Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Conceptualizing Services and Service Innovation: A Practice Theory Study of the Swedish Music Market

Conceptualizing Services and Service Innovation: A Practice Theory Study of the Swedish Music Market In today’s complex and interconnected marketplace, the study of services and service innovation among multiple actors is an underdeveloped, but a theoretically and managerially relevant research area for enabling value cocreation. Building on general practice theory, the scarce prior service research that has drawn on practice theory, and an empirical study of the Swedish music market, this paper outlines a framework that conceptualizes services and service innovation among multiple actors by focusing on value cocreation practices (VCPs). The framework contributes to service research by conceptualizing services as bundles of VCPs, providing a theoretical foundation for the research that studies services as activities. It also contributes to service research by conceptualizing service innovation as the creation of VCPs. The paper shows how actors’ concrete activities, in combination with the valancing of VCPs existing in the market, induce service innovation. A future agenda for research on services and service innovation is also proposed. In addition to these theoretical contributions, the paper offers practical insights into how managers, with the help of the framework, may broaden their focus to include the shared VCPs of the markets to secure a competitive advantage. Keywords music, practice theory, services, service innovation, value cocreation practices Prior practice-theory-informed service innovation re- Introduction search (see, e.g., Fuglsang and Sørensen 2011; Skal ˚ en ´ et al. Service innovation is a priority for both service research 2015a) focuses on the change of existing practices or the and managerial practice (Ostrom et al. 2015). However, creation of new ones within firms. For example, Skal ˚ en ´ et al. Gustafsson, Snyder, and Witell (2020) argue that the (2015a) examine how managers and employees change and treatment of service innovation as an empirical phenomenon create everyday micro-level practices, thereby generating without a distinct theoretical conceptualization hinders guidance for managing service innovation. This firm-level knowledge development in this area. The root cause of focus is in line with the dominant stream of research this shortcoming is, according to Toivonen and Tuominen (Blazevic and Lievens 2004; Gallouj and Weinstein 1997), (2009), the undetermined conceptualization of services. but it implies that there is a lack of knowledge of how Consequently, a clear and consistent theoretically grounded multiple actors create shared practices and how such pro- conceptualization of service innovation and services has cesses are managed, which are essential features of service been called for. innovation in today’s interconnected marketplace (Chandler This paper addresses this call for research by building et al. 2019; Vink et al. 2021). on the few studies that have examined service innovation and services by drawing on practice theory (see, e.g., Edvardsson, Skal ˚ e´n, and Tronvoll 2012; Fuglsang and ˚ ´ Sørensen 2011; McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012; Skalen et al. CTF-Service Research Center, Karlstad Business School, Karlstad University, 2015a). Practice theory is an umbrella term for the different Sweden theories focusing on understanding the social world through Centre for Relationship Marketing and Service Management (CERS), Hanken practices (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Nicolini 2011; School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland; CTF-Service Research Center, Karlstad Business School, Karlstad University, Sweden Reckwitz 2002). The common denominator across the var- ious strands of practice theory is that practices encompass Corresponding Author: templates of organized routine activities that individual and ˚ ´ Per Skalen, CTF-Service Research Center, Karlstad Business School, Karlstad collective actors (e.g., organizations) draw on to carry out University, Universitetsgatan 2, Karlstad 65188, Sweden. concrete activities. Email: per.skalen@kau.se 84 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Prior research on services that has drawn on practice theory (see, reviewing general practice theory works and the scarce previous e.g., Edvardsson, Skal ˚ e´n, and Tronvoll 2012; McColl-Kennedy research on service and service innovation that has drawn on et al. 2012; Skal ˚ e´n, Pace, and Cova 2015b) has focused on ev- practice theory. eryday value cocreation activities in firms, generating relevant insights for managers. However, practice theory has not been A Practice Theory Framework of Services and used to advance a conceptualization of services taking multiple Service Innovation value-cocreating actors into account, but it can fruitfully serve this purpose as it resonates with the persisting idea in service re- Several specific theoretical positions have been developed search that services entail collective activities (Edvardsson, within the broader domain of practice theory (Feldman and Gustafsson, and Roos 2005; Lusch and Vargo 2014). Hence, Orlikowski 2011; Nicolini 2011). Thepracticetheoryof practice theory maybeusedtoconstruct thecommonconceptual Schatzki (1996; 2002; 2019) is our primary source of theo- ground for research on services and service innovation that has been retical inspiration due to its attention to the constitution and called for. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to conceptualize change of practices, with the latter being a theme that practice services and service innovation from a practice theory perspective, theories have been critiqued for neglecting (Epp, Schau, and and to do so in a way that accounts for multiple actors. Price 2014; Nicolini 2011). As our overview of prior research To fulfill this aim, we draw on practice theory research and an in Table 1 shows, service researchers have drawn on Schatzki’s empirical study of practices in the Swedish music market, which practice theory to define practices, empirically identify dif- offers an interesting context due to its high degree of inter- ferent types of practices, and analyze how value is cocreated nationalization and innovation (Johansson 2020). Our findings and innovated. contribute to service research by advancing a framework that To Schatzki (1996; 2002; 2019) and other practice theory conceptualizes services and service innovation from a practice scholars (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Nicolini 2011; theory perspective, and that accounts for multiple actors. This Reckwitz 2002; Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012), prac- framework depicts services as bundles of value cocreation tices encompass both covert templates of collectively practices (VCPs) that consist of templates of activities that shared and organized routine activities and the concrete prefigure (i.e., guide or foreshadow) the concrete activities of overt everyday activities that actors perform. Specifically, actors in such a way that VCPs are reproduced and maintained. Schatzki suggests that the templates prefigure actors’ Our stance provides a theoretical foundation for the concep- concrete activities. Performing activities in line with the tualization of services as activities (Edvardsson, Gustafsson, templates is commonly easier, safer, more convenient, and and Roos 2005). Service innovation, in turn, denotes the more socially acceptable than acting outside of or against creation of bundles of VCPs. We show how multiple actors’ them. Therefore, individuals often reproduce practices in concrete activities, in combination with actors’ valancing of accordance with templates. However, Schatzki (2019) ar- VCPs, induce service innovation. By doing so, our study adds gues that actors may choose to diverge from extant prac- to the understanding of how practices evolve and are created, tices, although often at a cost, and act in new ways that which Skal ˚ e´n et al. (2015a) posit as a characteristic of service constitute alternative ways of acting. If actors find these innovation and have called for more research on. We also new ways of acting superior to the activities of established single out the implications for the service innovation research practices and adopt them, this may create new practices or streams identified by Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll change existing ones. Hence, Schatzki’s practice theory (2018). Based on our findings, we further contribute to the field may contribute to the conceptualization of service inno- by outlining a broader practice theory-informed research vation by focusing on how actors contribute to developing agenda that invites service researchers to elaborate on our alternatives to existing practices. conceptualizations of services and service innovation. Our Drawing on Schatzki (1996), Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould managerial implications shed light on how managers may (2009) differentiate between three elements that characterize relate to the shared VCPs of the markets their firms are active practices: “procedures” (i.e., rules), “understandings” (i.e., in and beyond to reach a competitive advantage. know-how or competencies), and “engagements” (i.e., The paper is structured as follows: in the next section, rel- emotionally-charged goals). Schatzki also emphasizes the evant works on practice theory are reviewed. Then, the research importance of material entities, such as technologies, arti- method is described, followed by a presentation of the findings facts, and natural resources, but places these outside of from the study of the Swedish music market. Finally, the dis- practices, whereas many other practice theory scholars treat cussion section presents the framework that conceptualizes materials as an integral and central element of practices services and service innovation, the implications of the study, (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Nicolini 2011; Reckwitz the broader research agenda, and the limitations. 2002; Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012); this latter position is the way of conceptualizing practices that we adhere to. Hence, in our understanding the four elements of procedures, Theoretical Background understandings, engagements, and materials constitute In this section, we provide the basis for conceptualizing services practices. These elements organize both the templates and and service innovation from a practice theory perspective by the concrete activities that practices consist of and may Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 85 contribute to both reproducing and creating practices. The theory, as depicted in Table 1. However, this body of research has templates of activities may prefigure what rules actors fol- not explicitly conceptualized services in terms of multiple actors’ low, the know-how and technology to make use of, and what practices. In addition, this research stream has deemphasized goals to pursue when conducting an activity that contributes the templates and elements (i.e., understandings, engage- to the reproduction of practices. At the same time, actors can, ments, procedures, and materials) of practices when discus- as a part of their concrete activities, bend existing rules or sing services although our review of practice theory (see make up new ones, develop new competencies, use novel above) suggests templates and elements are essential for technologies, and change their shared goals, thus contrib- conceptualizing services. Instead, practice-theory-informed uting to the creation of new templates and to service inno- service research has focused on overt activities, with the vation. In line with this reasoning, prior service research common theme being that services entail value cocreation suggests that the usage of new technologies may change activities. Although this is an important contribution, con- practices (Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015) and that the ceptual disintegration characterizes previous studies, as dif- different usage of elements of practices by interacting actors may ferent notions of practices have been drawn on, including induce service innovation through the creation of new practices “service practices” that are “enacted by people to cocreate (Skal ˚ e´n, Pace, and Cova 2015b). According to Schatzki (2019) and value and integrate resources” (Edvardsson, Skal ˚ en ´ , and Shove, Pantzar, and Watson (2012), a change in one element of Tronvoll 2012, p. 99), “collaborative practices” that inter- practices (such as the procedures) will lead to subsequent changes acting actors use to cocreate value (Skal ˚ e´n, Pace, and Cova in the other elements and eventually to the creation of practices and 2015b), and “value cocreation practices,” which refer to associated service innovation. However, what triggers multiple customers overt activities, interactions, and roles (McColl- actors to change the elements of practices, or come up with new Kennedy et al. 2012). Since value cocreation is a common elements in the first place, and contribute to service innovation is theme in prior research, it seems particularly fruitful to draw undetermined in both general practice theory and prior service on the notion of VCPs as discussed by McColl-Kennedy et al. research. (2012) and others (Kelleher et al. 2019; Lusch and Vargo Actors also draw on the templates of activities that practices 2014; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009) to accomplish our consist of to make sense of and reflect on their own or other aim of conceptualizing services from a practice theory per- actors’ past, ongoing, and future activities (Schatzki 2002). For spective that takes multiple actors into account. instance, actors can compare the activities induced by one We further observe that service scholars have identified practice with those induced by alternative practices, think about bundles of practices (Schatzki 1996; 2019), commonly referring and discuss how to modify practices, and critically evaluate to them as aggregates, and that they have shown that practices practices based on the activities they enable. While prior re- may be used by actors to codestroy or diminish value (Cabbidu, ˚ ´ search suggests that such reflections may contribute to service Moreno, and Sebastiano 2019; Echeverri and Skalen 2011; innovation through the creation of practices (Shove, Pantzar, McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009; ˚ ´ ˚ ´ and Watson 2012), how this takes place among multiple actors Skalen et al. 2015a, Skalen, Pace, and Cova 2015b). In addition, remains to be studied. a common denominator of practice theory works on services is Schatzki’s work also offers the opportunity to concep- their focus on one actor, such as firms or charities (Edvardsson, tualize services and service innovation from the standpoint Skal ˚ en, ´ and Tronvoll 2012; Blocker and Barrios 2015), or on of bundles, which consist of several practices linked closely customer and service provider dyads (Kelleher et al. 2019; together in coordination with one another (Schatzki 1996; McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, and Ferrier 2015; Skal ˚ en ´ , Pace, and 2019). The modification of one practice may affect the other Cova 2015b). By contrast, Blocker and Barrios (2015) suggest practices belonging to the same bundle and change them, that practices work jointly on a market, enabling collective too, thus inducing service innovation. However, why and value cocreation. Therefore, we expand our focus to multiple how actors engage in this type of service innovation is actors following the lead of recent research (Chandler et al. unclear. 2019; Vink et al. 2021). In sum, Schatzki’s practice theory provides a basis for In sum, prior service research has studied practices and conceptualizing services and service innovation among multiple bundles of practices to illuminate how single actors or actor actors by focusing on practices and how they are created, even dyads cocreate value. However, this body of research lacks though it is not explicitly designed to do that. In the next section, conceptual integration and an explicit conceptualization of we review how services and service innovation have been services as practices, although this would align the conceptual studied from a practice theory perspective to further advance our basis of services with prior studies on service innovation from a conceptualization. practice theory perspective, which we turn to next. Practice theory studies of service innovation. Our review (see Studies of Practices in Service Research Table 1)identified eight studies that used practice theory to Practice theory studies of services. A few service scholars have study service innovation. Only one of these studies (Russo- drawn on practice theory in their study of services, and four out Spena and Mele 2012) draws systematically on Schatzki’s of the 10 studies we identified have relied on Schatzki’s practice practice theory, which is probably because Schatzki only 86 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Table 1. Practice-Theory-Informed Service Research. Research Descriptive characteristics contributions Theoretical Service Author(s) year Focus of investigation foundation(s) Context Method(s) innovation Services Schau et al. 2009 Value cocreation practices in Schatzki’s practice Multiple Netnography — √ brand communities theory and S-D logic Echeverri and Practices used to cocreate and Schatzki’s practice Public transport Interviews — √ Skal ˚ en ´ 2011 codestroy value theory and S-D logic Fuglsang and Change of practices by front- Innovation theory, Elderly care Interviews and field √ — Sørensen line employees practice theory, and experiments 2011 bricolage Edvardsson et al. Service practices used to Schatzki’s and Giddens’s Telecom Interviews, — √ 2012 cocreate value practice theory and S- observations, and D logic documents McColl- Value cocreation practice S-D logic and practice Health care Focus group and — √ Kennedy et al. styles theory individual 2012 interviews Russo-Spena and Innovation and cocreation Schatzki’s practice Multiple Netnography √ — Mele 2012 practices theory and service research Lusch and Vargo Value cocreation practices S-D logic and several Theory Conceptual — √ 2014 practice theories Blocker and Service practices used to Giddens’s practice Nonprofit Interviews and — √ Barrios 2015 cocreate transformative theory and S-D logic observations value McColl- Cocreating service experience Practice theory and S-D Elderly care Observations, — √ Kennedy et al. practices logic interviews, and 2015 diaries Skal ˚ en ´ et al. Service innovation through Practice theory, S-D Multiple Interviews, √ — 2015a change and creation of logic, and service observations, and practices innovation documents Skal ˚ en ´ et al. Practices used to cocreate Schatzki’s practice Automotive Netnography, — √ 2015b value in brand communities theory and S-D logic interviews, and documents Vargo et al. 2015 Value cocreation practices S-D logic and technology Theory Conceptual √ — Aal et al. 2016 Institutionalization of new S-D logic and Food Interviews and √ — valuable practices institutional theory documents Akesson et al. Test-driving practices of value S-D logic ICT Interviews √ — 2016 proposition Koskela-Huotari Institutional coordination of S-D logic and Multiple Interviews √ — et al. 2016 value cocreation practices institutional theory Baron et al. 2018 Challenging and developing S-D logic and Nonprofit Interviews, √ — institutions and practices institutional theory observations, and documents Cabiddu et al. Value codestruction practices Bourdieu’s practice Multiple projects Observations and — √ 2019 theory and S-D logic interviews Kelleher et al. Value cocreation practices Several practice theories Music orchestra Interviews and — √ 2019 and cocreation and consumers observations research This article Conceptualizing services and Schatzki’s practice theory Music market Interviews √√ service innovation and service research S-D logic: Service-dominant logic, √: Covered by the study, -: Not covered by the study, ICT: Information and communication technology. recently (2019) discussed the change and creation of practices Weinstein’s (1997) view that service innovation entails changes in depth. in the processes and competences a firm draws on to produce ˚ ´ Several of the eight studies explore service innovation ac- services. For example, Skalen et al. (2015a) focus on the tivities within companies, which is in line with Gallouj and practices constituting firms’ value propositions. Building upon Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 87 the idea that studying service innovation entails a shift in the intermediaries, have entered this market, the roles of established focus from “the production of innovative ‘products’ to resource actors have been redefined, and the economic value of services integration and enhanced value propositions” (Michel, Brown, has changed (Wikstrom ¨ 2020). To face such disruptions, market and Gallan 2008, p. 65), they propose a process model that actors need to innovate to survive (Verhoef et al. 2021), making shows how service innovation entails the development of the music market an appropriate setting for service innovation practices. Similarly, Fuglsang and Sørensen (2011) argue that studies. The Swedish music market was chosen as the specific service innovation takes place through the gradual change of geographical context due to its characterization by interna- practices by front-line employees informed by customer in- tionalization as well as early and high degrees of digital in- teractions. Hence, there is emerging consensus among re- novation (Johansson 2020). Hence, the setting constitutes what searchers that firm-level service innovation entails the change Flyvjbjerg (2006) calls a critical case, having “strategic im- and creation of practices. This view provides an alternative to portance in relation to the general problem” (p. 229), in our case the research that has adapted the typical activities of innovation allowing for the conceptualization of services and service in- from the new product development literature to the service novation in a way that accounts for multiple actors. These context, thereby illuminating the service development process prerequisites moved us to adopt a longitudinal qualitative de- (see, e.g., Blazevic and Lievens 2004; Sundbo 1997). Although sign (Lincoln and Guba 1985). research on the service development process has attended to activities, it has not been informed by practice theory, implying Data Collection that the opportunities that practice theory offers to explain service innovation have not been utilized. To conceptualize services and service innovation among mul- Moving beyond the intra-organizational level, Russo- tiple actors by focusing on practices, 39 long interviews Spena and Mele (2012) suggest that service innovation is (McCracken 1988) were conducted with professionals and conducted through inter-organizationally shared practices. A consumers active in the Swedish music market. The first author few studies (Aaletal. 2016; Baron et al. 2018; Koskela- carried out 32 of the interviews between May 2016 and April Huotari et al. 2016; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015)have 2017 with the assistance of a researcher not involved in writing adopted an even broader stance, studying service innovation the present paper; this body of work was complemented by seven among value-cocreating actors in markets or within the additional interviews conducted by the first author in February service ecosystems of linked actors. For example, Vargo, and March of 2021 to strengthen the consumer data. For sim- Wieland, and Akaka (2015) posit that “…innovation is the plicity, we will use the pronoun “we” when describing the data collaborative recombination or combinatorial evolution of collection. The interviewed professionals represented key actors [market] practices that provide novel solutions for new or in the music market, including record companies, music pub- existing problems” (p. 64). In particular, service innovation lishers, live performance organizers, artists, songwriters, “music has in this body of research been conceptualized as a process pirates,” music streaming firms, and various trade organizations. of institutionalization that denotes how institutions, which These professionals shared their views about the evolution of the consist of shared norms, values, symbols, and formal rules, Swedish music market, but also about their experiences of music condition and shape practices. By implication, institutions consumption. To avoid bias toward industry professionals, the and their institutionalization have been subject to more focus interviewed consumers had not worked within the music industry. than the practices in this stream of research. Our focus was on understanding the music market and its Based on our review, we conclude that while service evolution from the perspective of the informants. To accomplish scholars have conceptualized service innovation as the cre- this, two alternative interview guides containing 10 to 15 ation of new practices or a change of existing ones, how this questions were used. The music professionals were asked about takes place among multiple actors on a market remains un- what the Swedish music market looked like at the time of their clear. We also conclude that a unifying framework that interviews, how its practices had changed over time, what conceptualizes both services and service innovation from a mechanisms had been driving these changes, and what impli- practice theory perspective is lacking. The work of Schatzki cations these changes had. Consumers were asked questions may be drawn on to accomplish such a conceptualization, about practices related to music consumption and how these had although it cannot be directly deduced from Schatzki’s changed over time. Probing questions were asked in relation to practice theory, since this is not its focus. Therefore, we turn to the answers given by informants during the interviews as well as our study of the Swedish music market to investigate how the themes emerging from the data analysis (see below), implying services and service innovation may be apprehended from a that the interview guides evolved during the research. A sample practice theory perspective. interview guide can be found in Appendix A. The interviews lasted between 32 and 100 min. Two in- terviews were substantially shorter than the rest due to two Method younger consumers (Eva and Linda) having experience of only Like many other industries and markets, the music market has one way of consuming music, namely streaming. The first experienced a change from an emphasis on physical products to interviews were conducted with personal contacts as well as digital services, implying that new actors, such as digital with persons who had central and public positions within the 88 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Swedish music market (e.g., CEOs of trade organizations and our aim. We ended the data collection when we reached satu- major record companies) who accepted invitations to be inter- ration, meaning that no new data emerged that could shed light on viewed. These early informants were asked about other people our aim. Table 2 provides details about the informants. Their who could be interviewed, and those individuals were then anonymity is ensured by using fictitious names. contacted if considered appropriate in relation to our theoretical sampling (Lincoln and Guba 1985). For example, we were ad- Data Analysis and Trustworthiness vised to interview the artist Stig, whom we did not know of prior to this study, because of his deep knowledge about the Swedish The data analysis procedure followed the guidelines of Spiggle music market and his involvement in innovation projects. Hence, (1994), which implies that the research process was charac- potential informants who could contribute to fulfilling our aim terized by iteration or a back-and-forth movement between data were recruited in this manner, but we also recruited informants collection and analysis. The data were first categorized, which beyond those suggested by interviewees who could shed light on involved the coding, classifying, and labeling of the data, as Table 2. Interviews and Informants. Name (Sex) Duration Role Alexander (M) 1h 6 min A&R specialist, major record company Andreas (M) 55 min CEO, major music publisher Anna (F) 58 min Marketing manager, international live event firm Arne (M) 1h 12 min CEO, trade organization Axel (M) 1h CEO, trade organization Bengt (M) 50 min Consumer Bertil (M) 1h 16 min Consumer Birgitta (F) 1h 2 min General manager, major music publisher Bo (M) 1h 15 min PR manager, trade organization Christer (M) 1h 25 min Administrative director, trade organization Christina (F) 58 min Consumer Daniel (M) 1h 12 min Consumer Emil (M) 1h 27 min Project manager, trade organization Eva (F) 32 min Consumer Gunnar (M) 1h 5 min A&R manager, major record company Gustav (M) 1h 20 min Consumer Hans (M) 57 min CEO, major record company Ingemar (M) 1h 10 min Lawyer, trade organization Ingrid (F) 1h 51 min Consumer Jan (M) 1h 40 min Songwriter and independent music publisher John (M) 53 min Consumer Jonas (M) 59 min Consumer Karin (F) 1h 2 min Consumer Kenneth (M) 55 min CEO, independent record company and music publisher Kjell (M) 1h 2 min CEO, independent record company and music publisher Kristina (F) 59 min A&R specialist, major music publisher Leif (M) 1h 29 min CEO, international live organizer firm Lennart (M) 1h 15 min Songwriter Linda (F) 42 min Consumer Lisa (F) 1h 10 min Marketing manager, major record company Maria (F) 1h 33 min CEO, trade organization Mats (M) 1h 16 min CEO, major record company Mattias (M) 1h 5 min A&R specialist, major record company Nils (M) 1h 35 min Music journalist and owner of small record company Olof (M) 1h Union lawyer Robert (M) 54 min Consumer Stig (M) 1h 13 min Artist Sven (M) 59 min Marketing manager, major record company Ulf (M) 1h 14 min Leading “music pirate” A&R means “artists and repertoire” and refers to the staff at record companies and music publishers who find, develop, and record artists and songwriters. Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 89 well as recategorization along the iterations of the analysis. Our descriptions of factual circumstances by individual informants initial categorization focused on overviewing the services and were not accounted for. Integrity was ensured by safeguarding service innovation in the Swedish music market. We found that the anonymity of the informants and by using the interviewing three salient music services existed in this market—recording, techniques recommended by Wallendorf and Belk (1989). sharing, and streaming—which resonated with music research Accordingly, interviews began with broad and non-threatening (see, e.g., Leyshon 2014; Wikstrom 2020). In apprehending questions to establish rapport with the informants, with more service innovation, we found that the three services varied in detailed and potentially sensitive questions being posed later. To their market predominance, evolving from recording to sharing ensure credibility, interview transcripts were presented to the and streaming music. Notably, the new services added vari- informants to confirm their correctness. Following Wallendorf ability and choice in the market rather than entirely replacing old and Belk (1989), dependability, or the avoidance of unstable services. interpretations, was checked by comparing the interview In the next step, we combined categorization and abstrac- statements made by the informants about the same phenomena, tion, with the latter implying that higher-order constructs were either in later interviews or in relation to previous research. created to generalize from empirical to theoretical statements Finally, a confirmability audit (Wallendorf and Belk 1989) was (Lee and Baskerville 2003). The initial goal with this step of the performed in two ways to secure a strong link between the data data analysis was to inductively generate insights into how the and the emerging conceptualizations. First, the original cate- three services of recording, sharing, and streaming, as well as gorization and abstraction of the data by the first author was their service innovation, could be conceptualized. Schatzki’s checked by the second author, which resulted in some minor (1996; 2002; 2019) practice theory, as well as prior practice- changes. Second, the results of the paper were presented to other theory-informed service research (see Table 1), were found researchers on several occasions. helpful in abstracting the categorization, which moved us to adopt an abductive design to reflect the data in practice theory Findings and vice versa. The concepts and their inter-relationships that the cate- This section facilitates the conceptualization of services and gorization and abstraction generated are described in detail in service innovation by reporting findings on the three salient the findings section. In summary, we found that the three services that are present in the Swedish music market: re- services of recording, sharing, and streaming could be cording, sharing, and streaming. Recording dominated the th conceptualized as bundles of VCPs that consisted of two Swedish music market from the early 20 century up to the first st different types that we labeled generic and specific. We years of the 21 century, when sharing gained a dominant further found that the four types of elements of practices position. Since about 2010, streaming has dominated the discussed above in the theoretical background section—i.e., Swedish music market. Recording involves the sales and understandings, engagements, procedures, and materials— purchasing of physical recordings, such as vinyl records and constitute VCPs, and that these elements served the purpose compact discs (CDs), and the playing back of music with of both reproducing and creating VCPs, which helped us to stereo systems. Sharing entails downloading music for free conceptualize both services and service innovation. Finally, we from file-sharing websites using a computer and playing back the found that actors valance VCPs in a way that either cocreates or music. Streaming implies subscribing to a music streaming service, codestroys them, a finding that further helped us to conceptualize such as Spotify, which has a dominant position in the Swedish service innovation. market, and doing so gives consumers the right to listen to music During the comparison and dimensionalization stages, the without having to download it by connecting their own devices to differences and similarities between the data were further the internet (Leyshon 2014; Wikstro¨m 2020). Appendix A pro- explored, and the properties of the empirical instances and vides a more thorough description of these three services. higher-order constructs were inspected to enhance the dis- tinctiveness of the categorization and abstraction. Integration Bundles of Value Cocreation Practices served the purpose of combining the results of our categori- zationand abstractiontoabductively createaframework In this section, we show that the services of the Swedish music capable of conceptualizing services and service innovation. market—recording, sharing, and streaming—are bundles of This framework is presented in the discussion section. value cocreation practices (VCPs), which are tightly linked The trustworthiness of the research was ensured by using the practices that actors perform to cocreate value. Accordingly, criteria and techniques offered by Wallendorf and Belk (1989). they will interchangeably be referred to as services, bundles of Triangulation was accomplished by making sure that the VCPs, or just bundles. We make a distinction between generic findings communicated a story that resonated with all 39 in- and specific VCPs. Generic VCPs cut across services, whereas terviewees. Since our interviewing was retrospective, we also specific VCPs reflect time- and context-specific variants of the triangulated our interview data in relation to a corpus of 562 generic VCPs. Table 3 overviews our findings with respect to articles containing the phrases “music market” or “music generic and specific VCPs and provides examples from the business” (in Swedish) that were published in Sweden’s eight music context. In this section, we also showcase that service major national dailies between 1995 and 2015. Hence, deviating innovation may be conceptualized as the creation of VCPs. We 90 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Table 3. Services as Bundles of Value Cocreation Practices. Services: Bundles of Generic value cocreation practices (VCPs) VCPs Producing Distributing Exchanging Consuming Specific VCPs with examples Recording Manufacturing Physical transferring Purchasing Standardized - producing CDs in record - transporting CDs to - buying a CD in a record - listening to albums on stereo factories record stores by truck store systems Sharing Pirating Networked transferring Giving Standardized and personalized - creating MP3 files from CD - downloading music from - free access to music on the - listening to albums and tracks on a computer the Pirate Bay Pirate Bay compilations of songs Streaming Uploading Platformed accessing Subscribing Personalized - making songs available on - instant access to music on - paying the monthly - listening to playlists available on Spotify Spotify subscription fee to Spotify Spotify by using a smartphone organize the findings in relation to the four generic VCPs and other pirate site, you downloaded the song to your computer from present the specific VCPs within them. other persons’ computers.” Distribution thus takes place by moving music files from the memory of one or several computers Producing. The generic VCP of producing refers to how music is to the memory of another computer. Therefore, we call this form of being made. Recording is characterized by the manufacturing of distribution networked transferring.Instreaming,consumers gain physical goods, most often in the form of vinyl and CDs, in access to music by clicking on songs on streaming services, which factories (Leyshon 2014). Marketing manager Lisa described are made available via internet-based platforms. We call this form the production process during recording as follows: “We of distribution platformed accessing. Marketing manager Sven pressed pieces of plastics.” Under sharing, producing implied indicated that streaming and the platform offered by Spotify had the conversion or “ripping” of content to compressed digital file eased distribution: “There are no hindrances to distributing music formats that could be uploaded to file-sharing sites on the in- today. I don’t remember exactly, but each day there are between 20 ternet, such as The Pirate Bay. “Music pirate” Ulf provided an and 25,000 new songs on Spotify.” example of how ripping was done: “I have an old friend who is totally obsessed with music. He bought a lot of VHS (Video Exchanging. The generic VCP of exchanging refers to how Home Systems) tapes containing music videos that he ripped consumers acquire services from providers. In recording, ex- and put on The Pirate Bay.” As this ripping was commonly done changing is characterized by people purchasing vinyl and CD by “pirates” and ordinary consumers without the consent of the records in record stores or by mail order. Daniel, a consumer, copyright holders, the producing VCP associated with sharing reflected on purchasing as a form of exchange: “I spent a lot of was referred to as pirating by the informants. In streaming, a time in record stores searching for records, asking staff about physical medium for playing back songs is bypassed, as digital records, and listening to records and sometimes buying one.” In files used for listening are produced directly. Hence, in sharing, people exchange music files by giving them for free to streaming, producing is a simple practice that implies the up- members of the same file-sharing network, such as The Pirate loading of songs onto the streaming services platforms, which Bay. Hans, a CEO of a record company, said, “During the pirate can be done by any actor, such as an artist or a record company. years, you could download music for free, which many did, and thought that was great.” In line with several other informants, Distributing. The generic VCP of distributing refers to the Bo suggested that streaming changed the music business “from movement of services—in our case, songs or collections of a unit sales model [during recording] to a rental model.” Hence, songs—from one place to another. As recording is associated we refer to the specific exchange VCP in streaming as sub- with physical records, it implies the physical transferring of the scribing. Paying a monthly fee or consenting to advertising records from the factories to the stores via distribution centers exposure grants consumers access to all the music available on (Leyshon 2014). the streaming firms’ internet-based platforms. By contrast, sharing and streaming involve consumers and are based on immaterial digital files, facilitated by ICTs (computers Consuming. The final generic VCP, consuming, denotes the way and broadband infrastructure), thus obliterating the step of physical in which people use services to increase their well-being, which distribution. In sharing, computers connected via the internet in our case is by listening to music. In recording, people mostly constitute file-sharing networks, such as The Pirate Bay. Music listened to complete albums by one artist on stereo systems or lawyer Ingemar explained how this form of distribution worked: music by different artists on the radio (Garofalo 1999; Sanjek “When you found the song you wanted on The Pirate Bay or any 1988). We refer to this type of consumption associated with Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 91 recording as standardized consuming (Hesmondhalgh and the VCPs of sharing and streaming are based on digital com- Meier 2018). John, a consumer who still listened to vinyl rec- petencies. The informants argued that during the early 2000s in ords, explained: “When me and my girlfriend cook food together, Sweden, when the transition from recording to sharing took I often put on a vinyl album on the record player. We usually place, the industry actors largely lacked the competencies to listen to all the songs.” In sharing, some consumers, exemplified engage in the digitalization of music. As record company A&R here by Bertil, listened to music in a similar standardized way as specialist Mattias, who moved from IT (Information Technol- under recording: “I downloaded albums from The Pirate Bay and ogy) to the music industry in 1999, observed, “When I started burned them to CDs and then played them on my stereo system.” working here [record company], I was struck by how low the Others listened to compilations of songs they created themselves, level of knowledge of the internet and IT was at the company.” representing personalized consumption. Therefore, we refer to Kristina, an A&R specialist at a music publisher, agreed: “We’re consumption under sharing as standardized and personalized. not programmers. We work with music; that’s what we’re In streaming, informants reported that they mostly listened to knowledgeable about.” Hence, the established understandings playlists, commonly by using their smartphones connected to of recording prefigured the concrete activities of the relevant headphones, a finding that is supported by music research actors, which reproduced this bundle and prevented record (Hesmondhalgh and Meier 2018; Wikstrom ¨ 2020). Playlists are companies and music publishers from engaging in the creation compilations of songs often from many artists. Some informants of sharing and streaming services. listened to playlists they created themselves, while others lis- In sharp contrast, the “music pirates” who promoted sharing tened to auto-generated playlists created by music streaming had the understandings needed to realize digitalization. Fredrik firms with the help of algorithms based on customer’slistening Neij, one of the founders of The Pirate Bay, explained his histories. Linda reported that she listened mostly to auto- motivation to contribute to the creation of the file-sharing site in generated playlists on Spotify: “Sometimes, I listen to a play- the 2013 documentary The Pirate Bay Away From Keyboard: list called ‘chill out.’ That’s perfect if I want to relax. But if the “It’s great fun to work with the technology. For me, The Pirate girls are coming over before a Saturday night on the town, I put Bay is a technical challenge. To run such a large website [is a on a playlist called ‘pre-party,’ which is perfect for that occasion.” challenge] technically.” Ulf, another “music pirate,” spoke A few of our consumer informants reported that they listened to about how the peer-to-peer technology upon which The Pirate albums on Spotify, which represents a form of standardized Bay was based made it an efficient and easy way to share music: consumption. Jonas said, “I still listen to albums. When David “It was an optimum technology for many reasons. For example, Bowie passed way, I listened to his records on Spotify.” However, while you were downloading a song, you were simultaneously according to marketing manager Lisa, “Today, the album is more uploading bits of it.” The “pirates” linked to The Pirate Bay and and more seen as a physical object… Spotify doesn’teven have other file-sharing websites created the scripts (the lists of an album list any longer. The focus now is on playlists.” In sum, commands of computer programs) used in file sharing. Hence, our findings suggest that personalized consumption is the typical the competencies of the “music pirates” made them engage in form of music consumption in streaming. activities that gradually contributed to the creation of the This section has shown that services may be understood as templates of organized activities that constitute sharing. As bundles of VCPs, and that service innovation in a market other actors started to use sharing, they contributed to re- implies the creation of VCPs. In the next section, we turn our producing the service, including its understandings. attention to the role of elements of VCPs to both further un- derstand services and to show that service innovation denotes Engagements. The findings also illuminate how the engage- the creation of VCPs. ments, or the emotionally-charged goal component of VCPs, both reproduce and create services. Engagements fuel the actors’ creation of VCPs. In the words of Fredrik Neij and Ulf, “music Creation and Reproduction of Services Prefigured by pirates” thought that it was “funtoworkwiththe technology,” Elements of Value Cocreation Practices especially insofar as one was contributing to the development of the The findings reported in this section show that VCPs are “optimum” peer-to-peer website. However, committing to sharing constituted by four elements: understandings, engagements, also restrained “music pirates” from contributing to the realization procedures, and materials, which is in line with the review of of streaming. As Ulf said, “Cultural products, such as music and practice theory presented in the theoretical background section films, should be free to be enjoyed by everyone. There’sasocialist above. We also show that these elements both reproduce and mindset underpinning The Pirate Bay.” Ulf and other “pirates” were maintain services, as well as create and innovate them. In what thus convinced that exchanging music should be characterized by follows, we organize the presentation of our findings in relation giving (the specific exchange VCP of sharing), which prefigured to the four elements of VCPs. the “pirates” to reproduce sharing rather than contribute to the creation of a commercial service. Understandings. The know-how or competencies that VCPs Likewise, the engagements of streaming contribute to both grant individual actors are referred to as understandings. Table 3 creating and reproducing the service. For example, record shows that recording is based on understandings of physical company marketing manager Sven recognized the difference in manufacturing, distribution, exchange, and consumption, while the overall goals of his company’s business model during 92 Journal of Service Research 26(1) recording and streaming: “Earlier [under recording], our informants talked at length about how ICTs were a precondition business relied on people spending as much money as possible for creating and reproducing sharing and streaming, a fact that is on our products, whereas today, our business is about people also supported by music research (Leyshon 2014; Wikstrom ¨ spending as much time as possible on our products, and it 2020). Bo, a PR (Public Relations) manager of a trade orga- sounds simple, but it is quite a different way of working, and the nization, made a representative statement: “Digitalization and economy around how we work has changed. In particular, it has the internet have transformed the whole business, from how changed how we do our marketing.” The engagements of songs are being written to how music is being consumed.” streaming prefigured Sven and his colleagues to make people Hence, actors’ commitments to technology, including the spend as much time as possible listening to the music that the physical elements constituting VCPs, contributed to the creation record company they worked for had a copyright for (or “our of sharing and streaming, which, once established, prefigured products,” in Sven’s words), which contributed to reproducing the activities of actors engaging in them. Informants further the reimbursement system of streaming and the bundle of VCPs argued that the rapid expansion of broadband-connected more generally. However, in streaming, Sven and his colleagues computers triggered actors to create and reproduce sharing had different goals with their marketing compared to those that and streaming. Music lawyer Ingemar talked about the creation they had during recording, and these new goals contributed to and reproduction of sharing on the Swedish music market, the creation of novel templates of marketing practices. recalling, “There was a computer in each and every home, in all schools, in all offices… When all these computers and the Procedures. The rules making up VCPs are referred to as pro- broadband infrastructure were in place, it was only natural for cedures. A key procedure of recording and streaming is the people to use file-sharing networks.” system of copyright laws that prefigured the industry actors’ Another example of a significant material element that creation and reproduction of these services. The “pirates,” contributed to creating and reproducing streaming within the however, rejected copyright laws and thus remained committed Swedish music market was the smartphone. Arne, CEO of an to what Ulf described as a “socialist mindset,” in which the rule interest organization, remarked, “The big game-changer is was not to charge for music. Accordingly, they created specific streaming in combination with the smartphone.” The smart- VCPs, such as distributing and exchanging music by networked phone served as a platform for the creation of new VCPs specific transferring and giving it away for free via file-sharing websites to streaming, such as distributing and consuming music via such as The Pirate Bay, which, once established, prefigured their applications connected to the databases containing the music and other actors’ activities. Music consumer Robert explained that streaming firms offer, and for providing the possibility to the situation as follows: “I downloaded from file-sharing sites charge for music by making consumers subscribe to streaming on the internet when this became possible at the end of the services. Karin, a consumer who subscribed to Spotify, said, 1990s. I continued to buy some CDs, but downloading became “With smartphones, it became possible to use apps [applica- my main way of accessing music.” tions], and Spotify has such a good app that makes it easy and The contradictions between the procedures of recording and convenient to listen to music. Today, I only listen to music by sharing led to a conflict between some record companies and The using my smartphone.” Once streaming was established, con- Pirate Bay, which resulted in multiple parties ending up in court in sumption became prefigured by it. Consumers started to listen to Sweden. The four founders of The Pirate Bay were given prison playlists via their smartphones, enabling personalized con- sentences of up to a year and were ordered to pay damages due to sumption as described in Table 3 and thus reproducing the joint and several liabilities amounting to 46 million SEK, or about service. five million USD. Informants suggested that The Pirate Bay trial This section suggests that the elements of VCPs constitute and the related negative publicity about sharing contributed to the templates of activities that prefigure actors to reproduce ser- realization of streaming, primarily represented by Spotify in vices. It also shows that actors, in their concrete activities, may Sweden, which launched its streaming service in 2008. According use new elements of VCPs or change existing ones, which may to Kjell, CEO of an independent record company, “The pirates did create templates of VCPs and contribute to the innovation of a lot of damage in the short run. But if you look in the rearview services. Appendix A provides additional empirical evidence to mirror, I think that piracy wasn’t such a bad thing. It was the trigger substantiate the findings of this section. In the next section, we for lawful internet-based streaming.” Hence, The Pirate Bay trial turn our attention to actors’ valancing of bundles and indicate made it clear to the actors that breaking laws representing common, what this implies for conceptualizing services and service in- socially agreed-upon procedures can be costly for the individual, novation as the creation of VCPs. thereby pushing them to follow common procedures (laws) in their creation and reproduction of streaming. Thus, procedures may Valancing Bundles of Value Cocreation Practices contribute to both the creation and reproduction of services. The findings suggest that actors valance bundles of VCPs or Materials. The findings of the present study also suggest that the services by comparing them to one another. Through valancing, material elements of VCPs, such as technologies, physical actors ascribe value to bundles, thus evaluating services in devices, and smart phone