Value co-creation and stakeholder complexity: what strategy can learn from churches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to extend understandings of the demand-side view of strategy and how organizations co-create value with stakeholders. Through an iterative process of theory development, data collection, data analysis and writing, the authors propose a value co-creation perspective that more fully takes into account stakeholder complexity. Design/methodology/approach – The empirical data derives from a wider exploratory study on value creation and competitive advantage in Christian churches in Canada. Here the authors explore one case study from that wider study and analyze interviews with church members and leaders. Findings – The authors discuss two mutually constitutive processes of value co-creation, building a culture of community and enacting relational and shared leadership. Research limitations/implications – The authors propose a stakeholder-complex understanding of value creation where stakeholders can enact multiple roles, often simultaneously, in co-creation and where products/services are consumed for their symbolic, rather than material value. Further, co-creation may involve ongoing interactions and value creation can occur in non-monetary transactions. Originality/value – The authors offer, through an empirical exploration of a religious organization, an illustrative account of how value co-creation might be tied to stakeholder complexity. This study stretches the boundaries of mainstream strategy research by challenging two fundamental assumptions: that stakeholder roles must be distinct and that “value” must be clearly defined and explicitly linked to exchange value.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".