School of Design
Creative Industries Faculty
Queensland University of
Technology
2018
IT’S A SOCIAL BUSINESS: MAPPING THE
INFLUENCE OF MEAL KIT SERVICES IN USER
VALUE AND CO-CREATED EXPERIENCES
BRETT CAMILLERI
Bachelor of Industrial Design (Hons)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the
degree of Master of Philosophy
ii
iii
Keywords Dinner
Value co-creation
Service dominant logic
Service design
iv
Abstract
The development of services has drastically increased in complexity, as service designers
must not only consider how the service functions, but where it exists within its customer’s
creation of value. This challenge is embodied by the meal kit service model, which aims to
address the modern difficulties associated with cooking dinner. It does so by attempting to
simplify its customers creation of dinner by preselecting a week’s work of meals, for which
it then organises the corresponding ingredients and cooking instructions that are delivered
to the customers door step. However, the service’s method of provision fails to also
accommodate the potential contextual, social and religious values its customers may
consider vital to their creation and consumption of dinner. And so, despite the service’s
convenient and healthy features, the strict method in which they are provided can
challenge their customers’ personal food values, ultimately negating any benefit attributed
to commercial entity. This culminates in the service design challenge where the meal kit
must consider how to balance the uniquely determined values its various customers may
attribute to dinner, while ensuring that its ability to do so remains viable at commercial
scales.
In response to this difficulty, this study grounds its scope around the exploration of existing
customer values attributed to dinner, and identifies how the meal kit service is currently
used in realising them. To frame this exploration, this study utilises a combination of
participatory design and service dominant logic concepts that explore the routine usage of
the meal kit service. This is because both concepts share the axiological perspective that
value can only be created by individual perceiving it. And despite using varied versions of
co-creation, both acknowledge that only the individual can create their own value, and so
they should be involved the development of the solutions.
Value’s intrinsic and contextually informed nature is used to inform the social constructivist
epistemology that underpins this study. This study utilises highly qualitative methods
informed by the participatory design discipline to explore the mundane and routine
processes of six households as they use the meal kit to create dinner through the week.
This generative approach enabled the collection of participant descriptions of their
routines, preferences and frustrations, in addition to their imagined futures and desired
goals.
The exploration of meal kit users’ mundane processes and subsequent analysis through
service dominant logic concepts presented a number of implications that can benefit the
v
service design discipline. This informed a method that synthesises the unique processes of
meal kit customers into a comparable series of practices that are representative of the
value creation process. This method of abstracting of specific processes into practices
forms the basis by which a service designer can establish the expected degree of control
the customer wants over the value creation process, who else is involved in its creation,
and the overarching purpose of the activities performed. Combined, these three
dimensions present a means of characterising the various network roles and expected
functions attributed to the meal kit service by its users, the understanding of which can be
used by service designers to inform future service iterations that are more appropriate for
value creation.
Upon the application of this analytical tool, this study subsequently identified that
participants were already naturally adapting elements of the meal kit to align with their
contextually informed values. The exploration into these customer-led modifications to the
service informed the conclusion that the meal kit’s primary offering should be designed
with the intention of interacting with a number of immediate users peripheral to the
primary customer. This is because this study identifies that a service’s resiliency can be
improved by increasing the primary customer’s ability to seek help from both household
members and peers, and apply their efforts directly into the meal kit’s function. Apart from
problem resolution, this approach was also identified as a promising means of continually
innovating the meal kit in a way that was highly tailored to those using it. Both the
analytical method created, and the subsequent co-creative functions identified through it
can inform service designers how these natural evolutions of the service can be adopted by
the firm in future iterations. Consequently, this study is expected to contribute towards the
intersection of service science and its application through service design, and subsequently
ease the development of co-creative services that accommodate both the customer and
their surrounding network.
vi
Table of Contents
Keywords ................................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iv
List of figures ........................................................................................................................... ix
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... xi
Statement of Original Authorship .......................................................................................... xii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xiii
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Research purpose................................................................................................... 16
1.2 Research significance ............................................................................................. 17
1.3 Research scope and research questions ................................................................ 18
1.4 Thesis outline ......................................................................................................... 20
2. Literature review ............................................................................................................ 23
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 23
2.2 The challenges of facilitating the modern Australian dinner through service ...... 24
2.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 24
2.2.2 The servitisation of dinner and home cooking .............................................. 25
2.2.3 Measuring the benefit of meal kit service through a holistic perspective of food 28
2.2.4 The difficulties of competing within the Australian grocery market ............. 32
2.2.5 Defining the social attributes of food ............................................................ 34
2.2.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 37
2.3 Designing co-creative services ............................................................................... 39
2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 39
2.3.2 Service design and the meal kit ..................................................................... 40
2.3.3 The functional dynamics of value .................................................................. 42
2.3.4 The meal kit’s role in the creation of value ................................................... 46
2.3.5 Exploring food values through design ............................................................ 49
2.3.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 52
2.4 Using practices to inform co-creation in networks ................................................ 54
2.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 54
2.4.2 Practices ......................................................................................................... 55
2.4.3 The customer service experience practices (CSEP) framework ..................... 55
2.4.4 CSEP’s role in addressing the social dimensions of food security ................. 57
2.4.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 58
vii
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 59
3. Research design and method ......................................................................................... 62
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 62
3.2 Methodology and research design ........................................................................ 62
3.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 62
3.2.2 Participatory design and the fuzzy front end ................................................. 63
3.2.3 Make tools ..................................................................................................... 64
3.2.4 The cognitive map .......................................................................................... 65
3.2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................ 66
3.3 Method .................................................................................................................. 68
3.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 68
3.3.2 Online mind map and prompt deck ............................................................... 68
3.3.3 Cultural probe ................................................................................................ 70
3.3.4 The cognitive map .......................................................................................... 72
3.4 Instruments for analysis ......................................................................................... 77
3.4.1 Dataset 1: Mind map images and words ....................................................... 77
3.4.2 Dataset 2: The cognitive map ........................................................................ 78
4. Results ............................................................................................................................ 81
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 81
4.2 Planning .................................................................................................................. 83
4.2.1 Personally planning meals ............................................................................. 83
4.2.2 Utilising the meal kit to plan meals ................................................................ 85
4.2.3 Attitudes towards service’s meal selection ................................................... 85
4.2.4 Contextual factors that challenge service’s meal selection ........................... 88
4.3 Unpacking .............................................................................................................. 90
4.3.1 How is the meal kit delivered? ....................................................................... 90
4.3.2 How appropriate are the ingredients the meal kit selects? .......................... 94
4.3.3 How are personal ingredients organised? ..................................................... 95
4.4 Preparation ............................................................................................................ 98
4.4.1 Afternoon routines......................................................................................... 98
4.4.2 Determining who cooks in the household ................................................... 100
4.5 Cooking ................................................................................................................ 104
4.5.1 Cooking personal meals ............................................................................... 104
4.5.2 Cooking with the meal kit ............................................................................ 105
4.5.3 Modifying the meal kit ................................................................................. 107
4.6 Dinner ................................................................................................................... 108
viii
4.6.1 Regular dinner process ................................................................................ 109
4.6.2 Dinner with extended family and friends .................................................... 111
4.6.3 Convincing others to eat .............................................................................. 113
5. Findings ........................................................................................................................ 115
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 115
5.2 Co-creating value with the meal kit service ......................................................... 116
5.3 Changing household roles with the meal kit ....................................................... 120
5.4 Customer-driven modifications and when the service breaks ........................... 124
5.5 The evolution of the meal kit’s value proposition .............................................. 127
5.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 130
6. Discussion..................................................................................................................... 133
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 133
6.2 Measuring for the network role attributed to the meal kit service .................... 134
6.3 Customer-network-led co-creation of the meal kit ............................................. 137
6.4 Designing for value co-creation with the network .............................................. 140
6.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 144
7. Implications and conclusion ......................................................................................... 146
7.1 Theoretical implications ....................................................................................... 146
7.2 Managerial implications ....................................................................................... 147
7.3 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 150
7.4 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 154
7.5 Future works ........................................................................................................ 155
8. References ................................................................................................................... 158
Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 166
8.1 Appendix A Examples of enlistment .................................................................... 166
8.2 Appendix B Initial trial of meal kit ........................................................................ 168
8.3 Appendix C Cognitive Map Development ............................................................ 169
8.4 Appendix D Cognitive Map Pilot Studies .............................................................. 170
8.5 Appendix E Coding scheme and development .................................................... 177
8.6 Appendix F Practice chain development .............................................................. 181
8.7 Appendix G Meal kit symbols ............................................................................... 185
ix
List of figures Figure 1 The FAO’s four pillars of food security (Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015) ..................... 30
Figure 2 The elements of food security’s social dimension ................................................... 36
Figure 3 Ellway & Dean’s (2015) cyclical description of value creation ................................. 44
Figure 4 Customer service experience practices (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, and Ferrier,
2015) ...................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 5 Mind map responses ................................................................................................ 70
Figure 6 Blank prompt cards in use during pilot study .......................................................... 70
Figure 7 Cultural probe Information ...................................................................................... 72
Figure 8 Setup of cognitive map exercise .............................................................................. 76
Figure 9 Completed cognitive map exercise .......................................................................... 77
Figure 10 Kimbell's (2014) AEIOU framework ....................................................................... 78
Figure 11 Example of printed activity cards used for affinity diagram .................................. 79
Figure 12 Affinity diagram for participants 6 and 7 ............................................................... 79
Figure 13 Practice chain structure ......................................................................................... 81
Figure 14 Participant household composition ....................................................................... 82
Figure 15 Participant 1’s response to service’s selection of meals. ...................................... 86
Figure 16 (Left) Participant 5 and yng5’s feelings towards meal variety. (Right) Participant 2
uses ‘healthy bowl’ image to describe meal kit’s dinner selection. ...................................... 86
Figure 17 Participant 2’s pictorial response when describing her attitudes towards meal kit
delivery ................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 18 Participant 6’s cultural probe response to ‘Where is the meal kit delivered?’ ..... 92
Figure 19 Both participant 5’s (left) and participant 2’s (right) describe unpacking the meal
kit with the checklist icon. ..................................................................................................... 92
Figure 20 Participant 3 uses farmer to demonstrate organic perception towards produce . 94
Figure 21 Participant 6’s (Left) and participant 1’s (Middle) attitudes towards grocery
shopping, and participant 2’s (Right) elimination of grocery shopping ................................. 96
Figure 22 Participant 3’s grocery shopping process with farmers market vendors .............. 97
Figure 23 Participant 7 uses the "my sis rocks" card to describe Participant 6’s predominant
cooking activities .................................................................................................................. 101
Figure 24 Participant 2's description of her afternoon routine ........................................... 103
Figure 25 (from left to right) Participant 1, 2 and 6’s cultural probe response to “What is the
Food Service providing too much of?” ................................................................................ 108
x
Figure 26 Participant 3’s (Left) cultural probe response to ‘What does a successful meal
look like?’ and participant 4’s (Right) usage of the conversation card in conjunction with
dinner images to describe his dinner process. .................................................................... 109
Figure 27 Participant 1’s (Left) and 2’s (Right) response to dinner activities. .................... 110
Figure 28 Participants 5 (left), 6 and 7’s (right) description of their dinner activities ......... 111
Figure 29 Participant 5's description of household dinner after a competition .................. 112
Figure 30 Participant 7 prefers to get dinner with friends. ................................................. 112
Figure 31 Planning meals through the meal kit service ....................................................... 116
Figure 32 The meal guardian role ........................................................................................ 119
Figure 33 Collaborative cooking ........................................................................................... 121
Figure 34 Dictating cooking roles ......................................................................................... 122
Figure 35 Managing excess ingredients ............................................................................... 125
Figure 36 Modifying meal kit portion sizes..........................................................................125
Figure 37 Managing meal kit packaging wastage ................................................................ 124
Figure 38 Managing an undesired service meal .................................................................. 125
Figure 39 Managing undesired service ingredients ............................................................. 126
xi
List of Abbreviations SDL Service Dominant Logic
VIU Value in use
VISC Value in social context
xii
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: QUT Verified Signature
Date: August 2018
xiii
Acknowledgements
This thesis was only possible thanks to the amazing support of my family, friends and
colleagues. I am truly grateful to be surrounded by such an amazing group of people, and
want to express that your advice, critique and distraction throughout my candidature has
been integral for this finished work.
To all my supervisors (current and past), each of you have had such an impact on both my
thesis and my personal development. To Marianella Chamorro-Koc, Udo Gottlieb, Jaz Choi
and Ben Kraal, I would like to express a great appreciation for each of your contributions to
my thesis. Each of our interactions has left me feeling richer from the experience.
To Jaz and Ben, while I unfortunately did not get to finish working with you two, your early
guidance emboldened me to explore a topic that I love. The direction and opportunities
both of you have granted me have left me much stronger from this experience, and I have
both of you two to thank for expanding both my world view and personal ability.
To Udo, despite joining my team half way through, your help and knowledge has been
integral to my work. Both your professionalism and optimistic nature has proven critical to
not just the completion of this project, but for also getting me across that mental finish
line, and I cannot express how thankful I am for your patience and dedication.
To Marianella, I want to express a wholehearted appreciation for taking on my project in its
final moments despite your terrifying schedule. I am overwhelmingly thankful for your
dedication to my work, and your finishing contributions are what helped me produce a
work that I’m truly proud of; you were integral in making that happen.
To my parents, Michael and Fiona, I cannot thank you enough for the unwavering love you
have shown me throughout my journey. There is not a chance that I would have made it
this far both professionally or personally without the support and sacrifice you have shown
me throughout my life.
To my brother Aaron, for reminding me that there’s a life outside of the thesis and
providing me with some much-needed distractions through a game as simple as ‘find the
shin’.
To my partner Violet, for being my anchor to reality and pulling me out of my work. Your
kind words, confidence and companionship have motivated me throughout my thesis, and I
cannot say enough thanks for your unconditional patience and understanding.
xiv
To my Nana Margaret, and Poppy Antony, your optimism and kind words have also helped
me keep afloat through both the good and bad times of my work.
I’d also like to extend thanks to all my participants for each sharing their personal values
and descriptions of with me. It was such an honour to be included in your processes, and
without your help, my work would not have been possible.
To my professional editor, Neil Conning, who provided copyediting and proofreading
services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university-endorsed national ‘Guidelines
for editing research theses’
To the Urban Informatics Lab, I want to express how grateful I am for being welcomed into
such a brilliant and exemplary group of people. I feel so fortunate to be able to share my
experiences with you guys, and I’m better for it after being exposed to everyone’s
perspectives and conversations have broadened my own perspectives and made me
greater for it. You guys are doing some incredible work, and I am inspired by you all.
Finally, I would like to thank my close friends for the escapism you have provided me over
the 2 years of work. The distractions and joy you have shared with me were essential to
my sanity, and was exactly what I needed to escape the words of meal kit and co-creation.
15
1. Introduction The way in which services are designed has increased in complexity and scope as a broader
array of temporal and contextual factors of the customer must be understood (Patrício,
Gustafsson, & Fisk, 2018), which is made apparent when looking at the meal kit service
model. Unlike traditional grocers, this service merges the elements of meal planning and
dietary advice with the physical organisation and delivery of ingredients and corresponding
cooking instructions to the customers home. With these functions considered, the meal kit
service is representative of a servitised good (Nudurupati, Lascelles, Wright, & Yip, 2016)
aimed at resolving the time pressures, low cooking ability and poor diet currently
attributed with the difficulties of modern Australian dinners (Banwell, Broom, Davies, &
Dixon, 2012d). But despite these complex processes, an analysis of dietary literature
suggests that this is still not enough (Perry et al., 2017; Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014). The act of
creating and consuming dinner is highly contextual, intrinsically determined and can be
representative of social engagements involving a variety of users associated with the
customer (Beardsworth & Keil, 1997; Daniels, Glorieux, Minnen, & van Tienoven, 2012;
Fischler, 1988; Mintz & Du Bois, 2002). This infers that despite the convenience afforded by
the meal kit’s selection and delivery of ingredients, its strict provision can challenge either
the customer’s or their network’s dietary, religious or social food requirements,
consequently mitigating any benefit attributed to the service. This demonstration of
dinner’s complexity suggests the service must be designed so that the requirements of
both customer and their household are accounted for. These difficulties experienced by the
meal kit service are representative of a larger challenge for service designers, who must
now consider how commercial services can be designed to align with the requirements of
their various customers and their affiliated networks.
When considering how to approach this problem, service design’s mutual relationship with
the service dominant logic (SDL) paradigm and its concept of value co-creation can be used
to identify a solution (Wetter-Edman, 2009; Kimbell, 2014; Vargo and Lusch, 2017). This is
because service dominant logic’s most recent amendment of value co-creation also
recognises the influence of network members over the individual’s creation of value (Vargo
& Lusch, 2016). As such, the paradigm concludes that services must be designed to align
with the activities already conducted by their customers’ existing network of friends,
family, peers and other commercial entities (Storbacka, Frow, Nenonen, & Payne, 2015;
Vargo & Lusch, 2016). While service scientists suggest that service iterations must be
designed to be adaptable, interchangeable and malleable (Barile, Lusch, Reynoso, Saviano,
16
& Spohrer, 2016; Vargo et al., 2016), achieving this at a commercial scale is still not clear,
further exemplifying the difficulties associated when designing future services. But when
considering how to accommodate this complexity, service researchers suggest that
answers lie in the contextual analysis of how existing services are utilised to co-create value
by their customers in conjunction with their network (Barile et al., 2016; Vargo et al., 2016).
It is therefore feasible to consider that an exploration and analysis of the meal kit service
through service dominant logic’s most recent amendment of value co-creation (Vargo &
Lusch, 2016) and other related service theories could inform a framework that assists
service designers.
1.1 Research purpose This study aims to explore how the meal kit service is utilised by its customers and their
network to co-create value. In observing how the service is used to create dinner, the
customer processes can subsequently be abstracted though service science concepts can
inform the theoretical processes used when co-creating value with their network. When
determining which service functions will be explored in relation to its customers, this study
will reflect the commercial and competitive limitations experienced by the meal kit service.
A comparison of the meal kit service’s function in comparison to the characteristics of
dinner identifies that the social values of its customers are not actively being
accommodated (Beardsworth & Keil, 1997; Daniels et al., 2012; Simmons & Chapman,
2012; Warde, Cheng, Olsen, & Southerton, 2007). When considering the importance of
these values and the meal kit service’s need to differentiate itself from its competition,
these social food values provide an interesting premise to ground this study in.
Furthermore, the exploration of food’s social values also implies the engagement of other
network members in the process (Fischler, 1988), thereby providing an appropriate context
to observe the potential applications of the meal kit by the household network.
This study is motivated by a current interest in service science that calls for further
clarification of how design methods can be used to enhance the implementation of co-
creation through service (Ostrom, Parasuraman, Bowen, Patrício, & Voss, 2015). Therefore,
this study also introduces alternative design perspectives when exploring the meal kit and
its role in value co-creation. Participatory design perspectives and methods have been
selected for two reasons. First, this design discipline is underrepresented in the service
science discipline, despite its strong relevance towards SDL’s perspectives of the role of the
customer in value creation and the nature of value co-creation. Secondly, participatory
17
design perspectives and subsequent data collection methods born from them can be used
to inform data collection approaches that effectively capture customer dinner values with
their network. After capturing the customer processes through service concepts, this study
considered how the information could be used by service designers to strategise how
future meal kit iterations that facilitate or enhance the customer’s co-creation of value with
their network. This study concludes with an observational method to assist service
designers in making informed design decisions that accommodate both the customer and
their network’s co-creation of value.
1.2 Research significance In conducting this study from a design perspective, this study’s contribution is significant in
three areas, the first two pertaining to service design and service science literature, and the
third as a means of demonstrating better practices for a commercial entity.
In exploring service science concepts, the proposed method simplifies the contextual
dinner factors that must be considered by a service designer. Furthermore, an exploration
of value co-creation further informs how services can be designed so that customers and
their network composition enact a more significant role in how services function (Storbacka
et al., 2015). The successful identification of this could consequently be utilised outside of
the meal kit context and in other scenarios involving a complex composition of network
actors.
Secondly, this study aims to contribute to the service science discipline by answering
existing calls to demonstrate how design theory can enhance the implementation of service
science concepts (Ostrom et al., 2015; Wetter-Edman et al., 2014). This study addresses
these calls through the application of participatory design and service science concepts,
and subsequently demonstrates how a firm can establish the criteria necessary do facilitate
co-creation with an individual’s network. Participatory design has been selected based on
its underrepresentation in the service science discipline, despite its similar perspectives
with SDL’s notion of the customer’s equal role, how only the individual can create value,
and its appropriate methods when including multiple actors to explore a design
consideration.
Finally, this study demonstrates how the application of service dominant logic through
service design can inform new service iteration’s that are highly beneficial to both the meal
kit service and its customers. It aims to do so by informing service functions that actively
18
support/acknowledge the value creation processes of its customers and network. The meal
kit service can provide a service that is beneficial to the service’s customers, which in turn
enables the meal kit service to strongly differentiate itself from its competition.
1.3 Research scope and research questions Both SDL (Vargo & Lusch, 2004) and participatory design (Iversen & Leong, 2012) consider
value to be uniquely determined by the individual and their specific contextual factors. This
study embraces this notion by acknowledging that it is not feasible to define a conclusive
food value typology for the meal kit service. Instead, efforts to understand the functional
customer processes during the identification and creation of these specific food values is
considered more effective. This observation can consequently inform a framework that is
applicable to multiple users, regardless of their specific contextual factors and values. It is
for this reason that a social constructivist epistemology (Kukla, 2000) will be used, as it
directly correlates to value’s socially constructed nature (i.e. value will depend on the
individual’s perception of context). In line with this epistemology, a highly qualitative
research method will be used to explore in depth how meal kit users realise their social
food values. With the study’s epistemology established, the study is guided by the
predominant research question of ‘How can value co-creation inform the design of a meal
kit service model that better accommodates its customers unique food values, while
continuing its provision at a commercial scale?’
With the study’s research question established, this study is guided by three aims that
consequently inform the method of the study:
Aim 1: Identify what values meal kit customers attribute to their process of dinner,
and clarify how the meal kit service contributes or challenges their realisation of
said values.
To reflect the broad and uniquely determined nature of food values (Daniels et al., 2012;
Mintz & Du Bois, 2002), this first aim is realised through the exploration of participant
dinner processes. To achieve this, participatory design’s concept of the fuzzy front end
(Sanders, 2013) was used to explore how customers utilise the meal kit to fulfil their
routine week of cooking and dinner. The fuzzy front end is described as the pre-design
stage in which the mundane and routine processes of participants are observed. In doing
so, a deeper understanding of existing problems and processes can be identified, therefore
19
ensuring that the design study is not limited by the preconceived notions of the
research/design team. Thus, this study collects participant descriptions of their weekly
dinner routines with the meal kit, the values (reasoning) that underpin these processes,
and what expectations of function are attributed to the meal kit in relation to participant
processes and why. These insights will then be utilised to address the second aim of this
study.
Aim 2: Synthesise the findings of each participant through service dominant logic
frameworks to establish a common ground from which the meal kit service can
understand what various purposes it fulfils (or fails to) during the participant’s
creation of dinner.
Once collected, the second aim motivated the synthesisation of findings through service
dominant logic’s customer service experience practices (CSEP) framework to enable a
comparison of the unique processes. The CSEP framework does so by converting a series of
specific actions and interactions performed by the individual into a series of practices,
which are representative of each actions purpose during the value creation process (e.g.
the individual actions of looking for recipes on a website through a phone are indicative of
the individual searching). The practices that emerge from the abstraction of unique
participant processes can then be used to infer at a broader level what purpose the meal
kit is expected to fulfil during the participant’s value creation process. These purposes will
then be used to inform the third and final aim of this study.
Aim 3: Utilise the identified purposes attributed to the meal kit service with value
co-creation and service design concepts to propose service iterations that both
accommodate the dinner values identified among participants, while remaining
commercially viable.
In line with the concept of value co-creation, the CSEP findings that emerged from the
second aim were used to inform the service what purpose its customers had attributed to
the service. Core to the concept of value co-creation, a firm’s purpose is not to create value
for its customers, but instead to support and facilitate the customer’s personal creation
(Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Therefore, this study’s third aim implements this understanding of
role and affiliated functions customers associated with the meal kit service, to infer what
service functions are vital for assisting the individual’s personal creation of value, and what
should be left to the individual to arrange/conduct. Therefore, the abstraction of the
20
various participant responses into these roles and actions will be used to suggest how they
can be functionally accommodated through future service iterations.
In combination, these three aims are representative of understanding, synthesis, and
informed action. Therefore, achieving these three aims answers not only the research
question presented, but also provides a design process that could be utilised outside of the
meal kit context.
1.4 Thesis outline This thesis is divided into seven sections which are structured according to the stages of
research progress of this study. The subsequent six chapters are summarised in the
following paragraphs.
Chapter 2 presents the literature review, which discusses the current state of food literacy
in Australia and its implications for health. It will then explore both what is being done to
address food literacy, the emergence of the meal kit service, and what challenges are still
present. The first section explores the meal kit service, presents a means of measuring the
dimensions of food and then concludes with why an opportunity exists in the exploration of
food’s social dimensions to benefit both meal kit users and the service itself. The next
section discusses how the marketing paradigm service dominant logic can be utilised in
conjunction with participatory design to first explore these social dimensions. The third and
final section presents the customer service experience practices (CSEP) framework, and
clarifies how it can be used to synthesise participant observations into actionable
information that can be utilised by service designers for new co-design opportunities.
Chapter 3 consists of the methodology and research design implemented in this study. The
first section in this chapter will use the highly intrinsic nature of value to justify the
application of a social constructivist epistemology and subsequent qualitative methodology
implemented in this study. With this qualitative perspective forming the core lens of the
study, this chapter will then describe why participatory design perspectives and tools were
used to inform the research design of this study. The following section will then describe in
detail the research tools used, in what order they were conducted, and their functional
description and purpose in relation to the broader research aims of this study. This chapter
concludes with a section that describes the analytical frameworks utilised to make sense of
the data collected through the research tools.
21
Chapter 4 presents the results, which are segmented into five dinner stages representative
of essential processes performed by all participants. These stages were planning the
upcoming week’s meals, collecting the ingredients necessary for each meal, the
preparations and routines that preceded cooking, the act of cooking itself, and how dinner
was eaten. The final dinner stage was also representative of post-dinner activities (e.g.
cleaning) and sourcing food from other commercial agents (e.g. fast food). Within these
five dinner stages, descriptions of the more varied and nuanced activities performed during
the creation of dinner by each participant were placed. These descriptions also contain
descriptions of which actors were involved (including the meal kit), and the perceptions
and attitudes affiliated with the action. This placement of specific activities within one of
the five overarching dinner stages ensured that a comparison could be made between
varied participant actions that were conducted for the same purpose (i.e. reading recipe
instructions via a website versus asking a partner for cooking instructions). This enabled a
comparison to be made around essential moments during the cooking process despite each
participant’s unique method of actions.
Chapter 5 presents the findings. The first section synthesises the shared participant
descriptions pertaining to specific activities through the CSEP framework into
representative practice chains. This abstraction of participant results into practices is then
analysed through service dominant logic concepts to inform the following four sections of
the discussion. These sections describe (in order): The predominant purpose attributed to
the meal kit service by participants and why; how participants appropriated the meal kit’s
use to align with their social values; examples of participant driven modifications to the
service’s function, and how these changes determined the continued use of the service;
and finally, how participant networks determined the resiliency of a meal kits product and
subsequent interaction pattern identified.
Chapter 6 presents the discussion. This chapter will expand upon the analysis of the CSEP
findings and discuss how they can be implemented by a service designer. The sections of
this chapter will discuss (in order): ‘Measuring the network roles attribute to the meal kit’,
which presents a method of understanding how to better enact a supporting role during
the users’ VISC processes. ‘Customer-network led co-creation of the meal kit’, which
discusses the observed modifications of the meal kit by users, and suggests how these
natural changes can better be appropriated by the service to benefit both the user and the
meal kit service. ‘Designing for value co-creation’ shifts the specific focus of the meal kit
22
service, and discusses the study’s combined application of service dominant logic concepts
through participatory design perspectives, and how this affects service design.
Chapter 7 presents the implications and conclusion of this study. This chapter discusses
how study can benefit both the meal kit service and its users in the future, and the
theoretical implications for both design and service science disciplines when developing co-
created services. This section will then summarise the purpose of this study and what was
achieved, acknowledge the limitations of this study, and then conclude with what
opportunities exist for future studies.
23
2. Literature review
2.1 Introduction This literature review is divided into three sections and will demonstrate the complexity
and subsequent difficulties affiliated with the design of services that facilitate the dinner
process at a commercial scale, and what can be done to mitigate this complexity. Section
2.2 will discuss a service model referred to as the ‘meal kit’, and infer how the way in which
it functions has been designed to accommodate the challenges affiliated with the modern
state of dinner in Australia. This analysis will then be contrasted with a more holistic
perspective of what food and dinner is, and demonstrate why the meal kit service’s existing
function is likely to experience challenges. This analysis of food will demonstrate the
difficulty of designing services for food, where the service must address the social and
contextual needs of both its users, and those associated with the user. This section will
then conclude by proposing how the service’s accommodation of social food values present
new opportunities for the meal kit service that both address modern dinner challenges,
while also improving its competitiveness within the Australian grocery market place.
Extending upon the contextual analysis of the meal kit service and the difficulties it faces,
Section 2.3 will explore both service design and service dominant logic disciplines, and
discuss both processes and emergent trends and how they can be used to address the
challenges experienced by the meal kit service. Centring around service dominant logic’s
concept of value co-creation, this section will justify why a shift in perspective is needed
when discerning the customer in the creation of value. From here, the amended version of
value co-creation will be used to suggest why it is vital that the customers network also be
considered in the development of future service iterations that attempt to address the
social dimensions of dinner.
Section 2.4 will describe a service science framework that could be utilised to observe the
unique values of meal kit users, and convert this into actionable information for a service
designer. As such, this framework could prove useful in informing the design of services to
accommodate the difficulties when attempting to develop a commercial service that is still
relevant to the value creation processes of varying customers and their personal networks.
The second section will discuss how the concept of value co-creation can be implemented
by the meal kit service, and the associated marketing and design concepts necessary for
explore this new direction.
24
2.2 The challenges of facilitating the modern Australian dinner through service
2.2.1 Introduction The way in which modern services are designed and subsequently implemented has
increased in both scale and complexity, but promises greater benefits for both customers
and the firm (Patrício et al., 2018). Section 2.2.2 will demonstrate this complexity through
the meal kit service model, which merges both product and service elements to provide a
holistic system that aims to simplify its customer’s creation of dinner. Through the
combined application of meal planning activities, cooking instructions and the home
delivery of ingredients, this service model is representative of a results-orientated product
service system that aims to augment the customer’s dinner process (Nudurupati et al.,
2016). To demonstrate how this service’s complex composition of products and services
benefit its customers, its function will be compared to literature describing the challenges
associated with the contemporary Australian dinner (Banwell et al., 2012c). From this
comparison, this section will infer why the meal kit service has been created to address
these challenges by enhancing the customer’s cooking ability and knowledge, while
improving its convenience.
But while Section 2.2.2 demonstrates the meal kit’s beneficial features, Section 2.2.3
utilises the concepts of food literacy (Perry et al., 2017; Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014; Worsley,
2015) and food security (Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015; Clay, 2002) to demonstrate how the
service’s provision of cooking information and improvement of cooking skills is still
insufficient in resolving the modern challenges of dinner (Begley, Gallegos, & Vidgen,
2017). This analysis concludes that the service must also consider how to accommodate the
contextual and social factors surrounding dinner if long-term healthy food behaviours are
to be adopted (Worsley, 2015). This section concludes with a comparison between current
meal kit functions and this holistic concept of food to evaluate the service’s viability. From
this, an understanding will be gained of what other dimensions of food are not being
accommodated by the meal kit, thereby informing new service iterations.
Section 2.2.4 will demonstrate why the meal kit service’s accommodation of these food
dimensions serves to benefit them as well. This section evaluates the meal kit service in
relation to other food-centric firms in the Australian grocery marketplace. In doing so, it is
established what opportunities exist to for the meal kit to differentiate itself from its
competition. This analysis results in the proposition for the meal kit service, where its
resolution of food literacy not only benefits their customers, but also informs service
25
innovations unaddressed by other food related entities – an opportunity that is vital in a
highly competitive marketplace (Alam & Chowdhury, 2016). Section 2.2.5 concludes with
an in-depth description as to what potential social values are peripheral to food and dinner,
and establishes why these values are difficult to address by a commercial entity and what
business concepts may inspire a resolution.
2.2.2 The servitisation of dinner and home cooking Advances in service science and their application through service design have identified
that the mutual provision of both product and service elements can inform service designs
that are highly profitable, more valued by customers, and are considered to be a strong
contender in contributing to the sustainability agenda (Nudurupati et al., 2016). This
mutual application of product and service is referred to as a product service system or the
servitisation of goods (Nudurupati et al., 2016). But these new methods of service provision
are highly complex in their design, as they must consider how to engage with various
customers at different locations, times and interfaces (e.g. in store, internet) (Patrício et al.,
2011). Because of these factors, service designers must consider how services function at a
macro level rather than traditionally focusing on narrow technical solutions (Barile et al.,
2016). As such, service scientists are calling for further work to understand how these
service systems function to better strategise the design and subsequent application of
these holistic product service models (Barile et al., 2016; Ostrom et al., 2015; Vargo et al.,
2016). In particular, a strong interest for future work centres around the empirical
exploration of existing service models to understand how they function in context
(Nudurupati et al., 2016). It is for this reason that the meal kit service model provides an
interesting context for the exploration of this service type.
A recent service innovation, the meal kit service model is a subscription-based service
designed to assist the user’s creation of dinner through the weekly delivery of ingredients
and corresponding recipes to the user’s home. HelloFresh (https://www.hellofresh.com.au,
accessed 1/05/18), Marley Spoon (https://marleyspoon.com.au, accessed 1/05/18), Pepper
Leaf (https://www.pepperleaf.com.au, accessed 1/05/18) and My Food Bag (discontinued),
which all entered the market around 2008, are examples of the meal kit service. These
services share a very similar operation model, which is outlined below with HelloFresh as
an example. The standard service model functions that this study will be utilising functions
as follows:
26
1. Customers subscribe to the service through an online portal. The customer will be
offered a small number of options regarding how the service is delivered to them.
2. Customers first choose which meal variant they want, generally provided as Classic
(Main service offering), Family (simpler meals targeted towards households with
two children and two parents) and Vegetarian type meals.
3. After selecting the meal kit variant, the customer will select the number of nights
they want the service to organise dinner, and how many portions are required for
their household.
4. The ordering process ends after the customer selects a time frame (e.g. between 2
a.m. and 8 a.m.) for the home delivery offered by the service and suggests an
appropriate drop-off location.
5. Once the order is placed, the customer simply waits on the meal kit’s delivery. The
service will utilise a team of chefs and dieticians to plan which meals the service
will provide that week for their customers, which is then generated into set of
recipes.
