Why Co-creation of Value May Not Work?

  • Marja Naaranoja
  • Lorna Uden
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 185)


The continual improvements in medical technologies, greater levels of knowledge and awareness amongst patient populations and increasing demands for the variety of sources of health care available within Finland means organising the health service is a great challenge. However, due to the rapid increase in health care, the government is desperate to find ways of innovating the service and cutting cost. A key question to be answered is in relation to this political agenda is how can we organise health care and achieve good, fair and cost effective services for the whole population. Teamworking can provide us a means of achieving this.

Interdisciplinary health care teams are increasingly becoming an integral part of the health care system in Finland, as well as in many other nations around the world. There are multiple benefits to the patients, health care professionals, and health care system as a whole, in employing interdisciplinary health care teams in the health service. However, the implementation of Interdisciplinary health care for innovation is not trivial. This paper describes the experiences that face health care service in the Osuva project involving in Finland. It discusses the barriers found and how the co-creation of value can help in interdisciplinary teamwork innovation.


Co-creation Activity theory Value Team Health care 



The authors would like to express their gratitude to the organisation involved in the research effort behind this paper. The paper is part of research done in the Osuva project.


  1. 1.
    Bacharach, N., Hasslen, R.: Creating a Professional Development School. Fastback 480. Phi Delta Kappa International, PO Box 789, Bloomington, IN 47402–0789 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bardram, J.E.: I love the system: i just don’t use it. In: Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’97), Lancaster, UK, pp. 17–32 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernard-Bonnin, A.C., Stachenko, S., Bonin, D., Charette, C., Rousseau, E.: Self-management teaching programs and morbidity of pediatric asthma: a meta-analysis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 1(1), 34–41 (1995).
  4. 4.
    Boer, N.I., van Baalen, P.J., Kumar, K.: An Activity Approach for Studying the Situatedness of Knowledge Sharing. Department of Information and Decision Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole, M., Engeström, Y.: A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In: Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations, pp. 1–46 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coates, N.: Co-creation: new pathways to value: an overview. In: Research Director (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engeström, Y.: Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonassen, D.H., Rohrer-Murphy, L.: Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 47(1), 61–79 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kambil, A., Nunes, P.F., Wilson, D.: Transforming the marketspace with all-in-one markets. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 3(4), 11–28 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.A.: Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.A., Macaulay, B.A.: Methods & tools: the activity checklist. Mag. Interact. 6(4), 27–39 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kemp, K.: The use of interdisciplinary medical teams to improve quality and access to care. J. Interprof. Care 21(5), 557–559 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi, B.A. (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. MIT press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lang, C.L.: The resolution of status and ideological conflicts in community mental health settings. Psychiatry 45, 159–171 (1982)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Molyneux, J.: Interprofessional teamworking: what makes teams work well? J. Interprof. Care 5(1), 29–35 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moss, R.: Community mental health teams: a developing culture. J. Ment. Health 3, 167–174 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orchard, C.A., Curran, V., Kabene, S.: Creating a culture of interdisciplinary. In: Med. Educ. Online 10(11) (2005).
  18. 18.
    Omachon, V.K., Einspruch, M.G.: Innovation in healthcare delivery systems: a conceptual framework. Innov. J. Public Sect. Innov. J. 15(1), 2–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Onyett, S., Smith, H.: The structure and organisation of community mental health teams. In: Brooker, C., Repper, J. (eds.) Serious Mental Health Problems in the Community Policy, Practice and Research, pp. 62–86. Balliere Tindall, London (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ovretveit, J.: Co-ordinating Community Care: Multidisciplinary Teams and Care Management. Open University Press, Buckingham (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ovretveit, S.: Planning and managing teams. Health Soc. Care Commun. 5, 269–283 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perry, C., Power, B.M.: Finding the truths in teacher preparation field experiences. Teacher Educ. Q. 31(2), 125–136 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18(3), 5–14 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prahaland, C.K., Ramaswami, V.: The new frontier of experience innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 44(4), 12–18 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salas, E., Wilson, K., Murphy, C., King, H., Salsbury, M.: Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork. Jt. Comm. Qual. Patient Saf. 34(6), 333–341 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramaswamy, V.: Co-creating value through customers’ experiences: the Nike case. Strategy Leadersh. 36(5), 9–14 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36(1), 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wagner, E.H.: The role of patient care teams in chronic disease management. BMJ 320(7234), 569–572 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VaasaVaasaFinland
  2. 2.Staffordshire UniversityStaffordUK

Personalised recommendations