ArticlePDF Available

The meanings of co-creation



Purpose The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the diverse strands that underpin the still emerging concept of co‐creation. The paper aims to suggest that there are alternative views rooted in psychotherapy, critical theory, software development and design that can help provide a richer understanding of the meaning of co‐creation. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a general review of the field based on the literature and the different strands that comprise it. Findings Co‐creation is often seen from a managerial perspective. In this general review of the concept, the authors demonstrate that co‐creation can also be seen from the perspective of consumers and other stakeholders. This also shifts the idea of co‐creation away from a strongly rational approach to one that is more spontaneous and playful. Practical implications The review focuses primarily on consumers and how they can be encouraged to collaborate with one another to meet their needs for socialisation and meaning making and how organizations can influence and use the insights of co‐creation. Originality/value Over the past decade there has been a rapidly growing interest in co‐creation, but much of the research focuses on the creation and management of online communities. By recognising the antecedents of managerial co‐creation and its diverse heritage, it is possible to see the concept as a development of other practices. By drawing on these practices, it is possible to look at co‐creation in a new light.
The Meanings of Co-Creation
Nicholas Ind
Associate Professor, Oslo School of Management, Oslo, Norway
Nick Coates
Research Director, Promise, London, UK
June 2012
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the diverse strands that underpin
the still emerging concept of co-creation. The paper suggests that there are alternative views
rooted in psychotherapy, critical theory, software development and design that can help
provide us with a richer understanding of the meaning of co-creation.
Findings – Co-creation is often seen from a managerial perspective. In this general review of
the concept, we demonstrate that co-creation can also be seen from the perspective of
consumers and other stakeholders. This also shifts the idea of co-creation away from a
strongly rational approach to on that is more spontaneous and playful.
Practical implications Our review focuses primarily on consumers and how they can be
encouraged to collaborate with each other to meet their needs for socialisation and meaning
making and how organizations can influence and use the insights of co-creation.
Originality/value Over the past decade there has been a rapidly growing interest in co-
creation, but much of the research focuses on the creation and management of online
communities. By recognising the antecedents of managerial co-creation and its diverse
heritage, it is possible to see the concept as a development of other practices. By drawing on
these practices, it is possible to look at co-creation in a new light.
Keywords - Co-creation, participation, open source
Paper type –General Review
Co-creation has become a widely used term to describe a shift in thinking from the
organization as a definer of value to a more participative process where people and
organizations together generate and develop meaning. In business it has come to inform
approaches to insight, new product and service development and marketing. However, much
of the research in the field has been conducted with consumers and marketers rather than
other stakeholder groups (Hatch and Schultz 2010). Similarly many researchers and writers
have been focused on a managerial perspective that stresses the organizational opportunity to
co-opt customer competence (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000). The danger with this
instrumentalising approach to customer involvement is that it has the potential to create a
consumer backlash that has been foreshadowed by some commentators (Cova and Dallli
2009; Zwick, et al.,2008) and observed in the comments of some community participants
(Ind, Fuller and Trevail, 2012). To counter charges that co-creation exploits consumers and
other stakeholders who gift their time and intellect for the benefit of organizations, it needs to
move beyond the co-opting lens and engage stakeholders in a reciprocally useful way. In this
paper we will explore the antecedents of the modern interpretation of co-creation and
demonstrate how a broader perspective that draws on different disciplines can help deliver a
more sustainable and diverse approach.
The origins of co-creation
Traditional approaches to customer relationships have stressed two elements: the primacy of
the knowledge of the organization and the act of purchase. However, both of these are
questionable. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) note that individuals are always linked through
social interaction, so that while an organization may believe it controls the meaning of its
brand(s), it can be argued that brand meanings are created by consumers and other
stakeholders in a process of interaction. Kärreman and Rylander (2008) in turn stress that the
marketing led approach to brands tends to focus on the organization and to ignore the
meaning that emerges through social and communicative processes. The implication is that
while organizations may be able to influence the field of possible meanings in that they write
the narratives of the brand, meaning itself is dialogic (Morris 2003). This connects back to
very notion of authorship and the authority of the lone creator in particular (Johnson 2010)
and reminds that the culture of co-creation is wider and more diverse than the managerial
interpretation seems to suggest. We should note that the idea of ‘creation’ isn’t simply about
the creation of things, it’s also about interpretation and meaning-making. Meaning is always
co-created. As Roland Barthes wrote in his essay on authorship and meaning, ‘La mort de
l’auteur’ (1968): “a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination…to give writing its
future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the
death of the author”. This perspective is particularly relevant when we consider co-creation,
because it makes us think of the togetherness implicit in creative processes and the needs of
the stakeholder. This move towards constructing brand meanings beyond the walls (and
firewalls) of the organization is evident in the emergence of consumer brand communities
(Muniz and O’Guinn 2001; Fournier and Lee 2009; Schau et al., 2009).