6. After the meals are planned, the service will source ingredients that strictly adhere
to the arranged recipes, which are both then packaged into a meal kit. Common
staple ingredients such as olive oil and butter are left to the customer to organise,
and are described as ‘everyday ingredients’.
7. This meal kit is then delivered to the customer’s place of residence. To ensure that
the ingredients remain safe outdoors prior to the customer’s collection, the meal
kit is packaged with a combination of insulation and ice packs. The service places
the onus on the customer to waste this packaging, but to reduce wastage the firm
uses insulation and ice packs that can be recycled.
8. The customer then uses the recipes and ingredients provided to cook a variety of
meals over the duration of a week until the next meal kit arrives.
This merger of tangible ingredients with the intangible planning and instruction elements of
the meal kit’s service informs in a process that makes dinner a much easier process for
their customers. Consequently, this service and its commercial offer has the potential to be
highly valued when accommodating Australian dinners in the 21st century, which has
evolved considerably from previous generations. Current trends identify that Australian
households are cooking at home less (Banwell, Broom, Davies, & Dixon, 2012b) as they
source more convenient meals prepared by commercial entities (e.g. fast food, restaurants,
microwave meals) (Banwell, Broom, Davies, & Dixon, 2012a). These changes are motivated
27
by a combination of factors such as an increase in personal mobility, time pressures and a
broader selection of more convenient alternatives to eat (Banwell et al, 2012e). But these
changes in routine dinner are proving detrimental to the population’s cooking knowledge
and skillset in comparison to previous generations of Australians (Banwell et al., 2012b).
This is worrisome, as poor food literacy is affiliated with higher risks of obesity (Banwell et
al., 2012b; Worsley, 2015), which afflicts both high financial and existential costs on an
individual and societal scale (Dixon, 2010). Furthermore, this problem is generational, as
households reliant on an individual with poor food literacy are more likely to experience
and adopt those same poor dietary habits (Lavelle et al., 2016; Simmons & Chapman,
2012). This clarifies why the resolution of the challenges afflicting the modern dinner is
vital, demonstrating that the meal kit service model can play a valued role in the dinner
process.
When contrasting these challenges with the meal kit service’s functions, it can be inferred
that it has decisively designed to improve dinner’s factors of convenience, nutrition and
cooking knowledge. However, the meal kit’s accommodation of these factors, while
important, addresses a very narrow scope of food that is already saturated with solutions.
Walls et al. (2009) and Banwell et al. (2012) conclude that Australians have a much greater
selection of nutritional meal alternatives than previous generations. This is demonstrated
through the similar promises of fresh and nutritional food by most of the meal kit services.
This promise of healthy products is even offered through regular food products in the form
of nutritional information on their packaging, although this impact is argued as highly
limited (Walls et al., 2009). This first demonstrates that many Australians are not
experiencing a lack of healthier options, eliminating a competitive feature of the meal kit
service model.
Furthermore, the dietary concept of food literacy has recently acknowledged that, while
the development of cooking skills and knowledge is essential, the contextual restraints,
self-efficacy and confidence of an individual are also vital determinants of what the
individual chooses to eat (Perry et al., 2017; Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014). Thus, dieticians
acknowledge that an individual’s choice of dinner is socially and contextually informed
(Begley et al., 2017; Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014). An individual might be aware of a food’s
poor nutritional value, but the contextual pressures they experience motivate the selection
of cheaper, unhealthy yet more convenient dinner alternatives (Worsley, 2015). This
demonstrates that, while the meal kit’s offering is convenient, the means by which it
28
enables convenience may create other core problems affecting their customer’s form of
dinner (e.g. dietary preferences, non-traditional family sizes, religious requirements).
These problems demonstrate that a resolution of dinners modern challenges must also
accommodate the ulterior social and contextual aspects of food; Australians are not lacking
in choice of what dinner is, Australians need help in how dinner is perceived, created, and
consumed. It is for this reason that this thesis aims to explore this ‘how’ space, and how it
can redefine the meal kit service model’s function to accommodate the contemporary
Australian dinner. Therefore, the following sections will first present a more holistic
perspective of food, from which this project will argue why the meal kit service model’s
accommodation of these broader dimensions benefits not only meal kit customers, but the
meal kit service itself.
2.2.3 Measuring the benefit of meal kit service through a holistic perspective of food
The previous section demonstrates that, for the meal kit service’s function to be critically
assessed, the dimensions of dinner must to be expanded beyond its most apparent
attributes of ingredients, cooking ability and nutrition. As such, this section will utilise the
concepts of food literacy (Perry et al., 2017; Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014; Worsley, 2015) and
food security (Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015; Clay, 2002) to inform a holistic understanding of
food and its underlying characteristics. This clarification of food can subsequently be used
to make an informed comparison of meal kit functions in relation to the characteristics vital
for its customer’s creation and consumption of the meal.
Food literacy is a concept established by the nutrition sciences to inform nutritional
practices, but is finding increased usage by governments and organisations to inform better
policy (Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014). Established in the early 20th century, this concept
centred around the perspective that nutritional knowledge and culinary skills were key to
improving the dietary intake and subsequent health of a population (Worsley, 2015).
However, the effectiveness of this perspective in the modern era is being challenged, as
dieticians acknowledge that the specific focus on cooking ability and knowledge is too
limited, and is proving ineffective when attempting to encourage long-term healthy
behaviours (Begley et al., 2017). It is for this reason that food literacy has evolved to
acknowledge that the social and contextual factors of an individual also play an essential
role in determining what they decide to cook and consume (Perry et al., 2017; Vidgen &
Gallegos, 2014). This demonstrates that the concept of food literacy provides a means for
29
the meal kit to frame and subsequently encourage better cooking and dietary behaviours
of its customers. But despite food literacy’s recent emphasis on how important the
individual’s contextual factors are in determining what is cooked and eaten, the concept is
yet to comprehensively define a measure for these contextual characteristics (Perry et al.,
2017; Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014). It is for this reason that the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO) and its concept of food security (Clay, 2002) will be used to
inform the broader contextual lens that measures the meal kit’s viability in the modern
Australian dinner.
Much like the concept of food literacy, food security originally grounded its focus around
the individual’s ability to access and utilise food (Clay, 2002). But through decades of
application, it was identified that a population’s preferences and subsequent demand for
food are essential motivators when addressing the nutrition based problems of food (Clay,
2002). Thus, through continued iteration, the FAO currently defines food security as ‘When
all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and
healthy life’ (Clay, 2002). With this overarching definition of food’s three dimensions
established, the FAO’s distils the criteria necessary for achieving food security into four
pillars of availability, access, utilisation and stability (Figure 1) (Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015).
Key to this concept, each food security pillar encapsulates the three dimensions of food. As
such, all three dimensions must be realised through the four pillars for the individual to
experiencing food security; i.e. while an individual may be situated nearby a grocery
(physical access), they cannot access the resources if they do not have the money
(economic access). This demonstrates how food security can be provide a specific measure
to supplement Perry et al.’s (2017) ‘extrinsic’ sphere of food literacy. Vidgen and Gallegos
(2014) described stages of planning and managing, selecting, preparing, and eating can be
attributed to exist within food security’s access and utilisation pillars.
30
Thus, with the establishment of food literacy (Perry et al., 2017; Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014;
Worsley, 2015) as the means of determining the impact of the meal kit service during the
creation of dinner, and food security (Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015; Clay, 2002) as the
analytical lens to observe the broader contextual influences, this enables the analysis of the
meal kit service’s existing function.
Beginning with food security’s pillar of ‘availability’ in relation to the Australian dinner,
Australia’s strong agricultural abilities economy ensures that a sufficient supply of safe food
can be both produced and accessed (Department of Agriculture, 2014; Xia, Zhao, & Valle,
2017). As such, Availability is not a pressing challenge to consider for the meal kit when
designing for the modern Australian dinner. But the meal kit’s holistic resolution of food
security’s access pillar is more nuanced, as the service’s applicability is determined by an
individual’s monetary, social and contextual factors. The meal kit’s use of dieticians and
home delivery greatly increases the user’s ability to both identify and acquire safe,
nutritious ingredients, thus strongly addressing the physical attributes of access. But the
Figure 1 The FAO’s four pillars of food security (Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015)
31
services accommodation of physical access starts to falter through its strict offering of meal
serving quantities, which only accommodates households with either two or four members.
If the individual’s wishes to cook for unconventional family sizes, friends or unexpected
visitors is limited, it fails to resolve the social attributes of food security’s access.
Outside of the physical and social dimensions of ‘access’, a service’s status as a commercial
enterprise also means a user’s access is determined by their ability to purchase the service.
Despite the meal kit’s declaration that the unit price of an individual meal is comparably
less than one purchased at a restaurant (https://www.hellofresh.com.au/tasty/food-boxes,
accessed 1/05/18), this is insufficient, as other direct and indirect financial barriers (e.g.
cost of car ownership, amenities bills, school fees) may limit the individual’s ability to pay
(Upton, Cissé, & Barrett, 2016). This demonstrates that while the meal kit service is largely
beneficial in improving an individual’s physical access to safe and nutritious food, its
commercial status and strict service provision limits the user’s ability to reap these
benefits.
Food security’s third pillar of ‘utilisation’ also demonstrates a polarising degree of
appropriateness when contrasting the physical attributes of food with its social and cultural
dimensions. The service’s usage of dieticians to plan meals ensures the provision of
nutritious produce that strongly addresses the physical dimensions of utilisation.
Furthermore, the service’s provision of recipe cards to instruct cooking processes increases
the likelihood of safe preparation of the ingredients, while potentially increasing the user’s
self-efficacy during cooking, which is beneficial when improving food literacy (Lavelle et al.,
2016). But despite the meal kit’s effective accommodation of utilisation’s physical
dimension, the meal kit poorly accommodates the social, religious and contextual values
surrounding food. This is demonstrated by the service’s small selection of meal kit variants
that lack any accommodation for allergies or preferences beyond vegetarianism. This highly
limits the service’s capacity to address dietary requirements experienced by its customers.
Consequently, meal kit users are not afforded agency over the meals or corresponding
ingredients delivered to them, leaving an onus on the customer to either waste or resolve
the offending meal. Finally, the strict and highly precise ingredient portions delivered also
ensure that the modification or reinvention of service meals to better align with personal
preferences is difficult to achieve. This demonstrates why a failure to consider the
individual’s social or contextual requirements within food security’s utilisation pillar may
prevent the use of the service entirely.
32
When considering food security’s final pillar of ‘stability’, the degree to which the meal kit
can successfully maintain this is dependent on its ability to support an individual’s previous
two dimensions of access and utilisation. This suggests that those who are financially
secure, and lack strong dietary preferences and allergies, are highly likely to unconcerned
about future use of the meal kit. But, the constrained nature in which the service is
provided makes it difficult to accommodate food security’s dimension of stability, as those
with allergies and dietary restrictions will be unable to confidently rely on the meal kit’s
ability to continuously plan appropriate meals.
The analysis of the meal kit’s function in relationship to food security demonstrates that
despite the service’s strong resolution to the physical dimensions of food security’s access
and utilisation pillars, its strict selection and provision of meals poorly accommodates the
economic and social dimensions of food. In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates that the
meal kit service is not sufficiently addressing ‘the dietary needs and food preferences’
(Clay, 2002) crucial to food and its consumption. However, these shortcomings present an
opportunity for the service to innovate its service model and accommodate these
unaddressed dimensions of dinner, and emerge as an essential service.
Following Choi, Foth and Hearn’s (2014) call to place people at the centre of design
opportunity ‘as active agents of food systems who are fundamentally influenced by the
system but at the same time shape the system itself through their varied actions and
decisions,’ this thesis focuses on the social dimensions within food security’s access,
utilisation and stability pillars to explore and inform innovation opportunities for the meal
kit service to enhance modern Australian dinners. It will do so by extending the definition
of dinner beyond its physical form, rendering consumption as comprising of diverse
interactions, gestures and symbols that both motivate and result from its performance (i.e.
a family dinner consists of the consumption of the meal, the household members involved
and the familial conversation at a dinner table). As this section concludes with how the
meal kit has the potential to better address the challenges of modern dinner for its
customers, the next section will demonstrate why the meal kit’s holistic resolution of
food’s dimensions strongly benefits the business as well.
2.2.4 The difficulties of competing within the Australian grocery market
In addressing the broader aspects attributed to its customer’s dinner, the meal kit service
can potentially resolve the poor dietary habits of its customers, while providing a product
33
that also reflects its customer’s food values. But when considering how the meal kit service
would benefit from exploring these changes, this section presents the opportunities that
arise from addressing food’s social and contextual dimensions. This section will also
establish the current challenges the firm faces to then inform which dimensions of food
security would be appropriate to adopt, and the subsequent project direction for exploring
future service iterations.
Beginning with the Australian grocery market place, the meal kit service’s late entry into
the Australian market has proved troublesome. Alam and Chowdhury (2016) and Magner
(2016) emphasise that new entries into Australia’s supermarket industry will face fierce
competition, as they must compete with two predominant supermarket giants. Currently,
Woolworths has a leading market share of 38.7%, which is closely followed by Coles’ 30.1%
stake, with the remaining grocers (including chains such as Aldi, Spar Australia and IGA)
sharing a combined 26.5% stake (Alam & Chowdhury, 2016). Magner (2016) emphasises
that the elastic nature of food produce means that price is the current point of competition
between firms, resulting in low profit potentials (Alam & Chowdhury, 2016). This is
problematic, as being priced out by the competing grocery giants is a severe reality.
When considering the differences between the online home delivery of a meal kit and
traditional grocers, Magner (2016) states that there is an opportunity for potential growth
within online groceries, as the hold that Coles and Woolworths have over the Australian
market has slowed growth in comparison to other online innovations in different markets.
In line with the previously mentioned challenges associated with time pressure, Alam &
Chowdhury (2016) also identified that customers are willing to pay higher prices for
convenience factors such as home delivery and reduced waiting times, features already
present in the meal kit’s service model.
But as both Coles and Woolworths are now implementing variations of online shopping and
home delivery services, a meal kit service will find further difficulty differentiating itself in
an already competitive market. The culmination of these challenges may suggest why, over
the course of this study, two meal kit services have ended their operations in Australia. The
meal kit service My Food Bag was sold to a foreign investor and withdrew from the
Australian marketplace in late 2016 (Dann, 2016; Jager, 2016), whereas Aussie Farmers
Direct closed early 2018 (Hatch & Danckert, 2018). This demonstrates that despite the meal
kit service model’s strong accommodation of food security’s physical dimensions of
availability and access, solely relying on these features will not enhance the degree of
34
competitiveness in relation to the better entrenched competition that also addresses these
dimensions.
Therefore, when strategising which dimensions of food security should be adopted by the
meal kit service to inform the development of new features, this section establishes that
the physical dimensions food security are effectively addressed. Furthermore, the service’s
application of specialists (dieticians, chefs, etc.) to assist in dinner is finding replication
from other predominantly ‘access-focused’ competition. Therefore, in consideration of a
highly competitive market place and replicable service model, this study proposes that the
meal kit service would benefit from expanding its function to accommodate the social and
economic dimensions of food security (Clay, 2002). In doing so, the meal kit service can
consider service offerings that differentiate itself from its competition, while also
addressing the broader contextual food challenges encountered by its customers.
One final limitation resulting from the meal kit’s commercial status is that its existence is
dependent on the profit it makes from its customers. Therefore, the service’s ability to
address the economic needs of its customers will be difficult to accommodate if the
business itself is not at first financially viable. When further considering this limitation in
relation to the highly competitive market place (Alam & Chowdhury, 2016; Magner, 2016),
it can be determined that the social dimensions surrounding food security are the most
appropriate for the service to first explore and then expand upon. In fulfilling both the
physical and social demands of its customer base, the meal kit service’s market position
could strengthen and consequently allow for the future exploration of new service models
that address the economic dimensions of food security. Therefore, the social values that
could be potentially be attributed to dinner will first be explored to determining how the
meal kit can better address food security.
2.2.5 Defining the social attributes of food In its current form, the meal kit service already offers a small selection of meal variants that
broadly correlate to meal preferences; i.e. HelloFresh provides ‘Classic’, ‘Family’ and
‘Vegetarian’ options (https://www.hellofresh.com.au/tasty/food-boxes/, accessed
1/05/18). But these options are insufficient, as these meal variants pale in comparison to
the potential social and preferential food values an individual might attribute to the social
dimension of food security (Clay, 2002). Food security’s utilisation and stability pillars
demonstrate that any convenience or health benefits attributed to the meal kit service are
35
lost if the individual’s dietary, social or religious factors are challenged by the meals
selected. Thus, for the service to sufficiently accommodate the social dimensions of food
security, it is essential that the social dimensions attributed to food security are
understood. Therefore, this section will discuss the potential values attributed to food to
then define the social features vital for accommodating the utilisation and stability pillars of
food security (Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015). The clarification of these social components
could then be used to observe the social values of meal kit users and consequently inform
opportunities for the redesign of service functions that accommodate these values.
Our existential dependence on food for nourishment ensures that this core experience of
consumption is universally shared. Consequently, many approaches to food and cooking
have been developed that have shaped a complex, multifaceted practice. For instance, the
enactment of dinner and eating can be representative of deeply rooted values for varying
religious, cultural and social groups (Beardsworth & Keil, 1997). This makes dinner a highly
personal yet universal phenomena that is moulded by the individual’s background, social
placement and ability. Furthermore, an individual’s relationship with food will also vary in
relation to current contextual factors (Daniels et al., 2012). While an individual may enjoy
following the simple cooking instructions of the meal kit after a busy day at work, the same
individual may find the meal kit’s preselected dinners highly limiting as they yearn to
experiment with a personal meal on the weekend. This is because dinner extends beyond
nourishment, and acts as a medium through which social experiences, gestures of care and
status (familial, societal) can be expressed among friends and family (Simmons & Chapman,
2012). Therefore, the attitudes an individual holds towards the use of a meal kit in their
dinner processes will greatly vary in relation to factors such as their employment, family
situation, cooking knowledge and social activities (Daniels et al., 2012).
Warde et al. (2007) argue that food and its consumption can be considered as a structuring
principle for personal and collective experiences, which is used to demonstrate social
position within a network of other actors (Beardsworth & Keil, 1997). Put simply, ‘You are
what you eat’ has an implied meaning to it. When observing groups such as vegetarians,
health gurus, Hindus and so on, the food they consume and the actions utilised
demonstrate the values held dear to that group (Fischler, 1988; Mintz & Du Bois, 2002).
Depending on the individual’s processes, the insertion of a meal kit may enact rapid
changes to an individual’s social habits and routines around food, which can build
resistance towards the new process (Warde et al., 2007). This is because the service not
36
only changes physical processes and objects, but meddles in rich, deeply rooted attitudes,
behaviours and identities held by individuals.
These descriptions of food values provide three elements that can be used to scope the
social dimensions of food (Figure 2). On an individual basis, the meal can be used as a tool
to demonstrate intrinsic beliefs and identities (e.g. a parent’s gesture of care for their
children) (Beardsworth & Keil, 1997; Fischler, 1988). Furthermore, these intrinsic identities
can also be reflections of a larger social group that the individual is aligned with (e.g. a
parent eats dinner with their family/child) (Fischler, 1988; Mintz & Du Bois, 2002). As such,
the meal and its affiliated actions act as a ritual through which personal identity and social
group are connected (e.g. a parent uses the meal to present a gesture of care and
nourishment to their family) (Stano, 2016; Warde et al., 2007).
This suggests that to realise the social dimensions necessary for accommodating food
security’s dimension of utilisation, an understanding of what purpose dinner plays in
relation to the user’s social context (e.g. cooking for a family, showing off for a date) and
what actions are necessary for its success is needed. From this understanding, a
comparison of the social values identified weighted against meal kit functions could
demonstrate to what degree the service supports or challenges the individual’s utilisation
of the service for dinner. This can be done by exploring an individual’s social identity and
their associated social group, and where the meal kit fits (or should be removed) during
ritual. But this proves difficult, as a single individual can be a member of various social
groups (e.g. each social identity in Figure 2 could be attributed to a single individual).
Figure 2 The elements of food security’s social dimension
37
In conclusion, this demonstrates how the meal kit could perceive the potential intrinsic
social values its users attribute to food. But the service’s ability to act on this information is
still not apparent, as food values are too broad and contextually motivated for a
commercial service to address on an individual scale. This demonstrates the difficult
position the meal kit service currently resides within, and where it must consider how
flexibility can be implemented in through its product to accommodate the broad food
values of its various customers, but in a way that remains viable for mass distribution. This
predicament could be used to infer why so many existing food services only manage to
accommodate the physical dimensions of food security. But in resolving this challenge, this
also presents a strong opportunity to create a service that greatly differentiates itself
through an innovative service offering. Therefore, the exploration of the meal kit and its
accommodation of unique food values will be examined through the disciplines of service
science and service design to inspire a solution.
2.2.6 Conclusion This exploration of the meal kit service and its ability to accommodate the dinner processes
of its customers presents an interesting case study that demonstrates the difficulty of
designing servitised goods (Nudurupati et al., 2016). The analysis of the meal kit’s services
function in relation to the challenges associated with enacting a contemporary Australian
dinner suggests that the meal kit service model’s current form partially addresses the
factors preventing Australians from cooking nutritious meals (Banwell et al., 2012b). But
after broadening the food’s characteristics through the concepts of food literacy (Perry et
al., 2017; Vidgen & Gallegos, 2014; Worsley, 2015) and food security (Cawthorn &
Hoffman, 2015; Clay, 2002), the subsequent analysis of the service’s functions demonstrate
that its primary accommodation of food’s more apparent attributes limits may limit its
overall viability. This suggests that the meal kit’s failure to accommodate the underlying
social and cultural values of food means that the service may challenge the ulterior aspects
of food, ultimately eliminating any benefit associated with its meal planning and
convenient home delivery functions.
While this analysis demonstrates how the meal kit service could enhance its customer’s
creation of dinner, the observed duopoly with the Australian grocery market (Alam &
Chowdhury, 2016; Magner, 2016) is used to justify why the meal kit service must
implement features that differentiate itself. After analysing the meal kit service’s function
through food security’s physical, economic and social dimensions of food, it was
38
established that the physical dimensions of food have found strong accommodation by
both the meal kit service and its competition. Furthermore, the inelastic nature of the
ingredients sold combined with severe market competition (Alam & Chowdhury, 2016) was
used to dissuade service iterations that attempt to resolve food’s economic dimensions.
This informed the conclusion that future meal kit service iterations should consider how it
can accommodate the social dimensions of food security’s utilisation and stability pillars
(Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015). Doing so will identify what opportunities exist for the meal
kit service, and inform the design of service iterations that addresses the modern dinner
problems identified.
With the project direction established, this study concludes with how food security’s social
dimensions could be further specified, which motivated the subsequent exploration of
food’s social characteristics. Section 2.2.5’s exploration resulted in the observation that
foods contextually informed and highly intrinsic nature (Daniels et al., 2012) meant that a
typology of food values was not feasible. Instead, this literature informed the
characterisation of food’s social dimensions as the individual’s identity (Beardsworth & Keil,
1997), the social group they belong to (Fischler, 1988; Mintz & Du Bois, 2002), and the
ritual utilised to bridge these identities (Warde et al., 2007). From this distinction, it was
determined that for the meal kit service to accommodate the food values of its customers,
it must identify what purpose it fulfils and how, within its customer’s food ritual. But
addressing these social attributes of food security will be challenging on a commercial
scale, as food values are unique and contextually informed; not only on a network level but
even the individual’s attitudes towards foods is dependent on their immediate situation
relative to their context. Therefore, attempting to design a meal kit that is directly
applicable to the multitude of these values is not possible. Instead, new marketing
paradigms should be considered to inform how the meal kit can be designed to balance the
unique food values of its customers with what is commercially feasible for the meal kit.
In response to these modern-day challenges, this analysis demonstrates that the meal kit
service model partially resolves the challenges of modern dinner by addressing cooking
ability, time pressures and health factors through its provision of convenient, dietician
planned, home delivered meals. But while these functions have been designed to directly
correspond to the problems identified attributed to modern Australian dinners, this
analysis of the meal kit’s function in relation to food security suggests the service’s limited
resolution of one of three dimensions of food. This demonstrates that, despite the meal
kit’s convenience and simplicity addressing some of the challenges surrounding the modern
39
Australian dinner (Banwell et al., 2012b), its apparent indifference towards the social and
economic dimensions of food security demonstrate an inability to accommodate the food
values attributed to dinner, resulting in a less influential product. This also highlights lost
opportunities for the meal kit model to innovate its service model to and differentiate itself
among its fierce competition within the Australian food marketplace
2.3 Designing co-creative services 2.3.1 Introduction As previously demonstrated, the meal kit service model partially addresses the food
problems associated with modern Australian dinners, but when viewed through the
concepts of food security (Clay, 2002) and food literacy (Perry et al., 2017; Vidgen &
Gallegos, 2014) there is an opportunity for the meal kit service to broaden its scope and
address the social factors attributed to food. Doing so will benefit its customers with the
creation of a product that is sensitive to the individual’s intrinsic food values.
Accommodating these highly desired factors is also likely to improve the meal kit’s
competitiveness, which is vital considering the market places established and saturated
nature (Alam & Chowdhury, 2016; Magner, 2016). With the project scope established, the
subsequent question of how the meal kit service can accommodate these complex and
varied food values is identified. To answer this question, the discipline of service design and
its application of service science frameworks are advised.
The discipline of service design presents a methodology that the meal kit can implement
when attempting to develop a service model that directly addresses the food values of its
customers. This is because the abductive reasoning utilised by the design discipline (Dorst,
2011; Wetter-Edman, 2009) has already found prominent use when redesigning services to
accommodate the values of its customers (Furrer et al., 2016; Mahr, Kalogeras, &
Odekerken-Schröder, 2013). Therefore, the following section demonstrates how the unique
values attributed to dinner can be understood, how they can be facilitated by the firm
through value co-creation, and how co-creative interactions can be designed into service.
But while service design can be used to develop a service model that attempts to address
the food values of its customers, the way in which the service is designed is dependent on
service science theories used to inform the service’s components.
One such service science discipline is referred to as service dominant logic (SDL). This
marketing paradigm was created from the perspective that only the individual can
40
determine and subsequently create intrinsic value, challenging the traditional production
roles attributed with business (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). SDL utilises the concept of value-in-
use (VIU) (Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008) to redefine the core function of business as one
that supports the individual’s personal creation of value through value co-creation
(Grönroos, 2011; Vargo, Lusch, Akaka, & He, 2010). When considering the previously
discussed food values, the meal kit service’s adoption of SDL concepts could therefore
inform a variety of service functions that benefit the individual’s food ritual, thus enhancing
the social dimensions of food security. Therefore, SDL’s concept of value co-creation can be
used in conjunction with VIU to theorise how the meal kit can balance the desires of its
customers with the capabilities of the firm.
2.3.2 Service design and the meal kit Section’s 2.2.3 exploration of food security’s social dimensions presents opportunities for
the meal kit service to expand its product and accommodate its customer’s broader
dimensions dinner. However, the method through which the service could support these
unique and intrinsic food values at commercial scales is not clear. This demonstrates that
the predominant challenge the meal kit service must overcome to address the social
dynamics of food security lies in striking a balance in its marketing practices that is uniquely
valuable yet commercially feasible. But this predicament is not a new phenomenon. As
traditional marketing practices struggle to achieve this balance (Kimbell, 2014), the
marketing discipline has identified that the adoption of service design could inform the
processes that inspire a solution (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2010).
While the design discipline has traditionally been attributed with the creation of physical
objects and spaces, its placement of the user at the centre of its design decisions has
resulted in the creation of a rigorous problem-solving process (Furrer et al., 2016; Stickdorn
& Schneider, 2010). In this lens, people affected or associated with a phenomenon are
consulted to provide input and discuss the problems they encounter (Sanders & Stappers,
2008). The designer then utilises the information shared by the user to inform the features
necessary for a product or service’s success (Sanders, 2002). Through inquiry and repeated
testing, the application of the design thinking process has proven to be beneficial, as its
inquisitive and open nature presents opportunities to address messy problems (Dorst,
2011). This is why design has found prominent use in the business and marketing discipline
(Kimbell, 2014).
41
The merger of the design and marketing disciplines has resulted in a new design typology
referred to as service design, which combines the design thinking process with service
science concepts and frameworks. Kimbell (2011) defines ‘service’ as both social and
material resources that unfold temporally. From these dimensions, Kimbell (2011)
proposes that a service designer must utilise the physical and social elements of those
involved (i.e. firm, customer, employee) to inform the design of complex systems with
which the customer engages to achieve their goals. Therefore, the service designer’s role is
to work with a firm to create objects and systems that make the intangible capabilities and
associated actors (e.g. employees) of the service apparent to the user (Kimbell, 2011).
Holmlid (2007) states that service design’s distinction from industrial or interaction and
experience design can be represented through the scale. Service design utilises a macro
perspective to design a system that extends over a period of time and multiple locations.
This broader system perspective then informs what opportunities exist for interaction
between the firm and customer, which an industrial designer and/or interaction designer
develop the specific product (Holmlid, 2007).
Service design’s existence between design and service science disciplines present a means
of not only analysing the meal kit service’s current functions in relation to food values, but
also provides a method that can convert these insights into actionable concepts (Wetter-
Edman, 2009). Thus, service design will act as medium through which service science
concepts are implemented to the meal kit. For the meal kit service to address the social
characteristics of food security it must consider its purpose within the individual’s dinner
processes to inform how it should function, but ensure that the service model can be
scaled to a commercial level. When acknowledging these constraints, service science’s
theories of value-in-use (VIU) and value co-creation may prove effective when
implemented into the service design process. VIU has been selected as it is a central theory
from which the discipline of service dominant logic emerged (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), and
has found itself embedded within a number of service science concepts. Value co-creation
found prominence within the marketing discipline around the same time as VIU (Prahalad
& Ramaswamy, 2004), and has found mutual application with VIU. Combined, both
concepts are utilised as guiding principles that redefine the nature and function of a
business’s role in the individual’s creation of value, and is why these concepts are highly
relevant for the meal kit’s accommodation of food values.
The axiological concept of VIU provides a functional description that service designers can
use to consider how value is intrinsically created and to determine what should be
42
provided by the service (Mahr et al., 2013; Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). This concept offers a
vital understanding for the service by informing what unique food values exist around the
meal kit and how they emerge. The concept of value co-creation can then be utilised to
theorise how the meal kit service could embrace the uniquely determined food values,
which subsequently inform the design of service functions that empower the individual to
personally achieve their needs. Service science’s concept of value co-creation has already
found use when defining how to engage with its users (Cesarotti, Giuiusa, Kwan, Introna, &
Spohrer, 2014; Lehoux, 2013), and establish how the business can better facilitate its users’
personal endeavours (Patrício et al., 2011; Storbacka et al., 2015; Wallin et al., 2016).
Therefore, sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 will describe these two service science concepts and
inform how the meal kit can be designed to address the social dimensions of food security.
2.3.3 The functional dynamics of value Service designers and marketers are recognising that for a service to be considered
meaningful to its users, both the company’s image and offering must be aligned to the
latent emotional needs of their potential customers (Wrigley & Straker, 2018). Doing so
ensures that customers first recognise a reason to engage with the firm’s services, and
upon interaction, have positive experiences to then justify continued engagements in the
future. The continued facilitation of the customers latent emotional needs by the firm has
been associated with both competitive advantage and enhanced customer loyalty
(Fitzpatrick, Varey, Grönroos, & Davey, 2015). It is for this reason that design’s user centred
methods have been recognised as integral to the development these meaningful
relationships (Wetter-Edman, 2009). Design’s exploratory processes extract customer
perspectives and inform what the customer’s emotional latent needs are, which designers
can then use to subsequently infer how the service can function to facilitate them (Wrigley
& Straker, 2018). It is for this reason that design, and by association SDL, would benefit
from a strong comprehension of value’s functional mechanics. By understanding the
dynamics of value, designers can use this knowledge to better inquire what expectations
and desires meal kit users attribute to the service. From this enhanced degree of
communication, customer values could then be used to develop value propositions tailored
to, or at the very least accommodating of, their food values. It is for this reason that this
chapter will explore contemporary notions of value and how it functions.
Axiology and the dimensions of value and vary broadly among disciplines (Boztepe, 2007;
Fernandes, 2012). Therefore, when considering which definition of value is appropriate for
43
exploring the food values of meal it users, a use value perspective will be adopted
(Fernandes, 2012). This is because a use value perspective states that what people desire is
experience, which forms the motivating factor as to why they engage with products,
objects and services (Boztepe, 2007). Service science utilises this perspective to thereby
acknowledge that value emerges from an individual’s perception of an opportunity or
problem relative to the context they are situated in (Grönroos, 2006; Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004).The marketing paradigm service dominant logic
(SDL) utilises this lens to declare that value does not reside within a firm’s tangible product,
but is instead determined by the individual’s observation and analysis of their context
(Ellway & Dean, 2015). This identification of value is referred to as potential value, as the
individual must still engage in action to realise it (Grönroos & Gummerus, 2014). Thus, the
combined process of materialising potential value through action is referred to as value-in-
use (VIU) (Wetter-Edman, 2009).
The next functional characteristic of VIU is that for the individual to create value (i.e. make
changes in their context), they must utilise resources through action (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
Resources are considered elements that the individual draws on in their attempts to create
value, and are divided into two categories: operand, which consists of physical artefacts
(ingredients, utensils, a car), and operant which are intangible elements such as abilities
and knowledge (Storbacka et al., 2015; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). To create new value, the
individual must draw on the resources of other actors to enhance their personal
capabilities (e.g. learning a cooking skill from a TV show, purchasing a utensil). This reliance
on external resources to create new value is used to justify why the individual will interact
with other actors during the creation of value (Grönroos & Gummerus, 2014).
Ellway and Dean (2015) divide the VIU process into five cyclical stages, which can be used
to redefine an individual’s engagement value with the meal kit (Figure 3). For instance, if
the individual does not enjoy grocery shopping, this necessary but undesired process forms
a misalignment of value (Stage 5). Upon the realisation of this problem, the individual is
predisposed to alternative value processes (Stage 1), motivating the individual’s analysis of
other actors’ resources. After discovering the meal kit’s home delivery functions (Stage 2),
the individual identifies a potential opportunity in the service’s use. After deciding to trial
the service, the individual is consequently delighted to wake up to the upcoming week’s
ingredients on their door step (Stage 3, Engagement in practice). As the individual engages
with the meal kit they evaluate their experiences (Stage 4) by assessing the reality of the
service’s resources with their original expectations. Upon doing so, the individual
44
determines that too many meals have been ordered for their household. Despite this
miscalculation, the individual’s delight at the lack of grocery shopping combined with their
ability to change the number of meals delivered leaves the individual experiencing an
alignment of value within their context (Stage 5), which is used to justify the continued use
of service after reducing the next order’s quantity.
