Discovering Collaborative and Inclusive Solutions to Co-create

Multidimensional Value in Cross-sector Collaboration

Vilma Vuori

1 a

, Sanne Bor

2 b

, Pia Polsa

2 c

, Jonna Käpylä

1 d

and Nina Helander

1 e

Information and Knowledge Management, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland

Keywords: Value Co-creation, Multidimensional Value, Multistakeholder Collaboration.

Abstract: This position paper introduces ongoing research efforts that addresses the ability of political and legal

institutions and management practices to cope with complex environmental planning and policy-making

problems in the Finnish context. The research applies a business perspective on collaborative governance

solutions, with a focus on how organizations (public, private, third and fourth sector) can co-create shared

value. This phenomenon is studied through a multi-case study of different environmental cases from Finland.

1 INTRODUCTION

This position paper introduces ongoing research

efforts included in the ambitious research project

CORE: Collaborative remedies for fragmented

societies — Facilitating the collaborative turn in

environmental decision-making. The CORE

consortium will address the ability of Finnish political

and legal institutions and management practices to

cope with complex environmental planning and

policy-making problems. The key question addressed

by the project is How to engage a broad range of

societal actors in the co-creation of fair, efficient,

legitimate and wise solutions for contested

environmental and natural resource policy

problems? Timeframe of the project is 1 September

2017 to 31 August 2021, and it is funded by the

Strategic Research Council at the Academy of

Finland.

The CORE project is multi-disciplinary, including

sociology, political science, civil society research,

environmental policy and law, impact assessment,

urban and regional research, natural resources

management, environmental science, science and

technology studies, business administration and

industrial management. This position paper focuses

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9737-9306

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5138-2422

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2929-8579

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8373-3167

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2201-6444

on bringing forward the research conducted within

the CORE sub project studying value creation

between business and society. The key question in the

sub project is to explore how collaborative and

inclusive solutions can help businesses to create

shared multidimensional value for all parties

involved. The research applies a business perspective

on collaborative governance solutions, with a focus

on how organizations (public, private, third and

fourth sector) can co-create shared value.

The research in the sub project is carried out by

two research institutes in tandem: Tampere

University focuses on digital communication and

knowledge management tools for value co-creation.

Focus is espeacially on the impact assessment of

digital knowledge management tools (e.g. Baud, et

al., 2014), as well as the more traditional knowledge

management practices (Alavi and Leidner, 2001;

Dalkir, 2013) applied in value co-creation. Hanken

concentrates on how the knowledge on co-creation of

value in business environment (Karababa and

Kjeldgaard, 2014) can be used to a different

environment. Important aspects are value typology

mapping (Macdonald, Kleinaltenkamp and Wilson,

2016), and collective leadership.

364

Vuori, V., Bor, S., Polsa, P., Käpylä, J. and Helander, N.

Discovering Collaborative and Inclusive Solutions to Co-create Multidimensional Value in Cross-sector Collaboration.

DOI: 10.5220/0008365703640369

In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), pages 364-369

ISBN: 978-989-758-382-7

2 MULTIDIMENSIONAL VALUE

CO-CREATION AND

CROSS-SECTOR

COLLABORATION

The concept of value can be determined in various

ways and it is not always so clear and easy to

understand. For example, value can be seen as a trade-

off between benefit and sacrifice; “the consumer’s

overall assessment of the utility of a product based on

perceptions of what is received and what is given”

(Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). These benefits and sacrifices

can be understood in monetary terms, but also as

including non-monetary rewards, such as

competence, market position, and social rewards.

Non-monetary costs can include, for example, the

effort, energy, time, and amount of conflict that has

to be engaged in the process to obtain the expected

outcome (see e.g. Helander and Vuori, 2017). Value

can also be defined as benefits relative to costs (Porter

and Kramer, 2011).

Figure 1: Different levels of value analysis (Polsa and Bor,

2018).

As the concept of value is multifaceted, it is

especially important to differentiate perceived value

(the outcome of an evaluative judgment) from

personal values (i.e. standards, rules, criteria, norms,

goals or ideals that serve as the basis for the

evaluative judgment) (Holbrook, 1994, 1999). Value

is created through action and interaction, and even

though it is collectively generated, value is

experienced subjectively (Holbrook, 2006).

Therefore, as value differs for each actor within and

across sectors, there is a need for recognition and

analysis of diverse dimensions of value from multiple

levels; in the extreme from individual to global (see

Figure 1).