The second element that has impacted on the emergence of the idea of co-creation is the
move away from products. This is both a real transition, in that countries such as the UK
(77.7%), France (78.9%) and USA (76.7%) are dominated by services, but also a transition of
perspective. As Vargo and Lusch (2004) pointed out, products always include service
elements, because it is their usage that matters to consumers. The services dominant logic
model connects what the organization offers at the point of purchase to usage by consumers
over time. Merz, He and Vargo note (2009), ’the logic of brand and branding is also evolving
and has shifted from the conceptualization of brand as a firm-provided property of goods to
brand as a collaborative, value co-creation activity of firms and all of their stakeholders.’
From this perspective value is not inherent in the product as such, but in the way the
consumer acts as a result of acquiring it. Grönroos makes the point that the producer
generates potential value, whereas it is in the act of usage that real value is created – although
the exact roles of the firm and the customer remain unclear. He argues that the nature of
value co-creation depends on perspective. Is it the firm that leads and invites the consumer to
participate or is it consumers who are in charge of value creation? If co-creation is perceived
to be concerned with value in use, then it is the user that creates value for the user (Grönroos
From a managerial perspective, the coming together of the potential for engagement provided
by the Internet and the burgeoning appreciation of the importance of the consumer as a value
creator, has spurred the growth in co-creation. While it could be argued that consumers have
long been vital to the marketing perspective, it could also be said that this was not always true
in practice (Mitchell 2001). Martin (2010) also notes that much management thinking lacks a
strong customer orientation. His argument is that from Berle and Means well-known work,
The Modern Corporation and Private Property,(1932) which signified the emergence of
managerial capitalism to Jensen and Meckling’s influential Theory of the Firm, (1976), which
signified a shift to shareholder capitalism, the customer has largely been absent. His
argument is that the dominant credo of maximizing shareholder value, which has actually
done little for shareholders, should be discarded in favour of maximizing customer value. The
centrality of the customer also pervades Prahalad & Ramaswamy’s thinking (2000, 2004).
Their focus was on the creation of ‘value’ between the customer and the firm rather than
solely inside the firm. Moving beyond a focus on the organization’s assets, they argued that
the firms that succeed will do so on the basis of their ability to connect with partners and to
focus on personalisation for customers at the point of production. Yet in spite of this
customer orientation, the perspective is from the organization outwards and focuses on what
firms can do to become closer to customers. Though this view does recognise the
togetherness of co-creation, it is the firm itself that becomes co-creative (Ramaswamy and
Gouillart 2010) and the value accrues to it through the adoption of ideas developed by
working consumers, whose main reward is the intrinsic benefit of participation in something
that is perceived to be worthwhile.
Participation and Open Source
A different approach to co-creation revolves around design and innovation at the front end of
the product and service development process, which is often the main focus of co-creation
activities (Prandelli et al., 2006). In market research this is the dominant use and meaning of
the term, co-creation. The orientation here is on innovation: creating new things that are more
relevant, quicker to bring to market and in many cases more innovative than in a traditional
expert-driven R&D ‘stage-gate’ process (Matthing et al.,2004, Kristensson et al., 2004,
Witell et al., 2011). While involving customers/users in helping to shape products and
services is relatively new to market research and certainly new to many companies, there are
precedents from the design world that began in the 1970s with a Scandinavian approach
called ‘participatory design’. The idea of participatory design was that if you want to create
usable services, spaces, products you should involve the people who are going to have to use
them. The thinking behind participatory (or cooperative) design was to provide some
empowerment to workers and to generate their active input. One of the important elements of
the process was the continuous use of prototypes as a mechanism to bring abstract ideas to
life and to generate feedback. Bødker and Grønæk (1990) argued that, ‘We see prototyping
with active user involvement as a way of overcoming some of the problems that current
approaches have with developing computer applications that fit the actual needs of the users.’
Subsequently the idea of prototyping was extended to make it explicitly more democratic.
Grønbæch et al. (1997) described an approach defined as Cooperative Experimental System
Development (CESD). This was similar to participatory design but was characterized
specifically by a focus on: ’active user involvement throughout the entire development
process; prototyping experiments closely coupled to work-situations and use-scenarios;
transforming results from early cooperative analysis/design to targeted object oriented
design, specification, and realisation; and design for tailorability.’ The Scandinavian
experience is a reminder that participative practices can involve groups other than consumers
and that there is a powerful democratising element in co-creation that can also be used to
involve citizens and influential groups in co-creating social innovation in such areas as
governmentality (Ind, Fuller and Trevail 2012), public services (Ramaswamy and Gouillart
2010) and healthcare and education (Leadbeater 2009).
