis of our emergent
conceptual model.

Reliability and
validity

In order to maximize the trustworthiness, validity, and rigor

of our qualitative analysis and the resultant insights, we
followed several well-established techniques
recommended by Silverman and Marvasti (2008) and
used by Malshe and Sohi (2009). First, all interviews were
transcribed verbatim, and NVivo software was used to
store, organize, and analyze the data, providing
comprehensive data treatment and allowing for thorough
data inspection. Second, two experts in qualitative
methodology who are not involved in this study were asked
to audit the coding of 25 randomly selected inter- views to
gauge the plausibility of conclusions reached. A debriefing
of the audit provided an unbiased scrutiny of the emergent
findings. Third, we insured refutability by thorough- ly
examining whether the emergent relationships among a set
of constructs held true across a variety of industries,
compa- nies, informant decision-making levels, and case
characteris- tics (e.g., VCC successes versus failures).
Within this assess- ment, findings remained consistent
across multiple contexts. Fourth, we engaged in constant
comparison by grouping an- swers to common questions
across multiple informants and analyzing the variety of
perspectives emerging from our data specific to that
question. As data analysis progressed, new data were
added to the existing groupings of responses. This process
continued until no new perspectives on any specific topic
emerged. Further, we compared analytical insights gained
through this process to a subset of 10 cases absent from the
analysis in an attempt to deduce new perspectives and
validate emergent findings. No new insights were
revealed. Finally, we performed deviant case analysis by
specifically looking for contexts offering substantially
different insights on the phenomena of interest and tried to
ascertain the under- lying logic giving rise to the
discrepancy. We found no deviant cases in our data.

Findings
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
Table 2 In-vivo codes, first-
order categories, and second-
order themes
J. of the Acad. Mark.
In-Vivo Codes First-Order Categories Second- Stage
Order
Themes
• We hardly talk with on- • Infrequent interaction Apathy Non-Receptivity
site Assessment
manager
• Rare relationship building • Non-excited customer
• Supplier not eager to learn • Supplier’s perceived value
• Supplier doesn’t add
much value
• It is a matter of competency • Questionable competency Ambivalence
• Supplier never listens
• Supplier never responds • Questionable commitment
to what we tell them
about
• Not sure what they
are thinking
• Being taken for granted Annoyance
• We are made to feel
like second-class
customers
• We are being taken for granted • Supplier unfairness
• They (supplier personnel) • Supplier arrogance
are arrogant
• They (supplier personnel)
feel
they are special
• Intrinsic motivation • Taking initiative Intrinsic Initiative Non-Receptivity
• Being in the driver’s seat Management
• Being intrinsically proactive • Being intrinsically motivated
• Taking initiative
• Inspire • Provide inspiration Inspiration
and
• Implementation Implementation
• Provide vision • Implement
successfully
• Think outside the box
• Understand how we • Investment to Complexity
function understand customer Absorption
• Interrelated and complexity
interdependent parts
• Complexity • Proactive in
identifying customer
problems
• Adaptation • Modifying work processes
to fit customer uniqueness
• Shared values and ethics • Value systems in sync Value Alignment
• Culture
• Supplier perspectives • Supplier culture
• Supplier’s conduct • Being on the same page
and approach to with the supplier
work
• Building confidence • Building credibility Credibility
• Being on top of things Building
• Building greater trust • Building confidence
• Exceptional recovery
effort Objective
• Customer objectives • Unwavering focus on Centrality
customer objectives
• Commitment to • Customer objective supremacy
customer goals
• Embrace our vision
• Help us meet our
objectives
experiencing issues with cleaning equipment and lacking
J. of the Acad. Mark.
con- trol systems. Equipment breakdowns were causing
long downtimes and the need to reallocate customer
resources to ensure equipment failure did not affect the
facility. The indus- trial service supplier, long entrenched in
the customer account,
J. of the Acad.
recognized the problem and asked the customer toMark.
share
equipment history data, which the customer did. The
supplier then drew upon its expertise and, in consultation
with the customer, created an Bemployee work order
program^ that incentivized employees to find and report
current or potential
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
equipment problems. The supplier developed the program, Our analysis also reveals that apathetic customers rarely
trained employees, and implemented the solution. The respond to suppliers’ requests to discuss deeper-level work
pro- gram affirmed that supplier personnel were delivering process integration and likely withhold insights from
value. This co-created solution saved time and resources suppliers
(i.e., pro- vided value) for the customer on an ongoing
basis.
While the above vignette exemplifies an episode
wherein the customer is receptive to supplier VCC
initiation efforts, our data also revealed many VCC
episodes in which cus- tomers were less receptive.
Specifically, our inductive analysis reveals that at times,
customers may exhibit non-receptivity toward suppliers’
VCC initiation overtures, of which we iden- tify three
forms: apathy, ambivalence, and annoyance during VCC
initiation. Underlying these forms of non-receptivity are six
supplier-specific reasons and three customer-specific rea-
sons, which form the antecedents to customers being non-
receptive to VCC initiation. Further, our subsequent
analysis identified six strategies that help suppliers address
customer non-receptivity toward their VCC initiation
overtures (see Fig. 1a). Subsequently, based on empirical
evidence present in our data, we propose a causal model
which delineates rela- tionships between the above-
identified constructs, beginning with assessing customer
non-receptivity origins and followed by supplier
management of that non-receptivity when neces- sary (see
Fig. 1b and Table 3).

Assessment of customer apathy

We define customer apathy as customers’ indifference

toward suppliers’ VCC initiation overtures. Such apathy is
evidenced in customers that are unmotivated to engage
more deeply be- yond day-to-day supplier interactions. The
quotes below from two different cases exemplify this
condition. These customers clearly signal that they do not
care to move toward a more integrated exchange by
sharing critical information or allowing the suppliers to
increase their involvement in cus- tomers’ strategic
matters; they only want to consume the core supplier
offering and maintain the status quo.

We don’t really share all the information with

(Supplier) regarding our objectives. We treat that as a
need to know thing. (Supplier) knows what they need
to know. [Senior Director, Logistics and Inventory
Control – Case 20]

I think the way it looks right now is fine. I can’t see

the relationship getting to be more intimately involved
with strategy. I think it is okay the way it currently is.
[Chief Financial Officer – Case 37]
thatJ. of
would help
the Acad. initiate VCC. Instead, apathetic customers
Mark. Supplier incompetence We define supplier incompetence
J. of the Acad. Mark.
interact with suppliers at an operational-level to simply as the supplier ’s inability to optimally perform
ensure that contract terms are fulfilled. Such customer routine
apathy toward VCC initiation stems from specific origins.
We identify two supplier-specific antecedents (supplier
inertia, supplier incom- p e t e n c e ) a n d o n e c u s t o m
e r - s p e c i f i c a n t e c e d e n t (commoditization) that
engender customer apathy.

Supplier inertia Supplier inertia is characterized as

suppliers’ satisficing to merely meet customers’ contract
terms without working to provide added value. Specifically,
when our infor- mants felt suppliers needed to be pulled
along rather than being inherently proactive or that they
had to make specific requests to suppliers before they
would go beyond their nor- mative work to help out the
customer, those customers grew indifferent. In the
following quote, an informant illustrates supplier inertia,
which then leads to reduced participation in potential VCC
initiatives proposed by the supplier.

It seems like we have to pull to get them to drive for

optimization and improvement of our network. A lot
of what (Supplier) does is respond to information
requests from us instead of proactively learning our
business and then producing suggestions to optimize
our network. I feel that it is more of a pull from us
than a push from (Supplier). [Senior Director, Supply
Chain Finance – Case 1]

Our analysis further indicates that customers view their

suppliers as satisficing when they are treated as just one of
many customers that the suppliers work with. This
treatment signals that customers may not be getting the
special attention they feel they deserve, thereby triggering
an apathetic re- sponse to VCC overtures. As the
informant quoted below suggests, when suppliers are
perceived to stereotype cus- tomers’ businesses, those
customers may feel that supplier inertia is hindering their
ability to identify and offer solutions for their end users.