applications, may contribute to the relation to their relative advantages and disadvantages. We reproduction and creation of services. In particular, the further show that actors simultaneously cocreate the services on Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 93 the market they value the highest and codestroy those attributed “Illegal downloading has completely disappeared in Sweden less value, thus contributing to the innovation of services. thanks to Spotify.” Hence, intertwined processes of coc- reation and codestruction in the music market contribute to Comparison of recording and sharing. Several informants reported service innovation. that when they compared recording and sharing, their con- While streaming was valanced higher than recording and clusion was that sharing was advantageous to recording. A&R sharing by our informants, we also note that some of them did manager Gunnar said, “The pirates’ offering was so much better... not consume music only via streaming. In particular, some I think most people wanted to do the right thing, but people didn’t informants reported that they listened to vinyl albums, thus want to buy CDs.” Jonas, a consumer, stated, “All of a sudden, engaging in recording in addition to streaming. For example, music was available for free at my fingertips, which was abso- John, a consumer, had negative feelings about the immaterial lutely fantastic.” Both informants pointed out the preference for nature of streaming. He said: “I miss having an album cover in the distributing and exchanging of VCPs of sharing (i.e., net- my hands when I listen to music.” Therefore, John engaged in worked transferring and giving) over the physical distributing and recording. By valancing streaming and recording positively, purchasing VCPs of recording. This stance was generally shared these informants contributed to cocreating both these VCPs among the informants across categories, although some infor- while codestroying sharing. mants deviated. For example, Ingrid, a consumer, said, “Ihave never downloaded music via pirate sites. I think that the ones who Role of other actors’ valancing. The findings showed that focal write and perform the music shall get paid.” Ingrid never engaged actors considered other actors’ valancing and evaluation of in sharing and valanced recording higher than sharing. services, which made them promote viable services even when The bulk of the actors’ valancing of sharing as having higher these were perceived as second-best options. Record company value than recording made them adopt and cocreate the VCPs of CEO Mats identified how the rise of sharing and the resulting this bundle, which simultaneously undermined and codestroyed slump in sales made record companies support Spotify and the VCPs of recording. For example, consumers bought fewer streaming even though they valued recording the most: “When I CDs, spending their money on subscribing to music streaming started working here [at a record company] in 2006, the market services instead, which created financial problems for those actors wasn’t working due to piracy… Some people in our organization dependent on recording but provided the means for streaming thought that if we don’t do anything, it’s not certain that our firms to develop their value propositions. The reduced demand also Swedish operation will still be here in 5 years’ time. So, we had to resulted in lower supply, thereby accelerating the codestruction of take the chance and license Spotify despite many of us not be- recording. Hence, the simultaneous cocreation and codestruction lieving in it.” Hence, the valancing of services among consumers of services in a market that valancing implies contribute to the made record companies realize that recording was untenable in the creation of bundles of VCPs (i.e., to service innovation). light of sharing and that streaming was the second-best option. Therefore, they decided to license their music catalogs to Spotify, Comparison of sharing and streaming. Several informants re- which contributed to the cocreation of streaming and the co- ported that they valued streaming higher than sharing. In A&R destruction of sharing, although this also meant the codestruction manager Gunnar’s view, “Spotify has been a leader and the best of recording, which they valued most among the available bundles streaming service so far. It offers a service that’s really good, so of VCPs. By doing this, the record companies supported why keep on downloading pirated copies? That just takes time streaming and facilitated its service innovation. Appendix A and is tedious. For 99 SEK [about 10 USD] a month, I have provides additional empirical examples of valancing. access to virtually all the music available.” While Gunnar maintained that the exchange of music for free (in sharing) was Discussion superior to subscribing (in streaming), this was trumped by the hassle of downloading music files associated with the net- A theoretically grounded and consistent conceptualization of worked transferring of sharing. Likewise, Gustav, a consumer, service innovation and services that accounts for multiple actors contrasted sharing with streaming and valued the latter higher: has been called for in prior studies (Gustafsson, Snyder, and “I remember the first time I tried Spotify in 2009; it was so Witell 2020; Toivonen and Tuominen 2009). In this section, we simple… I was so used to waiting for the download to complete heed this call for research by developing a framework of services before I could play the song. Spotify was instant.” and service innovation based on our empirical findings and our By adopting streaming, actors contribute to the creation of review of practice theory research. We also present the theoretical the VCPs constituting the service. For example, by providing implications of our paper, an agenda for future practice-theory- consumption data, consumers enabled streaming firms to create informed research on services and service innovation, the playlists with the help of algorithms. Consumers’ adoption of managerial implications, and the limitations of our research. streaming also meant that actors’ computers were no longer nodes in file-sharing networks, thus codestroying sharing. In- Theoretical Contributions deed, many informants, like songwriter Jan, argued that the widespread adoption of streaming contributed to the disap- Conceptualization of services and service innovation. The frame- pearance or codestruction of sharing. As Jan reported, work of services and service innovation, presented in Figure 1, 94 Journal of Service Research 26(1) prior service research has acknowledged the relationship between cocreation and codestruction (Cabbidu, Moreno, and Sebastiano 2019; Echeverri and Skal ˚ en ´ 2011), our findings of how multiple actors’ valancing of generic and specific VCPs is associated with service innovation are novel. Next, we turn to the theoretical implications of the framework for research on services and service innovation. Theoretical implications for research on services. The idea of “services” is one of the key concepts of service research, and our aim was in part focused on conceptualizing services from a practice theory perspective in a way that accounts for multiple actors. We contribute to the literature with a conceptualization of services as bundles of VCPs. Key to our conceptualization of services is the dual role of practices: bundles of VCPs entail both templates of reoccurring value-cocreating activities that prefigure actors’ activities, and the concrete value-cocreating activities carried out by actors that reproduce the templates, thus main- taining services (see Figure 1). Our conceptualization contributes Figure 1. Conceptualization of services and service innovation. to the research that has studied services as activities by providing a theoretical foundation and framework for such work (Edvardsson, Gustafsson, and Roos 2005; Luschand Vargo2014). conceptualizes services as bundles of tightly linked value We also contribute to the service research that has drawn on cocreation practices (VCPs). According to our conceptuali- practice theory (see Table 1), but which has lacked a distinct zation, VCPs consist of both the templates of collectively shared conceptual core and a coherent nomenclature using several and organized routine activities and the concrete everyday notions, such as “service practices” (Edvardsson, Skal ˚ en, ´ and activities that individual actors perform to cocreate value; this Tronvoll 2012), “value cocreation practices” (McColl-Kennedy ˚ ´ particular understanding is supported by Schatzki’s (1996; et al. 2012), and “collaborative practices” (Skalen, Pace, and 2002; 2019) conceptualization of practices. Cova 2015b), to study services. Our definition of VCPs and the Four types of elements, understandings, engagements, associated concepts included in our framework (see Figure 1) procedures, and materials, constitute VCPs, which is in line provide a distinct and coherent conceptual framework for with the work of practice theory scholars (Feldman and studying services from a practice theory perspective. Our re- Orlikowski 2011; Schatzki 1996; 2019; Shove, Pantzar, and search builds on prior service research on practices, particularly Watson 2012). Prior service research has highlighted the first on the research that has explicitly attended to VCPs (see three elements of practices, but not materials (see, e.g., Kelleher et al. 2019; Lusch and Vargo 2014; McColl-Kennedy Echeverri and Skal ˚ en ´ 2011; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009), et al. 2012; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009), but it also adds to which, according to our findings, have a central role in services it by shedding light on the invisible layer behind overt activities: and service innovation, thus corroborating recent service re- the covert templates of activities, as well as the elements that search (Vink et al. 2021). constitute both the templates and the concrete activities of The four elements have a dual role in VCPs, as shown in actors. Figure 1. First, they constitute the templates of organized This developed conceptualization of services enables the routine activities that prefigure the concrete activities, which in exploration of constructs such as value propositions, firm- turn reproduce these templates and contribute to the mainte- customer interactions, and service provision in a new light, nance of VCPs. Second, actors use the elements to conduct as called for by Skal ˚ en ´ et al. (2015a). The attractiveness of value concrete activities that may contribute to create new or modify propositions may be inspected in terms of the templates pre- existing activity templates that prefigure future concrete ac- figuring mutual value cocreation, specifically the elements of tivities. This creation of VCPs is key to the conceptualization of VCPs. For example, understandings (know-how) of interacting service innovation we offer. Thus, we have found that prefig- actors may conflict, or procedures may restrict actors’ activities, uration contributes both to maintaining services and to service and this is likely to decrease the attractiveness of value prop- innovation despite the fact that Schatzki (1996; 2002; 2019) ositions. It is also possible to investigate which of the elements suggests that prefiguration only maintains practices. that enable high-quality customer interactions or potentially Actors’ valancing of VCPs contributes to service innovation in hinder them. Finally, our practice theory conceptualization of a market through the simultaneous cocreation and codestruction of services suggests that the bundling of VCPs is key to service and services. Actors ascribe value to services by comparing how well competitive strength: by looking at alternative VCPs and their the specificVCPs that are particular to services fulfill theroleofthe valancing among actors, services can be bundled and unbundled generic VCPs that all services in a market have in common. While to improve the focal firm’s service provision. Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 95 We also make two specific contributions to service research. Our conceptualization offers implications to all four streams First, our study offers an alternative to service-dominant (S-D) of research on service innovation recently identified by logic’s view of value determination. According to S-D logic, Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll (2018), which include value is “always uniquely and phenomenologically determined the output, process, systems, and experiential streams. The by the beneficiary” (Vargo and Lusch 2016, p. 8). Our findings output stream has been devoted to studying the characteristics of show that most actors tend to valance services similarly, and some the services that firms create. Our paper offers an alternative consistently higher than others (in our case, sharing higher than view, as it suggests that service innovation entails the creation of recording and streaming higher than sharing). While we also show VCPs by multiple actors. This does not imply that we reject that that actors may deviate from the majority and valance VCPs output is a central dimension of service innovation (Gallouj and differently, a key message of our findings is that value is not Weinstein 1997). However, the “output” of service innovation always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the from our perspective refers to new or changed VCPs and beneficiary. Rather, we find support for the coexistence of the bundles, such as streaming. intersubjective and subjective determinations of value due to actor Our findings also have implications for process research on interdependence. For example, while the managers of a firm may service innovation. Traditionally, this body of research has valance their extant services positively compared to other services focused on outlining process models for service development, on the market, they may also realize that the consumers prefer with stages such as idea generation, project formation, service alternative services; therefore, the firm needs to change their design, implementation, and market launch that take place services to ensure business survival. These findings echo those within the firm itself (see, e.g., Blazevic and Lievens 2004; reported by Kelleher et al. (2020), who found that today’sactorsin Sundbo 1997). Researchers drawing on practice theory and S-D highly connected markets sometimes need to strike a balance logic have contributed to the creation of service innovation between multiple actors’ contrasting value cocreation practices. process models (Akesson et al. 2016; Skal ˚ e´n et al. 2015a), but Second, service researchers have emphasized that service have also adopted a firm internal focus. Our conceptuali- exchange is embedded in macro-level institutions (Baron et al. zation suggests instead that service innovation processes 2018; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015; Vargo and Lusch involve several actors, take place on the market to some 2016). Hence, embedded agency, which implies that actors extent, and are triggered by actors comparing two or several and their activities are enabled and constrained by shared norms, services. The service innovation process we describe here values, symbols, and formal rules is a core assumption of this suggests that actors draw on understandings, engagements, research. The problem with conceptualizing services based on procedures, and materials—that is, elements of VCPs—to institutional theory is that it becomes hard to explain how actors conduct concrete activities that create new templates of activ- engage in new behaviors or change existing ones, as this would ities that prefigure future concrete activities. Taken together, this imply acting in contradiction to the institutions that define them constitutes a circular process of service innovation that takes as actors and control their actions. Our conceptualization of place within bundles of VCPs (see Figure 1). This internal services offers a way out of this cul-de-sac, but not by com- process is reinforced by the external process of valancing that bining institution and practice theory as suggested by Vargo and contributes to service innovation by market actors cocreating and Lusch (2016), as these theories advance incommensurable codestroying bundles of VCPs. This idea corroborates the findings conceptualizations of action and social order (Schatzki 1996; of Kelleher et al. (2020), who suggest that codestruction could be 2002). Rather, we offer a practice theory interpretation of latent when actors withdraw their resources from a service system, services, which suggests that actors’ activities are prefigured by as well as the work of Skal ˚ e´n, Pace, and Cova (2015b),who argue the templates of reoccurring activities that constitute VCPs, and that codestruction generates opportunities for actors to innovate but that actors may engage in concrete activities, sometimes trig- without specifying how this is done. gered by valancing, that may make them diverge from these The systems research suggests that a relevant level of templates and create new ones. Hence, our conceptualization of analysis for service innovation is markets or service ecosystems services offers novel implications for how services are inno- (Aal et al. 2016; Baron et al. 2018; Chandler et al. 2019; vated, which we turn to next. Koskela-Huotari et al. 2016; Lusch and Vargo 2014; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015), which is in line with our findings. Theoretical implications for research on service innovation. According Our discussion regarding how the services of the Swedish music to Gustafsson, Snyder, and Witell (2020), research on service market (recording, sharing, and streaming) evolved through innovation has lacked a distinct theoretical conceptualization, valancing contributes to the systems research with insights which hinders knowledge development. To address this issue, a about the dynamic relationship between service innovation and part of our aim is devoted to conceptualizing service innovation by market evolution. We further note that the systems research, due multiple actors by elaborating on the emerging research on service to having its roots in institutional theory, has conceptualized innovation that draws on practice theory. The framework we have service innovation as a process of institutionalization that de- developed (see Figure 1) allows us to begin fulfilling this part of the notes how institutions and their associated practices are created aim. As we have emphasized, we understand service innovation as and become taken-for-granted by actors. Leading institutional the creation of VCPs and bundles, which is achieved by multiple theory scholars Tolbert and Zucker (1996) argue that in- actors and triggered by valancing. stitutionalization is not primarily about innovation per se, but 96 Journal of Service Research 26(1) about how innovations become institutions. By employing a between actor groups in how they engaged in VCPs and the practice theory lens, our paper expands upon the systems re- implications of this for services and service innovation. Finally, search by offering an alternative view to the dominating in- we argue that valancing requires more attention since this is a stitutional theory to explain how multiple actors create services concept generated by us and lacks grounding in prior research. in the form of bundles of VCPs. The research agenda is presented in Table 4. Finally, our paper advances the experiential service inno- vation research stream preoccupied with customers experiences Managerial Implications and the sensemaking of innovations (Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll 2018). Our contribution to this body of research Conceptualizing services as bundles of VCPs that are shared stems from the notion of valancing, which suggests that VCPs and realized by several actors and service innovation as the function as templates not only for concrete activities, but also creation of VCPs by multiple actors implies that service for sensemaking (Schatzki 1996; 2002; 2019). In particular, managers need to focus on the VCPs of the markets in which valancing drives service innovation when actors make sense of their firms are active, as well as on the VCPs of the larger services by evaluating them in relation to their relative ad- context that may influence their respective firms (Ordanini and vantages and disadvantages, which induces the cocreation and Parasuraman 2011; Vargo and Lusch 2016). The framework codestruction of services. Hence, our stance suggests that actors (see Figure 1) that we have developed provides them with the make sense of service innovation based on collectively shared means to do so. VCPs in addition to their personal subjective views. Therefore, We advise managers to analyze the immediate and extended we argue that service innovation denotes a subjective and in- environments of their firms based on the generic VCPs by tersubjective sensemaking process. asking the following questions: How are producing, distribut- Innovation and change have overall been neglected topics in ing, exchanging, and consuming conducted in the focal market? general practice theory (Epp et al. 2014; Nicolini 2011), with the What changes have been taking place over time, and what recent work of Schatzki (2019) that we have drawn upon changes are likely to take place in the near future? Is the market constituting one exception. Our study integrates Schatzki’s digitalizing? What are the general implications of these changes practice theory with service research such that it can be used to for the firm and its service innovation? What is happening in study service innovation. Moreover, we have elaborated on adjacent markets? Managers can then turn their focus to specific several unclear aspects of Schatzki’s theory. The notion of VCPs and ask questions like the following: What specific VCPs valancing illuminates how actors’ comparisons of practices exist on the markets the firm is acting on and adjacent markets? create new practices by constructing alternatives to established Are any of the VCPs dominating? Are any new specific VCPs practices. It also explains what triggers actors to engage in being created? What are the consequences for the firm? How is creating new elements of practices and shows how actors reflect the firm positioned in relation to specific VCPs that are gaining different practices in relation to one another, as well as how such and losing relevance for consumers? What can be done to reflections foster service innovation. We have also elaborated on improve the firm’s position? Schatzki’s work by showing that prefiguration is not only as- When the managers have a map of the specificVCPson the sociated with reproduction, as he suggests, but also with market, we advise them to focus on the elements—the under- innovation. standings, engagements, procedures, and materials—these VCPs are constituted by. Does the firm have or lack the competencies Research agenda. We have merely initiated the work on how needed to engage in a specific VCP that is on the rise? For practice theory may serve as a means of conceptualizing and example, we noted that record companies lacked the digital studying services and service innovation. Therefore, we con- competencies needed to engage in the innovation of digital VCPs, tribute to service research by offering a broader research agenda which caused financial problems for them. Is there any new that future research may depart from to further investigate technology that may change the market, such as the smartphone service and service innovation from a practice theory per- and the computer in our case? How do new collective goals of spective. The research agenda is organized around five of the actors, such as the pursuit of an environmentally sustainable key concepts used to construct our framework (see Figure 1). lifestyle, affect the markets in which the firm is active? By en- We suggest more research that contributes to conceptualizing gaging with the elements of VCPs, managers may also acquire an VCPs, and associated concepts such as bundles, elements, and understanding of how actors engage in concrete activities to generic and specific VCPs, to understand how VCPs are create VCPs. Is such service innovation an opportunity or a threat constitutive of services and how service innovation may be to the firm? Are there procedures that hinder the firm from further understood by focusing on them. In particular, we en- developing new VCPs, and should the firm thereby aim to courage more research about the templates of activities and the proactively influence the procedures? How can the firm engage concrete activities that constitute VCPs to determine if these with VCPs in the best way? Shall the firm buy an innovative start- notions contribute to understanding services and service in- up to acquire the innovation capacity needed? novation as we have discussed them. In addition, more research By mapping the specific VCPs, managers may also be able to on multiple actors is needed. While we studied a multi-actor see what valancing is taking place in relevant markets and how context, we did not systematically focus on the differences this influences the firm. They can then ask themselves the Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 97 Table 4. Research Agenda. Research questions about services Research questions about service innovation Value cocreation practices (VCPs) Are the elements of VCPs (i.e., understandings, procedures, How do the different elements in bundles of VCPs interact and engagements, and materials) common to all services? coevolve? How do the generic VCPs impact specific VCPs across markets? How does the fusion of VCPs into new services take place? Are there generic VCPs other than producing, distributing, exchanging, Are there characteristics of VCPs that make them more prone to and consuming? evolve dynamically? Templates of activities Are all elements of VCPs equally prominent in the templates of activities? How do actors change the templates of activities during service How do the elements of VCPs prefigure the concrete activities of innovation? multiple actors? How do the templates of activities evolve in the long term? What makes actors reproduce the templates? How does the prefiguration of the concrete activities of actors by templates of activities change with the context? Concrete activities Under what circumstances do actors’ concrete activities lead to the How do concrete activities, as parts of VCPs, lead to service reproduction and creation of VCPs? innovation? How do actors valance services during concrete activities? How do actors’ concrete activities belonging to different VCPs come How do actors determine the value of services in their concrete into contact and create VCPs? activities? Multiple actors How do multiple actors determine which of the bundle of VCPs that is Which actors in which roles have the power to direct service valued highest? innovation? How do actors sustain competing bundles of VCPs on a market for a What resources (besides power) make one actor more influential in prolonged period of time? driving service innovation in a market? How do conflicts over the cocreation and codestruction of VCPs among What are the constraints that delimit an actor’s ability, motivation, and/ multiple actors