The democratizing principle has also been influential in the development of design thinking
(Brown 2008) and the emergence of the open source movement (Raymond 1999). The idea
that a product like Linux would be running nuclear power stations and netbooks on a large
scale and powering more than one in four corporate servers in Fortune 500 companies would
have seemed preposterous not so long ago. Similarly Wikipedia with its commitment to
involving people in the development of content has challenged the traditional idea of the
encyclopedia and has become the dominant form of knowledge dissemination. Indeed
Wikipedia and other participative processes have undermined what has been called Royal
science (DeLanda 2002) – knowledge determined by agreed elites – and replaced it with
minor (or nomad) science – knowledge agreed among a community. The underpinning of
open source (and indeed most forms of co-creation) is that it is based on a gift (Mauss 2000;
Constant et al., 1996). Individuals are often willing to help others for the intellectual, social
and hedonic benefits of sharing (Nambisan and Baron, 2009). While there is still structure
and often very detailed guidelines that enable participation in participative processes
(Hemetsberger and Reinhardt 2009; de Vugt 2010) there is a far greater opportunity for
individuals to influence content by bringing their cognitive diversity to help elaborate
problems and share solutions (Levy, 1997). Raymond likened the resulting, bottom-up,
structure as more like a bazaar (or souk) and less like top-down structures, such as a
cathedral. Cathedrals are highly planned, highly controlled and beautiful, but less organic.
The souk has its own order, its own logic, its own patterns, but it does allow people to lose
themselves. However, while open source starts with the same spirit as co-creation, because of
the strong technology focus, it tends to attract expert co-creators or ‘lead users’ rather than
‘average’ users.
Many co-creation practices have adopted the principle of the lead-user with semi-experts or
people screened for their creative skills (Von Hippel 1986; Dahlsten 2004; Von Hippel 2006).
The underlying assumption is that creative processes are best undertaken by those who seem
to be the most innovative in their thinking. Yet there are three countervailing points to make
here. First, while innovation is sometimes derived from the spark of individual insight, ideas
tend to be developed by groups working together (Sawyer 2008; Johnson 2010). This makes
the point that rather than focusing on how to spot individual creativity, co-creation
practitioners should concentrate on how to make groups productive by working to create an
atmosphere where people trust each other and the organization. Second, there is a
requirement in creative processes both for the inspiration of original ideas and the application
of detailed creativity in their working out. As Kirton pointed out (1984), there is a need for
both innovators and adaptors in processes. Further Ekvall (1997) in a study of innovation in
two Swedish organizations demonstrated that radical and adaptive creativity can co-exist to
generate and market new ideas. Third, Amabile suggests (1998) in her components of
creativity that individuals need to have expertise, creative thinking skills and motivation. This
structure is supported by Füller (2010), who observed that intrinsically interested consumers
are highly motivated and are more knowledgeable and creative than other personalities. So
rather than looking for inherent creativity, it can be argued that creativity is a result of
engagement and knowledge. As George Orwell observed of Charles Dickens, ‘we can only
create if we can care.’ (Orwell 1981). The implication of these three points is that everyone
has the potential to contribute to creative processes if they are motivated to do so and if the
right conditions and processes exist.
Serious Play
The elements of spontaneity, play and exploration are often notably absent from work and
organizations (Burns and Stalker, 1994, Czarniawska 2003, Bauman 2001), yet these are the
very things that help to stimulate creative thinking: ‘Thinking is always experimenting or
experiencing.’ (Vähämäki and Virtanen 2006, 220). To nurture these elements a safe space
need to be established that brings the internal world of the imagination and the external world
together. The paediatrician and psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott, argued that creativity was
present in all individuals and could be expressed through play: ‘… in play, and perhaps only
in playing, the child and adult is free to be creative and to use the whole personality, and it is
only in being creative that the individual discovers the self’. (Winnicott 1971) Wark argues
(2011, 52) that art is playful and play is social. To play, people need environments where
there is the opportunity to experiment with ideas, without any conscious end goal, but rather
for the joy of doing so. For example the use of a technique such as ‘art from within’ in co-
creation events, where the participant is asked to quickly draw an image without reflection
has its origins in a combination of Winnicott’s doodling techniques (which he deployed in his
work with children) and French surrealism which experimented with automatic writing and
drawings. As Breton suggested in the ‘Manifesto of Surrealism’ (1924) the idea is that rather
than trying to conjure up images, the artist must allow them to happen. The goal therefore is
not to try and think one’s way through a problem but to take advantage of ideas and accidents
as they occur. As a technique, ‘art from within’ is not concerned with providing answers, but
rather to encourage exploration and sharing. In one sense it is clearly purposive or ‘serious’,
in that it is designed to generate insight, yet it is also playful in that there is no right solution,
just the opportunity for the artist to illustrate their experiences, anxieties and hopes. The idea
of ‘serious play’ is seen by some as an important component in creative processes (Kelley
2001; Statler et al., 2002), but is often absent from co-creation processes and discussions,
which tend to highlight rationality and the organizational benefits of the innovation process.