While VIU has found prominent use in the formation of service science concepts, service
dominant logic (SDL) has recently broadened its scope to acknowledge that influence a
network will hold over the individual’s VIU (Vargo et al., 2016; Vargo & Lusch, 2016). This
Figure 3 Ellway & Dean’s (2015) cyclical description of value creation
45
network influence can already be identified within the previously discussed VIU cycle
(Ellway & Dean, 2015). During the individual’s predisposition to value, their evaluation of
surrounding network actors and their affiliated resources is used to theorise how beneficial
these actors are for the individual’s VIU (Grönroos, 2012; Lusch & Nambisan, 2015; Vargo
et al., 2008). Therefore, the individual’s value creation strategy and resulting process is
ultimately informed by how they identify opportunity among the resources offered by
other actors (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011; Ellway & Dean, 2015; Mahr et al.,
2013; Storbacka et al., 2015). With this broadened influence, Edvardsson et al. (2011) use
social construction theory to describe these network influences and expand the concept of
VIU into value-in-social-context (VISC), which will form the dominating value creation
concept utilised by this study.
VISC implements the sociological concepts of networks, actors, roles and social positioning
to better describe the network influence over the VIU process (Edvardsson et al., 2011).
The adoption of sociology’s concepts of networks, actors, roles and social positioning is
used to broaden the VIU perspective from a dyadic interaction between firm and customer,
and acknowledge that value is shaped by the network the individual resides within (Barile
et al., 2016; Edvardsson et al., 2011; Frow, McColl-Kennedy, & Payne, 2016). When
considering what the concept of VISC implies for the meal kit service, this demonstrates
that the service must not only consider the individual’s uniquely determined values, but
also realise that the service exists within a complex web of actors that also serve a role in
the creation of food values. As such, the meal kit needs to not only identify what the
individual considers valuable, but also understand the service’s social position and affiliated
tasks assigned by the individual for their VISC process. Finally, VISC does not eliminate the
concept of VIU, as this premise still maintains that the individual remains as the only one
capable of realising their intrinsic value. Instead, VISC extends the VIU process by stating
that individual’s creation of value is shaped by the surrounding network (Edvardsson et al.,
2011) .
The application of VISC inspires a shift in perspective, where before asking, ‘What resources
are needed to support the individual’s VISC?’ the firm and/or designers must first ask,
‘Where does the meal kit fit among the individual’s VISC process?’ Therefore, VISC will be
used to describe how food values are both inspired and created by the individual, and how
they evolve in relation to the individual’s network. Despite the functional description of
VISC provided, the application of this knowledge into the meal kit service is still not
apparent, as it is not commercially feasible to individually accommodate the multitude of
46
uniquely determined food values of its customers. Therefore, the meal kit service needs to
strategically consider how it can instead support individuals to create their uniquely
determined values. This can be done through service dominant logic’s concept of value co-
creation.
2.3.4 The meal kit’s role in the creation of value Section 2.3.3 utilises VISC to not only present a functional description of how value is
created, but also demonstrates the individual’s ability to realise their dinner values is
informed by their contextual factors and network members. This therefore cements the
notion that it is not feasible for the firm to design tailored meal kits that reflect the specific
social factors of its customers. But it is for this reason that the service dominant logic (SDL)
paradigm can prove beneficial for the meal kit service. SDL utilises the highly intrinsic
nature of value creation to propose that businesses should discontinue attempts to create
value for their users and instead collaborate with the individual to create value, which can
be done by combining the firm’s specialised functions with the individual’s capabilities and
desires (Storbacka et al., 2015; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). This notion would reframe the meal
kit firm’s purpose from designing a product that corresponds to specific versions of dinner
towards supporting the customer’s personal endeavours as they conduct their specific
version of dinner (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). This dynamic of value co-creation
presents an initial design consideration for the meal kit service, where it should
contemplate designing products that supplement the value creation processes of its
customers, rather than strictly dictating the cooking process (Storbacka et al., 2015).
When considering how this value co-creation can be achieved and what is exchanged
between the meal kit and its customers, many theoretical tools have emerged from this
concept that can be used to advise how the meal kit service can facilitate this supportive
role. Starting with the establishment that businesses can only support the individual’s
creation of value, the individual must first be able to identify how the meal kit’s resources
benefit their personal value creation process (Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008). This
dynamic informs key a perceptual change where the business abstracts its commercial
offering from its literal service/product into a series of potential interpretations used by
customers to motivate their decision to adopt the firm’s resources for value creation
(Akaka et al., 2014; Frow et al., 2014). For example, the meal kit’s pre-selection of
ingredients may not only be perceived as convenient, but their selection via dietician could
also be interpreted as safe and healthy. SDL refers to this redefined commercial offering as
a value proposition, and is used to characterise the resources sold by a firm as malleable, as
47
their application in VISC is dependent on the individual’s interpretation (Akaka et al., 2014).
This dynamic can be used to suggest how users can appropriate the meal kit’s value
proposition for their VISC processes with varying degrees of success, despite the service’s
uniform provision of resources.
With the establishment of what a firm exchanges with its customers to facilitate with value
co-creation with its customers, Lusch and Nambisan (2015) establish the three tiers of
ecosystems, platforms and value co-creation to represent the functional transferral of
resources between actors. Ecosystems is representative of the external actors the
individual engages with to access their resources, and in the case of this study comprises of
participant engagements with the meal kit service, their household network and other
peers. Lusch and Nambisan (2015) characterise the platform as the medium the individual
interacts with to access the resources for value co-creation, and is characterised by its
resource density (i.e. amount of resources accessible during the interaction), which can be
further enhanced through resource liquefaction (i.e. the dematerialisation of resources into
information which is digitally transferred) (Storbacka et al., 2015). As such, the meal kit’s
value proposition is synonymous with the notion of a platform. This provides a means to
analyse the configuration of the meal kit’s value proposition, from which logistical
strategies can be tailored that can enhance the value co-creation processes with
customers.
But while these functional attributes of the value proposition could be used to inform how
the meal kit service can enhance value co-creation with its customers, Grönroos (2011) and
Frow et al. (2014) expand upon the concept by suggesting that the value proposition itself
should be co-created with customers. This is because the active engagement of customers
when determining the resource composition of the value proposition ensures that their
value creation processes are more accurately represented (Grönroos, 2011). This notion is
reinforced, as similar co-creative food studies have demonstrated that the individual’s
inclusion in the development of a value proposition is associated with the generation of
new and highly valued products/services (Filieri, 2013; Sindhwani & Ahuja, 2014).
Furthermore, engaging the individual over a period of time during the development of a
value proposition has been attributed with improved customer loyalty (Fitzpatrick et al.,
2015; Payne et al., 2008). These innovative and competitive benefits therefore present
another design consideration, where future iterations of the meal kit service should
present opportunities for meal kit users to advise what form the value proposition takes.
48
But while these functions of the value proposition demonstrate how the meal kit service
can embody a role of support for its customers, evolutions in SDL literature will broaden
the scope of this support role beyond the dyadic customer–firm relationship. In line with
the concept of VISC, SDL has recently amended a core axiom to acknowledge that value is
co-created among a varying collection of commercial and non-commercial actors (Vargo &
Lusch, 2016). This amendment is highly appropriate when considering the context of meal
kits, as the social and shared nature of dinner (Beardsworth & Keil, 1997; Daniels et al.,
2012) implies that the individual ordering the meal kit service may not necessarily be the
same one utilising its recipe cards or cooking its ingredients. Consequently, this presents an
opportunity to consider how the meal kit’s value proposition supports the creation of value
within its customer’s network, while addressing an emergent research priority within the
service science discipline (Ostrom et al., 2015; Vargo et al., 2016).
When considering how the meal kit service’s value proposition can be designed to facilitate
value co-creation within each of its customer’s networks, Frow et al. (2014) and Storbacka
et al. (2015) provide a number of insights. Both studies acknowledge that the composition
and application of a value proposition will shape a network’s functions as they create value,
and so the value proposition should therefore be designed to align with the actions and
resources of multiple actors during VISC. To facilitate this at a broader level, Storbacka et
al. (2015) conclude that user practices should be used to inform the function of the value
proposition rather than attempting to accommodate specific network actions. With these
considerations in mind, McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015) customer service
experience practices (CSEP) framework is advised. Originating from a VISC perspective
(Edvardsson et al., 2011) and initial customer value co-creation practice styles framework
(McColl-Kennedy, Vargo, Dagger, Sweeney, & Kasteren, 2012), the CSEP framework was
developed to convert the actions performed by the individual with other network actors
during the creation of value into a typology of value co-creation practices. When applied to
the meal kit, this framework could be used to distil the various actions performed by the
individual with their network and the meal kit during the dinner during the co-creation of
value. This analysis could then be compared with the individual’s desired food ritual, which
could then infer what the meal kit can do to further support creation of value.
In conclusion, this section demonstrates how SDL’s notion of value co-creation redefines
how the meal kit could address the social elements of food security. Value co-creation’s
associated concepts of the value proposition and how it is used support the individual’s
value creation endeavours provide a means of empowering meal kit users to realise their
49
personal food values while remaining feasible at commercial scales. But SDL’s recent
acknowledgement of network influences in value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2016) infers that
the meal kit’s value proposition must expand its scope from a dyadic firm-customer
interaction to one where the meal kit interacts with the customer’s network (Vargo et al.,
2016). In response to this, Frow et al. (2014) have identified that the value proposition
must be designed to be an extension of the network’s functions. But to feasibly
accommodate this at a commercial scale, it is advised that the value proposition is designed
to address value creation practices rather than specific functions (Chandler & Chen, 2016;
Storbacka et al., 2015). And so it is for this reason that CSEP’s synthesis of meal kit users
VISC into a practice typologies (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015) presents
opportunity to clarify the role attributed to the meal kit in an abstract manner that can be
accommodated en masse. But before these concepts can be applied to the context of meal
kits, the design tools predominantly utilised by SDL may encounter difficulty when
exploring the newer sociological concepts (Ostrom et al, 2015; Vargo et al. 2016). As such,
SDL must consider new methods of design to implement these theories.
2.3.5 Exploring food values through design The previous section demonstrates how service science’s emergent interest VISC calls for
understanding networks and their influence over the value co-creation process. When
returning to the current state of service design, it is made apparent why the discipline has
evolved into a practice that attempts to synthesise both sociological and material elements
into service (Kimbell, 2011). Consequently, service design has evolved beyond the design of
engagements with the service towards the development of boundary objects, where the
designer must produce objects/experiences which various users employ to generate
personally tailored meaning (Kimbell, 2011; Kimbell & Blomberg, 2017a). Unfortunately, a
traditional design development process does not easily realise this dynamic due to its linear
process and the distance between design team and users when deciding the aspects vital
for the service (Yenicioglu & Suerdem, 2015). In response to these shortcomings, SDL’s
notion that the customer’s role must first be used to distinguish the customer’s
relationship with the firm during the development of a product/service is more
collaborator than recipient (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). From this seminal perspective, SDL
scientists are now calling for a change in service design that extends beyond designing a
singular outcome that is purchased, towards developing long relationships that foster
50
continued engagement and collaboration (Barile et al., 2016; Ostrom et al., 2015; Vargo et
al., 2016).
From this establishment, a design approach that more actively involves customers
throughout the creation of products (i.e. prior to and after purchase) is needed. The case
for experimenting with design approaches is further reinforced after the observation that
service marketing and operational management literature has only made minor attempts
to engage with alternative design theories outside of design thinking (Wetter-Edman, 2009)
and its user-centred design methods (Katzan, 2011; Kimbell, 2011; Sanders, 2013). When
considering how customers can contribute to the design of these services, Dorst and Cross
(2001) propose that creative design solutions are the result from the process of moving
between metaphorical problem and solution spaces until a design concept emerges that
bridges the two spaces. This further demystifies the passive role of a customer by inferring
that their strong familiarity with the meal kit provides a strong basis for inspired and
innovative solutions. This acknowledgement that customers are creative and capable of
contributing to a design process, combined with SDL’s emergent interest in fostering long-
term relationships with customers, suggests that there is an opportunity to experiment
with the participatory design discipline (Sanders, 2002) when determining what the meal
kit must do to accommodate unique food values.
Participatory design originated from a political perspective that those affected by a design
outcome should have a stake in the creation and subsequent application of the artefact or
service (Kensing & Blomberg, 1998). This is because the participatory design discipline
acknowledges that the design of a product or system will influence the user’s creation of
value (Iversen & Leong, 2012). Thus, participatory design’s notion of power addresses this
perspective by emphasising that participants should be afforded equal status and power to
that of the researchers and designers conducting the design process (Sanders & Stappers,
2008). This enables participants to share their personal experiences and knowledge with a
design team, while empowering them to influence the design outcome through direct
access to the designers specialised skill set (Sanders, 2013). When considering how
applicable participatory design’s notion of power is within SDL concepts, parallels can
already be drawn between SDL’s perspective that customers should hold equal status with
the firm during the co-creation of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). This conception to include
the individual throughout the development of the design process (Sanders, 2002) is already
present within service science, where the active participation of customers throughout the
service process has been associated with product innovation and customer loyalty (Füller,
51
Mühlbacher, Matzler, & Jawecki, 2010; Krug, Korthaus, Fielt, & Leyer, 2010; Payne et al.,
2008).
Participatory design perspectives could also benefit SDL when planning how co-creative
interactions should be facilitated through service. This consideration is essential, as forcing
undesired co-creative engagements, or failing to synthesise the individual’s contributions
to the process into a satisfactory outcome is likely to result in strong, negative attitudes
(Greer, 2015; Heidenreich, Wittkowski, Handrich, & Falk, 2015). This difficulty is further
exacerbated when designing service iterations to reflect VISC, which implies that the meal
kit’s insertion into the users network will change its functional dynamics, and may
potentially challenging existing relationships and processes that are highly valued (Frow et
al., 2014).
Therefore, an understanding of who to include and the degree they are expected to
contribute is essential before deciding how the meal kit service will attempt to facilitate
value co-creation with its customers. It is for this reason that participatory design’s
perspectives towards power could benefit SDL by informing interactions established from
the premise that meal kit users should determine the degree they wish to contribute to the
creation of the meal kit (Wright & McCarthy, 2015). This demonstrates how participatory
design concepts and methods present a means of informing services that encourage long-
term engagements with customers, while mitigating undesired or failed interactions (Greer,
2015; Heidenreich et al., 2015).
The participatory design discipline has developed a number of theoretical tools that can be
used to facilitate the equal and active participation through the design process (Sanders,
2013; Sanders & Stappers, 2012). One concept deemed highly relevant to this study is the
fuzzy front end, which can be used to inform the foundation from which customer-
informed service requirements can be uncovered. The fuzzy front end is described as the
pre-design stage, where the designer engages and subsequently examines the routine
processes and scenarios of participants (Sanders & Stappers, 2008).
When considering how the fuzzy front end can benefit the exploration of participant food
values with the meal kit service, it does so in two ways. First, this exploration into the
routine and mundane processes of meal kit users provides a rich understanding of the
contextual and personal events that unfold during the organisation and creation of dinner
(Sanders, 2013; Sanders & Stappers, 2012). This understanding is vital, as attempts to
address preconceived food values and processes of customers may result in the meal kit
52
either failing to assist in the co-creation of value, or even unintentionally challenging other
contextual factors in the process; e.g. adding an extra night’s meal through the meal kit
might force the individual to choose between a regular social evening with friends or
wasting that night’s meal. Therefore, an exploration of the fuzzy front end could also assist
in mitigating deviant or failed value co-creation (Greer, 2015; Heidenreich et al., 2015). The
second benefit that results from the open exploration of the meal kit context and allows for
the discovery of who is involved in the creation of dinner with the meal kit and to what
degree. This understanding provides a description of participant VISC processes
(Edvardsson et al., 2011; Ellway & Dean, 2015), which proves vital when considering how
network actor involvement can be accommodated in future redesign of the service.
This demonstrates that the application of participatory design offers new and interesting
opportunities for implementing VISC theories (Wetter-Edman et al., 2014) that more
accurately represent the individual’s creation of value among their network (Storbacka et
al., 2015). As such, this process allows those being analysed to simultaneously contribute to
the solution of the problem being explored (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Furthermore,
participatory design’s notion of inclusion also responds to Alam (2006), Vargo and Lusch
(2014) and Barile et al.’s (2016) proposition that the individual should be involved more
actively and earlier in the design of products. In conclusion, a participatory design
methodology provides an opportunity to first explore how the meal kit is used during its
customer’s VISC processes. This analysis in turn can be used to inform potential co-creative
interactions that reflect the social positions customers attribute to the service. But before
any solution or design concept can be considered, the fuzzy front end must first be
explored. An analysis of its customer’s contextual information through SDL frameworks can
then identify what is expected of the meal kit’s value proposition. Consequently, this
understanding can then be utilised to inform the service how to better accommodate an
existing role, or uncover opportunities to perform new, valued roles within its customer’s
network.
2.3.6 Conclusion The meal kit can improve its viability by addressing the social aspects of dinner, but the
unique and varied values attributed to food mean that a service solution is not clear. VISC
demonstrates that value is both determined and created by the individual, but their
processes are influenced by their network. This informs SDL’s prominent concept of value
co-creation, which proposes that the functional purpose of the firm is to enact a support
53
role for its customer’s personal value creation processes through the provision of resources
(Wallin et al., 2016). This section concludes with frameworks that have emerged from SDL’s
concept of value co-creation and could be adopted by the meal kit service. If implemented
correctly, these concepts could inform the design of a value proposition that supports a
broad number of its customers, who personally realise their unique food values.
But as SDL’s recent acknowledgement that actor networks shape the VISC process (Vargo &
Lusch, 2016), this must be reflected in how the value proposition itself is designed.
Therefore, the meal kit needs to consider not only how it can co-create value with its
customers, but also comprehend where the service ‘fits’ in relation to the customer’s
network. From this understanding a role can be attributed to the meal kit that describes
how it is expected to perform and what it should provide, while ensuring that this function
does not challenge or replace other vital members of the user’s network. To understand
how the user’s network influences their value creation process, an exploration of their
activities is advised.
Finally, this section combines the emergent interest in network-informed value creation
(VISC) with SDL’s application of design theory to present an emergent opportunity to
explore participatory design concepts. Participatory design already shares similarities with
SDL perspectives regarding the nature of value, and how this determines the
customer/user’s role in the creation of the value proposition. As such, these similarities are
used to inspire the use of exploratory tools that the service designers could implement
when exploring network influenced value creation. This section then concludes with the
notion that participatory design’s fuzzy front-end design stage (Sanders, 2013) can be used
to establish both scope and method used to examine VISC processes customers enact with
the meal kit service. This is because the fuzzy front end and its composition of seemingly
mundane activities can infer the roles and expectations customers presently attribute to
the meal kit service as they attempt to realise their food values (Filieri, 2013).
With both the theoretical lens and subsequent project scope established, the final
applicable component necessary for this study is how the various participant responses
collected can be synthesised by designers into service strategies. The concept of ‘practices’
(McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012) and the subsequent CSEP framework is advised (McColl-
Kennedy et al., 2015) as the primary analytical tool. This is because the framework
abstracts varying value creation actions into a cohesive practice typology. As such, the
54
concept of practices and how the CSEP framework implements them into a functional
description of value co-creation processes will be discussed in the following section.
2.4 Using practices to inform co-creation in networks
2.4.1 Introduction It has been established that value co-creation offers a strong solution for the meal kit
service to accommodate the social values its customers attribute to food, consequently
enhancing the service’s ability to address the social dimensions of food security’s utilisation
pillar. But SDL’s recent interest in network influences over value co-creation demonstrate
that further understanding is needed to realise the meal kit’s purpose in relation to
customer food values. For the firm to establish what role has been attributed to it by its
customers during their value co-creation process, an understanding of where the service
functions in relation to their network composition is needed (Storbacka et al., 2015).
Furthermore, to manage the different routines and perceptions attributed to the dinner
process, a framework is needed that can abstract and then synthesise these VISC
processes.
McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015) exploration of VISC through the sociological
concept of practices and resulting customer service experience practices (CSEP) framework
present an opportunity to observe an individual’s value co-creation efforts performed
within a household network. Section 2.4.2 justifies the application of the CSEP framework
by first describing how sociologies concept of practices can be used to abstract the unique
actions performed by meal kit user when conducting dinner into a singular, functional
purpose. Section 2.4.3 then describes how McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015)
CSEP framework synthesises these practices into specific functions that correspond to the
value co-creation process. Section 2.4.4 concludes with how the CSEP framework’s
abstraction of meal kit users’ VISC processes into practices can be utilised as a data set that
can be implemented by service designers. This provides a foundation from which informed
decisions can be made for future service iterations that better support the varied VISC
processes of customers on a commercial scale.
55
2.4.2 Practices Sociology’s concept of ‘practice’ is used to describe a collection of actions performed by an
individual that share a specific purpose in shaping the socio-material world they reside
within (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2012). These actions are informed by physical, behavioural
and social elements of the world (Kimbell, 2014), which culminate in a cause and effect
dynamic; as the individual’s attempts to shape their network through their actions, their
network reacts to these changes by applying practices to the individual. An example of this
would be a parent cooking a child’s favourite meal (practice applied to network), to which
the child responds in excitement and affection (network responds). As practices are
inseparable from the socio-material world, our actions affect our world, and the world in
turn affects us.
While the application of practices to describe the individual’s value co-creation processes
have found use by McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012), McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier
(2015) extend their work to acknowledge the broader impact of the network through the
customer service experience practices (CSEP) framework. CSEP was developed to
acknowledge the actor roles, interactions and actions performed within a network during
the value co-creation process. Therefore, the social values of food could be understood by
identifying the individual’s intrinsic values in relation to their social group and the food
processes being performed, through the utilisation of McColl-Kennedy’s (2015) CSEP
framework. The subsequent translation of customer VISC processes through CSEP can then
be used to inform how successfully the service accommodates its customer’s dinner rituals
and to determine what its customers are lacking or desiring.
2.4.3 The customer service experience practices (CSEP) framework
McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier (2015) identified 13 practice types utilised during the
value creation process, which are divided among three practice archetypes (Figure 4).
These practices are representative of the individual’s perceived network role during VISC,
the nature of their interactions with other actors as they attain resources, and the purpose
of the actions performed to create value.
56
Figure 4 Customer service experience practices (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, and Ferrier, 2015)
Starting with McColl-Kennedy et al.’s (2015) first practice archetype, representational
practices are performed when ‘customers use resources within the service ecosystem to
construct self-concepts and imagery that are consistent with the way they see their world’.
Within this archetype, three representational practices exist that describe the perceived
network role the individual attributes to themselves during VISC. These three
representational practice types can be used to infer the individual’s desired degree of
57
involvement during the VISC process, thus characterising the individual’s role to other
network actors (e.g. a leader, a collaborator, an enlister). As such, the motivations of the
individual can also be identified by observing the representational practices they want to
apply to a network. The next practice archetype represents the individual’s efforts to enlist
the resources of external actors for the value creation process. McColl-Kennedy, Cheung
and Ferrier (2015) identified three types of normalizing practices that describe the nature
of the interaction between the individual and network actor during the value creation
process. CSEP’s final exchange practice archetype consists of five practice typologies which
abstract specific actions performed by the individual into their associated value creation
purpose (i.e. searching for resources).
McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier (2015) conclude the CSEP framework with the notion
that the three practice archetypes are interrelated, sharing similarities with other VISC
concepts. In line with Ellway and Dean’s (2015) cyclical description of value creation, an
individual’s understanding of their context determines their relationship with other
network members (i.e. representational practices), influencing their decision of which
actors and their associated resources they can draw on (i.e. normalizing practices), which
determines the actions possible for them to conduct to value creation (i.e. exchange
practices).
2.4.4 CSEP’s role in addressing the social dimensions of food security
When considering how the CSEP framework can benefit the meal kit service, it is expected
to act as the analytical tool that abstracts VISC data collected from the fuzzy front end. As
previously stated, before service designers can consider how to engage with an individual’s
social dimensions of food security, section 2.2.5 establishes that the meal kit must first
understand where it exists within the user’s food ritual (i.e. VISC process). Through McColl-
Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015) CSEP framework, the individual’s value creation
process can be observed and divided into practices that characterise their perceived role,
whose resources are drawn on during the value creation process and the nature of this
interaction, and the purpose attributed to the actions performed to attain value (e.g.
searching, play). This distillation of unique actions into collated co-creation practices can
then inform what purpose and affiliated functions have been attributed to the meal kit
within the individual’s network.
58
A service design team can then convert these core purposes attributed to the meal kit into
a set of criteria to discern whether to continue, reconfigure or remove aspects of its
performance to support the individual’s VISC process. For instance, the CSEP’s
representational practices can be used to infer whether the service challenges the
individual’s desired degree of authority affiliated with a task being performed.
Consequently, the representational practices identified among customers could be used to
distinguish which tasks customers prefer to be assisted with or even adopted by the service
(i.e. producing practices), and what should be left to the individual’s endeavours (i.e.
assimilating practices). This application demonstrates how an understanding of customer
roles attributed to the meal kit can be used as a metric by service designers to gauge how
effectively the service’s function aligns with the expectations of the individual. This
distinction is vital, as forcing customers to engage in undesired co-creative activities has
been found to be more destructive than if the individual engaged in a regular processes,
and can potentially result in ‘value co-destruction’ (Heidenreich et al., 2015).
Therefore, CSEP’s distillation of unique VISC processes into a series of abstracted of value
creation ‘purposes’ (i.e. role, interaction and action) provide a data set that can inform the
design of flexible elements into the meal kit’s value proposition. This flexibility provides an
opportunity for the individual to personally adapt service resources to more closely align
with the network role they attribute to the meal kit. As Chapter 1 has established, network
actors are attributed a social position relative to the rest of that network, and so it is
essential for external actors to perform that expected role or otherwise be replaced
(Edvardsson et al., 2011). Therefore, in fulfilling these addressing these core purposes
identified through CSEP, the meal kit performs its expected role during the individual’s food
ritual, thus co-creating value with the meal kit and ultimately addressing the social
dimensions of food security.
2.4.5 Conclusion Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 demonstrate how the CSEP can be used to understand how the
meal kit can better accommodate the social dimensions of food security. As an analytical
tool, it offers the potential to abstract many broad and unique VISC processes of meal kit
customers, and distil the findings into a series of roles each household attributes to the
meal kit. From CSEP’s analysis, the results could then be used in conjunction with other
value co-creation frameworks to determine strategies for service designers to implement
into the meal kit’s value proposition. If successfully implemented, this offers a potential
59
process where the meal kit provides resources that the individual can personally adapt or
modify themselves, rather than challenging or replacing aspects of their network. If the
meal kit successfully adopts this support role within their customer’s VISC processes, it will
enhance their customer’s ability to personally attain the potential food values discussed in
Section 2.2.5, thus improving their value among their customer’s network and enhancing
their competitive edge in relation to the competition.
2.5 Summary This literature review centres around the emergent meal kit service model to exemplify the
difficulties affiliated with the design of servitised goods (Nudurupati et al., 2016). Despite
its endeavours to address the difficulties associated with the contemporary Australian
dinner (Banwell et al., 2012d), section 2.2.3 demonstrates that its rigid service delivery may
instead challenge the values and preferences its users (and their households) associate
with dinner. Furthermore, section 2.2.4’s analysis of the Australian market place
demonstrates that the meal kit service model must compete against a duopoly (Alam &
Chowdhury, 2016; Magner, 2016) that also primarily accommodates the physical
dimensions of food security. These factors demonstrate major problems for the meal kit
service, as its service offering is saturated within the Australian market place and may also
challenge the food values its customers.
However, the shortcomings of the meal kit service present both opportunity and
motivation for the service to explore new meal kit variants that address its customer’s
unique food values. In doing so, the service has the potential to be more valued while
simultaneously differentiating itself from its entrenched competition. As such, this study
aims to identify how the meal kit can be designed to accommodate the social food values
its customers through its product. After section 2.2.5’s examination of food’s social
dimensions (Beardsworth & Keil, 1997; Daniels et al., 2012), the analysis identifies the meal
kit service must consider how it can accommodate the vast number of unique values
attributed to dinner at a commercial scale.
With the challenge established, the service design discipline and its implementation of
service science concepts were selected to form a theoretical basis from which solutions for
the meal kit’s challenges would be explored. These disciplines were decided as service
dominant logic’s (SDL) reconceptualisation of the firm’s purpose as one of enacting a
supportive role (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), and its concept of value co-creation (Vargo & Lusch,
60
2016) was identified as highly appropriate. This was because value co-creation re-
establishes the meal kit’s purpose as one that supports the individual as they personally
realise their intrinsic values. As such, this reframing of service purpose and subsequent
function demonstrates a solution where the meal kit more heavily relies on its customer’s
capabilities, while determining what resources are necessary to fulfil this less involved
support role through its mass-produced product (Storbacka et al., 2015). This redefined
service function is further informed through the affiliated value proposition concept (Frow
et al., 2014), which if adopted by service designers, could be used to strategise what
exactly the meal kit service must exchange with its customers and facilitate this support
role.
After establishing the meal kit’s purpose through value co-creation, section 2.3.4 then
considers how service science concepts could establish what resource composition are
necessary for the meal kit’s value proposition and how it should function. SDL’s recent
acknowledgement that value is co-created among networks (Vargo & Lusch, 2016) was first
used to clarify that the meal kit’s value proposition needed to be designed to
accommodate multiple network actors rather than the traditional focus of a single
customer (Storbacka et al., 2015). This development in SDL theory (Vargo et al., 2016;
Vargo & Lusch, 2016) was used to justify why participatory design methods should be used
to inform how the meal kit implements value co-creation into its service. The decision to do
experiment with new design concepts was further reinforced after identifying service
science’s emergent interests in exploring how design methods can be utilised to implement
service concepts (Ostrom et al., 2015; Wetter-Edman, 2009; Wetter-Edman et al., 2014).
Therefore, this study first demonstrated how participatory design philosophies
(Frauenberger, Good, Fitzpatrick, & Iversen, 2015; Kensing & Blomberg, 1998) shared
similarities with SDL’s perspectives (Storbacka et al., 2015; Vargo & Lusch, 2004) towards
the nature of value, the role of the individual when creating it, and concluded with how
participatory design’s consideration of power could potentially negate challenges of
implementing value co-creation (Greer, 2015; Heidenreich et al., 2015). With these
similarities and benefits established, this study consequently identified participatory
design’s fuzzy front end (Sanders, 2013) as a powerful tool to collect rich insights pertaining
to meal kit users VISC processes (Edvardsson et al., 2011; Ellway & Dean, 2015). This was
used to justify why the fuzzy front end will be used to scope the project around the
exploration of the routine processes and experiences of meal kit users within their
network. This work then adopts Storbacka et al. ’s (2015) conclusion that value
61
propositions should be informed by an analysis of value creation practices. The abstraction
of processes into practices provides a means for service designers to holistically understand
the purpose of the meal kit service in relation to the established processes of its users,
rather than being inundated by highly specific yet contextually dependent processes. As
such, this suggestion motivated the decision to utilise McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and
Ferrier’s (2015) CSEP framework to synthesise the varied VISC processes of customers
collected from the fuzzy front end. In summary of the literature, the subsequent goal and
leading research question for this project is:
‘How can value co-creation inform the design of a meal kit service model that better
accommodates its customers unique food values, while continuing its provision at a
commercial scale?’
To address this question, the literature review has inspired the division of this research
project into three parts of collection, synthesis and application:
1. Use participatory design’s fuzzy front end to observe routine customer VISC
processes as they create dinner.
2. Use the CSEP framework to synthesis customer processes into a series of practices
that are representative of value co-creation with the service.
3. Use these findings in conjunction with other service dominant logic concepts and
infer how the meal kit is utilised during customer VISC, and use this to consider
where the service fits in relation to their network and process. Further SDL
concepts can then be used to inform service functions that would be readily
implemented through design.
With the research question clarified and its subsequent aims presented, Chapter 3 will describe in detail how these aims and research question will be resolved.
62
3. Research design and method
3.1 Introduction This chapter is divided into four sections. Section 3.2.1 will demonstrate why the
intrinsically determined nature value in conjunction with this research project’s aim to
understand how to address a variety of these values forms the justification for a social
constructivist epistemology to underpin the methodology and subsequent research design
of this project. Section 3.3.3 will then explain why participatory design philosophies and
conceptual tools are used to define the scope of this research project, in addition to the
generative tools utilised for the data collection process. Section 3.3 will explain the specific
research design utilised by this study. As the cognitive map research tool utilised by this
study had to first be appropriated for the meal kit context, sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.3 will
reflect the various stages of the cognitive maps development, which section 3.3.4
concludes by describing how the final cognitive mapping exercise was conducted with
participants. Section 3.4 then describes what design and marketing frameworks were
implemented to analyse the raw data collected during this study. This section is divided
into two frameworks: It starts with the Kimbell's (2011) actions, environment, interactions,
objects and users (AEIOU) framework used to convert mind mapping responses into
components for the cognitive mapping activity; and the CSEP framework, which
synthesised participant responses from the cognitive mapping activity into practices that
formed the core of the discussion.
3.2 Research design 3.2.1 Introduction
Section’s 2.2.5 and 2.3.3 demonstrate that meal kit users will conduct a series of differing
processes with the meal kit service to realise their intrinsic values affiliated with dinner.
Axiological characterisations of value emphasise its contextually influenced nature,
ensuring that each participants creation of value is nuanced (Ellway & Dean, 2015;
Fernandes, 2012). It is therefore unrealistic to consider refining the multitude of duplicitous
contextual influences experienced by a user sample into a definitive typology of food
values that are representative of all meal kit users. Instead, this study utilises a
constructivist epistemology to reflect value’s complexity (Kukla, 2000). Consequently, this
study first recognises that there will be no single objective ‘truth’ representative of every
participant’s value creation process during dinner, and that the outcomes of this study will
63
not be universally applicable to all meal kit users. From this epistemological position, this
study also embraces the complexity of potential food values by encouraging the use of
participant experiences to inform the findings. This approach is appropriate as it leans
towards an analysis of user processes to identify the methods used to achieve their values,
rather than the resultant values themselves.
With this projects epistemology justified, a qualitative methodology has been deemed
appropriate to underpin the implementation of this study. This decision is reinforced by
predominant factors. First, marketing (Furrer et al., 2016) and design disciplines (Sanders &
Stappers, 2012) both recognise that qualitative research tools present an effective means
to collect deep user insights relating to their processes and experiences; both of which
prove integral in informing design criteria of a project. Therefore, as both these disciplines
form the prominent theoretical foundations of this project, it is suitable to adopt a
qualitative methodology to explore value co-creation. Outside of existing professional
research practices, this project recognises qualitative methods as essential for the
collection of theoretical elements for this project. It is central to this study’s objectives to
not only identify the values participants attribute to the meal kit service, but how these
values are formed and why. While quantitative measures could be used to infer the
popularity of specific engagements between participants and meal kit service when
creating intrinsic value, the lower fidelity of this resultant data set would not contain the
information necessary to infer why participants conducted themselves in this manner
(Kimbell, 2011). Value’s highly intrinsic and contextually informed nature dictates that the
information necessary to understand value co-creation can only be collected via research
methods that examine participant activities in depth. When considering why a mixture of
qualitative and quantitative methodologies have not been selected, this study recognises
that attempts to analyse the higher reasoning behind participant actions at quantitative
scales would prove overwhelming due to the previously mentioned magnitude of
contextual factors that influence the co-creation of value (Ellway & Dean, 2015).