Generally speaking, creation of value can be

regarded as the raison d'être of collaborative

relationships. In fact, value co-creation happens when

multiple actors join their resources, such as

knowledge and skills, and interact to produce value

for the parties involved (see e.g. Payne, Storbacka and

Frow, 2008). This kind of fragmented knowledge

production will require mechanisms that raises

awareness of various parties’ skills, while also

engages various parties to contribute in the co-

creation processes for the common good. Business

and management studies have launched the notion of

value co-creation to examine the ways in which

various actors can develop not only commercial but

multidimensional value drawing on complementary

skills and resources as well as shared or overlapping

visions for the future. Previous research has

concentrated on value co-creation in the business

environment (Karababa and Kjeldgaard, 2014),

leaving open an important research gap on the

mechanisms of value co-creation between business

and society, including the third sector.

The societal engagement of co-creation extends

beyond the business environment in which co-

creation has mostly been studied previously. This

stipulates challenges not the least related to the

motivational factors of actors, but also in the

interaction of various visions inscribed in

companies’, public institutions’ and individuals’

missions and which would affect their commitment to

the co-creation of value. New relationship

configurations may need to be proposed in which

certain actors are given a greater voice with the aim

of providing collaborative knowledge between actors

in a more ‘networked’ governance structure. Network

visualizations can also be used as communication

prompts when interviewing stakeholders, who would

be asked to evaluate different network configurations

to ascertain perceptions of value and knowledge co-

creation.

The sub project focuses on value creation between

business and society, covering the corporate

responsibility perspective to collaborative

arrangements in the CORE project. Research on value

creation has concentrated on the business side

(Karababa and Kjeldgaard, 2014), leaving open an

important research gap on the mechanisms of value

co-creation between business and society as well as

value between different types of organizations from

companies to non-profit associations. Based on

Discovering Collaborative and Inclusive Solutions to Co-create Multidimensional Value in Cross-sector Collaboration

365

theoretical lenses of corporate responsibility (French,

1987; Zadek, 2007) and value co-creation (Vargo,

Maglio and Akaka, 2008; Lepak, Smith and Taylor,

2007) in networked context (Holm, Eriksson and

Johanson, 1999; Peppard and Rylander, 2006) and

through empirical interventions the sub project

proposes best practices to enhance value co-creation

between business and society. Furthermore, it

produces means to measure the societal impact and

created value from the viewpoints of different

stakeholders.

The sub project produces empirically grounded

scientific publications and policy recommendations

for procedures and practices that support the co-

creation of value and knowledge in collaborative

governance, especially in the complex setting of

collaboration between government, businesses, civil

society and science.

3 EXAMPLES OF CASE STUDIES

The empirical research in the CORE project

ultimately aims to provide data in order to answer the

following questions: What kind of collaborative

mechanisms

 reinforce active citizenship and mutual trust

between demographic groups and confidence in

public institutions, business and industry?

 reconcile the fast pace of policy-making with the

long-term approach required by social reforms?

 renew governing and contribute to sustainable

growth of Finnish society?

 improve inclusiveness of knowledge co-

production, bridging the gap between science and

policy making and creating a shared knowledge

base that different societal actors consider relevant

and reliable?

The research approach used in the sub project

combines action research, social network analysis and

interventional qualitative case study research. Semi-

structural interviews and document analysis will be

used in the case studies. Social Network Analysis will

be used to map the relationships between government

mechanisms, companies, and society. Network

analysis can be used to visualize and analyze current

and proposed societal and government structures in

an increasingly connected world.

The following section presents some of the case

study settings in the sub project. The first two are in

the domain of digital collaboration in urban planning,

while the third case deals with the collaborative

initiatives in mining

3.1 Case Lupapiste: Digital Tools for

Governing Construction Permits

Lupapiste is a web-based open source service that

enables digital application of construction permits

and other permits related to infrastructure. Lupapiste

service was developed as a part of Action Programme

on eServices and eDemocracy (SADe programme)

set by the Ministry of Finance in Finland and it was

developed in co-operation with municipalities that

worked as pilots in the project. Lupapiste as this kind

of contemporary digital service creates a platform for

new type of collaboration, which requires changes to

administrative and work processes of the building

permissions in municipalities. Lupapiste aims to

represent a modern digital service network, where

aim is to build customer loyalty, motivate customers

to use the service, offer additional services and the

opportunity to participate in the development of the

product. In this way, Lupapiste acts as very

interesting case to study multidimensional value co-

creation between several stakeholders.

The case study examines how Lupapiste improves

the possibilities for stakeholder interaction, and how

does the digitalization of the permitting process affect

knowledge sharing between the different

stakeholders. In addition, the study also examines

how using digital tools adds to transparency and

reliability of data in permitting processes. To answers

these questions Lupapiste stakeholders are being

interviewed. In addition, other suitable

methodologies are applied in further data gathering

and analysis as the case study progresses.

3.2 Case Lahti: Digital Tools for

Collaborative Urban Planning

City of Lahti utilizes a map-based survey tool

Maptionnaire in order to enable public participation

in urban land use planning. The tool enables the

collection, visualization and analysis of map-based

data, which enables city planners and citizens

collectively design, comment and discuss project

areas (Maptionnaire, 2019).