This might be more familiar territory for managers, but given the scale of the video game
industry (estimated at $60.4 billion in 2009 by DFC) and the importance of play in people’s
lives, gamification can be a powerful way to explore and engage. Co-creation community
members draw on their experience of game playing when discussing the future of co-creation
and also suggest the use of game elements in co-creation (Koch 2012).
The play aspect of co-creation also serves to emphasise ‘creation’. Just as play provides the
freedom to do things differently on each occasion, so creation does not start with a
preconceived end point. The very idea of creating, suggests the importance of process.
Individuals create through exploration, dialogue and experimentation. If the conclusion of the
process was already evident, there would be no creation. A space of creation provides a
range of possibilities in which ideas can be realized, but the ideas that are chosen combine
determinism and chance (DeLanda 2002). Techniques such as crowdsourcing assume the
answer is ‘out there’ and that through wide-scale involvement the answer can be found. In
creation and co-creation, the process generates an answer while recognizing that many other
answers would have been possible in a different process and with different participants. This
parallels the process of group psychotherapy, and group analysis, in particular where instead
of the therapist analysing the patient, the group reaches insights and direction through the
process of interaction and mutual self-commentary.
Co-creation has emerged due to the coincidence of several developments: the mainstream
adoption of internet technologies, the orientation towards services and experiences, a more
open approach to innovation (Chesbrough 2006) and the growth of social, collaboration and
customisation technologies. These are all relatively recent developments, but co-creation did
not appear fully formed after its announcement by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). Co-
creation has long been practised in the partnerships to be found in Business-to-Business
contexts and the management writer, Mary Parker Follett was arguing for the principles of
co-creation back in 1925 (Graham, 1995). Indeed, co-creation has rich and diverse roots that
stretch back into the 20th Century. Rather than adopting a narrow view of the concept, our
argument is that the diversity of co-creation’s heritage should be recognized by bringing
together psychotherapy, management science, innovation and open innovation, design,
literary theory and creativity practice. From these various strands, we can pinpoint ideas that
suggest new opportunities for co-creation:
From participatory design - involving end users leads to more relevant and usable products
and services, while reducing risk. This implies a willingness to engage with participants and
incorporate their suggestions for the benefit of the user and the organization. Participatory
design (like design thinking) can involve the development of iterative prototypes as a means
of testing user reactions.
From literary theory - meaning is co-created and interpretation is a two-way process. While
there is authorial (or organizational) intent in creating something, meaning emerges as the
idea is used and in the conversations that recipients have with each other and the organization
in naturally occurring communities, face-to-face interactions and organization-led
From the open source movement - starting with a gift produces more generous returns.
Giving something to people that creates meaning or utility generates reciprocal behaviour and
strengthens the sense of community. People are willing then to share their personal
experiences and opinions for intrinsic benefits associated with participation.
From collaborative innovation - breakthroughs come from ‘group genius’ not lone
epiphanies. Innovations since the renaissance have been dominantly generated by groups
(Johnson 2010). This does not deny the creativity of exceptional individuals, but beneath the
surface of the claims of individuals lies the involvement of others.
From psychotherapy – the answer or insight isn’t already out there waiting, it has to be
discovered with others. It is the process of co-creation and the co-discovery through
interaction (Shotter 2005) that generates new ways of seeing the world and leads to the
opportunity for self-development.
When these strands are woven together, the idea of co-creation moves away from a
managerially dominated focus on the often nebulous idea of value to a view that instead
focuses on how individuals can collaborate with each other to meet their needs for
socialisation and meaning making and how organizations can influence and use the insights
of co-creation from a position of equality rather than dominance. This is what Follett calls,
‘power with’: ‘whereas power usually means power-over, the power of some person or group
over some other person or group, it is possible to develop the conception of power-with, a
jointly developed power, a co-active, not a coercive power.’ (Graham 1995, 103). Seen in this
way, co-creation can be a force for participation and democratisation that does create
meaning for all, rather than simply an alternative research technique or a way of creating
value through co-opting the skills and creativity of individuals. This is what Magala calls the
‘Postmodern pattern of sensemaking’ where there is a transparent, open-ended flow of social
communication built around the negotiation and renegotiation of meanings that leads to a
networked, evolving social world. The implication for organizations is that co-creation ought
to be viewed as a process that provides an opportunity for on-going interaction, where the
organization is willing to share its world with external stakeholders and can generate in return
the insight that can be derived from their engagement.
