Customer Participation in Service Cocreation: An (Extended) Abstract

  • Ruby P. Lee
  • Wang Yonggui
  • Shuang Ma
  • Jeffrey Anderson
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)


This study investigates the question of when a customer firm’s participation is helpful or harmful for value cocreation in professional services. Codevelopment between customer and supplier firms is an overlooked research area in the supply chain literature. Further, when there exist no common language and clear rules between suppliers and their customers, the presence of ambiguity is unavoidable. Thus, the investigation of what role ambiguity plays out that affects customer participation and value cocreation is rather imperative. The objective of this research is to answer the following question: How does customer participation (depth and breadth) moderated by ambiguity (need based and knowledge based) affect strategic collaboration, which in turn affects service cocreation outcomes?


Transaction cost economics Service-dominant logic Ambiguity Collaboration Professional services cocreation 


  1. Bensaou, M., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Configurations of interorganizational relationships: A comparison between U.S. and japanese automakers. Management Science, 41(9), 1471–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowersox, D. J., Closs, D. J., & Drayer, R. W. (2005). The digital transformation: Technology and beyond. Supply Chain Management Review, 91(1), 22–29.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, I. J., Paulraj, A., & Lado, A. A. (2004). Strategic purchasing, supply management, and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(5), 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daft, R. L., & Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fang, E. (2008). Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2008). Influence of customer participation on creating and sharing of new product value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3), 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, J. L. (1999). Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: Managing the interfirm relationship as a strategic asset. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim, D., & Lee, R. P. (2010). Systems collaboration and strategic collaboration: Their impacts on supply chain responsiveness and market performance. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 955–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. King, A. W. (2007). Disentangling interfirm and intrafirm causal ambiguity: A conceptual model of causal ambiguity and sustainable competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 156–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lau, A. K. W., Tang, E., & Yam, R. C. M. (2010). Effects of supplier and customer integration on product innovation and performance: Empirical evidence in Hong Kong manufacturers. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), 761–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
  15. Li, D., Chau, P. Y. K., & Lai, F. (2010). Market orientation, ownership type, and e-business assimilation: Evidence from chinese firms. Decision Sciences, 41(1), 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 418–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meuleman, M., Lockett, A., Manigart, S., & Wright, M. (2010). Partner selection decisions in interfirm collaborations: The paradox of relational embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 995–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reed, R., & Defillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88–102.Google Scholar
  19. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruby P. Lee
    • 1
  • Wang Yonggui
    • 2
  • Shuang Ma
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Anderson
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.University of International Business and EconomicsChaoyangChina

Personalised recommendations