Description
Recent research suggests that there are increasing opportunities for customer-firm co-production as a
means to achieve competitive advantage. This study proposes a model of co-production and investigates
the link between co-production and its antecedent factors in a financial services context. The model is
empirically tested in a survey of 288 customers of banks (or financial holding companies). Support is
found for a contingency model involving customer expertise, service provider expertise, communication
and interpersonal relationships along with perceived importance of service and dependence. Theoretical
and managerial implications of findings are discussed.
Co-production and the roles of dependence and service importance
Chung-Yu Wang
a, *
, Hsiao-Ching Lee
b
, Li-Wei Wu
c
a
Department of Business Administration, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of International Business, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Taiwan, ROC
c
Department of International Business, Tunghai University, Taiwan, ROC
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 July 2012
Accepted 24 April 2014
Available online 3 June 2015
Keywords:
Service
Perceived importance of service
Dependence
Co-production
a b s t r a c t
Recent research suggests that there are increasing opportunities for customer-?rm co-production as a
means to achieve competitive advantage. This study proposes a model of co-production and investigates
the link between co-production and its antecedent factors in a ?nancial services context. The model is
empirically tested in a survey of 288 customers of banks (or ?nancial holding companies). Support is
found for a contingency model involving customer expertise, service provider expertise, communication
and interpersonal relationships along with perceived importance of service and dependence. Theoretical
and managerial implications of ?ndings are discussed.
© 2015 College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. Production and hosting by Elsevier
Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Customers are increasingly being encouraged to take on more
active roles in producing goods and services (Bendapudi & Leone,
2003; Verhoef, Reintrez, & Krafft, 2010). The service marketing
literature has focused on customer participation in service ?rms.
For instance, Kelley, Donnelly, and Skinner (1990) suggest that
service organizations view customers as quasi employees and
manage their behavior similar to employees. Recent work supports
increasing opportunities for customer-?rm co-production as a
means to achieve competitive advantage (e.g., Payne, Storbacka, &
Frow, 2008). Speci?cally, co-production can enhance perceptions
of value because customers create value with ?rm (e.g., Oh & Teo,
2010). Firms should embrace co-production to organize their ser-
vice delivery. Increasingly clients can decide how much of a service
they want to produce for themselves, which means that previously
obvious producer-customer divide has become more blurred.
Therefore, the product is likely to become more and more a process
into which the customer can immerse oneself and can provide in-
puts (Firat et al., 1995). Coproduction requires a shift to a buyer-
centric business model, through that client preferences can be
expressed in real time and then products/service will be custom-
ized. The interface between the customer and the ?rm represents
an important component of a service delivery process in which the
client has direct input into the production of the ?nal service (Auh,
Bell, McLeod, & Shih, 2007).
Customer coproduction is highly relevant for service ?rms and
has attracted signi?cant academic attention. Etgar (2008) suggests
that researchers analyze co-production as a distinct area of con-
sumer behavior and develop empirical research models. A deeper
understanding of how consumers decide whether or not to engage
in co-production is imperative (Etgar, 2008). Prior studies have
demonstrated several drivers of customer coproduction behavior,
for example customer motivation, customer ability, or knowledge
(e.g., Auh et al., 2007; Büttgen, Schumann, & Zelal, 2012; Lengnick-
Hall, 1996; Schneider & Bowen, 1995). Customer motivation to
participate is important to for effective co-production (Büttgen
et al., 2012). One of the factors in?uencing the co-production
motivation is customer-service provider relationship (Kuusisto &
Paallysaho, 2008). Guo and Ng (2011) conclude that interpersonal
relationships in?uence service co-production. Besides, since
expertise facilitates ef?cient and effective service, in that customers
are better able to provide accurate information to advisors.
Therefore, this study considers the antecedents of co-production
widely accepted in past literature: customer expertise and inter-
personal relationship (Auh et al., 2007; Etgar, 2008; Guo & Ng,
2011; Lengnick-Hall, 1996; Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom, & Brown,
2005). In addition, since expertise facilitates ef?cient and effective
service and communications between service employees and
* Corresponding author. Department of Business Administration, National
Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Chien Kung Campus, 415 Chien Kung
Road, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-Y. Wang).
Peer review under responsibility of College of Management, National Cheng
Kung University.
HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Asia Paci?c Management Review
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apmrv
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.04.001
1029-3132/© 2015 College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. Production and hosting by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155
clients help improve task clarity (Lengnick-Hall, Claycomb, & Inks,
2000), two other antecedent factors are considered: provider
expertise and communication. This study extends past research by
examining the moderating effect of perceived importance of ser-
vice and dependence on the relationships between co-production
and its antecedents (i.e., customer expertise, service provider
expertise, communication, and interpersonal relationship).
It is possible that the relationships between co-production and its
antecedents vary depending on the perceived importance of service
and on customer dependence. One of the factors in?uencing the co-
production motivation is perceived importance of the service
(Kuusisto & Paallysaho, 2008). Furthermore, previous work has
found that perceived importance is a key moderator in the rela-
tionship between service performance outcomes and their drivers
(Tokman, Davis, & Lemon, 2007; Yang, Li, Tan, & Teo, 2007). Tokman
et al. (2007) conclude that service importance play a prominent role
in shaping customer switch-back intentions. Yang et al. (2007)
demonstrate that the perceived importance of learning positively
moderates the relationship between utilitarian outcome expectancy
and participation forum intention. Researchers have explained the
moderating role of importance by reference to customers' willing-
ness to be more active processors of cognitive information when
making purchase decisions (Ray et al., 1973). Co-production also
involves cognitive determinants, so this work wants to examine
whether the relationship between co-production and its antecedents
is also moderated by the perceived importance of service.
Dependence is a closely related concept. Rodríguez, P erez, and
Guti errez (2007) demonstrate that dependence moderates the
relationship between satisfaction, trust and commitment. Satis-
faction has a higher positive impact on trust and commitment in
situation of high perceived dependence between customer and
service provider than when dependence is low. It may follow from
this result that when a customer is dependent on service provider,
the customer's satisfaction about customer expertise, service pro-
vider's expertise, communication, and interpersonal relationship
may be a driver of co-production.
Here we propose and empirically analyze an integrative
framework that considers customer expertise, service provider
expertise, communication, and interpersonal relationship as ante-
cedents of co-production. In particular, this work examines the
moderating roles of perceived importance of service and depen-
dence in the relationship between co-production and its anteced-
ents. Understanding howthese factors related to co-production and
the boundary condition of their relationship can help managers
effectively increase customer co-production and customize mar-
keting offers. For example, if service provider expertise has a
stronger effect on co-production for customers with high perceived
dependence than it has for customers with low perceived depen-
dence, a manager should pay particular attention to increasing
service provider expertise to promote co-production for high-
dependence customers.
2. Literature review
Etgar (2008) indicates that co-production encompasses all
cooperation formats between consumers and production part-
ners. Auh et al. (2007) de?ne co-production as constructive
customer participation in the service creation and delivery pro-
cess, and clarity that it requires meaningful, cooperative contri-
butions to the service process. Bendapudi and Leone (2003) de?ne
customer participation (or co-production) as joint production of
outcome. A broader perspective on co-production is found in
interpretive marketing literature (e.g., Firat & Venkatesh, 1993).
These researchers suggest that consumers are usurping the priv-
ileged status previously accorded to the producers and they may
become participants in the customization of their world
(Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). Scholars have argued that customers
and ?rms are involved in co-production during the exchange
mechanism (Bitner, Faranda, Hubbert, & Zeithaml, 1997), and
highlight the simultaneous production and consumption charac-
teristic of services.
This study adopts the view of co-production as “engaging cus-
tomers as active participants in the organization's work” (Lengnick-
Hall et al., 2000, p. 359). Co-production has two major bene?ts.
First, involving the customer in co-production will lower costs and
increase productivity for service providers. For example, customers
arrange their own airplane tickets over the Internet. Second, co-
production can help to customize ?rms' offerings to customers'
need (Etgar, 2008). For example, in the delivery of ?nancial services,
haircuts, medical consultations, or education clients make provision
of input tothedecision-makingprocess. Thebene?ts of co-production
are not limited to high-contact services; even in lowcontact services,
customers may ?nd co-production attractive since they enjoy
increased perceived control over the service delivery process and
additional opportunities to make choice (Schneider & Bowen, 1995).
2.1. Communication
SharmaandPatterson(1999) de?necommunicationas the formal
andinformal sharing of meaningful and timely information between
a client and advisor in an empathetic manner. In the ?nancial service
context of our study, the content of communication focuses on
providing investment strategies, explaining ?nancial concepts,
forecasting economic situations, and responding to customer re-
quests for information. Communication ?ow is central to the estab-
lishment of strong relationshipandtrust (Sharma &Patterson, 1999),
which is bene?cial to customers' coproduction. Communication also
socializes clients about the procedures and norms of the ?rm by
helping them identify with a particular role within the ?rm which
also is critical for effective co-production (Mills, Chase, & Margulies,
1983). The extent to which clients identify themselves as co-
producers will in?uence their willingness to participate co-
production. Accordingly, communication relates positively to co-
production (Auh et al., 2007). Therefore, this work hypothesizes:
H1. Communication positively in?uences co-production.
2.2. Provider expertise
Expertise entails having a special skill or knowledge that repre-
sents mastery of a particular subject (Stewart, 1989). Because ex-
perts are more in?uential than non-experts (Busch &Wilson, 1976),
the quality of the relationship is enhanced by seller competency
(Crosby, Evants, & Cowles, 1990). The greater the provider's
knowledge or expertise about customer questions and concerns, the
more likely the service provider is to enhance the customer's role
clarity (Dellande, Gilly, & Graham, 2004) and to enhance the trust
and satisfaction of customers towards the service provider (Smith,
1998). Most service marketers recognize the importance of build-
ing more sustainable and long-lasting relationship with their clients
when considering the performance of services vary on the degree of
complexity, the intimate nature of exchange and co-production of
services outcomes (Lovelock, 1996). Service provider and customers
bring their knowledge and skills and apply their own resources in
order tocreate services andvalue is co-createdbythis reciprocal and
mutually bene?cial relationship (Vargo, Maglio, & Paul, 2008). In
short, service provider expertise is important for customers to
participate co-production. Therefore, this work hypothesizes:
H2. Provider expertise positively in?uences co-production.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 149
2.3. Customer expertise
Sharma and Patterson (2000) de?ne that customer expertise
represents a customer's accrued knowledge about how a product
should performand general understanding of average performance
of similar brands in a product category. As clients gain experience
and ability, they are better able to evaluate the various attributes of
different service offerings (Moorthy, Ratchford, & Talukdar, 1997),
and they may have a greater need for control in the service delivery
process (O'Connor & Siomkos, 1994). Consequently, Wikstr€ om
(1996) indicates that the customer is no longer regarded as a pas-
sive receiver but is coming to be seen as an active and knowl-
edgeable participant in a common process. Bendapudi and Leone
(2003) conclude that the assumption of greater customization
under co-production may hold only when the customer has the
expertise to craft a good or service to his or her liking. In short,
effective co-production requires customers who are capable of
making useful and timely contributions to organization activities
(Dong, Evans, & Zou, 2008; Lusch, Brown, & Brunswick, 1992;
Meuter et al., 2005; Schneider & Bowen, 1995). Therefore, this
work hypothesizes:
H3. Customer expertise positively in?uences co-production.