Amabile T M (1998) ”How to Kill Creativity”, Harvard Business Review 76.5: 76-87
Barthes R (1977) “The death of the authorin Image-Music-Text Fontana Press, (Trans Heath
S) London pp142-148
Bauman Z (2001) Community: seeking safety in an insecure world. Polity Press, Cambridge
Burns T. and Stalker G.M. (1994) The Management of Innovation. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Brown, T. (2008) "Design Thinking." Harvard Business Review 86.6: 84-92
Bødker, S. and Grønbæk, K. (1990) "Cooperative Prototyping: Users and Designers in
Mutual Activity." Draft paper submitted for International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,
special issue on CSCW.
Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting
from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
Constant D., Sproull L and Kiesler S. (1996) “The Kindness of Strangers: the usefulness of
weak ties for technical advice.” Organization Science 7(2): 119-135
Cova B and Dalli D. (2009), "Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing Theory."
Marketing Theory 9(3)
Czarniawska B (2003) “Forbidden Knowledge: organization theory in times of transition.
Management Learning. 34 (3): 353: 365
De Vugt G (2010) “Dare to Edit: the Politics of Wikipedia. Ephemera 10 (1): 64-76
Delanda, M. (2002) Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. Continuum: London
Ekvall, G. (1997) "Organizational Conditions and Levels of Creativity" in Creative
Management and Development (3rd Edition). Ed. Jane Henry. Sage Publications, London
Fournier S and Lee L (2009), “Getting Brand Communities Right,” Harvard Business
Review, pp. 105-111
Füller J.(2010) ”Refining Virtual Co-Creation from a Consumer Perspective.” California
Management Review 52. 2: 98-122
Graham, P (Ed.) (1995) Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of Management. Beard Books,
Washington DC
Grönroos C (2011) ”Value Co-Creation in Service Logic: a critical analysis” Marketing
Theory 11(3): 279-301
Grønbæk, K, Kyng, M and Mogensen, P. (2007) “Toward a Cooperative Experimental
System Development Approach” in Kyng & Mathiassen. Computers and Design in Context.
The MIT Press Cambridge, MA: 201-238
Hatch M-J and Schultz M. (2010), ”Toward a Theory of Brand Co-Creation with
Implications for Brand Governance.” Journal of Brand Management. 17 (8)
Hemetsberger, A. and Reinhardt, C. (2009) "Collective Development in Open-Source
Communities: An Activity Theoretical Perspective on Successful Online Collaboration."
Organization Studies 30.9: 987-1008
Ind N, Fuller C and Trevail C (2012) Brand Together: How co-creation generates innovation
and re-energizes brands. Kogan Page, London
Johnson S (2010), Where Good Ideas Come From: the natural history of innovation. Allen
Lane, London
Kärreman D. and Rylander. A. (2008) “Managing Meaning through Branding – the case of a
consulting firm”. Organization Studies. 29(1): 103-125
Kelley T (2001) The Art of Innovation. Currency Books, New York.
Kirton, M J. (1984) "Adaptors and Innovators: Why New Initiatives Get Blocked" in
Creative Management and Development (3rd Edition). Ed. Jane Henry. Sage Publications,
London pp109-19.
Koch F (2012) “The Key Principles of Online Co-creation” in Ind N, Fuller C and Trevail C
Brand Together: How co-creation generates innovation and re-energizes brands. Kogan
Page, London
Kristensson P, Gustafsson A and Archer T (2004)”Harnessing the Creative Potential Among
Users” Journal of Product Innovation Management 21, 1: 4-14
Leadbeater C (2008) We Think: mass innovation not mass production. Profile Books, London
Lévy. P. (1997) Collective Intelligence: mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. (Trans. R.
Bononno). Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA
Magala S. (2009) The Making of Meaning in Organizations. Palgrave, Basingstoke, Hants
Martin, R. (2010) The Age of Customer Capitalism. Harvard Business Review, 88 (1), p58-
Matthing J, Sandén B and Edvardsson B (2004) ”New Service Development Learning from
and with Customers” International Journal of Service Industry Management 15, 5: 479-498
Mauss M. (2000) The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Trans. W
D Halls. (Essai sur le don, Presses Universitaires de France, 1950) Routledge, London
Merz, M.A, He Y, and Vargo S.L. (2009), ”The evolving brand logic: a service dominant
logic perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37: 328-344
Mitchell A. (2001) Right Side Up: Building brands in the age of the organized consumer.
HarperCollins, London
Morris P (2003) The Bakhtin Reader: selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov.
Arnold, London.
Muniz Jr A.M. and O’Guinn T.C (2001) ”Brand Community” Journal of Consumer Research
27, 4
Nambisan S and Baron R A (2009) “Virtual Customer Environments: testing as a model of
voluntary participation in value co-creation activities.” Journal of Product Innovation
Management 26: 388-406
Nonaka, I. and Hirotaka, T. (1995) "Organizational Knowledge Creation" in Creative
Management and Development (3rd Edition). Ed. Jane Henry. Sage Publications, London
Prahalad C.K. and Ramaswamy V. (2000), ”Co-opting Customer Competence,” Harvard
Business Review January-February: 79-87
Prahalad C.K and Ramaswamy. V (2004) The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique
Value with Customers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.
