The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2444-9709.htm

Spanish Journal of
Value cocreation and codestruction in Marketing - ESIC
artificial intelligence-enabled service
interactions: literature review and
research agenda
Elainy Cristina da Silva Coelho Received 8 September 2023
Accepted 26 September 2024
University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil and Instituto Federal do Tocantins,
Porto Nacional, Brazil, and
Josivania Silva Farias
University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in frontline service encounters is a growing
phenomenon in service marketing, which can lead to positive and negative results. In this context, this
paper aims to review the literature on value cocreation and codestruction in AI-enabled service
interactions.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review was carried out using the PRISMA
protocol. Data were retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, from which 48 articles were
selected for review. Data analysis, presentation of results and the research agenda followed the theory, context,
characteristics and methodology (TCCM) framework.
Findings – The review especially revealed that: publications on AI-enabled value cocreation and
codestruction are in the early stages of development; few articles have addressed value codestruction, and the
main research emphasis is on value cocreation; interactions between human actors and AI-enabled
autonomous nonhuman actors are resulting in value cocreation or value codestruction, or both, and these
phenomena are also likely to occur when AI replaces more than one human actor in the service encounter; and
AI is considered an increasingly independent nonhuman actor that integrates resources and interacts with other
actors, yet prudence is necessary for its adoption.
Originality/value – This review fills a gap by jointly exploring the value cocreation and codestruction in the
context of AI, presents an overview of the issues discussed and provides a research agenda with directions for
future studies.
Keywords Artificial intelligence, Systematic review, Value formation, Chatbot, Service Robot,
Human-AI interaction
Paper type Literature review

© Elainy Cristina da Silva Coelho and Josivania Silva Farias. Published in Spanish Journal of
Marketing - ESIC. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and Spanish Journal of Marketing -
ESIC
create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to Emerald Publishing Limited
full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at e-ISSN: 2444-9709
p-ISSN: 2444-9709
http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode DOI 10.1108/SJME-09-2023-0248
SJME Cocreación y codestrucción de valor en interacciones de servicio facilitadas por inteligencia artificial:
Revisión de la literatura y agenda de investigación
Resumen
Objetivo – La adopción de la inteligencia artificial (IA) en los encuentros de servicio en primera línea es un
fenómeno creciente en el marketing de servicios, que puede llevar a resultados positivos y negativos. En este
contexto, el objetivo de este artículo es revisar la literatura sobre la cocreación y codestrucción de valor en las
interacciones de servicio habilitadas por IA.
Diseño/metodología/enfoque – Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura utilizando el protocolo
PRISMA. Los datos se obtuvieron de las bases de datos Web of Science y Scopus, de las cuales se
seleccionaron 48 artículos para su revisión. El análisis de los datos, la presentación de resultados y la agenda de
investigación siguieron el marco de teoría, contexto, características y metodología (TCCM).
Resultados – La revisión reveló especialmente que: (1) las publicaciones sobre la cocreación y codestrucción
de valor habilitadas por IA están en las primeras etapas de desarrollo; (2) pocos artículos han abordado la
codestrucción de valor, y el principal énfasis de la investigación está en la cocreación de valor; (3) las
interacciones entre actores humanos y actores no humanos autónomos habilitados por IA están resultando en
cocreación o codestrucción de valor, o ambas, y es probable que estos fenómenos también ocurran cuando la
IA reemplaza a más de un actor humano en el encuentro de servicio; (4) la IA es considerada un actor no
humano cada vez más independiente que integra recursos e interactúa con otros actores, pero se requiere
prudencia en su adopción.
Originalidad/valor – Esta revisión llena un vacío al explorar conjuntamente la cocreación y codestrucción
de valor en el contexto de la IA, presenta una visión general de los temas discutidos y proporciona una agenda
de investigación con direcciones para estudios futuros.
Palabras clave Inteligencia artificial, Chatbot, Interacción humano-IA, Robot de servicio,
Revisión sistemática, Formación de valor
Tipo de papel Revisión de literatura

人工智能驱动的服务互动中的价值共创与共损：文献综述与研究议程
摘要
目的 – 人工智能（AI）在前线服务接触中的应用已成为服务营销中的一个日益增长的现象, 这可能
带来正面和负面的结果。在这一背景下, 本文旨在回顾关于人工智能驱动的服务互动中价值共创与
共损的文献。
设计/方法论/方法 – 采用PRISMA协议进行了系统文献综述。数据从Web of Science和Scopus数据库
中提取, 共选择48篇文章进行审阅。数据分析、结果呈现及研究议程遵循理论、背景、特征与方法
论（TCCM）框架。
发现 – 综述特别揭示了以下几点：(1) 关于AI驱动的价值共创与共毁的出版物尚处于发展初期; (2) 针
对价值共损的文章较少, 主要研究重点集中在价值共创上; (3) 人类参与者与AI驱动的自主非人类参与
者之间的互动, 可能导致价值共创或价值共损, 甚至同时发生, 特别是在AI替代多个服务接触中的人类
参与者时; (4) AI被视为越来越独立的非人类参与者, 它整合资源并与其他参与者互动, 但在采用过程
中需谨慎。
原创性/价值 – 本综述填补了在AI背景下共同探讨价值共创与共损的空白, 概述了相关问题, 并提供
了未来研究方向的议程。
关键词 人工智能, 聊天机器人, 人机互动, 服务机器人, 系统综述, 价值形成
文章类型 文献评论