play out in practice? or opportunity to diverge from VCPs and thereby induce service innovation? Valancing What drives valancing? How do actors choose which VCPs they valance How does valancing influence the creation of VCPs and service and when? Does valancing take place due to the introduction of new innovation across markets? VCPs? How do different types of actors’ valancing influence the creation of When actors valance one bundle lower than an alternative bundle, do VCPs? they codestroy the less attractive bundle actively or latently (by Under what circumstances does valancing lead to service innovation? abandoning it)? How does valancing contribute to the destruction of negatively Can an actor sustain a negatively valanced VCP over time? If yes, how is it valanced services? done? How do actors influence each other’s valancing of bundles? following questions: How will the ongoing cocreation and Limitations codestruction of specific VCPs affect our firm? Which VCPs are cocreation and codestruction contributing to the creation of, and As with all research, our study suffers from limitations. The which are they undermining? What does this imply for the firm’s main limitation of the present research is that it builds on a market position, and what shall be done to make the firm qualitative study of a single, quite specific context—the relevant to consumers and the society at large? Swedish music market. Therefore, we outlined an agenda By shifting the focus of managerial activity from the firm to that future research may draw on to extend our work to other the shared VCPs of the market without losing track of internal markets and geographical areas. In particular, future research needs processes, such as production, which we highlighted as one of to quantitatively test our conceptualization of services and service the generic VCPs, managers may be able to lead their firms innovation by investigating several markets. Such research may toward productively engaging in collective value cocreation contribute to revising our framework and re-formulating the re- activities and to be able to improve and create new activities. search agenda. In addition, we focused on a new digital disruptive This is likely to create a competitive advantage for the focal firm technology, whereas many services are still provided outside of the and to benefit the society at large. Moreover, as our findings digital realm, and service innovation commonly focuses on aspects have shown, there is no such thing as a stable music market. other than disruptive technologies, such as business models. Rather than regarding VCPs as operating within pre-defined Another major limitation in our work was the exclusion of the markets, managers need to view markets as fluid and trans- primary stages that take place prior to music becoming a com- forming (Araujo, 2007). mercial product (i.e., song writers’, artists’, producers’, and other 98 Journal of Service Research 26(1) industry actors’ original work with creating the music). Studying References these stages may also generate new insights. Furthermore, many services that are essential to the well- Aal, Kotaiba, Laura Di Pietro, Bo Edvardsson, Maria F. Renzi, and being of individuals and the society at large are public, whereas Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion (2016), “Innovation in Service the focus in this paper was on a market setting, in line with the Ecosystems: An Empirical Study of the Integration of Values, bulk of service research. This is another limitation, as our Brands, Service Systems and Experience Rooms,” Journal of findings indicate that the state played an important role in the Service Management, 27 (4), 619-51. ˚ ´ ˚ creation of VCPs. For example, the early development of Akesson, Maria, Per Skalen, Bo Edvardsson, and Stalhammar Anna broadband infrastructure in Sweden was crucial for the service (2016), “Value Proposition Test-Driving for Service Innovation: innovation of sharing and streaming. Hence, future research How Frontline Employees Innovate Value Propositions,” Journal needs to attend to public services and public service innovation. of Service Theory and Practice, 26 (3), 338-62. Our framework (see Figure 1) may provide a point of departure Araujo, Luis (2007), “Markets, Market-Making and Marketing,” for such studies. Marketing Theory, 7 (3), 211-26. Baron, Steve, Anthony Patterson, Roger Maull, and Warnaby Gary (2018), “Feed People First: A Service Ecosystem Perspective on Innovative Conclusion Food Waste Reduction,” Journal of Service Research,21(1),135–50. Blazevic, Vera and Annouk Lievens (2004), “Learning During the New While service scholars have fruitfully drawn on practice Financial Service Innovation Process: Antecedents and Perfor- theory, they have also agreed that the theoretical potential mance Effects,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (4), 374-91. offeredbypracticetheorytoservice research remains un- Blocker, Christopher P. and Andre´s Barrios (2015), “The Transformative Value fulfilled (Lusch and Vargo 2014; McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, of a Service Experience,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (3), 265-83. and Ferrier 2015; Skal ˚ e´n et al. 2015a; Vargo and Lusch 2016). Cabiddu, Francesca, Frau Moreno, and Lombardo Sebastiano (2019), We have contributed to unleashing some of the potential of practice “Toxic Collaborations: Co-Destroying Value in the B2B Context,” theory for service research by advancing the conceptualization of Journal of Service Research, 22 (3), 241-55. services and service innovation. Nevertheless, much work lies Chandler, Jennifer D., Ilias Danatzis, Carolin Wernicke, Melissa Archpru ahead, and the research agenda that we outlined is an invitation to Akaka, and David Reynolds (2019), “How Does Innovation Emerge in other service scholars to join us in our endeavor to further unlock a Service Ecosystem?,” Journal of Service Research, 22 (1), 75-89. the potential of practice theory for service research. ˚ ´ Echeverri, Per and Per Skalen (2011), “Cocreation and Codestruction: A Practice-Theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation,” Acknowledgments Marketing Theory, 11 (3), 351-73. ˚ ´ ˚ Edvardsson, Bo, Per Skalen, and Bard Tronvoll (2012), “Service The Authors wish to thank the informants of this study for sharing their Systems as a Foundation for Resource Integration and Value Co- expertise and experience in the Swedish music market. The Authors Creation,” Review of Marketing Research, 9, 79-126. also wish to thank Mikko Laamanen, Marit Engen, Rolf Rønning, and Edvardsson, Bo, Anders Gustafsson, and Inger Roos (2005), “Service Jenny Karlsson as well as the Associate Editor and the three anonymous Portraits in Service Research: A Critical Review,” International reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. Journal of Service Industry Management, 16 (1), 107-21. Epp, Amber M., Hope Jensen Schau, and Linda L. Price (2014), “The Declaration of Conflicting Interests Role of Brands and Mediating Technologies in Assembling Long- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to Distance Family Practices,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 81-101. the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Feldman, Martha. S. and Wanda J. Orlikowski (2011), “Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory,” Organization Science, 22 (5), 1240-53. Funding Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006), “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research,” Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219-45. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for Fuglsang, Lars and Flemming Sørensen (2011), “The Balance Between the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first Bricolage and Innovation: Management Dilemmas in Sustainable Author received financial support for this research from Jan Wallanders Public Innovation,” The Service Industries Journal,31(4),581-95. and Tom Hedelius stiftelse as well as Tore Browaldhs stiftelse [Grant: Gallouj, Fa¨ ız and Olivier Weinstein (1997), “Innovation in Services,” P18-0028], Interreg Sweden-Norway program [Grant: 20201630], and Research Policy,26(4–5), 537-56. the Region Va¨rmland [Grant: RV2018-8]. Garofalo, Reebee (1999), “From Music Publishing to MP3: Music and Market in the Twentieth Century,” American Music,17(3),318-54. ORCID iDs Gustafsson, Anders, Hannah Snyder, and Lars Witell (2020), “Service ˚ ´ Per Skalen  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2982-9651 Innovation: A New Conceptualization and Path Forward,” Johanna Gummerus  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8486-1286 Journal of Service Research, 23 (2), 111-5. Helkkula, Anu, Christian Kowalkowski, and Bard Tronvoll (2018), Supplemental Material “Archetypes of Service Innovation: Implications for Value Supplemental material for this article is available online. Cocreation,” Journal of Service Research, 21 (3), 284-301. Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 99 Hesmondhalgh, David and Leslie L Meier (2018), “What the Digi- Russo-Spena, Tiziana and Cristina Mele (2012), “‘Five Co-s’ in In- talisation of Music Tells Us About Capitalism, Culture and the novating: A Practice-Based View,” Journal of Service Manage- Power of the Information Technology Sector,” Information, ment, 23 (4), 527-53. Communication & Society, 21 (11), 1555-70. Sanjek, Russell (1988), American Popular Music and its Business: Johansson, Ola (2020), “Introduction: The Swedish Music Miracle, from 1.0 From 1900 to 1984, Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. to 2.0,” in Songs from Sweden; Shaping Pop Culture in a Globalized Schatzki, Theodore R. (1996), Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Music Industry, O Johansson, ed. Singapore: Palgrave Pivot, 1-24. Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cam- Kelleher, Carol, Hugh N. Wilson, Emma K. Macdonald, and Joe Peppard bridge University Press. (2019), “The Score is Not the Music: Integrating Experience and Schatzki, Theodore R (2002), The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Practice Perspectives on Value Co-Creation in Collective Consumption Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Contexts,” Journal of Service Research, 22 (2), 120-38. Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Kelleher, Carol, Deirdre O’Loughlin, Johanna Gummerus, and Lisa Schatzki, Theodore R (2019), Social Change in a Material World: How Activity Penaloza (2020), “Shifting Arrays of a Kaleidoscope: The Or- and Material Processes Dynamize Practices. London: Routledge. chestration of Relational Value Cocreation in Service Systems,” Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M Muñiz Jr, and Eric J. Arnould (2009), Journal of Service Research, 23 (2), 211-28. “How Brand Community Practices Create Value,” Journal of Koskela-Huotari, Kaisa, Bo Edvardsson, Julia M. Jonas, David Sorhammar, Marketing, 73 (5), 30-51. and Lars Witell (2016), “Innovation in Service Ecosystems—Breaking, Shove, Elizabeth, Mika Pantzar, and Matt Watson (2012), The Dynamics of Making, and Maintaining Institutionalized Rules of Resource Inte- Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. London: Sage. gration,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), 2964-71. Skal ˚ en, ´ Per, Johanna Gummerus, Catharina von Koskull, and Peter R Lee, A. S. and R. L. Baskerville (2003), “Generalizing Generalizability Magnusson (2015a), “Exploring Value Propositions and Service in Information Systems Research,” Information Systems Re- Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Study,” Journal of the search, 14 (3), 221–43. Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 137-58. Leyshon, Andrew (2014), Reformatted: Code, Networks, and the Trans- Skal ˚ en, ´ Per, Stefano Pace, and Bernard Cova (2015b), “Firm-Brand formation of the Music Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Community Value Cocreation as Alignment of Practices,” Eu- Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon G. Guba (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry. ropean Journal of Marketing, 49 (3/4), 596-620. London: Sage. Sundbo, Jon (1997), “Management of Innovation in Services,” Service Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2014), Service-Dominant Industries Journal, 17 (3), 432-55. Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. Cambridge: Cam- Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in bridge University Press. Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 491-503. McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Stephen L. Vargo, Tracey S. Dagger, Tolbert, Pamela S. and Lynne G. Zucker (1996), “Institutionalization of Jillian C. Sweeney, and Yasmin van Kasteren (2012), “Health Institutional Theory,” in Handbook of Organization Studies, Care Customer Value Cocreation Practice Styles,” Journal of Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord, eds. Service Research, 15 (4), 370–89. London: Sage, 175-90. McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Lilliemay Cheung, and Elizabeth Ferrier Toivonen, Marja and Tiina Tuominen (2009), “Emergence of Innova- (2015), “Cocreating Service Experience Practices,” Journal of tions in Services,” The Service Industries Journal, 29 (7), 887-902. Service Management, 26 (2), 249-75. Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2016), “Institutions and McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview. London: Sage. Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-Dominant Logic,” Michel, Stefan, Stephen W. Brown, and Andrew S. Gallan (2008), “An Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 5-23. Expanded and Strategic View of Discontinuous Innovations: Vargo, Stephen L., Heiko Wieland, and Melissa A. Akaka (2015), Deploying a Service-Dominant Logic,” Journal of the Academy of “Innovation Through Institutionalization: A Service Ecosystems Marketing Science, 36 (1), 54-66. Perspective,” Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63-72. Music Sweden (2016), Musikbranschen i siffror [The Music Business Verhoef, Peter C., Thijs Broekhuizen, Bart Yakov, Abhi Bhattacharya, in Numbers] (accessed November 27, 2020) https://statistik. John Qi Dong, Nicolai Fabian, and Michael Haenlein (2021), musiksverige.org. “Digital Transformation: A Multidisciplinary Reflection and Nicolini, Davide (2011), Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Research Agenda,” Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901. Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vink, Josina, Kaisa Koskela-Huotari, Bard ˚ Tronvoll, Bo Edvardsson, Ordanini, Andrea and A. Parasuraman (2011), “Service Innovation Viewed and Katarina Wetter-Edman (2021), “Service Ecosystem Design: through a Service-Dominant Logic Lens: A Conceptual Framework Propositions, Process Model, and Future Research Agenda,” and Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Service Research, 14 (1), 3-23. Journal of Service Research, 24 (2), 168-86. Ostrom, Amy L., A. Parasuraman, David E. Bowen, Lia Patr´ ıcio, and Wallendorf, Melanie and Russel W. Belk (1989), “Assessing Trust- Christopher A. Voss (2015), “Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly worthiness in Naturalistic Consumer Research,” in Interpretative Changing Context,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (2), 127-59. Consumer Research, Elizabeth C. Hirschman, ed. Provo, UT: Reckwitz, Andreas (2002), “Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Association for Consumer Research, 69–84. Development in Culturalist Theorizing,” European Journal of Wikstrom, ¨ Patrik (2020), The Music Market: Music in the Cloud. Social Theory, 5 (2), 243-63. Cambridge: Polity. 100 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Potential probing questions: Appendix A a. How has the part of the market that [X] represents changed? Example of Interview Guide b. What have the changes meant for the part of the market Interview questions for the music industry with that [X] represents? informant Y, CEO of X [Interest organization] c. Has the production of music changed? If yes, how? d. Has the consumption of music changed? If yes, how? Introduction: Our research project is about how the Swedish 8. What is driving the changes? music market has changed since the middle of the 1990s. We want you to share your experiences of working in the music Topics for follow-up questions. What is the role of: market, how it has changed, and the implications of any changes, especially for the [actors] you represent. a. the customer/consumer? b. technology? Background c. innovative business models? d. illegal downloading? 1. Can you start by giving us an overview of your career in e. social media? the music industry? What jobs have you had? What is f. streaming? your relationship to music? 9. What role has X played in these market changes? How 2. What is X [organization name]? What does X do? has X been a driving force in these changes? How does 3. What is X’s relationship to other interest organizations? X try to influence the market? 10. What aspects of the market have not changed? Questions about the music market 11. How would you describe what it is like to work at a music company today compared to 20 years ago? 1. In your view, what does the Swedish music market look 12. What consequences have the changes had for the other like today? Who are the most important actors? actors in the industry? Which actors have benefited or 2. What roles do the different actors play? What do they lost due to these changes? do? 13. How has the relationship between industry actors 3. What regulates the relationship between the key actors? changed? 14. Are there any other topics that you would like to Topics for follow-up questions: Laws and regulations, discuss? economics, values, culture, etc. 15. Would you recommend anyone else for us to interview? 4. What have been the most important changes in the Swedish music market? How has the music market Appendix B changed during the time you have worked in it? Table B1. Empirical illustration and interpretation of key concepts. Concepts Empirical vignette Interpretation Creation and reproduction of services prefigured by elements of value cocreation practices (VCPs) Understandings (i.e., know- It was not only piracy that was the reason for the slump [in According to Lisa, a lack of understanding with respect how or competencies) the sales of recorded music]; a big reason was that we to digitalization among record companies prefigured [the record companies] did not keep up. If we had these actors to reproduce the status quo in the form understood sooner that this [offering of CDs] of recording and prevented them from creating and was not going to work, that we would not be able innovating online VCPs for consuming music. to continue as we have always done, then we would have had to find a way to provide legal alternatives to those who consumed music online, through which we could make money. You can’t blame the downloaders. We are also to blame because we just sat and watched. (Lisa, marketing manager) (continued) Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 101 Table B1. (continued) Spotify has been of great importance to the industry. Andreas argues that Spotify, and the founders of the firm They understood the negative effects of the pirate in particular, had the understanding needed to create business on the record companies. They saw the the bundle of VCPs here referred to as streaming. entire music industry’s inability to meet the challenges posed by the piracy business, and they found the solution. So, that was fantastic. Maybe it should have been those of us in the industry together with technicians who should have created the solution, but it was Ek and Lorenzon [the founders of Spotify] who came up with it. (Andreas, CEO) Engagements I wouldn’t say that it was entrepreneurs who initiated the Mats argues that the “music pirates,” including Shawn (i.e., emotionally-charged digitalization of the music industry; it was people who Fanning, the founder of the file-sharing site Napster, goals) saw the possibilities with the internet and were driven by engagements to provide a more wanted to push the boundaries. I don’t think the convenient digital service to create the sharing bundle driving force for Shawn Fanning when he developed of VCPs, and not to destroy the music industry. Napster [a file-sharing site] was to blow up the music industry. I think he saw that that it was possible to use the technology to simplify and create a better service for the consumer. I think that this was where he came from. (Mats, CEO) The digitalization of music allowed for rapid consumption Jonas argues that the record companies are positively changes in a very traditional industry, where value had engaged in streaming, thus contributing to been locked into the physical format. Previously, the reproducing the bundle of VCPs. Hence, while the record was the bearer of value. With digitalization, a engagements themselves may not originally drive the change took place, meaning that the value lay in the creation of VCPs, they may do so later. listening. The record industry was forced to change, and it was not until they started to get a working business model for streaming media that they began to like digitalization. (Jonas, consumer) Procedures When I was involved in building a digital music service in Bo argues that the rules stipulated by contracts prefigure (i.e., rules) the 1990s and early 2000s, we called STIM [the Swedish the actors’ activities by either enabling VCPs or collective management organization for music creators constraining them; in this case, the rules (in the form and publishers] and told them, “We want to create a of performance rights) influence the options actors digital music service; what do the rights cost, and which have and the activities they engage in to create the ones can we have?” They answered, “You can get all the streaming bundle of VCPs. rights for Sweden.” Today… you cannot get all the rights for Sweden from STIM. You need rights from all PRMs [performing rights societies] acting in Sweden. So, the problem is that if you are a service developer, you would need contracts with 30 organizations instead of one. This has created an entry barrier for new streaming services entering the market. (Bo, PR manager) Materials (i.e., technology, [In Sweden] we had the broadband infrastructure and Hans argues that the material elements of VCPs, such as and physical resources) the network speed early on. It put us far ahead of broadband infrastructure and PCs, facilitate actors’ everybody else in developing digital services. The other creation of bundles of VCPs. In this case, the materials thing that was important for the digitalization of music co-evolved with procedures as lawmakers influenced was the home PC reform [which lowered the cost of the price of PCs. buying computers in Sweden]. I don’t know how many million PCs were sold, but many parents bought computers for their kids. (Hans, CEO) It is the technology that has changed the music Lennart suggests that material elements in the form of industry… The technology has made it much easier to new technology have made actors more inclined to create music. It is also the technology that has made it create new VCPs that, when established, reproduce much easier for the end consumer to consume music. specific VCPs for consuming and producing music. (Lennart, songwriter) (continued) 102 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Table B1. (continued) Valancing bundles of value cocreation practices Recording vs. sharing Snook [a hip-hop act] was very popular during the 2000s, Birgitta argues that during the noughties, the fans of but they didn’t sell any records. They had no Snook, and consumers more generally, were valancing sharing higher than recording. This led them to financial success whatsoever. But live, they were a huge success. I saw them at the Hultsfred music festival; codestroy the latter, as they did not pay to consume I was there with them. Their concert was music, and cocreate the former, which supported the absolutely packed with fans, and everyone knew innovation of sharing through usage of the VCP. all the lyrics. The fans sang all their songs in chorus, but they [Snook] did not sell any records. This was during the period when illegal file sharing and downloading was greatest. (Birgitta, general manager) Streaming vs. recording Spotify is extremely cheap; it’s 99 bucks [referring to 99 Alexander valances streaming (represented by Spotify) and sharing SEK, or about 11 USD] to have access to all the music higher than recording and sharing. This valancing that exists in principle. It’s a very, very good service, implies the codestruction of recording and sharing I would say. It costs less than going to the cinema. It’s and the cocreation of streaming. It also facilitates the only natural that people use Spotify. (Alexander, A&R innovation of streaming through the usage of VCPs by specialist) extant actors. Streaming vs. sharing With Spotify, music became much more Because of Bengt valancing streaming (represented by accessible. Already from the start, Spotify had a large Spotify) higher than sharing (referred to as library of music. There was no longer any need to downloading), he contributes to the service download music. (Bengt, consumer) innovation of streaming by codestroying sharing, no longer downloading from “pirate” sites, and cocreating streaming by using this service. Recording vs. sharing and It wasn’t really the willingness to pay that was the problem Mats valances sharing higher than recording, and sharing vs. streaming with downloading; it was that people felt that streaming (as represented by the streaming service piracy was so much better than CDs. That pirated Spotify) higher than sharing. The rationale behind music was free was a plus, but this was not the first Mats’s argument is that people will cocreate and reason to why people went to pirate services… support the innovation of bundles of VCPs they value Nevertheless, if you think back to the beginning of 2007 the most and codestroy alternative VCPs. when you started to use Spotify for the first time. It was so much better than anything else that was on the market, and for the first time, there was something better than using pirate services.It was so exciting. You might remember how you felt when you got Spotify for the first time and showed it to others; it was such a “wow” moment. (Mats, CEO) Author Biographies Johanna Gummerus is Liikesivistysrahasto Associate Pro- fessor in Marketing at Hanken School of Economics, Finland, Per Skal ˚ en ´ is a professor of Business Administration based at the and Ander Visiting Professor at the Service Research Center, Service Research Center, Karlstad University, Sweden and a guest Karlstad University, Sweden. Her main research interests in- professor at the Inland University of Applied Sciences, Norway. He is clude value creation logics, the influence of technology on currently conducting research about transformative services, service consumer-firm relationships, and service marketing and man- innovation, value and value codestruction, and public services. agement topics in general. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Service Research SAGE

Conceptualizing Services and Service Innovation: A Practice Theory Study of the Swedish Music Market

Journal of Service Research , Volume 26 (1): 20 – Feb 1, 2023