3.2.2 Participatory design and the fuzzy front end As neither business nor designer can determine what their constituents consider valuable
(Vargo & Lusch, 2004), this should also be reflected in the method in which this study is
conducted. Therefore, the exploration of participant dinners and how it relates to the
creation of value should therefore be described by the participant in their terms, rather
than responding to a protocol formulated from a researcher’s preconceived notions of a
64
participant’s context. It is for this reason that participatory design methods are highly
appropriate for the exploration of values pertaining to food and meal kit services. As
demonstrated in the literature review, participatory design is both a process and
philosophy. Founded from the perspective that those affected by an outcome should be
therefore hold a stake in its development and implementation (Kensing & Blomberg, 1998;
Wright & McCarthy, 2015), the participatory design discipline has created a variety of
generative research tools to enable this type of design (Sanders & Stappers, 2012, 2014).
Furthermore, participatory design’s proposition that researcher, designer and participant
are mutually involved throughout the design process informs a method of inquiry that can
reduce the bias of conventional research. This is achieved by including participants before
the specific project problem or subject has been defined. Consequently, participants can
declare what is of core importance to their situation, which enables researchers to uncover
foundational problems rather than shallow symptoms associated with the problem
(Sanders, 2013). This notion of exploration prior to development is shared within the
marketing discipline as well, where Alam (2006) states that the success of a product is
much higher the earlier the user is included in its design. Therefore, it is here that
implementing a participatory design methodology could inform new scenarios unexpected
by the researcher (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). From this point, both researcher and/or
designer can collaborate with the participant to define a project scope and development
goals that are centred upon a problem that holds importance with the participant. It is for
this reason that participatory design concepts are highly relevant for exploring the highly
intrinsic nature of food and its social dimensions.
When addressing the complexities of user value within the meal kit, participatory design’s
Fuzzy front end and will be utilised. The fuzzy front end is described as the pre-design
phase, where the user and their contextual elements are explored without any
preconceived goals or expectations (Sanders, 2013). Therefore, this project will narrow its
scope to the exploration of participants’ routine use of the meal kit within their
households. With the project scope established, the participatory design tools used to
collect the data from the fuzzy front end will be described in the following section.
3.2.3 Make tools
Elizabeth Sanders is a prominent participatory design researcher who has established a
variety of research methods referred to as ‘make tools’ (Sanders & Stappers, 2012), which
65
are designed to explore the fuzzy front end. These research tools are exploratory in nature,
and aim to provoke multiple insights from participants that can be used to inform future
developments, rather than a narrow, definitive solution. ‘Make tools’ are divided into
‘make’, ‘say’ and ‘do’ methodologies, each designed and practised differently to generate
specific research outcomes. ‘Make’ relates to generative prototyping sessions where
participants imagine specific futures of a context; ‘say’ consists of interviews and focus
groups to describe participant perspectives; and ‘do’ refers to participant enactments that
are measured through observations and user testing (Sanders & Stappers, 2014).
Make tools are highly qualitative in their design, and exploratory in nature. Rather than
asking preconceived questions, make tools engage the user through activities in a way that
encourages them to generate personal insights surrounding a selected context. But these
‘make tools’ must themselves be designed and appropriated to fit the specific user
demographic and the context that is to be explored. After consideration, Sanders and
William’s (2003) ‘cognitive map’ was chosen as the basis of the research tool.
3.2.4 The cognitive map
The cognitive map is a combination of ‘make’ and ‘say’ methodologies. It consists of a semi-
structured interview run in parallel with a paper crafting exercise that utilises prompt
cards. The prompt cards consist of a combination of images, words and phrases. The aim of
this exercise is to encourage users to generate their experiences and ideas through images,
words and questions that prompt the participant into discussion with minimal leading from
the interviewer (Sanders & William, 2003). The use of images is important, as their
subjective nature enables the participant to interpret them in a multitude of ways. The
words selected for the prompt cards are largely emotive and can be combined with images
or other word cards, and are effective at colouring participant experiences. Finally, the
prompt cards used should not consist solely of the subject being explored (i.e. cooking), but
also include cards that are abstract. This is to enable participants to describe important
factors and emotions that are peripheral to the context in focus. This broad format allows
for flexibility in the participant’s response, which results in the generation of broad and
unexpected results, such as previous experiences, current problems and perceptions of
possible futures (Sanders & William, 2003).
But the act of dinner does not centre entirely on eating. As informed by food literacy (Perry
et al., 2017; Worsley, 2015), this study considers the experience of cooking to consist of
66
collecting the ingredients, the (sometimes spontaneous) selection of the meal, the
afternoon activities prior to cooking and so on. Therefore, it was important to capture
activities that cover a wide spectrum of time when appropriating the cognitive map tool for
cooking contexts. Thus, a timeline was included to the cognitive map methodology to
represent this. The timeline was designed to encapsulate a week of using a meal kit service,
each week-long period starting when a meal kit was ordered, and ending upon the next
order of the service. This was selected in response to timing constraints of the study and
the limitations of the individual researcher, it was not feasible to conduct and then analyse
a week’s worth of observations for multiple participants.
To resolve this, the day reconstruction method (DRM) (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade,
Schwarz, & Stone, 2004) was used to generate the timeline component of the cognitive
map. The DRM methodology consists of having participants personally record specific
activities of their day through a medium (journal, pictures, voice recording, etc.). This
medium is then used later to discuss with the participant specific moments of their day.
This process of self-recording improves participant recall when asked later interviewed.
This is because inserting an unusual activity into routine processes forces the participant to
become aware of that moment (Kahneman et al., 2004). Therefore, prior to conducting the
cognitive map exercise, participants were asked to perform a cultural probe activity for a
week. A cultural probe is a generative tool used to provoke or elicit a response from those
being observed, and motivate an open-ended contribution that is representative of their
perceptions and attitudes of a phenomena (Martin & Hanington, 2012; Sanders & Stappers,
2014). The cultural probe for this study took the form of a photographic exercise, where
participants were asked to capture specific service moments during their week using the
meal kit service. These photographs were then implemented into the cognitive map
timeline to later aid in participant recall and prompt discussion around that specific
moment during the exercise.
3.2.5 Summary
Section 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 establish that the values meal kit users associate with dinner will be
intrinsic and contextually informed. These properties of value are therefore used to justify
this studies application of a social constructivist epistemology and the subsequent
qualitative methodology. As such, section 3.2 utilises this epistemology to reason why the
highly explorative and generative nature of participatory design, and its affiliated tools will
67
be utilised. This is because, for customer values to be address by the meal kit service, it is
vital that participants share their attitudes and values pertaining to the use of the meal kit
prior to the selection of a solution, rather than developing the study’s research criteria
around the preconceived notions of the researcher. Therefore, this study will adopt a
qualitative methodology that encourages participants to share their perspectives relative
to the meal kit service.
Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 demonstrate why participatory design and its philosophy of
participation reflect the qualitative goals of this study. This is because participatory design
and its affiliated tools aim to provide a means by which participants can openly describe
the phenomena in focus (Wright & McCarthy, 2015). Therefore, this study’s aim to have
participants clarify their experiences of routine meal kit use will be achieved via
participatory design’s fuzzy front end (or pre-design) stage and will establish the scope of
exploration for this study. With this study’s scope established, participatory design tools
will also be used, as their generative nature can be used extract rich narratives pertaining
to routine participant habits and processes enacted with the meal kit. These descriptions
can infer not only processes performed, but other actors involved and the perceptions and
experiences attributed to these processes (Sanders & Stappers, 2014), which accurately
represents the dimensions of VISC (Ellway & Dean, 2015). The final added benefit of these
generative participatory design tools is that their format also encourages participants to
share their desired futures (Sanders & Stappers, 2012), which can also be used to inform
future service iterations.
The final section demonstrates why Sanders and William’s (2003) cognitive map activity has
been selected to explore the fuzzy front end and extract participant VISC with the meal kit.
This is because this research tool’s flexible delivery and open interpretation enables
participants to not only provide descriptions of their use of the meal kit, but also
encourages them to share their desired futures and expectations of use via the prompt
card provided (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). This data is highly relevant for exploring
participant VISC, and also informative when considering what form future service iterations
should take when attempting to facilitate future value co-creation with
customers/participants.
68
3.3 Method 3.3.1 Introduction
With the qualitative methodology and research design established, this section describes
how the cognitive map exercise was both developed and then implemented with
participants. Sanders and William (2003) state the cognitive map activity must first be
designed to accommodate the specific context it aims to explore. As such, section 3.3.2 will
first describe the preliminary mind mapping and cultural probe activities that were used to
inform components of the cognitive map activity. The following section will then describe
the development of the cognitive map activities which formed the primary data collection
to be utilised in this study to gather participant descriptions of their VISC processes. This
section will then conclude with the final protocol participants were asked to perform
during the cognitive mapping activity.
3.3.2 Online mind map and prompt deck
To reduce biases within the prompts selected for the cognitive map, Sanders and William
(2003) suggest sourcing contributions from multiple participants external to the study. To
achieve this, a mind map was used to generate a broad range of interpretations towards
the concept of dinner and eating, and subsequently inform the prompts used in the
cognitive map activity. A mind map is a visual diagram used to demonstrate associations
towards a particular concept (Martin & Hanington, 2012). The concept in focus is written in
the centre of the page. Associated themes or subjects are then written, placed or drawn
around it. Fifteen individual mind map templates were created in an online ‘Google
Drawings’ document. The template only consisted of the phrase: ‘What I think of when I
hear dinner’ wrapped in a circle placed in the middle of the page. Fifteen participants were
then recruited through social media to participate in a mind mapping activity. Before
starting the activity, participants were presented with a mind map example, and then were
asked to provide 15 words and 15 images that they associated with dinner in the online
mind map (Figure 5). To achieve this, participants self-enlisted by following a link provided
in an enlistment post on social media (see Appendix A). Participants were not screened, as
a random sample was desired to broaden the results. Overall, 150 images and 150 word
prompts were collected from the mind mapping activities.
69
70
The images and words were then analysed through Kimbell’s (2014) AEIOU framework to
refine and curate the prompts to a total of 100. This framework was selected as it dissects
complex service processes that an individual interacts with into key functional components
of actions, environment, interactions, objects and users (AEIOU). Prompts that could
represent multiple AEIOU categories were prioritised for the prompt deck, as they were
more flexible in their interpretation. Towards the end of the curation process, the prompts
were then assigned to specific AEIOU categories for the cognitive map exercise. This
segmentation of the prompts was designed to improve the participant’s ability to scan and
select the prompts quickly by category when conducting the activity. Finally, blank AEIOU
prompt cards were created as a backup if the participant wanted to express something that
was not provided in the prompt deck (Figure 6).
3.3.3 Cultural probe
As this study was interested in a participant’s routine use of the meal kit, it was important
to distinguish these practices relative to the stages of use. This required the element of
time be measured, which resulted in the application of a timeline to the cognitive map
activity. The day reconstruction method’s (DRM) use of activities to improve awareness of
Figure 5 Mind map responses
Figure 6 Blank prompt cards in use during pilot study
71
specific moments in a process was used to inspire a small cultural probe to both record
these practices in service and prep participants before conducting the interview
(Kahneman et al., 2004). To centre the cognitive map exercise around the meal kit,
participants were prompted to photograph specific moments when using the service. A
combination of primary and secondary research was used to inform the design of a cultural
probe. The secondary research consisted of a competitive analysis of several websites of
various online food services. HelloFresh, Marley Spoon and My Food Bag were chosen to be
the focus of this study due to their similar service function (home delivery, pre-set meals,
dietician approved, etc.). The primary research consisted of a personal two-week trial of
the meal kit HelloFresh, which was recorded in an online reflective journal (see Appendix B)
(https://brettsfood.tumblr.com, accessed 1/05/2018).
The primary and secondary research informed nine service prompts, which were divided
among four major service stages. The first stage centred around ordering and receiving the
meal kit. Participants were asked to photograph who ordered the meal kit and where,
where the meal kit is usually delivered, and what an unboxing looks like. The aim of this
stage’s final prompt was to have participants take note of the quality of the produce, and
describe how it all gets into the fridge. The second stage revolved around the events that
led up to and during the cooking process for each meal. Participants were asked
photograph elements of the meal they may have modified, removed or had difficulty with,
and what they would consider a successful/unsuccessful meal. The third stage explored the
process of eating the meal, where participants were asked to show where they ate dinner
and with whom. The goal of these images was to also get a brief snapshot of how the meals
are accepted by other members in the household. The fourth and final stage aimed to
identify post-service processes and what happens when the participant is not using the
meal kit (as the service provides a maximum of five dinners). This final stage was also
developed to discuss moments where the food service was failing, and ways the participant
may tweak the function of the meal kit to align with personal needs.
The cultural probe sent to participants took the form of a double-sided A4 poster and was
designed to be easily completed with a smart phone (Figure 7). The front of the poster
introduced the participant to the point of tasks, what they needed to do. Below the
description were the nine image prompts divided into the four service stages. On the back
of poster, the email address, the email protocol and an image of an email example were
provided. Participants were asked to hang the poster in a highly visible space in their
kitchen to act as a reminder to complete the task. Finally, when ex-users of meal kit service
72
were added to the participant pool, these four main service stages remained the same, but
the sub-questions were altered. Instead of asking about how the meal kit was used, it
asked how they had replaced their processes and to highlight elements that worked better
or worse than using the service.
3.3.4 The cognitive map
In line with Sanders and Stappers’ (2014) make tools, and primary and secondary research
were used to inform the development the cognitive map’s components and protocol,
which were iteratively designed throughout the initial data collection stages of this study
Figure 7 Cultural probe Information
73
(see Appendix C). The primary research consisted of the initial two-week trial to inform the
cultural probe questions/prompts, and the mind mapping exercise was used to reduce bias
in the development the dinner image prompts. Finally, pilot studies were conducted
towards the later stages to both practice the delivery of the exercise, and further refine the
prompt deck generated from the mind map (see Appendix D). The responses from the pilot
studies were also used to tally the use of each prompt card and determine how effective
each prompt was during the exercise. Secondary research consisted of using Sanders and
William (2003) to inform the overall structure and function of the cognitive map activity, in
conjunction with Kahneman et al. (2004) and Sanders and Stappers (2014) to inform the
timeline-based elements for the data collection. Finally, primary and secondary research
was used to generate a discussion guide (see appendix D), which was used to guide the
interview during the cognitive mapping exercise and ensure standardisation in process
among the different participants (Sanders & William, 2003). The guide consisted of
questions pertaining to their processes during the week (both with the meal kit or affected
by the service), as well as perceptions and attitudes relating to the activity. Some questions
included:
• ‘Do you feel like much has changed in your daily processes now that you’re using
the service?’
• ‘Do you feel pressured to cook every night?’
• ‘Do you ever modify the meal provided? If so, how do you do it and why?’
• ‘Is there anything notable about your process that frustrates you? Have you tried
doing anything different?’
• ‘Is there a feature that you feel would greatly benefit you if it was implemented by
the service?’
The subjects enlisted for this study consisted of individuals that are currently, or have
recently cancelled using, an online food service (e.g. HelloFresh, FoodConnect) to cook for
either for themselves or for a group (e.g. family, roommates). If a participant had cancelled
their service, their duration of using the service needed to exceed the duration of time
between cancellation and their acceptance to participate, with a maximum duration of six
months. As this study was exploratory in nature, participants were not screened beyond
their usage of the meal kit service. This mean that participants ranged in cooking
experience, dietary requirements, personal responsibilities, time restrictions, ‘familiarity of
service’ and so on, to enable a varied sample of insights pertaining to customer value-in-
social-context processes.
74
75
In total, seven participants from six households were interviewed. This small sample size
was selected as it was deemed more appropriate when exploring the highly varied and
intrinsic nature of value. As the literature review demonstrates, it is not commercially
feasible for the service to attempt to accommodate individual food values on an individual
basis. This limitation was used to establish that it was not necessary (nor feasible) for this
study to identify and then measure every potential food value among the meal kit
community. As such, an in-depth exploration to understand the dynamics of participant
value creation processes was considered more appropriate for the goals of this study. It is
because of this that a small sample size was deemed more appropriate, as it allowed for a
more intensive examination (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006) of participant value creation
efforts over a week-long period. Consequently, this smaller group of participants allowed
the primary researcher to explore in detail not only participant usage of the service
throughout the week, but which other household members were involved and in what
capacity, and (importantly) affiliated attitudes and goals towards each activity throughout
the process.
In its final form, the cognitive map was conducted on an A1 sized piece of butcher’s paper
with a horizontal line spanning its length. The line on the A1 sheet was used to represent a
timeline of the user’s weekly process using the meal kit. The images generated from the
participant’s response to the cultural probe were placed from left to right to represent this
to the participant. This was done so that the participant associated the A1 sheet as a
timeline, and to apply this temporal nature to the activity being performed by describing
their weekly events in sequence of each other. These images were not permanently fixed
to the A1 sheet so that participants could adjust the images to accurately represent their
stages of process. If the participant had quit using the meal kit service, they were
presented with two timelines. The top timeline represented their current process, which
was where their cultural probe responses were placed, and the lower timeline was
provided for the participant to describe their past processes using the meal kit.
76
The prompt deck was placed adjacent to the cognitive map, but used blue post it notes to
segment the images and words into ‘actions’, ‘objects’, ‘places’, ‘interactions’, ‘people’ and
‘feelings’ categories, and improve visibility for the participant. Participants were requested
to conduct the exercise in the room where the participant ate dinner, such as on a dinner
table or in the living room (Figure 8). This was to first ease the participant by having them
in a familiar place. This was also another method of improving participant recall by
conducting the exercise in the location the context in focus occurs. Only participants 2 and
5 performed the cognitive map exercise outside of their households, and this was instead
performed at the university campus.
The cognitive map activity started by describing the purpose of the activity, what the
activity consisted of, and the purpose of the prompt cards. Participants were then asked to
start from the first image they provided from the cultural probe (‘Who ordered the meal kit
and where?’). From here, probing questions were asked. While questions were prepared in
the discussion guide, the questions asked during the exercise were generally reactionary in
response to participant statements or themes mentioned by the participant. If the
participant had stopped or fell short describing an element of their process, the questions
in the discussion guide were used to further prompt the discussion. As participants
described their activities, they were encouraged to add images that they felt represented
the theme as well. This was useful in uncovering user moods and perspectives towards the
Figure 8 Setup of cognitive map exercise
77
routines they described. The primary researcher would also draw on the A1 butcher’s
paper to draw connections or causations when appropriate (Figure 9).
While the interview was structured to discuss the user’s process chronologically, the
flexible and visual nature of the exercise aided participant recall in several ways. First, it
allowed the participant to jump between descriptions of their weekly process as they
recalled them during the exercise. Secondly, it aided the participant when describing how
disparate events were in some ways connected. Thirdly, the visual timeline was useful to
refer to at the end of a participant’s train of thought, reminding them of the original stage
being discussed and move the conversation onto the next stage. Towards the end of the
interview, the participant was asked to identify what they considered to be moments in
their week that informed the rest of their process and describe why. An interview was
considered complete after the participant felt they had sufficiently described their weekly
process using the timeline. The cognitive map exercise conducted with each participant
took on average an hour, within a range of 42 minutes and 80 minutes.
3.4 Instruments for analysis 3.4.1 Dataset 1: Mind map images and words
Figure 9 Completed cognitive map exercise
78
When developing the prompt cards for the cognitive map activity, images and words
generated by the mind map exercise were printed off and then grouped via Kimbell’s
(2014) AEIOU framework (Figure 10). This framework was adapted to represent the
elements that are influence practices.
Figure 10 Kimbell's (2014) AEIOU framework
When attempting to identify values and perceptions, the category of ‘feelings’ was added.
This group was added as suggested by Sanders and William (2003), and contained emotive
prompts. During the pilot studies, the prompt cards used were tallied based on their use.
Cards that were hardly being used were removed from the deck.
3.4.2 Dataset 2: The cognitive map
An affinity diagram was used to analyse participant responses and identify participant VISC
processes (Holtzblatt & Beyer, 2015; Martin & Hanington, 2012). Prior to the analysis
process, participant data was first transformed into practice cards. To do this, audio
recordings from the cognitive map were first transcribed and coded by the primary
researcher. Originally, participant transcripts were coded via the Kimbell's (2014) AEIOU
framework, however this coding scheme disassociated the relationships between elements
79
of participant responses too much (see Appendix E). From here, the coding scheme was
modified to capture the activities performed by a household member, which network
members were involved, and attitudes attributed to a certain activity (Figure 11). This
approach was found to better reflected the CSEP archetypes (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015).
Furthermore, each AEIOU element could be divided into a respective practice archetype
(i.e. users and interactions are representative of normalizing practices). The transcript
codes were originally segmented and written onto post-it notes (participants 1 and 2) (see
Appendix E), but was then digitised by transferring the transcript codes into a Microsoft
word table in an A4 document. These activities were then compiled into a dedicated cell
within a Microsoft Word table (see Appendix E). The table in this Microsoft Word
document was then printed, where each cell was individually cut out to form a practice
card. Each practice card contained a corresponding participant and transcript code number.
This was to ensure that the information on an activity card could be quickly clarified by the
participant’s original statement within the transcript (Figure 11)
The practice cards were grouped into specific clusters that represented holistic stages in
Figure 11 Example of printed activity cards used for affinity diagram
Figure 12 Affinity diagram for participants 6 and 7
80
the participant’s process (e.g. checking fridge, collecting family member weight, looking at
upcoming recipes all represented ‘meal planning’) (Figure 12). The benefit of the affinity
diagram process was that these practices cards could be easily grouped then reshuffled,
which enabled an themes to be rapidly identified and then evaluated (Sleeswijk Visser et
al., 2005). This enabled themes to be assessed, challenged and retested before finalising
where each action fitted within the individual’s VISC process, and how these actions and
associated perceptions were interrelated (e.g. waiting for a partner before cooking).
Through the affinity diagram, two hierarchies of the participant process were created. An
overarching hierarchy was developed that segmented the results into five broad dinner
stages. This was used to keep the analysis consistent across the seven participants. These
stages were developed after finding similar functions in each participant’s process. They
were planning, which consisted of participants thinking about, and then deciding about
meals and ingredients for the week’s series of dinners; unpacking, which consisted of
getting the produce/ingredients from an agent to the house; preparation, which
considered the activities conducted and triggers prior to cooking; cooking, which was
considered when someone in the household began to start organising that dinner’s
ingredients; and then dinner, which included both the consumption of the meal and the
peripheral cooking activities conducted immediately after (e.g. cleaning). Dinner also
included alternative actions to the meal kit service or personal cooking, such as ordering or
eating a meal another agent has prepared (e.g. fast food). Within these five broad dinner
stages, the second hierarchy described activity clusters that were specific to each
participant’s processes within the broader five dinner stages (e.g. Participant 5 weighing
her family in the planning dinner stage to determine what the upcoming dinners will be).
Once the arrangement of the practice cards were finalised, McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and
Ferrier’s (2015) CSEP model was used to synthesise the practices. Each activity cluster in
the affinity diagram was dissected and allocated a specific type of CSEP practice within
either the representational, normalizing or exchange practice typologies. Ellway and Dean’s
(2015) cyclical description of the value creation process was used to inform analytical rules
that distinguished how the CSEP practices identified in the findings correlated with each
other. As value creation activities are an amalgamation of these three interrelated practices
archetypes (Ellway & Dean, 2015; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015), after the practices were
identified within an activity their relationship and functional characteristics were finally
grouped into a ‘practice chain’ (Figure 13). As such, each activity cluster was considered to
consist of at least one representational, normalizing and exchange practice necessary for
81
performing that action. This analytical process was performed manually in a book and then
later transferred to a digital version (see appendix F).
4. Results 4.1 Introduction
Figure 13 Practice chain structure
82
Seven participants from six households conducted the cognitive mapping exercise. With
regard to the demographics of these households, three households had young children,
two households consisted of young couples both working full-time, and one household
consisted of two sisters living together with a roommate. The duration of use between
participants also varied, with two households having used the service for less than three
months, two households using the service for more than 18 months, and two households
recently cancelling their subscription. Figure 14 Participant household composition
represents the member distribution of each household, as well as their representative
codes. Their involvement in the cooking process is symbolic of how often the member wold
contribute to the specific cooking process of routine meals.
Figure 14 Participant household composition
83
While synthesising participant data through the affinity diagram, five major stages emerged
that were representative of each household’s overarching cooking routine. These stages
are described as: planning, where participants would determine what the upcoming week’s
meals would consist of; unpacking, where participants would source the ingredients
necessary for their week’s meals; preparation, which consisted of the participants
afternoon routines prior to starting that nights meal; cooking, which was the specific
actions performed to create that night’s meal; and dinner, which comprised of the actions
performed while consuming the meal, in addition to activities that occurring immediately
after dinner (e.g. cleaning). This final dinner stage also represented participant actions of
sourcing food from alternative agents (e.g. fast food and restaurants).
It was identified that all participants using the meal kit performed these five dinner stages
in the sequence presented. For those that had quit the service, it was identified that they
continued to perform the same activities within these 5 dinner stages, however their
planning activities were conducted simultaneously within both the unpacking and
preparation stages (i.e. participants would plan what to personally cook upon arriving
home). By grouping the results into these five stages, a comparison between participant
processes was much easier. This approach also provided a more concise idea of how
previous events would inform later stages of the dinner process (i.e. poor planning and
routine shopping habits resulted in forced repetition). As such, the following section will be
divided into these five dinner stages. Within these five stages, actions or values shared
among participants will then be presented.
4.2 Planning This first dinner stage is comprised of participant descriptions of how they select and each
upcoming week’s meals, and their decision-making process that determines this selection.
The synthesis of participant description led to the emergence of three themes which are:
personally planning meals, utilising the meal kit to plan meals, and attitudes towards the
service’s provision of meals.
4.2.1 Personally planning meals All participants interviewed for this study were found to be the household meal planner
when the meal kit was not used. Unlike the meal kit service, which plans the meals a
week in advance, each participant would habitually decide what meal to cook prior to
84
starting the meal preparation process. Most participants expressed that the reasoning
behind this process was because they did not enjoy searching for meals, and therefore
lowered its priority in relation to other responsibilities. A shared attitude towards meal
planning can be summaries by participant 5’s expression:
“Yeah, I’m not a big cook. This is probably going to add more stuff to your … I don’t like thinking about things. You tell me what to do and I’ll do it, whenever it comes to cooking. I don’t like having to think about, ‘Oh what do we have to eat
for dinner tonight.’ ”. (Participant 5)
But this spontaneous approach to meal planning meant that a participant’s selection of
meal for dinner was then dictated by the ingredients already within their household,
ultimately limiting their ability to explore new meals. Participant 4 expressed a desire to
cook vegetarian meals, but despite his confidence in his cooking ability, he felt that his
lack of planning prior to grocery shopping meant that he would not have the ingredients
necessary to experiment with a new meal. When asked why he hasn’t attempted to
implement more planning prior to grocery shopping, he expressed:
“One reason is just lack of organisation, and laziness. If I am to cook vegetarian meals, I need to go and look up vegetarian meals, I don’t just sort of know ...
about what, what, what’s a good vegetarian meal or a fish meal.” (Participant 4)
To reduce the effort associated with meal planning, participants would occasionally use a
resource such as a website (participants 1, 3 and 4), cook book (ptn 4), or an older recipe
card (participants 2, 4, 5, 6) from a previous meal kit. In participant 3’s case, she utilised
the suggestions of market vendors to select new ingredients, how to cook them, and
what meals they should be used in:
“[Market vendor]’ll recommend things, so I’m quite open to, ‘Oh, ok, yeah I’ll try that,’ and she’ll say, ‘You can slow roast that on – or that’ll
be really nice if you put some you know, something herb with it.’ So, and I’ll do the same at the fruit and veg [stall], when I go along to the fruit
and veg, and ask, ‘What’s good?’, and the ladies there’ll be like, ‘Oh, this is what you need, you need some of these this week, these are really nice this week.’ So I do shop very much, and I think I’ve got a trusting
relationship with the people that I buy from.” (Participant 3)
Combined, these participant perspectives towards the act of planning meals for their
household demonstrate the task is highly undesired, and held a lower priority in relation to
other weekly activities and responsibilities.
85
4.2.2 Utilising the meal kit to plan meals The attitudes towards personally planning meals contrasted severely with the insertion of
the meal kit into the household, as all participants expressed appreciation when role of
meal planner was adopted by the meal kit service. The most commonly shared benefit
participants attributed to the use of the meal kit was its ability to reduce the amount of
planning required, an activity each participant held a strong disinterest in conducting.
Participant 6 sums up their attitudes:
“For me, it’s really about convenience. Um, and about avoiding going to the grocery store, and, uhhh yeah, just that decision fatigue and
deciding what to eat and it’s, they [meal kit meal] always taste yummy ... But I find as well, like, in a way, you’re paying almost … um, I don’t
know, you’re paying for the luxury to bypass the grocery shopping and all the impulse buying you would have done.” (Participant 6)
Using the meal kit, the participants’ meal planning activities were generally limited to
looking at the upcoming week’s recipes on the meal kit website to assess their
appropriateness for the household. Provided that household preferences or routines
weren’t challenged, this greatly reduced degree of involvement, and was highly desired and
appreciated by all participants.
4.2.3 Attitudes towards service’s meal selection
86
When participants were asked about their lack of control over the meals selected by the
meal kit, opinions varied. When asked about meal variety, participant 1 combined the card
‘something different’ adjacent to a picture she took of an empty bowl from a dinner (Figure
15). While doing this, participant 1 explained that the meal kit’s meal variety allows her to
try new meals, stating that she feels the meal kit has only repeated meals three or four
times over the year. But when asked about her feelings towards the specific meals selected
in relation to what she would choose to cook, she stated she would ‘get excited for meals,
or not excited for some, but then again, it’s a subscription box’.
Participants 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the other hand expressed a great joy (Figure 16) in the
discovery of new meals When asked about her thoughts on the varied cuisines selected by
the meal kit, participant 2 stated:
“Yeah, it is different. I wouldn’t automatically choose the things that they’re giving us, but I like the fact that it’s encouraging me to do that,
Figure 15 Participant 1’s response to service’s selection of meals.
Figure 16 (Left) Participant 5 and yng5’s feelings towards meal variety. (Right) Participant 2 uses ‘healthy bowl’ image to describe meal kit’s dinner selection.
87
to try ... I didn’t realise I was doing it until we tried all those other things and I was like, ‘Oh yeah I really, I pigeonholed myself a little bit.’ ”
(Participant 2)
Even participant 7, who repeatedly stressed throughout the interview her strong
disinterest towards cooking, appreciated the meal kit’s introduction to one of her now
favourite ingredients:
“Same with that other risoni stuff. That’s cool, I like that ... That’s my new favourite thing, it’s like a pasta rice! ... It’s cool ... [laughs] I eat it and I’m like eating more than I need to and I’m like, ‘Oh, this is pasta, like it will make me fat ... I shouldn’t eat this much.’ ” (Participant 7)
Thus, not only was the meal kit mitigating planning responsibilities, but it was perceived as
an actor that brought new and interesting discoveries into household dinner processes. But
where some participants enjoyed the exploration, at times the meal kit’s forced assignment
of meals challenged preferences of the household. Participant 3 mentioned that she and
ptn3 enjoyed the activity of fishing, and so both members were highly familiar with cooking
fish. Therefore, when the meal kit service planned a fish meal, participant 3 felt that the
service’s selection of fish meals and dictation of how to them conflicted with her personal
history and preferences. But this conflict affected participant 3 so severely that she even
expressed disgust towards the service’s selection of fish meals:
“Nah, just the seafood, and then fish was on the menu again and I was like, ‘Naah’ ... and that was a bit of a real swaying thing for us because I was like ‘Well, that’s one night’s meal that we can’t eat out of the box,’
and if they’re going to keep adding fish ... and things like fish tacos, eugh ... that just ... pfft, that just doesn’t sit well with me. So, the
seafood was an issue for me, yep … No, I would never eat fish tacos ... I just don’t think the two should go together.” (Participant 3)
In conclusion, this section demonstrates that the meal kit’s adoption of a household’s meal
planning process was largely welcomed by all participants, who lacked the desire to
personally plan the meals. An added benefit as demonstrated by participants 2, 4, 5 and 7
was that, despite the decreased involvement of the meals, the added ability to explore new
meal and ingredient types was mostly appreciated. But contrary to this strong beneficial
attribute, if the service’s dictation of meals challenged the food preferences of participants,
this service was considered to be detrimental to the creation of dinner. In the most severe
example, participant 3 demonstrates that those who are highly familiar with a specific food
type may even consider the service to be conducting a poor job and consider it necessary
88
to personally undertake the meal planning role again. This dynamic was identified among
other participants, and will be further discussed in the following section.
4.2.4 Contextual factors that challenge service’s meal selection
When asked about how their personal preferences were affected by the autonomous
nature of the meal kit, participants 2, 3, 4 and 5 described unique contextual factors that
limited their ability to consistently rely on the meal kit’s organisation of meals. As a result,
despite the meal kit’s highly desired adoption of meal planning responsibilities, only
participants 1, 6 and 7 felt confident in the meal kit’s ability to consistently organise their
week’s meals. Participants 2, 3, 4 and 5’s descriptions informed two types of contextual
factors that limited their ability to consistently rely on the service’s ability to plan meals.
They were a household’s weekly routines (e.g. children’s activities, work, dinner with
friends), and household dietary requirements.
When considering household routines, participant 4’s weekly dinner process varied
between ptn 4 cooking personal meals on weekends, going out for dinner, and organising
his children for their afternoon activities. When attempting to balance these factors with
the meal kit service, participant 4 found that the limited selection meal quantities offered
by the meal kit service challenged his household dinner processes:
“We didn’t get ever to choose the things we wanted to have, um, because there just weren’t spare nights, and, and quite often we
actually wouldn’t even be able to use the four meals that we got and so, we were always, you know, gave them to someone; worked out alright.”
(Participant 4)
Rather than wasting a night’s meal, participant 4 gave the extra meal kit meal to a
neighbour. But despite participant 4’s solution to ensure that nothing was wasted, his
inability to modify the number of meals delivered was a contributing factor to the
cancellation of the meal kit. Participant 1 also experienced a similar scenario where her
position as a teacher meant that she would have to mark assignments at home during the
end of semester. As she prioritises her work duties, she often feels too busy to cook even a
meal kit recipe:
“When I’m at my busiest, so if its reporting, um school reports or the end of the year reports, like now, we switch to the 3 meal box because we
found that there were a couple of nights we just weren’t cooking at all, or its wasted, so we found that we were wasting meals and having to,
89
yeah, either freeze the meat or throw it away, because we just didn’t have time. So this week I’ve had two nights out and so, If I’d have got
the 5 meal box, we would have been wasting meals on those days cause yeah [ptn1] definitely wouldn’t have cooked.” (Participant 1)
But unlike participant 4, participant 1 felt that the ability to quickly modify the meal
portions delivered from five times a week to three times was of strong benefit, and
expressed a strong appreciation for the meal kit service’s flexibility.