1. Introduction
The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) is considerably altering service encounters as it takes on
a central role in the interaction between providers and customers (Larivière et al., 2017). The
modifications are due to the adaptation of AI for performing various tasks and the development of
different intelligences (Huang and Rust, 2021), minimizing the human presence in service
interactions (Bolton, 2020; Wirtz et al., 2018). AI-enabled technologies, such as virtual agents and
service robots, promote a human−AI interaction format that is progressively changing business Spanish Journal of
(Huang and Rust, 2021). In the face of technological transition and transformation, researchers Marketing - ESIC
have highlighted research gaps related to the need for a broader understanding of service
interactions, mainly considering changes in the customer−provider relationship and customer
experience (Bolton, 2020; Ostrom et al., 2021; Rosenbaum and Russell-Bennett, 2021).
With the adoption of AI in service encounters, it is pertinent to revisit the value cocreation
approach to understand how it will be affected, considering that service interactions are its focus
of analysis. In cocreation, value is seen as increasing the well-being of actors and is (co-)created
in the exchange of services through interaction between actors and the integration of
differentiated resources (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). AI can change users’ perceptions of value,
given less human participation in service encounters (Ameen et al., 2021). It should be noted
that there are advantages and disadvantages to adopting digital and technological services, and
undesirable consequences may occur (Rosenbaum and Russell-Bennett, 2021). In this sense, on
the one hand, the personalization of the offer and the greater possibility of access to services are
factors that can be considered favorable and, on the other hand, privacy and trust are concerns of
customers in these service encounters with AI (Ostrom et al., 2019).
Given this, service interactions enabled by AI can be positive but also problematic. In this
way, just as value is cooperatively created – co-created – (Vargo and Lusch, 2016), it can also
be collaboratively destroyed – co-destroyed (Echeverri and Skålén, 2021; Plé and Cáceres,
2010) in these interactions. Value codestruction is “a process of interaction between service
systems that results in a decline in the well-being of at least one of the systems” and occurs
due to the misuse of resources (Plé and Cáceres, 2010, p. 431). Studies on value cocreation in
marketing have developed considerably in recent years; however, research on codestruction
is incipient (Echeverri and Skålén, 2021; Järvi et al., 2018; Laud et al., 2019).
Some literature reviews have explored value cocreation in the hotel and tourism segment
(Carvalho and Alves, 2023), interactive value formation from the perspective of value
codestruction (Codá and Farias, 2022), cocreation and codestruction supported by
information technologies (Li and Tuunanen, 2022) and AI and robots in value cocreation
(Kaartemo and Helkkula, 2018). However, no known systematic reviews have jointly
investigated the value cocreation and value codestruction in AI-enabled service interactions.
Considering the above, this systematic literature review sought to answer the following
question: How has the literature discussed the concepts of value cocreation and value
codestruction in AI-enabled service interactions considering theory, context, characteristics
and methodologies? To understand the question, this work aims to review the literature on
value cocreation and value codestruction in AI-enabled service interactions, considering
theory, context, characteristics and methodologies.
Organizations that invest in technologies and knowledge usually increase their
competitive advantage (Bilgihan and Wang, 2016). Thus, research on AI technologies is
essential to assist organizations in decision-making in a context of accelerated change. In
addition, the study contributes to expanding the literature that investigates value formation in
management and marketing and to the growing general interest in the themes of AI, robotics
and automation. The review fills a gap in the literature because, as far as we know, this is the
first systematic literature review that jointly explores the concepts of cocreation and
codestruction from an interaction perspective with AI. We provide an overview of the
reviewed literature, theoretical and practical implications and an agenda for future research.
Next, in part 2, the theoretical framework on value cocreation and codestruction is
discussed, and a brief explanation of AI as a service facilitator is provided. In section 3, the
method and protocol used in the development of the review are described. Subsequently, the
systematic review results are presented in part 4, followed by discussions and implications in
SJME section 5. A research agenda is proposed in part 6, and finally, the paper concludes with the
conclusion and limitations in section 7.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Value cocreation and codestruction
Theoretical perspectives for a service-centered logic, as opposed to a goods-centered
dominant logic, have resulted in consumers’ active participation in interactive value creation
with companies (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo and Lusch, 2004). In this direction,
Vargo and Lusch (2004) proposed the service-dominant (S-D) logic, in which service is the
basis of exchange, and value cocreation occupies a central space. Value cocreation occurs
when actors interact and integrate their resources, aiming for the mutual well-being of those
involved (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Value can be defined by a value-in-use approach
(Grönroos and Voima, 2013) and by value in context (Chandler and Vargo, 2011). It is
emphasized that value has an experiential nature, that is, “value is always uniquely and
phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary” (Vargo and Lusch, 2016, p. 6).
Resources are essential to the value cocreation process and are classified into operant, such as
knowledge and skills, and operand, such as goods and physical resources. In short, operant
resources act on operand resources to create benefits (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Technology is
an operand resource and also an operant resource, as it influences institutions, human action
and the way value is determined value (Akaka and Vargo, 2014).
Despite the theoretical and practical contributions, the S-D logic is controversial (Wang
et al., 2019) due to the focus only on the positive side of value formation, not considering
aspects of decrease or loss of value in the interactional process or the outcome of the
interaction (Echeverri and Skålén, 2011; Plé and Cáceres, 2010). For this reason, Plé and
Cáceres (2010) proposed the concept of value codestruction, as they argue that value can also
have a negative side, reducing the well-being of at least one of the actors. Additionally, value
codestruction can be explained by the difficulty of an actor following a script expected by
other actors (Järvi et al., 2020), which can occur due to the intentional or unintentional
misuse of resources (Plé and Cáceres, 2010). Given the gap in understanding, Echeverri and
Skålén (2011) presented the interactive value formation (IVF) framework as a theoretical
support that jointly encompasses value cocreation and codestruction, assuming that there are
congruent or incongruent elements in the relationship between actors.
Research on value codestruction has focused, on resources and service ecosystems on the
one hand and practices on the other (Echeverri and Skålén, 2021). Furthermore, in general, there
is no unifying understanding of the concept, so some researchers consider value codestruction
as a negative process specific to cocreation and others as a decrease in value in a space of value
variation that has a direct relationship with the cocreation (Cabiddu et al., 2019; Echeverri and
Skålén, 2021). Nonetheless, despite the conceptual distinction and interrelationship, there is a
consensus on the occurrence of value codestruction (Lumivalo et al., 2023). Varied reasons are
given for value codestruction, such as the absence of information, insufficient trust, mistakes,
lack of clear expectations (Järvi et al., 2018) and poor understanding of how to integrate
resources (Laud et al., 2019).

2.2 Artificial intelligence as an enabler of service interactions

AI is a technology that imitates human intelligence to perform tasks in functions traditionally
performed by humans, such as those related to understanding, language and learning (Huang and
Rust, 2018), enabling interaction through natural language (Robinson et al., 2020). Associated
with other technologies such as deep learning and big data, AI goes beyond the limits of some
human capabilities, analyzing, for example, large volumes of data (Bock et al., 2020). However,
it generally lacks human characteristics of an emotional and social nature (Wirtz et al., 2018). It is Spanish Journal of
worth highlighting that AI intelligence levels develop in the direction of mechanics, thinking and Marketing - ESIC
feeling (Huang and Rust, 2021).
In service encounters, AI can act through sensing, learning, decision-making and actions
(Bock et al., 2020) in a physical or digital environment permeated by interrelated
technologies (Larivière et al., 2017). As an executor, AI enables customer interactions to
deliver services (Ostrom et al., 2019). Examples of technologies that assume this type of
function are physical assistant robots (Bock et al., 2020), chatbots (conversational agents)
and voice-controlled digital assistants (Larivière et al., 2017). Some AI-enabled technologies
are called service robots due to their learning, autonomy, adaptation, interaction and service-
offering characteristics, which may or may not have a human appearance (Wirtz et al., 2018).
Notably, AI can replace employees, customers or both (Robinson et al., 2020).

3. Method
The systematic literature review method was adopted to carry out this work, which consists of
the methodical selection of studies published on a given subject for understanding and synthetic
explanation of the literature. Thus, it is possible to identify broader evidence and conclusions
that guide and justify future research (Siddaway et al., 2019). The Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used, which assists in
detailing the criteria used in systematic reviews, following four steps to collect the review files:
identification, selection, eligibility and inclusion (Moher et al., 2009). Furthermore, according to
the instructions of Koseoglu and Arici (2023), content limits are explained below, considering
the keywords used in the search for articles (identification of limits), selection of databases
(search for limits) and reading titles, abstracts and full text (confirmation of limits).
In the identification phase of works for the composition of the collection, based on the
problem and the research objective, the following search descriptors were used: ((“value co-
creat*” OR “co-creat* value” OR “value co-destruct*” OR “co-destruct value” OR
“Resource* integration” OR “resource* disintegration” OR “interactive value formation”
OR “value formation” OR “co-creat*”) AND (“artificial intelligence” OR AI OR chatbot*
OR robot* OR “virtual agent *” OR “virtual assistant*” OR “voice assistant*”)). The
documents were retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, as they have many
relevant publications and are, therefore, frequently used by researchers in the area of
management and business (Koseoglu and Arici, 2023; Mariani et al., 2018). A search was
carried out by topics, in which the defined terms could be identified in the titles, abstracts or
keywords. Search engines, quotation marks and Boolean operators (OR and AND) were used
to define the search filter criteria. Furthermore, “article” published in journals was defined as
the type of work and “English” as the language. The searches were conducted in June 2023,
and an initial date for including articles was not defined.
Aiming for reliability (Koseoglu et al., 2022), duplicate documents were extracted and
verified automatically using the R software Bibliometrix package and manually in Excel
spreadsheets. Thus, by eliminating duplicates, 335 articles were retrieved. Only articles
belonging to journals classified in the Q1 and Q2 quartiles of the Journal Impact Factor Rank
(JCR) or the SJR Scimago Rank were selected to ensure quality; therefore, 290 articles met
this criterion. In the other phases, the focus of discussion for value cocreation and
codestruction enabled by AI was considered an inclusion criterion. In sorting the articles by
reading the titles and abstracts, 186 papers were eliminated. The full texts were read in the
eligibility phase, and considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 48 empirical and
theoretical articles were included in the sample for the review. The following (Figure 1) is an
information flow diagram of the PRISMA protocol with the respective phases.
SJME

