Content uploaded by José-Carlos García-Rosell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by José-Carlos García-Rosell on Nov 15, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
“Dig Where You Stand”: Values-Based Co-Creation through
Improvisation
José-Carlos García-Rosella*, Minni Haanpääa and Jenny Janhunenb
aFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; bSeinäjoki
University of Applied Sciences, Seinäjoki, Finland
*Contact address:
Faculty of Social Sciences
P.O. Box 122, FIN-96101 Rovaniemi
jgarcia@ulapland.fi
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH on 2019, available online:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02508281.2019.1591780?journalCod
e=rtrr20
Article DOI:10.1080/02508281.2019.1591780
2
‘Dig Where You Stand’: Values-Based Co-Creation through
Improvisation
The concept of co-creation has been extensively discussed in tourism and
hospitality research. Most studies focus mainly on exploring the involvement of
customers in experience creation and the development of tourism services and
innovations. Although this way of thinking can be valuable for creating
competitive tourism services, it neglects other aspects of co-creation that may
play an important role in tourism. Considering this gap, we work towards a more
comprehensive understanding of value co-creation processes in small tourism
firms by drawing upon cultural marketing and organizational improvisation. To
illustrate this process, we present two company cases from northern Sweden,
Treehotel and Icehotel. The empirical material used in this study consists of
qualitative data collected via semi-structured interviews, participant and non-
participant observation, and documentary materials. The study contributes to the
co-creation discussion in tourism and hospitality by unpacking the role of human
and non-human stakeholders, material resources, and unexpected events in the
value co-creation processes within a small tourism firm context.
Keywords: co-creation, improvisation, stakeholders, values, small tourism firms
Introduction
The concept of co-creation has been extensively discussed in the marketing literature
over the last decades (e.g. Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008; Peñaloza & Venkatesh,
2006; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Much of the discussion
has focused on the process of value creation and the role of customer knowledge, skills,
and competencies as key resources in it (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo &
Lusch, 2004). Indeed, when elaborating on the notion of value creation, Vargo and
Lusch (2004) argue that value is produced in a collaborative and iterative learning
process on the part of the firm and the customer. As Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000)
note, the market offers a venue for proactive customer involvement in the value creation
3
process. According with this view, consumers become co-creators who use their skills
and knowledge to create the offerings best suited to their needs (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
This understanding of co-creation has also found fertile ground in tourism management
studies. Tourism management scholars have explored co-creation as a strategic tool for
actively engaging customers throughout the process of service development, experience
creation, and innovation (e.g. Campos, Mendes, do Valle, & Scott, 2018; Hjalager &
Nordin, 2011; Roeffen & Scholl-Grissemann, 2016). In doing so, they portray co-
creation as a rational and systematic process controlled by the firm. Although the
tourism management literature of co-creation offers a useful road map for designing and
managing competitive tourism services (Campos et al., 2018), previous researchers fail
to recognize other aspects of co-creation that may play an essential role in a small
tourism firm context. For example, little attention has been given to the role of
stakeholder relationships in co-creation and to the fact that the co-creation of value in
small tourism firms is not necessarily a separate activity detached from the place and
everyday working practices (see García-Rosell, Haanpää, Kylänen, & Markuksela,
2007; García-Rosell, Kylänen, Pitkänen, Tekoniemi-Selkälä, & Vanhala, 2015;
Haanpää, García-Rosell, & Tuulentie, 2016).
Although small tourism firms have strong ties to their places, they are likely to lack
financial resources, strategic planning, and management expertise (Ateljevic & Doorne,
2000; Schilar & Keskitalo, 2018; Valtonen, 2009; Yachin, 2019), which may constrain
the implementation of co-creation processes, as suggested in the tourism management
literature (Campos et al., 2018; Hjalager & Nordin, 2011). Rather than being concerned
with these limitations, we view the characteristics of small tourism firms and their
relations to their places and stakeholders as an opportunity to elaborate further on the
4
notion of co-creation in tourism and hospitality studies. For instance, the smallness of
tourism firms and their relational natures offer a fruitful ground for studying the roles of
different stakeholders and multiple ways of knowing in value co-creation in tourism.
Drawing upon a cultural marketing approach to co-creation (Peñaloza & Venkatesh,
2006) and organizational improvisation (Kamoche & Cunha, 2001; Vera & Crossan,
2004), we explore the role of different stakeholders and the knowledge and skills that
they mobilize, produce, and reproduce in value co-creation in tourism. More precisely,
our study aims to illuminate how the notion of value co-creation is intrinsically related
to the values and narratives of entrepreneurs and the full range of stakeholders who are
part of the co-creation process. To that end, we draw on the case of two Nordic tourism
firms in particular, Treehotel and Icehotel. This article is structured as follows. We start
with a review of research on co-creation and organizational improvisation. Then we
elaborate on the process of data collection and analysis. This is followed by a report on
our study results—firm stories as told by the owners of the firms—and a discussion on
the findings. We conclude with implications and suggestions for further research.
Value co-creation through stakeholder interaction and improvisation
As a business strategy, co-creation implies that firms focus on the processes that create
value and maximize consumer participation in the customization of services by means
of using consumers’ knowledge and skills (Vargo & Lush, 2004). Although this idea of
co-creation has been widely accepted in marketing and tourism studies in particular
(Prebensen, Chen, & Uysal, 2014), the concept has been under continuous evaluation
and development over the past decades. In particular, criticism has been directed
towards the vagueness of the notion of value and the strong focus on firm–customer
interactions and relationships.