2.4. Interpersonal relationships
Interpersonal relationships refer to the strength of personal
bonds that develop between customers and their service em-
ployees (Turnball & Wilson, 1989). Interpersonal relationships
positively in?uence intentions to stay with a service provider
(Burnham, Frels, & Mahajan, 2003). Wikstr€ om (1996) de?ne co-
production (collaboration, consumer co-operation, etc.) as com-
panyeconsumer interaction (social exchange) and adaptation for
the purpose of attaining value. Regular and frequent interaction is
an important correlate of friendship formation and maintenance
(Fehr, 1996), which may be a bene?t for co-production, since the
relationships established between customers and service em-
ployees can have a signi?cant impact on perceptions of worth or
service value (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In fact, co-production is used
to refer to the “interactive nature of services” (Yen, Gwinner, & Su,
2004). Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye (2008) conclude that since cus-
tomers may derive utility and value from the customer-service
provider relationship, they will form a positive attitude to overall
presumption which means that buyers produce products for their
own consumption. Owing to social and psychological bene?ts from
their relationships with service personnel, customers may like to
participate in co-production activities with a service provider.
Moreover, when interpersonal relationship becomes more mature,
client and employee would treat each other as an integral part of
the team and work towards collective goals and service co-
production would then be greatly enhanced (Guo & Ng, 2011).
Therefore, this work hypothesizes:
H4. Interpersonal relationships positively in?uence co-
production.
2.5. Perceived importance of service
Perceived importance (as a sub-dimension of the broader
involvement concept) is referred to as the purchased service's
personal meaning and relevance to the customer or both (Laurent &
Kapferer, 1985; Schneider & Rodgers, 1996; Tokman et al., 2007).
Customers perceiving the purchase decision as being an important
one will comprehend more information and produce more
elaborate meanings around the purchase situation (Celsi & Olson,
1988). Bloch and Richins (1983, p. 71) de?ne perceived product
importance as, “the extent to which a consumer links a product to
salient, enduring or situation-speci?c goals”. If the product is
perceived to be important to customer goals, risk perceived by the
customer will be high (McQuiston, 1989). As for the ?nancial ser-
vice, since the service delivery occurs in a climate of high customer
and environmental uncertainty (Sharma & Patterson, 1999), cus-
tomers always try to reduce the perceived risk, tending to partici-
pate in co-production. Furthermore, the situational role of
perceived importance is evident in literature. For example,
perceived importance positively moderates the relationship be-
tween service performance outcomes and their drivers (De Wulf,
Odekerken-Schroder, & Iacobucci, 2001; Tokman et al., 2007;
Yang et al., 2007) as well as the relationship between satisfaction
and loyalty (Jackie, 2011; Wangenheim, 2003). Researchers explain
this in terms of customers' willingness to be more active processors
of cognitive information when making purchase decisions (Ray
et al., 1973). Kuusisto and Paallysaho (2008) indicate that one of
the factors in?uencing the co-production motivation is perceived
importance of the service. Therefore, customers that regard offered
?nancial advisory services as being important to them are more
likely to produce more meanings around co-production and to be
concerned with the determinants of co-production (i.e., customer
expertise, service provider's expertise, communication, and inter-
personal relationship). Thus,
H5. Service importance moderates the relationship between co-
production and its determinants. Speci?cally, when service
importance is high, the relationships between customer expertise,
service provider's expertise, communication, and interpersonal
relationship and co-production will be stronger than when service
importance is low.
2.6. Dependence
Wilkin (1987) de?nes dependency as “a state in which an in-
dividual is reliant upon others for assistance in meeting recognized
needs” (p. 868). Memmi (1984) de?nes dependence as a relation-
ship with a real or ideal object, group, or institution that involves
more or less accepted compulsion and that is connected with the
satisfaction of a need. It is obvious that ?rms live on thanks to their
customers' purchases, and that consumers depend on ?rms to
satisfy their need. In industrial markets, a customer depending on
its supplier for superior bene?ts is likely to perceive compatible
goals and values (Gilliland & Bello 2002) and tends to experience
“ful?llment of objectives” (Oliver, 1999, p. 35) as well as relational
satisfaction (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), all of which enhance relational
loyalty (Scheer, Miao, & Garrett, 2010). Similarly, in a ?nancial
service setting, a client is dependent on its advisory service pro-
viders for bene?ts mentioned above, all of which may increase
loyalty and participation in coproduction. Thus, dependence posi-
tively in?uences relational attitude (Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000),
continuous usage intention (Park, Kim, & Koh, 2010), and intent to
cooperate (Andaleeb, 1995). Rodriguez et al. (2007) conclude that
where levels of dependence are high, the creation of a satisfactory
climate is especially important for trust and commitment. Besides,
Auh et al. (2007) demonstrate that client affective commitment to
the ?rm relates positively to co-production. Therefore, when a
client is dependent on service provider's advisories, the client's
satisfaction with service provider's expertise and communication
will in?uence co-production. Notably, when the buyer is dependent
on the supplier, the buyer's commitment will be high and will not
be very sensitive to different levels of trust in the supplier
(Andaleeb, 1996). So, in a situation of high dependence, the client's
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 150
willingness to engage in co-production will be high, and the rela-
tionship between interpersonal relationship and customer exper-
tise and co-production becomes negligible. Thus,
H6. Dependence moderates the relationship between co-
production and its determinants. Speci?cally, when dependence
is high, the relationships between service provider's expertise and
communication and co-production will be stronger than when
dependence is low. However, when dependence is high, the re-
lationships between customer expertise and interpersonal rela-
tionship and co-production will be weaker than when dependence
is low.
Based on the preceding considerations, a conceptual model is
developed in this work (see Fig. 1).
2.7. Measurement
This work designs the questionnaire with measures of the
relevant constructs primarily based on scales taken from previous
work. We measure co-production, de?ned as constructive
customer participation in the service creation and delivery process
and the extent to which customers are engaged as active partici-
pants in the organization's work (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2000), at the
client/advisor level with a three-item scale adapted from Auh et al.
(2007). To capture communication, de?ned as the sharing of
meaningful and timely information between a client and an advisor
in an empathetic manner, we use a four-item scale that measures
the extent to which advisors communicate information relevant to
the core service, adapted from Sharma and Patterson (1999). We
de?ne customer (or service provider) expertise as the extent of a
customer's (or service provider's) prior product knowledge and
ability to assess product performance and measure it by capturing
clients' (or service provider's) market-related investment expertise,
through a two-item scale developed by Auh et al. (2007). The
interpersonal relationship scale measures customers' overall per-
ceptions of the existence and strength of relationship with their
current service personnel and is adapted from scales by Jones,
Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2000), ?ve items are revised and
used. Perceived importance is referred to as the purchased service's
personal meaning and relevance to the customer or both
(Schneider & Rodgers, 1996). A ?ve-item scale regarding perceived
importance of service is drawn and revised from Tokman et al.
(2007). Finally, Memmi (1984) de?nes dependence as a relation-
ship with a real or ideal object, group, or institution that involves
more or less accepted compulsion and that is connected with the
satisfaction of a need. Dependence is measured and modi?ed from
Rodriguez et al. (2007) to suit the ?nancial services context and
three items are used.
2.8. Sample
As an empirical test of the hypotheses, a survey was conducted
of co-production behavior in the bank industry (e.g., Auh et al.,
2007). We sampled clients who have purchased products/services
from banks (or ?nancial holding companies). These ?nancial ser-
vices include for example, ?nancial planning, asset allocation
planning, and advisory services, as well as a variety of ?nancial
products, such as funds and insurances. A high degree of product/
services complexity exists in the ?nancial services industry,
affording signi?cant opportunities for customization in terms of
service bundling and modi?cations of offerings to suit clients'
needs. Focusing on a single service category helps to improve in-
ternal validity and reduce the error variance and hence increases
the power of hypothesis testing (Voss & Voss, 2000). The survey
sample consisted of customers at different banks (or ?nancial
holding companies) in Taiwan. Undergraduate students were given
extra credit for recruiting non-student participants (see also
Gwinner, Gremler, & Bitner, 1998; Tokman et al., 2007). Students
were trained as recruiters prior to data collection. The training
enabled students to recruit respondents, who were asked to com-
plete a self-report questionnaire. Using a systematic sampling
technique, customers were randomly approached a skip interval of
two by student interviewers as they exited the banks. The re-
spondents received the questionnaire items translated into Chi-
nese. Before responding to the questionnaire items, respondents
read the survey instructions. The interviewers were instructed to
give clari?cation and assistance. Respondents answered items
relevant to speci?c ?nancial service advisor they were patronizing.
Finally, the analysis described here was based upon data from 288
subjects for whom complete model-related information was
Fig. 1. Conceptual research model.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 151
available. The demographics of sample were 58% female, 48% be-
tween 20 and 34 years old, and 50% college graduates, which is
similar to the work regarding to wealth management in Taiwan
(Yu & Ting, 2011) (i.e., 61% are females; 47% are 20e40 years old).
2.9. Reliability and validity
In order to reduce the data into a smaller and more mean-
ingful set of components, several puri?cation steps (con?rmatory
factor analyses and item-to-total) were run. All items, except for
one item from the perceived importance of service scale, are
retained for subsequent analysis. This work dropped one item
from the perceived importance of service scale (“It means a lot to
have ?nancial service advisor to use.”), because it had a low
correlation (<0.5). Table 1 lists composite reliabilities, AVE, items,
and loadings for the ?nal multi-item measures. Amos 5.0 soft-
ware was used and con?rmatory factor analysis was performed to
assess the measurement model consisting of all items designed to
measure the 7 constructs (c
2
¼ 546.43, df ¼ 209, RMR ¼ 0.05,
GFI ¼ 0.89, AGFI ¼ 0.85). As for composite reliability, the values
are higher than 0.7 (Nunnally, 1967) for all constructs. The
average variances extracted (AVE) for all constructs is ranged
from 0.50 to 0.83, which is greater than 0.5, and thus demon-
strates the convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The
correlation of a construct with its indicators (i.e., the square root
of the AVE) should exceed the correlation between that construct
and any other construct. The square roots of the AVE for all
constructs are ranged from 0.71 to 0.91, which exceeds the cor-
relation between that construct and any other ranging from 0.13
to 0.70, so that 7 constructs have adequate discriminant validity
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In summary, the overall measure
properties are acceptable.
2.10. Statistical analysis
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), if researchers want to test
moderating effect, they should ?rst test the main effect. Re-
searchers can then add the multiplicative interaction term and test
whether its coef?cient signi?cantly differs from zero. To eliminate
problems of multi-collinearity resulting fromthe interaction terms,
this work followed the suggestions of Aiken and West (1991) by
centering the independent predictor variables prior to computing
the interaction terms. This transformation did not affect the
regression coef?cients or the model's R
2
and F values. Reference to
previous work (e.g., Jones et al., 2000), hierarchy regression anal-
ysis is adopted to test main effect and moderating effect.
3. Results
The results of main and moderating effect analysis are provided
in Table 2. All VIF values are low (1.44e2.90), so multicollinearity
does not exist. Compared with Model 1a, the results in Model 1b
does show a correspondingly signi?cant increase in R
2
(DF < 0.05).
This ?nding reveals that the moderator of dependence and service
importance are generally relevant in the context of co-production
and its antecedents.