Identification
Records identified in Web of Science and Duplicate records
Scopus (n = 169)
(c = 504)

Records identified without duplicates Excluded articles (n = 186)

(n = 335)
Screening

Main reasons for exclusion:

Meeting Journal Impact Factor or SJR 1. Lack of alignment with the objective/scope of
Scimago Rank quality criteria - Q1 and Q2 the work
(n = 290) 2. Software development and tools

Selection of articles by title and abstract

Full-text articles excluded (n = 56)
Full-text articles evaluated for eligibility
(n = 104) (main reasons):
Eligibility

1. Technological/design proposal
2. Superficial approach to artificial
intelligence
3. Lack of approach to value co-creation or
value co-destruction.
Inclusion

Articles included for review

(n = 48)

Figure 1. Information flow of the phases of the systematic literature review

Data analysis followed a categorization of content based on the theory, context,

characteristics and methodology (TCCM) framework by Paul and Rosado-Serrano
(2019). At this stage, Excel software spreadsheets were used to categorize the data.
Furthermore, the TCCM framework guided the presentation of results and the proposed
research agenda.

4. Results
This section presents the results found in the reviewed literature following the TCCM
framework (Paul and Rosado-Serrano, 2019).

4.1 Theoretical foundations

The reviewed literature did not present a uniform theoretical basis. However, S-D logic stood
out as the most used approach in the theoretical foundation of the articles analyzed since
value cocreation is an axiom of the respective theoretical lens that has occupied a relevant
space in services marketing. There was also the use of literature on the theoretical
construction of value cocreation from the service logic perspective (such as Grönroos and
Voima, 2013). In a more limited way, the basis of the concept of codestruction was observed
with the citation of the seminal articles by Plé and Cáceres (2010) and Echeverri and Skålén
(2011). Considering the focus of the research, conceptual bases on AI and emerging
intelligent technologies also supported the construction of the articles, as well as bases on Spanish Journal of
robotics and automation. In a more fragmented way, other lenses, perspectives and concepts Marketing - ESIC
were also identified, such as technology adoption, customer experience, service interaction,
human−computer interaction, diffusion of innovation, trust, human-machine cocreation and
service innovation, among others.
With AI, the discussion of technology beyond operand resources, that is, as an operant
resource, becomes evident around S-D logic. It was found that AI is simultaneously an
operand resource as it is interfered with by knowledge, experience and skills to improve its
performance, and it is also an operant resource, as AI learns and acts through algorithms to
improve the performance of humans (Paschen et al., 2021). Thus, it is an operant resource as
technology assists and expands decision-making capacity in complex contexts (Barile et al.,
2021; Kondapaka et al., 2023). For Mele et al. (2021), AI can affect the agency power of
actors and interaction practices in the service ecosystem, potentially expanding access to
resources and improving engagement. Notably, AI acts as an operant resource when
following interpretative schemes designed by humans, since only humans have the
interpretative capacity related to decision-making that transcends data manipulation and
adheres to human values and beliefs according to the context (Barile et al., 2021).
Based on the reviewed literature, co-creating value in AI-enabled interactions is a
complex process (Paschen et al., 2021) between human and autonomous nonhuman actors
(Grundner and Neuhofer, 2021; Neuhofer et al., 2021) where roles, resources, nature and
quantity of contributions differ (Paschen et al., 2021). Data is essential in this service
interaction (Breidbach and Maglio, 2020). Furthermore, understanding the value cocreation
in AI-enabled services depends on ecosystem analysis, considering the various actors
interacting (Leung and Loo, 2022; Payne et al., 2021a). In short, it is a recent and progressive
phenomenon that depends on human and nonhuman behaviors (Zhu et al., 2022), requiring
theoretical deepening (Wen et al., 2022).
Value codestruction processes can occur in interactions with AI, causing a reduction in
the well-being of at least one actor (Castillo et al., 2021). As described by Čaić et al. (2018),
AI has, at the same time, the potential for value cocreation and codestruction, causing trade-
offs in the value formation since, in the case of socially assistive robots in elderly care, the
beneficiary may recognize it as an invader of their privacy and, on the other hand, a family
member may consider it a facilitator. This duality in value formation is portrayed by
Neuhofer et al. (2021) as “ambivalent value cocreation,” as AI technologies can fail, causing
annoyance, fear and increasing waiting times and, on the other hand, AI has, among other
potentialities, the ability to make highly personalized offers.

4.2 Context
Regarding the publication period (Table 1), it was found that 2018 was the first year in which
publications with the search focus used were presented. The years 2021, 2022 and 2023 had
the highest number of published works, showing that the theme is recent, under development
and there is a growing research interest.
Based on indications of the location where the data were extracted, it was found that most
of the empirical articles, approximately 40%, were developed with data collected in China.
Less significantly, studies were identified in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the USA,
France, India, Italy and Malta. In some studies, data were collected in several countries; in
others, the data collection location was not reported. In addition, we found that the articles
were mainly made in the banking, hospitality and tourism and health sectors. Only one
investigation focused on the public sector.
SJME Table 1. Publications by year

Publication year Paper

2018 Bolton et al. (2018); Čaić et al. (2018); Castellano et al. (2018)
2019 Buhalis et al. (2019); Čaić et al. (2019); Gao and Huang (2019)
2020 Breidbach and Maglio (2020), Zhang (2020)
2021 Barile et al. (2021); Castillo et al. (2021); Gao and Huang (2021);
Grundner and Neuhofer (2021); Hsu et al. (2021); Lalicic and
Weismayer (2021); Leone et al. (2021); Li et al. (2021); Lin and
Mattila (2021); Mele et al. (2021); Neuhofer et al. (2021); Paschen
et al. (2021); Payne et al. (2021a); Payne et al. (2021a)
2022 Anayat and Rasool (2022); Buhalis and Moldavska (2022); Chuah
et al. (2022); Dodds et al. (2022); Flavian et al. (2022); Leung and
Loo (2022); Mabillard et al. (2022); Mele et al. (2022); Scutella
et al. (2022); Solakis et al. (2022); Vieira et al. (2022); Wen et al.
(2022); Xie et al. (2022a); Xie et al. (2022b); Zhang et al. (2022);
Zhu et al. (2022)
2023 Gao et al. (2023); Hottat et al. (2023); Jain et al. (2023); Jia et al.
(2023); Kondapaka et al. (2023); Liu et al. (2023); Megaro et al.
(2023); Nannelli et al. (2023); Saviano et al. (2023); Yang (2023)