5
Service marketing scholars have particularly been interested in elaborating
further on the notion of value and how it is created (Grönroos & Voima, 2013; Vargo &
Lusch, 2008). Grönroos (2012) suggested, for example, that instead of treating value
metaphorically as originally done by Vargo and Lusch (2004), a more interactional,
contextual treatment of the concept in direct customer–firm relations would offer better
theorising. To further understand interaction and context in co-creation, marketing
scholars have moved towards social constructionist, and more recently also practice-
based, approaches (see e.g. Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011; Helkkula, Dube, &
Arnould, 2018; Rihova, Buhalis, Moital, & Gouthro, 2013; Storbacka, Frow, Nenonen,
& Payne, 2012). Co-destruction of value, instead of a successful co-creation process,
has also received attention (Plé & Chumpitaz Cáceres, 2010; see also Echeverri &
Skålén, 2011).
There is also a stream of cultural marketing literature which offers a critical
evaluation of co-creation and thus alternative ways of theorizing it (e.g. Cova, Dalli, &
Zwick, 2011, Peñaloza & Venkatesh, 2006). Peñaloza and Venkatesh (2006) were
among the first scholars to draw attention to consumers’ subjective understandings and
practices regarding their participation in the co-creation of value and power relations
between consumers and firms. According to them, treating consumers as subjects and
agents in the marketplace is a step forward to a more just treatment of the different
actors involved in a co-creation process. Similarly, other studies have focused on the
political aspects of co-creation and the role of consumer communities and practices in
the co-creation of value (e.g. Cova et al., 2011; Echeverri & Skålén, 2011;
Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011). In these studies, co-creation is conceptualized
as ‘a dynamic process in which multiple objects, actions and agencies interact’ (Lugosi,
2014, p. 177).
6
For example, Echeverri and Skålen (2011, p. 353) conceptualize value as ‘co-
created, realised, and assessed in the social context of the simultaneous production and
consumption process’. According to them, value cannot be measured in monetary terms;
rather it is subjectively defined by the customer and the provider. As Holbrook (2006)
points out, value is collectively produced in actions and interactions, but subjectively
experienced. Value is symbolic, historically and culturally situated, and strongly
connected to the life projects and narratives of consumers (e.g. Holbrook, 1999;
Peñaloza & Venkatesh, 2006, p. 310; Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011, pp. 305,
309).
In line with the cultural marketing approach that we take in this study, we view
value as a social construct that is created, maintained, negotiated, resisted, and
transformed throughout stakeholder actions, interactions, and relationships (e.g.
Holbrook, 1999; Moisander & Valtonen, 2006; Peñaloza & Mish, 2011; Peñaloza &
Venkatesh, 2006). By elaborating on the nature and process of ‘market co-creation’,
Peñaloza and Mish (2011) broaden the scope of value co-creation beyond consumers to
include other market actors such as suppliers, investors, competitors, citizens,
regulators, and even the natural environment. This view of co-creation is supported by
recent tourism studies that have recognized the role of local residents, governmental
organizations, and non-human actors in the co-creation of tourism services (e.g.
Bertella, 2014; Haanpää et al., 2016; Lugosi, 2018; Rantala & Mäkinen, 2018).
Considering this, we argue that, in order to understand the process of co-creation
in tourism, we need to explore the complex community dynamics which drive
stakeholder interactions and thus contribute to the creation of different types of
knowledge (see Dredge & Jenkins, 2011). Consistent with Valtonen (2009), we regard
knowledge as something embedded in stakeholder relationships and continuously
7
developed through the sharing of experiences, stories, tools, collaborative practices, and
ways of doing things. These relationships and interactions are epistemic in nature, as
they provide opportunities for tourism firms to acquire and generate knowledge, by
observing, listening, discussing, reflecting, and acting together with their stakeholders
(see Valtonen, 2009)
To grasp the dynamics of knowledge in a co-creation process, we draw upon an
improvisation approach. Within organization studies, there is a research tradition
devoted to the theorisation of improvisation—the emergent and unexpected—as an
essential element of organizational life (see Cunha, Neves, Clegg, & Rego, 2015).
These studies have borrowed from the realms of improvisational theatre and jazz
improvisation, where ideas are created and implemented in action (Crossan, Cunha,
Vera, & Cunha, 2005). Under the term ‘organizational improvisation’, improvisation
has been widely discussed in relation to research areas such as organizational learning
(Barret, 1998; Cunha et al., 2015), strategy (Crossan & Hurst, 2006; Eisenhardt, 1997),
and service development (Kamoche & Cunha, 2001; Kyriakopoulos, 2011; Miner,
Bassoff, & Moorman, 2001).
Although different definitions have been suggested to capture the nature of
improvisation in an organizational context, all definitions converge on the idea that all
forms of improvisation have a purpose, are extemporaneous, and occur in action
(Cunha, da Cunha, & Kamoche, 1999). In this study, we follow Vera and Crossan
(2004, p. 733) to define improvisation as the spontaneous and creative process of
attempting to achieve an objective in a new way. Whereas ‘spontaneous’ refers to a
flexible and unplanned process, ‘creative’ indicates a process aiming to develop
something new and useful to the situation.
8
Several management and organizational scholars have showed that
improvisation can be useful in understanding the process through which products and
services are developed (e.g. Kamoche & Cunha, 2001; Kyriakopoulos, 2011; Miner et
al., 2001). From this perspective, the idea of improvisation as collective actions that are
not restricted to one-time events (Vera & Crossan, 2004) seems to be appropriate to
explore the co-creation of value within a small tourism firm context. In line with Brown
and Eisenhardt (1998, p. 33), we argue that improvisation is what nurtures the
acquisition and generation of knowledge, enabling tourism firms to continuously co-
create value in close collaboration with their stakeholders. Improvisation can be
regarded as a form of real-time learning that arises when firms and their stakeholders
struggle to deal with a problem or unexpected opportunity (see Miner et al., 2001, p.
306). According to Miner et al. (2001), improvisation can influence long-term trial-and-
error learning, leading to new activities, insights, and ways of knowing.
