Consultative Questioning
The practice of consultative questioning drives effective value co-creation between sales teams and clients. Sales professionals can uncover hidden needs, future goals, and pain points through discovery conversations that have targeted questions aimed at understanding the client’s organizational priorities, capability gaps, and decision-making considerations. Questions such as “How could this solution improve inter-departmental communication?” or “What obstacles are slowing down the launch of new products?” lead to a more insightful discussion as they encourage clients to articulate their challenges and assumptions (Haas, 2012).
The traditional criteria for vendor selection focus on the immediate requirements rather than the long-term objectives. Consultative questioning helps sales professionals prompt their clients to think beyond the current constraints and to consider the aspirational outcomes. The sales teams can use facilitative questioning to show how innovation can address specific pain points and business challenges and avoid overwhelming clients with technical details. Questions are used to contextualize the technology’s tangible benefits for the clients (Ranjan et al., 2016). The system facilitates breaking down complex concepts into practical solutions that resound with the client’s objectives and needs.
The success of questioning requires more than just asking predefined questions; it requires the professional to actively listen, demonstrate emotional intelligence, and adapt the conversation to the client’s responses. To ensure that technical concepts are more accessible to clients without specialized knowledge, the sales professionals incorporate visual aids, ROI calculators, and real-world examples in the conversations. Sales professionals can facilitate meaningful discussions that drive value co-creation by merging curiosity and the ability to translate technical jargon into business value (). Value co-creation leads to collaborative solution visioning by synthesizing the insights from consultative questioning into a cohesive vision that aligns with the client’s objectives and the capabilities of the proposed solutions. Sales teams and clients can use iterative dialogue and feedback loops to refine and iterate the vision to ensure it remains relevant and impactful. The collaborative approach fosters a sense of partnership and ownership, laying the foundation for successful implementation and ongoing value realization (Semmann & Grotherr, 2017). Therefore, Consultative questioning helps the sales team enhance their ability to co-create value with clients by recognizing consultative questioning, positioning sophisticated technologies, and collaborative solution visioning that can be leveraged to drive mutual success and foster long-term partnerships.
Governance Mechanisms
Integrating sales representatives directly within client delivery teams by Governance mechanisms can reshape incentive alignments, enhancing value co-creation. Business units experiencing capability gaps and digitalization pressures benefit from placing account managers who can offer valuable insights into emerging needs and challenges (Tzempelikos & Gounaris, 2015). The proximity of the accountants allows them to understand the organizational contexts better, facilitating the development of practical solutions that go beyond formal requirements for procurement. Sales representatives also build trust and rapport by working closely with client teams daily, encouraging stakeholders to discuss their concerns and uncover potential adoption barriers openly. The embedded structure facilitates early intervention to address conflicts and dissatisfaction before they escalate, enabling continuous improvement in mitigating the risk of account attrition.
Governance mechanisms also promote greater client participation by formalizing ongoing working relationships beyond the initial sales stage. For example, quarterly account planning reviews where satisfaction metrics and capability absorption rates are jointly assessed create a platform for recognizing and assessing the continuous needs beyond the scope of fixed-term contracts (Storbacka, 2009). The reviews provide opportunities to align partnership principles, collaboratively draft long-term modernization plans, and change management plans to suit the client’s workplace culture and unique needs. Therefore, solutions are co-created in a manner deeply rooted in the client’s context, resulting in meaningful and authentic value propositions. The governance processes that promote sustained transparency and collaboration provide the necessary structures for building relationships and facilitating knowledge exchange that are fundamental to effective value co-creation
Outcome-Based Pricing Models
A significant evolution in value co-creation is the paradigm shift towards subscription pricing and “as-a-service” models that enhance flexibility and alignment with client outcomes. Outcome-based pricing models create a more conducive environment for experimentation and risk-taking by moving away from traditional upfront fees towards payment structures based on utilizing and achieving business impact. (Eggert et al., 2020). This shift lowers barriers to adopting value co-creation as it encourages active engagement of clients in the exploration of digital solutions that can enhance business capabilities without the constraints of long procurement processes or high initial investments.
Subscription-based models eliminate the need for large capital expenditures and complex approval processes by allowing organizations to spread costs across operational budgets. Therefore, decentralized business units are empowered to explore and implement digital solutions more aggressively without lengthy procurement delays (Eggert et al., 2020). The pay-as-you-go nature of subscription pricing promotes experimenting as it reduces the perceived risks of adopting new technologies. Subscription models also incentivize transparent communication between vendors and clients, especially during implementation. The knowledge that vendors have a vested interest in assuring the smooth functioning of the platform to guarantee renewals inclines clients to be more open to discussing the challenges they encounter (Corsaro & Snehota, 2010). Outcome-based pricing promotes a continuous partnership focused on achieving mutually beneficial outcomes, unlike traditional models where responsibility often ends after the deal is closed.