Notes: Articles searched in June 2023

4.3 Characteristics of the articles analyzed

The characteristics are divided into two categories based on the discussion focus of the
analyzed articles: an approach to value cocreation and an integrated approach − value
cocreation and codestruction. Of the 48 papers analyzed, 41 discussed value cocreation, and
seven dealt jointly with value cocreation and codestruction.
4.3.1 Approach to value cocreation. With the evolution and massive adoption of AI,
integrating the digital, physical and social domains will shape the customer experience and
value cocreation in environments that tend to gradually become of high digital density
(Bolton et al., 2018). Value cocreation with AI is a prominent theme in AI research in
marketing (Anayat and Rasool, 2022). Chatbots, service robots, machine learning and
natural language processing are some AI-based technologies influencing value cocreation
(Solakis et al., 2022). In tourism research, the experience in augmented reality and virtual
reality for the value cocreation process was identified as a growing thematic field (Nannelli
et al., 2023). In this context, psychological distance and cognitive processing influenced the
adoption of digital services (Jia et al., 2023).
AI influences the value cocreation process by expanding the capabilities of self-
understanding, control and action (Mele et al., 2021) and helping decision-making in a
complex environment (Barile et al., 2021). In this direction, humans and AI can act
harmoniously to co-create value in decision-making (Kondapaka et al., 2023). Human actors
are cited as essential for the value cocreation with AI, as the interaction depends on their
domain in the development and use of technologies; in addition, they act in the continuous
improvement of algorithms (Paschen et al., 2021).
Perceived personalization, autonomy, community identity, trust and self-efficacy
influence consumer value cocreation behaviors toward AI (Wen et al., 2022), as well as
efficiency, degree of control, content quality and information security (Zhu et al., 2022).
Also, Gao et al. (2023) found that the interactivity perceived by customers based on AI
stimuli positively affects value cocreation. Solakis et al. (2022) pointed out that customer
perceptions, attitudes, confidence, social influence, hedonic motivations, anthropomorphism Spanish Journal of
and experience can influence the value cocreation process. Moreover, AI service quality can Marketing - ESIC
promote a more pleasant cocreation experience (Yang, 2023). Furthermore, data-centric
business models impose ethical challenges and change actors’ roles in value networks
(Breidbach and Maglio, 2020).
A considerable part of the reviewed studies discussed using service robots in the hospitality
and tourism areas. In the hotel segment, the intention of co-creating value for customers was
observed by the very novelty of the robotic service (Xie et al., 2022b), as well as by the high
proactivity of tourist service robots, favored by empathy with robotics (Xie et al., 2022a).
However, the dehumanization of the process is also evidenced (Buhalis et al., 2019). The
perceived privacy, functional benefits and appearance of service robots are drivers of value
cocreation (Lin and Mattila, 2021). The robotic services available in restaurants were seen as
contributors to the value cocreation process with the customer (Jain et al., 2023), positively
affecting customer attitudes (Chuah et al., 2022). One research with a restaurant service robot
showed that the attributes role meaning, competence, social presence, cordiality, autonomy and
adaptability promoted value facilitation effects in the process of cocreation (Zhang et al., 2022).
In addition, customers can have improved experiences by integrating intelligent technologies
into the gastronomic service network (Leung and Loo, 2022).
In the health area, trust is a central element for value cocreation, in which AI innovations
can favor well-being from a transparent approach (Megaro et al., 2023). Furthermore, the
human−technology interactions provided by cognitive assistants intensify the value
cocreation through the possibility of sharing and integrating resources from various network
actors (Mele et al., 2022). According to Mabillard et al. (2022), AI has a strong potential to
support diagnosis and treatment in the health area, and it should be used to strengthen the
cocreation relationship between the doctor and the patient without replacing human
interactions. In health services, the well-being of actors can be enhanced through shared
control, increased dialogue and access to information (Dodds et al., 2022), as well as through
collaborative decisions with AI (Liu et al., 2023).
Technological discomfort influenced the adoption of robo-advisors in the banking/
financial sector due to their simplicity and lower requirement for customer participation
(Flavian et al., 2022). In AI-enabled mobile banking systems, the service delivery
configuration, safety and security influenced value cocreation (Payne et al., 2021b). In B2B
segments, AI enables value cocreation when network actors, especially end users, are
involved in developing technological solutions (Leone et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021). Research
on AI-enabled smart TV has revealed that cocreation is an antecedent of perceived
usefulness (Gao and Huang, 2019), and two-way communication and personalization affect
cocreation (Gao and Huang, 2021).
Regarding virtual assistants, it was found that dialogue and access to information are
benefits of these technologies in the cocreation process and influence consumers’ online trust
(Castellano et al., 2018). Voice assistants can support cocreation through a more
personalized service (Buhalis and Moldavska, 2022); in that direction, the interaction
between people with disabilities and voice assistants resulted in well-being (Vieira et al.,
2022). Super-functionality, personalization and convenience influenced consumers’
perception of value cocreation in the use of service chatbots (Lalicic and Weismayer, 2021).
On the other hand, high emotional complexity was highlighted as a criterion for human
agents to take over a conversation between customers and AI (Saviano et al., 2023). In public
service, four dimensions of value in use were identified from citizens’ interactions with
virtual agents: path to human support, engagement/interaction, connection and
personalization (Scutella et al., 2022).
SJME 4.3.2 Integrated approach − value cocreation and codestruction. On the dual potential
of value cocreation and codestruction, Čaić et al. (2018) identified that socially assistive
robots in elderly care can assume different roles in the value network, for example, as a
facilitator, intruder, ally and substitute. In another research, Čaić et al. (2019) mention that
the potential for value cocreation/codestruction depends on dimensions of social cognition.
As mentioned by Grundner and Neuhofer (2021), AI can minimize the customer experience
as social contact is reduced, leading to the value codestruction due to the massive use of
technology; on the other hand, when AI provides personalized offers and information in real
time, the experience can be positive by promoting the value cocreation.
Neuhofer et al. (2021) mentioned that the degree of AI interference in the customer
experience, such as authoritarian intrusion or encouraging assistance, can lead, respectively,
to value codestruction or cocreation. According to Hsu et al. (2021), when customers
consider themselves responsible for poor resource integration, they tend to continually co-
create value with the company; however, they are prone to co-destroy value when they
realize that the company is at fault. Hottat et al. (2023) point out that the profile of the public
and the context are determinants of the potential for cocreation/codestruction; for example,
automation is not well accepted in high-risk services (hospital services) and high-priced
services (luxury restaurants and hotels); in these cases, human interaction is preferred.
Castillo et al. (2021) more specifically addressed the codestruction process in AI-enabled
service interactions, drawing on the value-cocreation literature. The authors identified
authenticity problems, cognition challenges, affective problems, functionality problems and
integration conflicts as antecedents of codestruction from a client perspective using chatbots.
They also reported that negative interactions trigger losses of customer resources, leading to
the choice of more expensive service channels, service termination and public complaints
about the company (Castillo et al., 2021).

4.4 Methods used

Of the works analyzed, more than 70% consist of empirical studies, followed by theoretical-
conceptual studies, systematic literature reviews and bibliometrics. As for the
methodological approach, it was found that 56% of the studies used a qualitative approach,
33% quantitative and 10% mixed. It should be noted that some empirical research was
configured as theoretical-empirical, as it involved the development of a theoretical or
conceptual model. In qualitative empirical studies, data collection was predominantly carried
out through interviews and focus groups, and data were analyzed using thematic analysis and
coding. On the other hand, quantitative empirical research is primarily carried out through
surveys, in which the most recurrent data analysis was structural equation modeling.