Similar to the co-creation of value, improvisation also draws upon material and
social resources that are available within a firm’s operating environment (Cunha et al.,
1999, p. 302). Whereas material resources encompass resources such as buildings,
nature, landscapes, and their meanings, social resources refer to the social structures and
relationships among stakeholders performing improvisation. In addition, improvisation
draws from temporality: interpreting the present through past experiences, and
anticipating the forthcoming in the operating environment and beyond (see Haanpää,
2017; Haanpää, García-Rosell, & Kyyrä, 2013; Haanpää et al., 2016). While
organizational improvisation contributes to a better understanding of co-creation in a
small tourism firm context, it should be noted that it is not always tied to success (see
Kamoche & Cunha, 2001). Improvisation requires a good understanding of the various
relations of the context; otherwise, it can also co-destruct value (see Echeverri &
9
Skålén, 2011). In line with Vera and Crossan (2004), it is important to differentiate
between how improvisation occurs in these processes and what it takes to do it well. In
this study, we focus on two small tourism firms that help illustrate the role of
improvisation in co-creation processes leading to value creation and innovative tourism
products.
Understanding small tourism firms through narratives and observation
The study was conducted within the scope of two EU-funded development projects
dealing with service development and co-creation in tourism. By taking an ethnographic
approach, we conducted in the first project (2008–2011) participant/non-participant
observations and attended approximately 20–25 service development meetings in seven
tourism companies operating in Northern Finland over a period of two years. The data
were complemented by 50 interviews with tourism companies operating in the same
geographical area (García-Rosell & Haanpää, 2017; García-Rosell et al., 2015).
During the data collection stage of this first project, research team members met
regularly to examine and reflect on the transcripts of interviews and field notes to
identify common co-creation patterns of service development and co-creation. The data
revealed that service development and co-creation processes were intertwined with the
daily practices of tourism firms, their customers, and other stakeholders. Challenges or
unexpected situations seemed to play a role in reaching breaking points, leading to new
services and working practices. The common pattern of co-creation reflected in the data
showed an ongoing, spontaneous, and goal-oriented learning process with no fixed
structure.
In the second project (2013–2015), we continued our study by conducting further
participant/non-participant observations and interviews, but this time with companies
10
situated in northern Sweden. Data collection in the second project lasted for one year.
Similar co-creation patterns as in Finland were identified in the Swedish companies
involved in the study. During both projects, we informed the participating firms and
their employees that we were conducting a study on service development. To avoid any
biases, we did not use the word ‘co-creation’ in the projects and our study in particular.
Our aim in both projects was to use different forms of ethnographic data to explore co-
creation in relation to service development in small tourism firms.
During the process of data collection in the second project, we decided to put additional
emphasis on two Swedish companies: Treehotel and Icehotel. Both companies are
situated in the Swedish county of Norrbotten, which is by far the least densely
populated region in Sweden. Indeed, the county includes less than 3% of the Swedish
population yet it covers approximately 22% of Sweden’s total area. The region is highly
dependent on income from tourism and nature-based industries. We chose these two
companies because the co-creation patterns identified in our longitudinal study are
reflected throughout their history. These companies were also interesting cases due to
their role in driving the economic and social development of their home villages and
contribution to the brand ‘Swedish Lapland’ in the international market. Indeed, these
two companies have been internationally acknowledged as highly innovative and
unique in terms of the production of tourism experiences. It should be noted that prior to
this study, two of the authors were familiar with these two companies through several
on-site visits and cooperation activities organized within other EU projects.
The empirical material collected from these companies consisted of semi-
structured interviews, participant and non-participant observation, and documentary
materials. A team of four researchers participated in the collection of data. Together
with the project manager, two of the authors were involved in data collection. The
11
remaining author was a researcher participating in the project. In a first step, the team of
researchers gathered documentary material (brochures, newspaper articles, blog posts,
and videos available online) related to the two firms. These data were used to gain a
better understanding of the firms’ background, evolution, and services.
Documentary material was also needed to define the focus of the observation
and interviews conducted in a later stage of the study (see Atkinson, 2002). Participant
observations were conducted prior to each interview by two researchers who took part
in a guided tour around the premises of the firms. Non-participant observations were
also conducted in the premises of both firms by one researcher, while the second
researcher was conducting the interviews. By writing field notes, the researchers not
only kept a record of their observations but also reflected on their personal experiences
and impressions during the firm visit (see Hammersley & Atkinson, 1996). Participant
and non-participant observations were seen as an important part of the data collection
phase because they enabled the researchers to look into the sociocultural and material
context in which the daily organizational practices of the firms unfold (Jorgensen,
1989). Visits to each firm lasted between three and five hours including the interviews.
Semi-structured interviews were used as a means to gain a deeper understanding
of the range of roles and organizational practices that exist within these two tourism
firms (see Atkinson, 2002; Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008, pp. 82–83). The interviews
took place in the premises of the firms and were conducted with one of the co-owners of
each hotel. The two persons interviewed were women and aged 50 to 55. The
interviewees gave full consent to be recognizable and to use their real names within the
context of this study. These semi-structured interviews lasted approximately 60
minutes, were recorded on audiotape, and then carefully transcribed. The semi-
structured interviews followed the principles of life story interviewing due to the strong
12
connection between the entrepreneurs’ lives and their firms (see Bredvold & Skålen,
2016). We followed the constructionist life story approach, where the story is created in
the constructive collaboration between the parties involved in the interview. There were
some themes that were purposely discussed with the interviewees, but basically
interviewees had the opportunity to construct the story of the firm and its relation to
their life in their own terms (Atkinson, 2002). In line with the data collection, no
reference to co-creation was made in the interviews. It is through their life stories in
their firms that we could explore co-creation in relation to their services and business
operations (see Atkinson, 2002).