Right now they are mainly treating this as your

stereo- typical BChicken Fried Steak^ southern
facility, but that stereotype doesn’t quite work.
Sometimes I think like that too and then I am
surprised to see the kind of people that buy these
organic juices, for example. So they could break out of
that thinking and experiment a little. Variety is one
item, but also healthy choices and recycling. There
are no Bgreen^ efforts at all right now. [Area
Facilities Manager – Case 46]
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
Fig. 1 a. Conceptual model for
assessing and managing
customer non-receptivity to
value co-crea- tion. b. Proposed
causal model for assessing and
managing customer non-
receptivity to value co- creation
operational task and/or think strategically. Our informants
not- ed that when they recognize that their suppliers lack
the basic aptitude to perform routine operational tasks, it
erodes cus- tomers’ interest in partnering with suppliers on
new VCC initiatives. The quote below highlights how a
customer per- ceives its supplier to be incompetent. In this
case, the customer subsequently ignored VCC requests
from this supplier since their interest in working with the
supplier was completely eroded.
We often have to catch their mistakes rather than
them catching their mistakes. An equipment swap out
and service change is a highly sensitive area and they
tout this team that they have dedicated to this and I
have been very unimpressed with that team. This
most recent
J. of the Acad. Mark.
example was another occurrence of my being unim-
pressed. [Assistant Vice President, Procurement –
Case
56]
Further, even when suppliers adequately handle day-to-
day tasks, their inability to think strategically, inspire
customers to see the big picture, or provide strategic
direction all stoke customer apathy. The informant quoted
below works with a supplier who appears to show no
strategic, forward-looking thinking ability. Evidence from
this case shows that the cus- tomer did not engage with the
supplier at a deeper level, stalling future VCC overtures.
They come and do a presentation and show how the
year is, but they don’t have a strategic planning
session for
Table 3 Antecedents, manifestations, and strategies for managing customer non-receptivity
Underlying Reasons
for Non-Receptivity
Antecedents
• Supplier Inertia – Supplier
satisficing to just meet terms
of contract and not making any
effort to go above and beyond
in order to provide added value
• Supplier Incompetence –
Supplier inability to optimally
perform
routine operational task and/or
think strategically
• Commoditization – Customer
viewing their supplier offering
to be a dispensable
commodity
• Symptom Fixation – Supplier
fixated on alleviating the
overt symptoms of the
recurring problems leaving
the root cause(s) unaddressed
• Lack of Follow-Through –
Supplier inability to appraise and
offer feedback to the customer
during
their ongoing interactions
• Expectation Disconfirmation –
Invalidation of customer
expectations and beliefs about
the value supplier brings to
the table
• Supplier Rigidity – Supplier
overt inflexibility in adapting
their own systems and work
processes to better fit
customer needs
• Supplier Egocentricity –
Supplier simply looking out
for their own interests and
ignoring their customers’
interests
• Resource Drain – Customer
perceiving supplier interactions
to be a drain on resources
owing to the lack of equitable
collaborative gains
Non-Receptivity Customer Behaviors
Engendered That Reflect the Nature
of Non-Receptivity
Forms Manifestations
• Customer Apathy – • Dispirited about engaging
Indifference toward with supplier personnel
supplier VCC at a deeper level
initiation overtures • Lethargy in responding to
and following through on
supplier requests
• Unresponsiveness toward
supplier VCC overtures
• Customer • Noticeable lack of
Ambivalence – confidence regarding
Noticeable supplier motivations to
hesitation toward serve them
supplier • Hesitation toward
VCC initiation information sharing – even
overtures when specifically requested
by supplier
• Uncertainty surrounding the
return on invested time
and resources in VCC
overtures proposed by
supplier
• Customer
Annoyance – • Irritation toward and
Overt aversion and resentment of
resentment toward supplier
supplier VCC • Watching over supplier
initiation closely to protect their own
overtures interests
• Dissuading supplier from
proposing new VCC
episodes
Supplier Strategies Means by which Strategy Evidence of Customer
for Managing Helps Supplier Abate Reduction in Non-Receptivity
Non-Receptivity Non-Receptivity
Strategies Mechanisms Outcomes
• Intrinsic Initiative – Proactively • Signals supplier can be self-driven • Abatement of customer
looking for ways to serve the and no longer has to be dragged indifference and lethargy
customer at all times, even when along to provide value-added toward supplier VCC
things are going well • Triggers new strategic conversations overtures
within dyad • Customer seeing the potential
• Inspiration and Implementation – • Shows supplier can proactively sense for supplier offering to be
Inspiring the customer to set more customer’s future needs and more than just a commodity,
challenging goals and collaborating stimulate strategic thinking thereby enhancing the potential
with them to achieve the same • Shows supplier has ability to bring for deeper-level engagement
concrete and crucial value to table with supplier
• Complexity Absorption – Taking a • Enhances supplier ability to look • Customer exhibiting reduced
deeper dive to understand the beyond symptoms and hesitance toward supplier
customer’s business intricacies and understand customer problems at and greater confidence in
adapting work processes to address deeper level their abilities and
potential challenges and • Enables supplier to jointly determine motivations
opportunities beneficial work processes with • Customer open to investing
customer and follow through on time and resources in supplier
varied customer suggestions VCC overtures
• Value Alignment – Making concerted • Fosters trust and work • Customer exhibiting
efforts to highlight common values process integration, which willingness to listen to
shared, fortifying customer core provides foundation for supplier and make suggestions
values, and helping customer act upon information exchange and which they feel confident will
those values collaboration be acted upon
• Allows supplier to match
customer expectations and show
how they are trying to fulfill them
• Credibility Building – Actively
working to instill confidence in the • Demonstrates willingness to take • Mitigated customer
customer to secure trust and/or accountability of failures aversion toward supplier
reinforce thought leadership image • Overcomes self-serving nature by • Customer less dissuasive
ad- dressing customer expectations of supplier initiatives
• Builds customer confidence that the • Customer exhibiting less
resources they may invest in VCC resentment of suppliers
• Objective Centrality – Giving will not go to waste • Customer being more trusting
customer objectives primacy over their • Customer primacy addresses of their suppliers and
J. of the Acad. Mark.
own and communicating the same perception of supplier their motivations
egocentricity
• Forces supplier to adapt to customer
systems and processes to better
serve
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
the next year…since (Supplier) is a partner, that is
an idea where they could show initiative. We aren’t
seeing that. [Inventory Data Supervisor – Case 17]
Commoditization We define commoditization, a
customer- specific antecedent, as customers viewing their
suppliers’ offerings as dispensable commodities. Our
analysis reveals that when customers perceive their
suppliers’ products as having little strategic value, their
interest in investing addi- tional resources to engage with
their suppliers is dimin- ished, which in turn generates
apathy toward supplier VCC overtures. In the quote
below, the informant views the supplier’s offering purely
as a cost rather than an added benefit.
Any transportation company is a cost factor. It can’t
be anything else because it is part of the cost of the
sale. It is not product development; it is distribution
cost which is allocated to the goods. It is an expense
against sales. [Director, Global Sourcing – Case 33]
Our analysis further reveals that the customer’s view-
point about how the supplier offers strategic value contrib-
utes significantly to commodity perception. If the
customer views the supplier ’s value merely from an
operational standpoint, then the solution is regarded as a
commodity. As a result, the customer is not motivated to
engage deeply with the supplier. The quote below
provides insight into the supplier’s relative importance to
the full scope of the customer’s business. Specifically,
this informant does not believe that food service will
help improve key perfor- mance indicators for the
hospital and is consequently dis- inclined to invest
resources in VCC initiatives proposed by this supplier.
The level of strategic partnership between our
hospital and food service is of about average
importance. At this point in time I don’t see food
service driving any volume at our hospital. I look
more to whether or not people have complaints. Do
they think the food is adequate? [Chief Financial
Officer – Case 37]
Based on the above discussion, we propose the
following antecedents of customer apathy:
P1: The greater the customer’s perception of (a)
supplier inertia, (b) supplier incompetence, and (c)
commoditization, the greater the likelihood of customer
apathy during the VCC initiation stage.
J. of the Acad. Mark.
Management of customer apathy
Suppliers may use two strategies that emerged from our
in- ductive analysis to address customer apathy: intrinsic
initia- tive and inspiration and implementation. We
explain how these two approaches attenuate the underlying
causal mecha- nisms that drive customer apathy, therein
allowing suppliers to manage non-receptivity and guide the
customer toward VCC initiation.
Intrinsic initiative We conceptualize intrinsic initiative as
the supplier proactively looking to better serve the custom-
er at all times, even when things are going well. This ap-
proach is represented by suppliers engaging in deeper-
level conversations with customers that extend beyond
day-to- day concerns. We find that when suppliers
contribute dis- course and ideas to the relationship, they
signal to the cus- tomer that they are no longer going to be
a passive partic- ipant in the customer–supplier
relationship. This cue may help suppliers address
customers’ indifference and lethargy toward them and
their VCC efforts. As the quote below indicates, our
informants confirm the importance of sup- pliers’ intrinsic
initiative in motivating customer engage- ment.
Specifically, this informant suggests an expectation that
the supplier be self-motivated and act like a partner
rather than a vendor.
Mainly, be proactive. I think that would also show
better results. They have to be at the top of their
game and innovate and suggest. What I am talking
about is a self-driven motivation. They have to drive
themselves. I just had some ideas I shared with you,
like the zoning. Just give me some solid evidence and
make a good case. I think we need a partner, not a
vendor. I think that’s where the whole situation is so
disappointing to me. [Chief Operating Officer – Case
16]
Inherent proactiveness on the supplier’s part may help
change customers’ perceptions that the supplier is of little
strategic value, thereby engendering enthusiastic responses
during VCC initiation. The informant quoted below
indicated that the supplier’s initiative in response to its
expressed con- cerns helped revive the supplier’s perceived
potential at the onset of the relationship, subsequently
changing the infor- mant’s receptivity toward the
supplier’s VCC initiation overtures.
The things they are trying to do now with the
recommendations—this post-discussion rejuvenation—is
showing us the (Supplier) that we signed up for. I
think they have been making recommendations around
J.optimi- zation
of the Acad. and better efficiencies and doing data
Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
analysis to
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
provide us with the best scenarios. That is what we
are looking for. [Director, Managed Services – Case
17]
J. of the Acad. Mark.
Based on the discussion above, we propose that
suppliers’ proclivities to serve customers via intrinsic
initiative likely lay the groundwork for initiating and
fostering meaningful

Inspiration and implementation The second emergent

mech- anism to manage customer apathy, inspiration and
implemen- tation, is conceptualized as the supplier’s ability
to focus the customer on achieving more challenging goals
as well as col- laboratively developing and successfully
implementing pro- grams to achieve them. Our analysis
reveals that when sup- pliers inspire and implement,
customers raise the bar for them- selves, and their suppliers
help these aspirations become real- ity. This strategy
reduces customer apathy, which stems in part from the
customer questioning the supplier’s competency. As the
quote below indicates, this customer’s supplier is able to
inspire and assist the customer’s achievement of higher
goals. The supplier’s willingness to take the first step
motivates the customer to collaborate on a strategically
important initiative that will help them improve their
patient satisfaction scores.

(Supplier) always tries to raise the benchmark for

them- selves. We have a very aggressive customer
satisfaction program in place and (Supplier) has
been very active and positive in trying to respond to
concerns that might have come across our Press
Ganeys. They are always looking for opportunities to
present that ‘wow’ factor to our patients. [Chief
Executive Officer – Case 50]

A supplier’s ability to inspire is also beneficial when

the customer perceives that the supplier could provide new
stra- tegic direction that has the potential to become a
future strate- gic focus for the customer. As the informant
below indicates, the customer looks for the supplier to
provide a vision and collaborate to take its food service
program to the next level. The quote manifests that
supplier inspiration is likely to en- gender greater customer
engagement and excitement in future collaborative
programs proposed by this supplier.

I think we need more of it. We need help in creating

and shaping the vision of what we want food services
to be. This doesn’t solely rest with (Supplier), it also
rests with the hospital. We need to develop that vision
around cus- tomer service and what we want food
service to be and then coming up with a mutual plan
to execute on that. I don’t think we are completely
there. [Vice President, Human Resources and
Administration – Case 36]
conversations
J. of the Acad. that
Mark.may move suppliers beyond the routine J. of the Acad. Mark.
terms of the contract (supplier inertia) while also helping
cus- tomers see the strategic potential of their suppliers
(commod- itization). In addition, suppliers’ abilities to
motivate and di- rect customers toward higher aspirations
via inspiration and implementation could suggest that
suppliers complement the customers’ long-term vision and
can facilitate such goals (sup- plier incompetence), as well
as foster and become integral to the customer’s strategic
initiatives (commoditization). As such, suppliers may
apply both intrinsic initiative and inspira- tion and
implementation to reduce customer apathy.