5. Discussion and implications

AI disruptively changes the conventional structure of relationships between companies,
customers and other service actors in a service ecosystem, implying different interaction
formats by replacing one or more human actors in service encounters (Robinson et al., 2020).
This technology has been discussed as an operant resource of one of the actors, commonly
the service provider (Castillo et al., 2021). However, the discussion goes beyond aspects of
framing AI as operand and operant resources and gains evidence as an actor integrating these
resources and interacts socially using increasingly natural language. Given the above, AI is
considered an autonomous nonhuman actor (Grundner and Neuhofer, 2021; Neuhofer et al.,
2021), which imposes complexity on service interactions and value formation (Paschen
et al., 2021).
 In progressively digital and technological service ecosystems, interactions between Spanish Journal of
human actors and AI-enabled autonomous nonhuman actors (human−AI interaction) can Marketing - ESIC
result in value cocreation or value codestruction, or both. These value formation phenomena
are also likely to occur in service encounters where more than one actor is replaced by AI (AI
−AI interaction). AI, as a nonhuman actor, will increasingly act independently, considering
that it is in the early stages of development. As the intelligence levels of this nonhuman actor
evolve (Huang and Rust, 2021), it will become more autonomous and popular in service
encounters. Consequently, the greater the development of AI, the greater its ability to achieve
the premises of value cocreation, moving closer to successful human interactions. It is
noteworthy that AI autonomy (Neuhofer et al., 2021) is guided by human actors and follows
human interpretative systems (Barile et al., 2021), which is why we reinforce that AI needs
to be guided by principles that minimize prejudices, discrimination and undue favoritism.
AI expands the potential of value cocreation due, for example, to scaled service,
convenience, availability and personalization (Buhalis and Moldavska, 2022; Lalicic and
Weismayer, 2021; Neuhofer et al., 2021; Payne et al., 2021b). However, risks and challenges
related to value codestruction are evident, such as a lack of human touch, empathy, emotional
intelligence, transparency, security, data privacy, and the existence of algorithmic bias
(Bolton et al., 2018; Breidbach and Maglio, 2020; Castillo et al., 2021; Wen et al., 2022; Zhu
et al., 2022). Furthermore, the resources integrated by AI are sometimes limited, and it may
not progress in conversation and resolve user demands (Saviano et al., 2023).
Data are essential resources for AI to operate and are provided by actors consciously or
unconsciously (Breidbach and Maglio, 2020). In this aspect, the lack of trust for integrating
resources in the service relationship with technology, for example, due to ethical issues, can
threaten the value cocreation process (Paschen et al., 2021). Therefore, the value formation
in AI-enabled interactions inevitably presupposes complete and reliable data integration;
thus, organizational and legal instruments that guarantee transparency and secure data
sharing are needed.
In comparison, often in a relationship between humans, even if some resources integrated
by the service provider are limited, human communication and emotional intelligence can
alleviate the user’s discontent and calm tensions. On the other hand, AI is promising for its
broad cognitive capabilities, but a challenge for value formation lies in developing its
affective aspects, especially when customers are disappointed with the lack of understanding
and empathy for human emotions (Castillo et al., 2021). Therefore, AI technologies must
evolve in affective and subjective aspects to provide a more satisfactory user experience and
minimize the chances of value codestruction.
Considering that AI can make humans’ operant resources more potent by improving their
decision-making capabilities (Barile et al., 2021), we reinforce that the combination between
them can be promising for value cocreation. Services must be supervised and, when necessary,
carried out or completed by humans who utilize AI as partners, enabling the enhancement of
human intelligence. In short, a synergy between humans and AI tends to promote superior value
outcomes in service ecosystems, as the capabilities of both can be leveraged.
The articles identified in this review focused mainly on value cocreation, and few articles
addressed value codestruction. Despite the findings in the results, there is no broad and deep
understanding of the antecedents, manifestations, causes and processes of value cocreation
enabled by AI and even less about value codestruction due to the low volume of publications.
Regarding the theoretical foundations, Vargo and Lusch (2017) point the S-D logic as a
cohesive general approach; however, they do not address the possibility of value codestruction
(Echeverri and Skålén, 2021; Plé and Cáceres, 2010). Therefore, we endorse the need to expand
the scope of the S-D logic axioms (Plé and Cáceres, 2010; Wang et al., 2019) based on the
SJME recognition that the interaction and integration of resources are subject to uncertainties and
complexities that can cause value codestruction, especially in a period of rapid and intense
adoption of AI. Thus, if the S-D logic encompassed the codestruction construct, the perspective
could offer a more balanced and integrative analysis lens that aligns with reality and
organizational practice. Echeverri and Skålén (2021) recognize that the value cocreation and
codestruction are part of the same analysis structure, the IVF. Nonetheless, theoretical advances
are needed regarding AI, as a nonhuman actor, being involved in IVF and affecting the
conceptual structure of IVF in terms of transition between constructs.

5.1 Contributions to theory and knowledge

This research responds to calls for investigation made by Bolton (2020), Ostrom et al. (2021)
and Rosenbaum and Russell-Bennett (2021), considering the rapid diffusion and adoption of
emerging technologies. This way, we contribute with researchers and academics by
presenting an overview of the literature on value cocreation and codestruction in AI-enabled
interactions. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic literature review that jointly
explores the respective concepts related to AI usage. Furthermore, we collaborate with the
understanding of the themes, especially when considering the negative side of value
formation. The results and research agenda were presented following the TCCM structure
(Paul and Rosado-Serrano, 2019), presenting the theory, context, characteristics and
methodology of the articles analyzed. The suggestions and research questions aim to
collaborate with developing new studies and the field’s maturation.

5.2 Contributions to management and practice

This research provides organizations with information that guides them in adopting and
managing AI technologies for customer interaction and customer service. In a period of
progressive use of AI and changes in business processes, organizations must know how to
use it ethically and strategically. Therefore, the presented results help managers assess the
potential for value cocreation/codestruction in the adoption and application of AI, providing
knowledge that supports organizational policies and assists in decision-making. For
example, when implementing AI technologies, managers need to evaluate the potential for
value cocreation according to the public profile, as in some segments, the technologies may
not be well accepted (Hottat et al., 2023), while in others, there are advantages that
strengthen the customer experience.
There are many possibilities for applying AI to customer service, interaction and service
provision, such as the use of virtual assistants and service robots, as well as through the
improvement of self-service and automation platforms. However, there are challenges and
risks related to the loss of well-being, which require planning, responsible monitoring and
focus on the beneficiary. There is, for example, the need to develop cognitive and affective
aspects, including empathy and emotional intelligence. In addition, it is noteworthy that
some sectors, such as hospitality and tourism, can benefit more from the findings already
highlighted in the literature while facing the ongoing challenge of closely monitoring sector
trends.
Table 2 summarizes the research conclusions and implications.

6. Research agenda
It was found that there is a need for greater understanding and theoretical and empirical
deepening related to the value cocreation and codestruction in AI-enabled service
interactions. For this reason, a research agenda is proposed below with lines and questions
for investigation, following the TCCM framework (Paul and Rosado-Serrano, 2019).
Table 2. Conclusions and theoretical and managerial implications Spanish Journal of
Marketing - ESIC
Theoretical and managerial
Conclusions implications

Publications on value co-creation and co-destruction in An overview of the literature and a research
AI-enabled interactions are in the initial stages of agenda on value co-creation and co-destruction in
development, and research primarily focuses on AI-enabled interactions are presented
value co-creation
The interaction between human actors and AI-enabled When adopting AI, managers need to assess in
autonomous nonhuman actors can results in value advance the potential for value co-creation and
co-creation or value co-destruction, or both. These value co-destruction
phenomena can also occur when AI replaces more than
one human actor in the service encounter
AI is an increasingly independent nonhuman actor that There are several possibilities for applying AI, but
integrates resources and interacts with other actors, but risks related to loss of well-being require
caution is needed in its adoption responsible monitoring and a focus on the
beneficiary

Theoretical foundations – Toward a comprehensive understanding of value formation in

interaction with AI, we suggest the integrated use of the S-D logic theoretical perspective
with the concept of value codestruction and also with the IVF structure to, from this, jointly
investigate the constructs value cocreation and value codestruction, verifying how the
transition between them occurs. We encourage the expansion of research on AI as an operant
resource and, more importantly, as an autonomous actor integrating resources. We also
suggest investigating how AI affects value formation at the ecosystem level. As well as
examining the intentional and unintentional value codestruction in interactions with AI.
Given the above, we present below some research questions (RQ):