Transcripts from interviews, field notes, and data collected online were
thematically analysed. Both ethnographic and content analyses were used when
interpreting the collected data (Rantala, 2011). By iterating between the data and the
theoretical framework, we focus on understanding the process of co-creation as it
happens in the two chosen companies. In doing so, we pay particular attention to
identifying and illustrating stakeholders, material resources, and events in the processes
of value co-creation.
The firm stories
Treehotel, Britta
Britta is one of the owners of Treehotel that is located in the small village of Harads
(500 inhabitants) close to the Arctic Circle. The history of Treehotel goes back to the
establishment of Brittas Guesthouse in 2004—a guest house offering a homey
atmosphere from the 1930s to 1950s and views of the river and forest. After six years of
guest-house operations, Treehotel was established as a parallel company. Treehotel was
inspired by the surroundings of Brittas Guesthouse and ‘The Treelover’, a documentary
13
filmed in Harads. The documentary tells a story about a man who builds a traditional
tree house to reminiscence about his childhood summers. The core idea of the Treehotel
is to provide high-quality, unique accommodation service with an emphasis on
sustainability, Scandinavian design, and nature. Currently, Treehotel is owned by five
owners and employs five to eight people. It has seven ‘tree rooms’, one conference
room, and two saunas in the forest.
Britta and her husband Kent were born in Harads. She worked in health care for
nearly 20 years, and after that she spent 12 years working with her husband in rural
development projects in Harads. One of the initial development projects she was
involved in took place in 2000 and was related to a listed house. The building used to be
a retirement home more than three decades ago, and it had remained empty since then.
In 2004, Britta made a decision to buy the house and turn it into a small guest house
with a restaurant and services for conferences and private events. Although the
operations of the guest house demanded a lot of work, it did not generate much profit.
In 2006, the documentary ‘The Treelover’ was filmed by a friend of hers in Harads
close to the guest house. Britta and Kent were so fascinated with ‘The Treelover’ that
they started to rent the tree house built for the documentary. At that point, the tourism
services they offered consisted of the guest house and the tree house. Nevertheless, new
services needed to be developed in order to improve the profitability of the company.
During this time Kent was working as a school counsellor and in his own fishing
company which offers tours around the world. The fishing company had a key role in
the development of the Treehotel concept. It was during a fishing trip that Kent
introduced the Treehotel idea to a group of architects, who had been taking part in the
fishing tours once or twice a year for the last 10 years.
14
They were on a fishing tour, 2008, and you know we rent out this tree house, the
first tree house. And Kent, my husband said, ‘I will take a picture and ask the guys
[the architects] if they, or what they think about the idea to make these hotel rooms.
So, he just asked them when they were sitting in front of the fire one evening with
food and vodka. . . . They were good friends, we have known them for many years.
The architects found the idea fascinating, and soon one of the architects was in
Harads with Britta and Kent conducting the pre-study and making the first drawings.
Since then the couple has been contacted by approximately 30 architects around the
world who would like to realize their designs in Treehotel. This wave of new ideas was
triggered by the media, which put Treehotel in the spotlight both nationally and
internationally.
From the first year it was very difficult to see what was so interesting. We could
not see it. We did not understand why BBC or CNN wanted to come here. . . . And
why 4 million people wanted to listen to us on the radio.
The municipality and the county council played an essential role in facilitating
the process and helping the company with all practicalities and formalities needed to
start the project. They even arranged a meeting between the bank and the couple to get a
loan for the realization of the concept.
We had a lot of help from the municipality. They helped us with everything.
Because when we had this idea, and started talking with them in the municipality
and the county council, we made a pre-study and we got 50% from the county
council to make this pre-study. . . . They were here a lot and we made some plans
how it’s going to be and if it was possible to do. And then the municipality helped
us a lot when we said it was ready and we must do this, because we didn’t know
but only had a gut feeling. It is such a good idea. And you know, our municipality
helped us; we had never arranged a meeting, never.
15
In order to get the loan, Britta and Kent needed to own the land where the
Treehotel was to be built. The landowner was a friend of theirs who just happened to
have sold the land to a forestry company, which planned to cut down the trees.
Nevertheless, he was so fascinated with the idea that he changed his mind and decided
to terminate the sales agreement and sell the land to Britta and Kent. Since they did not
have the money for the purchase, the landowner joined the company with the land, thus
becoming one of the owners of Treehotel. Also the strong relationship Britta and Kent
had with the place and the forest played an important role in developing the world-
famous Treehotel concept.
I said it must be something that is around this area, must be something pure. . . . It
has to be special and different, but I mean you have to ‘dig where you stand’, it
must be here. It must be real from this area. And what we do have here is forest.
We have no mountains, but we have forest and we have not done anything in the
forest.
The Treehotel has become a famous tourism attraction due to its uniqueness and
the continuous positive international media coverage. Nowadays, Treehotel attracts
thousands of visitors every year. While some visitors may choose to stay overnight in
one of the seven tree rooms, others may just satisfy their curiosity with a tour around the
tree rooms and the surrounding forest. Although there is a high demand for the tree
rooms, and many requests from architects willing to realize their designs in Treehotel,
the owners have made the decision to put a limit to the number of tree rooms. The last
tree room, which was named Seventh Room, was built in 2016.
Icehotel, Kerstin
Kerstin is one of the owners of the first-ever ‘ice hotel’ in the world. The Icehotel is
located about 200 kilometres above the Arctic Circle in Jukkasjärvi, a village in the
16
municipality of Kiruna, northern Sweden. The story of the hotel can be traced back to
the 1940s when the local community started developing services in the village. Today,
the Icehotel offers accommodation in unique rooms made of ice designed by artists
coming from all over the world. During the first years of the company, until 1990, it
was partly owned by a local cooperative. In 2014, the Icehotel was run by five private
owners and employed 20 people around the year and 135 during the high season. The
Torne River has had a significant meaning for the firm and its development throughout
its history.
