Article II: Unboxing co-creation of value: users’ hedonic and

Tuunanen, T., Lintula, J., and Auvinen, A. (2019). Unboxing co-creation of value:

users’ hedonic and utilitarian drivers, in Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), University of Hawaii at Manoa, Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 1406–1415.

With its roots in organizational systems, the IS research literature has tended to focus on utilitarian and rationality-driven system use (e.g., DeLone and McLean 1992). More recently, a distinction has been drawn between hedonic and utilitarian value drivers as well as between extrinsic and intrinsic IS use motivations (Kahneman et al. 2004; Van der Heijden 2004). In this context, intrinsic motivation is based on performing an activity “for no apparent reinforcement other that the process of performing the activity per se” (Davis et al. 1992, p. 1112). Therefore, user-IS interaction can itself be seen as a sufficient motivation for using the system in question (Valkonen et al. 2015). Further, Tuunanen et al. (2010) argue that for users, VCC represents the interplay between

58

at least two issues and also highlights the utilitarian and hedonic value and goals of system use (cf. Figure 3). However, the prior IS literature has failed to inspect the co-creation of value with a focus on the individual user level. Further, while Tuunanen et al. (2010) recognize that users’ goals may be hedonic or utilitarian, they do not detail how these types of goals might impact the users’ depicted value drivers and system value propositions. To fill the identified research gap, the aim of this study was to unbox VCC for service systems, that

is, “configuration[s] of people, technologies, and other resources that interact

with other service systems to create mutual value” (Maglio et al. 2009, p. 395).

We conducted a qualitative investigation into the hedonic and utilitarian value drivers of individual IS users in five distinct digital service contexts. After analyzing 113 laddering interviews (Peffers et al. 2003; Reynolds and Gutman 1988; Tuunanen and Kuo 2015; Tuunanen and Peffers 2018), we meta-coded 1697 data units (laddering chains) based on the lens of system value propositions and user value drivers (Tuunanen et al. 2010). Further, we assigned the meta-coded data units hedonic, utilitarian, or hybrid (a combination of the two) value emphases. This allowed us to investigate and depict the users’ value structures both within and across the selected B2B and C2C digital service systems.

Our analysis showed that although some of the investigated digital services were perceived to be highly utilitarian, the value drivers for system use varied across the cases (cf. Table 8). The distributions of hedonic-, utilitarian-, and hybrid-oriented value drivers across all the investigated cases are presented in Tables 9–11. While some of the investigated systems were perceived to be hedonic in nature, they had a strong utilitarian undercurrent as drivers of system use. Whereas the investigated B2B service systems were more strongly driven by utilitarian-oriented VCC, the leisure-oriented systems (i.e., metal detecting and geocaching) were more strongly driven by hedonic-oriented VCC. The metal-detecting study is particularly interesting because, regardless of the leisure-oriented nature of the digital service, hedonic and utilitarian value drivers appeared to a nearly equal extent in the use of the system. The other leisure-oriented system, namely geocaching, served mainly hedonic-driven system use.

Thus, while we foresaw that there could be differences in value types between the B2B and C2C service systems, we found unexpected differences in the value type emphases between similar types of service systems. The differing value emphases were established in the use of each investigated digital service.

As such, our findings suggest that services should be designed according to value structures rather than system types, which supports Tuunanen and Kuo’s (2015) argument that system features should be prioritized on the basis of the value structures of users. Consequently, the study shone a new light on VCC at the service system level from the individual user perspective. Our findings revealed that all the investigated service systems were differently structured in terms of how users perceived the unfolding of VCC. Further, our assessment highlighted how the applied research methodology is well suited to helping researchers and practitioners to identify those aspects of VCC emphasized by system users, thereby allowing for development and design efforts to be appropriately directed.

59

TABLE 8 Meta-coded value themes across all the cases %(n) Case/

TABLE 9 Hedonic value distribution across all the cases %(n) Case/

60

TABLE 10 Utilitarian value distribution across all the cases %(n) Case/

TABLE 11 Hybrid value distribution across all the cases %(n) Case/

This article sought to answer RQ2: How do service systems differ in terms of users’

hedonic and utilitarian value drivers? By investigating individual users’ hedonic, utilitarian, and hybrid value drivers both within and across particular service systems, this study developed novel insights that serve to extend the findings of Article I. More specifically, as Article I involved an in-depth investigation of the VCC process in relation to DSD and showcased that hedonic and utilitarian value outcomes are interrelated, Article II provided elaborated knowledge regarding

61

the emphases of these two outcome constructs, and a hybrid value, with respect to particular VCC themes across divergent digital service systems. Thus, Article II mapped particular outcome constructs in terms of IS use, showcasing which themes were particularly connected with hedonic, utilitarian and hybrid value drivers, extending the hierarchical insights of the VCC mechanisms developed in Article I. The implications of such an elaborate understanding of the occurrence of the value drivers complement current understandings of users’ motivations and goals with regard to the use of IS. In accordance with the findings of Article I, this study concluded that the design and development of IS ought to consider users’ value drivers as they occur within the particular service system, regardless of the type of digital service. Moreover, in highlighting how user value drivers differ between different service systems, this study further extended the findings of Article I, which proposed that hedonic and utilitarian user values are intertwined within the VCC process.

4.3 Article III: Understanding service actors’ value co-destruction