The outcome-based pricing model needs transparency for accurate billing, continuous business capability absorption, and milestone achievement monitoring. Vendors proactively seek users’ feedback and iterate their offerings rather than simply focusing on closing sales due to its learning-oriented approach (Corsaro & Snehota, 2010). It encourages shared troubleshooting and two-way communication as vendors and clients collaboratively address challenges to optimize performance. Flexible usage-based pricing aligns vendors’ sustainability with their client’s success. The tying of payments to achieved outcomes incentivizes vendors to deliver solutions that genuinely add value and drive results for clients, creating a foundation for long-term collaboration and value co-creation. (Conrad, 2015). Organizations that embrace these models can unlock new possibilities for innovation and collaboration, which drive mutual success and sustainable growth.
Three Key Barriers Constraining Value Co-Creation
Incongruent Logics of Customization and Standardization
The tension that arises from the desire for tailored customized solutions to the individual needs of clients and the need for a standardized platform that drives efficiency and scalability is a barrier to effective value co-creation. The success of value co-creation hinges on personalized solutions that address specific client ambitions, constraints, and cultures. However, to maximize profitability, sales teams commonly prioritize promoting standardized offerings that can be easily replicated and utilized on a large scale (Kuula et al., 2018). Customizing systems, workflows, and configurations for each client are economically impractical as it introduces complexities such as variation accumulation and increased maintenance. A conflict arises when training the sales teams to facilitate open-ended design thinking workshops for exploring novel needs with the pressure to close predictable deals within tight quarterly cycles. (Haas, 2012). Significant investments have been made to mitigate these tensions through vertical solutions that codify industry-specific capabilities with horizontal foundations that allow for the transfer of core IP across the contexts (Storbacka, 2011). Off-the-shelf solutions, however, often fall short of meeting complicated modernized objectives and necessitate additional modifications by open dialogue negotiations. Chief architects with specialized expertise and crosscutting visibility can systematically reuse customization modules, mappings, and configurations to balance responsiveness and modularity (Sheng et al., 2022). Without fundamental changes to sales operations, constraints remain despite the scaling customization, creating a challenge as the prevailing focus is on short-term profits over long-term relationships.
The presence of organizational silos and fragmented communication channels creates additional incongruence. Different departments operate in isolation in many organizations, causing disjointment in efforts and unalignment in understanding and addressing client needs. Effective co-creation of value is hampered by limited visibility by the sales team into the capabilities and constraints of the delivery or product development teams (Gronroos, 2012). Communication breakdowns between the teams can hinder the delivery of cohesive and tailored solutions to clients, leading to misalignment in messaging and positioning. There is a need to break down organizational silos and foster cross-functional collaboration by establishing clear communication channels that promote transparency and knowledge sharing that encourage stakeholder’s alignment towards common goals. This can be done by implementing collaborative tools and processes, conducting regular cross-departmental meetings or workshops, and incentivizing teamwork and knowledge exchange (Gronroos, 2012).
Resistance to change and risk aversion within organizations affects value co-creation efforts.
Clients’ concerns about potential disruptions to their operations, security risks, or uncertainty about the expected outcomes result in their hesitancy to adopt new technologies or methodologies. Internal stakeholders, either due to fear of the unknown or preference for the status quo, may also resist the changes to the existing processes or business models (Malshe & Friend, 2018). Proactive change management strategies and effective communication are needed to overcome resistance to change.
The strategies include the articulation of the proposed benefits changes and addressing any concerns or objections raised by clients or internal stakeholders by the sales team to offer evidence of successful implementations, security, and reliability, and the potential return on investment (ROI) of the proposed solutions (Zaborek & Mazur, 2019). Developing an organizational culture of innovation and continuous improvement within organizations also helps build resilience and openness to change to enable more effective value co-creation efforts in the long run. Addressing these challenges head-on allows organizations to fully unlock the value of co-creation to drive mutual success and sustainable growth.
Discordant Languages between Technology and Business Domains
There is a need to bridge the communication gap between solution architects deeply immersed in technical domains and clients focusing on business outcomes to achieve fluid co-creation (Jalkala, 2010). It is uncommon to achieve fluency across multiple disciplines due to the language struggles of clients and architects. Clients are often overwhelmed with technical jargon and engineering specifications irrelevant to their conceptual capability. At the same time, solution architects struggle to translate technical platforms into terms that resonate with the client’s understanding of workflows and processes. This disparity poses a significant barrier to effective co-creation. Clients may lack the vocabulary to express their operational systems accurately to technologists or envision how emerging technologies, such as blockchain or 3D printing, can be applied to their specific settings (Jalkala, 2010). It can cause clients to resort to high-level objectives that fail to provide actionable guidance for engineering requirements. Probable solutions to bridge the communication gap include design thinking techniques like visual immersion, scenario planning, and collective brainstorming (Corsaro, 2019). These techniques can help both parties explore possibilities and generate innovative solutions by facilitating creative connections across the expertise domains. However, while effective for early-stage design exploration, other strategies like scaling bespoke sensemaking workshops for large-scale implementation are time-intensive and may be impractical for every project.