E Prandelli, G. Verona and D. Raccagni ”Diffusion of Web-Based Product Innovation.”
California Management Review 48.4 (2006): 109-135
V. Ramaswamy and F. Gouillart, The Power of Co-Creation: build it with them to boost
growth, productivity, and profits. (New York, NY: The Free Press, 2010)
Raymond, E. S. (1999) The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source
by an Accidental Revolutionary, O’Reilly, Sebastopol, California
Sawyer K (2008), Group Genius: the creative power of collaboration. Basic Books, New
Schau, H J, Muñiz, A M. Jr. and Arnould, E J. (2009) "How Brand Community Practices
Create Value." Journal of Marketing 73.5: 30-51
Shotter J (2005) “Peripheral Vision” Organization Studies 26 (1): 113-135
Statler, M, Roos, J and Victor, B. (2002) "Ain't Misbehavin': Taking Play Seriously in
Organizations." Imagination Lab Foundation, 28.
Vargo S.L and Lusch, R.F (2004) ”Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,”
Journal of Marketing, 68: 1-17
Von Hippel. E. (2006) Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA:
Vähämäki J and Virtanen A (2006) “Deleuze, Change, History” in Deleuze and the Social.
Ed M. Fuglsand and B M Sørensen. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh
Wark, M (2011) The Beach Beneath the Street, Verso, London
Winnicott D. W. (1971) Playing and Reality Tavistock Publications, London
Witell, L Kristensson P, Gustafsson A and Löfgren M (2011) ”Idea Generation: customer co-
creation versus traditional research techniques”, Journal of Service Management 22, 2: 140-
Zwick D, Bonsu S K and Darmody A (2008) ”Putting Consumers to Work: co-creation and
new marketing governmentality” Journal of Consumer Culture. 8.2: 163-196
... Brand value co-creation As consumers gain more power, the way firms interact with consumers has changed (Grönroos and Voima, 2013;Kennedy and Guzm an, 2016;Harmeling et al., 2017;Vallaster and von Wallpach, 2013). Advances in technology, especially in telecommunications, have given consumers more possibilities to directly interact with brands Ind and Coates, 2013;Ind et al., 2017;Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2016;Swaminathan et al., 2020). Nowadays, consumers have the power to implement their influence in the entire business process from the development of brand identity to the creation of products and services (Kennedy and Guzm an, 2016; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). ...
... Embracing co-creation is beneficial for brands, because it can lead to a variety of advantages, including cost efficiencies, risk reduction, speed-to-market, better insights and competitive advantage (Hatch and Schultz, 2010;Ind and Coates, 2013;Ind et al., 2017;Kazadi et al., 2016;Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000). Consequently, brands are increasingly engaging in brand value co-creation and conversing with consumers (Kennedy and Guzm an, 2016), which is a necessary strategy to increase brand equity and consumer engagement (Harmeling et al., 2017) while remaining relevant in the current competitive marketplace . ...
... The idea of being listened to and having a voice in the future direction of a brand leads consumers to experience an intrinsic sense of reward (Ind and Coates, 2013;Ind et al., 2019) and increased levels of self-esteem (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010). Consequently, these consumers develop positive emotions and feelings toward the brand and thus are more loyal toward it (Ind and Coates, 2013;Ind et al., 2017), trust it more (Tajvidi et al., 2020) and are more willing to communicate positive word of mouth (Hoyer et al., 2010;Bilgram et al., 2011). ...
Purpose In response to the rise of socially conscious consumers, brands have been taking a strategic approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR) to drive brand equity. Nevertheless, merely engaging in CSR is not enough to have a positive impact on the value consumers give to a brand. The success of a CSR program depends on its consumers’ perceived authenticity. Therefore, this study aims to investigate how the perception of CSR authenticity, and consequently brand equity, can be enhanced by leveraging brand value co-creation. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a mixed-method approach to test its hypotheses. Study 1 collects survey data from a national representative sample in the USA, which is analyzed using structural equation modeling. Study 2 collects experimental data from a public university’s research pool, also in the USA, which is analyzed using ANOVA and mediation analysis. Findings This study demonstrates that when consumers believe that a brand is co-creative – i.e. consumers are allowed to participate in the creation of value – they will likely perceive the brand’s CSR program as more authentic, which in turn will positively affect brand equity. Originality/value The findings of this study offer implications for academics and brand managers interested on how to effectively leverage CSR for brand building. Specifically, it demonstrates that embracing CSR alone may not be sufficient to enhance brand equity and that brand managers should consider leveraging co-creation to strengthen perceptions of CSR authenticity.