And this [Torne River] has been ‘the mother of our company’ from the beginning
and still is. It’s the Torne River. The Torne River has fed me for 28 years. And not
only me. We are 150 people working in this company. . . . It gives us food and
fresh water, fun, activities, art, good friends, and it just gives us so much. The
water is everything for the company.
The first CEO of the company was Yngve Bergqvist. At the beginning the hotel
was mainly operating during the summer season, offering activities and
accommodation. The first activities of the company were canoeing and river rafting. In
1986, there was a serious river rafting accident in the area, and the activities dropped
suddenly. After this incident, the owners of Icehotel had to rethink the business concept
of the company.
At the time, the summer was the peak season for us. . . . We were overbooked and
almost everybody was doing the river rafting. But we did not have any guests in
the winter. We tried to have people coming up in the winter but they said, ‘Oh no
Kerstin, it’s too dark and it’s too cold’.
In 1988 Bergqvist got a chance to travel all over the world. He chose to travel to
winter destinations to look for business ideas for the long winter in northern Sweden. In
Japan, Bergqvist visited a winter ice-sculpting festival where some of the artists had
17
built the church of Jukkasjärvi from ice to honour his visit. Due to the festival, he
became familiar with ice as a material and got the idea of using the Torne River to
provide the ice for making the ice sculptures. Immediately the next winter, in 1989,
Bergqvist invited two Japanese artists to Jukkasjärvi to teach the people in his company
how to work with materials such as ice and snow. The first building made out of ice and
snow was built in 1990. That was the beginning of the Icehotel as it is known today.
In the spring of 1990, we built the first building of ice and snow. We did it on the
ice down the Torne River. And that was a big mistake because when the spring was
coming it would get very heavy and we would get water on the floor. So that is
where everything started.
At that time, the current five owners of Icehotel were employees of the
company, working in different roles and developing their expertise in tourism. This is
something that they see as one of the cornerstones of the development of Icehotel. Also,
close cooperation with the local community and entrepreneurs has been important for
the owners. In relation to this, there was one specific event that shifted the development
towards building a hotel from ice. A friend of Kerstin called her one day and wanted to
come to Jukkasjärvi with a group to organize a conference there. Unfortunately, all
cabins were booked at the time of the request, and Kerstin was not able to accommodate
the group.
I said, ‘You cannot come. We are fully booked.’ They said, ‘We can sleep in a
snow building’. I said, ‘No, you can’t sleep in a snow building. It is too cold.’
‘Yes’, they said. [Kerstin finally gave up saying] ‘OK, you can sleep there. I will
arrange some sleeping bags for you and reindeer hides. We even will make you a
diploma for sleeping outdoors during winter.’
Eventually, the guests slept in the snow building and even got a diploma from it.
They not only embraced the experience, they also became the first guests of the
18
Icehotel. From that point on, the concept was developed further, learning by doing and
from mistakes made, as Kerstin admitted.
In March we start taking the ice from the Torne River in big blocks. . . . We store
them in the house until next winter. We take up about 5000 tons of ice from the
Torne River. We actually only borrow it because in April, May, and June
everything is melting back to the river again. Today we do it with tractors when
before we did it by hand. And we did it in December when the ice was not so thick.
. . . When we started we couldn’t go anywhere to ask how to do it. . . . At that time
no one could help because no one had done it before. So every year we made a lot
of mistakes, but every year we also developed the knowledge.
The core idea of the first-ever Icehotel is to offer meaningful, inspiring, and
unique art, nature, culture, living, and food experiences. Today, building the Icehotel is
grounded on a variety of stakeholders working tightly together. Every year the company
looks for new artists to plan, design, and build unique hotel rooms from ice and snow.
Artists from all over the world send their hotel room design ideas every year. From all
ideas, the company representatives choose 25 who are then invited to Jukkasjärvi for
two weeks during the winter to realize their designs in Icehotel. Also, other strong
partnerships and cooperative relations have reinforced the development of the company
in the tourism market.
The Icehotel is a unique story of developing a business concept based on the
place, a chain of events, and people working with it. Working with the elements from
the place—the river and ice and snow in particular—ended up defining the uniqueness
of the business concept, that is still going strong today. The Icehotel is not only the
main attraction of Jukkasjärvi but also one of the reasons for travelling to this part of
Sweden. Icehotel has also enjoyed generous media coverage. It has also become one of
the icons of Sweden as a Nordic tourism destination. In November 2016, Icehotel
19
opened ‘Icehotel 365’, a permanent ice experience with an ice bar, gallery, and ice hotel
rooms.
Discussion
From our analysis of Treehotel and Icehotel, we develop three insights relevant to the
process of value co-creation through improvisation. First, we show how co-creation
involves multiple human and non-human stakeholders. Second, we draw attention to the
material resources upon which these firms and their stakeholders act to co-create value.
Third, we point to challenges and unexpected opportunities, which trigger co-creation
processes leading to innovative services.
Stakeholders
Our findings point to a multiple number of stakeholders who play an important role in
the co-creation process. Both Treehotel and Icehotel acknowledge customers,
employees, local authorities, local community members, artists, architects, the media,
and other partners as actors who employ their knowledge and skills in service
development and other joint activities (see Cabiddu, Lui, & Piccoli, 2013; Peñaloza &
Mish, 2011; Valtonen, 2009). Our findings draw attention to the way these two tourism
firms rely on their stakeholder relationships in dealing with challenging situations or
issues they lack knowledge on. For example, the owners of Treehotel relied upon their
long-time relations to a group of customers (the architects) to acquire and generate the
knowledge and skills needed to put forward their tree house concept. Similarly, Icehotel
collaborated from the very beginning with artists to generate the knowledge and skills
needed to created buildings and structures made of snow and ice. In line with Peñaloza
and Mish (2011), Treehotel and Icehotel do not view stakeholders as something to be
managed, but rather as an extension of their organizations.