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/conceptualizing-services-and-service-innovation-a-practice-theory-YynFvtKEOh

References (74)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2022
ISSN
1094-6705
eISSN
1552-7379
DOI
10.1177/10946705211062693
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In today’s complex and interconnected marketplace, the study of services and service innovation among multiple actors is an underdeveloped, but a theoretically and managerially relevant research area for enabling value cocreation. Building on general practice theory, the scarce prior service research that has drawn on practice theory, and an empirical study of the Swedish music market, this paper outlines a framework that conceptualizes services and service innovation among multiple actors by focusing on value cocreation practices (VCPs). The framework contributes to service research by conceptualizing services as bundles of VCPs, providing a theoretical foundation for the research that studies services as activities. It also contributes to service research by conceptualizing service innovation as the creation of VCPs. The paper shows how actors’ concrete activities, in combination with the valancing of VCPs existing in the market, induce service innovation. A future agenda for research on services and service innovation is also proposed. In addition to these theoretical contributions, the paper offers practical insights into how managers, with the help of the framework, may broaden their focus to include the shared VCPs of the markets to secure a competitive advantage. Keywords music, practice theory, services, service innovation, value cocreation practices Prior practice-theory-informed service innovation re- Introduction search (see, e.g., Fuglsang and Sørensen 2011; Skal ˚ en ´ et al. Service innovation is a priority for both service research 2015a) focuses on the change of existing practices or the and managerial practice (Ostrom et al. 2015). However, creation of new ones within firms. For example, Skal ˚ en ´ et al. Gustafsson, Snyder, and Witell (2020) argue that the (2015a) examine how managers and employees change and treatment of service innovation as an empirical phenomenon create everyday micro-level practices, thereby generating without a distinct theoretical conceptualization hinders guidance for managing service innovation. This firm-level knowledge development in this area. The root cause of focus is in line with the dominant stream of research this shortcoming is, according to Toivonen and Tuominen (Blazevic and Lievens 2004; Gallouj and Weinstein 1997), (2009), the undetermined conceptualization of services. but it implies that there is a lack of knowledge of how Consequently, a clear and consistent theoretically grounded multiple actors create shared practices and how such pro- conceptualization of service innovation and services has cesses are managed, which are essential features of service been called for. innovation in today’s interconnected marketplace (Chandler This paper addresses this call for research by building et al. 2019; Vink et al. 2021). on the few studies that have examined service innovation and services by drawing on practice theory (see, e.g., Edvardsson, Skal ˚ e´n, and Tronvoll 2012; Fuglsang and ˚ ´ Sørensen 2011; McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012; Skalen et al. CTF-Service Research Center, Karlstad Business School, Karlstad University, 2015a). Practice theory is an umbrella term for the different Sweden theories focusing on understanding the social world through Centre for Relationship Marketing and Service Management (CERS), Hanken practices (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Nicolini 2011; School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland; CTF-Service Research Center, Karlstad Business School, Karlstad University, Sweden Reckwitz 2002). The common denominator across the var- ious strands of practice theory is that practices encompass Corresponding Author: templates of organized routine activities that individual and ˚ ´ Per Skalen, CTF-Service Research Center, Karlstad Business School, Karlstad collective actors (e.g., organizations) draw on to carry out University, Universitetsgatan 2, Karlstad 65188, Sweden. concrete activities. Email: per.skalen@kau.se 84 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Prior research on services that has drawn on practice theory (see, reviewing general practice theory works and the scarce previous e.g., Edvardsson, Skal ˚ e´n, and Tronvoll 2012; McColl-Kennedy research on service and service innovation that has drawn on et al. 2012; Skal ˚ e´n, Pace, and Cova 2015b) has focused on ev- practice theory. eryday value cocreation activities in firms, generating relevant insights for managers. However, practice theory has not been A Practice Theory Framework of Services and used to advance a conceptualization of services taking multiple Service Innovation value-cocreating actors into account, but it can fruitfully serve this purpose as it resonates with the persisting idea in service re- Several specific theoretical positions have been developed search that services entail collective activities (Edvardsson, within the broader domain of practice theory (Feldman and Gustafsson, and Roos 2005; Lusch and Vargo 2014). Hence, Orlikowski 2011; Nicolini 2011). Thepracticetheoryof practice theory maybeusedtoconstruct thecommonconceptual Schatzki (1996; 2002; 2019) is our primary source of theo- ground for research on services and service innovation that has been retical inspiration due to its attention to the constitution and called for. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to conceptualize change of practices, with the latter being a theme that practice services and service innovation from a practice theory perspective, theories have been critiqued for neglecting (Epp, Schau, and and to do so in a way that accounts for multiple actors. Price 2014; Nicolini 2011). As our overview of prior research To fulfill this aim, we draw on practice theory research and an in Table 1 shows, service researchers have drawn on Schatzki’s empirical study of practices in the Swedish music market, which practice theory to define practices, empirically identify dif- offers an interesting context due to its high degree of inter- ferent types of practices, and analyze how value is cocreated nationalization and innovation (Johansson 2020). Our findings and innovated. contribute to service research by advancing a framework that To Schatzki (1996; 2002; 2019) and other practice theory conceptualizes services and service innovation from a practice scholars (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Nicolini 2011; theory perspective, and that accounts for multiple actors. This Reckwitz 2002; Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012), prac- framework depicts services as bundles of value cocreation tices encompass both covert templates of collectively practices (VCPs) that consist of templates of activities that shared and organized routine activities and the concrete prefigure (i.e., guide or foreshadow) the concrete activities of overt everyday activities that actors perform. Specifically, actors in such a way that VCPs are reproduced and maintained. Schatzki suggests that the templates prefigure actors’ Our stance provides a theoretical foundation for the concep- concrete activities. Performing activities in line with the tualization of services as activities (Edvardsson, Gustafsson, templates is commonly easier, safer, more convenient, and and Roos 2005). Service innovation, in turn, denotes the more socially acceptable than acting outside of or against creation of bundles of VCPs. We show how multiple actors’ them. Therefore, individuals often reproduce practices in concrete activities, in combination with actors’ valancing of accordance with templates. However, Schatzki (2019) ar- VCPs, induce service innovation. By doing so, our study adds gues that actors may choose to diverge from extant prac- to the understanding of how practices evolve and are created, tices, although often at a cost, and act in new ways that which Skal ˚ e´n et al. (2015a) posit as a characteristic of service constitute alternative ways of acting. If actors find these innovation and have called for more research on. We also new ways of acting superior to the activities of established single out the implications for the service innovation research practices and adopt them, this may create new practices or streams identified by Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll change existing ones. Hence, Schatzki’s practice theory (2018). Based on our findings, we further contribute to the field may contribute to the conceptualization of service inno- by outlining a broader practice theory-informed research vation by focusing on how actors contribute to developing agenda that invites service researchers to elaborate on our alternatives to existing practices. conceptualizations of services and service innovation. Our Drawing on Schatzki (1996), Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould managerial implications shed light on how managers may (2009) differentiate between three elements that characterize relate to the shared VCPs of the markets their firms are active practices: “procedures” (i.e., rules), “understandings” (i.e., in and beyond to reach a competitive advantage. know-how or competencies), and “engagements” (i.e., The paper is structured as follows: in the next section, rel- emotionally-charged goals). Schatzki also emphasizes the evant works on practice theory are reviewed. Then, the research importance of material entities, such as technologies, arti- method is described, followed by a presentation of the findings facts, and natural resources, but places these outside of from the study of the Swedish music market. Finally, the dis- practices, whereas many other practice theory scholars treat cussion section presents the framework that conceptualizes materials as an integral and central element of practices services and service innovation, the implications of the study, (Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Nicolini 2011; Reckwitz the broader research agenda, and the limitations. 2002; Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012); this latter position is the way of conceptualizing practices that we adhere to. Hence, in our understanding the four elements of procedures, Theoretical Background understandings, engagements, and materials constitute In this section, we provide the basis for conceptualizing services practices. These elements organize both the templates and and service innovation from a practice theory perspective by the concrete activities that practices consist of and may Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 85 contribute to both reproducing and creating practices. The theory, as depicted in Table 1. However, this body of research has templates of activities may prefigure what rules actors fol- not explicitly conceptualized services in terms of multiple actors’ low, the know-how and technology to make use of, and what practices. In addition, this research stream has deemphasized goals to pursue when conducting an activity that contributes the templates and elements (i.e., understandings, engage- to the reproduction of practices. At the same time, actors can, ments, procedures, and materials) of practices when discus- as a part of their concrete activities, bend existing rules or sing services although our review of practice theory (see make up new ones, develop new competencies, use novel above) suggests templates and elements are essential for technologies, and change their shared goals, thus contrib- conceptualizing services. Instead, practice-theory-informed uting to the creation of new templates and to service inno- service research has focused on overt activities, with the vation. In line with this reasoning, prior service research common theme being that services entail value cocreation suggests that the usage of new technologies may change activities. Although this is an important contribution, con- practices (Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015) and that the ceptual disintegration characterizes previous studies, as dif- different usage of elements of practices by interacting actors may ferent notions of practices have been drawn on, including induce service innovation through the creation of new practices “service practices” that are “enacted by people to cocreate (Skal ˚ e´n, Pace, and Cova 2015b). According to Schatzki (2019) and value and integrate resources” (Edvardsson, Skal ˚ en ´ , and Shove, Pantzar, and Watson (2012), a change in one element of Tronvoll 2012, p. 99), “collaborative practices” that inter- practices (such as the procedures) will lead to subsequent changes acting actors use to cocreate value (Skal ˚ e´n, Pace, and Cova in the other elements and eventually to the creation of practices and 2015b), and “value cocreation practices,” which refer to associated service innovation. However, what triggers multiple customers overt activities, interactions, and roles (McColl- actors to change the elements of practices, or come up with new Kennedy et al. 2012). Since value cocreation is a common elements in the first place, and contribute to service innovation is theme in prior research, it seems particularly fruitful to draw undetermined in both general practice theory and prior service on the notion of VCPs as discussed by McColl-Kennedy et al. research. (2012) and others (Kelleher et al. 2019; Lusch and Vargo Actors also draw on the templates of activities that practices 2014; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009) to accomplish our consist of to make sense of and reflect on their own or other aim of conceptualizing services from a practice theory per- actors’ past, ongoing, and future activities (Schatzki 2002). For spective that takes multiple actors into account. instance, actors can compare the activities induced by one We further observe that service scholars have identified practice with those induced by alternative practices, think about bundles of practices (Schatzki 1996; 2019), commonly referring and discuss how to modify practices, and critically evaluate to them as aggregates, and that they have shown that practices practices based on the activities they enable. While prior re- may be used by actors to codestroy or diminish value (Cabbidu, ˚ ´ search suggests that such reflections may contribute to service Moreno, and Sebastiano 2019; Echeverri and Skalen 2011; innovation through the creation of practices (Shove, Pantzar, McColl-Kennedy et al. 2012; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009; ˚ ´ ˚ ´ and Watson 2012), how this takes place among multiple actors Skalen et al. 2015a, Skalen, Pace, and Cova 2015b). In addition, remains to be studied. a common denominator of practice theory works on services is Schatzki’s work also offers the opportunity to concep- their focus on one actor, such as firms or charities (Edvardsson, tualize services and service innovation from the standpoint Skal ˚ en, ´ and Tronvoll 2012; Blocker and Barrios 2015), or on of bundles, which consist of several practices linked closely customer and service provider dyads (Kelleher et al. 2019; together in coordination with one another (Schatzki 1996; McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, and Ferrier 2015; Skal ˚ en ´ , Pace, and 2019). The modification of one practice may affect the other Cova 2015b). By contrast, Blocker and Barrios (2015) suggest practices belonging to the same bundle and change them, that practices work jointly on a market, enabling collective too, thus inducing service innovation. However, why and value cocreation. Therefore, we expand our focus to multiple how actors engage in this type of service innovation is actors following the lead of recent research (Chandler et al. unclear. 2019; Vink et al. 2021). In sum, Schatzki’s practice theory provides a basis for In sum, prior service research has studied practices and conceptualizing services and service innovation among multiple bundles of practices to illuminate how single actors or actor actors by focusing on practices and how they are created, even dyads cocreate value. However, this body of research lacks though it is not explicitly designed to do that. In the next section, conceptual integration and an explicit conceptualization of we review how services and service innovation have been services as practices, although this would align the conceptual studied from a practice theory perspective to further advance our basis of services with prior studies on service innovation from a conceptualization. practice theory perspective, which we turn to next. Practice theory studies of service innovation. Our review (see Studies of Practices in Service Research Table 1)identified eight studies that used practice theory to Practice theory studies of services. A few service scholars have study service innovation. Only one of these studies (Russo- drawn on practice theory in their study of services, and four out Spena and Mele 2012) draws systematically on Schatzki’s of the 10 studies we identified have relied on Schatzki’s practice practice theory, which is probably because Schatzki only 86 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Table 1. Practice-Theory-Informed Service Research. Research Descriptive characteristics contributions Theoretical Service Author(s) year Focus of investigation foundation(s) Context Method(s) innovation Services Schau et al. 2009 Value cocreation practices in Schatzki’s practice Multiple Netnography — √ brand communities theory and S-D logic Echeverri and Practices used to cocreate and Schatzki’s practice Public transport Interviews — √ Skal ˚ en ´ 2011 codestroy value theory and S-D logic Fuglsang and Change of practices by front- Innovation theory, Elderly care Interviews and field √ — Sørensen line employees practice theory, and experiments 2011 bricolage Edvardsson et al. Service practices used to Schatzki’s and Giddens’s Telecom Interviews, — √ 2012 cocreate value practice theory and S- observations, and D logic documents McColl- Value cocreation practice S-D logic and practice Health care Focus group and — √ Kennedy et al. styles theory individual 2012 interviews Russo-Spena and Innovation and cocreation Schatzki’s practice Multiple Netnography √ — Mele 2012 practices theory and service research Lusch and Vargo Value cocreation practices S-D logic and several Theory Conceptual — √ 2014 practice theories Blocker and Service practices used to Giddens’s practice Nonprofit Interviews and — √ Barrios 2015 cocreate transformative theory and S-D logic observations value McColl- Cocreating service experience Practice theory and S-D Elderly care Observations, — √ Kennedy et al. practices logic interviews, and 2015 diaries Skal ˚ en ´ et al. Service innovation through Practice theory, S-D Multiple Interviews, √ — 2015a change and creation of logic, and service observations, and practices innovation documents Skal ˚ en ´ et al. Practices used to cocreate Schatzki’s practice Automotive Netnography, — √ 2015b value in brand communities theory and S-D logic interviews, and documents Vargo et al. 2015 Value cocreation practices S-D logic and technology Theory Conceptual √ — Aal et al. 2016 Institutionalization of new S-D logic and Food Interviews and √ — valuable practices institutional theory documents Akesson et al. Test-driving practices of value S-D logic ICT Interviews √ — 2016 proposition Koskela-Huotari Institutional coordination of S-D logic and Multiple Interviews √ — et al. 2016 value cocreation practices institutional theory Baron et al. 2018 Challenging and developing S-D logic and Nonprofit Interviews, √ — institutions and practices institutional theory observations, and documents Cabiddu et al. Value codestruction practices Bourdieu’s practice Multiple projects Observations and — √ 2019 theory and S-D logic interviews Kelleher et al. Value cocreation practices Several practice theories Music orchestra Interviews and — √ 2019 and cocreation and consumers observations research This article Conceptualizing services and Schatzki’s practice theory Music market Interviews √√ service innovation and service research S-D logic: Service-dominant logic, √: Covered by the study, -: Not covered by the study, ICT: Information and communication technology. recently (2019) discussed the change and creation of practices Weinstein’s (1997) view that service innovation entails changes in depth. in the processes and competences a firm draws on to produce ˚ ´ Several of the eight studies explore service innovation ac- services. For example, Skalen et al. (2015a) focus on the tivities within companies, which is in line with Gallouj and practices constituting firms’ value propositions. Building upon Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 87 the idea that studying service innovation entails a shift in the intermediaries, have entered this market, the roles of established focus from “the production of innovative ‘products’ to resource actors have been redefined, and the economic value of services integration and enhanced value propositions” (Michel, Brown, has changed (Wikstrom ¨ 2020). To face such disruptions, market and Gallan 2008, p. 65), they propose a process model that actors need to innovate to survive (Verhoef et al. 2021), making shows how service innovation entails the development of the music market an appropriate setting for service innovation practices. Similarly, Fuglsang and Sørensen (2011) argue that studies. The Swedish music market was chosen as the specific service innovation takes place through the gradual change of geographical context due to its characterization by interna- practices by front-line employees informed by customer in- tionalization as well as early and high degrees of digital in- teractions. Hence, there is emerging consensus among re- novation (Johansson 2020). Hence, the setting constitutes what searchers that firm-level service innovation entails the change Flyvjbjerg (2006) calls a critical case, having “strategic im- and creation of practices. This view provides an alternative to portance in relation to the general problem” (p. 229), in our case the research that has adapted the typical activities of innovation allowing for the conceptualization of services and service in- from the new product development literature to the service novation in a way that accounts for multiple actors. These context, thereby illuminating the service development process prerequisites moved us to adopt a longitudinal qualitative de- (see, e.g., Blazevic and Lievens 2004; Sundbo 1997). Although sign (Lincoln and Guba 1985). research on the service development process has attended to activities, it has not been informed by practice theory, implying Data Collection that the opportunities that practice theory offers to explain service innovation have not been utilized. To conceptualize services and service innovation among mul- Moving beyond the intra-organizational level, Russo- tiple actors by focusing on practices, 39 long interviews Spena and Mele (2012) suggest that service innovation is (McCracken 1988) were conducted with professionals and conducted through inter-organizationally shared practices. A consumers active in the Swedish music market. The first author few studies (Aaletal. 2016; Baron et al. 2018; Koskela- carried out 32 of the interviews between May 2016 and April Huotari et al. 2016; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015)have 2017 with the assistance of a researcher not involved in writing adopted an even broader stance, studying service innovation the present paper; this body of work was complemented by seven among value-cocreating actors in markets or within the additional interviews conducted by the first author in February service ecosystems of linked actors. For example, Vargo, and March of 2021 to strengthen the consumer data. For sim- Wieland, and Akaka (2015) posit that “…innovation is the plicity, we will use the pronoun “we” when describing the data collaborative recombination or combinatorial evolution of collection. The interviewed professionals represented key actors [market] practices that provide novel solutions for new or in the music market, including record companies, music pub- existing problems” (p. 64). In particular, service innovation lishers, live performance organizers, artists, songwriters, “music has in this body of research been conceptualized as a process pirates,” music streaming firms, and various trade organizations. of institutionalization that denotes how institutions, which These professionals shared their views about the evolution of the consist of shared norms, values, symbols, and formal rules, Swedish music market, but also about their experiences of music condition and shape practices. By implication, institutions consumption. To avoid bias toward industry professionals, the and their institutionalization have been subject to more focus interviewed consumers had not worked within the music industry. than the practices in this stream of research. Our focus was on understanding the music market and its Based on our review, we conclude that while service evolution from the perspective of the informants. To accomplish scholars have conceptualized service innovation as the cre- this, two alternative interview guides containing 10 to 15 ation of new practices or a change of existing ones, how this questions were used. The music professionals were asked about takes place among multiple actors on a market remains un- what the Swedish music market looked like at the time of their clear. We also conclude that a unifying framework that interviews, how its practices had changed over time, what conceptualizes both services and service innovation from a mechanisms had been driving these changes, and what impli- practice theory perspective is lacking. The work of Schatzki cations these changes had. Consumers were asked questions may be drawn on to accomplish such a conceptualization, about practices related to music consumption and how these had although it cannot be directly deduced from Schatzki’s changed over time. Probing questions were asked in relation to practice theory, since this is not its focus. Therefore, we turn to the answers given by informants during the interviews as well as our study of the Swedish music market to investigate how the themes emerging from the data analysis (see below), implying services and service innovation may be apprehended from a that the interview guides evolved during the research. A sample practice theory perspective. interview guide can be found in Appendix A. The interviews lasted between 32 and 100 min. Two in- terviews were substantially shorter than the rest due to two Method younger consumers (Eva and Linda) having experience of only Like many other industries and markets, the music market has one way of consuming music, namely streaming. The first experienced a change from an emphasis on physical products to interviews were conducted with personal contacts as well as digital services, implying that new actors, such as digital with persons who had central and public positions within the 88 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Swedish music market (e.g., CEOs of trade organizations and our aim. We ended the data collection when we reached satu- major record companies) who accepted invitations to be inter- ration, meaning that no new data emerged that could shed light on viewed. These early informants were asked about other people our aim. Table 2 provides details about the informants. Their who could be interviewed, and those individuals were then anonymity is ensured by using fictitious names. contacted if considered appropriate in relation to our theoretical sampling (Lincoln and Guba 1985). For example, we were ad- Data Analysis and Trustworthiness vised to interview the artist Stig, whom we did not know of prior to this study, because of his deep knowledge about the Swedish The data analysis procedure followed the guidelines of Spiggle music market and his involvement in innovation projects. Hence, (1994), which implies that the research process was charac- potential informants who could contribute to fulfilling our aim terized by iteration or a back-and-forth movement between data were recruited in this manner, but we also recruited informants collection and analysis. The data were first categorized, which beyond those suggested by interviewees who could shed light on involved the coding, classifying, and labeling of the data, as Table 2. Interviews and Informants. Name (Sex) Duration Role Alexander (M) 1h 6 min A&R specialist, major record company Andreas (M) 55 min CEO, major music publisher Anna (F) 58 min Marketing manager, international live event firm Arne (M) 1h 12 min CEO, trade organization Axel (M) 1h CEO, trade organization Bengt (M) 50 min Consumer Bertil (M) 1h 16 min Consumer Birgitta (F) 1h 2 min General manager, major music publisher Bo (M) 1h 15 min PR manager, trade organization Christer (M) 1h 25 min Administrative director, trade organization Christina (F) 58 min Consumer Daniel (M) 1h 12 min Consumer Emil (M) 1h 27 min Project manager, trade organization Eva (F) 32 min Consumer Gunnar (M) 1h 5 min A&R manager, major record company Gustav (M) 1h 20 min Consumer Hans (M) 57 min CEO, major record company Ingemar (M) 1h 10 min Lawyer, trade organization Ingrid (F) 1h 51 min Consumer Jan (M) 1h 40 min Songwriter and independent music publisher John (M) 53 min Consumer Jonas (M) 59 min Consumer Karin (F) 1h 2 min Consumer Kenneth (M) 55 min CEO, independent record company and music publisher Kjell (M) 1h 2 min CEO, independent record company and music publisher Kristina (F) 59 min A&R specialist, major music publisher Leif (M) 1h 29 min CEO, international live organizer firm Lennart (M) 1h 15 min Songwriter Linda (F) 42 min Consumer Lisa (F) 1h 10 min Marketing manager, major record company Maria (F) 1h 33 min CEO, trade organization Mats (M) 1h 16 min CEO, major record company Mattias (M) 1h 5 min A&R specialist, major record company Nils (M) 1h 35 min Music journalist and owner of small record company Olof (M) 1h Union lawyer Robert (M) 54 min Consumer Stig (M) 1h 13 min Artist Sven (M) 59 min Marketing manager, major record company Ulf (M) 1h 14 min Leading “music pirate” A&R means “artists and repertoire” and refers to the staff at record companies and music publishers who find, develop, and record artists and songwriters. Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 89 well as recategorization along the iterations of the analysis. Our descriptions of factual circumstances by individual informants initial categorization focused on overviewing the services and were not accounted for. Integrity was ensured by safeguarding service innovation in the Swedish music market. We found that the anonymity of the informants and by using the interviewing three salient music services existed in this market—recording, techniques recommended by Wallendorf and Belk (1989). sharing, and streaming—which resonated with music research Accordingly, interviews began with broad and non-threatening (see, e.g., Leyshon 2014; Wikstrom 2020). In apprehending questions to establish rapport with the informants, with more service innovation, we found that the three services varied in detailed and potentially sensitive questions being posed later. To their market predominance, evolving from recording to sharing ensure credibility, interview transcripts were presented to the and streaming music. Notably, the new services added vari- informants to confirm their correctness. Following Wallendorf ability and choice in the market rather than entirely replacing old and Belk (1989), dependability, or the avoidance of unstable services. interpretations, was checked by comparing the interview In the next step, we combined categorization and abstrac- statements made by the informants about the same phenomena, tion, with the latter implying that higher-order constructs were either in later interviews or in relation to previous research. created to generalize from empirical to theoretical statements Finally, a confirmability audit (Wallendorf and Belk 1989) was (Lee and Baskerville 2003). The initial goal with this step of the performed in two ways to secure a strong link between the data data analysis was to inductively generate insights into how the and the emerging conceptualizations. First, the original cate- three services of recording, sharing, and streaming, as well as gorization and abstraction of the data by the first author was their service innovation, could be conceptualized. Schatzki’s checked by the second author, which resulted in some minor (1996; 2002; 2019) practice theory, as well as prior practice- changes. Second, the results of the paper were presented to other theory-informed service research (see Table 1), were found researchers on several occasions. helpful in abstracting the categorization, which moved us to adopt an abductive design to reflect the data in practice theory Findings and vice versa. The concepts and their inter-relationships that the cate- This section facilitates the conceptualization of services and gorization and abstraction generated are described in detail in service innovation by reporting findings on the three salient the findings section. In summary, we found that the three services that are present in the Swedish music market: re- services of recording, sharing, and streaming could be cording, sharing, and streaming. Recording dominated the th conceptualized as bundles of VCPs that consisted of two Swedish music market from the early 20 century up to the first st different types that we labeled generic and specific. We years of the 21 century, when sharing gained a dominant further found that the four types of elements of practices position. Since about 2010, streaming has dominated the discussed above in the theoretical background section—i.e., Swedish music market. Recording involves the sales and understandings, engagements, procedures, and materials— purchasing of physical recordings, such as vinyl records and constitute VCPs, and that these elements served the purpose compact discs (CDs), and the playing back of music with of both reproducing and creating VCPs, which helped us to stereo systems. Sharing entails downloading music for free conceptualize both services and service innovation. Finally, we from file-sharing websites using a computer and playing back the found that actors valance VCPs in a way that either cocreates or music. Streaming implies subscribing to a music streaming service, codestroys them, a finding that further helped us to conceptualize such as Spotify, which has a dominant position in the Swedish service innovation. market, and doing so gives consumers the right to listen to music During the comparison and dimensionalization stages, the without having to download it by connecting their own devices to differences and similarities between the data were further the internet (Leyshon 2014; Wikstro¨m 2020). Appendix A pro- explored, and the properties of the empirical instances and vides a more thorough description of these three services. higher-order constructs were inspected to enhance the dis- tinctiveness of the categorization and abstraction. Integration Bundles of Value Cocreation Practices served the purpose of combining the results of our categori- zationand abstractiontoabductively createaframework In this section, we show that the services of the Swedish music capable of conceptualizing services and service innovation. market—recording, sharing, and streaming—are bundles of This framework is presented in the discussion section. value cocreation practices (VCPs), which are tightly linked The trustworthiness of the research was ensured by using the practices that actors perform to cocreate value. Accordingly, criteria and techniques offered by Wallendorf and Belk (1989). they will interchangeably be referred to as services, bundles of Triangulation was accomplished by making sure that the VCPs, or just bundles. We make a distinction between generic findings communicated a story that resonated with all 39 in- and specific VCPs. Generic VCPs cut across services, whereas terviewees. Since our interviewing was retrospective, we also specific VCPs reflect time- and context-specific variants of the triangulated our interview data in relation to a corpus of 562 generic VCPs. Table 3 overviews our findings with respect to articles containing the phrases “music market” or “music generic and specific VCPs and provides examples from the business” (in Swedish) that were published in Sweden’s eight music context. In this section, we also showcase that service major national dailies between 1995 and 2015. Hence, deviating innovation may be conceptualized as the creation of VCPs. We 90 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Table 3. Services as Bundles of Value Cocreation Practices. Services: Bundles of Generic value cocreation practices (VCPs) VCPs Producing Distributing Exchanging Consuming Specific VCPs with examples Recording Manufacturing Physical transferring Purchasing Standardized - producing CDs in record - transporting CDs to - buying a CD in a record - listening to albums on stereo factories record stores by truck store systems Sharing Pirating Networked transferring Giving Standardized and personalized - creating MP3 files from CD - downloading music from - free access to music on the - listening to albums and tracks on a computer the Pirate Bay Pirate Bay compilations of songs Streaming Uploading Platformed accessing Subscribing Personalized - making songs available on - instant access to music on - paying the monthly - listening to playlists available on Spotify Spotify subscription fee to Spotify Spotify by using a smartphone organize the findings in relation to the four generic VCPs and other pirate site, you downloaded the song to your computer from present the specific VCPs within them. other persons’ computers.” Distribution thus takes place by moving music files from the memory of one or several computers Producing. The generic VCP of producing refers to how music is to the memory of another computer. Therefore, we call this form of being made. Recording is characterized by the manufacturing of distribution networked transferring.Instreaming,consumers gain physical goods, most often in the form of vinyl and CDs, in access to music by clicking on songs on streaming services, which factories (Leyshon 2014). Marketing manager Lisa described are made available via internet-based platforms. We call this form the production process during recording as follows: “We of distribution platformed accessing. Marketing manager Sven pressed pieces of plastics.” Under sharing, producing implied indicated that streaming and the platform offered by Spotify had the conversion or “ripping” of content to compressed digital file eased distribution: “There are no hindrances to distributing music formats that could be uploaded to file-sharing sites on the in- today. I don’t remember exactly, but each day there are between 20 ternet, such as The Pirate Bay. “Music pirate” Ulf provided an and 25,000 new songs on Spotify.” example of how ripping was done: “I have an old friend who is totally obsessed with music. He bought a lot of VHS (Video Exchanging. The generic VCP of exchanging refers to how Home Systems) tapes containing music videos that he ripped consumers acquire services from providers. In recording, ex- and put on The Pirate Bay.” As this ripping was commonly done changing is characterized by people purchasing vinyl and CD by “pirates” and ordinary consumers without the consent of the records in record stores or by mail order. Daniel, a consumer, copyright holders, the producing VCP associated with sharing reflected on purchasing as a form of exchange: “I spent a lot of was referred to as pirating by the informants. In streaming, a time in record stores searching for records, asking staff about physical medium for playing back songs is bypassed, as digital records, and listening to records and sometimes buying one.” In files used for listening are produced directly. Hence, in sharing, people exchange music files by giving them for free to streaming, producing is a simple practice that implies the up- members of the same file-sharing network, such as The Pirate loading of songs onto the streaming services platforms, which Bay. Hans, a CEO of a record company, said, “During the pirate can be done by any actor, such as an artist or a record company. years, you could download music for free, which many did, and thought that was great.” In line with several other informants, Distributing. The generic VCP of distributing refers to the Bo suggested that streaming changed the music business “from movement of services—in our case, songs or collections of a unit sales model [during recording] to a rental model.” Hence, songs—from one place to another. As recording is associated we refer to the specific exchange VCP in streaming as sub- with physical records, it implies the physical transferring of the scribing. Paying a monthly fee or consenting to advertising records from the factories to the stores via distribution centers exposure grants consumers access to all the music available on (Leyshon 2014). the streaming firms’ internet-based platforms. By contrast, sharing and streaming involve consumers and are based on immaterial digital files, facilitated by ICTs (computers Consuming. The final generic VCP, consuming, denotes the way and broadband infrastructure), thus obliterating the step of physical in which people use services to increase their well-being, which distribution. In sharing, computers connected via the internet in our case is by listening to music. In recording, people mostly constitute file-sharing networks, such as The Pirate Bay. Music listened to complete albums by one artist on stereo systems or lawyer Ingemar explained how this form of distribution worked: music by different artists on the radio (Garofalo 1999; Sanjek “When you found the song you wanted on The Pirate Bay or any 1988). We refer to this type of consumption associated with Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 91 recording as standardized consuming (Hesmondhalgh and the VCPs of sharing and streaming are based on digital com- Meier 2018). John, a consumer who still listened to vinyl rec- petencies. The informants argued that during the early 2000s in ords, explained: “When me and my girlfriend cook food together, Sweden, when the transition from recording to sharing took I often put on a vinyl album on the record player. We usually place, the industry actors largely lacked the competencies to listen to all the songs.” In sharing, some consumers, exemplified engage in the digitalization of music. As record company A&R here by Bertil, listened to music in a similar standardized way as specialist Mattias, who moved from IT (Information Technol- under recording: “I downloaded albums from The Pirate Bay and ogy) to the music industry in 1999, observed, “When I started burned them to CDs and then played them on my stereo system.” working here [record company], I was struck by how low the Others listened to compilations of songs they created themselves, level of knowledge of the internet and IT was at the company.” representing personalized consumption. Therefore, we refer to Kristina, an A&R specialist at a music publisher, agreed: “We’re consumption under sharing as standardized and personalized. not programmers. We work with music; that’s what we’re In streaming, informants reported that they mostly listened to knowledgeable about.” Hence, the established understandings playlists, commonly by using their smartphones connected to of recording prefigured the concrete activities of the relevant headphones, a finding that is supported by music research actors, which reproduced this bundle and prevented record (Hesmondhalgh and Meier 2018; Wikstrom ¨ 2020). Playlists are companies and music publishers from engaging in the creation compilations of songs often from many artists. Some informants of sharing and streaming services. listened to playlists they created themselves, while others lis- In sharp contrast, the “music pirates” who promoted sharing tened to auto-generated playlists created by music streaming had the understandings needed to realize digitalization. Fredrik firms with the help of algorithms based on customer’slistening Neij, one of the founders of The Pirate Bay, explained his histories. Linda reported that she listened mostly to auto- motivation to contribute to the creation of the file-sharing site in generated playlists on Spotify: “Sometimes, I listen to a play- the 2013 documentary The Pirate Bay Away From Keyboard: list called ‘chill out.’ That’s perfect if I want to relax. But if the “It’s great fun to work with the technology. For me, The Pirate girls are coming over before a Saturday night on the town, I put Bay is a technical challenge. To run such a large website [is a on a playlist called ‘pre-party,’ which is perfect for that occasion.” challenge] technically.” Ulf, another “music pirate,” spoke A few of our consumer informants reported that they listened to about how the peer-to-peer technology upon which The Pirate albums on Spotify, which represents a form of standardized Bay was based made it an efficient and easy way to share music: consumption. Jonas said, “I still listen to albums. When David “It was an optimum technology for many reasons. For example, Bowie passed way, I listened to his records on Spotify.” However, while you were downloading a song, you were simultaneously according to marketing manager Lisa, “Today, the album is more uploading bits of it.” The “pirates” linked to The Pirate Bay and and more seen as a physical object… Spotify doesn’teven have other file-sharing websites created the scripts (the lists of an album list any longer. The focus now is on playlists.” In sum, commands of computer programs) used in file sharing. Hence, our findings suggest that personalized consumption is the typical the competencies of the “music pirates” made them engage in form of music consumption in streaming. activities that gradually contributed to the creation of the This section has shown that services may be understood as templates of organized activities that constitute sharing. As bundles of VCPs, and that service innovation in a market other actors started to use sharing, they contributed to re- implies the creation of VCPs. In the next section, we turn our producing the service, including its understandings. attention to the role of elements of VCPs to both further un- derstand services and to show that service innovation denotes Engagements. The findings also illuminate how the engage- the creation of VCPs. ments, or the emotionally-charged goal component of VCPs, both reproduce and create services. Engagements fuel the actors’ creation of VCPs. In the words of Fredrik Neij and Ulf, “music Creation and Reproduction of Services Prefigured by pirates” thought that it was “funtoworkwiththe technology,” Elements of Value Cocreation Practices especially insofar as one was contributing to the development of the The findings reported in this section show that VCPs are “optimum” peer-to-peer website. However, committing to sharing constituted by four elements: understandings, engagements, also restrained “music pirates” from contributing to the realization procedures, and materials, which is in line with the review of of streaming. As Ulf said, “Cultural products, such as music and practice theory presented in the theoretical background section films, should be free to be enjoyed by everyone. There’sasocialist above. We also show that these elements both reproduce and mindset underpinning The Pirate Bay.” Ulf and other “pirates” were maintain services, as well as create and innovate them. In what thus convinced that exchanging music should be characterized by follows, we organize the presentation of our findings in relation giving (the specific exchange VCP of sharing), which prefigured to the four elements of VCPs. the “pirates” to reproduce sharing rather than contribute to the creation of a commercial service. Understandings. The know-how or competencies that VCPs Likewise, the engagements of streaming contribute to both grant individual actors are referred to as understandings. Table 3 creating and reproducing the service. For example, record shows that recording is based on understandings of physical company marketing manager Sven recognized the difference in manufacturing, distribution, exchange, and consumption, while the overall goals of his company’s business model during 92 Journal of Service Research 26(1) recording and streaming: “Earlier [under recording], our informants talked at length about how ICTs were a precondition business relied on people spending as much money as possible for creating and reproducing sharing and streaming, a fact that is on our products, whereas today, our business is about people also supported by music research (Leyshon 2014; Wikstrom ¨ spending as much time as possible on our products, and it 2020). Bo, a PR (Public Relations) manager of a trade orga- sounds simple, but it is quite a different way of working, and the nization, made a representative statement: “Digitalization and economy around how we work has changed. In particular, it has the internet have transformed the whole business, from how changed how we do our marketing.” The engagements of songs are being written to how music is being consumed.” streaming prefigured Sven and his colleagues to make people Hence, actors’ commitments to technology, including the spend as much time as possible listening to the music that the physical elements constituting VCPs, contributed to the creation record company they worked for had a copyright for (or “our of sharing and streaming, which, once established, prefigured products,” in Sven’s words), which contributed to reproducing the activities of actors engaging in them. Informants further the reimbursement system of streaming and the bundle of VCPs argued that the rapid expansion of broadband-connected more generally. However, in streaming, Sven and his colleagues computers triggered actors to create and reproduce sharing had different goals with their marketing compared to those that and streaming. Music lawyer Ingemar talked about the creation they had during recording, and these new goals contributed to and reproduction of sharing on the Swedish music market, the creation of novel templates of marketing practices. recalling, “There was a computer in each and every home, in all schools, in all offices… When all these computers and the Procedures. The rules making up VCPs are referred to as pro- broadband infrastructure were in place, it was only natural for cedures. A key procedure of recording and streaming is the people to use file-sharing networks.” system of copyright laws that prefigured the industry actors’ Another example of a significant material element that creation and reproduction of these services. The “pirates,” contributed to creating and reproducing streaming within the however, rejected copyright laws and thus remained committed Swedish music market was the smartphone. Arne, CEO of an to what Ulf described as a “socialist mindset,” in which the rule interest organization, remarked, “The big game-changer is was not to charge for music. Accordingly, they created specific streaming in combination with the smartphone.” The smart- VCPs, such as distributing and exchanging music by networked phone served as a platform for the creation of new VCPs specific transferring and giving it away for free via file-sharing websites to streaming, such as distributing and consuming music via such as The Pirate Bay, which, once established, prefigured their applications connected to the databases containing the music and other actors’ activities. Music consumer Robert explained that streaming firms offer, and for providing the possibility to the situation as follows: “I downloaded from file-sharing sites charge for music by making consumers subscribe to streaming on the internet when this became possible at the end of the services. Karin, a consumer who subscribed to Spotify, said, 1990s. I continued to buy some CDs, but downloading became “With smartphones, it became possible to use apps [applica- my main way of accessing music.” tions], and Spotify has such a good app that makes it easy and The contradictions between the procedures of recording and convenient to listen to music. Today, I only listen to music by sharing led to a conflict between some record companies and The using my smartphone.” Once streaming was established, con- Pirate Bay, which resulted in multiple parties ending up in court in sumption became prefigured by it. Consumers started to listen to Sweden. The four founders of The Pirate Bay were given prison playlists via their smartphones, enabling personalized con- sentences of up to a year and were ordered to pay damages due to sumption as described in Table 3 and thus reproducing the joint and several liabilities amounting to 46 million SEK, or about service. five million USD. Informants suggested that The Pirate Bay trial This section suggests that the elements of VCPs constitute and the related negative publicity about sharing contributed to the templates of activities that prefigure actors to reproduce ser- realization of streaming, primarily represented by Spotify in vices. It also shows that actors, in their concrete activities, may Sweden, which launched its streaming service in 2008. According use new elements of VCPs or change existing ones, which may to Kjell, CEO of an independent record company, “The pirates did create templates of VCPs and contribute to the innovation of a lot of damage in the short run. But if you look in the rearview services. Appendix A provides additional empirical evidence to mirror, I think that piracy wasn’t such a bad thing. It was the trigger substantiate the findings of this section. In the next section, we for lawful internet-based streaming.” Hence, The Pirate Bay trial turn our attention to actors’ valancing of bundles and indicate made it clear to the actors that breaking laws representing common, what this implies for conceptualizing services and service in- socially agreed-upon procedures can be costly for the individual, novation as the creation of VCPs. thereby pushing them to follow common procedures (laws) in their creation and reproduction of streaming. Thus, procedures may Valancing Bundles of Value Cocreation Practices contribute to both the creation and reproduction of services. The findings suggest that actors valance bundles of VCPs or Materials. The findings of the present study also suggest that the services by comparing them to one another. Through valancing, material elements of VCPs, such as