... Furthermore, gamification does provide scope for collaborative innovation practices among multiple actors (Leclercq et al., 2017). In fact, gamification provides an interactive and participatory, and collaborative environment that tends to create high-quality customer interaction through gamification mechanics (Ind & Coates, 2013;Werbach, 2014;Zichermann & Linder, 2013). Gamification mechanics that may potentially increase customer engagement in firm activities encourage customers to share their knowledge with other customers or even prospective customers of the companies . ...
Background: COVID-19 spread over the last two years has been instrumental in shifting physical banking transactions to mobile-based banking transactions. Recently, M-payments have dominated online and point-of-sale (POS) transactions in the Asia-pacific region. Therefore, there was a need to study the factors influencing M-payments. This research has been conducted to determine the significant factors influencing the usage and continuance usage of M-payment apps in an emerging country and particularly how gamified features enhance the usage of M-payments study is based on the perspectives of the Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2) and information system success (ISS) theory, and it adds three new determinants—trust, gamified features, and continued use of mobile payments to better explain and forecast users' behavioral intentions and continued use of mobile payment applications (M-payments apps). Method: The research has employed two studies on sample data from young users of M-payment apps (n=898), the dataset was analyzed through structural equation modelling for mediation and moderation analysis in study one. The second study was grounded through Vignette experiments to analyze the effects of the degree of gamified features on the continued usage of M-payments. Results: The results reported that behavioral intention to adopt, and usage of mobile payments are significantly mediated by gamified features and gamified features are partially mediating continuance usage of M-payments. Trust is the key to enabling continuance usage amongst the users of M-payments. These findings extend the understanding of users’ continuance intention in the context of payments apps. Conclusion: This study would be helpful in presenting insights for the M-payments service providers and the associated banks to develop strategy for the continuance usage of mobile payment apps.
... Accordingly, the concept of co-creation becomes indispensable for OH innovations in communities. In the context of OH operations, co-creation implies the collaborative innovation of new solutions or interventions involving researchers, multi-sectoral health experts and community members, whereby ideas are shared and improved together from inception to implementation stages of the innovation [58,59]. We realized that traditionally, health research in pastoral Maasai communities has been non-participatory and unsustainable, mostly due to the non-sedentary lifestyle of the Maasai people. ...
Full-text available
Background Solving complex public health challenges requires integrated approaches to health, such as One Health. A key element of the One Health approach is the interrelationship between human, animal and environmental health and the associated multistakeholder collaboration across many cultural, disciplinary, institutional and sectoral boundaries. Here we describe a pragmatic approach for One Health operationalisation basing on our long-term engagement with communities faced with health challenges in a human-livestock-wildlife interface in the Maasai steppe in northern Tanzania. Methods Using a qualitative study design we performed an outcome mapping to document insights on results integration from our previous project. Data were collected through participatory community meetings, in-depth interviews and field observations. Field notes were coded and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results We found that effective implementation of One Health interventions in complex ecosystems works best by understanding local conditions and their context and by working closely with the local people and relevant disciplinary players as one complex adaptive system. Community engagement, systems analysis, transdisciplinarity as well as political commitment played critical roles in successful operationalization of One Health. We have further emphasized that project ownership is as important to the local community as it is to the researchers. When used in combination, these elements (community engagement, systems analysis, transdisciplinarity) provide essential pillars for co-creation and maintaining collective action to set a common vision across disciplines, serving as inputs for a metrics-based toolbox for One Health operationalisation. Conclusion Considering the novelty and complexity of One Health operationalisation, there is need also to develop scorecard-based guidance for assessment of One Health programs at local and national level. This paper proposes a framework for the optimization of an ecosystems-based One Health approach for prevention and control of Vector-Borne Diseases implemented at the local, sub-national or national level.
... However, a collaborative partnership is just not enough, especially when creating new products or strategies as new technologies encounter many implementation challenges hindering or halting introduction (Yu J.C., 2021). As co-creation produces something that did not exist before (Sanders L., Simons G., 2009), this implies that the end result of a co-creation process is to have created something or to have brought something into existence (Ind N., Coates N., 2013). ...
Full-text available
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) is a well-established and widely used approach for defining the readiness of new technology. To this extent, it assesses technology maturity against specific benchmarks, ranging from 1 (concept) to 9 (market solution). Although this is a useful classification service, allowing us to establish a common language, there are cases where we find that this conceptual approach fails to adequately highlight the maturity of certain innovative endeavors and effectively steer their development to higher TR levels. We will present an empirical case where the TRL approach presented a critical shortcoming in highlighting the true and effective readiness of a specific technological development and could not suggest the next natural step in ascending the maturity ladder. We will seek to generalize for the case of co-creation at large, analyze why co-creation may be poorly serviced by the current TRL model and suggest an amendment that would allow the observed shortcoming of the traditional TRL approach to be overcome and its use extended also in such co-creative settings.