20
In our study, we identified fuzziness between stakeholders and material
resources, which questions the prevailing logic separating human and non-human actors
in the co-creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004) and organizational improvisation literature
(Cunha et al., 1999). Treehotel and Icehotel did not approach the natural environment
just as a material resource to be used and enacted upon. Rather, consistent with
Peñaloza and Mish (2011), these firms view the river and the forest as actors
incorporating their agency in co-creation processes. The natural environment becomes a
key stakeholder in the co-creation of value, enabling and limiting the actions of the firm
and other stakeholders (see Lugosi, 2018). Treehotel and Icehotel have developed
collaborative ways of knowing and being with nature that allow them to consider the
interest of the forest and the river when developing their services and business practices
(Rantala & Mäkinen, 2018). Indeed, there is a strong relationship between the firms and
non-human actors, which are an intrinsic part of the places where they perform (see
Schilar & Keskitalo, 2018).
Material resources
In considering the natural environment as a stakeholder, we discuss material
resources here in terms of buildings, construction materials, and meanings that become
an intrinsic part of the co-creation process. Consistent with Vargo and Lusch (2004) and
Cunha et al. (1999), we see material resources as something upon which an operation or
act is performed. Brittas Guesthouse and the initial tree house built for the Treelover
documentary were essential material resources for the co-creation of value and
meanings related to Treehotel. In the case of Icehotel, the actions, practices, and
performances of employees, artists, and customers on ice and snow as construction
materials contribute to developing new skills and knowledge, which in turn support the
co-creation of value and meanings for the firm and its stakeholders.
21
Our analysis also draws attention to how these firms and their stakeholders act
upon this value and meanings by incorporating them in stories and narratives. Indeed, as
some scholars have suggested, storytelling can be a powerful tool for co-creation (e.g.
Gebhardt, Carpenter, & Sherry, 2006; Peñaloza & Mish, 2011). Both firms use their
websites and social media channels to communicate their business stories, principles,
and practices. In addition, storytelling is used interactively with other stakeholders,
opening avenues for further co-creation of value through shared meanings in different
sociocultural contexts (Helkkula et al., 2018). For example, journalists, travel bloggers,
and even scholars have played an essential role in the co-creation of value associated
with an environmentally responsible and sustainable world view. From this perspective,
we can argue that these meanings are used to nurture not only local brand identities (see
Schilar & Keskitalo, 2018) but also consumer cultures in the global marketplace (see
Schau, Muñiz, & Arnould, 2009).
Unexpected events
Our findings point to unexpected events in the form of challenges and
opportunities that had an impact on co-creation. In the Icehotel, we identify two critical
events, which changed the course of the firm. The first event was the rafting accident,
which put on hold the main source of revenue of the firm. In the search for new
business ideas, the firm’s CEO ended up in the ice sculpture festival in Japan, where he
built relations with local Japanese artists. This was the start of a co-creation process
based on trial-and-error learning, in which the firm employees and Japanese artists in
interaction with the Torne River develop the knowledge and skills needed to build ice
and snow structures (see Miner et al., 2001).
The second event happened years later when ice and snow buildings and
structures were part of the firm’s offering. Confronted with a customer request for
22
accommodation when all available cabins were booked, one of the managers, in
collaboration with the customer, came up with the solution of using one of the ice
buildings as an accommodation facility. For this solution to work, the customer, the
firm, and the employees had to develop new knowledge, skills, and features for the ice
and snow building that had not previously been considered. These include safety issues,
sleeping practices, and the introduction of new materials such as sleeping bags and
reindeer hides. In these improvisational activities, the material resources available in the
firm and its operating environment became essential to the co-creation process (Cunha
et al. 1999).
Improvisation is not only about challenges but also about unforeseen
opportunities. This is the case of Treehotel, which saw an opportunity in the tree house
left in the forest after the making of the documentary ‘The Treelover’. When taking an
improvisation approach to value co-creation, it unfolds as a series of dynamic interplays
among different stakeholders, materials, spaces, and temporalities rather than an
operationally managed process (Haanpää et al., 2016; Lugosi, 2014). Nevertheless,
effective improvisation in value co-creation demands skills that allow firms to interpret
the present through past experiences, and thus to enhance future performance (see
Cunha et al., 1999; Haanpää et al., 2013; Haanpää et al., 2016). The owners of
Treehotel seem to have the skills to read their place (past and present) and identify
possibilities for developing new ideas and service concepts in close collaboration with
their stakeholders (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). Indeed, they have the skills to look for
stakeholders who can join them as partners in a project driven by commonly shared
values and meanings (Peñaloza & Mish, 2011).
Implications and suggestions for future research
23
Although this study focuses on the data gathered from two northern Swedish
tourism companies, it is supported by ethnographic research conducted over a period of
several years. The two firm cases examined in this paper help us illustrate patterns of
co-creation that we identified in a large number of small tourism firms operating in
northern Finland and Sweden. In doing so, this study contributes to the discussion on
co-creation in tourism by unpacking the dynamics of this theoretical concept. By
drawing upon cultural marketing and organizational improvisation, we have identified
three aspects of co-creation, which have received little attention in tourism
management: stakeholders, material resources, and unexpected events.
Regarding stakeholders, this work is consistent with the notion of market co-
creation introduced by cultural marketing scholars Lisa Peñaloza and Jenny Mish
(2011). Our study challenges the view prevailing in tourism management studies that
co-creation is just a strategic tool for acquiring and generating knowledge through
customer participation. Indeed, as we show in this paper, co-creation in small tourism
firms is embedded in a dynamic web of stakeholder relations and interactions. Not only
customers, but also employees, local community members, governmental organizations,
the media, and other stakeholders are legitimate actors in the co-creation of value. Our
findings also acknowledge non-human actors as key stakeholders in co-creation. The
forest and river, as non-human actors in this study, play a role in co-creation processes
and the development of knowledge and skills. Considering nature as a stakeholder, we
contribute to paving the way for studying human and non-human relations in co-
creation in the field of marketing and tourism studies in particular (Bertella, 2014;
Lugosi, 2018; Peñaloza & Mish, 2011).
