Value in the ‘valley of the shadow of death’—When the user is no longer the value arbiter
Higor Leite, Stephen OsborneAbstract
The Public Service Logic (PSL) user‐centric perspective on value creation has been one of its main critiques. Scholars argue that for some real‐world applications, such as emergency services, where users cannot engage with service offerings, the PSL must consider the roles of other service actors beyond just facilitators. We conducted 41 semi‐structured interviews within the Brazilian rescue services to explore paramedics’ experiences working in life‐threatening accidents and to understand how private value is created when citizens are unresponsive. In such a life‐and‐death situation, we identify the peripheral value that shifts from a user‐centric perspective to a context‐ and provider–stakeholder‐centric perspective. Hence, our study contributes to the PSL literature by reconciling PSL's user‐centric criticism and exploring how service providers can create value without citizen engagement with the service offerings.
Points for practitioners
For practitioners who adopt the PSL perspective, this study underscores the need to reconsider the traditional view of public officials as mere facilitators of value. In service contexts where co‐production is inherently constrained, such as emergency or critical care, providers may need to assume a more active and situated role in shaping value outcomes. The study encourages public managers to reflect on how service design and delivery can better accommodate situations where users are reluctant. Rather than assuming co‐production is always feasible, practitioners can benefit from a more nuanced understanding of users’ circumstances, capabilities, and vulnerabilities when shaping service processes. Value creation/destruction can move beyond user engagement, relying on closer stakeholders. This highlights the importance of providing focused training to enhance providers' active intervening role and empowerment. This is important because providers act as public officials, assuming the best care for ‘incapacitated’ users based on their knowledge, experience, and environmental evidence.