The second contextual factor that challenged households was dietary requirements and
preferences. Both participants 2 and 5 have household factors that require them to
determine whether they can eat the ingredients provided in the upcoming meal. In
participant 2’s case, her partner is lactose intolerant and she does not enjoy eating fish. The
only solution participant 2 has identified when addressing an upcoming meal kit that
contains these ingredients is to cancel the week’s delivery and then conduct her
(undesired) personal meal planning. Participant 5 also utilises this process, describes her
scenario as:
“We’re actually a family nutrition conscious family. We do a weight-divisioned sport, which means that we need to control our weight at certain times of the year. Um, so we found [with meal kit service], we just need to change the portion sizes and it fits in with the nutrition
requirements. ... Um, with regard to planning for all of the rest, um, it’s really a week by week thing, because if the weight’s on track then we don’t really need to make a change, but if the weight’s not on track,
then um, we’ve got that week to plan and it’s ... yeah, our meals without [meal kit service] are really, boring and simple. Chicken, veg, change it
up with the herbs.” (Participant 5)
Unlike participant 2, participant 5 will do what she can to modify the portions of the meal
kit meals to meet household requirements by modifying the portions of vegetables and
protein. But if she cannot realise opportunity to do this, participant 5 will cancel that
week’s order and return to an undesired personal meal planning process. But where
participants 2 and 5 still consider the meal kit’s ingredient selection manageable,
participant 3’s lack of interest in the fish produce resulted in the cancellation of the meal
kit. This was because participant 3’s inability to change or remove the ingredient from the
rest of the meal kit delivery resulted in a decision between wasting an entire night’s meal,
or cancelling the order entirely.
When considering both types of contextual limitations of the households interviewed,
participant responses demonstrate a clear divide in the value of the meal kit service. Both
90
participants 1 and 5’s ability to appropriate the meal kit’s strict provision of resources for
their personal processes left both participants maintaining strong positive associations with
the service. This contrasted drastically with both participants 2, 3 and 4, who were unable
to resolve the meal kit’s challenge in a satisfactory manner. But where participant 2
described the service only challenged her household’s dietary preferences, participants 3
and 4 found that their contextual factors were not only repeatedly challenged, but the
service’s strict provision left them feeling incapable of using the meal kit’s resources. This
combination of challenged contextual factors in conjunction with their inability to modify
the resources provided is used to infer one of the predominant reasons why both
participants 3 and 4 have cancelled their subscription to the meal kit service.
4.3 Unpacking Unpacking is the second dinner stage identified, and consists of how participants organised
the ingredients for necessary for their weekly cooking process. Participants’ descriptions of
how they sourced their weekly ingredients in this stage resulted in two main themes: how
the meal kit is delivered, and how appropriate the meal kit’s ingredients are for household
requirements and personal grocery shopping.
4.3.1 How is the meal kit delivered? The first process discussed revolved around using the meal kit’s home delivery feature.
Much like the opinions held towards the service’s meal planning role, participants still using
the service expressed a positive attitude towards the meal kit’s home delivery feature and
the degree of flexibility it offered. It was a common delight among participants to perform
unrelated personal processes (e.g. sleeping, working), and then to magically receive a
selection of ingredients at their front door. When describing this delight, participant 2
attributes the meal kit’s adoption of grocery shopping tasks with an increase in time that
she can instead spend bonding with her partner:
“Yeah, well I guess this part, like one of the things this has done for us is give us more time, and we’re spending less time grocery shopping and things like that. Well with our more time, we should spend more time
together.” (Participant 2)
But much like the meal planning, this delivery process was challenged by a participant’s
contextual factors. Participant 2 used an image of a ‘praying dog’ (Figure 17) to represent
her anxiety over the potential theft of the meal kit due to the open layout of her house and
91
its adjacency to a busy street. Furthermore, the front is unshaded, which leaves her
questioning how safe it would be to leave her ingredients out in the sun while working.
Participant 5 also described a situation in which her dog would bark at the delivery man in
the early hours of the morning during the delivery. But unlike the limitations of meal
planning, both participants greatly appreciated the greater degree of control over how the
meal kit is delivered. In both cases, participants could rearrange the delivery time to ensure
it is more appropriate for their house (e.g. participant 2 has the meal kit delivered early in
the morning before work; participant 5 has it delivered during the day so the dog doesn’t
wake up the neighbourhood).
Participant 6 appreciated the home delivery, as she lives on the second floor of an
apartment block (Figure 18). But in the past (with both her current and previous meal kit
services) participant 6 encountered the occasional delivery dilemma where the meal kit is
delivered to the wrong area. When participant 6 could not find the meal kit at her
doorstep, she assumed it had failed to be delivered until discovering the meal kit the next
day after being exposed to the elements. Despite this failed delivery, participant 6 felt that
her vegetarian preferences meant that the meal kit consisted of ingredients that did not
perish as easily, and she instead appraised the meal kit’s insulation, as her ingredients were
still slightly cold upon discovery the next day. While participant 6 was not explicit about
why these delivery mistakes occasionally happen, a conclusion for her leniency towards
these delivery problems may be a result of both the satisfactory condition of her
Figure 17 Participant 2’s pictorial response when describing her attitudes towards meal kit delivery
92
ingredients upon discovery, in addition to her second-storey apartment location, which
features many adjacent ‘front doors’. This observation was made when the primary
researcher visited her place of residence to conduct the cognitive map activity.
Once the meal kit made it into the house, participants 1, 2, 5 and 6 described similar
processes of how they also made it their specific duty to unpack the meal kit and transfer
the ingredients into the fridge. Participants 2, 5 and 6’s reasoning for conducting this task
was motivated by two reasons. This activity first allowed these participants to confirm that
the all ingredients required for that week’s meals were delivered and suitable for
consumption. During this activity, the meal kit’s recipe card functioned as a checklist
(Figure 19). The second reason was that meal kit ingredients were stocked in specific
locations within the fridge for symbolic purposes. Participants 1, 2, 5 and 6 used the
shelving space in both their fridge and pantry to demonstrate to both themselves and other
household members what ingredients what were for specific dinners, and what could be
casually eaten.
Figure 18 Participant 6’s cultural probe response to ‘Where is the meal kit delivered?’
Figure 19 Both participant 5’s (left) and participant 2’s (right) describe unpacking the meal kit with the checklist icon.
93
The final theme commonly mentioned by participants pertaining to the service’s delivery
centred around the packaging that the produce and recipe cards was sent in. Participants 2,
6 and 7 all expressed a desire for the meal kit to manage the wasted packaging rather than
leaving the onus on them:
“Yeah, cause we end up with so many boxes, cause they deliver a brand new box every week and I thought we put out our old box and collect it
and then swap it over, but it just has to go into recycling. And all the cool packs as well, I know they can be recycled but it just seems like a lot
of stuff every single week, whereas I’d love to just swap it over.” (Participant 2)
“The box. I feel, I feel like they used to collect it and they used to recycle it. It would be awesome if they still did that … ’cause it’s a pain for us to have it … and … um, it makes you feel like you’re doing the right thing by
recycling it.” (Participant 7)
But participant 6 utilised two strategies to reduce excess packaging. The first consisted of
using the cardboard box to collect their recycling underneath the sink, although participant
6 stated that they had stopped doing this because it both took up too much space, and it
looked ‘ugly’ in the kitchen. Participant 6’s second strategy consisted of using the packaging
insulation as growth media for her veggie patch. Participant 7 acknowledged that she was
impressed with her sister’s creative efforts to manage the wasted product.
In conclusion, participant opinions of the home delivery feature of the meal kit were
generally positive. A familiar problem among participants was how their house/apartment
would occasionally challenge how the meal kit was delivered, which would occasionally
result in a soggy or missing meal kit. Despite the occasional shortcomings of the delivery
feature, no participants blamed the service. Instead, participants generally considered the
delivery problem to be caused by their location (e.g. participant 5’s dog, participant 6’s
large apartment complex). Opinions were generally positive, as participants felt that the
service provided sufficient options to modify the service’s delivery to an appropriate
degree that resolved most of their concerns (e.g. participant 2 reducing the chance of theft
with a midnight delivery, participant 5 changing the delivery time to stop her dog barking in
the early morning). The only problem solely attributed to how the meal kit was delivered
was identified by participants 2, 6 and 7, who all felt the meal kit packaging was excessive.
94
4.3.2 How appropriate are the ingredients the meal kit selects?
Participant evaluations of the produce sent by the meal kit was generally positive.
Participant 2 did claim that the produce was occasionally ‘nobbly’ or damaged, but felt that
this contributed to the produce being ‘organic’ (Figure 20). Another negative perception
towards the meal kit’s provision of ingredients was that participant 2 felt the ‘expected
ingredients’ (i.e. staples the participant has to organise) requested by the meal kit weren’t
commonplace within her household, and wished the meal kit sent them.
The only problem encountered with the produce severe enough to warrant the service’s
cancellation occurred with participant 3, as the meal kit’s suggested fish meals already did
not align with participant 3’s household’s preferences. This conflict was further
exacerbated after what she described as the ‘fish incident’:
“We didn’t like the fish, and um, we looked at the fish in the packet, and we went ‘salmon ... ok ...’ and we were like ‘... give it the benefit of the doubt, we’re pretty spoilt and lived up north, we’ve cooked lots of fish
for ourselves’, and we were like, ‘Nah, we can do this’. And [ptn3] opened the fish up, I could smell the fish from the other end of the bench ... he put his finger into the fish and his fingerprint stayed in the fish, and
he was like, ‘Uuh, so I’m going to cook it ...’ and I was like ‘... alright’.
Figure 20 Participant 3 uses farmer to demonstrate organic perception towards produce
95
And it just smelt ... who knows, maybe that’s what it was meant to ...? I mean well in my mind if you press ... you shouldn’t be able to smell it, and it should bounce back when you press a piece of fish ... Um. So we
really did, we were like, ‘Oooh,’ we were trying to hide it from the children too that we weren’t impressed. We didn’t want them to feed off
of our ... um, very high standard of fish that we like.” (Participant 3)
Furthermore, this negative experience formed a basis of doubt around services ability to
source the correct produce:
“I did say that we didn’t like the fish and I um, googled, it wasn’t salmon, it was pink ling, yeah, and I googled. I think we might have had
salmon as well but I googled ‘pink ling’ , and I was like ‘I don’t know what pink ling is, I’ve never heard of pink ling,’ and I googled that while
[ptn3] was cooking, which was probably the worst thing I could have done because it’s not a fish, it’s an eel. And, obviously it gets used a lot
and it’s a commercial fish and all the rest of it, but for me, this did not ... my brain was not accepting that I was going to eat an eel for dinner ... I
don’t care what they call it ...” (Participant 3)
Thus, the combination of unfamiliar meals planned by the meal kit in addition to the lost
faith in the service’s ability to source the correct produce meant that participant 3 wanted
to cancel all future fish meals created by the meal kit. But her inability to remove individual
meals from the rest of the meal kit formed participant 3’s justification to cancel the meal
kit service, despite her appreciation of the other types of meals provided.
In conclusion, all participants except participant 3 and ptn 4, greatly appreciated the
service’s adoption of the highly undesired grocery shopping task. Furthermore, participants
1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 greatly appreciated the opportunity to discover new ingredients through
the service, which they felt wasn’t likely to happen through their personal processes. While
most of participants considered the ingredient defects as characteristics of organic
produce, participant 3 and prtn 3 felt the meal kit service was incapable of organising
ingredients to the level of quality they desired. Furthermore, their lack of control over
resolving the challenging ingredient subsequently resulted in participant 3’s cancellation of
the service.
4.3.3 How are personal ingredients organised? Participant attitudes towards their personal shopping processes contrasted greatly in
comparison to the meal kit service. Most participants held a strong negative association to
grocery shopping and expressed a desire for the removal of this process. Participants 1, 2
and 6 all used negative icons during the interview to demonstrate their hatred of the
96
process (Figure 21). But as previously discussed, participants disinterest in planning
upcoming meals impacted the grocery shopping as well. When organising the ingredients
for the households, the household’s meals, instead of actively planning around specific
meals, participants would routinely purchase staple ingredients. This poor planning prior to
grocery shopping also left participants purchasing products that they did not need.
Participants 1, 2, 6 and 7 used the ‘empty wallet’ image to express that after replacing their
personal grocery shopping activities with the meal kit, they were reducing unnecessary
purchases and saving money.
Participants 4, 5, 6 and 7 conducted additional processes that simplify their remaining
grocery requirements not managed by the meal kit service. Participants 4 and 5 both use
Coles’ online ‘Click and Collect’ service to organise their remaining grocery shopping.
Similar to participant’s routine ingredient selection process discussed in Section 4.2.1,
participants 4 and 5 mitigate their routine meal planning processes by automatically
ordering staple ingredients with a digital grocery list they generated with the service.
Participant 4 only modifies this list after discovering a new meal or ingredient of interest.
They will then simply collect the grocery items from a designated fridge on their commute
home after work. While participant 6 conducts much of the grocery shopping, both she and
participant 7 will minimise their grocery shopping activities by sharing the responsibility
through spontaneous collaboration. If either participant 6 or 7 realise an ingredient is
needed prior to cooking, they will notify the member (via call or text) who is out conducting
a personal activity to collect the missing ingredient before coming home.
Figure 21 Participant 6’s (Left) and participant 1’s (Middle) attitudes towards grocery shopping, and participant 2’s (Right) elimination of grocery shopping
97
Only participant 3 held a positive association with the process of grocery shopping. This
conclusion can be made because when conducting the cultural probe, she responded with
six images of her grocery shopping process (Figure 22) when the activity asked for only one.
Throughout the interview, participant 3 elaborated on both the quality of the produce and
the friendly nature of her relationships with the farmer’s market vendors. Participant 3
selected the ‘conversation’ image card to describe her grocery shopping process (Figure
22). Participant 3 further detailed that her exchange with the vendors of a local farmer’s
market was not only friendly, but informative:
“[Market vendor]’ll recommend things, so I’m quite open to, ‘Oh, ok, yeah I’ll try that,’ and she’ll say, ‘You can slow roast that on – or that’ll
be really nice if you put some you know, something herb with it.’ So, and I’ll do the same at the fruit and veg [stall], when I go along to the fruit
and veg, and ask ‘What’s good?’, and the ladies there’ll be like, ‘Oh, this is what you need, you need some of these this week, these are really nice this week’ . So I do shop very much, and I think I’ve got a trusting
relationship with the people that I buy from.” (Participant 3)
Figure 22 Participant 3’s grocery shopping process with farmers market vendors
98
This interaction was predominant influence that encouraged her to explore new
ingredients, recipes and cooking methods. Participant 3’s grocery activities were a
collaborative effort within her family, as each member was involved in selecting specific
ingredients for that week’s grocery shop. But if an ingredient was forgotten, ptn 3 will grab
the missing ingredient(s) after work as he’s closer to the city. Participant 3 does not like the
traditional supermarket chains, as she feels the price and quality of their produce doesn’t
compare to her farmers markets.
This examination demonstrates that much like meal planning, the activity of grocery
shopping was highly undesired by all participants apart from participant 3. Participants 1, 2,
4, 5, 6 and 7 made attempts to reduce the effort required by conducting routine purchased
which negatively impacted their enjoyment of dinner, as they frequently repeated meals.
Furthermore, these participants would attempt to conduct grocery shopping activities after
work, which left them feeling tired or annoyed. Participant 3’s demonstrated pleasure in
conducting the grocery shopping is attributed to the relationships she has with the farmer’s
market vendors. This relationship was highly beneficial, as participant 3 was consequently
able to discuss and negotiate with the market vendors in a friendly manner, what
ingredients were appropriate for her household, in addition to discovering new and
unexpected meals based on their conversation. This can be used to infer why participant 3
felt that this method had surpassed the capabilities of the meal kit service, while the other
participants preferred the meal kit service.
4.4 Preparation The preparation dinner stage was considered the activities performed prior to starting the
cooking process. This actions and perceptions attributed with this dinner stage were
predominantly conducted in between arriving home from work and starting the cooking
process. Participant descriptions resulted in two themes for this dinner stage, which are
afternoon routines, and determining who cooks in the household.
4.4.1 Afternoon routines For those cooking without the meal kit, participants typically decided what form dinner will
take during this preparation dinner stage. Participants mentioned the intensity of their
day’s events would dictate whether to cook a regular meal, a meal kit meal, a ‘lazy meal’,
or even order dinner from restaurant or fast food chain. Participants 1, 2 and 6 all
99
described feelings of displeasure when thinking about the time between finishing work and
starting to organise dinner. Participant 4 and 5 also expressed feeling time poor during this
stage as they had to simultaneously organise their family members’ personal activities
while determining what’s for dinner. Participant 4 states:
“I get home and uh, 5 o’clock, or, 5.30, and then I start thinking about dinner... or tomorrow I’m going to get home at 6, and you know, it’s just difficult to do different things ... so I won’t get to do this [cook dinner] till
ah, 6 o’clock and it’s just easy to do things that I know how to do.” (Participant 4)
This is indicative of how contextual priorities within this dinner stage shaped the
participants’ subsequent processes and attitudes towards cooking. This form of cooking will
be described as ‘routine’, where the meal’s recurring but vital creation was considered
highly undesired in relation to other recent contextual events or priorities. Unlike the
inspired cooking endeavours that would be performed on the weekend (participants 1, 2
and ptn 4), the conflicting contextual priorities within this stage would be used to suggest
why participants considered the subsequent cooking task as a chore that simply had to be
completed.
When considering participant perceptions of the services application during non-routine
meals, responses were not as positive. Participant 4’s feelings towards the meal kit’s
application were mixed during this stage. As highlighted in the planning dinner stage,
participant 4 greatly appreciated using the meal kit service to mitigate cooking efforts while
organising his children for their afternoon routines. However, participant 4 was not so
willing to relinquish his choice of dinner for less frantic nights. It is here that the meal kit
service challenged his preferred routines despite the reduced effort planning and
organising meals:
“We didn’t get ever to choose the things we wanted to have, because there just weren’t spare nights, and quite often we actually wouldn’t
even be able to use the four meals that we got, and so we were always, you know, [giving] them to someone.” (Participant 4)
This demonstrates that despite the convenience, the service’s predefined number of
dinners organised did not compare to participant 4’s more cherished personal dinner
routines.
In conclusion, these descriptions are used to first distinguish the differences between
routine and desired cooking. This differentiation can be used to demonstrate how the meal
100
kit was appropriate for the routine mode of use. However, as demonstrated by participants
1, 2, 3, 4 and ptn4, when a participant was not conducting this routine type of cooking the
meal kit service was considered more of a hindrance.
4.4.2 Determining who cooks in the household All participants explained how they would determine who will cook that night’s meal during
afternoon routines, and then attempt to distribute that role with varying degrees of
success. Three different processes were used by participants when assigning cooking
responsibilities within their respective households.
i. Dominant cooking role in the household:
The first process, described by participants 1 and 4, is where a single member of the
household was primarily in charge of cooking the meal. Participant 1’s reasoning as to why
she’s the predominant cook was:
“It’s just more of an effort for me to clean up afterwards, and yeah. So it’s probably more my control, why [ptn 1] doesn’t cook, but he gets
home later than I do, and he studies [university]. So when he gets home, he generally goes into the study and you know, does his thing, does
assignments, and listens to lectures and things like that. It’s easy enough that I can cook, because I probably would end up being home an
hour before him, so it’s not as big of a deal for me to just go, ‘Alright, well I’ll stop planning for an hour and go and cook dinner.’ So, yeah, it’s partly me being absolutely anal about [cleaning], and then yeah, some of him; just he’s strapped for time as well and his times pretty precious
while he’s still finishing uni.” (Participant 1)
P4 is also the predominant cook within his household. His reasoning as to why is:
“I do most of the cooking in the household, but [ptn 4] is a very good cook. Very good and very enthusiastic. She enjoys cooking and she’s … very concerned about what she’s producing at the end ... [ptn 4] cooks twice a week probably, 2 or 3 times a week? ... She’s meant to have,
meant to work 4 days a week, not 5, and I think today is her day off, but this is a pretty typical day off as she gets home at 7 o’clock at night … so
we, it does tend to be more round the weekends or holidays that she would cook.” (Participant 4)
While participant 4 has made attempts to include his children in the process, this was not
happening frequently, as his kids are ‘not interested’. Participant 4 admitted that his efforts
to get his children to cook were greatly enhanced when the meal kit was being used.
101
ii. Negotiating the cooking role in the household:
Elements of the meal kit were used by participants to assign roles to other household
members. Participant 7 acknowledges that while participant 6 is the predominant
household cook (Figure 23), participant 7 states that she will occasionally cook simpler
service meals when P6 is busy. Thus, the simpler meals of the service allow participants 6
and 7 to use their absence to inform a dynamic cooking roster:
Participant 7: “We don’t have a really, a formal roster, you know.”
Participant 6: “And sometimes like, we know we have some different activities that we might know about. So usually on a Wednesday night I’ll go to a friend’s house, I didn’t this week, and I was doing running on Mondays – Monday nights, umm, and then [Participant 7] might have
exercise some nights and yeah.”
Participant 7: “If, like I know she’s gone on running group or something, I’ll typically start dinner.”
P5 conducts a similar process within her household, where the role of household cook alternates between herself, ptn 5 and eld5. When asked how they conduct this process, P5 said:
“So with [meal kit service], I literally just come home at the end of the day and my husband and the 16-year-old, are, have already been home
Figure 23 Participant 7 uses the "my sis rocks" card to describe Participant 6’s predominant cooking activities
102
from school or work and they’ve left to go to training. And they pick out a recipe, and they leave the recipe card on the kitchen bench, and that is
the recipe I cook for that night.” (Participant 5)
This is process is utilised so that each the household member can alternate between cooking and attending training. Finally, it was also discovered that the meal kit recipe card was implemented as a tool to assign cooking responsibilities. Participant 4 utilised the recipe card to get his children involved in cooking:
“So ... we, you know, have a system whereby the kids make one meal each, every week. Now ... it very rarely happens I’ve got to say, but
never the less, that is the, that’s the staging regime. And if you say like [meal kit] is very easy to do that, because you can just say, ‘Okay, you’ve got four recipes, you pick one, and tell me which day you’re going to do it,’ and so it’s uhh ... I found it quite a good thing in terms of um, getting kids involved, in the process, because then, you know, you give them the
choice without saying this is the meal I want to cook, so it gives you some sort of ownership rather than saying, ‘This is what I want you to
cook tonight.’ So that works quite well.” (Participant 4)
This use of the meal kit’s resources to motivate other household members to cook was used by participant 6, who now suggests recipes with a specific ingredient that participant 7 loves:
“Yeah, so, barley is something that I found out that I absolutely love, and every time there’s a meal with barley it’s gone. And ... or [P6] will
say, ‘Hey! this one’s got barely in it, you’ll enjoy it!’ ” (Participant 7)
Both participant 6 and 7 feel that despite participant 7’s strong disinterest in cooking, this is proving to be an effective form of motivation when encouraging cooking.
iii. Cooking collaboratively with household:
Many participants found benefit in using the meal kit service to not only to improve either
personal or household cooking frequency, but to also invite other household members into
a collaborative cooking process. Participant 2 expressed a great appreciation for the meal
kit’s lowered cooking difficulty, as it encouraged her partner to engage in a hobby she
thoroughly enjoys by:
“No, just association with food for the both of us is just much more positive. I mean I’ve always been really super interested and like to
watch the cooking shows and everything like that, meanwhile [ptn 2]’s not that interested. And it’s nice for him ... it’s nice for me to see him
interested in something I’m interested in. And that’s a nice little incidental. But yeah, it’s good, it’s working out well for us.” (Participant
2)
103
Consequently, participant 2 expressed feeling much less time poor as her afternoon routine
now consists of procrastinating on her phone (Figure 24) as she waits for her partner to
arrive home before cooking the meal kit meal together. Participant 3’s household also
cooks collaboratively but without the assistance of a meal kit. While participant 3 and ptn 3
are the predominant cooks (i.e. they typically select the meal) in the household, where eld3
and yng3 will perform minor cooking tasks (cooks rice, makes a sauce, etc.). This process is
important to participant 3, as she sees the collaborative cooking process as a routine task
that provides an opportunity to bond with her household.
In conclusion, these three methods of organising the household cooking demonstrates that
the meal kit’s lowered difficulty not only makes it easier for participants to personally cook
routine meals, but also enhances their ability to distribute a predominant cooking task
among their network.
Figure 24 Participant 2's description of her afternoon routine
104
4.5 Cooking The cooking dinner stage was defined as either the participant’s or another household
member’s utilisation of ingredients and skillset to create a single night’s dinner. Participant
descriptions of this dinner stage resulted in the emergence of three themes, which were
cooking personal meals, using the meal kit to cook, and modifying the meal kit.
4.5.1 Cooking personal meals As previously mentioned, the minimal planning and reliance on routine grocery purchases
left participants generally deciding what was being created that night only prior to starting
the actual cooking process. This meant that meal choice was primarily determined by what
ingredients were already in the fridge. The types of meals selected by participants varied
depending on their cooking ability, interest and how time poor they felt. When discussing
participant perceptions of ability when cooking without the meal kit, most participants
described themselves as competent. Only participants 5, 7 and ptn 2 were exceptions, who
instead felt they were only moderately successful in their attempts. When discussing
participant attitudes towards cooking non-routine meals, participant responses were much
more varied. Participants 1, 2, 3 and ptn 4 enjoyed the creativity and freedom associated
with cooking personal meals. These same participants also described experiencing no
difficulties exploring and attempting new meals, with the only limiting factor being the
ingredients they had available within their fridge. Participant 2, for instance, relishes the
opportunity to spontaneously experiment:
“It depends on how tired I am, but yeah I really like cooking and when I have all the ingredients for things I like to try new stuff and I’ll go for
weeks where I just cook every single night, and then go through weeks where [ptn 2]’s travelling, or had a bad week at work, and that’s when I’ll start doing a bit of takeaway and stuff like that. But I love cooking, the biggest thing for me is not having the ingredients.” (Participant 2)
Participant 3 is also used to this spontaneous approach in her cooking:
“Often I’ll just google search. So, like that pork rack, I’ll google ‘pork rack’ and ‘taste’ will come up, Taste.com.au and I found that they have really good recipes. I don’t tend to go onto any of those forum’y, people who’ve got their own recipes, because they’re not tried and tested and I just don’t really, don’t really rely on them. Or if I need to, um, like, ‘How
do I slow roast something?’, or some technique that somebodies mentioned to me at like the market. ‘You could braise that’ ‘Oh but how do you braise that?’, so I would just google that, but that would, umm,
105
I’m not going to spend any more than 5 minutes looking for a recipe.” (Participant 3)
Participant 4 instead saw cooking as a chore despite perceiving himself to have a strong
cooking ability. As previously discussed, the planning activities required to organise new
meal types held a lower priority in relation to participant 4’s other contextual priorities.
Despite a desire to experiment and a strong cooking ability, participant 4 found difficulty in
trying new meals.
Unlike the previous participants, participants 5 and 7 were not so confident in their cooking
ability. Participant 5’s perceived low cooking ability and sparse meal planning is what she
felt caused her to create either unhealthy or bland dinners, which left her feeling
conflicted:
“Yes, so before starting [meal kit service], we, the training schedule was essentially the same, um ... and the planning, there was zero planning, so I would get home, on a Monday afternoon, after no, um ... with the
six-year-old, and have no idea what to cook, not have any idea what’s in the fridge, have no, plan and then we’d end up eating, terrible food, or ... the same old ... boring stuff. And even before [meal kit service], I was
not using anywhere near as much herbs or sauces or marinades or whatever, as what I am using now. I was too afraid.” (Participant 5)
Participant 7 was explicit throughout the interview about her disinterest in cooking by
repeatedly declaring the fact. Her primary reasoning for this disinterest was that she’s she
doesn’t want to prioritise more than 30 minutes on a meal. Because of this, she tended to
repeat a small selection of very basic meals such as burritos and spaghetti prior to the meal
kit service, much to participant 6’s displeasure.
These insights surrounding personal cooking ability first demonstrate that the meal kit is
used irrespective of cooking ability, although those with a lower cooking ability do
appreciate the new avenues it presents. Participants with a higher cooking ability all
expressed a preference for experimenting and trialling their personal meals when they
were not feeling time poor. As such, they preferred the freedom to explore and did not
consider the meal kit appropriate for this process. This finding suggests why the meal kit
service is associated with cooking routine meals.
4.5.2 Cooking with the meal kit When discussing perceptions of using the meal kit in their cooking process, participants
primarily welcomed the involvement of the service, provided the service meals delivered
106
were appropriate for their household requirements. Participants who felt confident in their
cooking ability would often modify or ignore the recipe’s instruction in favour of conducting
their personal process. Participants 1 and 2 described the meal kit’s suggested cooking
process as ‘utensil heavy’, and would instead modify the process to reduce the amount of
cleaning at the end. When asked about his attitudes towards using the meal kit to cook
routine meals, participant 4 stated:
“If it was just [ptn 4] and I, I wouldn’t do [meal kit service] either, because then we would just be doing some more interesting things with
food. Well I regard [meal kit service] as a very easy, bit like fast food almost. You know, it’s an easy and convenient thing to be doing …”
(Participant 4)
But when asking the same question of participants who were not so confident in their
cooking ability, they expressed enjoyment of utilising the meal kit’s suggestions during the
cooking process. Both participants 5 and 7 also attributed the meal kit with an increase in
their personal cooking abilities after being exposed to new ingredients to experiment with.
Participant 7 attributes the meal kit with introducing her to one of her now favourite
ingredients, risoni, which (based on participant 6’s suggestion) is now used to motivate her
to cook it. Participant 5 described that the specific ingredients provided by the meal kit in
conjunction with the recipe forced her to learn about new ingredients in a way that was
not possible through her personal processes:
“Since having [meal kit], I have increased my ability to cook massively. Like it’s been a massive improvement. I’m not afraid to put herbs, put
sauces, mix different types of food with other types of food which I would have never thought to do. Um, when you read off I guess a recipe book, or you know, a piece of paper from the internet, without actually forcefully having the ingredients put in front of you, I guess you’ve got the option to not buy the ingredient that stays on the recipe card and therefore you don’t put that ingredient in your cooking, whereas here,
it’s physically in your hand, it’s right in front of you as you’re cooking, so you may as well put in the recipe when it tells you to. So I’ve expanded
on my cooking ability.” (Participant 5)
Because of this learning process, participant 5 believes she has matched (or potentially
surpassed) her partner in cooking ability, which she took great pleasure in stating. Further
examples of this forced experimentation were found when cooking fish. Much like
participant 2, participant 5 has never enjoyed cooking fish, so when one meal contained
fish she was tempted to replace it with chicken. But where participant 5 differed from
participant 2 is that, despite her personal preferences, participant 5 trusted the meal kit’s
107
suggestion enough to attempt to cook the fish, which she is happy she did because she was
very satisfied with the results.
Thus, based on participant responses, cooking ability infers their degree of willingness to
experiment with the meal kit. Those who feel less confident in their ability are more likely
to appreciate being forced to trial new ingredients (participants 5 and 7). This is greatly
contrasted by those with a higher cooking ability who prefer to personally conduct the
experimentation themselves, and consider the meal kit’s suggestion as limited (participants
1, 3 and 4). Furthermore, this suggests that the predominant benefit affiliated with the
meal kit’s use does not lie in the cooking stage, but through mitigating the planning and
grocery stages as previously mentioned.
4.5.3 Modifying the meal kit As previously mentioned, the meals provided by the meal kit were not always appropriate
for the household, but some participants were found to implement strategies that made
the service more appropriate for their household. When managing undesired ingredients, a
basic strategy commonly used by participants would be to cook the conflicting ingredient,
but then either serve that portion to a family member less averse to it. Otherwise, the
ingredient was just wasted, but most participants (participants 1, 2, 4, 5, 6) expressed a
strong desire not to do this.
Another common strategy used by participants was to modify the portion size of the meal
by adding personal ingredients. This was conducted frequently by participant 5, who
needed to adapt the meal kit portion sizes to household’s weight targets necessary for
their competitive sport. Participants 1, 2, 6 and 7 described using the meal kit to modify
their personal processes outside of dinner. These participants felt that the meal kit’s
portion sizes were too large for dinner, and would use what was remaining for lunch the
next day. Participants 6 and 7 felt that this unexpected attribute has saved them a fair
amount of money, as both have stopped purchasing lunches from work.
108
Another modification to the service seen among participants was in reaction to the
previously mentioned preference not to waste unused ingredients. To resolve this conflict,
participants would implement excess meal kit ingredients in either personal or other meal
kit meals. Participants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 stated that the meal kit will provide an entire clove of
garlic, but its recipes don’t utilise nearly as much. As a result, these participants are
attempting to manage the gradual collection of garlic cloves within their fridge on a weekly
basis (Figure 25). Participant 1 resolves this meal kit problem by implementing the
ingredient into her personal meals, whereas participants 2, 5, 6 and 7 will just implement it
in future service meals.
These participant-motivated modifications demonstrate how the service’s challenge of
household preferences and requirements, while occasionally frustrating, are not
necessarily catastrophic for the service. Instead, these contributions demonstrate that
participants are malleable in their response as they draw on personal skills and knowledge
to ensure that the meal kit aligns with their personal values and contextual factors (e.g. not
wasting food, saving money).
4.6 Dinner This final dinner stage was defined as both the actions and interactions that occurred
during the consumption of a meal. These actions did not necessarily have to be conducted
with the meal kit service, but also included both commercial restaurants and personal
meals. Finally, activities that were performed soon after the act of dinner and were related
(e.g. cleaning dishes, taking out trash) were also implemented into this dinner stage.
Figure 25 (from left to right) Participant 1, 2 and 6’s cultural probe response to “What is the Food Service providing too much of?”
109
Participant descriptions of how they conducted and consumed dinner led to the emergence
of three themes relating to their processes: regular dinners where the household consumes
either a personal or service meal; dinners with friends or family that are external to the
immediate household network; and a final scenario performed by parents where the meal
kit was used to change the behaviours of other network members.
4.6.1 Regular dinner process Participants 1, 2, 3 and 4 emphasised the importance of eating dinner collectively with their
family at the dinner table. Each participant described how the meal played an important
part in facilitating a conversation with household members and discussing family events
and achievements (Figure 26Error! Reference source not found.). When asked about the
importance of the meal, participant 4 stated:
“It’s for, having something central and you know, same with food. Food is a … uh, you know, one of the bits of collateral that uh, you use you
know. And you have a, some sort of regime and regularity and you have food, and you know, nice food is, is certainly part of it, but it’s not, it’s, it’s, you sit down together not for the sake of being able to appreciate the nice food, but um, to be able to interact with each other, and the
nice food just … makes it … more, a more enjoyable process.” (Participant 4)
Unlike participants 3 and, 4 who predominantly used dinner as a premise to connect with
their young family, participants 1 and 2 dinner location would alternate between the
dinner table and the couch in front of the TV. Participant 1 demonstrates this process with
the ‘ironing board dinner’ card placed adjacent to her cultural probe image of ptn 1 at the
Figure 26 Participant 3’s (Left) cultural probe response to ‘What does a successful meal look like?’ and participant 4’s (Right) usage of the conversation card in conjunction with dinner images to describe his dinner process.