As expected, communication is positively associated with co-
production (Model 1b: b ¼ 0.34, p < 0.05), providing support for
H1. The main effect of service provider expertise (Model 1b:
b ¼ 0.10) on co-production is positively signi?cant at the 0.05 level,
providing support for H2. Hypothesis 3 is supported as the rela-
tionship between customer expertise (Model 1b: b ¼0.15, p < 0.05)
and co-production is signi?cant at the hypothesized direction. Also,
interpersonal relationships is positively associated with co-
production (Model 1b: b ¼0.14, p < 0.05), providing support for H4.
Hypothesis 5, on the other hand, is not supported since service
importance does not moderate all of the relationships between co-
production and its determinants. When perceived importance is
high, only the relationships between customer expertise (Model
1b: b ¼ 0.23, p < 0.05), service provider's expertise (Model 1b:
b ¼ 0.23, p < 0.05), and communication (Model 1b: b ¼ 0.10,
p < 0.10), and co-production will be stronger than when service
importance is low. The interaction's positive sign supports this
work's prediction that as perceived importance of service increases,
the associations between positive customer expertise, service
provider's expertise, and communication and co-production in-
crease. Noticeably, the relationship between interpersonal rela-
tionship and co-production does not depend on the level of
perceived importance of service.
The result shows that the moderating effects of dependence on
the relationship between customer expertise (Model 1b: b ¼À0.16,
p < 0.05), service provider's expertise (Model 1b: b ¼0.09, p < 0.10),
interpersonal relationship (Model 1b: b ¼ À0.10, p < 0.05), and
communication (Model 1b: b ¼ 0.09, p < 0.10), and co-production
are signi?cant. Therefore, H6 is supported. The interaction's nega-
tive sign supports this work's prediction that as dependence in-
creases, the associations between customer expertise and
interpersonal relationship and co-production becomes negligible.
In contrast, the interaction's positive sign supports this work's
prediction that as dependence increases, the associations between
service provider's expertise and communication and co-production
increase.
Table 1
Overview of the multi-item measures.
Constructs and items (AVE, composite reliability) Loading
Customer expertise (0.78, 0.88)
I possess good knowledge of ?nancial planning
services and products.
0.85
I am quite experienced in ?nancial planning. 0.92
Service provider's expertise (0.83, 0.91)
My advisor possesses good knowledge of ?nancial
planning services and products.
0.88
My advisor is quite experienced in ?nancial planning. 0.94
Co-production (0.50, 0.75)
I try to work cooperatively with my advisor. 0.66
I do things to make my advisor's job easier. 0.75
I prepare my queries before contacting my advisor. 0.71
Interpersonal relationships (0.62, 0.89)
I feel like there is a “bond” between my advisor and myself. 0.78
I have developed a personal friendship with my advisor. 0.83
I have somewhat of a personal friendship with my advisor. 0.70
I am friends with my advisor. 0.82
My advisor is familiar with me. 0.81
Communication (0.66, 0.88)
My advisor keeps me very well informed about what is
going on with my investment.
0.83
My advisor explains ?nancial concepts and recommendations
in a meaningful way.
0.87
My advisor always offers me as much information as I need. 0.84
My advisor always explains to me the pros and cons of the
investment he/she recommends to me.
0.69
Perceived importance of service (0.66, 0.88)
Choosing advisor is a big decision in my life. 0.81
I attach a great importance to selecting advisor. 0.84
Choosing advisor takes a lot of careful thought. 0.79
Decisions about selecting advisor are serious,
important decisions.
0.80
Dependence (0.71, 0.88)
I need my advisor resources. 0.89
I need expertise and support from my advisor. 0.95
I depend on my advisor to invest. 0.66
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 152
4. Conclusions and implications
This study proposes and tests a framework for understanding
the moderating effects of dependence and perceived importance of
service on the relationships between co-production and its ante-
cedents. The ?ndings provide some empirical support for the many
conceptual frameworks that incorporate motivation, ability, and
task clarity as determinants of co-production (e.g., Auh et al., 2007;
Bettencourt, Ostrom, Brown, & Roundtree, 2002; Dong et al., 2008;
Meuter et al., 2005). In contrast to previous research which ?nds
the antecedents of co-production, this study further demonstrates
dependence and perceived importance of service moderate the
relationship between co-production and its antecedents. Results of
this work highlight the role of dependence and perceived impor-
tance of service in co-production. While customer expertise, ser-
vice provider expertise, interpersonal relationship, and
communication are important determinants of consumers' co-
production, dependence and perceived importance of service are
also found to be critical. Speci?cally, when perceived importance of
service is high, customer expertise, service provider expertise, and
communication become especially important and have the effect of
increasing co-production. Noticeably, the relationship between
interpersonal relationship and co-production does not depend on
the level of perceived importance of service. Researchers explain
the moderating role of importance as part of the involved cus-
tomers' willingness to be more active processors of cognitive in-
formation when making purchase decisions (Ray et al., 1973).
Customers, who perceive the purchase decision as being an
important one, comprehend more information and produce more
elaborate meanings about the purchase situation (Celsi & Olson,
1988). Hence, the customers that regard offered services as being
important to them are more likely to concentrate on the necessary
factors (i.e., customer expertise, service provider's expertise, and
communication) which may motivate the participation in co-
production. In contrast, when service importance is high, inter-
personal relationship may be an affect factor and may be over-
looked by the customers when making decisions regarding the
participation in co-production. As for the moderator of depen-
dence, the impacts of service provider's expertise and communi-
cation on co-production are increased when customers are highly
dependent on a service provider. The effects of customer expertise
and interpersonal relationship on co-production are negligible
when customers depend on service providers. The function of these
two moderators indicates that the antecedents of co-production are
more complex than past studies suggest.
These results carry implications for both marketing theory and
business practice. The results demonstrate the need to incorporate
constructs beyond customer expertise, service provider expertise,
interpersonal relationship, and communication in models of con-
sumer co-production. In particular existing theories of co-
production should be extended to incorporate contingency re-
lationships (e.g., Auh et al., 2007; Meuter et al., 2005). This repre-
sents an extension of our theoretical understanding of dependence
and perceived importance, both of which moderate the main ef-
fects (e.g., Davis & Mentzer, 2008; Leonard, Cronan, & Kreie, 2004).
Any failure to incorporate contingency relationships is likely to lead
to underestimation the role of dependence and perceived impor-
tance of service in the co-production process. Models without these
factors may overestimate the role in co-production of customer
expertise, service provider's expertise, interpersonal relationship,
and communication.
In terms of business practice, the results suggest that managers
should work on two issues simultaneously to increase customer
intentions toward co-production. On the one hand, they must build
up dependence and perceived importance of service. On the other,
they must enhance service provider expertise, customer expertise,
interpersonal relationships, and communication. Managers can
treat the framework developed in this article as a consumer strat-
egy designed to engage a customer as a co-producer and to achieve
customization of marketing offers. We ?nd that client expertise and
service employee expertise signi?cantly and positively in?uence
co-production, consistent with previous work (e.g., Auh et al., 2007;
Vargo et al., 2008). Expert clients and employee have greater ability
to make meaningful contributions to service delivery. From a long-
term perspective, if the quality of services depends on co-
production, ?rms will bene?t from better trained customers. Cus-
tomers need to be trained to know what to expect and how to
behave in given situations, particularly in professional services in
which the service is more complex and customers are usually less
familiar with the situations (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr, 1994). Yim,
Chan, and Lam (2012) suggest that ?rms could hold regular in-
vestment seminars to provide opportunities for novice customers
to learn from experienced investors to gradually take on a value
cocreator role.
Organizations should ask employee to raise competency and
consider ways to communicate employee expertise to their cus-
tomers. Advisors can rely on their interviewing skills to establish
relationships, assess needs, and solve problems (McGuigan, 2011).
Expert service employee should also educate their customers in the
form of customer-friendly instructions or aid to increase customer
expertise and ability (Dellande et al., 2004). We also ?nd that
communication has a signi?cant and positive association with co-
production, consistent with previous work (e.g., Auh et al., 2007),
which implies that the sharing of information between a client and
advisor and clarity of expectations regarding clients' roles leads to
effective co-production outcomes. Managers need to communicate
clearly to clients what they desire in the service encounter and
what clients are able to bring to this encounter. In other word, their
communications should shape customers' self-perceptions and
knowledge of the ?rm's expectations about their role (Lengnick-
Hall et al., 2000). Besides, managers should work to improve
communications between service employee and their clients,
which may serve the dual purpose of improving task clarity and
developing client expertise. For example, ?nancial service com-
panies' advisors should offer high quality information and answer
Table 2
Results of regression analysis (co-production as the dependent variable).
Independent variables Model 1a Model 1b
Customer expertise 0.16**
a
0.15**
Service provider's expertise 0.11** 0.10**
Interpersonal relationships 0.09* 0.14**
Communication 0.41** 0.34**
Perceived importance of service 0.20** 0.19**
Dependence 0.11** 0.14**
Customer expertise  Perceived
importance of service
0.23**
Service provider's expertise Â
Perceived importance of service
0.23**
Interpersonal relationships Â
Perceived importance of service
0.03
Communication  Perceived
importance of service
0.10*
Customer expertise  Dependence À0.16**
Service provider's expertise  Dependence 0.09*
Interpersonal relationships  Dependence À0.10**
Communication  Dependence 0.09*
R
2
0.64 0.69
Adjusted R
2
0.63 0.67
F 82.96** 42.55**
6F 5.06**
**p < 0.05; *p < 0.10.
a
Standardized regression coef?cients are reported.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 153
client queries in nontechnical language. Analyst reports with
different levels of complexity will be suitable for various expertise
clients. For instance, analyst reports should not be highly technical
to novice investors. There are also implications for recruitment and
job design. An increase in co-production initiatives will require
capable and responsive employees to cope with customer queries
and needs.
The positive and signi?cant association between interpersonal
relationships and co-production provide support for the expecta-
tion that clients should be motivated to involve service production,
consistent with previous work (e.g., Guo & Ng, 2011). Interpersonal
relationships may increase the likelihood that clients will recipro-
cate with behaviors that help the employee deliver a more satis-
factory service. Chan, Yim, and Lam (2010) suggest that customers
who perceive the relationship as durable should be more motivated
to make the most of their cocreation opportunities. Etgar (2008)
indicates that consumers will tend to engage more in co-
production when several emotional preconditions are realized,
for example, trust their co-production partners. This implies that
interpersonal relationships will motivate co-production. Besides,
co-production can provide clients with skills of maintaining com-
munications and dialog with their co-production partners (Etgar,
2008). To improve interpersonal relationships, ?rms should try
to, for example, engender trust in the customers and strength the
bonds of identi?cation that have been formed with the employee
and with the ?rm. Ennew, Kharouf, and Sekhon (2011) indicate that
for consumers, communication and service provider's expertise
cause organizational trustworthiness, which simpli?es decisions
and reduces risks; in its absence their willingness to engage with
the ?nancial services sector may be signi?cantly reduced. In order
to build up perceived importance of service, ?rms must try, for
example, to clearly communicate valued customer bene?ts of their
services. For high-importance customers, managers should make
efforts to increase service provider expertise, customer expertise,
and communication skill, to promote co-production. In order to
enhance dependence, ?rms should try, for example, to increase
consumer perceptions of product complexity and service provider
heterogeneity and expertise. This will have the effect of encour-
aging customers to depend on the provider's instructions. For high-
dependence customers, managers should try to increase service
provider expertise and communication skill to promote co-
production.
