Do platforms contribute to value co-creation processes? Insights from a Service-Dominant logic perspective

Michela Piccarozzi, Tindara Abbate, Barbara Aquilani


Purpose. The aim of the paper is to investigate characteristics, tools and rules of platforms, which have a relevant role in value co-creation processes. Based on the Service Dominant-Logic perspective, the study focuses on a web-based platform in order to understand if and how this platform supports firms in value co-creation processes.

Methodology. The study performs an explorative qualitative analysis using a single case study method. It uses both desk information and a series of interviews.

Findings. The findings provide several outlines of platforms considered as “service providers”, highlighting their main characteristics, tools of interaction and rules used to effectively realize value co-creation processes.

Practical implications. The findings have several implications for existing or to be created firms interested in activating and developing effectively value co-creation processes based on platforms.

Originality/value. This study provides new insights into how value co-creation processes develop following a Service Dominant logic perspective – a domain still understudied in literature- as well as how platforms foster these processes. 


Value co-creation; platforms; Service Dominant-Logic; service providers

Full Text:



Akaka M.A., Vargo, S.L. (2014). “Technology as an operant resource in service (eco) systems”, Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(3): 367–384.

Barrett M., Davidson E., Prabhu J., Vargo S.L. (2015), “Service Innovation in the Digital Age: Key Contributions and Future Directions”, MIS Quartely, 39(1): 135-154.

Chandler J., Vargo S. L. (2011). “Contextualization: network intersections, value-in-context, and the co-creation of markets”. Marketing Theory, 11(1): 35–49.

Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publication Inc.

Edvardsson B., Tronvol B., Gruber T. (2011). “Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2): 327–39.

Elliott R. (1999). “Editor’s introduction to special issue on qualitative psychotherapy research: Definitions, themes and discoveries”, Psychotherapy Research, 9: 251-257.

Gibbert M., Ruigrok W., Wicki B. (2008), “What passes as a rigorous case study?”, Strategic Management Journal, 29(13):1465-1474.

Guercini S. (2014). “New qualitative research methodologies in management”, Management Decision, 52(4): 662-675.

Gummesson E. (2006). “Qualitative research in management: addressing complexity, context and persona”, Management Decision, 44(2): 167-179.

Gummesson E., Lusch R.F., Vargo S.L. (2010). “Transitioning from service management to service-dominant logic”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(1): 8-22.

Henfridsson O., Bygstad, B. (2013). “The Generative Mechanisms of Digital Infrastructure Evolution”, MIS Quarterly, 37(3): 907-931.

Lee T. (1999). Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.

Lusch R. F., Nambisan S. (2015). “Service Innovation: a Service-Dominant Logic Perspective”, MIS Quartely, 39(1):155–176.

Lusch R. F., Vargo S. L., O’Brien M. (2007). “Competing through Service: Insights from Service-Dominant Logic”, Journal of Retailing, 83(1): 5–18.

Lusch R. F., Vargo S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maglio P. P., Spohrer J. (2008). “Fundamentals of Service Science”, Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 36(1):18–20.

Prahalad C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2000). “Co-opting customer competence.” Harvard Business Review 78(1): 79-87.

Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2004). “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (3): 5-14.

Ramaswamy, V., Ozcan, K. (2014). The co-creation paradigm. Stanford (CA):Stanford University Press.

Siggelkow N. (2007), “Persuasion with case studies”, Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 20-24.

Tilson D., Lyytinen K., Sørensen, C. (2010). “Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda”, Information Systems Research, 21(4): 748-759

Vargo, S. L. (2011). “Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions: Toward a service-dominant logic-based theory of the market”, European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2): 217–222.

Vargo S. L., Lusch R. F. (2004). “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 68(January):1–17.

Vargo S. L., Lusch R. F. (2008). “Why “service”?”, Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 36(1): 25–38.

Vargo S. L., Lusch R. F. (2016). “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of Service-Dominant Logic”, Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1): 5–23.

Yin R.K. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yoo Y., Boland Jr. R. J., Lyytinen K., Majchrzak A. (2012). “Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World”, Organization Science, 23(5): 1398-1408.


  • There are currently no refbacks.