P2: The greater the supplier’s (a) intrinsic initiative and

(b) inspiration and implementation abilities, the lesser the
custom- er apathy during the VCC initiation stage

Assessment of customer
ambivalence

We define customer ambivalence, the second type of non-

receptivity to emerge from our inductive analysis, as cus-
tomers exhibiting noticeable hesitation in response to
supplier VCC initiation overtures. Our analysis proposes
that ambiva- lent customers understand and appreciate the
value of engag- ing in VCC with their focal suppliers, yet
they are apprehen- sive about the return on their invested
time and resources in such efforts. In the quote below, the
supplier failed to act upon customer information and
address customer concerns ade- quately, which raised
questions in the customer’s mind about the supplier’s
priorities, motivations, and commitment to its account.
This customer’s subsequent accounts suggest that the
uncertainty felt while dealing with the supplier led to the
cus- tomer ignoring the supplier’s VCC overtures.

We have talked on a couple of occasions. I don’t know

if the gravity of our concerns has been conveyed to
him. He was here the week before last and we spent
a few moments talking after I met with Jordan, the
manager. I think he believes he will be able to
straighten things out. I don’t have that kind of
confidence. This has been an ongoing problem for
too long. [Jail Superintendent – Case 11]

In the next quote, we encounter a customer that is

uncertain about how some of the supplier’s currently
implemented sys- tems help the customer’s business run
better since evidence suggests the contrary. Consequently,
the customer exhibits no- ticeable uncertainty regarding how
to best partner with the sup- plier, what such activities
would entail, what kind of resource investment would be
needed, and what the payoff would be.
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
I know that we have some waste monitoring systems
out there but I don’t know that they work that well…I
know that it is a measuring device but I don’t know
how it operates. The systems themselves seem to
work okay but the haulers seem to not pay attention
to the pickup call. [Assistant Buyer – Case 54]
When customers have such experiences, their
ambivalence forces them to scrutinize and question
suppliers’ requests for information, rigorously discern
which supplier initiatives to respond to, and decide
whether to make suggestions to their suppliers in the
uncertainty of how those suggestions will be handled. Such
customer ambivalence toward suppliers’ VCC initiation
overtures stems from specific antecedents. We iden- tify
two supplier-specific antecedents (symptom fixation, lack of
follow-through) and one customer-specific antecedent (ex-
pectation disconfirmation) that contribute to customer
ambivalence.
Symptom fixation We conceptualize symptom fixation as
sup- pliers being fixated on alleviating the overt symptoms
of re- curring problems while leaving the root cause(s)
unaddressed. Our informants note that while problems are
expected occa- sionally in a long-term customer–supplier
relationship, they expect suppliers to pinpoint the source of
these problems and resolve them when they occur.
However, when they witness suppliers only working to
alleviate symptoms rather than ad- dressing the problem’s
origin, their confidence in suppliers wavers. The informant
quote below highlights how the cus- tomer views the
supplier to be all talk, with little meaningful action taken to
address the problem’s root cause.
(Supplier) needs to dig into it rather than saying ‘here
is the data.’ The report itself at face value is okay but
I would like to see some action behind it. Something
that would solve not just the symptom but the cause
of it. [Director, Logistics and Distribution – Case 45]
Symptom fixation is also evident in suppliers’ focus on
appeasing customers’ overtly expressed feelings without
at- tending to deeper concerns. In the informant quote
below, when faced with a forceful customer reaction to the
supplier’s suggestion, the supplier simply backtracks and
yields to cus- tomer demands. While possibly well-
intentioned, capitulating to customer discord without
discussing the pros and cons of customer suggestions can
result in substandard outcomes. Our informants noted that
their confidence in suppliers’ expertise was likely to erode
when the suppliers only provided what customers asked for
without assessing the merits of fulfilling these requests.
J. of the Acad. Mark.
I can be forceful and when a suggestion is brought up…
I may be skeptical and that causes (Supplier) to retreat
be- fore they really explain the reasons for the new
idea. I am not sure that I am not to blame, often. I
would like to feel that they are the experts and I am
not. I don’t want to be asked what I want so that
(Supplier) can just do what I say. [Associate Vice
Chancellor, Auxiliary Services – Case 41]
Lack of follow-through
Another supplier-specific antecedent that may spark
cus- tomer ambivalence is a lack of follow through. We
conceptu- alize lack of follow-through as the supplier’s
inability to ap- praise and offer feedback to the customer
during their ongoing interactions. Specifically, if suppliers
do not follow through on provided feedback and inform
customers how they have han- dled their suggestions,
customers are uncertain about whether the feedback was
seriously considered. Our informants reveal that lack of
follow-through may cause customers to question suppliers’
commitment and motivation to serve their accounts, thereby
sparking customer ambivalence. The quote below re- flects
this process.
Sometimes with this IT work they will ask us to send
a report with examples of the missing data and so
forth. It will go for weeks or months and you won’t
get an an- swer regarding the nature of the issue, or
you will just hear that they are working on it. When
you readdress it, they will say we should send more
reports. You get a feeling that you are in a loop. We
send reports but we don’t get any feedback.
[Logistics Manager – Case 45]
In other instances, lack of follow-through manifests
sup- pliers’ inability to deliver on promises made. In such
cases, suppliers would engage with the customers and
deliver a joint plan of action that later faltered due to
supplier inaction. If customers do not see follow-up action
from suppliers, they perceive supplier feedback as an
empty promise, which may cause customers to doubt
supplier motivation and commitment.
I met with Robyn and she agreed with my issues, but
nothing ever came out of this. Typical (Supplier). It
got lost in bureaucracy. I mean the account team
under- stands, it just gets stuck in all these other
departments. The message is not getting to the CEO
or the CFO. It’s not getting to (Supplier’s) ivory
tower. [Senior Program Manager – Case 48]
Expectation disconfirmation
As a customer-specific antecedent, we define
expectation disconfirmation as the invalidation of
customers’ expectations
J. of the Acad. Mark. and beliefs about the value J. of the Acad. Mark.
suppliers bring to the table.
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
Expectation disconfirmation may be a function of either a
single or a series of sub-optimal experience(s) the
customer has with a supplier, or the supplier’s inability to
keep improv- ing on its previous performance. When
customers engage in long-term relationships, they expect
expertise and leadership from their suppliers. However, as
illustrated in the quote be- low, when customer
expectations are unmet, customers begin to question the
fundamental assumptions that underlie their relationships
and any future requests that suppliers may make.
If I have to tell them what to do, then it takes away
the benefit of outsourcing. If the regional person
from (Supplier) calls and wants to talk about a zoning
concept and I have to tell them what it means—that is
not at all any representation of what I would be
looking for. If (Supplier) comes back and says that
they have used zoning but they give me reasons why
their alternative is better and can show the better
system and show the results, then that is the kind
conversation I would want to hear. I could accept not
doing zoning if there is some empirical evidence.
[Chief Operating Officer – Case 16]
In other cases, when customers see that suppliers are
not investing resources in improving their own performance
year after year, it does not meet their expectations, making
them feel unsure about the value they currently receive
and will continue to receive.
They say the right things—they give us updates on
what they are doing to reduce delivery cycle times. I
have seen an improvement over my previous courier,
but I have not seen (Supplier) improve over its own
delivery times. The delivery cycle times are
acceptable and I understand they are going through
these growing pains themselves, but I do expect
incremental improvement year over year. [Vice
President, Fulfillment – Case 8]
Based on the above discussion, we propose the
following antecedents of customer ambivalence:
P3: The greater the customer’s perception of (a)
symptom fixation, (b) lack of follow-through, and (c)
expectation dis- confirmation, the greater the likelihood of
customer ambiva- lence during the VCC initiation stage.
Management of customer
ambivalence
Our analysis revealed two strategies that suppliers may
imple- ment in order to address the antecedents that drive
customer
J. of the Acad. Mark.
ambivalence and guide the customer toward VCC
initiation: complexity absorption and value alignment.
Below, we expli- cate the nuances of both concepts.
Complexity absorption We define complexity absorption as
suppliers working rigorously to understand their
customers’ business intricacies and subsequently to adapt
work processes to meet potential challenges and harness
opportunities. Our informants note that by making
concerted attempts to absorb the complexity of customers’
businesses, suppliers begin to get a grass roots–level
understanding of the problems cus- tomers are facing. Such
knowledge allows them to differenti- ate between the
symptoms and the real problems the cus- tomers have, in
turn they can better address root causes and customer
ambivalence. In the quote below, an informant high- lights
the importance of the supplier being embedded within the
customer business and being able to recognize what
Bassociates are hearing^ to assist them better.
I know one thing I want is for (Supplier) to appear to
the facility as more than just a contract vendor. They
should attend employee forums. I don’t want a
different nametag to exempt them out from
participating with the rest of the staff. They don’t
attend associate forums. They really need to attend
those to hear the things that the regular (Customer)
associates are hearing. They need to stay more
connected as opposed to just being there in the
workshop. [Senior Vi ce President, Operations –
Case 52]
Complexity absorption further helps suppliers
understand how the potential VCC process they are
initiating may work or how long it may take to implement.
Specifically, when sup- pliers make concerted efforts to
absorb their customers’ busi- ness complexities, the
resultant two-way dialog allows sup- pliers to follow
through on the ideas discussed and questions raised,
thereby containing the potential ambivalence that stems
from poor follow-through. Such dialog also allows the
customers to clarify expectations. The informant below de-
picts how openly sharing information affirms that the
supplier is supporting the customer’s needs. When suppliers
have deep knowledge of customers’ businesses, they are
able to advance customer expectations and reduce potential
non-receptivity.
I think the way in which (Supplier) has established
the account support with Joshua on-site has been very
ben- eficial. Since he has been on-site and has had the
oppor- tunity to learn the business better, our
interactions with the rest of the account team are
improved. It can take
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
less time to get to answers on certain issues or
business questions because Joshua already has a
pretty good un- derstanding of the business. [Senior
Director, Supply Chain Finance – Case 1]
Value alignment The second strategy to manage customer
ambivalence is value alignment. We characterize value
align- ment as suppliers striving to highlight the common
values they share with customers, fortifying customer core
values, and helping customers act upon those values. Our
inductive analysis reveals that value alignment addresses
customer am- bivalence by fostering openness and trust
with suppliers, which may impact customers’
expectations in two ways. First, the trust engendered
through value alignment may re- duce customer concerns
that the supplier does not share the same goals. In turn,
value alignment may help customers set their expectations
regarding their suppliers, thereby facilitat- ing deeper-level
engagement. An informant who was previ- ously
ambivalent toward supplier engagement articulates be- low
how aligning customer–supplier values and ethics is in-
strumental to an atmosphere of trust, which triggers
customer– supplier collaboration.
(Supplier) shares almost the same values and ethics
we do. There is an atmosphere of openness and trust
that prevails in all of our collaborations. Everybody