In conclusion, this work contributes to the understanding of the
variables that underlie effective customer co-production, and pro-
vides a basis for developing appropriate co-production based
marketing strategies. In order to be truly customer centric, ?rms
should view their customers as co-producers and co-creators of
value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Applying employee-management
practices to customers can lead to effective co-production by
improving customer expertise, service provider expertise, inter-
personal relationship, and communication. The framework devel-
oped here suggests that ?rms need to check their operational
procedures, technology friendliness, human resource practices, and
performance criteria. Furthermore, managers can ask diagnostic
questions suggested by Bettencourt et al. (2002) themselves to
assess how effectively they manage customers’ co-production be-
haviors. Coproduction is not only relevant to the service delivery
phase of services management but also can extend across the full
value chain of service planning, design, commissioning, managing,
delivering, monitoring, and evaluation activities (Bovaird, 2007).
This study ?nishes by noting some limitations and making
recommendations for future research directions. First, consistent
with Patterson and Smith (2003), this work collects data on one
service, but generalisability will be increased by replications of this
work's model across additional services, for example health care
services (Dellande et al., 2004). Future works can assess whether
differences/similarities exist across service types. Second, Meuter
et al. (2005) conclude that consumer readiness variables are sig-
ni?cant mediators in the relationship between the decision to trial
and its antecedents. Their results suggest that lack of “consumer
readiness” may explain the failure of trial. Future work could adopt
this mediator as part of a co-production framework. Besides,
Meuter et al. do not further analyze the moderating effect in their
study. Future research could examine whether the relationship
between trial and its antecedents is changed by the moderators
used in our work. Third, Etgar (2008) indicates that the quality of
cooperation is affected by situational factors such as trust, cultural
compatibility, and empathy, and motivation drivers such as eco-
nomic, psychological and social drivers. Future work could consider
these potential factors in co-production frameworks. Finally, the
sample examined in this work is a business-to-customer focus. In
the business-to-business context, co-production is far more likely
to be an accepted part of the relationship; many ?rms consider it a
job requirement of buyers. Future work could generate more in-
sights by exploring more issues around co-production in the
business-to-business context (Skjolsvik, Lowendahl, Kvalshaugen,
& Fosstenlokken, 2007).
Con?ict of interest
All contributing authors declare no con?icts of interest.
Acknowledgement
This work's authors sincerely appreciate the precious comments
from the two anonymous reviewers and the ?nancial aid from the
Ministry of Science and Technology (Republic of China, Taiwan)
(NSC 99-2410-H-151 -027 -MY2).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting in-
teractions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Andaleeb, S. S. (1995). Dependence relations and the moderating role of trust:
implication for behavioral intentions in marketing channels. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 157e172.
Andaleeb, S. S. (1996). An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commit-
ment in marketing channels: the role of trust and dependence. Journal of
Retailing, 72(1), 77e93.
Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer
loyalty in ?nancial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 359e370.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173e1182.
Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer
participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67, 14e28.
Bettencourt, L. A., Ostrom, A. L., Brown, S. W., & Roundtree, R. I. (2002). Client co-
production in knowledge-intensive business service. California Management
Review, 44, 100e128.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical service encounters: the
employee's viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 95e106.
Bitner, M. J., Faranda, W. T., Hubbert, A. R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1997). Customer
contributions and roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service In-
dustry Management, 8(3), 193e205.
Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product
importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 69e81.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: user and community
coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846e860.
Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching costs: a ty-
pology, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 31(2), 109e126.
Busch, P., & Wilson, D. T. (1976). An experimental analysis of a salesman's expert
and referent bases of social power in the buyer-seller dyad. Journal of Marketing
Research, 13(1), 3e11.
Büttgen, M., Schumann, J.-H., & Zelal, A. (2012). Service locus of control and
customer coproduction: the role of prior service experience and organizational
socialization. Journal of Service Research, 15(2), 166e181.
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and
comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210e224.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 154
Chan, K. W., Yim, C.-K.(B.), & Lam, S. S. (2010). Is customer participation in value
creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional ?nancial services
across cultures. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48e64.
Crosby, L. A., Evants, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in service
selling: an interpersonal in?uence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3),
68e81.
Davis, D. F., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Relational resources in interorganizational ex-
change: the effects of trade equity and brand equity. Journal of Retailing, 84(4),
435e448.
Dellande, S., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2004). Gaining compliance and losing
weight: the role of the service provider in health care services. Journal of
Marketing, 68(3), 78e91.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investment in con-
sumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of
Marketing, 65(4), 33e50.
Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in co-
createdservice recovery. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 36, 123e137.
Ennew, C., Kharouf, H., & Sekhon, H. (2011). Trust in UK ?nancial services: a lon-
gitudinal analysis. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 16(1), 65e75.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97e108.
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Firat, A. F., Dholakia, N., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Marketing in a postmodern world.
European Journal of Marketing, 29(1), 40e56.
Firat, A., & Venkatesh, A. (1993). “Postmodernity” in the age of marketing. Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), 227e249.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39e80.
Gilliland, D. I., & Bello, D. C. (2002). Two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect
of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distri-
bution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 24e43.
Guo, L., & Ng, I. C. L. (2011). The co-production of equipment-based services: an
interpersonal approach. European Management Journal, 29(1), 43e50.
Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (1998). Relational bene?ts in service
industries: the customer's perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 26(2), 101e114.
Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2000). Switching barriers and
repurchase intentions in services. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 259e274.
Kelley, S. W., Donnelly, J. H., Jr., & Skinner, S. J. (1990). Customer participation in
service production and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66(3), 315e335.
Kuusisto, A., & Paallysaho, S. (2008). Customer role in service production and inno-
vation- looking for directions for future research (Research Report 195). Lep-
peenranta University of Technology, Leppeenranta, Finland.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement pro?les.
Journal of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41e53.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1996). Customer contributions to quality: a different view of
the customer-oriented ?rm. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 791e824.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Claycomb, V., & Inks, L. W. (2000). From recipient to contrib-
utor: examining customer roles and experienced outcomes. European Journal of
Marketing, 34(3/4), 359e383.
Leonard, L. N. K., Cronan, T. P., & Kreie, J. (2004). What in?uences IT ethical behavior
intentions-planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance, or indi-
vidual characteristics? Information and Management, 42, 143e158.
Lovelock, C. (1996). Service marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lusch, R. F., Brown, S., & Brunswick, G. J. (1992). A generic framework for explaining
internal vs. external exchange. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20,
119e134.
McGuigan, P. J. (2011). Interviewing skills in ?nancial services: a pathway to
improvement. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 65(6), 62e70.
McQuiston, D. H. (1989). Novelty, complexity and importance as causal de-
terminants of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 66e79.
Memmi, A. (1984). Dependence: A sketch for a portrait of the dependent. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among
alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-
service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61e83.
Mills, P. K., Chase, R. B., &Margulies, N. (1983). Motivating the client/employee system
as a service production strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 301e310.
Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B. T., & Talukdar, D. (1997). Consumer information search
revisited: theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4),
263e277.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20e38.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, L.-B., & Teo, H.-H. (2010). Consumer value co-creation in a hybrid commerce
service-deliverysystem. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(3), 35e62.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence customer loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 33e44.
O'Connor, G. C., & Siomkos, G. J. (1994). The need for control in the service sector.
Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(3), 105e112.
Patterson, P. G., & Smith, T. (2003). A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and
propensity to stay with service providers. Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 107e120.
Park, J. S., Kim, J. J., & Koh, J. (2010). Determinants of continuous usage intention in
web analytics services. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 61e72.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value.
Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 36, 83e96.
Ray, M. L., Sawyer, A. G., Rothschild, M. L., Heeler, R. M., Strong, E. C., & Reed, J. B.
(1973). Marketing communication and the hierarchy of effects. In P. Clarke (Ed.),
New models for mass communication research (Vol. 2, pp. 147e176). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Rodríguez, N. G., P erez, M. J. S., & Guti errez, J. A. T. (2007). Interfunctional climate
and a new product performance: dependence as a moderator. Journal of Busi-
ness & Industrial Marketing, 22(7), 459e473.
de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2000). The marketing-?nance interface: a relational
exchange perspective. Journal of Business Research, 50, 209e215.
Scheer, L. K., Miao, C. F., & Garrett, J. (2010). The effects of supplier capabilities on
industrial customers' loyalty: the role of dependence. Journal of the Academy
Marketing Science, 38, 90e104.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Schneider, K. C., & Rodgers, W. C. (1996). An ‘importance’ subscale for the consumer
involvement pro?le. Advances in Consumer Research, 23(1), 249e254.
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (1999). The impact of communication effectiveness
and service quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional
services. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(2), 151e170.
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (2000). Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and
experience as moderators of relationship commitment in professional, con-
sumer services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(5),
470e490.
Skjolsvik, T., Lowendahl, B. R., Kvalshaugen, R., & Fosstenlokken, S. M. (2007).
Choosing to learn and learning to choose: strategies for client co-production
and knowledge development. California Management Review, 19(3), 110e127.
Smith, J. B. (1998). Buyer-seller relationships: similarity, relationship management,
and quality. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 3e21.
Stewart, T. A. (1989). New ways to exercise power. Fortune, 120(11), 52e64.
Tam, J. L. M. (2011). The moderating effects of purchase importance in customer
satisfaction process: an empirical investigation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
10, 205e215.
Tokman, M., Davis, L. M., & Lemon, K. N. (2007). The WOW factor: creating value
through win-back offers to reacquire lost customers. Journal of Retailing, 83(1),
47e64.
Turnball, L. R., & Wilson, D. T. (1989). Developing and protecting pro?table customer
relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 18(2), 233e238.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1e17.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P., & Paul, A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: a service
systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26,
145e152.
Verhoef, P. C., Reintrez, W. J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new
perspective in customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3),
247e252.
Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Strategic orientation and ?rm performance in an
artistic environment. Journal of Marketing, 64, 67e83.
Wangenheim, F. V. (2003). Situational characteristics as moderators of the
satisfaction-loyalty link: an investigation in a business-to-business context.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 16,
145e156.
Wikstr€ om, S. (1996). Value creation by company-consumer interaction. Journal of
Marketing Management, 12, 359e374.
Wilkin, D. (1987). Conceptual problems in dependency research. Social Science and
Medicine, 24(10), 867e873.
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to presume: toward a theory of
consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 36,
109e122.
Yang, X., Li, Y., Tan, C. H., & Teo, H. H. (2007). Students' participation intention in an
online discussion forum: why is computer-mediated interaction attractive?
Information & Management, 44(5), 456e466.
Yen, H. R., Gwinner, K. P., & Su, W. (2004). The impact of customer participation and
service expectation on Locus attributions following service failure. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(1), 7e26.
Yim, C. K., Chan, K. W., & Lam, S. S. K. (2012). Do customers and employees enjoy
service participation? Synergistic effects of seif- and other-ef?cacy. Journal of
Marketing, 76, 121e140.