technologies, physical actors ascribe value to bundles, thus evaluating services in devices, and smart phone applications, may contribute to the relation to their relative advantages and disadvantages. We reproduction and creation of services. In particular, the further show that actors simultaneously cocreate the services on Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 93 the market they value the highest and codestroy those attributed “Illegal downloading has completely disappeared in Sweden less value, thus contributing to the innovation of services. thanks to Spotify.” Hence, intertwined processes of coc- reation and codestruction in the music market contribute to Comparison of recording and sharing. Several informants reported service innovation. that when they compared recording and sharing, their con- While streaming was valanced higher than recording and clusion was that sharing was advantageous to recording. A&R sharing by our informants, we also note that some of them did manager Gunnar said, “The pirates’ offering was so much better... not consume music only via streaming. In particular, some I think most people wanted to do the right thing, but people didn’t informants reported that they listened to vinyl albums, thus want to buy CDs.” Jonas, a consumer, stated, “All of a sudden, engaging in recording in addition to streaming. For example, music was available for free at my fingertips, which was abso- John, a consumer, had negative feelings about the immaterial lutely fantastic.” Both informants pointed out the preference for nature of streaming. He said: “I miss having an album cover in the distributing and exchanging of VCPs of sharing (i.e., net- my hands when I listen to music.” Therefore, John engaged in worked transferring and giving) over the physical distributing and recording. By valancing streaming and recording positively, purchasing VCPs of recording. This stance was generally shared these informants contributed to cocreating both these VCPs among the informants across categories, although some infor- while codestroying sharing. mants deviated. For example, Ingrid, a consumer, said, “Ihave never downloaded music via pirate sites. I think that the ones who Role of other actors’ valancing. The findings showed that focal write and perform the music shall get paid.” Ingrid never engaged actors considered other actors’ valancing and evaluation of in sharing and valanced recording higher than sharing. services, which made them promote viable services even when The bulk of the actors’ valancing of sharing as having higher these were perceived as second-best options. Record company value than recording made them adopt and cocreate the VCPs of CEO Mats identified how the rise of sharing and the resulting this bundle, which simultaneously undermined and codestroyed slump in sales made record companies support Spotify and the VCPs of recording. For example, consumers bought fewer streaming even though they valued recording the most: “When I CDs, spending their money on subscribing to music streaming started working here [at a record company] in 2006, the market services instead, which created financial problems for those actors wasn’t working due to piracy… Some people in our organization dependent on recording but provided the means for streaming thought that if we don’t do anything, it’s not certain that our firms to develop their value propositions. The reduced demand also Swedish operation will still be here in 5 years’ time. So, we had to resulted in lower supply, thereby accelerating the codestruction of take the chance and license Spotify despite many of us not be- recording. Hence, the simultaneous cocreation and codestruction lieving in it.” Hence, the valancing of services among consumers of services in a market that valancing implies contribute to the made record companies realize that recording was untenable in the creation of bundles of VCPs (i.e., to service innovation). light of sharing and that streaming was the second-best option. Therefore, they decided to license their music catalogs to Spotify, Comparison of sharing and streaming. Several informants re- which contributed to the cocreation of streaming and the co- ported that they valued streaming higher than sharing. In A&R destruction of sharing, although this also meant the codestruction manager Gunnar’s view, “Spotify has been a leader and the best of recording, which they valued most among the available bundles streaming service so far. It offers a service that’s really good, so of VCPs. By doing this, the record companies supported why keep on downloading pirated copies? That just takes time streaming and facilitated its service innovation. Appendix A and is tedious. For 99 SEK [about 10 USD] a month, I have provides additional empirical examples of valancing. access to virtually all the music available.” While Gunnar maintained that the exchange of music for free (in sharing) was Discussion superior to subscribing (in streaming), this was trumped by the hassle of downloading music files associated with the net- A theoretically grounded and consistent conceptualization of worked transferring of sharing. Likewise, Gustav, a consumer, service innovation and services that accounts for multiple actors contrasted sharing with streaming and valued the latter higher: has been called for in prior studies (Gustafsson, Snyder, and “I remember the first time I tried Spotify in 2009; it was so Witell 2020; Toivonen and Tuominen 2009). In this section, we simple… I was so used to waiting for the download to complete heed this call for research by developing a framework of services before I could play the song. Spotify was instant.” and service innovation based on our empirical findings and our By adopting streaming, actors contribute to the creation of review of practice theory research. We also present the theoretical the VCPs constituting the service. For example, by providing implications of our paper, an agenda for future practice-theory- consumption data, consumers enabled streaming firms to create informed research on services and service innovation, the playlists with the help of algorithms. Consumers’ adoption of managerial implications, and the limitations of our research. streaming also meant that actors’ computers were no longer nodes in file-sharing networks, thus codestroying sharing. In- Theoretical Contributions deed, many informants, like songwriter Jan, argued that the widespread adoption of streaming contributed to the disap- Conceptualization of services and service innovation. The frame- pearance or codestruction of sharing. As Jan reported, work of services and service innovation, presented in Figure 1, 94 Journal of Service Research 26(1) prior service research has acknowledged the relationship between cocreation and codestruction (Cabbidu, Moreno, and Sebastiano 2019; Echeverri and Skal ˚ en ´ 2011), our findings of how multiple actors’ valancing of generic and specific VCPs is associated with service innovation are novel. Next, we turn to the theoretical implications of the framework for research on services and service innovation. Theoretical implications for research on services. The idea of “services” is one of the key concepts of service research, and our aim was in part focused on conceptualizing services from a practice theory perspective in a way that accounts for multiple actors. We contribute to the literature with a conceptualization of services as bundles of VCPs. Key to our conceptualization of services is the dual role of practices: bundles of VCPs entail both templates of reoccurring value-cocreating activities that prefigure actors’ activities, and the concrete value-cocreating activities carried out by actors that reproduce the templates, thus main- taining services (see Figure 1). Our conceptualization contributes Figure 1. Conceptualization of services and service innovation. to the research that has studied services as activities by providing a theoretical foundation and framework for such work (Edvardsson, Gustafsson, and Roos 2005; Luschand Vargo2014). conceptualizes services as bundles of tightly linked value We also contribute to the service research that has drawn on cocreation practices (VCPs). According to our conceptuali- practice theory (see Table 1), but which has lacked a distinct zation, VCPs consist of both the templates of collectively shared conceptual core and a coherent nomenclature using several and organized routine activities and the concrete everyday notions, such as “service practices” (Edvardsson, Skal ˚ en, ´ and activities that individual actors perform to cocreate value; this Tronvoll 2012), “value cocreation practices” (McColl-Kennedy ˚ ´ particular understanding is supported by Schatzki’s (1996; et al. 2012), and “collaborative practices” (Skalen, Pace, and 2002; 2019) conceptualization of practices. Cova 2015b), to study services. Our definition of VCPs and the Four types of elements, understandings, engagements, associated concepts included in our framework (see Figure 1) procedures, and materials, constitute VCPs, which is in line provide a distinct and coherent conceptual framework for with the work of practice theory scholars (Feldman and studying services from a practice theory perspective. Our re- Orlikowski 2011; Schatzki 1996; 2019; Shove, Pantzar, and search builds on prior service research on practices, particularly Watson 2012). Prior service research has highlighted the first on the research that has explicitly attended to VCPs (see three elements of practices, but not materials (see, e.g., Kelleher et al. 2019; Lusch and Vargo 2014; McColl-Kennedy Echeverri and Skal ˚ en ´ 2011; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009), et al. 2012; Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009), but it also adds to which, according to our findings, have a central role in services it by shedding light on the invisible layer behind overt activities: and service innovation, thus corroborating recent service re- the covert templates of activities, as well as the elements that search (Vink et al. 2021). constitute both the templates and the concrete activities of The four elements have a dual role in VCPs, as shown in actors. Figure 1. First, they constitute the templates of organized This developed conceptualization of services enables the routine activities that prefigure the concrete activities, which in exploration of constructs such as value propositions, firm- turn reproduce these templates and contribute to the mainte- customer interactions, and service provision in a new light, nance of VCPs. Second, actors use the elements to conduct as called for by Skal ˚ en ´ et al. (2015a). The attractiveness of value concrete activities that may contribute to create new or modify propositions may be inspected in terms of the templates pre- existing activity templates that prefigure future concrete ac- figuring mutual value cocreation, specifically the elements of tivities. This creation of VCPs is key to the conceptualization of VCPs. For example, understandings (know-how) of interacting service innovation we offer. Thus, we have found that prefig- actors may conflict, or procedures may restrict actors’ activities, uration contributes both to maintaining services and to service and this is likely to decrease the attractiveness of value prop- innovation despite the fact that Schatzki (1996; 2002; 2019) ositions. It is also possible to investigate which of the elements suggests that prefiguration only maintains practices. that enable high-quality customer interactions or potentially Actors’ valancing of VCPs contributes to service innovation in hinder them. Finally, our practice theory conceptualization of a market through the simultaneous cocreation and codestruction of services suggests that the bundling of VCPs is key to service and services. Actors ascribe value to services by comparing how well competitive strength: by looking at alternative VCPs and their the specificVCPs that are particular to services fulfill theroleofthe valancing among actors, services can be bundled and unbundled generic VCPs that all services in a market have in common. While to improve the focal firm’s service provision. Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 95 We also make two specific contributions to service research. Our conceptualization offers implications to all four streams First, our study offers an alternative to service-dominant (S-D) of research on service innovation recently identified by logic’s view of value determination. According to S-D logic, Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll (2018), which include value is “always uniquely and phenomenologically determined the output, process, systems, and experiential streams. The by the beneficiary” (Vargo and Lusch 2016, p. 8). Our findings output stream has been devoted to studying the characteristics of show that most actors tend to valance services similarly, and some the services that firms create. Our paper offers an alternative consistently higher than others (in our case, sharing higher than view, as it suggests that service innovation entails the creation of recording and streaming higher than sharing). While we also show VCPs by multiple actors. This does not imply that we reject that that actors may deviate from the majority and valance VCPs output is a central dimension of service innovation (Gallouj and differently, a key message of our findings is that value is not Weinstein 1997). However, the “output” of service innovation always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the from our perspective refers to new or changed VCPs and beneficiary. Rather, we find support for the coexistence of the bundles, such as streaming. intersubjective and subjective determinations of value due to actor Our findings also have implications for process research on interdependence. For example, while the managers of a firm may service innovation. Traditionally, this body of research has valance their extant services positively compared to other services focused on outlining process models for service development, on the market, they may also realize that the consumers prefer with stages such as idea generation, project formation, service alternative services; therefore, the firm needs to change their design, implementation, and market launch that take place services to ensure business survival. These findings echo those within the firm itself (see, e.g., Blazevic and Lievens 2004; reported by Kelleher et al. (2020), who found that today’sactorsin Sundbo 1997). Researchers drawing on practice theory and S-D highly connected markets sometimes need to strike a balance logic have contributed to the creation of service innovation between multiple actors’ contrasting value cocreation practices. process models (Akesson et al. 2016; Skal ˚ e´n et al. 2015a), but Second, service researchers have emphasized that service have also adopted a firm internal focus. Our conceptuali- exchange is embedded in macro-level institutions (Baron et al. zation suggests instead that service innovation processes 2018; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015; Vargo and Lusch involve several actors, take place on the market to some 2016). Hence, embedded agency, which implies that actors extent, and are triggered by actors comparing two or several and their activities are enabled and constrained by shared norms, services. The service innovation process we describe here values, symbols, and formal rules is a core assumption of this suggests that actors draw on understandings, engagements, research. The problem with conceptualizing services based on procedures, and materials—that is, elements of VCPs—to institutional theory is that it becomes hard to explain how actors conduct concrete activities that create new templates of activ- engage in new behaviors or change existing ones, as this would ities that prefigure future concrete activities. Taken together, this imply acting in contradiction to the institutions that define them constitutes a circular process of service innovation that takes as actors and control their actions. Our conceptualization of place within bundles of VCPs (see Figure 1). This internal services offers a way out of this cul-de-sac, but not by com- process is reinforced by the external process of valancing that bining institution and practice theory as suggested by Vargo and contributes to service innovation by market actors cocreating and Lusch (2016), as these theories advance incommensurable codestroying bundles of VCPs. This idea corroborates the findings conceptualizations of action and social order (Schatzki 1996; of Kelleher et al. (2020), who suggest that codestruction could be 2002). Rather, we offer a practice theory interpretation of latent when actors withdraw their resources from a service system, services, which suggests that actors’ activities are prefigured by as well as the work of Skal ˚ e´n, Pace, and Cova (2015b),who argue the templates of reoccurring activities that constitute VCPs, and that codestruction generates opportunities for actors to innovate but that actors may engage in concrete activities, sometimes trig- without specifying how this is done. gered by valancing, that may make them diverge from these The systems research suggests that a relevant level of templates and create new ones. Hence, our conceptualization of analysis for service innovation is markets or service ecosystems services offers novel implications for how services are inno- (Aal et al. 2016; Baron et al. 2018; Chandler et al. 2019; vated, which we turn to next. Koskela-Huotari et al. 2016; Lusch and Vargo 2014; Vargo, Wieland, and Akaka 2015), which is in line with our findings. Theoretical implications for research on service innovation. According Our discussion regarding how the services of the Swedish music to Gustafsson, Snyder, and Witell (2020), research on service market (recording, sharing, and streaming) evolved through innovation has lacked a distinct theoretical conceptualization, valancing contributes to the systems research with insights which hinders knowledge development. To address this issue, a about the dynamic relationship between service innovation and part of our aim is devoted to conceptualizing service innovation by market evolution. We further note that the systems research, due multiple actors by elaborating on the emerging research on service to having its roots in institutional theory, has conceptualized innovation that draws on practice theory. The framework we have service innovation as a process of institutionalization that de- developed (see Figure 1) allows us to begin fulfilling this part of the notes how institutions and their associated practices are created aim. As we have emphasized, we understand service innovation as and become taken-for-granted by actors. Leading institutional the creation of VCPs and bundles, which is achieved by multiple theory scholars Tolbert and Zucker (1996) argue that in- actors and triggered by valancing. stitutionalization is not primarily about innovation per se, but 96 Journal of Service Research 26(1) about how innovations become institutions. By employing a between actor groups in how they engaged in VCPs and the practice theory lens, our paper expands upon the systems re- implications of this for services and service innovation. Finally, search by offering an alternative view to the dominating in- we argue that valancing requires more attention since this is a stitutional theory to explain how multiple actors create services concept generated by us and lacks grounding in prior research. in the form of bundles of VCPs. The research agenda is presented in Table 4. Finally, our paper advances the experiential service inno- vation research stream preoccupied with customers experiences Managerial Implications and the sensemaking of innovations (Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll 2018). Our contribution to this body of research Conceptualizing services as bundles of VCPs that are shared stems from the notion of valancing, which suggests that VCPs and realized by several actors and service innovation as the function as templates not only for concrete activities, but also creation of VCPs by multiple actors implies that service for sensemaking (Schatzki 1996; 2002; 2019). In particular, managers need to focus on the VCPs of the markets in which valancing drives service innovation when actors make sense of their firms are active, as well as on the VCPs of the larger services by evaluating them in relation to their relative ad- context that may influence their respective firms (Ordanini and vantages and disadvantages, which induces the cocreation and Parasuraman 2011; Vargo and Lusch 2016). The framework codestruction of services. Hence, our stance suggests that actors (see Figure 1) that we have developed provides them with the make sense of service innovation based on collectively shared means to do so. VCPs in addition to their personal subjective views. Therefore, We advise managers to analyze the immediate and extended we argue that service innovation denotes a subjective and in- environments of their firms based on the generic VCPs by tersubjective sensemaking process. asking the following questions: How are producing, distribut- Innovation and change have overall been neglected topics in ing, exchanging, and consuming conducted in the focal market? general practice theory (Epp et al. 2014; Nicolini 2011), with the What changes have been taking place over time, and what recent work of Schatzki (2019) that we have drawn upon changes are likely to take place in the near future? Is the market constituting one exception. Our study integrates Schatzki’s digitalizing? What are the general implications of these changes practice theory with service research such that it can be used to for the firm and its service innovation? What is happening in study service innovation. Moreover, we have elaborated on adjacent markets? Managers can then turn their focus to specific several unclear aspects of Schatzki’s theory. The notion of VCPs and ask questions like the following: What specific VCPs valancing illuminates how actors’ comparisons of practices exist on the markets the firm is acting on and adjacent markets? create new practices by constructing alternatives to established Are any of the VCPs dominating? Are any new specific VCPs practices. It also explains what triggers actors to engage in being created? What are the consequences for the firm? How is creating new elements of practices and shows how actors reflect the firm positioned in relation to specific VCPs that are gaining different practices in relation to one another, as well as how such and losing relevance for consumers? What can be done to reflections foster service innovation. We have also elaborated on improve the firm’s position? Schatzki’s work by showing that prefiguration is not only as- When the managers have a map of the specificVCPson the sociated with reproduction, as he suggests, but also with market, we advise them to focus on the elements—the under- innovation. standings, engagements, procedures, and materials—these VCPs are constituted by. Does the firm have or lack the competencies Research agenda. We have merely initiated the work on how needed to engage in a specific VCP that is on the rise? For practice theory may serve as a means of conceptualizing and example, we noted that record companies lacked the digital studying services and service innovation. Therefore, we con- competencies needed to engage in the innovation of digital VCPs, tribute to service research by offering a broader research agenda which caused financial problems for them. Is there any new that future research may depart from to further investigate technology that may change the market, such as the smartphone service and service innovation from a practice theory per- and the computer in our case? How do new collective goals of spective. The research agenda is organized around five of the actors, such as the pursuit of an environmentally sustainable key concepts used to construct our framework (see Figure 1). lifestyle, affect the markets in which the firm is active? By en- We suggest more research that contributes to conceptualizing gaging with the elements of VCPs, managers may also acquire an VCPs, and associated concepts such as bundles, elements, and understanding of how actors engage in concrete activities to generic and specific VCPs, to understand how VCPs are create VCPs. Is such service innovation an opportunity or a threat constitutive of services and how service innovation may be to the firm? Are there procedures that hinder the firm from further understood by focusing on them. In particular, we en- developing new VCPs, and should the firm thereby aim to courage more research about the templates of activities and the proactively influence the procedures? How can the firm engage concrete activities that constitute VCPs to determine if these with VCPs in the best way? Shall the firm buy an innovative start- notions contribute to understanding services and service in- up to acquire the innovation capacity needed? novation as we have discussed them. In addition, more research By mapping the specific VCPs, managers may also be able to on multiple actors is needed. While we studied a multi-actor see what valancing is taking place in relevant markets and how context, we did not systematically focus on the differences this influences the firm. They can then ask themselves the Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 97 Table 4. Research Agenda. Research questions about services Research questions about service innovation Value cocreation practices (VCPs) Are the elements of VCPs (i.e., understandings, procedures, How do the different elements in bundles of VCPs interact and engagements, and materials) common to all services? coevolve? How do the generic VCPs impact specific VCPs across markets? How does the fusion of VCPs into new services take place? Are there generic VCPs other than producing, distributing, exchanging, Are there characteristics of VCPs that make them more prone to and consuming? evolve dynamically? Templates of activities Are all elements of VCPs equally prominent in the templates of activities? How do actors change the templates of activities during service How do the elements of VCPs prefigure the concrete activities of innovation? multiple actors? How do the templates of activities evolve in the long term? What makes actors reproduce the templates? How does the prefiguration of the concrete activities of actors by templates of activities change with the context? Concrete activities Under what circumstances do actors’ concrete activities lead to the How do concrete activities, as parts of VCPs, lead to service reproduction and creation of VCPs? innovation? How do actors valance services during concrete activities? How do actors’ concrete activities belonging to different VCPs come How do actors determine the value of services in their concrete into contact and create VCPs? activities? Multiple actors How do multiple actors determine which of the bundle of VCPs that is Which actors in which roles have the power to direct service valued highest? innovation? How do actors sustain competing bundles of VCPs on a market for a What resources (besides power) make one actor more influential in prolonged period of time? driving service innovation in a market? How do conflicts over the cocreation and codestruction of VCPs among What are the