speaks very candidly about issues and shares
information that most companies would not feel
comfortable talking about. [Director, Global
Distribution – Case 43]
Second, value alignment also facilitates an ongoing
con- versation that allows the supplier to look more
thoroughly at the variety of challenges the customer is
facing. Two-way dialog further enables both parties to give
and receive feed- back on important matters, and to jointly
think about system and work process integration. As
integration advances, the potential for future VCC episodes
and for the supplier to eval- uate the best path forward for
the customer may improve. In the quotation below, the
informant highlights how the supplier identified and
supported the customer’s core value, thereby engendering
greater trust, which helped align their systems and
processes. The informant describes how supplier action
has been a welcome change and enhanced responsiveness
on both the customer and supplier sides.
(Supplier) is significantly more closely aligned now
than when we began our relationship...the most
obvious positive of the relationship is
responsiveness…they
J. of the Acad. Mark.
have become responsive and they are good at
escalating [problems] within their own organization
to the right people. Further, (Supplier) will let various
levels of their folks interact with various levels of our
folks and that is a positive. I would encourage more of
that. [Senior Vice President, Global Sourcing – Case
33]
The above discussion helps us propose that the
supplier’s ability to develop a deep understanding of the
customer and adapt structures to address opportunities via
complexity ab- sorption may allow for the differentiation
between symptoms and causes (symptom fixation), and
open communication that can progressively and
transparently bring closure to customer- directed efforts
(lack of follow-through). Additionally, we pro- pose
suppliers’ efforts to accentuate the values they share with
customers and direct customers’ actions toward those
values via value alignment could enable the transparency
that sup- pliers need to make sense of customer pathways
(lack of follow-through) and guide customers forward by
challenging their underlying goals (expectation
disconfirmation). As such, suppliers may apply complexity
absorption and value align- ment in order to reduce
customer ambivalence.
P4: The greater the supplier’s (a) complexity absorption
and (b) value alignment abilities, the
lesser the customer ambivalence during the VCC initiation
stage.
Assessment of customer annoyance
The third form of non-receptivity that our inductive
analysis identifies is customer annoyance, which we
conceptualize as customers’ overt aversion and resentment
toward supplier VCC initiation overtures. In our data,
informants who displayed annoyance spoke of actively
resisting supplier VCC initiation efforts or dissuading
suppliers from proposing new VCC episodes. Instead,
customers encouraged suppliers to simply better manage
their ongoing work responsibilities. Customer annoyance
manifested in a variety of behaviors, including avoiding
interaction with or expressing an explicitly negative
viewpoint toward the supplier. Below, we share a couple of
our informants’ perspectives on their suppliers that clearly
manifest annoyance and resistance to new ideas pro- posed
by the supplier since these customers object to suppliers
telling them Bhow to run^ their business.
It’s annoying…they never talk about us, what they
can do for us and they never respond with the stuff
we tell them about. Every time they show up now,
I have
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
somebody that works with me deal with them. It’s al-
ways the same idiotic story I hear. It’s annoying.
They just never address what we tell them. [Vice
President, Inventory – Case 31]
Unfortunately, the interactions can be best described
as pompous and arrogant. Pardon my French, but the
guy and the other high level executive, I believe
from (State), were real smart asses. They seriously
tried to tell me how to run my business and what
canned solution is best for me. I tried to too
respectfully disagree and chal- lenged them with the
question about what the full value is to the hospital in
the proposed solution. They failed to answer the
question. [Vice President, Support Services – Case 14].
Our informants also suggest that when customers are
annoyed with their suppliers, they are often guarded and
possess a significant trust deficit in the relationship. We
learned that customer annoyance toward the VCC initia-
tion process likely derives from three specific mecha-
nisms. We identify two supplier-specific antecedents
(supplier rigidity and supplier egocentricity) and one
customer-specific antecedent (resource drain) of customer
annoyance.
Supplier rigidity Supplier rigidity is conceptualized as sup-
pliers’ overt inflexibility in adapting their own systems
and work processes to better fit customers’ needs. Our
analysis reveals that rigidity is manifested in two forms.
First, rigid suppliers expect customers to fit into their
system and not the other way around. One informant
perspective suggests that customers resist working with
suppliers on future VCC initia- tives when they encounter
self-serving rigidity.
Often the onus lies with us to change things from a
technological standpoint. We have to fit into the
(Supplier) system rather than the (Supplier) system
working with us. They can make a change but we
have to make a change. It always feels like a give and
take, they will give you something but then they are
going to take something away. I call it the shell game,
and I have told Andrew that. [Director, Transportation
– Case 1]
The second facet of supplier rigidity involves suppliers
resisting change even after ongoing evidence suggests that
their current systems are not meeting customer needs. In
the
J. of the Acad. Mark.
quote below, an informant resents the supplier’s reluctance
to take responsibility or acknowledge that its system fails
to serve the customer.
The other thing I notice is the lack of accountability
for items that do get adjusted. They get adjusted out
of inventory to be considered lost or to be a system
error. In our eyes if it is supposed to be there and it is
lost for whatever reason, I don’t see a type of report of
account- ability on (Supplier’s) side. I don’t see what
they have adjusted and the costs associated with
those adjust- ments. [Director, Managed Services –
Case 17]
Supplier egocentricity Our analysis pinpoints supplier ego-
centricity as another supplier antecedent to customer an-
noyance. This antecedent is characterized as suppliers
looking out for their own interests while ignoring their
cus- tomers’ interests. Supplier egocentricity is thus not
equiv- alent to supplier opportunism, which is defined
as self- interest seeking with guile, but rather manifests in
our data as suppliers’ reaping additional benefits, such as
higher profits on customer accounts, without having to
work pro- portionally harder. We also noticed instances
where sup- pliers simply served their own interests while
completely ignoring those of their customers, as evidenced
in the quote below.
They could be more aggressive about helping us
grow and keep competitive. And that includes the
rates…we operate in a commoditized world and they
truly need to understand that and act on it….we can’t
afford to pay a cent extra for a parcel. I think it’s
ridiculous for (Supplier) to keep raising rates without
increasing value while we are fighting about survival
of the margins. [Senior Program Manager – Case 48]
Our analysis further reveals that supplier egocentricity
is demonstrated when suppliers fail to provide customers
with information that may help them but potentially hurt
the sup- pliers’ own interests. Egocentric suppliers tended
to focus almost exclusively on their own problems with
little regard for their customers’ challenges. While
customers expect both parties involved in VCC to benefit,
an absence equitable ben- efits spurs their non-receptivity
toward suppliers and their VCC initiatives.
As opposed to just calling here and complaining that
they are losing money, they could have at least
played
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
around with some solutions, like leveraging their
pur- chasing power, using less employees. Find ways
to fix things beyond increasing prices. But all they do
is com- plain and never come with a solution.
[National Facilities Manager – Case 46].
Resource drain
We conceptualize the antecedent of resource drain as
customers perceiving their supplier interactions as deplet-
ing their resources due to limited or absent equitable col-
laborative gains. Our analysis reveals that customers value
their temporal, cognitive, and financial assets. When they
invest these resources in supplier interactions but do not
subsequently reap equitable gains, customers resist future
supplier engagement. The three quotes below highlight
each kind of resource. In all of the following contexts,
the perception of resource drain resulted in the customer
overtly resisting supplier VCC overtures.
It takes about 3 months to get the system correct
after a change, and I have had instances where it
took upwards of a year. Then there is all the work
it takes to go back over a year of invoices. Then
(Supplier) tells us not to pay those invoices, they
will send new ones. But some of those have already
gone through the system payment process and it gets
real ugly real fast. Their financial billing system
leaves a lot to be desired. [Assistant Purchasing
Manager – Case 24]
We went through lots and lots of discussion with
(Supplier) that led to the proposal to put together a
big deal. That is where things fell apart. I think this
disc onn ect be twe en wha t we wan ted an d
what (Supplier) gave was dishonesty. Just flat out
dishon- esty. We brought in a senior national
accounts person from (Supplier) to work with all of
our regional man- agement. This person committed
that we would get the very best deal. This person
told us that they un- derstood where we were coming
from but it was bull- shit, low end sales. To us, this
just smacked of the whole used-car thing. That is
when we wrote it off. [Assistant Vice President –
Case 54]
I am telling you that (Supplier) is not a progressive,
proactive organization. You have to kick them to
get
J. of the Acad. Mark.
them to do things. It is burdensome on my part and I
am getting tired of it. I am spending a management
fee in excess of $230,000 year for two hospitals.
[Vice President, Operations – Case 53]
Thus, we propose the following antecedents of
customer annoyance:
P5: The greater the customer’s perception of (a)
supplier rigidity, (b) supplier egocentricity, and (c) resource
drain, the greater the likelihood of customer annoyance
during the VCC initiation stage.
Management of customer annoyance
Our inductive analysis identified two strategies that
suppliers may use to manage the antecedents that spur
customer annoy- ance and guide the customer toward VCC
initiation: credibil- ity building and objective centrality.
Credibility building The strategy credibility building is
con- ceptualized as instilling confidence in the customer to
secure trust. Our analysis proposes that suppliers may build
credibil- ity in customers’ eyes through a variety of
activities, such as managing and meeting expectations, being
a thought leader in the industry, and establishing a strong
work ethic. In the quote below, we encounter an
informant whose supplier has invested heavily in serving
the customer in a responsive man- ner. Consequently,
higher credibility is developed along with customer
confidence that the resources invested in this suppli- er
relationship will have an upside because the supplier will
strive to advance the customers’ interests.
(Supplier) doesn’t come in like stuffed shirts in
three- piece suits. Most places are real people and
they want to talk to a real person. Our people like to
have somebody who answers the phone and they like
to have somebody respond to them quickly even if it is
something you can’t do quickly. We have that here.
They just care that cus- tomers are on budget or you
are able to save money. If you are not and there is a
problem, then they want you to know about it right
away and not wait until the end of the year when you
can’t do anything about it. [Manager, Engineering –
Case 47]
Our analysis further shows that suppliers may also build
cred- ibility through recovery efforts. Specifically, when
suppliers own their failures, recognize their lapses, and
subsequently
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
take corrective steps around customer objectives, strained issues and solved our prob- lems, and if he can’t do
re- lationships are slowly repaired and customers are again something, he gets the President
moti- vated to engage with them. Our research reveals that
taking complete control of the recovery effort and keeping
customers informed throughout the process is key.
Suppliers can further enhance their credibility during
service recovery mode when they escalate issues of
relevance to customers within their own organization and
offer timely relief. This aspect of credibility building helps
customers see the supplier’s willingness to adapt their
systems to fit with and serve the customers.