Yu, V. F., & Ting, H.-I. (2011). Identifying key factors affecting consumers' choice of
wealth management services: an AHP approach. The Service Industries Journal,
31(6), 929e939.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 155
doc_761741822.pdf
Recent research suggests that there are increasing opportunities for customer-firm co-production as a
means to achieve competitive advantage. This study proposes a model of co-production and investigates
the link between co-production and its antecedent factors in a financial services context. The model is
empirically tested in a survey of 288 customers of banks (or financial holding companies). Support is
found for a contingency model involving customer expertise, service provider expertise, communication
and interpersonal relationships along with perceived importance of service and dependence. Theoretical
and managerial implications of findings are discussed.
Co-production and the roles of dependence and service importance
Chung-Yu Wang
a, *
, Hsiao-Ching Lee
b
, Li-Wei Wu
c
a
Department of Business Administration, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of International Business, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Taiwan, ROC
c
Department of International Business, Tunghai University, Taiwan, ROC
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 July 2012
Accepted 24 April 2014
Available online 3 June 2015
Keywords:
Service
Perceived importance of service
Dependence
Co-production
a b s t r a c t
Recent research suggests that there are increasing opportunities for customer-?rm co-production as a
means to achieve competitive advantage. This study proposes a model of co-production and investigates
the link between co-production and its antecedent factors in a ?nancial services context. The model is
empirically tested in a survey of 288 customers of banks (or ?nancial holding companies). Support is
found for a contingency model involving customer expertise, service provider expertise, communication
and interpersonal relationships along with perceived importance of service and dependence. Theoretical
and managerial implications of ?ndings are discussed.
© 2015 College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. Production and hosting by Elsevier
Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Customers are increasingly being encouraged to take on more
active roles in producing goods and services (Bendapudi & Leone,
2003; Verhoef, Reintrez, & Krafft, 2010). The service marketing
literature has focused on customer participation in service ?rms.
For instance, Kelley, Donnelly, and Skinner (1990) suggest that
service organizations view customers as quasi employees and
manage their behavior similar to employees. Recent work supports
increasing opportunities for customer-?rm co-production as a
means to achieve competitive advantage (e.g., Payne, Storbacka, &
Frow, 2008). Speci?cally, co-production can enhance perceptions
of value because customers create value with ?rm (e.g., Oh & Teo,
2010). Firms should embrace co-production to organize their ser-
vice delivery. Increasingly clients can decide how much of a service
they want to produce for themselves, which means that previously
obvious producer-customer divide has become more blurred.
Therefore, the product is likely to become more and more a process
into which the customer can immerse oneself and can provide in-
puts (Firat et al., 1995). Coproduction requires a shift to a buyer-
centric business model, through that client preferences can be
expressed in real time and then products/service will be custom-
ized. The interface between the customer and the ?rm represents
an important component of a service delivery process in which the
client has direct input into the production of the ?nal service (Auh,
Bell, McLeod, & Shih, 2007).
Customer coproduction is highly relevant for service ?rms and
has attracted signi?cant academic attention. Etgar (2008) suggests
that researchers analyze co-production as a distinct area of con-
sumer behavior and develop empirical research models. A deeper
understanding of how consumers decide whether or not to engage
in co-production is imperative (Etgar, 2008). Prior studies have
demonstrated several drivers of customer coproduction behavior,
for example customer motivation, customer ability, or knowledge
(e.g., Auh et al., 2007; Büttgen, Schumann, & Zelal, 2012; Lengnick-
Hall, 1996; Schneider & Bowen, 1995). Customer motivation to
participate is important to for effective co-production (Büttgen
et al., 2012). One of the factors in?uencing the co-production
motivation is customer-service provider relationship (Kuusisto &
Paallysaho, 2008). Guo and Ng (2011) conclude that interpersonal
relationships in?uence service co-production. Besides, since
expertise facilitates ef?cient and effective service, in that customers
are better able to provide accurate information to advisors.
Therefore, this study considers the antecedents of co-production
widely accepted in past literature: customer expertise and inter-
personal relationship (Auh et al., 2007; Etgar, 2008; Guo & Ng,
2011; Lengnick-Hall, 1996; Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom, & Brown,
2005). In addition, since expertise facilitates ef?cient and effective
service and communications between service employees and
* Corresponding author. Department of Business Administration, National
Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Chien Kung Campus, 415 Chien Kung
Road, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-Y. Wang).
Peer review under responsibility of College of Management, National Cheng
Kung University.
HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Asia Paci?c Management Review
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apmrv
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.04.001
1029-3132/© 2015 College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. Production and hosting by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155
clients help improve task clarity (Lengnick-Hall, Claycomb, & Inks,
2000), two other antecedent factors are considered: provider
expertise and communication. This study extends past research by
examining the moderating effect of perceived importance of ser-
vice and dependence on the relationships between co-production
and its antecedents (i.e., customer expertise, service provider
expertise, communication, and interpersonal relationship).
It is possible that the relationships between co-production and its
antecedents vary depending on the perceived importance of service
and on customer dependence. One of the factors in?uencing the co-
production motivation is perceived importance of the service
(Kuusisto & Paallysaho, 2008). Furthermore, previous work has
found that perceived importance is a key moderator in the rela-
tionship between service performance outcomes and their drivers
(Tokman, Davis, & Lemon, 2007; Yang, Li, Tan, & Teo, 2007). Tokman
et al. (2007) conclude that service importance play a prominent role
in shaping customer switch-back intentions. Yang et al. (2007)
demonstrate that the perceived importance of learning positively
moderates the relationship between utilitarian outcome expectancy
and participation forum intention. Researchers have explained the
moderating role of importance by reference to customers' willing-
ness to be more active processors of cognitive information when
making purchase decisions (Ray et al., 1973). Co-production also
involves cognitive determinants, so this work wants to examine
whether the relationship between co-production and its antecedents
is also moderated by the perceived importance of service.
Dependence is a closely related concept. Rodríguez, P erez, and
Guti errez (2007) demonstrate that dependence moderates the
relationship between satisfaction, trust and commitment. Satis-
faction has a higher positive impact on trust and commitment in
situation of high perceived dependence between customer and
service provider than when dependence is low. It may follow from
this result that when a customer is dependent on service provider,
the customer's satisfaction about customer expertise, service pro-
vider's expertise, communication, and interpersonal relationship
may be a driver of co-production.
Here we propose and empirically analyze an integrative
framework that considers customer expertise, service provider
expertise, communication, and interpersonal relationship as ante-
cedents of co-production. In particular, this work examines the
moderating roles of perceived importance of service and depen-
dence in the relationship between co-production and its anteced-
ents. Understanding howthese factors related to co-production and
the boundary condition of their relationship can help managers
effectively increase customer co-production and customize mar-
keting offers. For example, if service provider expertise has a
stronger effect on co-production for customers with high perceived
dependence than it has for customers with low perceived depen-
dence, a manager should pay particular attention to increasing
service provider expertise to promote co-production for high-
dependence customers.
2. Literature review
Etgar (2008) indicates that co-production encompasses all
cooperation formats between consumers and production part-
ners. Auh et al. (2007) de?ne co-production as constructive
customer participation in the service creation and delivery pro-
cess, and clarity that it requires meaningful, cooperative contri-
butions to the service process. Bendapudi and Leone (2003) de?ne
customer participation (or co-production) as joint production of
outcome. A broader perspective on co-production is found in
interpretive marketing literature (e.g., Firat & Venkatesh, 1993).
These researchers suggest that consumers are usurping the priv-
ileged status previously accorded to the producers and they may
become participants in the customization of their world
(Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). Scholars have argued that customers
and ?rms are involved in co-production during the exchange
mechanism (Bitner, Faranda, Hubbert, & Zeithaml, 1997), and
highlight the simultaneous production and consumption charac-
teristic of services.
This study adopts the view of co-production as “engaging cus-
tomers as active participants in the organization's work” (Lengnick-
Hall et al., 2000, p. 359). Co-production has two major bene?ts.
First, involving the customer in co-production will lower costs and
increase productivity for service providers. For example, customers
arrange their own airplane tickets over the Internet. Second, co-
production can help to customize ?rms' offerings to customers'
need (Etgar, 2008). For example, in the delivery of ?nancial services,
haircuts, medical consultations, or education clients make provision
of input tothedecision-makingprocess. Thebene?ts of co-production
are not limited to high-contact services; even in lowcontact services,
customers may ?nd co-production attractive since they enjoy
increased perceived control over the service delivery process and
additional opportunities to make choice (Schneider & Bowen, 1995).
2.1. Communication
SharmaandPatterson(1999) de?necommunicationas the formal
andinformal sharing of meaningful and timely information between
a client and advisor in an empathetic manner. In the ?nancial service
context of our study, the content of communication focuses on
providing investment strategies, explaining ?nancial concepts,
forecasting economic situations, and responding to customer re-
quests for information. Communication ?ow is central to the estab-
lishment of strong relationshipandtrust (Sharma &Patterson, 1999),
which is bene?cial to customers' coproduction. Communication also
socializes clients about the procedures and norms of the ?rm by
helping them identify with a particular role within the ?rm which
also is critical for effective co-production (Mills, Chase, & Margulies,
1983). The extent to which clients identify themselves as co-
producers will in?uence their willingness to participate co-
production. Accordingly, communication relates positively to co-
production (Auh et al., 2007). Therefore, this work hypothesizes:
H1. Communication positively in?uences co-production.
2.2. Provider expertise
Expertise entails having a special skill or knowledge that repre-
sents mastery of a particular subject (Stewart, 1989). Because ex-
perts are more in?uential than non-experts (Busch &Wilson, 1976),
the quality of the relationship is enhanced by seller competency
(Crosby, Evants, & Cowles, 1990). The greater the provider's
knowledge or expertise about customer questions and concerns, the
more likely the service provider is to enhance the customer's role
clarity (Dellande, Gilly, & Graham, 2004) and to enhance the trust
and satisfaction of customers towards the service provider (Smith,
1998). Most service marketers recognize the importance of build-
ing more sustainable and long-lasting relationship with their clients
when considering the performance of services vary on the degree of
complexity, the intimate nature of exchange and co-production of
services outcomes (Lovelock, 1996). Service provider and customers
bring their knowledge and skills and apply their own resources in
order tocreate services andvalue is co-createdbythis reciprocal and
mutually bene?cial relationship (Vargo, Maglio, & Paul, 2008). In
short, service provider expertise is important for customers to
participate co-production. Therefore, this work hypothesizes:
H2. Provider expertise positively in?uences co-production.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 149
2.3. Customer expertise
Sharma and Patterson (2000) de?ne that customer expertise
represents a customer's accrued knowledge about how a product
should performand general understanding of average performance
of similar brands in a product category. As clients gain experience
and ability, they are better able to evaluate the various attributes of
different service offerings (Moorthy, Ratchford, & Talukdar, 1997),
and they may have a greater need for control in the service delivery
process (O'Connor & Siomkos, 1994). Consequently, Wikstr€ om
(1996) indicates that the customer is no longer regarded as a pas-
sive receiver but is coming to be seen as an active and knowl-
edgeable participant in a common process. Bendapudi and Leone
(2003) conclude that the assumption of greater customization
under co-production may hold only when the customer has the
expertise to craft a good or service to his or her liking. In short,
effective co-production requires customers who are capable of
making useful and timely contributions to organization activities
(Dong, Evans, & Zou, 2008; Lusch, Brown, & Brunswick, 1992;
Meuter et al., 2005; Schneider & Bowen, 1995). Therefore, this
work hypothesizes:
H3. Customer expertise positively in?uences co-production.
