Conference PaperPDF Available

Models of Co-creation


Abstract and Figures

This paper aims to give an overview of the existing models of co-creation and create meta-models from these existing ones. The existing models were found in academic and popular or business publications. A total of 50 models was analysed and clustered and used to create 4 meta-models of co-creation. These meta-models depict the ‘joint space of co-creation’, ‘the co-creation spectrum’, ‘the co-creation types’ and ‘the co-creation steps’. They form a framework to classify existing research as well as define boundaries for upcoming projects. These meta-models should contribute to the clarity, understanding and application of co- creation.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Models of co-creation
Jotte I.J.C. De Koning, Marcel R.M. Crul, Renee Wever
TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
This paper aims to give an overview of the existing models of co-creation and create meta-
models from these existing ones. The existing models were found in academic and popular
or business publications. A total of 50 models was analysed and clustered and used to create
4 meta-models of co-creation. These meta-models depict the ‘joint space of co-creation’, ‘the
co-creation spectrum’, ‘the co-creation types’ and ‘the co-creation steps’. They form a
framework to classify existing research as well as define boundaries for upcoming projects.
These meta-models should contribute to the clarity, understanding and application of co-
KEYWORDS: co-creation, service design, innovation, model, visual representation,
Co-creation is a term that found its way into our daily design and marketing vocabulary.
Others, outside the field of design and marketing, have also started to use it. Now different
people, from different fields, use it in different ways. This does not add to the clarity of the,
still young but maturing, concept. Therefore many have tried to capture or structure co-
creation in a model or framework and to subsequently visualize it. These visualizations are
powerful tools for understanding because they are uniform and show connections and
dependencies instantly. Throughout this article the word model will be used when referring
to a visual representation of a structuring of co-creation. A model should aid others in
understanding what co-creation is, the steps in a co-creation process and how it relates to
other fields such as service design, New Product Development, open innovation,
participatory design and more. This paper aims to give an overview, according to the
available models in literature, of the different ways of understanding and capturing co-
creation. Next to that, meta-models are created that summarize the content of the existing
ServDes. 2016
Fifth Service Design and Innovation conference
The very literal meaning of co-creation is: together (co-) make or produce something (new)
to exist (creation). Co-creation finds its origin in co-production where consumer
participation was integrated in the supply chain. At first it was introduced to achieve cost-
minimization (for example IKEA) but in 1990 John Czepiel introduced the idea that
customer participation may also lead to greater customer satisfaction. Song and Adams
(1993) noticed that customer participation could also be an opportunity to differentiate. At
the turn of the century, Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2000) presented the idea that customers are
taking active roles and that their relationships with firms are shifting. Prahalad &
Ramaswamy continued along this route and in 2004 they published a paper in which they
used the term value co-creation. They described co-creation of value as an initiative of the
customer that is dissatisfied with the available choices and therefore takes action. Jaworski &
Kohli (2006) somewhat followed the assumption that the customer is looking for a dialogue
with the firm and proposed guidelines to “co-create the voice of the customer”. Now,
economies in the West are transforming towards a service dominant logic and consumers no
longer buy either goods or services, but products that provide a service and the value
depends on the customer experience. Consumers buy an experience of which the product or
service is an artefact. Therefore, Vargo & Lush (2008) argue that in a service dominant logic
(opposed to a goods dominant logic) the customer is always a co-creator.
During these changes in the fields of production and marketing economics, similar shifts of
focus occurred in the field of design. In design, co-creation has its roots in human centred
design (HCD) and participatory design. These movements emerged in the 70s in
Scandinavia, where joint decision-making and work practices started to receive attention.
One of the key words of these movements was empowering. Essential was also the belief that
the ones who are affected by design should have a possibility to influence the design
(Mattelmäki & Sleeswijk-Visser, 2011). Now, in participatory design, participants are seen as
beneficial contributors to the design process by offering their expertise and knowledge as a
resource. That is why the term co-creation is often associated with participatory design. Ehn
(2008, p.93) describes participatory design as design “with a special focus on people
participating in the design process as co-designers”. In the world of design practice today
this seems common knowledge. Nowadays, designers have become the advocates of users
and are asked to create ideas that better meet consumers’ needs and desires (Brown, 2008;
Badke-schaub et al., 2005; Holloway & Kurniawan, 2010; Brown and Wyatt, 2010; Maguire,
From the words of Ehn we understand that co-design is a process used in participatory
design. Co-design however, does not always have the same meaning as co-creation.
Designers often use co-design to describe the process of collaboration in which co-creation
can take place, so they see co-creation as subordinate to co-design. Other disciplines such as
marketing more often use the term co-creation as a trend for openness, collaboration and
partnership and co-design as one of the practices within co-creation, so they see co-design as
subordinate to co-creation, but the terms are often tangled (Mattelmäki & Sleeswijk-Visser,
2011). The different views bring along a whole other range of substitutes for co-creation,
such as reflective design, cooperative design, open innovation, mass customization, co-
production, user-generated content, collaborative innovation.
In the last decade, all these terms have appeared widely in scientific literature, in professional
magazines, websites of product development companies, design research and market
research agencies and also in reports of public organisations. In these writings people show
examples of how their version of co-creation has been applied. And “while the literature on