110
dinner table (Figure 27). Participant 2 responded to the cultural probe’s ‘Where is dinner
eaten?’ in a similar fashion with a picture of ptn 2 on the couch (Figure 27).
But participant 2’s perceived quality of the meal kit was used to motivate a change in her
normal dinner process. Participant 2 considered the service’s meals to more extravagant
than her personal meals. This justified why they should be eaten at the dinner table,
consequently fostering the process of eating and conversing with her partner. While this
perception of quality wasn’t shared by participant 1, she did emphasise how the meal kit’s
reduction in effort left her feeling less ‘shattered’ after cooking, which left her motivated to
sit and converse with her partner at the dinner table.
Participants 5, 6 and 7 differed from these participants, as they all ate the majority of their
meals on the couch in front of the TV. Participant 5 used the ‘guy on phone’ image (Figure
28) to describe their routine dinner process was more akin to an unwinding process than
bonding. When describing their household dining room, participants 5, 6 and 7 also felt
that their dinner table was too small and cluttered, which further justified why dinner
wasn’t normally performed at the table (Figure 28).
Figure 27 Participant 1’s (Left) and 2’s (Right) response to dinner activities.
111
When considering how these participants performed their routine dinner with the meal kit,
participants 1 and 2 demonstrate using the service as justification to change their routine
behaviours from eating in front of a couch and instead connect with their respective
partners. In this sense, the meal kit service is already being used to achieve social values.
But outside of this application, the value of the service within participant processes is more
varied. While participants 3 and 4 utilise the meal as justification to connect with their
young children, the meal is only the means to an end. Both participants 3 and 4 state that a
delicious meal helps, but it is not necessary for this interaction to occur. Finally, articipants
5, 6 and 7 maintain their routine perspectives of food, and more closely consider it simply
as an act of nourishment. It is for this reason why it can be inferred why their value of the
emal kit service comes from the creation of hte meal, more so than it’s role in dinner.
4.6.2 Dinner with extended family and friends When it came to bonding with extended family members or friends over dinner, all
participants preferred to place cooking responsibilities onto an external agent (e.g.
restaurant, takeaway food). Participant 5 described a family ritual that occurred after
family members’ competition, with the household collectively choosing a restaurant to ‘pig
out’ at and celebrate. When describing this process, participant 5 used a combination of
images that represented shared eating, fast food restaurants, and ‘eating fast food in front
of a laptop’ (Figure 29). In contrast to the casual nature of their routine dinner processes,
dinner after a competition is considered as the main event for them to connect as a family.
Figure 28 Participants 5 (left), 6 and 7’s (right) description of their dinner activities
112
Participants 1, 2, 4 and 7 also mentioned that they preferred to socialise with
friends/colleagues/extended family at a restaurant rather than cooking a meal. This
response was the same when asked about catering for a larger group of friends and family
(Figure 30).
Participant 1 expressed that she would prefer to select a personal meal for a larger group,
whereas participant 2 was more open to this idea despite being conflicted as to whether
Figure 29 Participant 5's description of household dinner after a competition
Figure 30 Participant 7 prefers to get dinner with friends.
113
she would cook a personal meal or modify the meal kit. Participant 2 did describe a
scenario where she increased the portion size of a service meal to accommodate two extra
servings for her parents. Participant 5 felt that she could modify the meal kit to cook for
larger groups and regaled how it would improve her standard ‘sausage and bread’
hospitality. Only participant 3 described cooking for individuals external to her immediate
household, where she would occasionally cook for her daughter’s friends and parents when
they visit.
In summary, the meal kit service was not really considered as a tool to cook for larger
groups of people, although participants 2 and 5 were able to realise the potential of doing
so by modifying the portion size. Participants 1 and 3 instead inferred that while they do
not cook for large groups often, they would rather personally select a meal to cook for
these groups. But these processes are considered unlikely, as all participants expressed
how they preferred to interact with these extended groups in a restaurant or diner as
opposed to cooking for them.
4.6.3 Convincing others to eat The final theme identified surrounding the meal kit’s role in a participant’s dinner process
was demonstrated through participants with young children. The meal kit’s pre-selection of
ingredients without little affordance for changes resulted in a popular strategy used by
participants to motivate their children to try new meals and ingredients. Participants 3 and
4 described moments where this function of the meal kit was used to simultaneously
explore new meals while not being perceived as the villain of the household.
“Lack of enthusiasm from my children is, is the main reason ... they’re quiet enough about it but they turn up their nose at vegetarian meals,
and you know ... they tend to turn their nose up at anything that’s new, and that was one of the great things about having the vegetarian for
[meal kit service] I think, that you know, ‘That’s what we were having,’ and so they tried it.” (Participant 4)
“But [meal kit service] did that to us as well, so, it was, I found it exciting to look at the recipes for the week and think, um, and having teenage girls who, one is a little bit fussy, and I think at the time, I said, ‘This is what we’re doing,’ and they seemed pretty keen about it. Umm, and they, I said, ‘Just gotta give it a go, you know. Like, let’s try that,’ you know, cause they might have turned their nose up a bit at particular, something that we hadn’t had before, and, my youngest who is fussy, she, she just had such a good attitude towards trying these new foods,
in these recipes and things like that.” (Participant 3)
114
While it was not specific to the consumption of the meal, participant 5 also found benefit in
utilising the meal kit to encourage yng5 in performing her afternoon routines and not
harass participant 5 about being hungry, thus giving participant 5 time to cook and prepare
the meal in peace. This was done by presenting the recipe card to yng5 and demonstrating
how long the meal would cook. Participant 5 described:
“Now, even though [meal kit service] takes obviously longer than two minutes to cook, [yng5] can see it cooking and she can see the end
picture on the recipe cards I guess and she can see, how long it’s going to take and she’s quite happy to … wait for her food now. Um, so that’s
really interesting.” (Participant 5)
This final theme demonstrates how parents found opportunities through the meal kit’s
resources to negate aspects of dinner that were normally challenged by their children. In
doing so, these participants found new value in the service’s ability to trial more
experimental and interesting food types while utilising the service as a scapegoat for their
children. This final theme also presents a unique scenario where the meal kit’s challenge of
household preferences is accepted and valued, provided that the participant’s food values
are still being achieved.
115
5. Findings 5.1 Introduction With the participant descriptions collected through the cognitive mapping exercise, their
responses then had to be converted into a data set that could assist the meal kit service in
establishing where it fits in relation to unique social food values of its users. Therefore,
participant descriptions of their weekly dinner processes were coded and then collated
through an affinity diagram. This diagram demonstrated clusters of participant actions at
various stages in their weekly dinner process. The customer service experience practices
(CSEP) framework was then applied to these action clusters, where their descriptions were
compared and then affiliated with its specific practice type. Ellway and Dean’s (2015)
cyclical description of value was used to inform the sequence each practice archetypes was
performed, and how they related to each other. This was used to inform a series of practice
chains, which were used as representations of specific VISC processes of each participant.
The following sections extrapolate these processes to demonstrate the nuanced yet vital
role a meal kit plays in each participant’s enactment of dinner and experiences (Edvardsson
et al., 2011).
Section 5.2 discusses the predominant role that participants attributed to the meal kit
service and why. Akaka et al.’s (2014) description of symbols in value co-creation will be
used in conjunction with the CSEP practices identified to infer why the participants
attributed a similar expected role of the meal kit. This section will then elaborate on this
finding and use the CSEP analysis to infer what parts of the service’s function limit its ability
to absolutely fulfil this role.
Section 5.3 explores the unique applications of the meal kit by individual participants, and
infers how the service was utilised by participants to realise their social food values. This
exploration of which clarifies how each participant’s specific contextual factors would
influence how they perceived and subsequently implemented the meal kit’s resources.
From this observation, this section concludes with the proposition that participants
attempted to use the meal kit’s resources beyond its primary focus of health, convenience
and cooking ability, and to realise other intrinsic social values attributed to dinner.
Section 5.4 explores in further detail the modifications each participant applied to the meal
kit through the CSEP practices to understand how they were implemented. This section
then utilises additional value co-creation concepts to clarify what determined the
successful or failed application of meal kit resources to achieve these social dimensions of
116
food security. This consequently demonstrates how meal kit customers are capable actors
that can organise other actors and collaborate on a solution encountered with the service.
Section 5.5 discusses the discovery that the meal kit’s applicability during each participants’
creation dinner and realisation of their social food values was determined by the
participant’s network. This section utilises the CSEP interaction practice archetype with
Lusch & Nambisan’s (2015) notion of resource platforms and resource densities to frame
participants attempts to resolve the shortcomings of the service. This amalgamation of
service science theories in conjunction with the CSEP practices observed are then used to
propose that participants will perform a specific series of interactions with their immediate
network to align the meal kit’s resources with their needs (and subsequent social values
attributed to dinner).
5.2 Co-creating value with the meal kit service When discussing meal planning, participants described how their contextual requirements
(e.g. work, family routines, etc.) motivated their reasoning to lower the priority of
organising and cooking routine meals. Because of this, participants appreciated transferring
their assigned meal planning responsibilities for the household (i.e. assimilating practices)
to the meal kit, enabling them to simply follow the instructions of the service (i.e.
producing practices) (Figure 31).
This suggests that participants are willing, to a degree, to change personal behaviours and
routines to accommodate a process that grants them access to what they identify as a
highly beneficial set of resources. Participants 1, 4, 5, 6’s reasoning for these changes in
routine was predominantly because following the meal kit service’s suggestion mitigated
Figure 31 Planning meals through the meal kit service
117
most of the effort attributed with their undesired routine meal planning processes.
Furthermore, the meal kit’s performance of these accounting practices exceeded
expectations of participants 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, as it led to the discovery of new ingredients
and flavours, which was highly valued.
When considering why all participants associated the meal kit with this predominant role of
meal planning and grocery responsibilities, Akaka et al.’s (2014) symbols explain this
phenomenon. The meal kit’s online promotion of pre-planned meals (i.e. ‘home cooking
made easy!’, ‘home delivered with simple instructions’) suggests to the viewer that the
service exists to perform their meal planning responsibilities (See appendix G). Participants
therefore use these symbols to formulate an expectation of function in relation to other
network actors during their VISC process (Edvardsson et al., 2011), and subsequently
attribute the meal kit service with the responsibility of planning and collecting ingredients
for meals that are easy to cook.
But participant disinterest in routine cooking did not necessarily mean that cooking was an
unenjoyable activity. Participants 1, 2 and 3 described personal bursts of motivation to trial
new meals, attributing this type of cooking with pleasure. If an upcoming dinner held
significance (participants 1, 3), the participant was not experiencing time pressures
(participant 1), or had experienced a burst of inspiration (participant 2), participants
preferred retaining control over the cooking activity when creating the meal. Only
participants 5 and 7 felt that the service’s meals were sufficient when for cooking for
friends or family, while participant 2 was undecided. This more valued form of cooking
suggests that an individual’s degree of cooking ability combined with the importance of the
upcoming meal will determine whether the meal kit is used. This demonstrates a pattern
where the significance of the upcoming dinner event will determine whether participants
prefer conducting assimilating practices and dictating what form the meal takes, rather
than performing producing practices and passively following the meal kit service’s
instruction. These initial observations demonstrate that the meal kit service is not being
implemented by participants to engage in these more valued cooking creations. Sanders &
Stappers’ (2008) levels of creativity explain this scenario by demonstrating that those who
are both motivated and proficient enough to cook are likely to feel more fulfilled relying on
their personal capabilities to create a new dish, rather than following the meal kit’s
instruction. It is for this reason that the meal kit’s maximum provision of five dinners is a
beneficial function, as it provides a tolerance that participants use to implement their less
frequent but highly valued personal dinner activities. As such, the services partial
118
accommodation of weekly dinners proves advantageous in assisting participants to realise
their social dimensions of food security.
When considering the appropriateness of the service’s selection of meals, participants 1, 6
and 7 expressed no severe dietary restrictions or preferences. Because of this, these
participants would only engage with the service out of curiosity by searching (i.e.
accounting practice) the meal kit service’s website (i.e. linking practice) for the upcoming
week’s meals. Because of these low food requirements, it is considered that these
participants (1, 6 and 7) are experiencing food security as their physical, economic and
social dimensions of food security’s access, utilisation and stability (Clay, 2002) are being
met. This conclusion is informed by their continued confidence in the service’s ability to
continually provide healthy, appropriate meals that that do not challenge their
preferences. Furthermore, the service’s ability to correctly accommodate these dimensions
can also be used to infer why these participants 1, 6 and 7 have utilised the service for
more than 1.5 years.
119
But for participants 2, 3 and 4, despite enjoying the reduced meal planning and grocery
shopping, the service’s failure to consider their dietary or scheduling requirements meant
that they could not to confidently rely on the service to plan appropriate meals each week.
This occasional challenge to these participants’ utilisation pillar of food security resulted in
the subsequent failure to satisfy the stability pillar, thereby challenging participant food
security (Upton et al., 2016). But these challenges did not necessarily end in the
cancellation of the service. Instead, these remaining participants all described personal
efforts to resolve the shortcomings of the meal kit and achieve their utilisation and stability
pillars of food security. One such resolution participants 2, 3, 4 and 5 adapted was the
implementation of a new but less involved household role that this study will refer to as
the ‘meal guardian’ (Figure 32). Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.4 demonstrate that participants
would take it upon themselves to conduct a small preliminary search (i.e. accounting
practices) of the upcoming week’s service meals to determine if what was being planned
was appropriate for the household’s routines or diet (i.e. evaluating practices). After this
quick search, the ‘meal guardian’ would decide whether to place the order or cancel that
week’s delivery and personally conduct the meal planning process for a week.
This examination of participant applications of the service reinforces and then extends
upon this study’s initial hypothesis that the meal kit effectively addresses the physical
dimensions of food security. It does so by first demonstrating how participants utilise
symbols (Akaka et al., 2014) to attribute the meal kit’s role with the expectation that it will
perform their meal planning processes. This study then deconstructs the specific functions
attributed to the meal kit service role through the CSEP framework. This analysis of
participant processes and subsequent discovery of the guardian role also inform that,
despite the service’s strong ability to address the physical dimensions of access and
utilisation, the service’s success is dependent on the meals it selects and whether they are
Figure 32 The meal guardian role
120
appropriate for the individual’s network. The individual’s determination of these food
requirements is identified in the evaluation practices performed prior to ordering the meal
kit. But the participants’ strong disinterest in performing the accounting practices affiliated
with routine meal planning suggests that participants are willing to compromise their
personal methods to ensure the meal kit’s continued use, provided that the ingredients
selected do not drastically challenge their network. As such, the evaluation practices
performed by the ‘meal guardians’ provide a point of reference in determining how the
service’s value proposition impedes a customer’s ability to use its resources.
For service designers and the meal kit service, this demonstrates that while the meal kit
may not entirely align with the desired process of participants, its resolution of highly
undesired tasks means that those using the service are more likely to make concessions in
their personal value creation process. This notion is echoed by participant 4, who feels that
his cancellation of the service is only temporary, provided he can convince the rest of his
network into using the meal kit service again. This suggests that the an individual’s VISC
process is malleable, and that the potential benefits attributed with the meal kit persuade
the user to implement changes in their personal process to better accommodate service
resources and achieve equilibrium during the co-creation of value (Storbacka et al., 2015).
This dynamic is promising for the meal kit service as it demonstrates that it is possible to
accommodate unique customer food values on a commercially viable scale. Chapter 6 will
discuss in further detail how participants evolved the meal kit’s application to not only
ensure its continued use for routine dinners, but to also create new value outside of its
originally perceived purpose.
5.3 Changing household roles with the meal kit While the previous section discusses how participants used value co-creation symbols to
attribute a predominant purpose to the service during dinner (Akaka et al., 2014), this
section will discuss how participants unexpectedly utilised the meal kit to modify the social
dynamics within their network. Throughout the various cooking stages, participants utilised
the meal kit beyond the previously discussed meal planner and grocer role to realise
unique social values attributed to their specific dinner. Participants 2 and 4 found that the
meal kit’s lowered cooking difficulty meant that the creation of dinner was no longer
limited by skillset. This transformed what was originally an assimilated role into one that
was distributed among the household. Extending beyond the specific role of household
cook, participants found other opportunities throughout the five dinner stages to utilise the
121
meal kit and modify network roles and functions. These adaptations were observed in
attempts to convince household members to trial new foods (participants 3, 4 and 5),
cooking for friends rather instead of eating out (participants 2, 5 and 7) and managing
particular children (participants 3, 4 and 5). This demonstrated that, while the meal kit
naturally accommodated food security’s physical dimensions of utilisation (Cawthorn &
Hoffman, 2015), it was the participants that would personally realise their social food
values through the service’s resources. This alteration with the meal kit’s resources
correlates with Frow et al.’s (2014) fourth premise that value propositions will evolve to
reflect the nature of a network it resides within.
An analysis of participant reconfiguration of meal kit resources through CSEP’s
representational practices (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015) informed two methods used by
the participant to change their network’s function. Participants 2 and 3 used the meal kit’s
reduced cooking difficulty to engage other household members in collaborative cooking
processes, subsequently converting the meal kit into a pseudo couples/family cooking
class. In these scenarios, participants used the meal kit not only to mitigate the undesired,
singular responsibility of household cook (i.e. transferral from assimilating to producing
practices), but also to engage with family members (i.e. bonding practices) in conversation
(i.e. play practices) through cooking (i.e. appreciating practices). In essence, participants 2
and 3 converted a mundane process into one that is highly valued (Figure 33).
These producing practices infer a link between the meal kit’s usage and the realisation of
social food values. The play practices highlighted in participants 2 and 3’s description in
Section 4.4.2 demonstrate that the meal kit not only enhanced physical access by reducing
the exertion of cooking, but also greatly increased the individual’s social dimension of
utilisation. This is because the act of communal cooking naturally encourages interactions
between those involved which consequently encourages bonding (Daniels et al., 2012). This
Figure 33 Collaborative cooking
122
is embodied in participant 2’s delighted expression that she must now wait for her partner
to arrive home before cooking due to his excitement to cook with her. Even outside of the
literal act of cooking, participants 1 and 2’s perceived quality of the service’s meals is used
as justification to eat dinner with their respective partners and converse (play practices) at
the dining table, rather than their original routine of eating in front of the TV.
The second type of representational practices performed when changing the meal kit’s
function was personalizing practices. Participants identified performing personalizing
described using the meal kit’s resources in authoritative ways to reassign cooking
responsibilities to other network members. One demonstration of personalizing practices
was identified in frequent parenting tactic identified in Section 4.6.3, where participants 3,
4 and 5 realised that the meal kit’s recipe cards served as a tool for assigning cooking
responsibilities to their children. The pre-organised ingredients combined with the recipe
card’s simple instructions meant that the participant could easily demonstrate the
transferral of household cooking responsibilities by simply handing the recipe card (i.e.
classifying practices) to the child/household member (Figure 34). This transferral of cooking
responsibilities is another demonstration of social food values being achieved, as Daniels et
al. (2012) identified the act as socially important experience among families. This is because
the act of teaching a child to cook can engender gestures of care and nurture for the
parents while also encouraging sensations of independence and responsibility for the child
(Simmons & Chapman, 2012). Finally, the meal kit’s ability to facilitate this assignment of
roles is considered to directly benefit the food literacy of children. Simmons and Chapman
(2012) state that learning to cook in a home environment with their parents is quite
beneficial for improving and sustaining a child’s healthy food behaviours and knowledge.
This assignment of cooking roles was even utilised to a similar degree by participants 5 and
6. Both participants attributed the meal kit the ability to perform more valued social
Figure 34 Dictating cooking roles
123
activities (participant 5’s competitive sport and participant 6’s running). The ability to
reliably distribute cooking responsibilities to other household members meant that both
participants could return home to a cooked meal after performing their desired social
activity. This enhanced reliance on new actors through personalizing practices could be
considered as improvements to both the physical and social dimensions of food security’s
access and utilisation (Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015). This is because participants 5 and 6
maintain their access to nutritious food but not at the cost of their more valued social
activities.
Frow et al.’s (2014) fourth premise that a value proposition’s resources will evolve through
use explains why meal kit users were observed modifying the meal kit to better
accommodate their intrinsic food values and subsequently achieve food security. Through
the extended use of the meal kit the individual will learn from their experiences, and may
identify new opportunities in a service’s resources specific to address other contextual
factors (Ellway & Dean, 2015). As a participant endeavours to realise their social
dimensions of food security, these new applications of meal kit resources subsequently
inspire new symbols associated with the meal kit (Akaka et al., 2014; Ellway & Dean, 2015;
Frow et al., 2014). As such, the meal kit’s purpose evolves beyond meal planning and
grocery shopping, and is also considered a family cooking roster (participants 3, 4, 5 and 6),
a fun date activity (participant 2) or culinary scapegoat (participant 4).
While the previous section utilises CSEP practices and symbols to demonstrate why
participants predominantly associated the meal kit with meal planning responsibilities, this
section utilises the same theories in conjunction with other SDL frameworks to
demonstrate how unique participant applications of the meal kit emerged. Consequently,
these unique applications of the meal kit were identified as participant attempts to adapt
the meal kit’s resources to personally realise contextually specific social food values; i.e.
teaching their children to cook, using the perceived quality of meal to justify eating
together at the table. This dynamic is beneficial for the firm, as it establishes that the meal
kit does not necessarily have to tailor the service to reflect the varying social values that its
customers attribute to food (Beardsworth & Keil, 1997; Costa, Schoolmeester, Dekker, &
Jongen, 2007; Daniels et al., 2012). But participants 3 and 4’s termination of the service
demonstrates that the user may not always be able to implement service resources.
Therefore, the following section will explore the participant-informed modifications of the
service to understand their motivations and how change was achieved.
124
5.4 Customer-driven modifications and when the service breaks
The previous sections utilised Akaka et al.’s (2014) notion of symbols to establish the most
commonly identified purpose participants attributed to the meal kit, as well as participants
also adapting the meal kit resources beyond its original symbol of convenience and health
to achieve their personal food values and therefore realise the social dimensions of food
security. This extends on the previous examples of user attempts to realise social values by
demonstrating how participants resolved problems encountered with the service to ensure
its continued use. Throughout the five dinner stages of the results, participants
implemented methods to tweak the meal kit to align with other social attitudes relative to
their dinner process. The following examples (Figure 35, Figure 36, Figure 37) demonstrate
a pattern of modification after participants encountered a problem with either the meal
kit’s resources or the means in which they were provided (i.e. linking practices).
Participants would take it upon themselves (i.e. assimilating practices) to organise the
resources of other network actors, and determine and enact a solution (evaluation and
appreciating) so that the meal kit resources could still be utilised for their cooking process.
Figure 35 Managing meal kit packaging wastage
125
This evolution the service’s purpose and how it is performed through CSEP is reinforced by
the fourth experience and learning stage of the VIU cycle (Ellway & Dean, 2015). In these
scenarios, the participant performs assimilating practices as they are assessing their
contextual factors (e.g. picky children, desire to bond with partner), and using their past
experiences with the meal kit to measure and inform new ways its resources could be used
to address other social desires (e.g. lowered cooking skills needed, service’s selection of
meals as a means of experimenting). This notion of learning and adapting a value
proposition through use demonstrates on a micro scale a mechanism Frow et al.’s (2014)
notion that value propositions are reciprocally co-created upon application within a
network.
But where the previous examples demonstrate how participants identified solutions that
addressed the shortcomings of the linking practices performed with the meal kit,
participants 3 and 4’s inability to resolve challenges that emerged from the meal kit
resources proved catastrophic for the service’s success. Participant 4’s description of his
afternoon routine within Section 4.4.1 demonstrates how the service’s strict catering for
Figure 37 Managing excess ingredients Figure 36 Modifying meal kit portion sizes
Figure 38 Managing an undesired service meal
126
only two or four nights forced participant 4 to frequently choose between cancelling social
dinner plans with friends and colleagues, or wasting a service meal. Despite participant 4’s
partial resolution of gifting the extra meal to his neighbour (i.e. bridging practices), he felt
that this process was not beneficial, as this challenge was repeated every week (Figure 38).
Similarly, participant 3 cancelled her meal kit subscription because the selection of fish
produce repeatedly challenged her household preferences (Figure 39). Despite being
satisfied with the other meal types provided, her inability to remove fish ingredients left
her with the decision to either waste a night’s meal or cancel the week’s delivery entirely.
When considering participants 3 and 4’s motivations for cancelling the meal kit service, this
eventuated because the meal kit’s resources and the way in which they were provided
challenged their VISC processes while also leaving the participants little opportunity to
personally modify the resources towards a resolution.
So despite both participant 3 and 4 expecting the meal kit to accurately perform their meal
planning responsibilities, its lack of sympathy towards household food preferences or
dinner routines meant that the service was incapable of providing organised dinners that
were appropriate for each household. As the meal kit continued to challenge participants 3
and 4’s respective dinner processes though its rigid service provision (i.e. linking practices),
it can be inferred that the meal kit was not sufficiently performing its affiliated network
role (Edvardsson et al., 2011). Consequently, the meal kit’s continued inability to fulfil this
role in addition to its frequent contestation of household preferences resulted in a
misalignment of value and the subsequent collapse of participants 3 and 4’s respective
networks (Frow et al., 2014). As equilibrium can only be achieved once the offending actors
Figure 39 Managing undesired service ingredients
127
are removed from the network (Frow et al., 2014), this clarifies why the meal kit service
was cancelled by participants 3 and 4 despite enjoying other aspects of the service.
These observed participant modifications to the meal kit’s value proposition through CSEP
highlight network functions vital to participant VISC processes during dinner. Section 5.2
demonstrates that all participants considered the meal kit’s adoption of meal planning
activities as beneficial for their personal processes, and suggests why most of the
participants appreciated the meal kit service despite also encountering various challenges
through its use. However, after contrasting these insights with participants 3 and 4’s
cancellation of the service, this identified that the service’s rigid method of resource
provision not only challenged their existing network dynamics (Frow et al., 2014), but also
deterred them from implementing satisfactory resolutions with the assistance of other
network members. This resulted in a scenario where participants 3 and 4’s food values
were continually challenged, but their lack of power to resolve the problem left them little
choice other than to cancel the service (Storbacka et al., 2015). With the concept of food
security considered (Clay, 2002), this also demonstrates that irrespective of the meal kit’s
ability to strongly address the physical characteristics of utilisation and access, the social
dimensions of utilisation (e.g. household allergies, dinners with friends) negate this benefit.
What this implies for the meal kit is that its difficulties do not solely lie in the resource
composition of its value proposition, but that it also must consider how its provision of
these resources align with the role its users have attributed to it (Frow et al., 2014). From a
co-creative lens, this implies that the method in which the resources are accessed is equally
as important as the resource composition of the meal kit, as the means in which resources
are utilised subsequently determines the fulfilment or failure of a service’s expected
network role. Therefore, the next section will demonstrate how the firm can analyse and
consider a means of provision to enhance value co-creation and ultimately improve the
resiliency of the meal kit.
5.5 The evolution of the meal kit’s value proposition
Section 5.2 demonstrates how the predominant role and function attributed to the meal kit
by participants were originally shaped by the symbols advertised by the firm (Akaka et al.,
2014). However, the previously discussed Sections 5.3 and 5.4 use participant descriptions
of their continued use of the meal kit to demonstrate attempts to manipulate its function
128
so that it aligns with their VISC processes. This observation reinforces Frow et al.’s (2014)
proposal that value propositions evolve among the network they exist within.
However, the analysis of these modifications to the meal kit value proposition through
McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015) normalizing practices demonstrate that
participants would align the meal kit’s resources (i.e. linking practices) to their VISC
processes by drawing on the resources of other immediate network actors. For example,
participants 1 and 2 mitigated any undesired ingredients by allocating them to their
respective partners; participant 5 used her personal dietary knowledge to ensure the meal
kit’s nutritional content were appropriate for her family’s competitive sport, and so on. This
suggests that that the bonding and bridging practices performed by participants were
influential in determining the appropriateness of the meal kit’s value proposition for their
VISC.
This is further demonstrated through the processes performed by participants 3 and 4
when they encountered their respective challenges. Both participants similarly engaged in
bonding and bridging practices to resolve problems with their linking practices, with
participant 4 gifting the extra meal to his neighbour (i.e. bridging practices) and participant
3 drawing on the expertise of her partner and fishing forums (i.e. bonding and bridging
practices) to evaluate the quality of the fish ingredient. However, despite this inclusion of
external actors and their resources, these efforts were still insufficient in overcoming the
meal kit’s shortcomings. Consequently, their continued inability to appropriate the meal
kit’s resources for their VISC processes demonstrated a deterioration of their network
(Chandler & Chen, 2016), which ultimately motivated the removal (i.e. cancellation) of the
service from their network despite largely valuing its meal planning role (Frow et al., 2014).
This comparison of both successful and failed participant appropriations of the service
through CSEP, in conjunction with Lusch and Nambisan’s (2015) functional description of
service platforms suggests that a linking resolution exists. Customers choose to engage
with the meal kit’s platform because of its high resource density (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015;
McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015). However, McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015)
linking practices characterise the platform’s resource density as highly rigid in nature and
not easily changed by the individual. This dynamic is demonstrated through the meal kit’s
pre-selection and delivery of ingredients with the recipe card specifically tailored to the
ingredients selected. And so, if the customer encounters difficulties integrating the meal
kit’s resources for value co-creation, the customer’s limited ability to modify their linking
129
practices will motivate them to seek alternative assistance from their context. This informs
their subsequent attempts to involve more immediate actors in their value co-creation
process (Ellway & Dean, 2015), whose resources are combined with those of the meal kit to
modify its density and potentially improve its viability for the VISC process. As bonding
practices are conducted with the most immediate and easily access actors within the
individual’s network (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2015), this suggests why participants would
primarily involve their household members in the modifications of the service when
compared to bridging practices which were determined by access to relevant groups.
With this linking resolution established, a re-analysis of Section 5.3 identifies how the
participants combined performance of linking and bonding practices improves its perceived
importance in the network, while also improving the resiliency of the value proposition
during participant value co-creation. Participant 2 and ptn 2’s agreement to eat ingredients
that the other could not greatly reduced any forced wastage by the meal kit’s selection of
ingredients. Furthermore, despite being not entirely satisfied with this solution, participant
2’s appreciation of the meal kit service from its ability to facilitate a collaborative cooking
session with ptn 2 greatly enhanced the value she attributed to the service. Another
example of this linking resolution being conducted by participants is identified in scenarios
where the individual did not want to cook the meal. Despite the meal kit’s simplification of
the dinner process, it still does not cook the meal for them, which could be interpreted as a
shortcoming of participants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7’s linking practices when they are experiencing a
strong disinterest to cook after an exhaustive day. But participants 5 and 6 identified that
the meal kit’s simple instructions can be combined with the participant’s network members
(i.e. bonding practices) who originally may not have had the required skillset to cook
dinner. As such, the individual is combining their immediate network resources with the
meal kit’s resource density to co-create value that closely reflects the participant’s desires
(e.g. doing a social activity while still being fed afterwards).
When considering the implications of this knowledge and how it can be used in a redesign
of the meal kit service, this linking resolution clarifies how the service’s function may be
enhanced after its resources are implemented with the participant’s immediate network
during their value co-creation process. This dynamic reflects Barile et al.’s (2016) claim that
power and influence within networks are influential in the co-creation of value, and
provides a means of capturing this notion. The CSEP practice chains capture these functions
through participant descriptions of bonding and bridging practices with immediate network
members, as they attempt to mitigate their lack of control over their linking practices
130
conducted with the service. Therefore, this linking resolution dynamic suggests that each
participant and their unique network composition could use the same value proposition
and implement it in ways that reflect their unique VISC process. Extending upon this, the
linking resolution alludes to why the meal kit’s role changed beyond its original meal
planning role through continued use. Lusch and Nambisan’s (2015) model can be used to
infer that this is because the resources acquired through bonding and bridging practices are
contributing and subsequently reshaping the resource density acquired through linking
practices, consequently changing the function of the meal kit. This observation aligns with
Storbacka et al.’s (2015) conclusion that ‘Customers are not to be viewed as extensions of
firms’ production processes – rather, firms need to be viewed as extensions of customer’s
value-creating processes.’ Finally, this linking resolution establishes that a solution to
designing meal kits capable of accommodating unique social food values at commercial
scales doesn’t necessarily lie in redesigning future iterations of the meal kit’s value
proposition. Instead, a solution for the meal kit service could consist of improving the
network through which the individual gathers resources, ultimately enhancing their ability
to personally realise their social values.
5.6 Conclusion This chapters analysis of participant processes with the meal kit during the fuzzy front end
(Sanders, 2013) and subsequent analysis through CSEP practices (McColl-Kennedy et al.,
2015) has provided a strong understanding of how each participant co-creates value with
the meal kit and their network.
Section 5.2 first identifies that all participants were enacting the similar CSEP practices
during the meal planning and grocery dinner stages with the meal kit. These practices, in
conjunction with participant descriptions were used to conclude that these were the most
disliked activities, and was the most commonly shared network role attributed to the meal
kit service. The concept of value co-creation symbols (Akaka et al., 2014) was used to infer
that participants all attributed the meal kit as the specific actor to address these tasks with
how it is promoted. This realisation highlights how the CSEP analysis identified the primary
purpose and function participants attributed to the service. Furthermore, the CSEP analysis
demonstrated that the service’s primary failure was an inability to accommodate
participant evaluation practices attributed with the meal planning role; these practices are
essential when organising meals appropriate for each participant’s household dietary
requirements and/or preferences. Regardless of this insensitivity, the participants’
subsequent adoption of the meal guardian role demonstrated that participants were willing
131
to enact this new role as its responsibilities were much less involved when compared to
their original personal meal planning tasks. This section concludes with the notion that as
long as the meal kit continues to perform the role and activities (Edvardsson et al., 2011)
affiliated with the symbol participants attribute to it (Akaka et al., 2014), the meal kit will
continue to be considered as an essential actor in participant dinner processes.
Section 5.3 utilises both Akaka et al.’s (2014) symbols and Frow et al.’s (2014)
understanding of value propositions to reinforce the observation that participant symbols
attributed towards the meal kit evolved through continued use. This is because participants
realise new opportunities in the service’s resources when applied to their specific context
(Ellway & Dean, 2015). This unique application of meal kit resources is used to justify that
the meal kit service is in fact being utilised to achieve each participant’s specific social food
values. But despite this answering the primary research question of this study, this finding
is nuanced. This is because the service is predominantly involved in the creation of these
social values in an indirect capacity. Furthermore, a participant’s realisation of these values
is largely determined by their ability to personally identify opportunities within the
service’s resources. This section concludes in stating that the collection and potential
adoption of customer-created symbols commonly held within the community suggest
several opportunities for the meal kit to innovate its service offering.
After establishing that participant symbols towards the meal kit evolved through continued
use, Section 5.4 utilises the CSEP framework to observe how participant enacted changes
to the meal kit’s value proposition ensured that it remained appropriate for each
participant’s context. The CSEP analysis utilised in this section is then used to suggest that,
if left to their own devices, meal kit users could personally realise their specific social
dimensions of food security. This section also concludes with the insight that this dynamic
suggests the meal kit does not necessarily have to accommodate very specific dinner
processes. This demonstrates how further adoption of value co-creation presents solutions
for the meal kit service’s original predicament of addressing the uniquely informed social
values of its customers at commercial scales.