RQ1. How could the S-D logic encompass the construct of value codestruction in a
framework that supports and strengthens the analysis of interactions with AI?
RQ2. How can multiple organizations in an ecosystem that uses AI integrate resources
for a value cocreation relationship?
RQ3. How can organizations structure service systems in a balance between AI and
humans, resulting in value cocreation for ecosystem actors?
Other consolidated theoretical lenses can help to understand the phenomenon, such as the
actor-network theory (ANT), in which controversies, negotiations and conflicts exist in a
network whose interaction can occur between human actors or also between human actors
and nonhuman actors (Latour, 2007). It is up to the study of AI to understand the extent to
which technology and algorithms (or even algorithmic biases) exercise agency (“distributed
agency”) in decisions over which one would expect that only the human actor could exercise.
However, as in the machine learning process, the machine is taught (and learns), and then we
transfer to it, in a certain way, the power of agency in certain processes of interaction and
dispute resolution. Gutiérrez (2023, p. 4) opines that “ANT can help understand how actants
and human actors are mutually dependent and influential in a network of interactions that
shape the outcomes of their joint endeavors”. ANT shows that relationships between humans
and AI (nonhuman actant) are not passive. Actors may use shortcuts or hacks to take
advantage of programs, consciously and critically/actively explore algorithm actions, or
surrender to them. It is necessary to recognize that the system adjusts its approach according
SJME to feedback from human actors (Gutiérrez, 2023). ANT is a theory that can serve as a
theoretical-philosophical-conceptual basis and even a methodological approach for studying
algorithmic bias, equity, relationship of forces, controversies, and ethical, technological and
systemic challenges in implementing AI. Some research questions can guide this discussion:

RQ4. How does ANT facilitate the ontological discussion of the use of AI in
interactions, specifically regarding the attribution of agency to nonhuman actors?
RQ5. What are the possible ethical and social implications, and what are the
controversies to be mapped and known in human-AI interaction?
Furthermore, we suggest the lens of institutional theory (North, 1990; Scott, 2013) to help
understand how institutions can promote well-being in AI-intensive service ecosystems.
Institutions are rules, norms and cognitive-cultural beliefs that shape organizational and
social behavior (Scott, 2013). Therefore, this theoretical current can serve in the
investigation of value formation and can guide or shape the development and adoption of AI,
such as, for example, institutional influence (Scott, 2013), stability, institutional change
(North, 1990), legitimacy and isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 2013).
Thus, we raise some more questions for future research:

RQ6. How do institutions influence the development of AI for service interaction and
value cocreation?
RQ7. How is value formation affected by the restructuring of institutional arrangements
brought about by AI?
RQ8. How do privacy and data security standards and regulations favor the reduction/
minimization of the potential for value codestruction?
RQ9. Do AI's legitimacy and social acceptance for interaction in service relationships
influence value formation?
RQ10. How does the isomorphism caused by the intensive adoption of AI for customer
service affect value formation?
RQ11. How is AI driving institutional change and innovation in service interactions and
value formation?
RQ12. How can public and private organizations coordinate institutional AI
arrangements, avoiding exclusion and lack of assistance to populations without
access to digital technologies?
Context – We encourage the replication of research in different territories, as most research
has been carried out in Asia, emphasizing China. It should be noted that different
characteristics between emerging and developed countries, with different maturity levels in
applying AI, can bring results that contribute to a detailed understanding of the subject. It is
recommended that investigations be expanded beyond the hospitality and tourism, banking
and health sectors so that other sectors also benefit from knowledge about value formation
made possible by AI. As previously mentioned, the public sector has a significant research
gap. Furthermore, adopting AI affects the labor market in different sectors; thus, the notion
of social value cocreation/codestruction in the context of AI can assist in more sustainable
value processes, analyzing the impacts for various actors in the ecosystem. We also
recommend studies with micro and small companies so that they can be favored with AI and
not be disadvantaged compared to the technological investment capacity of medium and
large companies. We suggest investigating different aspects of user−AI interaction in virtual Spanish Journal of
and physical environments associated with the Internet of Things (IoT) and related to Marketing - ESIC
domestic, commercial and public use. We also suggest that researchers evaluate the value
cocreation/codestruction in different technologies that apply AI. As research questions, we
formulate:

RQ13. Does the context (country, culture, continent) in which the actors live interfere
with the value cocreation/codestruction in interactions with AI?
RQ14. How can AI be used in the public sector to enhance well-being and perceived
value in providing services to citizens?
RQ15. Will B2B customers tend to co-create or co-destroy value in interactions with AI?
Characteristics – In service interactions between the human actor and AI, there are two
almost unexplored gaps in the literature:
(1) the specific discussion of value codestruction; and
(2) the integrated discussion of value cocreation with value codestruction.

Because of the above, it is recommended that research be carried out that explicitly covers
these gaps, for example, mapping antecedents, manifestations, elements and consequences
of value cocreation and codestruction. These searches will also be useful in cases where the
AI represents more than one actor. Considering some sensitive issues in the use of AI that can
minimize the well-being of actors, there is a need for more research on privacy, ethics,
governance, security, transparency and algorithmic bias. In addition, some research
questions are pointed out:

RQ16. Does the consumer profile, such as education level, gender, age and income,
affect value cocreation and codestruction in interactions with AI?
RQ17. Considering operant resource integration, what competencies, skills and
knowledge influence value cocreation and codestruction in interactions with AI?
RQ18. How willing are consumers to learn to interact with AI in order to achieve value
cocreation?
RQ19. How do value cocreation and codestruction behaviors in interactions with AI affect
other marketing variables, such as satisfaction, loyalty and organizational image?
RQ20. Does the training offered to beneficiaries to interact with AI lead to satisfactory
value formation results?
RQ21. How does the absence of human contact influence the value cocreation/
codestruction?
RQ22. Does the possibility of the beneficiary choosing between AI or human service
influence their value perception?
RQ23. How do data privacy, security and transparency affect the value cocreation and
codestruction in interactions with AI?
Methods – From a methodological standpoint, the development of empirical studies, such as
qualitative research, is recommended, which allows for an in-depth understanding of the
phenomenon, especially regarding research associated with technologies still in the initial
SJME phase of diffusion and adoption. On the other hand, quantitative studies are needed to
generalize findings on human−AI interactions, and experimental research helps obtain
greater explanatory power. In this aspect, it is advisable to develop and validate scales.
Moreover, longitudinal studies help track value formation over time and can help answer the
following research questions:

RQ24. How is value formation modified in the long term with the development and
improvement of AI-enabled platforms?
RQ25. Over time, will people’s familiarity with AI broaden their value cocreation
perception?

7. Conclusion and limitations

This review revealed that interactions between human actors and AI-enabled autonomous
nonhuman actors (human-AI interaction) can result in value cocreation or value
codestruction, or both. Furthermore, these phenomena are also likely to occur in service
encounters where more than one human actor is replaced by AI (AI−AI interaction). AI is
seen as an increasingly independent nonhuman actor that integrates resources and interacts
with other actors in service ecosystems. However, caution and balance are needed in its
adoption, given the potential for mixed and multifaceted value formation.
Research on value formation in interactions with AI is in the introductory phase, with a
low volume of publications. The greatest research emphasis is associated with value
cocreation, and few articles have directly addressed the concept of value codestruction. In
short, these are “hot” topics for research and theoretical-empirical deepening, given the
progressive adoption of AI by organizations. As a way of contributing to the field, this work
presents a detailed research agenda.
The review followed a rigorous and transparent process. Nonetheless, we point out some
methodological limitations that may have limited the scope of the analysis, such as the
selection of only two databases for retrieving articles, Web of Science and Scopus. Also, the
journal selection criteria were based on scientific indicators, and although they ensured
the selection of articles of recognized quality, they may have eliminated relevant works.
Furthermore, only scientific articles published in English were retrieved. In future reviews, it
is recommended to explore the topic with a broader scope, including research on AI and
other associated technologies, such as the IoT, big data, and virtual reality, and to expand the
databases researched.