In relation to material resources, we already see a shift in the status of the
natural environment from being a material resource to becoming a stakeholder. In line
24
with Schilar and Keskitalo (2018), we found that the emotional ties of the
owners/managers of Treehotel and Icehotel played a key role in how these firms acted
on the material resources available to them. Our findings also show how meanings
attached to Treehotel and Icehotel are turned into material resources employed by the
media and tourism organizations to create meanings for brands and consumer
communities around the world. This has become possible due to the role of social
media, in particular, and also due to the deterritorialization of cultural contexts of value
co-creation (Helkkula et al., 2018).
Concerning unexpected events, the study draws attention to the improvisational
nature of co-creation in tourism. External factors in the form of challenges and
opportunities can abruptly influence the dynamics of co-creation. In the cases included
in this study, we recognize the role of the place-related events and the introduction of
new material resources in shaping the co-creation of Treehotel and Icehotel (see Schiler
& Keskitalo, 2018). An improvisation approach contributes to unveiling the role of
time, space, emotions, feelings, and learning in value co-creation (Haanpää, 2017;
Haanpää et al., 2016). Furthermore, it helps us understand and appreciate different
forms of knowledge and knowing. Indeed, the unexpected events taking place in
Treehotel and Icehotel demonstrate that the knowledge and skills of customers are
equally important as the knowledge and skills of other stakeholders (García-Rosell et
al., 2007; Peñaloza & Mish, 2011). In this sense, stakeholders other than customers are
not only legitimate but also able to contribute with relevant knowledge and skills to co-
creation processes.
Based on our findings, we argue that co-creation is an ongoing process
embedded in the everyday practices of tourism firms and influenced by stakeholder
interactions. By drawing attention to the expression ‘dig where you stand’, we want to
25
stress the contextual nature of value co-creation in tourism (see Haanpää et al., 2016;
Helkkula et al., 2018). By relying on two firm stories, we explore value co-creation
through different contexts (e.g. time, space, material, and practices). In particular, our
study shows how these two firms creatively rely upon their stakeholders, places, and
material resources available to them.
We acknowledge that our study has limitations that point to the need for further
research. One limitation is the focus on only two firms and one particular geographical
location. It is not possible to draw conclusions that similar co-creation processes may
arise in other tourism firms and regions. As we pointed out, co-creation is contextual in
nature, influenced by material resources and stakeholder relations that exist within a
given time, space, and sociocultural context. Although the stories of Treehotel and
Icehotel offered insights into how value is co-created in the small tourism firm context,
it raised questions that call for future studies.
Considering that tourism can also be viewed as a destructive force (Schiler &
Keskitalo, 2018), future research should also explore value co-destruction in a tourism
context. Following Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres’s work (2010), studies could focus on
examining cases of how value can also be co-destroyed through stakeholder interactions
and the accidental or intentional misuse of stakeholder relations and material resources.
In line with Vera and Crossan (2004), it is also important to differentiate between how
improvisation occurs and what it takes to do it well. In this study, we have illustrated
the how by focusing on two tourism companies, and future research could look at cases
where improvisation has not led to positive results. This will help us to better
understand the skills and capabilities that play a role in turning unexpected events into a
trigger for service development and innovation.
26
References
Ateljevic, I., & Doorne, S. (2000). Staying within the fence: Lifestyle entrepreneurship
in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(5), 378–392.
Atkinson, R. (2002). The life story interview. In Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A.
(Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 121–140).
London: Sage.
Barrett, F. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications
for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555.
Bertella, G. (2014). The co-creation of animal-based tourism experience. Tourism
Recreation Research, 39, 115–125.
Bredvold, R., & Skålen, P. (2016). Lifestyle entrepreneurs and their identity
construction: A study of the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 56, 96–
105.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998) Competing on the edge: Strategy as
structured chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Cabiddu, F., Lui, T.-W., & Piccoli, G. (2013). Managing value co-creation in the
tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 86–107.
Campos, A. C, Mendes, J., do Valle, P. O., & Scott, S. (2018) Co-creation of tourist
experiences: A literature review. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(4), 369-400.
Cova, B., Dalli, D., & Zwick, D. (2011). Critical perspectives on consumers’ role as
‘producers’: Broadening the debate on value co-creation in marketing processes.
Marketing Theory, 11(3), 231–241.
Crossan, M., Cunha, M. P., Vera, D., & Cunha, J. (2005). Time and organizational
improvisation. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 129–145.
Crossan, M., & Hurst, D. (2006). Strategic renewal as improvisation: Reconciling the
tension between exploration and exploitation. Ecology and Strategy: Advances
in Strategic Management, 23, 273–298.
Cunha, M. P., da Cunha J. V., & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation:
What, when, how and why. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(3),
299–341.
Cunha, M. P., Neves, P., Clegg, S. R., & Rego, A. (2015). Tales of the unexpected:
Discussing improvisational learning. Management Learning, 46(5) 1–19.
27
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2011). New spaces of tourism policy and planning. In
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (Eds.), Stories of practice: tourism policy and
planning (pp. 1–12). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Echeverri, P., & Skålén, P. (2011). Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory
based study of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 351–373.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service
exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). Strategic decision making as improvisation. In V. Papadakis
and P. Barwise (Eds.), Strategic decisions (pp. 251–257). Clevedon: Chanel
View Publications.
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative methods in business research.
London: Sage.
García-Rosell, J. C., & Haanpää, M. (2017). Developing practice and theory together:
Reflecting on a tourism development and research project in Finnish Lapland.
Loisir et Société (Society and Leisure), 40(2), 284–301.