Sales teams are critical in overcoming these challenges by translating technical materials into language that resonates with business partners (Storbacka, 2011). They can bridge the barrier and promote mutual exploration and decision-making skills by proactively converting documentation, such as capability requirement planning documents and platform architecture diagrams, to dynamic presentations using analogical explanatory schemas and metaphors to drive innovation and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.
Power Dynamics and Incentive Misalignments Obscuring Client Realities
The persistent information and power imbalances that systematically disadvantage clients are often overlooked by the rhetoric surrounding value co-creation (Whalen & Akaka, 2016). Limited benchmarks for comparisons cause a struggle for clients to impartially evaluate options against their actual needs as they are faced with increasingly technical and opaque solutions. A thorough evaluation is hampered as clients neglect to investigate real-life performance and cultural fit due to overreliance on sales presentations that tend to oversimplify features and tradeoffs (Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakola, 2012). The incentives on vendors that drive them to close sales often lead them to rationalize complex decisions into simplified choice sets and display evidence that supports their ideas. The dynamic poses a verification challenge to buyers on claims or to independently assess feasibility. It leads to reliance on vendor-provided information, leading clients to adopt systems not aligned with their actual needs or readiness for implementation (Tuli, 2007). A gap in objective audits, prototype reviews, and pilot studies further exacerbates this lack of transparency in the selection process.
Clients may underestimate the need for thorough research. At the same time, vendors are disincentivized from supporting prolonged selection processes, leading clients to passively adopt systems that feel externally imposed rather than co-created, causing dissatisfaction and post-adoption complaints (Whalen & Akaka, 2016). Objective audits, prototype reviews, and pilot studies are needed to enhance transparency and empower clients to make more informed decisions. The measure enables clients to verify claims and effectively assess feasibility, providing them with independent assessments and opportunities for hands-on testing (Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakola, 2012). The initiatives are overlooked as clients underestimate the need for research, and vendors prioritize short-term sales over long-term relationships. Organizations can ensure that value co-creation efforts are collaborative and mutually beneficial at their core by issuing clients the tools and resources they need to make informed decisions.
In conclusion, this section has explored vital factors and barriers related to value co-creation and value-based selling in service environments. The next step involves conducting a conjoint analysis further to investigate preferences and tradeoffs between some of these factors. A key priority will be on the factors of the role of consultative questioning and governance mechanisms while the barriers posed by incongruent logics of customization and standardization and the power dynamics and incentive misalignments obscuring client realities Through a quantitative analysis of how customers evaluate different configurations of these elements I hope to uncover optimal approaches to value co-creation that resonate with clients and drive mutual success.
References
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2012). Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process. Industrial marketing management, 41(1), 15-26.
Conrad, D. A. (2015). The theory of value‐based payment incentives and their application to health care. Health Services Research, 50, 2057-2089.
Corsaro, D. (2019). Capturing the broader picture of value co-creation management. European Management Journal, 37(1), 99-116.
Corsaro, D., & Snehota, I. (2010). Searching for relationship value in business markets: are we missing something? Industrial Marketing Management, 39(6), 986-995.
Eggert, A., Frow, P., Payne, A., & Steinhoff, L. (2020). Understanding and managing customer value propositions: Introduction to the special issue. Industrial Marketing Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.007
Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13-14), 1520–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2012.737357
Haas, A., Snehota, I., & Corsaro, D. (2012). Creating value in business relationships: The role of sales. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 94-105.
Kuula, S., Haapasalo, H., & Tolonen, A. (2018). Cost-efficient co-creation of knowledge intensive business services. Service Business, 12, 779-808.
Malshe, A., & Friend, S. B. (2018). Initiating value co-creation: Dealing with non-receptive customers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46, 895-920.
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 44, 290-315.
Semmann, M., & Grotherr, C. (2017). How to empower users for co-creation-conceptualizing an engagement platform for benefits realization.
Sheng, M. L., Natalia, N., & Hsieh, C. Y. (2022). Reconceptualizing value creation: Exploring the role of goal congruence in the Co-creation process. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, 102947.
Storbacka, K., Ryals, L., Davies, I. A., & Nenonen, S. (2009). The changing role of sales: viewing sales as a strategic, cross‐functional process. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 890-906.
Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From product bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1-17.
Tzempelikos, N., & Gounaris, S. (2015). Linking key account management practices to performance outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 22-34.
Whalen, P. S., & Akaka, M. A. (2016). A dynamic market conceptualization for entrepreneurial marketing: the co-creation of opportunities. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(1), 61-75.
Zaborek, P., & Mazur, J. (2019). Enabling value co-creation with consumers as a driver of business performance: A dual perspective of Polish manufacturing and service SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 104, 541-551.
write