References
Akaka, M.A. and Vargo, S.L. (2014), “Technology as an operant resource in service (eco)systems”,
Information Systems and e-Business Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 367-384.
Ameen, N., Hosany, S. and Tarhini, A. (2021), “Consumer interaction with cutting-edge technologies:
implications for future research”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 120, p. 106761.
Anayat, S. and Rasool, G. (2022), “Artificial intelligence marketing (AIM): connecting-the-dots using
bibliometrics”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 2103435.
Barile, S., Bassano, C., Piciocchi, P., Saviano, M. and Spohrer, J.C. (2021), “Empowering value
cocreation in the digital age”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 6.
Bilgihan, A. and Wang, Y. (2016), “Technology induced competitive advantage: a case of US lodging
industry”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 37-59.
Bock, D.E., Wolter, J.S. and Ferrell, O.C. (2020), “Artificial intelligence: disrupting what we know Spanish Journal of
about services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 317-334. Marketing - ESIC
Bolton, R.N. (2020), “Commentary: future directions of the service discipline”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 279-289.
Bolton, R.N., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Cheung, L., Gallan, A., Orsingher, C., Witell, L. and Zaki, M.
(2018), “Customer experience challenges: bringing together digital, physical and social realms”,
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 776-808.
Breidbach, C.F. and Maglio, P. (2020), “Accountable algorithms? The ethical implications of data-
driven business models”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 163-185.
Buhalis, D., Harwood, T., Bogicevic, V., Viglia, G., Beldona, S. and Hofacker, C. (2019),
“Technological disruptions in services: lessons from tourism and hospitality”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 484-506.
Buhalis, D. and Moldavska, I. (2022), “Voice assistants in hospitality: using artificial intelligence for
customer service”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 386-403.
Cabiddu, F., Moreno, F. and Sebastiano, L. (2019), “Toxic collaborations: co-destroying value in the
B2B context”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 241-255.
Čaić, M., Mahr, D. and Oderkerken-Schröder, G. (2019), “Value of social robots in services: social
cognition perspective”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 463-478.
Čaić, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Mahr, D. (2018), “Service robots: value cocreation and
codestruction in elderly care networks”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 178-205.
Carvalho, P. and Alves, H. (2023), “Customer value cocreation in the hospitality and tourism industry: a
systematic literature review”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 250-273.
Castellano, S., Khelladi, I., Charlemagne, J. and Susini, J.P. (2018), “Uncovering the role of virtual
agents in cocreation contexts: an application to the online wine business”, Management
Decision, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1232-1246.
Castillo, D., Canhoto, A.I. and Said, E. (2021), “The dark side of AI-powered service interactions:
exploring the process of codestruction from the customer perspective”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 13/14, pp. 900-925.
Chandler, J.D. and Vargo, S.L. (2011), “Contextualization and value-in-context: how context frames
exchange”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35-49.
Chuah, S.H.W., Aw, E.C.X. and Cheng, C.F. (2022), “A silver lining in the COVID-19 cloud:
examining customers’ value perceptions, willingness to use and pay more for robotic
restaurants”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 49-76.
Codá, R.C. and Farias, J.S. (2022), “Interactive value formation: exploring the literature on dark side of
the service experience from the perspective of value codestruction (VCD)”, Services Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 520-540.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
p. 147.
Dodds, S., Russell–Bennett, R., Chen, T., Oertzen, A.S., Salvador-Carulla, L. and Hung, Y.C. (2022),
“Blended human-technology service realities in health care”, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 75-99.
Echeverri, P. and Skålén, P. (2011), “Co-creation and codestruction: a practice-theory based study of
interactive value formation”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 351-373.
Echeverri, P. and Skålén, P. (2021), “Value codestruction: review and conceptualization of interactive
value formation”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 227-249.
SJME Flavian, C., Perez-Rueda, A., Belanche, D. and Casalo, L.V. (2022), “Intention to use analytical
artificial intelligence (AI) in services - the effect of technology readiness and awareness”,
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 293-320.
Gao, B. and Huang, L. (2019), “Understanding interactive user behavior in smart media content service:
an integration of TAM and smart service belief factors”, Heliyon, Vol. 5 No. 12, p. 2983.
Gao, B. and Huang, L. (2021), “Toward a theory of smart media usage: the moderating role of smart
media market development”, Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 7218-7238.
Gao, L., Li, G., Tsai, F., Gao, C., Zhu, M. and Qu, X. (2023), “The impact of artificial intelligence
stimuli on customer engagement and value cocreation: the moderating role of customer ability
readiness”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 317-333.
Grönroos, C. and Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and
cocreation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 133-150.
Grundner, L. and Neuhofer, B. (2021), “The bright and dark sides of artificial intelligence: a futures
perspective on tourist destination experiences”, Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management, Vol. 19, p. 100511.
Gutiérrez, J.L.M. (2023), “On actor-network theory and algorithms: ChatGPT and the new power
relationships in the age of AI”, AI and Ethics, Vol. 2023, pp. 1-14.
Hottat, E., Leroi-Werelds, S. and Streukens, S. (2023), “To automate or not to automate? A contingency
approach to service automation”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 696-724.
Hsu, P.F., Nguyen, T.K. and Huang, J.Y. (2021), “Value cocreation and codestruction in self-service
technology: a customer’s perspective”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 46, p. 101029.
Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T. (2018), “Artificial intelligence in service”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 155-172.
Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T. (2021), “Engaged to a robot? The role of AI in service”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 30-41.
Jain, N.R.K., Liu-Lastres, B. and Wen, H. (2023), “Does robotic service improve restaurant consumer
experiences? An application of the value-cocreation framework”, Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 78-96.
Järvi, H., Kähkönen, A.K. and Torvinen, H. (2018), “When value cocreation fails: reasons that lead to
value codestruction”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
Järvi, H., Keränen, J., Ritala, P. and Vilko, J. (2020), “Value codestruction in hotel services: exploring
the misalignment of cognitive scripts among customers and providers”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 77, p. 104030.
Jia, W., Li, H., Jiang, M. and Wu, L. (2023), “Melting the psychological boundary: how interactive and
sensory affordance influence users’ adoption of digital heritage service”, Sustainability, Vol. 15
No. 5, p. 4117.
Kaartemo, V. and Helkkula, A. (2018), “A systematic review of artificial intelligence and robots in value
cocreation: current status and future research avenues”, Journal of Creating Value, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 211-228.
Kondapaka, P., Khanra, S., Malik, A., Kagzi, M. and Hemachandran, K. (2023), “Finding a fit between
CXO’s experience and AI usage in CXO decision-making: evidence from knowledge-intensive
professional service firms”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 280-308.
Koseoglu, M.A. and Arici, H.E. (2023), “How do we determine content boundaries in systematic review
studies of management research?”, Journal of Scientometric Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 609-620.
Koseoglu, M.A., Yee Yick, M.Y., King, B. and Arici, H.E. (2022), “Relational bibliometrics for
hospitality and tourism research: a best practice guide”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Vol. 52, pp. 316-330.
Lalicic, L. and Weismayer, C. (2021), “Consumers’ reasons and perceived value cocreation of using Spanish Journal of
artificial intelligence-enabled travel service agents”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 129, Marketing - ESIC
pp. 891-901.
Larivière, B., Bowen, D., Andreassen, T.W., Kunz, W., Sirianni, N.J., Voss, C., Wünderlich, N.V. and
De Keyser, A. (2017), “‘Service encounter 2.0’: an investigation into the roles of technology,
employees and customers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 79, pp. 238-246.