2.4. Interpersonal relationships
Interpersonal relationships refer to the strength of personal
bonds that develop between customers and their service em-
ployees (Turnball & Wilson, 1989). Interpersonal relationships
positively in?uence intentions to stay with a service provider
(Burnham, Frels, & Mahajan, 2003). Wikstr€ om (1996) de?ne co-
production (collaboration, consumer co-operation, etc.) as com-
panyeconsumer interaction (social exchange) and adaptation for
the purpose of attaining value. Regular and frequent interaction is
an important correlate of friendship formation and maintenance
(Fehr, 1996), which may be a bene?t for co-production, since the
relationships established between customers and service em-
ployees can have a signi?cant impact on perceptions of worth or
service value (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In fact, co-production is used
to refer to the “interactive nature of services” (Yen, Gwinner, & Su,
2004). Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye (2008) conclude that since cus-
tomers may derive utility and value from the customer-service
provider relationship, they will form a positive attitude to overall
presumption which means that buyers produce products for their
own consumption. Owing to social and psychological bene?ts from
their relationships with service personnel, customers may like to
participate in co-production activities with a service provider.
Moreover, when interpersonal relationship becomes more mature,
client and employee would treat each other as an integral part of
the team and work towards collective goals and service co-
production would then be greatly enhanced (Guo & Ng, 2011).
Therefore, this work hypothesizes:
H4. Interpersonal relationships positively in?uence co-
production.
2.5. Perceived importance of service
Perceived importance (as a sub-dimension of the broader
involvement concept) is referred to as the purchased service's
personal meaning and relevance to the customer or both (Laurent &
Kapferer, 1985; Schneider & Rodgers, 1996; Tokman et al., 2007).
Customers perceiving the purchase decision as being an important
one will comprehend more information and produce more
elaborate meanings around the purchase situation (Celsi & Olson,
1988). Bloch and Richins (1983, p. 71) de?ne perceived product
importance as, “the extent to which a consumer links a product to
salient, enduring or situation-speci?c goals”. If the product is
perceived to be important to customer goals, risk perceived by the
customer will be high (McQuiston, 1989). As for the ?nancial ser-
vice, since the service delivery occurs in a climate of high customer
and environmental uncertainty (Sharma & Patterson, 1999), cus-
tomers always try to reduce the perceived risk, tending to partici-
pate in co-production. Furthermore, the situational role of
perceived importance is evident in literature. For example,
perceived importance positively moderates the relationship be-
tween service performance outcomes and their drivers (De Wulf,
Odekerken-Schroder, & Iacobucci, 2001; Tokman et al., 2007;
Yang et al., 2007) as well as the relationship between satisfaction
and loyalty (Jackie, 2011; Wangenheim, 2003). Researchers explain
this in terms of customers' willingness to be more active processors
of cognitive information when making purchase decisions (Ray
et al., 1973). Kuusisto and Paallysaho (2008) indicate that one of
the factors in?uencing the co-production motivation is perceived
importance of the service. Therefore, customers that regard offered
?nancial advisory services as being important to them are more
likely to produce more meanings around co-production and to be
concerned with the determinants of co-production (i.e., customer
expertise, service provider's expertise, communication, and inter-
personal relationship). Thus,
H5. Service importance moderates the relationship between co-
production and its determinants. Speci?cally, when service
importance is high, the relationships between customer expertise,
service provider's expertise, communication, and interpersonal
relationship and co-production will be stronger than when service
importance is low.
2.6. Dependence
Wilkin (1987) de?nes dependency as “a state in which an in-
dividual is reliant upon others for assistance in meeting recognized
needs” (p. 868). Memmi (1984) de?nes dependence as a relation-
ship with a real or ideal object, group, or institution that involves
more or less accepted compulsion and that is connected with the
satisfaction of a need. It is obvious that ?rms live on thanks to their
customers' purchases, and that consumers depend on ?rms to
satisfy their need. In industrial markets, a customer depending on
its supplier for superior bene?ts is likely to perceive compatible
goals and values (Gilliland & Bello 2002) and tends to experience
“ful?llment of objectives” (Oliver, 1999, p. 35) as well as relational
satisfaction (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), all of which enhance relational
loyalty (Scheer, Miao, & Garrett, 2010). Similarly, in a ?nancial
service setting, a client is dependent on its advisory service pro-
viders for bene?ts mentioned above, all of which may increase
loyalty and participation in coproduction. Thus, dependence posi-
tively in?uences relational attitude (Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000),
continuous usage intention (Park, Kim, & Koh, 2010), and intent to
cooperate (Andaleeb, 1995). Rodriguez et al. (2007) conclude that
where levels of dependence are high, the creation of a satisfactory
climate is especially important for trust and commitment. Besides,
Auh et al. (2007) demonstrate that client affective commitment to
the ?rm relates positively to co-production. Therefore, when a
client is dependent on service provider's advisories, the client's
satisfaction with service provider's expertise and communication
will in?uence co-production. Notably, when the buyer is dependent
on the supplier, the buyer's commitment will be high and will not
be very sensitive to different levels of trust in the supplier
(Andaleeb, 1996). So, in a situation of high dependence, the client's
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 150
willingness to engage in co-production will be high, and the rela-
tionship between interpersonal relationship and customer exper-
tise and co-production becomes negligible. Thus,
H6. Dependence moderates the relationship between co-
production and its determinants. Speci?cally, when dependence
is high, the relationships between service provider's expertise and
communication and co-production will be stronger than when
dependence is low. However, when dependence is high, the re-
lationships between customer expertise and interpersonal rela-
tionship and co-production will be weaker than when dependence
is low.
Based on the preceding considerations, a conceptual model is
developed in this work (see Fig. 1).
2.7. Measurement
This work designs the questionnaire with measures of the
relevant constructs primarily based on scales taken from previous
work. We measure co-production, de?ned as constructive
customer participation in the service creation and delivery process
and the extent to which customers are engaged as active partici-
pants in the organization's work (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2000), at the
client/advisor level with a three-item scale adapted from Auh et al.
(2007). To capture communication, de?ned as the sharing of
meaningful and timely information between a client and an advisor
in an empathetic manner, we use a four-item scale that measures
the extent to which advisors communicate information relevant to
the core service, adapted from Sharma and Patterson (1999). We
de?ne customer (or service provider) expertise as the extent of a
customer's (or service provider's) prior product knowledge and
ability to assess product performance and measure it by capturing
clients' (or service provider's) market-related investment expertise,
through a two-item scale developed by Auh et al. (2007). The
interpersonal relationship scale measures customers' overall per-
ceptions of the existence and strength of relationship with their
current service personnel and is adapted from scales by Jones,
Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2000), ?ve items are revised and
used. Perceived importance is referred to as the purchased service's
personal meaning and relevance to the customer or both
(Schneider & Rodgers, 1996). A ?ve-item scale regarding perceived
importance of service is drawn and revised from Tokman et al.
(2007). Finally, Memmi (1984) de?nes dependence as a relation-
ship with a real or ideal object, group, or institution that involves
more or less accepted compulsion and that is connected with the
satisfaction of a need. Dependence is measured and modi?ed from
Rodriguez et al. (2007) to suit the ?nancial services context and
three items are used.
2.8. Sample
As an empirical test of the hypotheses, a survey was conducted
of co-production behavior in the bank industry (e.g., Auh et al.,
2007). We sampled clients who have purchased products/services
from banks (or ?nancial holding companies). These ?nancial ser-
vices include for example, ?nancial planning, asset allocation
planning, and advisory services, as well as a variety of ?nancial
products, such as funds and insurances. A high degree of product/
services complexity exists in the ?nancial services industry,
affording signi?cant opportunities for customization in terms of
service bundling and modi?cations of offerings to suit clients'
needs. Focusing on a single service category helps to improve in-
ternal validity and reduce the error variance and hence increases
the power of hypothesis testing (Voss & Voss, 2000). The survey
sample consisted of customers at different banks (or ?nancial
holding companies) in Taiwan. Undergraduate students were given
extra credit for recruiting non-student participants (see also
Gwinner, Gremler, & Bitner, 1998; Tokman et al., 2007). Students
were trained as recruiters prior to data collection. The training
enabled students to recruit respondents, who were asked to com-
plete a self-report questionnaire. Using a systematic sampling
technique, customers were randomly approached a skip interval of
two by student interviewers as they exited the banks. The re-
spondents received the questionnaire items translated into Chi-
nese. Before responding to the questionnaire items, respondents
read the survey instructions. The interviewers were instructed to
give clari?cation and assistance. Respondents answered items
relevant to speci?c ?nancial service advisor they were patronizing.
Finally, the analysis described here was based upon data from 288
subjects for whom complete model-related information was
Fig. 1. Conceptual research model.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 151
available. The demographics of sample were 58% female, 48% be-
tween 20 and 34 years old, and 50% college graduates, which is
similar to the work regarding to wealth management in Taiwan
(Yu & Ting, 2011) (i.e., 61% are females; 47% are 20e40 years old).
2.9. Reliability and validity
In order to reduce the data into a smaller and more mean-
ingful set of components, several puri?cation steps (con?rmatory
factor analyses and item-to-total) were run. All items, except for
one item from the perceived importance of service scale, are
retained for subsequent analysis. This work dropped one item
from the perceived importance of service scale (“It means a lot to
have ?nancial service advisor to use.”), because it had a low
correlation (<0.5). Table 1 lists composite reliabilities, AVE, items,
and loadings for the ?nal multi-item measures. Amos 5.0 soft-
ware was used and con?rmatory factor analysis was performed to
assess the measurement model consisting of all items designed to
measure the 7 constructs (c
2
¼ 546.43, df ¼ 209, RMR ¼ 0.05,
GFI ¼ 0.89, AGFI ¼ 0.85). As for composite reliability, the values
are higher than 0.7 (Nunnally, 1967) for all constructs. The
average variances extracted (AVE) for all constructs is ranged
from 0.50 to 0.83, which is greater than 0.5, and thus demon-
strates the convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The
correlation of a construct with its indicators (i.e., the square root
of the AVE) should exceed the correlation between that construct
and any other construct. The square roots of the AVE for all
constructs are ranged from 0.71 to 0.91, which exceeds the cor-
relation between that construct and any other ranging from 0.13
to 0.70, so that 7 constructs have adequate discriminant validity
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In summary, the overall measure
properties are acceptable.
2.10. Statistical analysis
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), if researchers want to test
moderating effect, they should ?rst test the main effect. Re-
searchers can then add the multiplicative interaction term and test
whether its coef?cient signi?cantly differs from zero. To eliminate
problems of multi-collinearity resulting fromthe interaction terms,
this work followed the suggestions of Aiken and West (1991) by
centering the independent predictor variables prior to computing
the interaction terms. This transformation did not affect the
regression coef?cients or the model's R
2
and F values. Reference to
previous work (e.g., Jones et al., 2000), hierarchy regression anal-
ysis is adopted to test main effect and moderating effect.
3. Results
The results of main and moderating effect analysis are provided
in Table 2. All VIF values are low (1.44e2.90), so multicollinearity
does not exist. Compared with Model 1a, the results in Model 1b
does show a correspondingly signi?cant increase in R
2
(DF < 0.05).
This ?nding reveals that the moderator of dependence and service
importance are generally relevant in the context of co-production
and its antecedents.