Section 5.3 concludes that a customer’s reconfiguration of the meal kit’s resources to
address their social dimensions isn’t always guaranteed, as demonstrated by participants 3
and 4, who cancelled the service. This conclusion is made after observing how the linking
practices forced upon participants 3 and 4 challenged more important social factors,
ultimately negating their ability to realise the utilisation pillar of food security. Therefore,
132
Section 5.4’s compares both successful and failed participant modifications of the meal kit.
During this comparison, a repeating sequence of interactions (i.e. normalizing practices)
was identified during these modifications, which consequently informed the linking
resolution.
Section 5.5 elaborates on the previous findings through this newly considered linking
resolution to further describe this interaction mechanism during the co-creation of value.
This dynamic suggests that as participants encounter difficulties during the use of a meal
kit’s resources, they will draw on more easily accessed non-commercial resources (e.g.
family members, friends, peers). This linking resolution is then used to infer that the
resiliency of a service’s value proposition is influenced by the individual’s network
composition. This study’s exploration of both predominant and unique applications of the
service through CSEP provide, in conjunction with the linking resolution observed present
opportunities that not only benefit the commercial meal kit entity, but design and business
disciplines. As such, applications of these findings will be discussed in detail in the following
discussion chapter.
In conclusion, the exploration of these findings has resulted in two predominant findings: a
useful analytical tool for abstracting each individual’s value-in-social-context (VISC) into a
representative data set that can inform how they co-create value with their network; as
well as an interaction mechanism used by participants to personally modify the value
proposition of the meal kit. As such, Chapter 6 will discuss how these findings can be used
by service designers to develop co-creative services that better accommodate the
individual’s specific food values.
133
6. Discussion 6.1 Introduction The findings establish how the CSEP practice chains can be used as an analytical tool, as
they informed what roles participants attributed to the meal kit service. Furthermore, the
analysis of participant normalizing practices during these practice chains subsequently led
to the identification of the linking resolution. This section will expand upon these two
outcomes and suggest how both can be adopted by service designers and inform future
service iterations. The following sections will be used to answer this study’s primary
research question: ‘How can value co-creation inform the design of a meal kit service
model that better accommodates its customers unique food values, while continuing its
provision at a commercial scale?’
Section 6.2 expands upon the CSEP practice chain analysis used in the findings and clarifies
how service designers can use this analysis to develop services specifically designed to
facilitate network roles. This section clarifies how the practice chains can observe the
proposed customer’s established social position and existing network roles (Edvardsson,
Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011), and subsequently infer what role the service is expected to fulfil
during its customer’s value co-creation.
Section 6.3 expands upon the observations of the participant modifications of the meal kit,
and provides suggestions as to how a service could foster these customer-led adaptations
of the service. This section does so by using the linking resolution identified in Section 5.2.
The CSEP framework will be used to clarify the purpose and expectations attributed to the
meal kit, and to propose how the concept of symbols (Akaka et al., 2014) could be
embraced by service designers to inspire new applications of the same value proposition.
This section then conclude with why the meal kit service would benefit from implementing
these mechanisms through an online, community-led platform.
Section 6.4 concludes by considering how this study’s merger of service science and
participatory design concepts can enhance future service design processes. This section
then clarifies how CSEP and the fuzzy front end are mutually beneficial for both service
designers and service researchers. It does so by discussing contemporary service science
works and establishes how practices provide an appropriate means of informing the design
of co-creative services. This section then proposes the viability of this method in alternative
contexts, and how it could be implemented.
134
6.2 Measuring for the network role attributed to the meal kit service
The findings discussed in Section 5.2 demonstrate how the practice chains can enable a
comparison of the motivations and purpose attributed to the meal kit when creating
dinner, despite each household’s uniquely determined processes. This analysis through the
CSEP practice chains can benefit service designers by abstracting the uniquely determined
processes of multiple meal kit users into a comparable data set, and subsequently frame
what shared network role(s) participants attribute to the service during their VISC
processes (Edvardsson, Tronvoll & Gruber, 2011). This section will propose how this
analytical mechanism could be used by service designers to strategically consider the
overarching network purpose and function attributed to the service that they are
designing.
When considering how practice chains can be utilised by service designers, each practice
archetype of the CSEP framework can be used to establish characteristics of the users’ VISC
process. By comparing each participant’s established dinner processes with descriptions of
their desired methods, this can subsequently inform a service designer how the meal kit
should function. As per McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015) description of the
practice archetypes, the practice chain’s synthesis of participant activities can establish
their desired degree of control over the process conducted (i.e. representational practices),
who else is involved (i.e. normalizing practices), and what is the underlying purpose of the
activities performed (i.e. exchange practices); all of which are vital in understanding and
designing a value proposition that aligns with the criteria a participant uses to establish
their VISC process (Ellway & Dean, 2015).
Section 5.4’s description of Participant 3 and 4’s difficulties with the meal kit also clarify
that, while it was important that the service’s functions fulfil the participant’s exchange
practices, it was also essential that it did so in a way that reflected the participants’ desired
representational practices (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015). The comparison of
these representational practices throughout the findings suggest that they can be used to
establish the customers’ desired degree of involvement and control attributed to an
activity. For instance, Section 5.2 establishes that participants wished to distance
themselves from planning weekly dinners. Through CSEP, this signified a desire to enact
producing practices and receive assistance from the meal kit. This suggests that the
service’s active involvement is welcomed by users if it means the adoption of accounting
and evaluation exchange practices associated with meal planning. Expanding from this
135
dynamic, producing practices are considered counter to assimilating practices. Participants
1, 2, 3 and 4 primarily described specific instances of assimilating practices when cooking
and experimenting with personal meals on the weekend. As such, they expressed no
interest in using service resources, instead preferring to rely on their personal capabilities.
This explicit desire to perform assimilating practices suggests that the firm should
relinquish the attributed exchange practices so that they can be performed by the
participant or their network. Otherwise, the service begins to challenge the social
positioning and balance of the network (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011; Frow et al.,
2014) as it did with prtn4, who did not wish to relinquish the selection and creation of
dinner to the meal kit service and called for its cancellation despite participant 4’s desires.
Finally, personalizing practices were identified as the participants’ means of using the
service to assert their authority over other network members and change their behaviours.
This dynamic was identified through parents, who used the meal kit’s recipe card to assign
cooking duties to their children. Much like how participants struggled to modify the service
resources for their personal VISC processes, participants 3 and 4 identified opportunity in
this rigid delivery of recipe cards and preselected ingredients. In showing their children the
pre-organised and difficult to change resources of the meal kit (i.e. classifying practices),
they effectively embraced the service’s authority to bolster their own and subsequently
change the behaviours of their children (Frow et al., 2014; Storbacka et al., 2015).
This clarifies how representational practices can be used by service designers to clarify the
participants’ desired degree of control over their VISC process. Expanding from this practice
archetype, normalizing practices were identified as a means of understanding how other
network actors also contributed to the user’s VISC processes. This analysis through CSEP’s
normalizing practices proved particularly useful in establishing how the meal kit
simultaneously engaged with both participant and their network (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung,
& Ferrier, 2015). The results of this inquiry consequently clarified how participants would
naturally adapt the meal kit’s value proposition to fit their specific processes, as
demonstrated in in Section 5.3. The collection of normalizing practices performed during
routine processes also presents a means of designing the value proposition with the
intention of aligning with pre-established network processes (Storbacka et al., 2015). The
importance of aligning with rather than challenging these established processes is clarified
by Frow et al.’s (2014) fifth premise for value propositions, where if the service challenges
the desired functions of a network it will result in its removal from the network. This is
captured in participant 4’s cancellation of the service, where despite enjoying the assisted
136
meal planning (i.e. producing practices), the meal kit’s dictation of dinner challenged
prtn4’s ability to choose what to cook (i.e. assimilating practices) and limited participant 4’s
ability to engage in his preferred afternoon routines with children and friends (i.e.
appreciating and play practices). And finally, the exchange practices proved useful in
distinguishing the underlying purpose of the participant’s efforts. To summarise, the
synthesis of participant responses into representational and normalizing archetypes proved
useful in characterising the relationship between the participant, their network and the
meal kit during each VISC process.
These abstractions of participant VISC processes through the CSEP practice chains clarify
how they can be used by service designers to inform the characteristics essential to the
service prior to the development of specific service components. As demonstrated in
sections 5.3 and 5.4, the comparison of existing CSEP practices performed by users with
their desired and imagined approaches subsequently informs what characteristics need to
be embodied by the service to correctly fulfil the network role attributed to it. Correctly
facilitating this role is highly beneficial for the service after considering the importance of
network roles and social positioning during the individual’s VISC. If the meal kit fulfils the
function attributed to it by the individual, they are likely to consider the firm as an essential
actor during their VISC (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011). Furthermore, the
observation of existing network actions ensures that the service can be designed to align
with or extend upon these functions, therefore reducing any challenges to the established
processes within the individual’s network (Storbacka et al., 2015).
For instance, the analysis of the meal guardian through CSEP practices clarifies that it is
being performed because of the service’s failure to perform the evaluation practices
attributed to each household’s meal planning role. These evaluation practices are
necessary, as they determine the appropriate selection of ingredients for the household,
and its failure to perform them is why participant preferences were repeatedly challenged.
For the meal kit to adopt these evaluation practices, it could simply implement an online
function that customers use to flag ingredients that challenge household dietary
requirements. In response, the meal kit continues to provide its services, but may not send
any conflicting ingredients, instead placing the onus on the customer to source alternative
ingredients during their routine shops. In this scenario, the meal kit continues to perform
its valued meal planning role while ensuring that its provision doesn’t challenge participant
household requirements and wastage. Despite the customer’s additional task, the service’s
continued mitigation of the highly undesired accounting practices suggest that the service
137
is still likely to be considered an essential contributor to the individual’s co-creation of
value (e.g. dinner). The firm could even enhance this service iteration by suggesting
alternative ingredients to what was cancelled (i.e. operant resources), which the customer
still personally collects. This iteration further reduces the accounting practices required
while simultaneously enhancing the customer’s meal through specialised but easily
transferrable knowledge.
This example demonstrates how the CSEP practice chains can be used by service designers
during the initial stages of the (re)design process to conceptualise the participant’s desired
degree of involvement, integrate their network, and fulfil the purpose attributed to it,
further contributing to an understanding of designing for network roles (Barile et al., 2016;
Storbacka et al., 2015; Wetter-Edman et al., 2014). This perspective of supporting existing
customer endeavours as they co-create value bears similarities with other studies, which
emphasise the notion that the firm should facilitate the customers’ predetermined
methods rather than dictating the VISC process for their customers to follow (Grönroos &
Voima, 2013; Grönroos & Gummerus, 2014; Foglieni, Villari, & Maffei, 2018; Yu & Sangiorgi,
2018). The benefit is that this is a strong contender to contributing to developing long-term
relationships with customers (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015), and may even reduce defective or
deviant co-creation (Greer, 2015; Heidenreich et al., 2015).
6.3 Customer-network-led co-creation of the meal kit
This section extends upon Section 5.4’s analyses of participant alterations to the service
through SDL concepts, and infer how a service designer could develop future service
iterations that actively embrace and encourage these personal modifications. This
exploration addresses the contemporary challenge outlined at the beginning of this study,
which was how to develop services that accommodate the unique values of its customers,
while continuing to provide the service at commercial scales.
Ellway and Dean’s (2015) cyclical stages of value explain why these natural evolutions of
the meal kit occur. Participant justifications for initially using the meal kit service can be
attributed to their perception of opportunity in the service’s resources, which mitigated
their highly undesired meal planning responsibilities (Akaka et al., 2014; Ellway & Dean,
2015). But the participants’ continued usage of meal kit resources increased their
familiarity with the service’s capabilities. This familiarity is then used in conjunction with
138
their understanding of contextual factors to consider alternative applications of the
service’s resources (Ellway & Dean, 2015). Consequently, this inspired participants to use
the meal kit in alternative ways to realise other contextually informed goals. The flexibility
of the meal kit’s value proposition is demonstrated in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, which describe
instances of participants utilising the meal kit’s resources as a parenting tool (participants
3, 4 and 5), a premise to eat and connect at the dinner table (participants 1 and 2), and as a
growth medium for a veggie patch (participant 6). This conceptual mechanism of the
participants’ context factors and experience naturally reshaping the application of a value
proposition was also identified by Frow et al. (2014), who concluded that a value
proposition will change in relation to the network into which it is inserted.
This natural malleability of the value proposition infers a promising co-creation mechanism
for both the meal kit service and service designers. This dynamic implies that it is not
necessary for the meal kit service to generate a vast series of meal kit variants that
accommodate the specific food values of each meal kit user. Instead, if this dynamic was
strategically embraced by the meal kit service, they could potentially provide a single
product with the intention that its users will reappropriate service resources for their
personal values. However, the successful modification of the meal kit’s value proposition is
dependent on its ability to align with the existing VISC processes of the customer and their
network (Storbacka et al., 2015). This was captured through participants 3 and 4’s
difficulties with the meal kit, where their inability to change service elements challenged
their VISC processes and ultimately led to the cancellation of the service. The repeated
challenge to their VISC processes can be considered as an imbalance within the individual’s
network, which motivated subsequent removal of the challenging actor (i.e. meal kit) so
that their network could continue to perform their more preferred VISC processes (Frow et
al., 2014).
So when considering how service designers can strategically design service features that
encourage the natural co-creation of the service, the linking resolution presented in Section
5.5 suggests a solution. Section 5.4 demonstrates how participants engaged in bonding and
bridging practices to resolve or mitigate the shortcomings experienced when performing
linking practices with the meal kit. Extending upon Lusch and Nambisan’s (2015) service
innovation model, it can be inferred that while the resource density of the meal kit’s value
proposition is important for value co-creation, the user’s ability to apply additional network
resources onto the value proposition’s resource density is also essential. This is
characterised by participant 5, who greatly appreciates the meal kit’s adoption of the highly
139
undesired meal planning activities, despite its failure to consider her household’s dietary
needs. However, participant 5 is able to reappropriate the meal kit’s portion size by
personally sourcing additional ingredients from another grocer, and align the service’s
meals with her household’s weight requirements for their competitive sport. This natural
resolution is representative of users sourcing assistance from additional actors to
overcome a restriction of their linking practices performed with the service.
This founds the design consideration that the meal kit service could reduce the limitations
its linking practices afflict on its users by broadening their access to additional resources of
other network members. As each household consists of a different network composition,
bonding practices, while being the most easily accessed basis of resources, are too
inconsistent to be relied upon (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015). Instead, the
meal kit service could artificially enhance customer bridging practices through the
development of a shared platform such as a website, and increase the visibility of peers
with similar experiences. Through the use of this platform, participants experiencing similar
problems could be exposed to the solutions of other members, thus inspiring new
capabilities and tweaking the purpose and associated symbols attributed to the meal kit
(Akaka et al., 2014; Frow et al., 2014; Koskela-Huotari, Edvardsson, Jonas, Sörhammar, &
Witell, 2016). Koskela-Huotari, Edvardsson, Jonas, Sörhammar, & Witell (2016) reinforce
this notion, as they state that the inclusion of new network actors inspires new ways of
‘how things are done’. The establishment of a meal kit community through an online
platform can also benefit the firm, as it acts as centralised location to observe community-
generated symbols (Akaka et al., 2014).
A design team could observe and then gauge the popularity of specific symbols through the
previously discussed CSEP practice chains, and then inform future service iterations that
are tailored to the specific scenario of use. This potential establishment of a contribution
culture through an online platform further aligns with new product design literature, which
suggests that this would essentially convert meal kit customers into members of the firm’s
R&D team (Filieri, 2013). This informs a dynamic that reinforces Wallin et al.’s (2016)
proposal that the firm should relinquish the creation of the meal kit to its customers, who
naturally do so through the reconfiguration of the value proposition within their context.
Furthermore, if the firm was to collect and implement these co-created community
symbols into future service iterations, this effectively increases customer loyalty while
simultaneously converting the online community a competitive asset (Filieri, 2013;
Sindhwani & Ahuja, 2014). Co-created solutions have already been acknowledged to be
140
difficult to replicate by competition (Sindhwani & Ahuja, 2014). Even if a competing meal
kit firm implemented a similar service variation to one generated by the focal meal kit’s
community, the target audience would already be accounted for, as they were involved in
the development of the originally tailored service.
In conclusion, this study’s exploration of each participant’s appropriation of the service and
subsequent discovery of the linking resolution clarifies that the meal kit service would
benefit from enhancing its customers’ bridging practices. This dynamic first contributes to
SDL’s emergent interests of how value co-creation occurs on a meso-micro scale (Vargo et
al., 2016), by inferring how the individual coordinates the resources of immediate network
actors to ensure the appropriateness the service during VISC. With the establishment of
this dynamic, this study suggests that it can be embraced by a service by enhancing the
users network, which takes the form of a centralised online platform. This centralised
online platform suggests a promising and beneficial mechanism that contributes to the
growing interest (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015; Storbacka et al., 2016) in how to actively
facilitate SDL’s network influenced value co-creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2016).
6.4 Designing for value co-creation with the network
This section diverts from Section 6.2 and 6.3’s discussion of value co-creation mechanisms
and its potential for the meal kit service, and examines how the combined application of
SDL and participatory design concepts was mutually beneficial for this study. Furthermore,
this section will consider how the continued application of both paradigms can influence
the design of services for both meal kit services and alternative contexts.
This study’s exploration of SDL’s most recent variation of value co-creation (Vargo & Lusch,
2016, 2017; Vargo et al., 2016) suggests that service design processes will subsequently
change; much like how SDL originally transformed service design from developing
touchpoints for the service to facilitating co-creative engagements with customers
(Kimbell, 2011). With regard to Kimbell & Blomberg’s (2017) contemporary definition of
service design, this study specifically contributes to two of the three dimensions they use to
characterise the objective purpose of service design. Beginning with service design’s
engagement with socio-material configurations (Kimbell & Blomberg, 2017), the CSEP
practice chains used in this study provide a means of establishing the user’s role, who they
interact with and the purpose of their actions during the co-creation of value. Service
141
design’s second purpose of creating value co-creation systems (Kimbell & Blomberg, 2017)
is also enhanced by this study’s identification of the linking resolution. The proposed linking
resolution presents a mechanism that utilises CSEP’s normalizing practices to clarify how
the individual draws upon their immediate network to reappropriate commercial resources
offered by a service.
This study’s application of CSEP practices formed an effective means of conceptualising
how to design for the value co-creation process. The findings capture how, despite each
participant’s differing network composition and contextual routines, the abstraction of
participant processes into 16 symbolic value co-creation practices made the comparison of
participant actions feasible. As demonstrated in Section 5.2, this method of abstracting
specific processes into practices characterised what purpose was expected of the service
during participant VISC processes. In line with growing suggestions from service scientists
(Chandler & Chen, 2016; Frow, McColl-Kennedy, & Payne, 2016; Storbacka et al., 2016;
Vargo & Lusch, 2017), this approach to synthesising participant processes proved beneficial
when conceptualising how to design for value co-creation with both the user and their
network. Furthermore, this study’s implementation of the CSEP model outside of the
medical context it was originally conceived within reinforces the notion that its 16 practices
proved effective (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015). This study further clarifies the
functional characteristics of these practices the cyclical stages of VIU (Ellway & Dean, 2015)
assisted in further clarifying the relationship and progression of participant practices.
Therefore, this analytical tool is also considered to be a useful for both service design and
service science by enhancing the development of co-creative services by providing a means
of observing contemporary applications of the service (Patrício et al., 2018). Furthermore,
the malleability of the CSEP practices suggests that the practice chains could be reapplied
to future iterations of the service, resulting in a repeatable process from which captures
the constantly evolving, user-led applications of the meal kit.
While the abstraction of practices assisted the analysis of the meal kit’s application, the
information it presents also affects service designers and how they frame the purpose of
the service they are tasked with creating. Instead of developing a highly detailed service
that dictates functions to the participant, the broader characteristics of the value creation
practices forces the consideration of service functions that are more reliant on user efforts
when implementing service resources. Consequently, this dynamic inspired service
iterations that were more passive in nature, and better reflects SDL’s founding perspective
142
that the commercial firm exists to support the endeavours of the customer (Vargo & Lusch,
2004).
Digressing from the use of practices, this study also considers the application of
participatory design perspectives as highly appropriate when exploring and facilitating
SDL’s value co-creation. While this study did not engage in a full participatory design
process, the exploration of the meal kit from the fuzzy front end (Sanders, 2013) enabled
the capture of participant attitudes and expectations attributed to the meal kit service, and
how it functioned in relation to other integral network (i.e. household) members. The
collection of this broader dataset consequently informed rich VISC descriptions that may
not have emerged from a study scoped around a predetermined problem or application
(Wright & McCarthy, 2015). This method consequently provided a means of collecting vital
VISC insights that can be used to establish how the individual will accommodate, change,
remove and warp the resources provided with their network, therefore answering Patrício,
Gustafsson and Fisk’s (2018) call for these mechanisms. In summary, this study shares an
emerging perception that participatory design concepts are beneficial in informing the
application of co-creative service design (Kimbell & Blomberg, 2017b; Patrício et al., 2018;
Yu & Sangiorgi, 2018). In exploring the fuzzy front end, this study has also laid the
foundation through which subsequent participatory design stages could be launched from,
with the proposed community platform presenting an opportunity to engage participants
en masse in the co-design of the meal kit.
And so, the synthesis of participant responses through the CSEP practice chains can be
utilised by service designers or scientists with other SDL concepts to inform how a firm’s
value proposition could be appropriated for a network. This method of analysing and
distilling qualitative customer data into VISC processes is as follows:
1. Beginning in the fuzzy front end, collect customer descriptions of their current
routines, in conjunction with their attitudes towards the service and other network
members during the process.
2. Abstract these VISC processes through CSEP as follows:
a. Identify the individual’s current representational practices performed
during a task by asking who organises an activity and why, then compare
their response with their desired position; e.g. participant wants to take
control (i.e. assimilating practices) but cannot.
143
b. To clarify which normalizing practices are enacted, ask how the individual
utilises the service’s value proposition in relation to other network
members; e.g. meal kit challenges an aspect, however a family member
resolves it. Participant descriptions of other actors will also help infer the
desired representational practices they wish to perform; e.g. ‘Partner does
X, but I wish they did Y.’
c. Distil participant actions through exchange practices to understand the
purpose of each task being performed by the individual, and consider if
they overlap, are challenged, or should be adopted by the service; e.g.
looking up meals.
3. Build a practice chain from the event discussed. Start the chain within a specific
event described by the participant, and segment this event into the capacity in
which the individual is involved (representational practices), followed by who was
involved (normalizing practices), and then what actions were performed by the
individual (exchange).
4. Compare the practice chain performed with participant descriptions of what they
desire to happen. Does the participant’s desired value creation process align with
how the firm’s value proposition is implemented by the participant? Does the
service’s function align with the symbols (Akaka et al., 2014) participants attribute
to it? Does the participant engage in other normalizing practices when they
encounter a problem with the service? Is a satisfactory resolution achieved?
5. Use these comparisons to consider which components of the meal kit must be
addressed. Commonly identified conflicts could be used as the foundation from
which the firm and its customers negotiate how a service’s symbol could be better
realised, or even how new symbols could be implemented through future value
proposition iterations.
6. Restart this process post-implementation of the new value proposition.
In conclusion, this method presents a reproducible process that collects qualitatively rich
participant narratives of their VISC processes, which can then distil into what purpose the
service must fulfil during the customer’s creation of value. This abstraction from process
into purpose benefits service designers by providing a means to holistically consider what
purpose the firm’s value proposition must fulfil within the user’s network. In designing for
this specific role, the service strategically considers what resources are necessary, while
144
ensuring that the customer can continue to perform their intrinsically determined VISC
process (Frow et al., 2014).
6.5 Conclusion This chapter demonstrates how the merger of SDL and participatory design concepts has
informed a process that is adept at extracting unique VISC processes from a varied series of
users. Their contributions can then be synthesised into a comparable dataset that can
assist service designers understand participant attitudes and expectations attributed to a
service entity in their VISC processes. Section 6.2 describes how the CSEP practice chains
can be used to identify the predominant functions expected of the service. The method
utilised in this study can then be used to understand what core role is expected of the
service by its customers, and gauge how future value propositions can fulfil specific
network roles that contribute to the creation of customer VISC. This notion of the service
fulfilling its expected network role is then used to suggest how the value proposition could
be modified to increase customer involvement in a positive manner that empowers them
to resolve the shortcomings of the service.
Section 6.3 utilises the observations of participant modifications to answer the primary
research goal of this study by concludes that the meal kit service indirectly assist in the
creation of social food values. Ellway & Dean (2015) and Frow et al.’s (2014) notion of
learning through continued resource application is used to reason why participants
envisioned new applications of the meal kit’s value proposition after implementing it in
their specific contexts. This method of reappropriation suggests that the firm could actively
accommodate these social food values by utilising both value co-creation symbols and the
linking resolution mechanism. The linking resolution suggests that the resiliency of service
functions could be improved by encouraging enhancements of the product by the
customer’s immediate network. These proposals for user-led modification are used to
justify why the meal kit service would benefit from the development of an online
community platform affiliated with the service. By employing understandings of purpose
and function identified from the CSEP practice chains, the firm’s value proposition can
implement these community-generated symbols to inform future service iterations. This
section concludes with how this online community essentially functions as both a means to
improve customer loyalty while simultaneously converting the customer base into the
firm’s R&D team (Filieri, 2013).
145
Section 6.4 examines this study’s merger of SDL, participatory design and service design
concepts, and considers their mutual applicability when developing complex services. This
study first considers how SDL’s concept of service ecosystems influenced this study’s
approach, upon which the conclusion is made that service design processes can benefit
from utilising practices rather than detailed processes (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier,
2015; Storbacka et al., 2015; Chandler & Chen, 2016). This section then considers the
application of participatory design perspectives and methods in this project, and how they
can benefit other value co-creation studies. This section then discusses how the of the
fuzzy front end (Sanders, 2013) greatly benefited the exploration of existing VISC processes,
and proved critical for establishing the relationship between the meal kit service and the
participants. This section concludes with how the methods used in this study could be
implemented in other contexts where the service must engage with participants who are
already engaged in personal and valued processes.
146
7. Implications and conclusion 7.1 Theoretical implications Beginning with McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015) CSEP framework, this study’s
exploration and subsequent identification of all CSEP practices in the findings further
reinforces functional descriptions of each CSEP practice. However, this study’s merger of
the framework with Ellway & Dean’s (2015) cyclical stages of value-in-use further clarify the
functioning relationship between the practice archetypes. This combined application can
be used to associate the characteristics of Ellway & Dean’s (2015) five stages with its
partnered CSEP archetype, further bolstering the understanding of what occurs during the
individual’s VISC process. While applied on a small scale, this approach to converting highly
detailed processes into representative value creation efforts could prove useful when
analysing VISC processes at broader scales. This potential measure contributes to multiple
calls from service scientists attempting to better understand how value is co-created in a
network (Barile et al., 2016; Vargo et al., 2016). The linking resolution contributes to SDL
understandings of network influence over the co-creation of value (Frow, McColl-Kennedy,
& Payne, 2016; Vargo et al., 2016), and supports Storbacka et al.’s (2015) notion that a
service is an extension of the individual’s endeavours. Furthermore, its adoption of
contemporary definitions of co-creation proposes a method that expands beyond the
dyadic customer–firm relationship to acknowledge the influence of the user’s network.
Therefore, the linking resolution provides a means of conceptualising how the participant
uses their network to change the services value proposition, thus corresponding to the
interest in mapping value co-creation with a service at a micro-meso scale (Barile et al.,
2016; Frow, McColl-Kennedy, & Payne, 2016).
The exploration of participant routine processes through the fuzzy front end (Sanders,
2013) and their synthesisation through the CSEP framework (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, &
Ferrier, 2015) made the comparison of meal kit applications much more manageable.
Therefore, the practice chains used in this study could benefit other service designers and
service scientists in discerning the purposes of user processes and where their services fit in
relation to them. This beneficial outcome further reinforces suggestions to use practices as
a method of designing for value co-creation rather than attempting to discern each unique
process (Storbacka et al., 2015; Chandler & Chen, 2016), and is especially relevant as
interests in service eco-systems increase (Barile et al., 2016; Vargo et al., 2016; Vargo &
Lusch, 2017).
147
This study also corresponds to strong interests within the service science discipline by
proposing how service design can be used to implement contemporary notions of value co-
creation, and how that reshapes the creation of services (Ostrom et al., 2015; Barile et al.,
2016; Vargo et al., 2016; Vargo & Lusch, 2017). While this study did not engage in the full
participatory design process, this study’s exploration of the fuzzy front end with
participatory design tools has informed a foundation through which an unabridged
participatory design process could be implemented in the future. Furthermore, this study’s
adoption of participatory design perspectives to inform the methodology contributes to
service science by demonstrating that design is more than just a creative process used to
implement service concepts, and that its philosophical perspectives can greatly influence
the scope and subsequent application of these concepts. And so this study’s initial
application of participatory design contributes to a growing trend as researchers continue
to establish this richer application of service design by the service sciences (Wetter-Edman,
2009; Wetter-Edman et al., 2014; Kimbell & Blomberg, 2017; Kurtmollaiev et al., 2018). This
study therefore answers calls by Ostrom et al. (2015) to further clarify the relationship
between service dominant logic and service design by proposing a method that reduces the
complexity associated with designing co-creative services. This study also contributes to the
growing perspective that the mutual application of participatory design and SDL concepts
are beneficial for future service design scenarios (Kimbell & Blomberg, 2017b; Wetter-
Edman et al., 2014), and may prove key to the development of naturally evolving services
(Barile et al., 2016).
7.2 Managerial implications This study’s exploration of value co-creation through service dominant logic and service
design presents optimistic outcomes for both the meal kit service and design practitioners.
Beginning with the analysis of participant processes, this study identified that the service
was used as a parenting tool, and justification to eat dinner at the table with a loved one.
This demonstrates participants expanding the service’s application beyond its predominant
focus of convenience, health and lowered cooking ability. From this observation, this study
concludes with the notion that customers are the masters of their own solutions and are
wholly capable of realising their unique values attributed to dinner, provided they can
access and implement the resources necessary. It is here that value co-creation concepts
can expand upon this naturally occurring dynamic.
148
This study demonstrates how the CSEP framework (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier,
2015) can be appropriated by service designers to distinguish what network role is
attributed to the service. The resulting practice chains can therefore be used by service
designers and service researchers to simplify complex and varied descriptions of user value
creation processes. The understanding of these processes can be used to establish whether
users want the service to adopt a leading (i.e. assimilating) or supporting (i.e. producing)
role, how the firm’s resources are used in conjunction with other network members (i.e.
normalizing practices), and what service features should be offered to the user to align
with their desired processes (i.e. exchange practices). Clarifying these three dimensions
prior to the development of specific service functions ensures that the service does not
dictate or undermine the user’s expected VISC processes (Ellway & Dean, 2015), thereby
mitigating the occurrence of failed or deviant co-creation (Greer, 2015; Heidenreich et al.,
2015).
If the firm can facilitate both the each customer’s natural appropriation of the meal kit
(Frow et al., 2014), and analyse the naturally generated co-created symbols (Akaka et al.,
2014) through CSEP (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015), this presents a means of
identifying commonly attributed roles to the service. If a mutually perceived, popular role
was to be identified, the meal kit service could then plan future iterations that specifically
accommodate this role. An immediate example of this would be the parenting tool
identified among participants 3, 4 and 5. Through the simple enactment of collecting
household member names, the service could then assign specific meals through the recipe
cards sent to each family. In doing so, the meal kit reinforces the personalizing and
classification practices conducted by each parent as they assign cooking responsibilities to
their children. This example clarifies how the continued analysis and strategic adoption of
network roles naturally created by users for the meal kit (Frow et al., 2014), can provide a
continuous source of service innovation (Filieri, 2013) that reflects the community engaged
with the service.
This reciprocal notion can be further enhanced through this study’s identification of the
linking resolution. The observation that users will resolve insufficient linking practices
through successive bonding and bridging practices leads to the conclusion that a service
can enhance its appropriateness by expanding the user’s network. This study first
establishes that the individual’s immediate network composition is too circumstantial to
rely upon (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015). However, opportunities can be found
in artificially expanding their bridging practices through a centralised online platform. Much
149
like Lusch & Nambisan’s (2015) suggestion that a product can be enhanced through the
provision of auxiliary online operant resources, the provision of a community-centred
online platform provides a centralised location through which customers can access
additional operant resources. Furthermore, if users were to share their solutions through
this medium, this could inform new co-created symbols associated with the service’s value
proposition (Akaka et al., 2014).
The benefit of promoting these new value co-creation symbols presents a means of
inspiring alternative applications of the meal kit for less experienced users’ despite the
value proposition’s resources remaining the same (Frow et al., 2014; Lusch & Nambisan,
2015). Furthermore, the popularity of a community generated symbol could also be
measured by marketers/designers through the online platform and subsequently
developed if appropriate; i.e. selling optional spice and herb seeds for common meals,
which are then grown by the customer with the excess packaging as the growth medium.
With the establishment of the CSEP practice chains as a means of understanding user value
co-creation processes, this method could potentially be adopted within other commercial
and non-commercial entities. This understanding therefore contributes to a growing
interest in SDL, which attempts to define how to better engage customers in the co-
creation of products they wish to use, much like Costa et al.’s (2017) exploration with
manufacturing firms. However, the themes of natural evolution and customer-driven
modification observed in this study may be much more apparent due to the accessibility of
food. Manufacturing products may face more severe challenges when facilitating co-
creative communities due to the specialist knowledge required for the manufacture of
products (Costa et al., 2017). However, communities such as IKEAHackers
(https://www.ikeahackers.net, accessed 1/05/2018) demonstrate that community-led
reappropriation’s of physical products are still feasible.
Outside of designing the meal kit’s value proposition, this study’s adoption of food literacy
and food security concepts suggests that the CSEP practice chains may also benefit
dieticians and government agencies when planning cooking interventions. Perry et al.
(2017) concludes that social and contextual factors must be addressed to successfully
resolve food literacy. However, Begley, Gallegos and Vidgen (2017) express that the dietary
discipline’s predominant use of surveys to collect this contextual data is insufficient when
determining the success of these food interventions. The data collection and subsequent
analytical process utilised in this study suggest an opportunity to identify participant
150
motivations, values and limitations that are influential when encouraging long-term dietary
changes. Therefore, the CSEP analysis could be applied through service design concepts to
assist dieticians in planning a multifaceted cooking intervention that holistically addresses
food literacy (Begley, Gallegos, & Vidgen, 2017). This scenario demonstrates how the
practice chains used in this study may best be used as a means of designing (or potentially
co-creating) services that enhance the existing VISC processes of users (Edvardsson,
Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011; Ellway & Dean, 2015). It does so by informing what resources are
appropriate and desired by the user, while ensuring that their provision doesn’t challenge
the existing processes, thereby improving the co-creation of value.