This case setting offers interesting arena for

research assessing the outcomes of opening land use

planning processes to more actively involve

stakeholders, such as urban residents, landowners,

associations, etc. Digitalization of parts of the land

use planning process opens up new forms of

stakeholder participation. It provides a new state-of-

the-art interface between urban experiential

knowledge and urban planning, and enables

innovative digital participation.

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

366

The case study focuses on the impact assessment

of using map-based digital tools in land use planning.

In addition, the inclusive and collaborative process of

land use planning is observed and evaluated in order

to identify major challenges in co-creation and to

propose solutions to overcome the challenges.

3.3 Case Sodankylä: Mining

Community Development

Agreement

Sodankylä municipality together with a mining

company operating in the region have started to apply

a new kind of collaborative practice to create value

for all parties involved. The municipality aims to have

better control over the mining activities within its

region, creating better relationship with the mining

company and even possibly gaining some financial

value. The mining company gains better

understanding of the expectations that they face from

the municipality and residents, and also the value

generated from positive image and reputation as a

pioneer in collaborative arrangements with its

stakeholders. The ultimate aim is collaborative

problem solving regarding the social and ecological

sustainability of mining activities.

The community development agreement is a

completely new kind of collaborative mechanism in

Finnish and European mining industry. Similar

models have been applied in other parts of the world,

but they are not applicable as such in Finnish context.

The novelty of the process is a challenge and provides

a fruitful research setting for the CORE project.

The case study explores how collaborative

practices can facilitate co-creation of value in mining

projects. The interest lies in finding out what kind of

value different actors (e.g., the mining company, the

municipality, residents living nearby the mines,

associations, etc.) can receive, and what are the

preconditions and limitations of value creation.

The aim is to establish the value of the

collaboration and interaction process based on the

community agreement for different parties:

investigating the value expectations and following up

on the realized value. The practical contribution is

gaining knowledge for developing the collaboration

and assessing the successfulness of these kinds of

collaborative mechanisms.

3.4 Case Jyväskylä: Collaborative

Approach in Producing a Strategy

for Use of Forest

The case looks at value co-creation concerning the

issue of use of forest around Jyväskylä city.

Theproduction of Jyväskylä’s strategy for the use of

its forest, the Jyväskylä Forest Programme, aimed to

get different actors together to discuss the issue of use

of forest in Jyväskylä and finally based on these

discussions arrive to a collective decision about how

to use the forest. The collaborative process involved

public administrators from three different sub-units of

the city administration and non-public sector actors

such as non-governmental organizations and

companies. The city involved an external facilitator

to guide the process, which took a total of 1½ years

from start to finish. The collaborative project ended

May 2018.

The objective of the case study from CORE

project’s perspective was to see what value this

process created for the participants in their

collaboration and if the final co-created outcome was

valuable for them. According to the results, the values

of forest sought by different stakeholders vary. As

Pearce and Moran (1994) point out, there is a variety

of ways to understand the value of a forest. There can

be use-value (both direct and indirect), future value

(future direct or non-direct value), and non-use-value

(bequest or existence value). While forest use-value

for e.g. bird-watchers and mushroom or berry pickers

increases when the flora and fauna in a forest are

flourishing, the use-value for the forest-harvesters

grows with the possibility to harvest efficiently trees

that are of the right size and quality. Those that use

the forest for upkeep of their condition, or doing

sports, may have even have contradicting requests

from a more cleared forest and well taken care of

pathways, to more wild nature like and less

intervention. In addition, the aesthetic value of the

forest plays a role, for those using it for their walks.

While these different values are pursued by different

stakeholders, sometimes stakeholders themselves

need to deal with conflicting demands from their

different roles.

The process of value co-creation, including

interaction and integration (Gummesson and Mele,

2010; Pera, Occhiocupo and Clarke, 2016), is

successful when stakeholders are able to find ways to

increase the value and minimize the loss of value for

the different stakeholders and the whole group. The

collaborative project of Jyväskylä Forest Program

produced a wealth of results.

Discovering Collaborative and Inclusive Solutions to Co-create Multidimensional Value in Cross-sector Collaboration

367

Most of the participants of the collaborative effort

thought that the process itself was heavy and time

consuming. However, they also thought the result and

outcome of the co-creation process was very good.

That is to say, the process of value co-creation was

not as appreciated as the final outcome of the process.

The outcome of the process was taken into the

consideration when the city officially decided what to

do with the forest.

From this case we can learn that from the point of

view of value co-creation even if the process is not as

satisfactory it is worth of its pains to get a solution

that pleases all the parties involved. Despite the

seemingly conflicting value premises of use of forest,

the solution can be found in a collaborative and

facilitated process and even if the process itself is not

as much valued the final outcome is.