(Supplier) has almost always impressed me in a

recov- ery mode. Correcting issues with a specific
shipment. When the problem issues have occurred,
(Supplier) has been responsive and they should
continue that. They are responsive and they are good
at escalating within their own organization to the right
people. Instead (Supplier) will let various levels of
their folks interact with various levels of our folks and
that is a positive. I would encour- age more of that.
[Senior Vice President, Global Sourcing – Case 33]

Objective centrality The second strategy to manage

customer annoyance, objective centrality, is conceptualized
as the sup- plier prioritizing customer objectives over their
own and com- municating that to the customer. The
objective centrality strat- egy stems from the belief that
when the customer wins, the supplier also wins (i.e., win-
win). Our analysis proposes that when customers are
annoyed, they appraise whether suppliers are prioritizing
the resolution of previous challenges at the onset of VCC
initiation interactions. Against this backdrop, the perceived
win-win approach helps refute that the supplier is
egocentric and unwilling to prioritize the customer. The
following quote showcases this strategy and its impact on
the customer’s perception of supplier self-interest. This
infor- mant highlights how the supplier fulfills a variety of
the cus- tomer’s objectives, including showing that the
customer is a top priority.

Our rep Daniel should be in the dictionary under

‘Customer Service.’ When we went live with this
new operation, of course we had some issues. The
scanning guns didn’t all work, some of the invoices
were being printed wrong, and some tracking issues
were there. (Supplier) was physically there with us
until midnight that first night, and they were back at
7:00 am the next morning, and by noon they had the
guns up and had actually brought electricians in to
rewire our entire ware- house to solve our problems. It
was a sight to see. Daniel has immediately gotten our
 J.toof do it. I Mark.
the Acad. don’t know how many clients get the J. of the Acad. Mark.
President on their issues, but we do. It’s excellent.
[Director, Global Supply – Case 51]

The supplier’s ability to achieve objective centrality is also

influenced by how much it will work within the
customer’s operating style. As suppliers begin to consider
client informa- tion and demands in efforts to complement
their customers’ systems, customer annoyance wanes. In
particular, the ante- cedent of supplier rigidity is mitigated
when customers expe- rience firsthand suppliers’ collection
of customer data, subse- quent analysis for insight, and
flexibility to meld with their customers’ systems.

Our dream partner would be someone who was

looking at our account monthly and analyzing the
amount of waste that we are creating. Putting us on a
flexible pro- gram and telling us that they are pulling
from a particu- lar location on a daily basis but they
are only averaging
1.5 tons. These containers can safely take 9 tons.
Our partner would ask ‘What can we do to try and get
that up to reduce the pulls and reduce the overall
costs?’ Obviously that is what we are looking to do—
save mon- ey and have the service level where it
needs to be. [Operations Manager – Case 55]

Based on the prior discussion, we propose that the sup-

plier’s ability to instill confidence in the customer through
strong leadership, work ethic, and credibility building may
signal strong returns on customer resource investments
(re- source drain), mutual interests being served (supplier
egocen- tricity), and supplier accountability for
relationship strains (supplier rigidity). Further, supplier
prioritization of customer goals via objective centrality
could provide a win-win men- tality that allays fears of
suppliers’ unwillingness to prioritize the customers
(supplier egocentricity) while also demonstrat- ing
suppliers’ abilities to complement their customers’ sys-
tems (supplier rigidity). As such, suppliers may apply
credi- bility building and objective centrality to reduce
customer annoyance.

P6: The greater the supplier’s (a) credibility building

and (b) objective centrality abilities, the lesser the customer
annoy- ance during the VCC initiation stage.

Discussion

The current study employs a discovery-oriented inquiry to

reveal that suppliers may encounter three kinds of
customer non-receptivity—apathy, ambivalence, or
annoyance—as they initiate a VCC episode. Once
suppliers assess the nature
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
of customers’ non-receptivity toward VCC initiation, they stages that embody the define and design stage
can then manage the same through selecting targeted equivalencies (see Table 1). However, our analysis
strategies: intrinsic initiative, inspiration and indicates that some customers may at times resist
implementation, complexi- ty absorption, value alignment, suppliers’ overtures to enter their environments,
credibility building, and ob- jective centrality. Collectively, thereby erecting
this investigation expands our understanding of customer
non-receptivity, customer behav- iors that reflect the
specific forms of non-receptivity, underly- ing antecedents
to each form of non-receptivity, strategies suppliers may
use to foster customers’ openness to their over- tures, and
specific processes through which supplier strategies may
attenuate customer non-receptivity during the initiation of
VCC.