Latour, B. (2007), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Laud, G., Bove, L., Ranaweera, C., Leo, W.W.C., Sweeney, J. and Smith, S. (2019), “Value
codestruction: a typology of resource misintegration manifestations”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 866-889.
Leone, D., Schiavone, F., Appio, F.P. and Chiao, B. (2021), “How does artificial intelligence enable and
enhance value cocreation in industrial markets? An exploratory case study in the health-care
ecosystem”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 129, pp. 849-859.
Leung, R. and Loo, P.T. (2022), “Co-creating interactive dining experiences via interconnected and
interoperable smart technology”, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 45-67.
Lin, I.Y. and Mattila, A.S. (2021), “The value of service robots from the hotel guest’s perspective: a
mixed-method approach”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 94, p. 102876.
Li, S.Y., Peng, G.C., Xing, F., Zhang, J. and Zhang, B.Q. (2021), “Value cocreation in industrial AI: the
interactive role of B2B supplier, customer and technology provider”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 98, pp. 105-114.
Li, M. and Tuunanen, T. (2022), “Information technology–supported value cocreation and codestruction
via social interaction and resource integration in service systems”, The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Vol. 31 No. 2, p. 101719.
Liu, H., Perera, S.C., Wang, J.J. and Leonhardt, J.M. (2023), “Physician engagement in online medical
teams: a multilevel investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 157, p. 113588.
Lumivalo, J., Tuunanen, T. and Salo, M. (2023), “Value codestruction: a conceptual review and future
research agenda”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 159-176.
Mabillard, V., Demartines, N. and Joliat, G.R. (2022), “How can reasoned transparency enhance
cocreation in health care and remedy the pitfalls of digitization in doctor-patient relationships?”,
International Journal of Health Policy and Management, Vol. 11 No. 10, pp. 1986-1990.
Mariani, M., Baggio, R., Fuchs, M. and Höepken, W. (2018), “Business intelligence and big data in
hospitality and tourism: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 3514-3554.
Megaro, A., Carrubbo, L., Polese, F. and Sirianni, C.A. (2023), “Triggering a patient-driven service
innovation to foster the service ecosystem well-being: a case study”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 35
No. 5, pp. 1256-1274.
Mele, C., Russo-Spena, T., Marzullo, M.L. and Ruggiero, A. (2022), “Boundary work in value
cocreation practices: the mediating role of cognitive assistants”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 342-362.
Mele, C., Spena, T.R., Kaartemo, V. and Marzullo, M.L. (2021), “Smart nudging: how cognitive
technologies enable choice architectures for value cocreation”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 129, pp. 949-960.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, BMJ, Vol. 339 No. jul21 1, pp. 1-8.
Nannelli, M., Capone, F. and Lazzeretti, L. (2023), “Artificial intelligence in hospitality and tourism.
State of the art and future research avenues”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 1325-1344.
SJME Neuhofer, B., Magnus, B. and Celuch, K. (2021), “The impact of artificial intelligence on event
experiences: a scenario technique approach”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 601-617.
North, D. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Ostrom, A.L., Field, J.M., Fotheringham, D., Subramony, M., Gustafsson, A., Lemon, K.N., Huang, M.
H. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R. (2021), “Service research priorities: managing and delivering
service in turbulent times”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 329-353.
Ostrom, A.L., Fotheringham, D. and Bitner, M.J. (2019), “Customer acceptance of AI in service
encounters: understanding antecedents and consequences”, Handbook of Service Science, Vol. II,
pp. 77-103.
Paschen, J., Paschen, U., Pala, E. and Kietzmann, J. (2021), “Artificial intelligence (AI) and value
cocreation in B2B sales: activities, actors and resources”, Australasian Marketing Journal,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 243-251.
Paul, J. and Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019), “Gradual internationalization vs born-global/international new
venture models: a review and research agenda”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 36 No. 6,
pp. 830-858.
Payne, E.H.M., Dahl, A.J. and Peltier, J. (2021a), “Digital servitization value cocreation framework for
AI services: a research agenda for digital transformation in financial service ecosystems”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 200-222.
Payne, E.H.M., Peltier, J. and Barger, V.A. (2021b), “Enhancing the value cocreation process: artificial
intelligence and mobile banking service platforms”, Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 68-85.
Plé, L. and Cáceres, R.C. (2010), “Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-destruction of
value in service-dominant logic”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 430-437.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creating unique value with customers”, Strategy and
Leadership, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 4-9.
Robinson, S., Orsingher, C., Alkire, L., Keyser, A.D., Giebelhausen, M., Papamichail, K.N., Shams, P.
and Temerak, M.S. (2020), “Frontline encounters of the AI kind: an evolved service encounter
framework”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116, pp. 366-376.
Rosenbaum, M.S. and Russell-Bennett, R. (2021), “Viewpoint: when service technologies and human
experiences intersect”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 261-264.
Saviano, M., Del Prete, M., Mueller, J. and Caputo, F. (2023), “The challenging meet between human
and artificial knowledge. A systems-based view of its influences on firms-customers interaction”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 101-111.
Scott, W.R. (2013), Institutions and Organizations: ideas, Interests, and Identities, Sage publications,
Los Angeles.
Scutella, M., Plewa, C. and Reaiche, C. (2022), “Virtual agents in the public service: examining
citizens’ value-in-use”, Public Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Siddaway, A.P., Wood, A.M. and Hedges, L.V. (2019), “How to do a systematic review: a best practice
guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses”,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 747-770.
Solakis, K., Katsoni, V., Mahmoud, A.B. and Grigoriou, N. (2022), “Factors affecting value cocreation
through artificial intelligence in tourism: a general literature review”, Journal of Tourism
Futures, Vol. 10 No. 1.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-
dominant logic”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2017), “Service-dominant logic 2025”, International Journal of Research Spanish Journal of
in Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46-67. Marketing - ESIC
Vieira, A.D., Leite, H. and Volochtchuk, A.V.L. (2022), “The impact of voice assistant home devices on
people with disabilities: a longitudinal study”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 184, p. 121961.
Wang, X., Wong, Y., Teo, C. and Yuen, K. (2019), “A critical review on value cocreation: towards a
contingency framework and research agenda”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 165-188.
Wen, H., Zhang, L., Sheng, A., Li, M. and Guo, B. (2022), “From ‘human-to-human’ to ‘human-to-non-
human’ – influence factors of artificial intelligence-enabled consumer value cocreation
behavior”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, p. 863313.
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P.G., Kunz, W.H., Gruber, T., Lu, V.N., Paluch, S. and Martins, A. (2018), “Brave
new world: service robots in the frontline”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 907-931.
Xie, L., Liu, C. and Li, D. (2022a), “Proactivity or passivity? An investigation of the effect of service
robots’ proactive behaviour on customer cocreation intention”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 106, p. 103271.
Xie, L., Liu, X. and Li, D. (2022b), “The mechanism of value cocreation in robotic services: customer
inspiration from robotic service novelty”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 962-983.
Yang, X. (2023), “The effects of AI service quality and AI function-customer ability fit on customer’s
overall cocreation experience”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 123 No. 6,
pp. 1717-1735.
Zhang, T. (2020), “Co-creating tourism experiences through a traveler’s journey: a perspective article”,
Tourism Review, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 56-60.
Zhang, X., Balaji, M.S. and Jiang, Y. (2022), “Robots at your service: value facilitation and value
cocreation in restaurants”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 2004-2025.
Zhu, Y., Wang, P. and Duan, W. (2022), “Exploration on the core elements of value cocreation driven by
AI—measurement of consumer cognitive attitude based on Q-methodology”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 13, p. 791167.

Corresponding author
Elainy Cristina da Silva Coelho can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]