4 RESEARCH PROGRESSION

The research efforts are chronologically divided into

three phases: 1) diagnostics and design, 2)

experiments and evaluation, and 3) synthesis and

salience. In the first phase the sub project maps

different value types and examines collaboration

practices in multi-stakeholder networks.

Collaboration and best practices are studied also in

the second phase as well as tested and iterated in the

case studies.

In the third and final phase of the research the sub

project draws together the results of the empirical

interventions and proposes best practices in co-

creation of value for multi-stakeholder networks. The

sub project will generate policy suggestions on how

to overcome challenges of inter-organizational co-

creation of value. Research results also provide

suggestions for procedures and practices that support

the co-creation of value and knowledge in general,

but especially in the complex setting of collaboration

between government, businesses, civil society and

science.

The research outcomes are presented in scientific

publications around value co-creation in the broader

societal setting, as well as scientific publications

around challenges related to value co-creation or the

inter-organizational collaborative setting identified in

the case. In addition, to have more impact on theory

building and practical solutions, the excellence is

spread through organizing international conference in

Finland.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by the Strategic

Research Council’s Project CORE (313013 + 313016

+ 313017).

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., Leidner, D. E., 2001. Knowledge management

and knowledge management systems: Conceptual

foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107-

136.

Baud, I. S. A., Scott, D., Pfeffer, K., Sydenstricker-Neto, J.,

Denis, E., 2014. Digital and spatial knowledge

management in urban governance: Emerging issues in

India, Brazil, South Africa, and Peru. Habitat

International, 44, 501-509.

Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., Sørensen, E., 2017)

Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-

creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640-654.

Dalkir, K., 2013. Knowledge management in theory and

practice. Routledge.

Echeverri, P., Skålén, P., 2011. Co-creation and co-

destruction: A practice-theory based study of

interactive value formation. Marketing theory, 11(3),

351-373.

French, P. A., 1987. Collective and corporate

responsibility. Philosophical Review, 96(1), 117-119

Gummesson, E., Mele, C., 2010. Marketing as Value Co-

creation Through Network Interaction and Resource

Integration. Journal of Business Market Management,

4, 181–198.

Helander, N., Vuori, V., 2017. Value Co-creation Analysis

in Customer–Supplier Network Relationships. In

Practices for Network Management (pp. 251-262).

Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Holbrook, M. B. (Ed.), 1999. Consumer value: a framework

for analysis and research. Psychology Press.

Holbrook, M. B., 1994. The nature of customer value: an

axiology of services in the consumption experience.

Service quality: New directions in theory and practice,

21, 21-71.

Holbrook, M. B., 2006. Consumption experience, customer

value, and subjective personal introspection: An

illustrative photographic essay. Journal of Business

Research, 59(6), 714-725.

Holm, D. B., Eriksson, K., and Johanson, J., 1999. Creating

value through mutual commitment to business network

relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5),

467-486.

Karababa, E., Kjeldgaard, D., 2014. Value in marketing:

Toward sociocultural perspectives. Marketing Theory,

14(1), 119-127.

Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., Taylor, M. S., 2007. Value

creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180-194.

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

368

Macdonald, E. K., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Wilson, H. N.,

2016. How business customers judge solutions:

Solution quality and value in use. Journal of Marketing,

80(3), 96-120.

Maptionnaire, 2019. What is Maptionnaire?, https://

maptionnaire.com/

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., 2008. Managing the

co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 36(1), 83-96.

Pearce, D. W., Moran, D., 1994. The economic value of

biodiversity. Earthscan.

Peppard, J., Rylander, A., 2006. From value chain to value

network: Insights for mobile operators. European

Management Journal, 24(2-3), 128-141.

Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N., Clarke, J., 2016. Motives and

resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholder

ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of

Business Research, 69, 4033–4041.

Polsa P., Bor S., 2018. Environmental crises; value in

collaborative governance, 43rd Annual

Macromarketing Conference, July 11-13, 2018,

Leipzig, Germany.

Porter, M. E., Kramer, M. R., 2011. The Big Idea: Creating

Shared Value. How to reinvent capitalism—and

unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard

Business Review, 89(1-2).

Prahalad, C. K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004. Co-creation

experiences: The next practice in value creation.

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.

Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., Akaka, M. A., 2008. On value

and value co-creation: A service systems and service

logic perspective. European Management Journal,

26(3), 145-152.

Zadek, S., 2007. The path to corporate responsibility. In

Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance (pp. 159-

172). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Zeithaml, V. A., 1988. Consumer Perceptions of Price,

Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis

of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 2-22.

Discovering Collaborative and Inclusive Solutions to Co-create Multidimensional Value in Cross-sector Collaboration

369