Theoretical
implications

Extant literature suggests that during the process of

exchange, customers assume active roles in VCC through
collaboration with their suppliers (Kohler et al. 2011;
Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004a). Thus, while suppliers
may signal their desire to collaborate prior to defining
requirements and cus- tomization (e.g., Töllner et al. 2011),
suppliers’ success within the collaborative VCC process
depends upon whether cus- tomers want to participate in
and exert control across the VCC process (Grönroos and
Voima 2013; Hakanen and Jaakkola 2012; Lemke et al.
2011; Payne et al. 2008; Petri and Jacob 2016). While
research has suggested that some customers may not be
receptive to suppliers accessing their environments,
scholarship has not previously examined the factors that
motivate (otherwise disinclined) customers to en- gage in
VCC (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Payne et al.
2008; Vargo
2008).
Against this backdrop, the first contribution of our
study is that our findings clarify the customer’s
perspective on VCC engagement (Verleye et al. 2014)
and the value drivers that motivate co-creation
(Hakanen and Jaakkola
2012) by explicating in a nuanced manner the possible na-
ture and forms of non-receptivity customers may exhibit at
times during the VCC initiation stage, its antecedents, and
how such non-receptivity may be addressed. Specifically,
our findings illustrate that customers may exhibit varying
forms of non-receptivity toward supplier attempts to
initiate a VCC episode and propose how suppliers can
manage such reluctance. Tuli et al. (2007) indicate that
suppliers’ abili- ties to co-create value rely on access to
information and other operant resources the suppliers
can use. Shared knowledge is a resource that builds
competence in the ex- change process during VCP and
improves VCC outcomes (Ballantyne and Varey 2008;
Ranjan and Read 2016), thus certain expectations
surrounding customer openness exist across the VCC
barriers
J. of thetoAcad.
suppliers’
Mark. abilities to be fully informed about J. of the Acad. Mark.
customers’ needs or relate to customers at a deeper level.
Thus, assessing the origins of non-receptivity and manag-
ing these drivers is essential to the VCC process (e.g.,
earning customer involvement; Edvardsson et al. 2011)
with a prospective group of collaborative partners and must
precede the development of shared resources. Further, our
study indicates that research must evaluate both how cus-
tomers engage (or disengage) in collaborative VCC activi-
ties (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Lemke et al. 2011;
Payne et al. 2008 ) a nd how to overcome custo m
er disengagement.
Our study’s second contribution is that the customer’s
perspective on non-receptivity and the subsequent insights
derived from this perspective help extend a series of
existing studies focused on the notion that customers may
intrinsically resist VCC (e.g., Bendapudi and Leone 2003;
Macdonald et al. 2011; Payne et al. 2008; Petri and Jacob
2016), may be fearful of value de-construction (e.g., Plé
and Cáceres 2010; Prior and Marcos-Cuevas 2016; Smith
2013), and may distance themselves from VCC to preserve
the route o f e xternalizing s oluti o n failures
(e.g., Heidenreich et al. 2015; Sugathan et al. 2017).
While study insights that deliver such extensions come
from rigorous analysis of qualitative data,
conceptualization of customer non-receptivity is grounded
in the scholarship on transac- tion cost economics (TCE)
and conservation of resources (COR) theory.
Specifically, VCC is a highly customized process that
may require increased levels of transaction- specific
investments and risk transference for suppliers
(Kozlenkova et al. 2014; Rindfleish and Heide 1997). As
a result, suppliers can exploit customer participation and
increase the perceived risk of customer engagement, collec-
tively e scalating the l ikelihood o f n on-
receptivity. Additionally, customer non-receptivity may
be viewed as a mechanism to conserve resources (Hobfoll
1989, 2002) due to the plausible uncertainty customers
may harbor about the VCC process or its outcomes
(Smith 2013).
Against this the oretical b ackdrop , c ustomer n
on- receptivity indicates that customers may aim to
reduce transaction-specific risks (i.e., TCE) and protect
resources (i.e., COR) by ignoring supplier VCC initiation
efforts. Suppliers may use the various kinds of non-
receptivity we identify to better gauge how hesitant
customers are to invest their resources in potentially
uncertain VCC process outcomes (Hobfoll 1989, 2002;
Smith 2013). While prior research has underscored the
consequences and recovery efforts of failed co-creation
(e.g., Heidenreich et al. 2015; Sugathan et al. 2017), and
noted the episodic nature of VCC efforts (Grönroos and
Voima 2013; Payne et al.
2008; Powers et al. 2016), our study explores a phenome-
non that may follow such adverse outcomes in subsequent
attempts to initiate a new VCC episode (i.e., when prior
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
VCC experiences impede future episodes). As our extend- participation and is reflected in customer responses to
ed findings link the cyclical nature of VCC episodes to- suppliers (Auh et al. 2007),
gether, congruous theoretical frameworks such as TCE and
COR can connect the three related findings of non-
receptivity assessment/management (a priori stage), value
co-destruction (active stage), and co-created service recov-
ery (post-hoc stage) to provide a macro-level perspective
on the challenges inherent to VCC.
The t hird co ntrib u tion o f o u r study is th at
no n- receptivity assessment and management build upon
extant VCC frameworks to propose inimitable customer
knowl- edge and resources, and customers’ inertia to
share infor- mation requisite for co-creation with
suppliers may actual- ly reverse the information
asymmetries in customer–sup- plier relationships (Vafeas
et al. 2016). Across existing frameworks for VCC, such
as the model supported by Payne et al. (2008) and the
DART (dialogue, access, risk assessment, transparency)
model of co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2003),
elements of knowledge sharing, higher levels of
understanding, and value-in-use are foun- dational
elements that engage customers as co-creators
throughout the process. These models also assert that dis-
connections within the co-creation process tend to stem
from customers lacking the same access to transparent in-
formation (Payne et al. 2008; Prahalad and Ramaswamy
2003). However, our findings propose that the customers
themselves may resist transparency and become the source
of disconnection within the co-creation process.
The broad notion that customer opaqueness may shift
rela- tional dependencies via information asymmetry has
myriad implications for customer–supplier dynamics, while
the non- receptivity management strategies offer insight for
suppliers seeking to return balance to such relationships. If
customers act similarly across both sub-dimensions of
VCC, that is VCP (knowledge, equity, interaction) and ViU
(experience, person- alization, relationship) (see Ranjan
and Read 2016), our re- sults have additional impact. For
example, non-receptivity among customers will change the
dynamics by which sup- pliers mobilize customers, which
is essential to successful VCC per the tenants of VCP
(Ordanini and Pasini 2008; Powers et al. 2016). As such,
our study’s proposed strategies offer insight regarding the
knowledge sharing, equity, and interaction dimensions of
VCP, while also illuminating how suppliers signal co-
production value to customers in order to initiate the VCC
process.
First, the equity dimension of VCP reflects, Ba firm’s
willingness to share control in favor of consumer empow-
erment and the consumer’s desire to contribute to their
role in co-creation activities is the essence of equity
(Bolton and Saxena-Iyer 2009; Fisher and Smith
2011; Hoyer et al. 2010)^ (Ranjan and Read 2016, p.
292). Equity en- tails moving beyond passive
cooperation (Etgar
J. of the Acad. Mark. 2008), and open responses to supplier J. of the Acad. Mark.
requests (Chen et al. 2011). Our research offers supplier
strategies to empower non-receptive customers and their
equity in VCC, most applicably through the strategies of
intrinsic initiative (i.e., being a self-starter when taking
control) and inspiration and implementation (i.e., challeng-
ing the customer when motivating control).
Second, the interaction dimension of VCP reflects, Bthe
primary interface between parties undertaking co-
production. It is an opportunity to understand, share, and
serve needs, and to simultaneously assess and adapt
resource commitments (Merz et al. 2009; Prahalad and
Ramaswamy 2004a)^ (Ranjan and Read 2016, p. 293). To
initiate VCP via interac- tion, suppliers depend on
customer participation (Grönroos and Ravald 2011; Kohler
et al. 2011), dialog (Payne et al.
2008), and engagement (Zhang and Chen 2008). Our
findings propose fostering such interaction with non-
receptive cus- tomers through the strategies of complexity
absorption and value alignment. Suppliers can motivate
synchronous engage- ment with customers via value
alignment to demonstrate that they understand and share
their customers’ values; simulta- neously, absorbing
customers’ complexities facilitates partic- ipation, dialog,
engagement, and a deepened understanding of the customer.
Third, the knowledge sharing dimension is the Boperant
resource that comprises sharing consumers’ knowledge,
ideas, and creativity (Zhang and Chen 2008) in the articu-
lation and expression of current and future needs^ (Ranjan
and Read 2016, p. 292). From the customers’ perspectives,
knowledge sharing reflects their propensity to disclose ex-
pertise with their suppliers (Ordanini and Pasini 2008),
proactively provide suggestions (Chen et al. 2011), and
allow suppliers into their operational environment (Tuli
et al. 2007). To facilitate a non-receptive customer’s role
in this process, our study proposed the relevant strategies
of credibility building and objective centrality. Suppliers
must build competencies to allow customer objective
buoyancy and instill the confidence that future customer
needs will continually be prioritized. Suppliers must also
bring thought leadership to the table to demonstrate that
two-way activity will provide returns on customer exper-
tise shared with the supplier.
To build upon these theoretical contributions in which
non-receptivity management strategies may diminish
customer-controlled sources of disconnection within the
co-creation process, our study’s fourth contribution sug-
gests that suppliers wishing to successfully initiate the
VCC process with non-receptive customers should first
assess customer information accessibility. As a result, sup-
pliers must commit to specific non-receptivity manage-
ment strategy pairings that can curb customer apathy, am-
bivalence, and annoyance. Specifically, we propose sup-
pliers may apply the strategies of intrinsic initiative and
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
inspiration and implementation to reduce customer apathy initiating a new VCC episode must first assess the
(i.e., supplier inertia, supplier incompetence, existence and nature of plausible non-receptivity that may
commoditiza- tion); complexity absorption and value challenge their VCC initiation efforts. Managers should
alignment to reduce customer ambivalence (i.e., symptom look beyond the key decision makers by monitoring the
fixation, lack of fol- low-through, expectation engagement of
disconfirmation); and credibility building and objective
centrality to reduce customer an- noyance (i.e., supplier
rigidity, supplier egocentricity, re- source drain). These
integrative non-receptivity assessment and management
approaches, reflected in this study’s prop- ositions and
detailed across the sequence presented in Fig.
1b and Table 3 (forms, antecedents, strategies), enable
sup- pliers to manage their customer interaction platforms
and uphold their end of VCC (Grönroos 2011; Payne
et al.
2008). Our propositions (i.e., P2a-b, P4a-b, P6a-b) thus
add to the literature by providing a way to test the
mitigat- ing relationships between management strategies
and non- receptivity forms.

Managerial implications

From a practical standpoint, our findings may help

suppliers initiate and better manage the collaborative VCC
process so that they can access their customers’
environments and find enhanced protection from
competitive threats (Ballantyne and Varey 2008; Payne et
al. 2008; Vargo and Lusch 2011, 2016). Additionally, as
suppliers better manage their VCC efforts and build
continuity across VCC episodes, managers will experi-
ence enhanced relational learning, customerization
capabili- ties, network insights, and co-evolution (Ford
and Mouzas
2013; Kohtamäki and Partanen 2016; Mouzas et al. 2008;
Zhang and Chen 2008). These implications are critical, as
there is a dearth of scholarship to ai d managers i
n implementing a VCC mindset in key B2B
relationships (Anderson 1995; deLeon and Chatterjee
2017).
The first managerial implication follows the suggestion
that supplier managers must fully consider customers’
perspec- tives in their VCC strategies. Customer insights
offer the first signals of what customers desire within the
exchange process (Macdonald et al. 2011). Our study
clarifies how the customer enables and contributes to VCC
(e.g., Payne et al. 2008; Tuli et al. 2007), as well as extends
ongoing discussions regarding the customer’s role in VCC
by which Bpractitioners will ben- efit from a better
understanding of customer practices and activities when
entering into the solution creation process^ (Petri and
Jacob 2016, p. 63). For example, this implication suggests
that suppliers should not assume that customers will openly
welcome their every VCC initiation effort, irrespective of
whether they have successfully engaged with these cus-
tomers on past VCC initiatives. On the contrary, suppliers
frontline personnel
J. of the Acad. Mark. who facilitate VCC episodes on the This research provides a large sample of Acad.
J. of the customer–
Mark.
ground and who may drive cross-functional interfaces to supplier relationships and an extensive data set that likely
bet- ter promote the dialogue and exchange of service captures
necessary for VCC (see Enz and Lambert 2012; Lambert
and García- Dastugue 2006).
The second implication of our findings is that suppliers
should not simply remain satisfied with understanding the
specific nature of customer non-receptivity. On the
contrary, they must identify and evaluate the underlying
antecedents that may spark each kind of non-receptivity.
For example, supplier personnel must avoid complacency
with their B2B customers (i.e., intrinsic initiative) and
challenge customers to achieve higher aspirations
collaboratively (i.e., inspiration and implementation). These
strategies are important, as research indicates that supplier
service complacency is relatively com- mon, even among a
supplier’s major accounts (Friend and Johnson 2017). As
such, managers may find that injecting a palatable level of
tension in the ongoing relationship deters complacency,
challenges the status quo, and improves long- term
aspirations, thus potentially complementing customers’
receptiveness to their suppliers (Day et al. 2013). Overall,
across the assessment-management matrix representing the
three kinds of customer non-receptivity, their supplier-
and customer-specific antecedents, and the six strategies for
man- aging customer non-receptivity, this study’s findings
propose prescriptive guidelines for identifying both the
origins and nature of customer non-receptivity, and for
alleviating the un- derlying antecedents that spark
customers’ apathy, ambiva- lence, and annoyance.
Third, essential learning occurs when suppliers take time
to understand their customers. However, as Gouillart
and Sturdivant (1994) warn, suppliers may not glean
brilliant in- sights each time they spend a day with their
customers. On the contrary, suppliers may gain a deeper-
level understanding of their customers over repeated
interactions and continued as- sessment of customer
dynamics. In this regard, our findings propose that when
supplier overtures for VCC initiation re- ceive a
lukewarm, hesitant, or adverse response from cus- tomers,
suppliers should determine the causality of customer non-
receptivity rather than abandon the effort altogether.
Further, our findings regarding the processes through
which the non-receptivity management strategies may work
will al- low suppliers to understand whether their strategies
have ad- dressed core non-receptivity causes. These are
long-term pro- cesses, and managers must train and
motivate on-site account teams to study customer dynamics
and assist corporate coun- terparts in customizing non-
receptivity management strategies that successfully initiate
the VCC process.