... Co-creation is a management strategy that helps organizations redefine their value proposition (Ind and Coates, 2013). According to the same author, this is a process in which organizations interact with different interlocutors with the purpose of solving a certain challenge. ...
Full-text available
Collaboration with customers and users is essential in order to develop services or products that answer their needs. Introducing co-creation workshops to the beginning phases of product development can help to build long-lasting benefits in customer relations and understanding, as well as spark wider change efforts internally.
Facebook changed the way marketing was practiced by organizations operating in the fast-food industry. It enabled organizations to interact with their communities, and thus to cocreate value with them. Thus, the goal of this chapter is to determine the main factors influencing value cocreation of value on Facebook fast-food restaurant pages in Morocco. The model used in this chapter was inspired from the DART and the TAM models. Altogether, 384 questionnaires were collected in this chapter. The sample used was convenient. Dialogue, access, risk management, transparency, and usefulness all influenced value cocreation in the fast-food industry. This chapter is one of the scarce studies that applies empirically the DART model with technology theory in the fast-food industry. The end of this chapter is to suggest best practices regarding community management in the fast-food industry in Morocco.
Full-text available
Agenda nasional mengenai percepatan kendaraan listrik berbasis baterai perlu mendapatkan usulan implementatif supaya dapat membantu pengguna kursi roda dalam melakukan mobilitas. Argumentasi ini didasarkan pada dua hal penting, yaitu adopsi teknologi yang memungkinkan untuk diwujudkannya alat bantu mobilitas untuk kursi roda dan definisi kursi roda yang ditetapkan oleh World Health Organization sebagai perangkat mobilitas beroda dengan tempat duduk yang digunakan oleh orang yang mempunyai kesulitan berjalan atau bergerak. Masalahnya adalah, situasi ini belum banyak diminati oleh desainer, yang ditandai dengan belum banyak munculnya alternatif desain alat penggerak listrik berbasis baterai untuk kursi roda di Indonesia. Berdasarkan situasi itu, kami mencoba merancang perangkat yang kami sebut penggerak listrik kursi roda yang dapat dilepas-pasang. Kami menggunakan metode PIRUS yang merupakan metode desain pengembangan sendiri untuk membangun prototipe. Bekerja sama dengan salah satu bengkel di Yogyakarta selama delapan bulan dan akhirnya membangun prototipe pertama kami yang diberi nama MOKURA (Mobilitas Kursi Roda). Saat ini kami sedang mencoba membangun Mokura-2 dan Mokura-3 untuk penyempurnaan prototipe.
Full-text available
The process of user-centered innovation: how it can benefit both users and manufacturers and how its emergence will bring changes in business models and in public policy. Innovation is rapidly becoming democratized. Users, aided by improvements in computer and communications technology, increasingly can develop their own new products and services. These innovating users—both individuals and firms—often freely share their innovations with others, creating user-innovation communities and a rich intellectual commons. In Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel looks closely at this emerging system of user-centered innovation. He explains why and when users find it profitable to develop new products and services for themselves, and why it often pays users to reveal their innovations freely for the use of all.The trend toward democratized innovation can be seen in software and information products—most notably in the free and open-source software movement—but also in physical products. Von Hippel's many examples of user innovation in action range from surgical equipment to surfboards to software security features. He shows that product and service development is concentrated among "lead users," who are ahead on marketplace trends and whose innovations are often commercially attractive. Von Hippel argues that manufacturers should redesign their innovation processes and that they should systematically seek out innovations developed by users. He points to businesses—the custom semiconductor industry is one example—that have learned to assist user-innovators by providing them with toolkits for developing new products. User innovation has a positive impact on social welfare, and von Hippel proposes that government policies, including R&D subsidies and tax credits, should be realigned to eliminate biases against it. The goal of a democratized user-centered innovation system, says von Hippel, is well worth striving for. An electronic version of this book is available under a Creative Commons license.
First published in 1961, this book is a very influential book on organization theory and industrial sociology. The central theme of the book is the relationship between an organization and its environment — particularly technological and market innovations. Based on first-class scholarship, the book presents the now famous and ubiquitous classifications of ‘mechanistic’ and ‘organic’ systems. For this it has become justly famous, but the book is also a penetrating study of social systems within organizations and organizational dynamics.
Gilles Deleuze is a philosopher of revolution and may even be a revolutionary thinker. Revolution is certainly the milieu of his thinking, where he breaks things open. Whatever their target, his critiques have nothing to do with understanding, nor with attentive or thoughtful action. Instead, Deleuze misunderstands things and these misunderstandings have rules – that is, they repeat. Repetition sets things in motion, transforming them, and Deleuze's metaphysics is constructed for this virtual context of movement and change. Here understanding offers only a weak mode of thought because understanding is always bound to its historical contingencies. The concept of change, by contrast, which grounds Deleuze's critique, must be radically distinguished from the concept of history. It is in this difference that the effective revolutionary nature of his work may be found.