7.3 Conclusions This study explores how the meal kit service could accommodate the complex and highly
unique values that its customers attribute to dinner, while continuing to sell a product at
commercial scales. To achieve this three goals were established for this study, which
consisted of: determining how to organise the unique customer processes and values when
using the meal kit into a comparative dataset; applying contemporary service dominant
logic concepts to this dataset to establish how the unique values of each meal kit customer
could be facilitated through value co-creation (Vargo et al., 2016); and suggest how service
design could implement these service science concepts into meal kit service’s functions,
ultimately improving their capacity to accommodate the unique food values of its
customers.
The exploration of six household dinner routines through the fuzzy front end (Sanders,
2013) established how the meal kit service was routinely utilised to co-create value (i.e.
dinner). This informed a number of key processes that participants attributed to the
enactment of dinner, which were subsequently used as a basis to formulate specific value
creation processes (Edvardsson, Tronvoll & Gruber, 2011; Ellway & Dean, 2015). This
analysis reinforced the literature review’s primary argument that the meal kit’s
supplementation of cooking skills and groceries, while beneficial, was at times insufficient
after considering the other dimensions of each participant’s dinner. With the collection of
participant cooking descriptions, the subsequent analysis of these VISC processes through
McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015) CSEP practices presents a means of distilling
the unique responses into a comparable data set.
151
This study clarifies how the application of SDL concepts through participatory design
perspectives can inspire new methods of designing complex services such as the meal kit
service. In adopting SDL’s concept of value co-creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2016) and
considering solutions that reflect existing processes (Sanders, 2013), this study presents
outcomes that can be used by the meal kit service to support its users’ established value
creation processes with their immediate network. This is achieved by first proposing a
means of using the CSEP framework to identify existing co-creation roles within a network.
With the collection of participant cooking descriptions, the subsequent analysis of these
VISC processes through McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015) CSEP practices
presents a means of distilling the unique responses into a comparable data set. This study
further enhances this analytical process by adopting Ellway and Dean's (2015) value
creation stages to clarify the sequential relationship between the representational,
normalizing and exchange practice archetypes (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015).
Consequently, service designers and researchers can use these practice chains to abstract
detailed user processes with the meal kit service into a sequence that clarifies the user’s
desired role (representational practices), who is involved (normalizing practices), and their
underlying purpose(s) of the value creation activities enacted (exchange practices).
Consequently, these practice chains present a means for service designers and researchers
to consider the unique customer VISC processes by abstracting vast responses into a more
manageable data set that may prove useful for analysis at larger scales.
This study also contributes to service design by supporting Kimbell and Blomberg's (2017)
proposal that practices can be used by designers to develop services that impart fewer
restrictions on the user’s processes. This is achieved through the abstraction of detailed
processes through the CSEP practice chains. This assists the design of complex services by
informing a method that gauges how closely a service’s function aligns with the value
creation processes of the participants. The understanding of which forms the basis for
distinguishing how closely the meal kit’s existing functions align with, or challenges, the
VISC processes of its users (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011). This method of analysis
also corresponds to Storbacka et al.’s (2015) conclusion that a service’s value proposition
should be designed with the intention of integration by both the customer and their
immediate network. Consequently, a service designer can use this comparison to consider
how a service’s functions either adopts, or aligns with, the processes of its users. This is
highly beneficial, as if the service’s function more closely resembles the network role
152
designated to it by the customer, it is more likely to mitigate defective or deviant value co-
creation (Greer, 2015; Heidenreich et al., 2015).
Expanding from the practice chains developed in this study, the subsequent comparison of
each participant’s specific dinner stages enabled the identification of both commonly
attributed roles to the meal kit service (e.g. the household meal planner), or contextually
informed applications (e.g. the parental tool used to assign cooking responsibilities to
children). The comparison of each participant’s normalizing practices during their
appropriation of meal kit resources demonstrated how they would draw on more
immediate network members to resolve the shortcomings of the meal kit service. The
analysis of these changes to the meal kit’s value proposition through CSEP’s normalizing
practices (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, & Ferrier, 2015) expanded upon Frow et al.’s (2014)
observation by inferring that the service’s resources (linking practices) were being
supplemented by the resources of more immediate network actors (bonding or bridging
practices) to achieve a resolution. In changing the meal kit’s value proposition, participants
also modified its capabilities and subsequent functions to better align with their desired
VISC processes. These interactions informed another key outcome of this study, which was
the linking resolution dynamic.
This study’s proposal of the linking resolution contributes to service science calls for
understanding how value propositions are changed by the network they are inserted into
(Storbacka et al., 2015). It does so by using McColl-Kennedy, Cheung and Ferrier’s (2015)
functional descriptions of normalizing practices to explain why participants would enlist
immediate network actors to change the function of the firm’s value proposition to better
fit their context. The linking resolution further defines Frow et al.’s (2014) conclusion that a
firm’s value proposition is malleable due to its varied application by different users and
their network members. The observation of this dynamic is promising for the meal kit, as it
clarifies that participants were at times able to align the meal kit to their needs rather than
submitting the meal kits specific processes. However, the participant’s success in achieving
this was found to be influenced by their ability to both source the necessary resources of
immediate network actors and apply them to the meal kit’s resource density and modify its
original function (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015).
Upon the discovery of the linking resolution, this study proposes how it can be embraced
by service designers. In line with SDL’s interest in service ecosystems (Frow et al., 2014;
Vargo et al., 2016), the linking resolution inspired the design consideration that a service’s
153
resilience among varying user contexts could be enhanced by increasing the potential
network actors the user can draw on during the value co-creation process. This study
further uses the characteristics of CSEP’s normalizing practices (McColl-Kennedy, Cheung, &
Ferrier, 2015) to conclude that each users’ immediate network composition is too
inconsistent for bonding practices to be relied upon, therefore informing the proposal of
enhancing the user’s ability to conduct bridging practices. To achieve this, this study
proposes that a service designer could further broaden the user’s network through the
provision of an online platform.
Consequently, this platform would present a method of inspiring alternative applications of
the meal kit without the direct assistance from the service (Akaka et al., 2014). This
proposal is supported by service science literature, which establishes that the individual’s
evaluation of potential actors informs their value co-creation strategy (Ellway & Dean,
2015), which subsequently informs alternative applications of the default value proposition
(Akaka et al., 2014). Furthermore, this centralised location provides a single point from
which a design team could observe how the meal kit is used en masse. In doing so, the
stages of this study could be repeated to consequently inform the design of other meal kit
iterations that accommodate other commonly attributed VISC roles. This method of
collecting customer informed modifications of the meal kit’s value proposition through a
central online platform may even provide an essential component that contributes to Barile
et al.’s (2016) proposed ‘evolutionary’ services.
This study concludes by clarifying how the application of service science concepts through
participatory design perspectives and methods enhanced the exploration of value co-
creation, and can assist in future designs of complex services. In line with the evolution of
service design, the application of emergent service science concepts will subsequently
inform the design and implementation of innovative services (Kimbell, 2011; Wetter-
Edman et al., 2014). And so, this study’s exploration of SDL’s recent interest
accommodating networks (Vargo et al., 2016) informed new analytical methods that
service designers can utilise to clarify what purpose the firm’s resources serve within the
user’s network. Therefore, this study’s observation and synthesis of unique customer
dinner processes informs value co-creation mechanisms that benefit not only the meal kit
industry, but service science and service design paradigms as well. The outcome of which
presents a means of designing innovative services that balance the multitude of potential
user values, while continuing the provision of a service at commercial scales.
154
7.4 Limitations The first limitation of this study emerges around the methodology underpinning this
research study and subsequent research design. The social constructivist epistemology
(Kukla, 2000) and the highly qualitative nature of this study means that both participant
contributions and the researcher’s analysis affect the contributions of this study. Primarily,
this thesis acknowledges that the findings of this study are not objective truth, but rather
representations of how value is created. The generative and open nature of both the
cultural probe and cognitive mapping exercise mean that participants are disclosing a
subjective version of their dinner. Therefore, it is entirely possible that participants may
have omitted or altered descriptions of their dinner process out of potential
embarrassment or privacy. Furthermore, in using participant descriptions rather than
physical observations of their cooking process, parts of their process may not have been
mentioned, either purposefully or out of absent-mindedness. However, this study’s core
aim to explore customer values, perceptions of their processes and future desires was
considered more important for this study than a dedicated user testing study. This is
because a week-long series of field observations within multiple participant households
was considered excessive. Furthermore, while these observations of service usage could
capture specific functions, this study’s interest in values meant that it was essential to
collect participants’ desires, frustrations and concerns attributed to their processes. And as
this study aimed to then abstract participant descriptions of process into a series of
representational purposes (i.e. practices), this meant that any in-depth observations of
physical processes would have been obscured in the process.
When considering the bias of the primary researcher during the analysis of participant
descriptions, the section 3.2.1 first uses the social constructivist epistemology to
acknowledge that researcher bias cannot be entirely eliminated in the first place (Kukla,
2000). But with this point established, steps were taken to reduce bias in the analysis. As
such, a longitudinal process was applied to the conversion of participant VISC to practice
chains, where the analysis was repeated at different times and in different formats (drafts
in a design journal, online practice chains, physical annotations over printed practice
chains, final version for the discussion). This ensured that each finding was repeatedly
tested under different circumstances to ensure a cohesive conclusion of CSEP properties
and function attributed to the participant response. Attempts to reduce bias in both the
creation and application of the cognitive mapping activity were also made. Participants
were encouraged to self-enlist themselves, where the predominant determinant for
155
participant applicability was either using the service, or had recently used the service but
quit. The open-ended format of the cognitive mapping exercise also encouraged the
participant to lead the conversation and themes discussed, as the researcher primarily
countered with questions specific to what was mentioned to further prompt discussion.
The second limitation of this study was that the small participant size is not representative
of all meal kit users. As such, the specific values and subsequent roles discussed are not
intended to be used as specific commercial targets for the meal kit service to aspire to
achieve. Consequently, this analysis of VISC processes is not representative of a broad set
of scenarios of use that would occur on a commercial scale. But despite this, the methods
chosen for this study are appropriate, as they were tailored to address the core problem of
how to accommodate uniquely determined values with a single product. As such, it was
important to understand how these values function in relation to the product, rather than
attempting to identifying every potential value attributed to the service. It is for this reason
that this study’s explorative nature is considered appropriate, as it was more important to
understand the mechanisms that underpin the formation of these food values and
subsequent network roles. As such, future quantitative endeavours could utilise the
methods in this study to identify with confidence the values and roles attributed to the
meal kit service.
In conclusion, the combination of both the subjective nature of both the data collection
and analysis, and small sample size demonstrate that this study is largely generative in
nature, and implores further testing of the models and outcomes proposed on a
quantitative scale.
7.5 Future works When considering future expansions from this study’s findings, four streams emerge. The
first stream extends on the commercial meal kit context and proposes why further
application of participatory design processes could inform commercial entities how to
accommodate network-informed value co-creation. The second stream expands upon one
of the limitations of this study and calls for a quantitative exploration of the themes
identified, and how the CSEP analysis could function at commercial scales. The third stream
considers how this study’s merger of participatory design and SDL paradigms could be
implemented in alternative contexts. The final stream expands upon specific dynamics
156
identified when applying the CSEP framework, and proposes some amendments to its core
frameworks with subsequent testing.
Beginning with the first stream, this study’s implementation of the participatory designs
fuzzy front end means that this study is primed for the full implementation of SDL concepts
through a participatory design process and subsequent development of meal kit service
iterations. Furthermore, this study considers that the continued application of
participatory design and SDL concepts through a complete design development process
presents an opportunity to explore how the evolving nature value propositions (Frow et al.,
2014) and the symbols attributed to them could be better facilitated by the meal kit firm.
After collecting customer-generated symbols through the method utilised in this study,
subsequent stages of a participatory design methodology would then invite the same
participants to theorise how they would realise these symbols through service resources.
Consequently, this exploration of SDL concepts through the active involvement of
participants holds the potential to inform how continuous iteration and evolution of a
service’s value proposition could be managed by the customers using the service. The
findings from this exploration feeds into SDL’s recent interest of evolutionary services
(Ostrom et al., 2015; Barile et al., 2016; Beirão, Patrício, & Fisk, 2017).
The second stream for future research emerges from one of the previously discussed
limitations of this study, and calls for a quantitative exploration of how the themes
identified to test their viability at commercial scales. While this study demonstrated how
the CSEP framework was useful in synthesising multiple processes into a comparable
dataset, future studies could evaluate how this analytical process and observation of
practice chains functions at larger scales. To do so, the data collection methods would need
to establish a balance that maintains the collection of participant attitudes to their VISC
and expectations of the service, but not be overwhelmed by contributions on a commercial
scale.
The third stream emerges from section 6.2’s discussion of CSEP practice chains, and
considers how they could be applied and tested in other contexts. Further testing of this
analytical process may prove particularly useful in contexts where service outcomes are
contextually dependent and highly influenced by participant values. Cooking interventions
and their resolution of food literacy present an immediate example, where the CSEP
practice chains may prove useful in not only understanding both the contextual restraints
influencing participants experience, but more importantly collect the values and
157
motivations that prove vital for developing programs that motivate continued healthy
cooking habits (Begley et al., 2017; Perry et al., 2017). Other alternative scenarios that this
concept could be implemented may also consist of self-managed healthcare and fitness
contexts.
The final stream of this research advises future application and testing of McColl-Kennedy
et al.'s (2015) CSEP framework. One potential experiment that was considered after the
application of CSEP was to utilise Grönroos’s (2011) distinctions of value facilitation and
value co-creation, instead of SDL’s ‘The individual is always co-creating value’ (Vargo &
Lusch, 2008). This consideration emerges after observing how participants were found to
implement personal resources to modify the function of their linking practices (i.e.
participant 6’s resolution of wastage by using it as growth medium for her veggie patch). It
is here that it becomes apparent how SDL’s and SL’s distinction of what is considered co-
creation influences the subsequent analysis. Despite participant 6 drawing on her personal
experiences to resolve a problem experienced with the service, SDL’s all-encompassing
notion that all applications of external resources are considered acts of value co-creation
(Vargo & Lusch, 2016) may over simplify this nuanced interaction. Alternatively, service
logic’s clarification between facilitation and co-creation (Grönroos & Voima, 2013) may
consider this act as a clear scenario of value facilitation, as participant 6’s endeavours are in
response to challenges made by the service to her desired value creation processes.
Therefore, further testing of CSEP framework with service logic’s differentiation between
value creation concepts may inform additional normalizing practices (i.e. DIY or drawing on
personal resources to appropriate the resources of other actors for VISC). This kind of study
would best be performed through the exploration of those who have cancelled their
service (i.e. participants 3 and 4), which could provide further examples of participants
attempting to overcome the meal kit’s difficulties.
158
8. References Akaka, M. A., Corsaro, D., Kelleher, C., Maglio, P. P., Seo, Y., Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L.
(2014). The role of symbols in value cocreation. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 311–326. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84907086358&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Alam, I. (2006). Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations through customer interactions. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.04.004
Alam, Q., & Chowdhury, M. (2016). Global Repositioning: Sustainability and Value Co-Creation (1st ed.). Prahran, VIC: Tilde Publishing and Distribution.
Banwell, C., Broom, D., Davies, A., & Dixon, J. (2012a). How Convenience Is Shaping Australian Diets: The Disappearing Dessert. In Weight of Modernity: An Intergenerational Study of the Rise of Obesity (pp. 41–58). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8957-1_4
Banwell, C., Broom, D., Davies, A., & Dixon, J. (2012b). The Big Australian: Obesity in the Modern World. In Weight of Modernity: An Intergenerational Study of the Rise of Obesity (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8957-1_1
Banwell, C., Broom, D., Davies, A., & Dixon, J. (2012c). The Weight of Time: From Full to Fragmented in 50 Years. In Weight of Modernity: An Intergenerational Study of the Rise of Obesity (pp. 129–149). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8957-1_8
Banwell, C., Broom, D., Davies, A., & Dixon, J. (2012d). Weight of modernity: An intergenerational study of the rise of obesity. Weight of Modernity: An Intergenerational Study of the Rise of Obesity (Vol. 9789048189). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8957-1
Barile, S., Lusch, R., Reynoso, J., Saviano, M., & Spohrer, J. (2016). Systems, networks, and ecosystems in service research. Journal of Service Management, 27(4), 652–674. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-09-2015-0268
Beardsworth, A., & Keil, T. (1997). Sociology on the Menu; An Invitation to the Study of Food and Society. London: Routledge.
Begley, A., Gallegos, D., & Vidgen, H. (2017). Effectiveness of Australian cooking skill interventions. British Food Journal, 119(5), 973–991. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2016-0451
Beirão, G., Patrício, L., & Fisk, R. P. (2017). Value cocreation in service ecosystems : investigating health care at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Journal of Service Management, 28(2), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2015-0357
Boztepe, S. (2007). User Value : Competing Theories and Models. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 1–10. Retrieved from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/921471786?accountid=13380
Cawthorn, D. M., & Hoffman, L. C. (2015). The bushmeat and food security nexus: A global account of the contributions, conundrums and ethical collisions. Food Research International, 76(P4), 906–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.03.025
159
Cesarotti, V., Giuiusa, A., Kwan, S., Introna, V., & Spohrer, J. (2014). Designing Multichannel Value Propositions to Enhance Value-Cocreation Phenomenon. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 5(1), 14–44. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijssmet.2014010102 Copyright
Chandler, J. D., & Chen, S. (2016). Practice styles and service systems. Journal of Service Management, 27(5), 798–830. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-09-2015-0293
Choi, J., Foth, M., & Hearn, G. (2014). Eat, Cook, Grow:Mixing Human-Computer Interactions with Human-Food Interactions. (J. Choi, M. Foth, & G. Hearn, Eds.). Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6786597
Clay, E. (2002). Chapter 2. Food security: Concepts and measurement. Retrieved November 22, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4671e/y4671e06.htm#fnB21
Costa, A. I. de A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2007). To cook or not to cook: A means-end study of motives for choice of meal solutions. Food Quality and Preference, 18(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.08.003
Costa, N., Patrício, L., Morelli, N., & Magee, C. L. (2017). Bringing Service Design to manufacturing companies: Integrating PSS and Service Design approaches. Design Studies, 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.002
Crouch, M., & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406069584
Daniels, S., Glorieux, I., Minnen, J., & van Tienoven, T. P. (2012). More than preparing a meal? Concerning the meanings of home cooking. Appetite, 58(3), 1050–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.040
Dann, L. (2016, October 19). Private equity firm takes stake in My Food Bag. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11731686
Department of Agriculture. (2014). Australian Food Statistics 2012-13. Australian food statistics 2012-2013. Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ag-food/publications/food-stats/australian-food-statistics-2012-13.pdf
Dixon, J. B. (2010). The effect of obesity on health outcomes. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 316(2), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2009.07.008
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.
Ellway, B. P. W., & Dean, A. (2015). Theorising the Reciprocal Intertwining of Practice and Experience in Value Creation Processes. Marketing Theory, 1(26), 26.
160
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593116636088
Fernandes, M. T. (2012). Value Construct towards Innovation. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(1).
Filieri, R. (2013). Consumer co-creation and new product development: a case study in the food industry. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501311292911
Fischler, C. (1988). Food, Self and identity.pdf. Social Science Information, 27(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901888027002005
Fitzpatrick, M., Varey, R. J., Grönroos, C., & Davey, J. (2015). Relationality in the service logic of value creation. Journal Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2015-0038
Foglieni, F., Villari, B., & Maffei, S. (2018). Designing Better Services: A strategic approach from Design to Evaluation. (B. Pernici, S. Della Torre, B. Colosimo, T. Faravelli, R. Paolucci, & S. Piardi, Eds.) (1st ed.). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Netherlands.
Frauenberger, C., Good, J., Fitzpatrick, G., & Iversen, O. S. (2015). In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 74, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.004
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Hilton, T., Davidson, A., Payne, A., & Brozovic, D. (2014). Value propositions: A service ecosystems perspective. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 327–351. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84907070069&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Payne, A. (2016). Co-creation practices: Their role in shaping a health care ecosystem. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 24–39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.03.007
Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2010). Consumer empowerment through internet-based co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 71–102. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260303
Furrer, O., Sudharshan, D., Tsiotsou, R. H., & Liu, B. S. (2016). A framework for innovative service design. The Service Industries Journal, 36(9–10), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2016.1248420
Greer, D. A. (2015). Defective co-creation. European Journal of Marketing, 49(1/2), 238–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2012-0411
Grönroos, C. (2006). Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593106066794
Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408177
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
Grönroos, C., & Gummerus, J. (2014). The service revolution and its marketing implications: service logic vs service-dominant logic. Managing Service Quality, 24(3), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-03-2014-0042
161
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3
Hatch, P., & Danckert, S. (2018, March 5). Aussie Farmers Direct falls into administration, to close immediately. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/aussie-farmers-direct-falls-into-administration-to-close-immediately-20180305-p4z2u0.html
Heidenreich, S., Wittkowski, K., Handrich, M., & Falk, T. (2015). The dark side of customer co-creation: exploring the consequences of failed co-created services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0387-4
Holmlid, S. (2007). Interaction Design and Service Design: Expanding a Comparison of Design Disciplines. In Design Inquiries (p. 8). Stockholm. https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.712
Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. (2015). Data Consolidation. In J. Carrol (Ed.), Contextual design: evolved (1st ed., pp. 23–41). San Rafael, California: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00597ED1V01Y201409HCI024
Iversen, O. S., & Leong, T. W. (2012). Values-led participatory design. Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Making Sense Through Design - NordiCHI ’12, 0882(September), 468. https://doi.org/10.1145/2399016.2399087
Jager, C. (2016). My Food Bag has closed down in Australia. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/10/my-food-bag-has-closed-down-in-australia/
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science (New York, N.Y.), 306(5702), 1776–1780. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103572
Katzan, H. (2011). Essentials of Service Design and Innovation. Journal of Service Science, 4(2), 43–60.
Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory Design : Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7(1993), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008689307411
Kimbell, L. (2011). Designing for service as one way of designing services. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00009-6
Kimbell, L. (2014). The Service Innovation Handbook: Action-Orientated creative thinking toolkit for service organizations (0th ed.). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
Kimbell, L., & Blomberg, J. (2017a). The object of service design. In D. Sangiorgi & A. Prendiville (Eds.), Designing for Service: Key Issues and New Directions: Key Issues and New Directions (1st ed., pp. 81–94). London: Uk: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Kimbell, L., & Blomberg, J. (2017b). The Object of Service Design. In Designing for Service: Key Issues and New Directions (Vol. 27, pp. 20–34). https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00088
Koskela-Huotari, K., Edvardsson, B., Jonas, J. M., Sörhammar, D., & Witell, L. (2016). Innovation in service ecosystems-Breaking, making, and maintaining institutionalized
162
rules of resource integration. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2964–2971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.029
Krug, S., Korthaus, A., Fielt, E., & Leyer, M. (2010). Co-Creation in Business Service Lifecycle Management. In Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–11). Brisbane: Acis.
Kukla, A. (2000). Defining constructivism. In Social Constructivism and the philosophy of science (pp. 1–7). London: Uk: Routledge.
Kurtmollaiev, S., Fjuk, A., Pedersen, P. E., Clatworthy, S., & Kvale, K. (2018). Organizational Transformation Through Service Design: The Institutional Logics Perspective. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517738371
Lavelle, F., Spence, M., Hollywood, L., McGowan, L., Surgenor, D., McCloat, A., … Dean, M. (2016). Learning cooking skills at different ages: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0446-y
Lehoux, N. (2013). Interaction that Values Co-Creation in the Design of Services. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 17(4), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/bltj.21580
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant-Logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175.
Magner, L. (2016). Online Grocery Sales in Australia. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from http://clients1.ibisworld.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/reports/au/industry/default.aspx?entid=5527
Mahr, D., Kalogeras, N., & Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2013). A service science approach for improving healthy food experiences. Journal of Service Management, 24(4), 435–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2013-0089
Martin, B., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions (1st ed.). Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Cheung, L., & Ferrier, E. (2015). Co-creating service experience practices. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-08-2014-0204
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Vargo, S. L., Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Kasteren, Y. vK. (2012). Health Care Customer Value Cocreation Practice Styles. Journal of Service Research, 15(4), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670512442806
Mintz, S. W., & Du Bois, C. M. (2002). The Anthropology of Food and Eating. Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.032702.131011
Nudurupati, S. S., Lascelles, D., Wright, G., & Yip, N. (2016). Eight challenges of servitisation for the configuration, measurement and management of organisations. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(6), 745–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-02-2015-0045
Ostrom, a. L., Parasuraman, A., Bowen, D. E., Patrício, L., & Voss, C. a. (2015). Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context. Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670515576315
163
Patricio, L., Fisk, R. P., Falcao e Cunha, J., & Constantine, L. (2011). Multilevel Service Design: From Customer Value Constellation to Service Experience Blueprinting. Journal of Service Research, 14(2), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511401901
Patrício, L., Gustafsson, A., & Fisk, R. (2018). Upframing Service Design and Innovation for Research Impact. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517746780
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Peillon, S., Pellegrin, C., & Burlat, P. (2015). Exploring the servitization path: a conceptual framework and a case study from the capital goods industry. Production Planning & Control, 26(14–15), 1264–1277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1033492
Perry, E. A., Thomas, H., Samra, H. R., Edmonstone, S., Davidson, L., Faulkner, A., … Kirkpatrick, S. I. (2017). Identifying attributes of food literacy: A scoping review. Public Health Nutrition, 20(13), 2406–2415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017001276
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
Sanders, E. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Design and the Social Sciences Making connections (pp. 1–8). New York: Taylor & Francis Books Limited. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203301302.ch1
Sanders, E. (2013). Perspectives on Participation in Design. Wer Gestaltet Die Gestaltung? Praxis, Theorie Und Geschichte Des Partizipatorischen Designs, 61–74.
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial Toolbox: generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS.
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 10(1, SI), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183
Sanders, E., & William, C. (2003). Harnessing people’s creativity: Ideation and expression through visual communication. In J. Langford & D. McDonagh-Philp (Eds.), Focus Groups: Supporting Effective Product Development (pp. 137–148). London: Taylor and Francis.
Simmons, D., & Chapman, G. E. (2012). The significance of home cooking within families. British Food Journal, 114(8), 1184–1195. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211252110
Sindhwani, P., & Ahuja, V. (2014). A Study of Online Co-Creation Strategies of Starbucks Using Netnography. International Journal of Online Marketing, 4, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijom.2014010104
Sleeswijk Visser, F., Jan Stappers, P., Van Der Lugt, R., B-n Sanders, E., Van Der Lugt, R., B-n Sanders, E., … Sanders, E. B.-N. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice.
164
CoDesign, 1(2), 119–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880500135987
Stano, S. (2016). Lost in translation: Food, identity and otherness. Semiotica, 2016(211), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0100
Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (2010). This is Service Design Thinking : Basics-Tools-Cases (0th ed.). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Actor engagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3008–3017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.034
Storbacka, K., Frow, P., Nenonen, S., & Payne, A. F. (2015). Special Issue – Toward a Better Understanding of the Role of Value in Markets and Marketing. In N. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of Marketing Research (Vol. 9, pp. 51–78). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2012)0000009007
Upton, J. B., Cissé, J. D., & Barrett, C. B. (2016). Food security as resilience: Reconciling definition and measurement. Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom), 47(S1), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12305
Vargo, S. L., Koskela-Huotari, K., Baron, S., Edvardsson, B., Reynoso, J., & Colurcio, M. (2016). A systems perspective on markets - Toward a research agenda. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.011
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2014). Inversions of service-dominant logic. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593114534339
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F., Akaka, M. A., & He, Y. (2010). Service-Dominant Logic: A Review and Assessment. In Review of Marketing Research (Naresh K., pp. 125–167). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2009)0000006010
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003
Vidgen, H. A., & Gallegos, D. (2014). Defining food literacy and its components. Appetite, 76, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.01.010
Wallin, T., Kristensson, A. P., Lervik-Olsen, L., Parasuraman, A., Mccoll-Kennedy, J. R., Edvardsson, B., & Colurcio, M. (2016). Linking service design to value creation and service research. Journal of Service Management, 27(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710210415703
165
Walls, H. L., Peelers, A., Loff, B., & Crammond, B. R. (2009). Reforming health care or reforming health? American Journal of Public Health, 99(4), 590–592. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.158808
Warde, A., Cheng, S.-L., Olsen, W., & Southerton, D. (2007). Changes in the Practice of Eating: A Comparative Analysis of Time-Use. Acta Sociologica, 50(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699307083978
Wetter-Edman, K. (2009). Exploring overlaps and differences in service-dominant logic and design thinking. In First Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation (p. 12). Oslo. Retrieved from http://episerver2.aho.no/PageFiles/6819/New/Wetter Edman_Exploring overlaps DT_SDL.pdf
Wetter-Edman, K., Sangiorgi, D., Edvardsson, B., Holmlid, S., Grönroos, C., & Mattelmäki, T. (2014). Design for Value Co-Creation: Exploring Synergies Between Design for Service and Service Logic. Service Science, 6(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2014.0068
Worsley, A. (2015). From nutrients to food literacy. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, 22(3), 13–21. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.wmezproxy.wnmeds.ac.nz/documentSummary;dn=911100525562275;res=IELAPA
Wright, P., & McCarthy, J. (2015). The politics and aesthetics of participatory HCI. Interactions, 22(6), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2828428
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2018). Digital business : Success in a virtual world. In Affected: Emotionally Engaging Customers in the Digital Age (1st ed., pp. 95–112). Melbourne: John Wiley & Sons.
Xia, C., Zhao, S., & Valle, H. (2017). Productivity in Australia’s broadacre and dairy industries. Agricultural Commodities, 7(1), 187–202.
Yenicioglu, B., & Suerdem, A. (2015). Participatory New Product Development–A Framework for Deliberately Collaborative and Continuous Innovation Design. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1443–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.442
Yu, E., & Sangiorgi, D. (2018). Service Design as an Approach to Implement the Value Cocreation Perspective in New Service Development. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517709356
Zomerdijk, L. G., & Voss, C. a. (2010). Service Design for Experience-Centric Services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509351960
166
Appendices 8.1 Appendix A Examples of enlistment A1. Mind mapping enlistment via social media
167
A2. cognitive map enlistment via social media
168
8.2 Appendix B Initial trial of meal kit B1. Online reflective journal for meal kit trial (https://brettsfood.tumblr.com/, accessed
169
1/05/2018)
8.3 Appendix C Cognitive Map Development C1. Design development of cognitive map task
170
8.4 Appendix D Cognitive Map Pilot Studies D1. Early cognitive map with participant responses written on post-its
171
D2. Tallying of cognitive map images and words
172
173
D3. Cognitive map pilot studies
174
175
D4. Final testing of cognitive map
176
D5. Sample of cognitive map discussion guide/prompts
Service aspects (From user’s perspective) • How long have you been using the service for? • How often do you use it for dinner (3 or 5)?
o Why’s that? • How do you feel the service fits into the rest of your weekly processes?
o How could it improve? • When does the meal kit get delivered?
o Where does it get dropped off? o Is there a specific strategy for unpacking ingredients? o Are you finding that [service] is now fighting your fridge for other stuff you
keep in there usually? • Are you generally happy with the variety of meals provided?
o Are you cooking things you wouldn’t have before? o Do you ever feel [service] provides what you would order through takeout? o Would you ever attempt to make it yourself? o What are your thoughts their portion sizes? o Would you like to [plan your own portion sizes]?
• Have you cooked anything fairly intensive? o What made this intensive [prep, cook, time]? o Was this worth the effort?
• Have you ever had a time where [service function] hasn’t quite worked? o How did you work around it?
• Was that a successful meal? • What do you do with the menu’s?
o Are they important? Why? o Where do you keep them?
• Do you feel like you’d want to use [Service] in a learning capacity at all? o Why?
• Do you ever find yourself with a surplus of ingredients? • Are there any special circumstances that would cause you not use the service for a
specific night? o What happens instead?
Values, drive, goal
• What is keeping you committed to [Service]/Why did you cancel the service? • Are you get excited to return home to the meals? • Where do your cooking values lie?
o Is that a very important thing for you? • Do you ever have nights where you get home and you just don’t feel like cooking?
o Why? o What do you do instead?
• What would you consider is a meaningful experience? • Do you post any pictures of your meal to social media?
o Are they your meals or [service] meals? o Why do you do it?
177
8.5 Appendix E Coding scheme and development
E1. Transcript with initial coding scheme
178
E2. Participant 5’s transcript converted actions via post it notes
179
E3. Early affinity diagram with post-it notes
180
E4. Participant 5’s transcript converted into activity cards via Microsoft Word Table
P5/11 Unpacking: Fridge rules: HF has a dedicated shelf to prevent ingredients being “pushed to the back” + getting lost. :(
P5/11 Unpacking: Fridge Rules: HF has dedicated shelf in pantry. At eye level. “Expected cooking items” live underneath.
P5/12 Unpacking: Fridge rules: Family “lives a busy lifestyle” – Constrained by work+sport schedules. D: Rules make planning/cooking easier for P5 :)
P5/13 Prep: P5 uses recipe card to organize all ingredients onto bench before starting to cook. This is to prevent “rummaging mid meal” :|
P5/14 Prep: P5 has a tendency to start cooking but not be prepared resulting in mistakes. D: Recipes Cards are helping fix this.
P5/14 Prep: Altering P5 will alter Recipe’s suggested prepping process before starting to cook. This is to minimise utensils + save time/reduce washing :)
P5/15 Prep: Problem: HF have changed recipe card design which P5 does not like, even w/ added images :( Changes make it difficult for her process of prep before cooking. - Old cards were clearer on prep.
P5/16 Cooking: Altering: trust Ingredients P5 does not know are included in meal BC she “trusts” HF :D P5 only removes spicy ingredients because family ”is not big on spice”
P5/17 Cooking: Trust: P5 will cook/include ingredients she does not like BC she trusts HF. Partner + daughter do not trust HF: removed ingredients due to perceived spiciness. “meal was bland” D:
P5/18 Dinner: Preference: Family will “eat anything apart from spice” P5 appreciates that Chili is considered optional in HF meals.
P5/18 Cooking: Adventure -P5 does not like raw fish :( -HF provides a lot of fish recipes. -Cooking fish is foreign to her. -Dish turned out to be “really tasty” :D -Surprising positive experience.
P5/19 Cooking: Altering: P5 finds recipes + ingredients “simple” This makes it easy for her to add vege’s to meal. :D
P5/20 Prep: Planning: Altering: P5 Finds that HF recipes are light on vegetables :| Household is “a big vegetable family”. P5 Adds vege’s to HF recipe.
P5/21 Prep: Cooking: P5 does not like touching raw fish D:
P5/22 Planning P5 is “not a big cook”. -Dislikes planning/thinking what to cook. Much prefers being told what to do (by family/HF) :( - - > :D
181
8.6 Appendix F Practice chain development F1. Early practice chain development
182
F2. Mid practice chains development
183
F3. Late practice chains development
184
185
8.7 Appendix G Meal kit symbols
G1. Meal kit’s Landing page for their Commercial website
(https://www.hellofresh.com.au/landing/cook-this-for-dinner-2/, access 1/05/2018)