Limitations and future

research
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
myriad causes of and strategies for managing customer VCC, VCC was unsuccessful). Longitudinal approaches
non- receptivity (Creswell 2007; Griffin and Hauser would also further help pinpoint the causality of
1993; McQuarrie 2008). That said, our results are not an
exhaustive list of non-receptivity forms, antecedents, and
strategies. Further, the non-receptivity framework we
propose is not gen- eralizable to all B2B relationships per
the limitations of inter- pretive analysis, nor to all industrial
segments given the heavy distribution of customers in our
sample from the healthcare segment (i.e., medical-
hospital). In addition, one could argue that there exists a
potential for conceptual overlap across the forms of non-
receptivity since they represent degrees of a singular
concept, as well as argue that the proposed relation- ships
between the antecedents, non-receptivity forms, and
supplier strategies are non-exclusive. As such, despite our
findings being based on exhaustive data analysis and
empiri- cal evidence, future research efforts may examine
the causal- ity of relationships among the various
constructs identified, along with relationships that were not
explored in the current manuscript owing to a lack of
empirical substantiation. Additional qualitative
investigations and/or quantitative as- sessments of non-
receptivity across contexts (e.g., goods vs. service) would
improve generalizability and refutability. Ideally, future
research endeavors could capture data assessing non-
receptivity from both customers and suppliers. Such a
dyadic approach would overcome this study’s limitation in
exclusively showcasing the customer perspective. A
dyadic approach may also help capture the cross-functional
interac- tions occurring between the customer and supplier
firms, as such internal and external interactions collectively
provide the knowledge necessary to jointly create and
refine value prop- ositions (Ballantyne and Varey 2008;
Gummesson 2008; Lusch et al. 2010).
Future efforts that capture longitudinal data would also
al- low researchers to shed greater light on patterns of
non- receptivity progression, customer- and supplier-
specific vari- ables that determine how non-receptivity is
likely to evolve (e.g., under what conditions will
ambivalence turn into apathy), how the findings might vary
by length/stage of the customer– supplier relationship, and
the impact of concurrent VCC epi- sodes on one another.
Such scholarship will be insightful since our findings imply
that previous VCC failure impacts subse- quent VCC
initiation, but we do not specifically examine this
association on a case-by-case basis. Another limitation is
that while this study develops insights exclusively from
existing customer–supplier relationships, a priori (i.e.,
acquisition) and post hoc stages (i.e., defection) of the
relationship (see Dwyer et al. 1987) may provide insights
into additional non- receptivity strategies. Future
researchers should investigate how the acquisition stage and
non-receptivity work with poten- tial customers that a
supplier has unsuccessfully pursued, as well as explore why
customers leave suppliers (e.g., supplier did not attempt
propositions specific
J. of the Acad. Mark. to the effectiveness of non-receptivity their valuable feedback and contributions. We appreciate the guidance
J. of the Acad. Mark.
mit- igating strategies. We recognize that overlays occur and support pro- vided by the entire review team.
between some forms of non-receptivity within particular
cases, especial- ly as our sample comprises ongoing B2B
relationships in which multiple VCC episodes could be
represented. The ap- propriateness of management
strategies for alternative non- receptivity forms may
therefore differ between various con- texts. Future research
could examine the incremental drivers and detractors of
non-receptivity processes to rule out or con- firm additional
connections.
Future studies should also explore the outcomes of the
suggested non-receptivity management strategies (e.g.,
whether VCC ultimately takes place). While advancing the
VCC process is the expected outcome, unexpected conse-
quences may emerge. Therefore, future research should
also seek to extend the limited outcome perspective (i.e.,
focus on VCC initiation) in the current study by examining,
for exam- ple, the potential downfalls of supplier efforts to
overcome customer non-receptivity. Our findings indicate
that combat- ting non-receptivity and generating market
insights are critical to VCC initiation. Further, extant
literature suggests that in- creased information sharing
improves product quality (Emshwiller 1991) and
facilitates new product development (Magnet 1994).
However, such practices may also allow for opportunistic
behaviors (Cannon and Perreault 1999). Thus, as
customers move past their information sharing hesitations
to begin co-creating value offerings, future research may
ex- plore the potential risks and negative outcomes at each
ensu- ing stage of the VCC process.

Conclusion

This research provides a comprehensive conceptualization

of customer non-receptivity during VCC based on an
extensive discovery-oriented inquiry. Results support the
existence of cus- tomer non-receptivity along with
strategies for successfully assessing and managing varying
degrees of customer-level iner- tia in order to co-create with a
supplier. These two parts represent an emergent process in
which suppliers overcome customer non- receptivity in order
to initiate a VCC episode. Theoretical impli- cations within the
customer value literature base are proposed as are managerial
implications and future research directions that can explicate
the customer’s expanding role in and influence on VCC.
These advancements effectively extend the VCC process
orientation into a broader set of strategies, which include
under- standing and responding to customer needs, for
suppliers to adopt prior to the previously assumed initial
stages of VCC.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank and

acknowledge JAMS' editorial team and the anonymous reviewers for
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.

Appendix A

Table 4 Case, customer, and informant sample

Case Customer Industry Value per Year Informant(s) Designation

1 Retailer $50 M Dir. Transpiration; VP Distribution; VP Loss Prevention;

Dir. Imports; VP Operations; SVP Supply Chain;
Sr. Dir. Supply Chain Finance
2 Education – District $245 K Superintendent; Dir. Business & Finance
3 Education – District $1 M Exec. Dir. Facilities
4 Medical – Hospital $2 M SVP Clinical Services; Dir. Materials Management
5 Manufacturing - Electronics $6.5 M Mgr. Traffic & Shipping; Dir. Operations
6 Medical – Hospital $3.1 M CFO; CNO; COO
7 Medical – Hospital $2 M CNO
8 Retailer NA VP Fulfillment; VP Supply Chain Management
9 Education – Private $2.2 M CFO
10 Medical - Hospital NA VP Support Services
11 Government – County $665 K Program Administrator; Jail Superintendent
12 Retailer $8 M SVP Supply Chain; Dir. International Trade & Compliance
13 Education – District $2.1 M Exec. Dir. Administration & Finance
14 Medical – Hospital $250 K COO; VP Support Services
15 Medical – Hospital $2 M VP Support Services
16 Medical – Hospital $2.8 M VP Clinical & Support Services; COO
17 Manufacturing - Electronics $750 K Dir. Managed Services; Inventory Data Supervisor
18 Hospitality - Foodservice NA CEO; CSCO; COO
19 Medical – Hospital $1 M CFO
20 Retailer $1.3 M Sr. Dir. Logistics & Inventory Control
21 Education – District $3.6 M Asst. Superintendent
22 Medical – Hospital $2.4 M COO
23 Government – County $4.5 M Captain; Sergeant
24 Manufacturing - Durable Goods $150 M Asst. Purchasing Manager
25 Retailer $8 M Operations Mgr.; VP Operations
26 Medical – Hospital $2 M VP Rehabilitation Services; SVP Human Resources
27 Government – State $28 M Dir. Food Service; Exec. Dir.
28 Medical – Hospital $2.1 M Sr. Dir. Clinical & Food
29 Government – County $1.1 M Former Dep. Chief; Sheriff; Dep. Chief;
Dep. Chief Operations
30 Medical – Hospital $2 M Material Management Dir.
31 Retailer NA VP Inventory; Dir. Transportation
32 Retailer NA VP Logistics
33 Retailer $60 M VP Education; SVP Global Sourcing; Dir. Global Sourcing;
SVP Customer Service; Dir. Education; Pres. State
34 Hospitality - Entertainment $3 M VPServices
Stadium Operations; EVP & GM
35 Manufacturing – Non-Durable Goods $5 M Global Procurement Mgr.
36 Medical – Hospital $3.6 M VP Human Resources & Administration
37 Medical – Hospital $5.1 M CFO; Exec. Dir. Facility & Support
38 Medical – Hospital $12.1 M CFO; COO; CNO
39 Medical – Hospital $2.6 M VP Support Services; CNO
40 Education – District $1.2 M Superintendent; Asst. Superintendent Business & Operations
41 Education – University $12 M VC University Advancement; VC Business Affairs;
Assoc. VC Auxiliary Services; Provost; Director
Resident Life
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.

Table 4 (continued)

Case Customer Industry Value per Year Informant(s) Designation

42 Medical – Hospital NA VP Support Services

43 Manufacturing – Durable Goods $1 M Dir. Global Distribution; Supervisor
44 Medical – Hospital NA EVP
45 Manufacturing – Durable Goods $1.8 M Dir. Logistics & Distribution; Logistics Mgr.
46 Manufacturing – Non-Durable Goods NA Southern Facilities Mgr.; Central Business District Site
Mgr.; National Facilities Mgr.; Area Facilities Mgr.
47 Medical – Hospital $2.2 M VP Support Services; Mgr. Engineering
48 Manufacturing – Durable Goods $52 M SVP; Sr. Program Mgr.; Sr. Mgr.; VP Global Transportation
49 Retailer $80 M VP & GM
50 Medical – Hospital $150 K CEO
51 Medical – Hospital $1 M Dir. Global Supply; Mgr. Distribution left
52 Medical – Hospital $1.2 M Administrative Dir. Support Services; SVP Operations
53 Medical – Hospital $5.8 M VP Operations; COO
54 Retailer $3 M Asst. VP; Asst. Buyer
55 Retailer $3.5 M Operations Mgr.; VP Operations
56 Real Estate – Holding $2.5 M Asst. VP Procurement; Business Analyst Procurement
57 Retailer $1.1 M Special Projects Analyst

