Influenced Factors Relates To Foreign Guest Satisfaction On Malaysian SMEs Hotel

Value Co-Creation and Strategic Considerations of Service Practices

Conceptually, VCC is about understanding the “processes, resources and practices which actors (firms, employees, customers and others) use to manage their activities during the interaction with other actors” (Payne et al., 2007, p. 85) in a specific context. Firms are using VCC concept for the development of higher relational orientation and deeper interaction with the different actors like customers, employees and others (Ballantyne & Aitken, 2007; Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2016). Interaction as a mechanism helps to create a superior customer experience (Payne et al., 2007; Vargo & Lusch, 2016), especially when service is complex (like automobile repair). In this context, the interaction between FLEs and customer is key (Cadwallader et al., 2010; Sweeney et al., 2018). To this end, firms need to facilitate the collaborative and interactive environment. This collaborative and interactive environment help them to perform appropriate behaviour during the interaction with customers. This study argue firms should facilitate their FLEs with co-creation practice, that can help FLEs to manage their interactions with customers. Co-creation of value happens through the resource integration and interaction between FLEs and customers in a service joint sphere (Grönroos & Voima, 2013; Gummesson & Mele, 2010; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). From strategic point of view, firm’s role as facilitator of value is central in supporting FLEs to be an effective co-creator. This issue is more pertinent to be explored in complex service setting like automobile sector, where FLEs often in stress due to multiple service features like repair and maintenance, insurance coverage, warranty claim and others while customers are sometimes fearful, anxious and angry.

Frow, McColl-Kennedy and Payne (2016) argued that processes of VCC originated from service practices (co-creation practices) among actors which join in a service ecosystem. Through the performance of these practices actors create value (Korkman et al., 2010). SP come up through institutions-social norms or rules of the game (Williamson, 2000) which basically provide structure for interaction and assist with the co-ordination of VCC. This study proposes the typology of SP i.e., regulative, normative and cognitive practices. Firstly, although previous literature highlighted various kinds of practices (Frow et al., 2016; La Rocca et al., 2014; Luo Zet al., 2015; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015) but their work is somehow lacking in introducing service practices towards the engagement of FLEs in VCC as well as supporting capabilities as enablers. Secondly, previously reported practices are generic in nature and discussing practices from macro perspective than micro and having a strong emphasis on gathering the customer insights. Thirdly, conceptualization to provide insights into the network-oriented nature of VCC and firms role to facilitate the interaction among FLEs and customers in complex service setting is scant. Previous researchers have acknowledged that more studies are required to explore the practice’s role for engagement of FLEs in VCC in complex service setting (Frow et al., 2016).

This study characterizes interactional capabilities as integrative mechanism which produce coherence and integration of SP for VCC. Interaction capabilities provide the background for incorporation of firm’s assets into groups, which permit the realization of VCC (Marcos-Cuevas et al., 2016). This study conceptualize the six interaction capabilities given by (Karpen et al;, 2011). Six interaction capabilities are: (1) Developmental (2) Empowerment (3) Relational (4) Ethical (5) Individuated (6) concerted interaction capabilities. Through this conceptualization, service-dominant practices and capabilities will be less abstract, thereby yielding guidelines which facilitate the realization of VCC. Table 1 shows the previous work on co-creation practices by different researchers.

Regulative Practice

Regulative practices include rule setting, monitoring and sanctioning activities to influence the behavior (Scott, 2008). In broader sense, they constrain and regularize behavior. But, sometimes due to coercive power supported by rules, firms move into the realm of authority. Rather than operating in authoritative and exogenous manner, laws should be better conceive as an occasion for sense making and collective interpretation (Patel & Cardon, 2010). That is what value co-creation explain, value through collective interpretation (Edvardsson et al., 2011) enhances the actors engagement in value co-creation. Firms should craft regulative practice that bring believe in FLEs about their social wellbeing.

Cognitive Practice

Previous literature explain cognitive practices as ways, perception, descriptions, theories, model and empirical data about reality and thus, brings the understanding for business reality to operate the business successfully (Edvardsson et al., 2014). Social cognitive theory (SCT) focus attention on actor’s learning and behaviour which occur in social environments (Schunk & Usher, 2012). In social environments actors observe not only others behaviour but also their consequences, by doing so they learn the sequence of actions and which later on guide their own action to achieve appropriate outcomes (Bandura, 1986). From the cognitive perspective, for value co-creation, the firms need to perceive, understand and learn about their FLEs. What FLEs personally believe, wants, needs and how firms can bring easiness to their life through technology. Through cognitive practices, practitioners can identify the new business opportunities. Through cognitive practice, firm learn about FLEs emotions and their needs to better engage them in VCC. By acknowledging this, this study defines Cognitive practice as internalized practice that facilitate individuated and concerted capabilities to FLEs to engage them in value co-creation.

FLEs Value Co-Creation Behaviour

For VCC to occur, actors (like FLEs) should engage behaviourally in exchange (service-for-service) and in associated interactions. Without behavioural engagement either resource integration will happens, nor value can be co-created during interaction (Storbacka et al., 2016). To, align the theory with practice FLEs behavioural engagement plays a central role for empirical investigation. Marketing related approaches take engagement as longitudinal and theoretically broader and more transactional (Storbacka et al., 2016). Like, Van Doorn et al. (2010) claimed that engagement is behavioural by nature and firms interest lie into understanding that how different drivers leads towards behavioural manifestation for firm and others.

Relatively, in VCC literature researchers have explored more customers’ engagement behaviour. But, Yi and Gong (2013) who developed and measure the scale for customer VCC behaviour emphasize to measure employees behavioural engagement to VCC. Previous researchers have provided the two types of VCC behaviour like active and passive (Bove et al., 2009; Yi & Gong, 2013; Yi et al.2011). Yi and Gong (2013) label passive and active kinds of behaviour as participation behaviour. Similarly, Van Doorn et al. (2010) identifies five types of engagement behaviour like valence, form, scope, nature, of impact and customers goal. Behavioural engagement differs in terms of duration (Chandler & Lusch, 2015; Füller, 2010; White et al., 2004), so firms should develop the co-creation activities wisely in terms of engaging actors. Storbacka et al. (2016) has defined five properties as observable engagement activities for co-production vs. value-in-use activities, relational properties, informational properties, and temporal properties.