constraints that delimit an actor’s ability, motivation, and/ multiple actors play out in practice? or opportunity to diverge from VCPs and thereby induce service innovation? Valancing What drives valancing? How do actors choose which VCPs they valance How does valancing influence the creation of VCPs and service and when? Does valancing take place due to the introduction of new innovation across markets? VCPs? How do different types of actors’ valancing influence the creation of When actors valance one bundle lower than an alternative bundle, do VCPs? they codestroy the less attractive bundle actively or latently (by Under what circumstances does valancing lead to service innovation? abandoning it)? How does valancing contribute to the destruction of negatively Can an actor sustain a negatively valanced VCP over time? If yes, how is it valanced services? done? How do actors influence each other’s valancing of bundles? following questions: How will the ongoing cocreation and Limitations codestruction of specific VCPs affect our firm? Which VCPs are cocreation and codestruction contributing to the creation of, and As with all research, our study suffers from limitations. The which are they undermining? What does this imply for the firm’s main limitation of the present research is that it builds on a market position, and what shall be done to make the firm qualitative study of a single, quite specific context—the relevant to consumers and the society at large? Swedish music market. Therefore, we outlined an agenda By shifting the focus of managerial activity from the firm to that future research may draw on to extend our work to other the shared VCPs of the market without losing track of internal markets and geographical areas. In particular, future research needs processes, such as production, which we highlighted as one of to quantitatively test our conceptualization of services and service the generic VCPs, managers may be able to lead their firms innovation by investigating several markets. Such research may toward productively engaging in collective value cocreation contribute to revising our framework and re-formulating the re- activities and to be able to improve and create new activities. search agenda. In addition, we focused on a new digital disruptive This is likely to create a competitive advantage for the focal firm technology, whereas many services are still provided outside of the and to benefit the society at large. Moreover, as our findings digital realm, and service innovation commonly focuses on aspects have shown, there is no such thing as a stable music market. other than disruptive technologies, such as business models. Rather than regarding VCPs as operating within pre-defined Another major limitation in our work was the exclusion of the markets, managers need to view markets as fluid and trans- primary stages that take place prior to music becoming a com- forming (Araujo, 2007). mercial product (i.e., song writers’, artists’, producers’, and other 98 Journal of Service Research 26(1) industry actors’ original work with creating the music). Studying References these stages may also generate new insights. Furthermore, many services that are essential to the well- Aal, Kotaiba, Laura Di Pietro, Bo Edvardsson, Maria F. Renzi, and being of individuals and the society at large are public, whereas Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion (2016), “Innovation in Service the focus in this paper was on a market setting, in line with the Ecosystems: An Empirical Study of the Integration of Values, bulk of service research. This is another limitation, as our Brands, Service Systems and Experience Rooms,” Journal of findings indicate that the state played an important role in the Service Management, 27 (4), 619-51. ˚ ´ ˚ creation of VCPs. For example, the early development of Akesson, Maria, Per Skalen, Bo Edvardsson, and Stalhammar Anna broadband infrastructure in Sweden was crucial for the service (2016), “Value Proposition Test-Driving for Service Innovation: innovation of sharing and streaming. Hence, future research How Frontline Employees Innovate Value Propositions,” Journal needs to attend to public services and public service innovation. of Service Theory and Practice, 26 (3), 338-62. Our framework (see Figure 1) may provide a point of departure Araujo, Luis (2007), “Markets, Market-Making and Marketing,” for such studies. Marketing Theory, 7 (3), 211-26. Baron, Steve, Anthony Patterson, Roger Maull, and Warnaby Gary (2018), “Feed People First: A Service Ecosystem Perspective on Innovative Conclusion Food Waste Reduction,” Journal of Service Research,21(1),135–50. Blazevic, Vera and Annouk Lievens (2004), “Learning During the New While service scholars have fruitfully drawn on practice Financial Service Innovation Process: Antecedents and Perfor- theory, they have also agreed that the theoretical potential mance Effects,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (4), 374-91. offeredbypracticetheorytoservice research remains un- Blocker, Christopher P. and Andre´s Barrios (2015), “The Transformative Value fulfilled (Lusch and Vargo 2014; McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, of a Service Experience,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (3), 265-83. and Ferrier 2015; Skal ˚ e´n et al. 2015a; Vargo and Lusch 2016). Cabiddu, Francesca, Frau Moreno, and Lombardo Sebastiano (2019), We have contributed to unleashing some of the potential of practice “Toxic Collaborations: Co-Destroying Value in the B2B Context,” theory for service research by advancing the conceptualization of Journal of Service Research, 22 (3), 241-55. services and service innovation. Nevertheless, much work lies Chandler, Jennifer D., Ilias Danatzis, Carolin Wernicke, Melissa Archpru ahead, and the research agenda that we outlined is an invitation to Akaka, and David Reynolds (2019), “How Does Innovation Emerge in other service scholars to join us in our endeavor to further unlock a Service Ecosystem?,” Journal of Service Research, 22 (1), 75-89. the potential of practice theory for service research. ˚ ´ Echeverri, Per and Per Skalen (2011), “Cocreation and Codestruction: A Practice-Theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation,” Acknowledgments Marketing Theory, 11 (3), 351-73. ˚ ´ ˚ Edvardsson, Bo, Per Skalen, and Bard Tronvoll (2012), “Service The Authors wish to thank the informants of this study for sharing their Systems as a Foundation for Resource Integration and Value Co- expertise and experience in the Swedish music market. The Authors Creation,” Review of Marketing Research, 9, 79-126. also wish to thank Mikko Laamanen, Marit Engen, Rolf Rønning, and Edvardsson, Bo, Anders Gustafsson, and Inger Roos (2005), “Service Jenny Karlsson as well as the Associate Editor and the three anonymous Portraits in Service Research: A Critical Review,” International reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. Journal of Service Industry Management, 16 (1), 107-21. Epp, Amber M., Hope Jensen Schau, and Linda L. Price (2014), “The Declaration of Conflicting Interests Role of Brands and Mediating Technologies in Assembling Long- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to Distance Family Practices,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 81-101. the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Feldman, Martha. S. and Wanda J. Orlikowski (2011), “Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory,” Organization Science, 22 (5), 1240-53. Funding Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006), “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research,” Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219-45. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for Fuglsang, Lars and Flemming Sørensen (2011), “The Balance Between the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first Bricolage and Innovation: Management Dilemmas in Sustainable Author received financial support for this research from Jan Wallanders Public Innovation,” The Service Industries Journal,31(4),581-95. and Tom Hedelius stiftelse as well as Tore Browaldhs stiftelse [Grant: Gallouj, Fa¨ ız and Olivier Weinstein (1997), “Innovation in Services,” P18-0028], Interreg Sweden-Norway program [Grant: 20201630], and Research Policy,26(4–5), 537-56. the Region Va¨rmland [Grant: RV2018-8]. Garofalo, Reebee (1999), “From Music Publishing to MP3: Music and Market in the Twentieth Century,” American Music,17(3),318-54. ORCID iDs Gustafsson, Anders, Hannah Snyder, and Lars Witell (2020), “Service ˚ ´ Per Skalen  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2982-9651 Innovation: A New Conceptualization and Path Forward,” Johanna Gummerus  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8486-1286 Journal of Service Research, 23 (2), 111-5. Helkkula, Anu, Christian Kowalkowski, and Bard Tronvoll (2018), Supplemental Material “Archetypes of Service Innovation: Implications for Value Supplemental material for this article is available online. Cocreation,” Journal of Service Research, 21 (3), 284-301. Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 99 Hesmondhalgh, David and Leslie L Meier (2018), “What the Digi- Russo-Spena, Tiziana and Cristina Mele (2012), “‘Five Co-s’ in In- talisation of Music Tells Us About Capitalism, Culture and the novating: A Practice-Based View,” Journal of Service Manage- Power of the Information Technology Sector,” Information, ment, 23 (4), 527-53. Communication & Society, 21 (11), 1555-70. Sanjek, Russell (1988), American Popular Music and its Business: Johansson, Ola (2020), “Introduction: The Swedish Music Miracle, from 1.0 From 1900 to 1984, Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. to 2.0,” in Songs from Sweden; Shaping Pop Culture in a Globalized Schatzki, Theodore R. (1996), Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Music Industry, O Johansson, ed. Singapore: Palgrave Pivot, 1-24. Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cam- Kelleher, Carol, Hugh N. Wilson, Emma K. Macdonald, and Joe Peppard bridge University Press. (2019), “The Score is Not the Music: Integrating Experience and Schatzki, Theodore R (2002), The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Practice Perspectives on Value Co-Creation in Collective Consumption Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Contexts,” Journal of Service Research, 22 (2), 120-38. Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Kelleher, Carol, Deirdre O’Loughlin, Johanna Gummerus, and Lisa Schatzki, Theodore R (2019), Social Change in a Material World: How Activity Penaloza (2020), “Shifting Arrays of a Kaleidoscope: The Or- and Material Processes Dynamize Practices. London: Routledge. chestration of Relational Value Cocreation in Service Systems,” Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M Muñiz Jr, and Eric J. Arnould (2009), Journal of Service Research, 23 (2), 211-28. “How Brand Community Practices Create Value,” Journal of Koskela-Huotari, Kaisa, Bo Edvardsson, Julia M. Jonas, David Sorhammar, Marketing, 73 (5), 30-51. and Lars Witell (2016), “Innovation in Service Ecosystems—Breaking, Shove, Elizabeth, Mika Pantzar, and Matt Watson (2012), The Dynamics of Making, and Maintaining Institutionalized Rules of Resource Inte- Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes. London: Sage. gration,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (8), 2964-71. Skal ˚ en, ´ Per, Johanna Gummerus, Catharina von Koskull, and Peter R Lee, A. S. and R. L. Baskerville (2003), “Generalizing Generalizability Magnusson (2015a), “Exploring Value Propositions and Service in Information Systems Research,” Information Systems Re- Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Study,” Journal of the search, 14 (3), 221–43. Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2), 137-58. Leyshon, Andrew (2014), Reformatted: Code, Networks, and the Trans- Skal ˚ en, ´ Per, Stefano Pace, and Bernard Cova (2015b), “Firm-Brand formation of the Music Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Community Value Cocreation as Alignment of Practices,” Eu- Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon G. Guba (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry. ropean Journal of Marketing, 49 (3/4), 596-620. London: Sage. Sundbo, Jon (1997), “Management of Innovation in Services,” Service Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2014), Service-Dominant Industries Journal, 17 (3), 432-55. Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. Cambridge: Cam- Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in bridge University Press. Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 491-503. McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Stephen L. Vargo, Tracey S. Dagger, Tolbert, Pamela S. and Lynne G. Zucker (1996), “Institutionalization of Jillian C. Sweeney, and Yasmin van Kasteren (2012), “Health Institutional Theory,” in Handbook of Organization Studies, Care Customer Value Cocreation Practice Styles,” Journal of Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord, eds. Service Research, 15 (4), 370–89. London: Sage, 175-90. McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Lilliemay Cheung, and Elizabeth Ferrier Toivonen, Marja and Tiina Tuominen (2009), “Emergence of Innova- (2015), “Cocreating Service Experience Practices,” Journal of tions in Services,” The Service Industries Journal, 29 (7), 887-902. Service Management, 26 (2), 249-75. Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2016), “Institutions and McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview. London: Sage. Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-Dominant Logic,” Michel, Stefan, Stephen W. Brown, and Andrew S. Gallan (2008), “An Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 5-23. Expanded and Strategic View of Discontinuous Innovations: Vargo, Stephen L., Heiko Wieland, and Melissa A. Akaka (2015), Deploying a Service-Dominant Logic,” Journal of the Academy of “Innovation Through Institutionalization: A Service Ecosystems Marketing Science, 36 (1), 54-66. Perspective,” Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63-72. Music Sweden (2016), Musikbranschen i siffror [The Music Business Verhoef, Peter C., Thijs Broekhuizen, Bart Yakov, Abhi Bhattacharya, in Numbers] (accessed November 27, 2020) https://statistik. John Qi Dong, Nicolai Fabian, and Michael Haenlein (2021), musiksverige.org. “Digital Transformation: A Multidisciplinary Reflection and Nicolini, Davide (2011), Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Research Agenda,” Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901. Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vink, Josina, Kaisa Koskela-Huotari, Bard ˚ Tronvoll, Bo Edvardsson, Ordanini, Andrea and A. Parasuraman (2011), “Service Innovation Viewed and Katarina Wetter-Edman (2021), “Service Ecosystem Design: through a Service-Dominant Logic Lens: A Conceptual Framework Propositions, Process Model, and Future Research Agenda,” and Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Service Research, 14 (1), 3-23. Journal of Service Research, 24 (2), 168-86. Ostrom, Amy L., A. Parasuraman, David E. Bowen, Lia Patr´ ıcio, and Wallendorf, Melanie and Russel W. Belk (1989), “Assessing Trust- Christopher A. Voss (2015), “Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly worthiness in Naturalistic Consumer Research,” in Interpretative Changing Context,” Journal of Service Research, 18 (2), 127-59. Consumer Research, Elizabeth C. Hirschman, ed. Provo, UT: Reckwitz, Andreas (2002), “Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Association for Consumer Research, 69–84. Development in Culturalist Theorizing,” European Journal of Wikstrom, ¨ Patrik (2020), The Music Market: Music in the Cloud. Social Theory, 5 (2), 243-63. Cambridge: Polity. 100 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Potential probing questions: Appendix A a. How has the part of the market that [X] represents changed? Example of Interview Guide b. What have the changes meant for the part of the market Interview questions for the music industry with that [X] represents? informant Y, CEO of X [Interest organization] c. Has the production of music changed? If yes, how? d. Has the consumption of music changed? If yes, how? Introduction: Our research project is about how the Swedish 8. What is driving the changes? music market has changed since the middle of the 1990s. We want you to share your experiences of working in the music Topics for follow-up questions. What is the role of: market, how it has changed, and the implications of any changes, especially for the [actors] you represent. a. the customer/consumer? b. technology? Background c. innovative business models? d. illegal downloading? 1. Can you start by giving us an overview of your career in e. social media? the music industry? What jobs have you had? What is f. streaming? your relationship to music? 9. What role has X played in these market changes? How 2. What is X [organization name]? What does X do? has X been a driving force in these changes? How does 3. What is X’s relationship to other interest organizations? X try to influence the market? 10. What aspects of the market have not changed? Questions about the music market 11. How would you describe what it is like to work at a music company today compared to 20 years ago? 1. In your view, what does the Swedish music market look 12. What consequences have the changes had for the other like today? Who are the most important actors? actors in the industry? Which actors have benefited or 2. What roles do the different actors play? What do they lost due to these changes? do? 13. How has the relationship between industry actors 3. What regulates the relationship between the key actors? changed? 14. Are there any other topics that you would like to Topics for follow-up questions: Laws and regulations, discuss? economics, values, culture, etc. 15. Would you recommend anyone else for us to interview? 4. What have been the most important changes in the Swedish music market? How has the music market Appendix B changed during the time you have worked in it? Table B1. Empirical illustration and interpretation of key concepts. Concepts Empirical vignette Interpretation Creation and reproduction of services prefigured by elements of value cocreation practices (VCPs) Understandings (i.e., know- It was not only piracy that was the reason for the slump [in According to Lisa, a lack of understanding with respect how or competencies) the sales of recorded music]; a big reason was that we to digitalization among record companies prefigured [the record companies] did not keep up. If we had these actors to reproduce the status quo in the form understood sooner that this [offering of CDs] of recording and prevented them from creating and was not going to work, that we would not be able innovating online VCPs for consuming music. to continue as we have always done, then we would have had to find a way to provide legal alternatives to those who consumed music online, through which we could make money. You can’t blame the downloaders. We are also to blame because we just sat and watched. (Lisa, marketing manager) (continued) Skal ˚ en ´ and Gummerus 101 Table B1. (continued) Spotify has been of great importance to the industry. Andreas argues that Spotify, and the founders of the firm They understood the negative effects of the pirate in particular, had the understanding needed to create business on the record companies. They saw the the bundle of VCPs here referred to as streaming. entire music industry’s inability to meet the challenges posed by the piracy business, and they found the solution. So, that was fantastic. Maybe it should have been those of us in the industry together with technicians who should have created the solution, but it was Ek and Lorenzon [the founders of Spotify] who came up with it. (Andreas, CEO) Engagements I wouldn’t say that it was entrepreneurs who initiated the Mats argues that the “music pirates,” including Shawn (i.e., emotionally-charged digitalization of the music industry; it was people who Fanning, the founder of the file-sharing site Napster, goals) saw the possibilities with the internet and were driven by engagements to provide a more wanted to push the boundaries. I don’t think the convenient digital service to create the sharing bundle driving force for Shawn Fanning when he developed of VCPs, and not to destroy the music industry. Napster [a file-sharing site] was to blow up the music industry. I think he saw that that it was possible to use the technology to simplify and create a better service for the consumer. I think that this was where he came from. (Mats, CEO) The digitalization of music allowed for rapid consumption Jonas argues that the record companies are positively changes in a very traditional industry, where value had engaged in streaming, thus contributing to been locked into the physical format. Previously, the reproducing the bundle of VCPs. Hence, while the record was the bearer of value. With digitalization, a engagements themselves may not originally drive the change took place, meaning that the value lay in the creation of VCPs, they may do so later. listening. The record industry was forced to change, and it was not until they started to get a working business model for streaming media that they began to like digitalization. (Jonas, consumer) Procedures When I was involved in building a digital music service in Bo argues that the rules stipulated by contracts prefigure (i.e., rules) the 1990s and early 2000s, we called STIM [the Swedish the actors’ activities by either enabling VCPs or collective management organization for music creators constraining them; in this case, the rules (in the form and publishers] and told them, “We want to create a of performance rights) influence the options actors digital music service; what do the rights cost, and which have and the activities they engage in to create the ones can we have?” They answered, “You can get all the streaming bundle of VCPs. rights for Sweden.” Today… you cannot get all the rights for Sweden from STIM. You need rights from all PRMs [performing rights societies] acting in Sweden. So, the problem is that if you are a service developer, you would need contracts with 30 organizations instead of one. This has created an entry barrier for new streaming services entering the market. (Bo, PR manager) Materials (i.e., technology, [In Sweden] we had the broadband infrastructure and Hans argues that the material elements of VCPs, such as and physical resources) the network speed early on. It put us far ahead of broadband infrastructure and PCs, facilitate actors’ everybody else in developing digital services. The other creation of bundles of VCPs. In this case, the materials thing that was important for the digitalization of music co-evolved with procedures as lawmakers influenced was the home PC reform [which lowered the cost of the price of PCs. buying computers in Sweden]. I don’t know how many million PCs were sold, but many parents bought computers for their kids. (Hans, CEO) It is the technology that has changed the music Lennart suggests that material elements in the form of industry… The technology has made it much easier to new technology have made actors more inclined to create music. It is also the technology that has made it create new VCPs that, when established, reproduce much easier for the end consumer to consume music. specific VCPs for consuming and producing music. (Lennart, songwriter) (continued) 102 Journal of Service Research 26(1) Table B1. (continued) Valancing bundles of value cocreation practices Recording vs. sharing Snook [a hip-hop act] was very popular during the 2000s, Birgitta argues that during the noughties, the fans of but they didn’t sell any records. They had no Snook, and consumers more generally, were valancing sharing higher than recording. This led them to financial success whatsoever. But live, they were a huge success. I saw them at the Hultsfred music festival; codestroy the latter, as they did not pay to consume I was there with them. Their concert was music, and cocreate the former, which supported the absolutely packed with fans, and everyone knew innovation of sharing through usage of the VCP. all the lyrics. The fans sang all their songs in chorus, but they [Snook] did not sell any records. This was during the period when illegal file sharing and downloading was greatest. (Birgitta, general manager) Streaming vs. recording Spotify is extremely cheap; it’s 99 bucks [referring to 99 Alexander valances streaming (represented by Spotify) and sharing SEK, or about 11 USD] to have access to all the music higher than recording and sharing. This valancing that exists in principle. It’s a very, very good service, implies the codestruction of recording and sharing I would say. It costs less than going to the cinema. It’s and the cocreation of streaming. It also facilitates the only natural that people use Spotify. (Alexander, A&R innovation of streaming through the usage of VCPs by specialist) extant actors. Streaming vs. sharing With Spotify, music became much more Because of Bengt valancing streaming (represented by accessible. Already from the start, Spotify had a large Spotify) higher than sharing (referred to as library of music. There was no longer any need to downloading), he contributes to the service download music. (Bengt, consumer) innovation of streaming by codestroying sharing, no longer downloading from “pirate” sites, and cocreating streaming by using this service. Recording vs. sharing and It wasn’t really the willingness to pay that was the problem Mats valances sharing higher than recording, and sharing vs. streaming with downloading; it was that people felt that streaming (as represented by the streaming service piracy was so much better than CDs. That pirated Spotify) higher than sharing. The rationale behind music was free was a plus, but this was not the first Mats’s argument is that people will cocreate and reason to why people went to pirate services… support the innovation of bundles of VCPs they value Nevertheless, if you think back to the beginning of 2007 the most and codestroy alternative VCPs. when you started to use Spotify for the first time. It was so much better than anything else that was on the market, and for the first time, there was something better than using pirate services.It was so exciting. You might remember how you felt when you got Spotify for the first time and showed it to others; it was such a “wow” moment. (Mats, CEO) Author Biographies Johanna Gummerus is Liikesivistysrahasto Associate Pro- fessor in Marketing at Hanken School of Economics, Finland, Per Skal ˚ en ´ is a professor of Business Administration based at the and Ander Visiting Professor at the Service Research Center, Service Research Center, Karlstad University, Sweden and a guest Karlstad University, Sweden. Her main research interests in- professor at the Inland University of Applied Sciences, Norway. He is clude value creation logics, the influence of technology on currently conducting research about transformative services, service consumer-firm relationships, and service marketing and man- innovation, value and value codestruction, and public services. agement topics in general.

Journal

Journal of Service ResearchSAGE

Published: Feb 1, 2023

Keywords: music; practice theory; services; service innovation; value cocreation practices

There are no references for this article.