References Chen, J.-S., Tsou, H.-T., & Ching, R. K. (2011). Co-production and
its effects on service innovation. Industrial Marketing
Management,
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2012). Value co-creation in 40, 1331–1346.
knowl- edge intensive business services: A dyadic perspective
on the joint problem solving process. Industrial Marketing
Management, 41,
15–26.
Anderson, J. C. (1995). Relationships in business markets: Exchange
episodes, value creation, and their empirical assessment. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 346–350.
Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production
and customer loyalty in financial services. Journal of Retailing,
83, 359–
370.
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2006). Creating value-in-use through
marketing interaction: The exchange logic of relating,
communicat- ing and knowing. Marketing Theory, 6, 335–348.
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2008). The service-dominant logic and
the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science,
36, 11–14.
Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications
of customer participation in co-production. Journal of
Marketing, 67,
14–28.
Blocker, C. P., Flint, D. J., Myers, M. B., & Slater, S. F. (2011).
Proactive customer orientation and its role for creating customer
value in global markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39,
216–233.
Bolton, R., & Saxena-Iyer, S. (2009). Interactive services: A
framework, synthesis and research directions. Journal of
Interactive Marketing,
23, 91–104.
Breidbach, C. F., & Maglio, P. P. (2016). Technology-enabled value
co- creation: An empirical analysis of actors, resources, and
practices. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 73–85.
Cannon, J. P., & Perreault, W. D. (1999). Buyer-seller relationships
in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 439–
460.
Creswell,
J. of theJ.Acad.
W. Mark.
(2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: J. of the Acad. Mark.
Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Day, M., Fawcett, S. E., Fawcett, A. M., & Magnan, G. M. (2013).
Trust and relational embeddedness: Exploring a paradox of trust
pattern development in key supplier relationships. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42, 152–165.
deLeon, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2017). B2B relationship calculus:
Quantifying resource effects in service-dominant logic. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 402–427.
Deshpande, R. (1983). "Paradigms lost": On theory and method in re-
search in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47, 101–110.
Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer
par- ticipation in co-created service recovery. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 123–137.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-
seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11–27.
Echeverri, P., & Skålén, P. (2011). Co-creation and co-destruction: A
practice-theory based study of interactive value formation.
Marketing Theory, 11, 351–373.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding under-
standing of service exchange and value co-creation: A social
con- struction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science,
39, 327–339.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from
cases: Opportunities and challenges. The Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 25–32.
Emshwiller, J. R. (1991). Suppliers struggle to improve quality as
big firms slash their vendor rolls. The Wall Street Journal,
August 16, B1, B2.
Enz, M. G., & Lambert, D. M. (2012). Using cross-functional, cross-
firm teams to co-create value: The role of financial measures.
Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 495–507.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production
process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97–108.
Fisher, D., & Smith, S. (2011). Cocreation in chaotic: What it means
for marketing when no one has control. Marketing Theory, 11, 325–350.
 J. of the Acad. Mark. J. of the Acad. Mark.
Ford, D., & Mouzas, S. (2013). Service and value in the interactive Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer
busi- ness landscape. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 9– engagement behavior in value co-creation: A service system
17. perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17, 247–261.
Frankwick, G. L., Porter, S. S., & Crosby, L. A. (2001). Dynamics Kindström, D. (2010). Towards a service-based business model –
of key
relationship selling: A longitudinal examination of changes in aspects for future competitive advantage. European
salesperson-customer relationship status. Journal of Personal Management
Selling & Sales Management, 21, 135–146. Journal, 28, 479–
Friend, S. B., & Johnson, J. S. (2017). Familiarity breeds contempt: 490.
Perceived service and sales complacency in business-to- Kindström, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2009). Development of
business relationships. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales industrial service offerings: A process framework. Journal of
Management, Service Management, 20, 156–172.
37, 42–60. Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Matzler, K., & Stieger, D. (2011). Co-creation
Friend, S. B., & Malshe, A. (2016). Key skills for crafting customer relation in virtual worlds: The design of the user experience.
solutions within an ecosystem: A theories-in-use perspective. MIS Quarterly, 35, 773–788.
Journal of Service Research, 19, 174–191.
Fryberg, A., & Jüriado, R. (2009). What about interaction? Networks
and
brands as integrators within a service-dominant logic. Journal
of
Service Management, 20, 420–
432.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994).
Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of
sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5, 363–383.
Gouillart, F. J., & Sturdivant, F. D. (1994). Spend a day in the life of
your customers. Harvard Business Review, 72, 116–125.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer.
Marketing
Science, 12, 1–27.
Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value?
And who co-creates? European Business Review, 20, 298–314.
Grönroos, C. (2011). A service perspective on business relationships:
The
value creation, interaction and marketing interface. Industrial
Marketing Management, 40, 240–
247.
Grönroos, C., & Ravald, A. (2011). Service as business logic:
Implications for value creation and marketing. Journal of
Service Management, 22, 5–22.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense
of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 41, 133–150.
Gummesson, E. (2008). Extending the service-dominant logic: From
cus- tomer centricity to balanced centricity. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 15–17.
Hakanen, T., & Jaakkola, E. (2012). Co-creating customer-focused
solu- tions within business networks: A service perspective.
Journal of Service Management, 23, 593–611.
Heidenreich, S., Wittkowski, K., Handrich, M., & Falk, T. (2015).
The
dark side of customer co-creation: Exploring the consequences
of failed co-created services. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43, 279–296.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at
con- ceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and
adaptation.
Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–
324.
Homburg, C., Jozić, D., & Kuehnl, C. (2017). Customer experience
man- agement: Toward implementing an evolving marketing
concept. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 377–
401.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Kraft, M., & Singh, S. S.
(2010).
Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of
Service Research, 13, 283–
296.
Kohli, A. Acad.
J. of the K., &Mark.
Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The ser- vice relationship. Industrial MarketingJ. ofManagement,
the Acad. Mark.43,
construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. 977–984.
Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18. Ordanini, A., & Pasini, P. (2008). Service co-production and value
Kohtamäki, M., & Partanen, J. (2016). Co-creating value from co- creation: The case for a service-oriented architecture
knowledge-intensive business services in manufacturing firms: (SOA). European Management Journal, 26, 289–297.
The moderating role of relationship learning in supplier- Pawar, K. S., Beltagui, A., & Riedel, J. C. (2009). The PSO triangle:
customer interactions. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2498– Designing product, service and organisation to create value.
2506. International Journal of Operations & Production
Komulainen, H. (2014). The role of learning in value co-creation in Management,
new technological B2B services. Journal of Business & 29, 468–493.
Industrial Marketing, 29, 238–252. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-
Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Resource- based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of 36, 83–96.
Marketing Science, 42, 1–21.
Lambert, D. M., & Enz, M. G. (2012). Managing and measuring value
co-creation in business-to-business relationships. Journal of
Marketing Management, 28, 1588–
1625.
Lambert, D. M., & García-Dastugue, S. (2006). Cross-functional
business process for the implementation of service-dominant
logic. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), Toward a service-
dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. ME
Sharpe: Armonk.
Lemke, F., Clark, M., & Wilson, H. (2011). Customer experience
quality: An exploration in business and consumer contexts using
repetory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39,
846–869.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O'Brien, M. (2007). Competing
through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of
Retailing,
83, 5–18.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value
networks and learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 38, 31–
38.
Macdonald, E. K., Wilson, H., Martinez, V., & Toossi, A. (2011).
Assessing value-in-use: A conceptual framework and
exploratory study. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 671–
682.
Magnet, M. (1994). The new golden rule of business. Fortune,
February,
21, 60–64.
Malshe, A., & Sohi, R. S. (2009). What makes strategy making across
the sales-marketing interface more successful? Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 400–421.
Marcos-Cuevas, J., Nätti, S., Palo, T., & Baumann, J. (2016). Value
co-
creation practices and capabilities: Sustained purposeful
engage- ment across B2B systems. Industrial Marketing
Management, 56,
97–107.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S. L., Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., &
van Kasteren, Y. (2012). Health care customer value co-creation
practice styles. Journal of Service Research, 15, 370–389.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications
.
McQuarrie, E. F. (2008). Customer visits: Building a better market
focus.
New York:
Routledge.
Merz, M. A., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009). The evolving brand
logic: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 328–344.
Mouzas, S., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2008). Developing
network insight. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 167–
180.
Nätti, S., Pekkarinen, S., Hartikka, A., & Holappa, T. (2014). The
intermediator role in value co-creation within a triadic business
 J. of the Acad. Mark.
Petri, J., & Jacob, F. (2016). The customer as enabler of value (co)-
crea- tion in the solutions business. Industrial Marketing
Management,
56, 63–72.
Plé, L., & Cáceres, R. C. (2010). Not always co-creation:
Introducing interactional co-destruction of value in service-
dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 430–437.
Powers, T. L., Sheng, S., & Li, J. J. (2016). Provider and relational
deter-
minants of customer solution performance. Industrial Marketing
Management, 56, 14–23.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer
compe- tence. Harvard Business Review, 78, 79–87.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The future of
competition: Co-creating unique value with customers.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co-creating unique
value
with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32, 4–9.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b). Co-creation
experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 18, 5–14.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004c). The future of
competition:
Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Prior, D. D., & Marcos-Cuevas, J. (2016). Value co-destruction in
inter- firm relationships. Marketing Theory, 16, 533–552.
Ramírez, R. (1999). Value co-production: Intellectual origins and
impli- cations for practice and research. Strategic Management
Journal,
20, 49–65.
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: Concept and
mea- surement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
44, 290–
315.
Rindfleish, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis:
Past, present and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61,
30–54.
Sandström, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P., & Magnusson, P.
(2008).
Value in use through service experience. Managing Service
Quarterly, 18, 112–126.
Silverman, D., & Marvasti, A. (2008). Doing qualitative research: A
comprehensive guide (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Smith, A. M. (2013). The value co-destruction process: A customer
re-
source perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 47, 1889–
1909.
J. of the Acad. Mark.
Storbacka, K. (2011). A solution business model: Capabilities and
man- agement practices for integrated solutions. Industrial
Marketing Management, 40, 699–711.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research.
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sugathan, P., Ranjan, K. R., & Mulky, A. G. (2017). Atypical shifts
post- failure: Influence of co-creation on attribution and future
motivation to co-create. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38,
64–81.
Töllner, A., Blut, M., & Holzmüller, H. H. (2011). Customer solutions
in the capital goods industry: Examining the impact of the
buying center. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 712–722.
Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking
cus- tomer solutions: From product bundles to relational
processes. Journal of Marketing, 71, 1–17.
Vafeas, M., Hughes, T., & Hilton, T. (2016). Antecedents to value
dimi- nution. Marketing Theory, 16, 469–491.
Vargo, S. L. (2008). Customer integration and value creation:
Pragmatic traps and perspectives. Journal of Service Research,
11, 211–215.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic
for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic:
Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36, 1–
10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It's all B2B...And beyond:
Toward a sys tems perspective of the market . Indus trial
Mark eting Management, 40, 181–187.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An
extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5–23.
Verleye, K., Gemmel, P., & Rangarajan, D. (2014). Managing
engage- ment behaviors in a network of customers and
stakeholders: Evidence from the nursing home sector.
Journal of Service Research, 17, 68–84.
Zhang, X., & Chen, R. (2008). Examining the mechanisms of the
value co-creation with customers. International Journal of
Production Economics, 116, 242–250.