As expected, communication is positively associated with co-
production (Model 1b: b ¼ 0.34, p < 0.05), providing support for
H1. The main effect of service provider expertise (Model 1b:
b ¼ 0.10) on co-production is positively signi?cant at the 0.05 level,
providing support for H2. Hypothesis 3 is supported as the rela-
tionship between customer expertise (Model 1b: b ¼0.15, p < 0.05)
and co-production is signi?cant at the hypothesized direction. Also,
interpersonal relationships is positively associated with co-
production (Model 1b: b ¼0.14, p < 0.05), providing support for H4.
Hypothesis 5, on the other hand, is not supported since service
importance does not moderate all of the relationships between co-
production and its determinants. When perceived importance is
high, only the relationships between customer expertise (Model
1b: b ¼ 0.23, p < 0.05), service provider's expertise (Model 1b:
b ¼ 0.23, p < 0.05), and communication (Model 1b: b ¼ 0.10,
p < 0.10), and co-production will be stronger than when service
importance is low. The interaction's positive sign supports this
work's prediction that as perceived importance of service increases,
the associations between positive customer expertise, service
provider's expertise, and communication and co-production in-
crease. Noticeably, the relationship between interpersonal rela-
tionship and co-production does not depend on the level of
perceived importance of service.
The result shows that the moderating effects of dependence on
the relationship between customer expertise (Model 1b: b ¼À0.16,
p < 0.05), service provider's expertise (Model 1b: b ¼0.09, p < 0.10),
interpersonal relationship (Model 1b: b ¼ À0.10, p < 0.05), and
communication (Model 1b: b ¼ 0.09, p < 0.10), and co-production
are signi?cant. Therefore, H6 is supported. The interaction's nega-
tive sign supports this work's prediction that as dependence in-
creases, the associations between customer expertise and
interpersonal relationship and co-production becomes negligible.
In contrast, the interaction's positive sign supports this work's
prediction that as dependence increases, the associations between
service provider's expertise and communication and co-production
increase.
Table 1
Overview of the multi-item measures.
Constructs and items (AVE, composite reliability) Loading
Customer expertise (0.78, 0.88)
I possess good knowledge of ?nancial planning
services and products.
0.85
I am quite experienced in ?nancial planning. 0.92
Service provider's expertise (0.83, 0.91)
My advisor possesses good knowledge of ?nancial
planning services and products.
0.88
My advisor is quite experienced in ?nancial planning. 0.94
Co-production (0.50, 0.75)
I try to work cooperatively with my advisor. 0.66
I do things to make my advisor's job easier. 0.75
I prepare my queries before contacting my advisor. 0.71
Interpersonal relationships (0.62, 0.89)
I feel like there is a “bond” between my advisor and myself. 0.78
I have developed a personal friendship with my advisor. 0.83
I have somewhat of a personal friendship with my advisor. 0.70
I am friends with my advisor. 0.82
My advisor is familiar with me. 0.81
Communication (0.66, 0.88)
My advisor keeps me very well informed about what is
going on with my investment.
0.83
My advisor explains ?nancial concepts and recommendations
in a meaningful way.
0.87
My advisor always offers me as much information as I need. 0.84
My advisor always explains to me the pros and cons of the
investment he/she recommends to me.
0.69
Perceived importance of service (0.66, 0.88)
Choosing advisor is a big decision in my life. 0.81
I attach a great importance to selecting advisor. 0.84
Choosing advisor takes a lot of careful thought. 0.79
Decisions about selecting advisor are serious,
important decisions.
0.80
Dependence (0.71, 0.88)
I need my advisor resources. 0.89
I need expertise and support from my advisor. 0.95
I depend on my advisor to invest. 0.66
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 152
4. Conclusions and implications
This study proposes and tests a framework for understanding
the moderating effects of dependence and perceived importance of
service on the relationships between co-production and its ante-
cedents. The ?ndings provide some empirical support for the many
conceptual frameworks that incorporate motivation, ability, and
task clarity as determinants of co-production (e.g., Auh et al., 2007;
Bettencourt, Ostrom, Brown, & Roundtree, 2002; Dong et al., 2008;
Meuter et al., 2005). In contrast to previous research which ?nds
the antecedents of co-production, this study further demonstrates
dependence and perceived importance of service moderate the
relationship between co-production and its antecedents. Results of
this work highlight the role of dependence and perceived impor-
tance of service in co-production. While customer expertise, ser-
vice provider expertise, interpersonal relationship, and
communication are important determinants of consumers' co-
production, dependence and perceived importance of service are
also found to be critical. Speci?cally, when perceived importance of
service is high, customer expertise, service provider expertise, and
communication become especially important and have the effect of
increasing co-production. Noticeably, the relationship between
interpersonal relationship and co-production does not depend on
the level of perceived importance of service. Researchers explain
the moderating role of importance as part of the involved cus-
tomers' willingness to be more active processors of cognitive in-
formation when making purchase decisions (Ray et al., 1973).
Customers, who perceive the purchase decision as being an
important one, comprehend more information and produce more
elaborate meanings about the purchase situation (Celsi & Olson,
1988). Hence, the customers that regard offered services as being
important to them are more likely to concentrate on the necessary
factors (i.e., customer expertise, service provider's expertise, and
communication) which may motivate the participation in co-
production. In contrast, when service importance is high, inter-
personal relationship may be an affect factor and may be over-
looked by the customers when making decisions regarding the
participation in co-production. As for the moderator of depen-
dence, the impacts of service provider's expertise and communi-
cation on co-production are increased when customers are highly
dependent on a service provider. The effects of customer expertise
and interpersonal relationship on co-production are negligible
when customers depend on service providers. The function of these
two moderators indicates that the antecedents of co-production are
more complex than past studies suggest.
These results carry implications for both marketing theory and
business practice. The results demonstrate the need to incorporate
constructs beyond customer expertise, service provider expertise,
interpersonal relationship, and communication in models of con-
sumer co-production. In particular existing theories of co-
production should be extended to incorporate contingency re-
lationships (e.g., Auh et al., 2007; Meuter et al., 2005). This repre-
sents an extension of our theoretical understanding of dependence
and perceived importance, both of which moderate the main ef-
fects (e.g., Davis & Mentzer, 2008; Leonard, Cronan, & Kreie, 2004).
Any failure to incorporate contingency relationships is likely to lead
to underestimation the role of dependence and perceived impor-
tance of service in the co-production process. Models without these
factors may overestimate the role in co-production of customer
expertise, service provider's expertise, interpersonal relationship,
and communication.
In terms of business practice, the results suggest that managers
should work on two issues simultaneously to increase customer
intentions toward co-production. On the one hand, they must build
up dependence and perceived importance of service. On the other,
they must enhance service provider expertise, customer expertise,
interpersonal relationships, and communication. Managers can
treat the framework developed in this article as a consumer strat-
egy designed to engage a customer as a co-producer and to achieve
customization of marketing offers. We ?nd that client expertise and
service employee expertise signi?cantly and positively in?uence
co-production, consistent with previous work (e.g., Auh et al., 2007;
Vargo et al., 2008). Expert clients and employee have greater ability
to make meaningful contributions to service delivery. From a long-
term perspective, if the quality of services depends on co-
production, ?rms will bene?t from better trained customers. Cus-
tomers need to be trained to know what to expect and how to
behave in given situations, particularly in professional services in
which the service is more complex and customers are usually less
familiar with the situations (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr, 1994). Yim,
Chan, and Lam (2012) suggest that ?rms could hold regular in-
vestment seminars to provide opportunities for novice customers
to learn from experienced investors to gradually take on a value
cocreator role.
Organizations should ask employee to raise competency and
consider ways to communicate employee expertise to their cus-
tomers. Advisors can rely on their interviewing skills to establish
relationships, assess needs, and solve problems (McGuigan, 2011).
Expert service employee should also educate their customers in the
form of customer-friendly instructions or aid to increase customer
expertise and ability (Dellande et al., 2004). We also ?nd that
communication has a signi?cant and positive association with co-
production, consistent with previous work (e.g., Auh et al., 2007),
which implies that the sharing of information between a client and
advisor and clarity of expectations regarding clients' roles leads to
effective co-production outcomes. Managers need to communicate
clearly to clients what they desire in the service encounter and
what clients are able to bring to this encounter. In other word, their
communications should shape customers' self-perceptions and
knowledge of the ?rm's expectations about their role (Lengnick-
Hall et al., 2000). Besides, managers should work to improve
communications between service employee and their clients,
which may serve the dual purpose of improving task clarity and
developing client expertise. For example, ?nancial service com-
panies' advisors should offer high quality information and answer
Table 2
Results of regression analysis (co-production as the dependent variable).
Independent variables Model 1a Model 1b
Customer expertise 0.16**
a
0.15**
Service provider's expertise 0.11** 0.10**
Interpersonal relationships 0.09* 0.14**
Communication 0.41** 0.34**
Perceived importance of service 0.20** 0.19**
Dependence 0.11** 0.14**
Customer expertise  Perceived
importance of service
0.23**
Service provider's expertise Â
Perceived importance of service
0.23**
Interpersonal relationships Â
Perceived importance of service
0.03
Communication  Perceived
importance of service
0.10*
Customer expertise  Dependence À0.16**
Service provider's expertise  Dependence 0.09*
Interpersonal relationships  Dependence À0.10**
Communication  Dependence 0.09*
R
2
0.64 0.69
Adjusted R
2
0.63 0.67
F 82.96** 42.55**
6F 5.06**
**p < 0.05; *p < 0.10.
a
Standardized regression coef?cients are reported.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 153
client queries in nontechnical language. Analyst reports with
different levels of complexity will be suitable for various expertise
clients. For instance, analyst reports should not be highly technical
to novice investors. There are also implications for recruitment and
job design. An increase in co-production initiatives will require
capable and responsive employees to cope with customer queries
and needs.
The positive and signi?cant association between interpersonal
relationships and co-production provide support for the expecta-
tion that clients should be motivated to involve service production,
consistent with previous work (e.g., Guo & Ng, 2011). Interpersonal
relationships may increase the likelihood that clients will recipro-
cate with behaviors that help the employee deliver a more satis-
factory service. Chan, Yim, and Lam (2010) suggest that customers
who perceive the relationship as durable should be more motivated
to make the most of their cocreation opportunities. Etgar (2008)
indicates that consumers will tend to engage more in co-
production when several emotional preconditions are realized,
for example, trust their co-production partners. This implies that
interpersonal relationships will motivate co-production. Besides,
co-production can provide clients with skills of maintaining com-
munications and dialog with their co-production partners (Etgar,
2008). To improve interpersonal relationships, ?rms should try
to, for example, engender trust in the customers and strength the
bonds of identi?cation that have been formed with the employee
and with the ?rm. Ennew, Kharouf, and Sekhon (2011) indicate that
for consumers, communication and service provider's expertise
cause organizational trustworthiness, which simpli?es decisions
and reduces risks; in its absence their willingness to engage with
the ?nancial services sector may be signi?cantly reduced. In order
to build up perceived importance of service, ?rms must try, for
example, to clearly communicate valued customer bene?ts of their
services. For high-importance customers, managers should make
efforts to increase service provider expertise, customer expertise,
and communication skill, to promote co-production. In order to
enhance dependence, ?rms should try, for example, to increase
consumer perceptions of product complexity and service provider
heterogeneity and expertise. This will have the effect of encour-
aging customers to depend on the provider's instructions. For high-
dependence customers, managers should try to increase service
provider expertise and communication skill to promote co-
production.