García-Rosell, J. C., Haanpää, M., Kylänen, M., & Markuksela, V. (2007). From firms
to extended markets: A cultural approach to tourism product development.
Tourism Review, 55(4), 445–459.
García-Rosell, J. C., Kylänen, M., Pitkänen, K., Tekoniemi-Selkälä, T., & Vanhala, A.
(2015). Tourism co-creation handbook. Retrieved from
http://matkailu.luc.fi/Product-Development/Homepage
Gebhardt, G. F., Carpenter, G. S., & Sherry, J. F. Jr (2006) Creating a market
orientation: A longitudinal, multifirm, grounded analysis of cultural
transformation. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 37–55.
Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualizing value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and
back to the future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13–14), 1520–1534.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value
creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2),
133-150.
Haanpää, M. (2017). Event co-creation as choreography: Autoethnographic study on
event volunteer knowing. Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press.
28
Haanpää, M., García-Rosell, J. C., & Kyyrä, S. (2013). Ennakoiva tuotekehitys
matkailussa [Foresight approach to product development in tourism]. In Veijola,
S. (Ed.), Matkailututkimuksen lukukirja [A Guide to Tourism Studies] (pp. 102–
114). Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press.
Haanpää, M., García-Rosell, J. C., & Tuulentie, S. (2016). Co-creating places through
events: The case of a tourism community event in Finnish Lapland. In Jepson,
A., & Clarke, A. (Eds.), Managing and developing communities, festivals and
events (pp. 34–49). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London:
Routledge.
Helkkula, A, Dube, A., & Arnould, E. (2018). The contextual nature of value and value
co-creation. In Vargo, S. L., & Lush, R. F. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
service-dominant logic (pp. 118–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hjalager, A.-M., & Nordin, S. (2011). User-driven innovation in tourism—A review of
methodologies. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(4),
289–315.
Holbrook, M. B. (Ed.) (1999). Consumer value: a framework for analysis and research.
London: Routledge.
Holbrook, M.B. (2006). ROSEPEKICECIVECI versus CCV: The resource-operant,
skills-exchanging, performance-experiencing, knowledge-informed,
competence-enacting, co-producer-involved, value emerging, customer-
interactive view of marketing versus the concept of customer value: “I Can Get
It for You Wholesale”. In Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (Eds.), The service-
dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 208–23).
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). The methodology of participant observation. In Jorgensen, D.
L. (Ed.), Participant observation (pp. 12–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kamoche, K., & Cunha, M.P. (2001). Minimal structures: From jazz improvisation to
product innovation. Organization Studies, 22(5), 733–764.
Kyriakopoulos, K. (2011). Improvisation in product innovation: The contingent role of
market information sources and memory types. Organization Studies, 32(8),
1051–1078.
29
Lugosi, P. (2014). Mobilising identity and culture in experience co-creation and venue
operation. Tourism Management, 40, 165–179.
Lugosi, P. (2018). Disruptive ethnography and knowledge co-creation. In Ren, C.,
Jóhannesson, G., & van der Duim, R. (Eds.), Co-creating tourism research (pp.
55–72). London: Routledge.
Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and
learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 304–337.
Moisander, J., & Valtonen, A. (2006). Qualitative marketing research: A cultural
approach. London: Sage.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., & Frown, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83-96.
Peñaloza, L., & Mish, J. (2011). The nature and processes of market co-creation in
triple bottom line firms: Leveraging insights from consumer culture theory and
service dominant logic. Marketing Theory, 11(99), 9–34.
Peñaloza, L., & Venkatesh, A. (2006). Further evolving the new dominant logic of
marketing: From services to the social construction of markets. Marketing
Theory, 6(3), 299–316.
Plé, L., & Chumpitaz Cáceres, R. (2010). Not always co-creation: Introducing
interactional co-destruction of value in service-dominant logic. Journal of
Services Marketing, 24(6), 430–437.
Pongsakornrungsilp, S., & Schroeder, J. E. (2011). Understanding value co-creation in a
co-consuming brand community. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 303–324.
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard
Business Review, 78, 79–90.
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in
value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Prebensen, N. K., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (Eds.) (2014). Creating Experience value in
tourism. Oxfordshire: CABI.
Rantala, O. (2011). An ethnographic approach to nature-based tourism. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 11(2), 150–165.
Rantala, O., & Mäkinen, M. (2018). Engaging with wind shelters. In Ren, C.,
Jóhannesson, G., & van der Duim, R. (Eds.), Co-creating tourism research (pp.
131–146). London: Routledge.
30
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., & Gouthro, M. B. (2013). Social layers of customer-
to-customer value co-creation. Journal of Service Management, 24(5), 553–566.
Roeffen, D., & Scholl-Grissemann, U. (2016) The importance of customer co-creation
of value for the tourism and hospitality industry. In Egger R., Gula I., &
Walcher D. (Eds.), Open tourism. Tourism on the verge (pp. 35–46). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M. Jr, & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices
create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.
Schilar, H., & Keskitalo, C. H. (2018). Tourism activity as an expression of place
attachment-place perception among tourism actors in the Jukkasjärvi area of
northern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 18(S1), 42–
59.
Storbacka, K., Frow, P., Nenonen, S., & Payne, A. (2012). Designing business models
for value co-creation. In Vargo, S. L., & Lusch R. F. (Eds.), Special issue–
Toward a better understanding of the role of value in markets and marketing
(pp. 51–78). (Review of Marketing Research, 9). Emerald Group Publishing.
Valtonen, A. (2009). Small tourism firms as agents of critical knowledge. Tourist
Studies, 9(2), 127–143.
Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Theatrical improvisation: Lessons for organizations.
Organization Studies, 25(5), 727–749.
Yachin, J. M. (2019). The entrepreneur-opportunity nexus: Discovering the forces that
promote product innovations in rural micro-tourism firms. Scandinavian Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism, 19(1), 47–65.