In conclusion, this work contributes to the understanding of the
variables that underlie effective customer co-production, and pro-
vides a basis for developing appropriate co-production based
marketing strategies. In order to be truly customer centric, ?rms
should view their customers as co-producers and co-creators of
value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Applying employee-management
practices to customers can lead to effective co-production by
improving customer expertise, service provider expertise, inter-
personal relationship, and communication. The framework devel-
oped here suggests that ?rms need to check their operational
procedures, technology friendliness, human resource practices, and
performance criteria. Furthermore, managers can ask diagnostic
questions suggested by Bettencourt et al. (2002) themselves to
assess how effectively they manage customers’ co-production be-
haviors. Coproduction is not only relevant to the service delivery
phase of services management but also can extend across the full
value chain of service planning, design, commissioning, managing,
delivering, monitoring, and evaluation activities (Bovaird, 2007).
This study ?nishes by noting some limitations and making
recommendations for future research directions. First, consistent
with Patterson and Smith (2003), this work collects data on one
service, but generalisability will be increased by replications of this
work's model across additional services, for example health care
services (Dellande et al., 2004). Future works can assess whether
differences/similarities exist across service types. Second, Meuter
et al. (2005) conclude that consumer readiness variables are sig-
ni?cant mediators in the relationship between the decision to trial
and its antecedents. Their results suggest that lack of “consumer
readiness” may explain the failure of trial. Future work could adopt
this mediator as part of a co-production framework. Besides,
Meuter et al. do not further analyze the moderating effect in their
study. Future research could examine whether the relationship
between trial and its antecedents is changed by the moderators
used in our work. Third, Etgar (2008) indicates that the quality of
cooperation is affected by situational factors such as trust, cultural
compatibility, and empathy, and motivation drivers such as eco-
nomic, psychological and social drivers. Future work could consider
these potential factors in co-production frameworks. Finally, the
sample examined in this work is a business-to-customer focus. In
the business-to-business context, co-production is far more likely
to be an accepted part of the relationship; many ?rms consider it a
job requirement of buyers. Future work could generate more in-
sights by exploring more issues around co-production in the
business-to-business context (Skjolsvik, Lowendahl, Kvalshaugen,
& Fosstenlokken, 2007).
Con?ict of interest
All contributing authors declare no con?icts of interest.
Acknowledgement
This work's authors sincerely appreciate the precious comments
from the two anonymous reviewers and the ?nancial aid from the
Ministry of Science and Technology (Republic of China, Taiwan)
(NSC 99-2410-H-151 -027 -MY2).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting in-
teractions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Andaleeb, S. S. (1995). Dependence relations and the moderating role of trust:
implication for behavioral intentions in marketing channels. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 157e172.
Andaleeb, S. S. (1996). An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commit-
ment in marketing channels: the role of trust and dependence. Journal of
Retailing, 72(1), 77e93.
Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer
loyalty in ?nancial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 359e370.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173e1182.
Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer
participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67, 14e28.
Bettencourt, L. A., Ostrom, A. L., Brown, S. W., & Roundtree, R. I. (2002). Client co-
production in knowledge-intensive business service. California Management
Review, 44, 100e128.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical service encounters: the
employee's viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 95e106.
Bitner, M. J., Faranda, W. T., Hubbert, A. R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1997). Customer
contributions and roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service In-
dustry Management, 8(3), 193e205.
Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product
importance perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 69e81.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: user and community
coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846e860.
Burnham, T. A., Frels, J. K., & Mahajan, V. (2003). Consumer switching costs: a ty-
pology, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 31(2), 109e126.
Busch, P., & Wilson, D. T. (1976). An experimental analysis of a salesman's expert
and referent bases of social power in the buyer-seller dyad. Journal of Marketing
Research, 13(1), 3e11.
Büttgen, M., Schumann, J.-H., & Zelal, A. (2012). Service locus of control and
customer coproduction: the role of prior service experience and organizational
socialization. Journal of Service Research, 15(2), 166e181.
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and
comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210e224.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 154
Chan, K. W., Yim, C.-K.(B.), & Lam, S. S. (2010). Is customer participation in value
creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional ?nancial services
across cultures. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48e64.
Crosby, L. A., Evants, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in service
selling: an interpersonal in?uence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3),
68e81.
Davis, D. F., & Mentzer, J. T. (2008). Relational resources in interorganizational ex-
change: the effects of trade equity and brand equity. Journal of Retailing, 84(4),
435e448.
Dellande, S., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2004). Gaining compliance and losing
weight: the role of the service provider in health care services. Journal of
Marketing, 68(3), 78e91.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investment in con-
sumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of
Marketing, 65(4), 33e50.
Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in co-
createdservice recovery. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 36, 123e137.
Ennew, C., Kharouf, H., & Sekhon, H. (2011). Trust in UK ?nancial services: a lon-
gitudinal analysis. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 16(1), 65e75.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97e108.
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Firat, A. F., Dholakia, N., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Marketing in a postmodern world.
European Journal of Marketing, 29(1), 40e56.
Firat, A., & Venkatesh, A. (1993). “Postmodernity” in the age of marketing. Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), 227e249.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39e80.
Gilliland, D. I., & Bello, D. C. (2002). Two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect
of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distri-
bution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 24e43.
Guo, L., & Ng, I. C. L. (2011). The co-production of equipment-based services: an
interpersonal approach. European Management Journal, 29(1), 43e50.
Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (1998). Relational bene?ts in service
industries: the customer's perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 26(2), 101e114.
Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E. (2000). Switching barriers and
repurchase intentions in services. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 259e274.
Kelley, S. W., Donnelly, J. H., Jr., & Skinner, S. J. (1990). Customer participation in
service production and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66(3), 315e335.
Kuusisto, A., & Paallysaho, S. (2008). Customer role in service production and inno-
vation- looking for directions for future research (Research Report 195). Lep-
peenranta University of Technology, Leppeenranta, Finland.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement pro?les.
Journal of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41e53.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1996). Customer contributions to quality: a different view of
the customer-oriented ?rm. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 791e824.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Claycomb, V., & Inks, L. W. (2000). From recipient to contrib-
utor: examining customer roles and experienced outcomes. European Journal of
Marketing, 34(3/4), 359e383.
Leonard, L. N. K., Cronan, T. P., & Kreie, J. (2004). What in?uences IT ethical behavior
intentions-planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance, or indi-
vidual characteristics? Information and Management, 42, 143e158.
Lovelock, C. (1996). Service marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lusch, R. F., Brown, S., & Brunswick, G. J. (1992). A generic framework for explaining
internal vs. external exchange. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20,
119e134.
McGuigan, P. J. (2011). Interviewing skills in ?nancial services: a pathway to
improvement. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 65(6), 62e70.
McQuiston, D. H. (1989). Novelty, complexity and importance as causal de-
terminants of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 66e79.
Memmi, A. (1984). Dependence: A sketch for a portrait of the dependent. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among
alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-
service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61e83.
Mills, P. K., Chase, R. B., &Margulies, N. (1983). Motivating the client/employee system
as a service production strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 301e310.
Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B. T., & Talukdar, D. (1997). Consumer information search
revisited: theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4),
263e277.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20e38.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, L.-B., & Teo, H.-H. (2010). Consumer value co-creation in a hybrid commerce
service-deliverysystem. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(3), 35e62.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence customer loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 33e44.
O'Connor, G. C., & Siomkos, G. J. (1994). The need for control in the service sector.
Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(3), 105e112.
Patterson, P. G., & Smith, T. (2003). A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and
propensity to stay with service providers. Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 107e120.
Park, J. S., Kim, J. J., & Koh, J. (2010). Determinants of continuous usage intention in
web analytics services. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 61e72.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value.
Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 36, 83e96.
Ray, M. L., Sawyer, A. G., Rothschild, M. L., Heeler, R. M., Strong, E. C., & Reed, J. B.
(1973). Marketing communication and the hierarchy of effects. In P. Clarke (Ed.),
New models for mass communication research (Vol. 2, pp. 147e176). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Rodríguez, N. G., P erez, M. J. S., & Guti errez, J. A. T. (2007). Interfunctional climate
and a new product performance: dependence as a moderator. Journal of Busi-
ness & Industrial Marketing, 22(7), 459e473.
de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2000). The marketing-?nance interface: a relational
exchange perspective. Journal of Business Research, 50, 209e215.
Scheer, L. K., Miao, C. F., & Garrett, J. (2010). The effects of supplier capabilities on
industrial customers' loyalty: the role of dependence. Journal of the Academy
Marketing Science, 38, 90e104.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1995). Winning the service game. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Schneider, K. C., & Rodgers, W. C. (1996). An ‘importance’ subscale for the consumer
involvement pro?le. Advances in Consumer Research, 23(1), 249e254.
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (1999). The impact of communication effectiveness
and service quality on relationship commitment in consumer, professional
services. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(2), 151e170.
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (2000). Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and
experience as moderators of relationship commitment in professional, con-
sumer services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(5),
470e490.
Skjolsvik, T., Lowendahl, B. R., Kvalshaugen, R., & Fosstenlokken, S. M. (2007).
Choosing to learn and learning to choose: strategies for client co-production
and knowledge development. California Management Review, 19(3), 110e127.
Smith, J. B. (1998). Buyer-seller relationships: similarity, relationship management,
and quality. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 3e21.
Stewart, T. A. (1989). New ways to exercise power. Fortune, 120(11), 52e64.
Tam, J. L. M. (2011). The moderating effects of purchase importance in customer
satisfaction process: an empirical investigation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
10, 205e215.
Tokman, M., Davis, L. M., & Lemon, K. N. (2007). The WOW factor: creating value
through win-back offers to reacquire lost customers. Journal of Retailing, 83(1),
47e64.
Turnball, L. R., & Wilson, D. T. (1989). Developing and protecting pro?table customer
relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 18(2), 233e238.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1e17.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P., & Paul, A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: a service
systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26,
145e152.
Verhoef, P. C., Reintrez, W. J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new
perspective in customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3),
247e252.
Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Strategic orientation and ?rm performance in an
artistic environment. Journal of Marketing, 64, 67e83.
Wangenheim, F. V. (2003). Situational characteristics as moderators of the
satisfaction-loyalty link: an investigation in a business-to-business context.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 16,
145e156.
Wikstr€ om, S. (1996). Value creation by company-consumer interaction. Journal of
Marketing Management, 12, 359e374.
Wilkin, D. (1987). Conceptual problems in dependency research. Social Science and
Medicine, 24(10), 867e873.
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to presume: toward a theory of
consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 36,
109e122.
Yang, X., Li, Y., Tan, C. H., & Teo, H. H. (2007). Students' participation intention in an
online discussion forum: why is computer-mediated interaction attractive?
Information & Management, 44(5), 456e466.
Yen, H. R., Gwinner, K. P., & Su, W. (2004). The impact of customer participation and
service expectation on Locus attributions following service failure. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(1), 7e26.
Yim, C. K., Chan, K. W., & Lam, S. S. K. (2012). Do customers and employees enjoy
service participation? Synergistic effects of seif- and other-ef?cacy. Journal of
Marketing, 76, 121e140.
Yu, V. F., & Ting, H.-I. (2011). Identifying key factors affecting consumers' choice of
wealth management services: an AHP approach. The Service Industries Journal,
31(6), 929e939.
C.-Y. Wang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 148e155 155
doc_761741822.pdf