co-creation often fails to raise critical issues, discussions of benefits are abundant” (LSE
Enterprise, 2009) it is generally acknowledged that collaboration in new concept
development increases the number (of sources) of new ideas in innovation. Co-creation
enables idea generation through shared knowledge and experiences and a better
understanding of the user. Besides a larger pool of ideas and a better connection of the
products to the user, it is also believed that co-creation benefits an increased speed to
market, reduces risk and increases customer loyalty (Auh et al., 2007). And, due to
participation or co-operation, the customer will experience greater satisfaction and
commitment (Dong et al., 2008; Bettencourt, 1997). Finally, the likelihood of positive word-
of-mouth is higher with greater levels of customer participation (File et al., 1992). In
organizational literature, co-creation has also been praised, in terms of what it can bring to
the process of change. Co-creating changes, instead of imposing changes top down, is said to
be more effective. This is because it becomes meaningful for the people involved, it ensures
a platform for many to be heard and room for diversity, difference and desires (Wierdsma,
2004; Wenger, 2000).
From the literature cited, it can be understood that there are different definitions of co-
creation and that there are other disciplines/methods often tangled with co-creation, such as
co-design or open innovation. Also, because co-creation is described in many different
practical applications, there is not a fixed framework or plan to follow. We support the
suggestion that there is a need for “creating tools for co-creation” and conceptual clarity
(Schrage, 1995; Payne et al., 2007; Roser et al., 2009).!
This paper aims to bring some conceptual clarity to the term co-creation by analysing
existing models of co-creation and generate meta-models based on the similarities of the
existing ones. Models are a powerful tool for clarity and understanding because it is uniform
and shows connections and dependencies instantly. By analysing the existing models, it is
hoped that clarity in the form of meta-models can be given on three different levels: (1)
theoretical: the co-creation spectrum and how it relates to other terms; (2) practical: the
different types of co-creation and how they relate to each other, and (3) applied: the different
steps in a co-creation process.
The method for finding the relevant models of co-creation was two-fold. In the first place
SciVerse Scopus was used to select all relevant articles until November 2015. The search
terms included ‘co-creation’ (in the title) and ‘model’ or ‘framework’ (in the title, keywords or
abstract). This resulted in 249 articles. It was a deliberate choice to use the term co-creation
and not co-design. Co-design was not used because this term is often limited to the fields of
design and computer studies and co-creation was used because this is the term also used in
business and management literature.
The abstracts of these 249 articles were scanned for the possible presence of models or
frameworks of co-creation in the article. A full version of all articles that hinted at presenting
or including a model or framework, a total of 45, was downloaded. Next, the articles were
searched for the presence of a visual model or framework. Out of the 45 articles, 28 unique
models of co-creation were selected.
Next to that, a more arbitrary search method was used. Google was used to find models of
co-creation, by searching only for images with the terms co-creation, co-creation in
ServDes. 2016
Fifth Service Design and Innovation conference
combination with model and co-creation in combination with framework. The search was non-
personalized and in English. The first 100 images of the three search results were scanned
for useful input. To not be able to include all images is a limitation of course, as is the
seemingly haphazard limit of a hundred images. However, we found that around a hundred
images repetition of images occurred and almost no new models were found. Out of the 300
images, 22 (unique) images were selected for their representation of (1) co-creation in
relation to other fields, (2) different types of co-creation or (3) the process of co-creation.
Images that were duplicates of the models found through the SciVerse Scopus (6 in total)
were not counted in the 22. Also, if the source of the selected image was secondary, the
primary source was retrieved and used to refer to the model.
Together with the models from the scientific articles this resulted in a total 50 models that
were analysed for their representation of co-creation.
Figure 1 shows a picture of all images used for this article. For reasons of keeping the article
within reasonable length, the full size existing models have not been included. The reference
list contains links to all full sized images. Contact the authors to receive a PDF including all
A total of 50 models was analysed and assigned to one of the three pre-defined categories (1)
the co-creation spectrum, (2) the co-creation types, and (3) the co-creation steps. However,
during the analysis, another category occurred among the SCiVerse Scopus models. This
category was labelled the 0-category of ‘joint space of creation’. The number of models per
category and search method can be found in Table 1. First, the models in the (0) category are
discussed, as these are the basis of co-creation. Next, the models in the three other categories
are discussed in order.
0 Joint
space of
1 Co-
2 Co-
3 Co-
Only SciVerse Scopus (31)
Only Google Images (29)
This category includes the models of: Andreu et al. (2010), Edvardsson et al. (2011),
Grönroos (2012, 2013), Laamanen & Skålé (2015), Payne et al. (2007), Prahalad &
Ramaswamy (2004, p.), Ramaswamy (2008), Ramaswamy & Ozcan (2015), Skarzauskaite
(2013) and Vargo et al. (2008).
The 11 models in the category of ‘joint space of creation’ represent two entities and an
overlapping space or a space in between the two entities where creation can take place
between these two entities: co-creation. These models show an often simplified
representation of co-creation with a value input and output for both parties. The derivative
meta-model can be found in Figure 2.
This category includes the models of: Customer-Insight (2010), Galvano & Dalli (2014), Lin
(2012), Kosaka et al. (2012), Ojasalo & Keranen (2013), Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004),
ServDes. 2016
Fifth Service Design and Innovation conference
Ramaswamy (2008), Sanders & Stappers (2008); Coates (2010), Roser et al. (2008) and
Wulfsberg et al. (2010).
The co-creation spectrum gives an overview of models that place co-creation in the field of
other similar or overlapping approaches / methodologies (ref). It shows that co-creation
overlaps with other movements and terms such as open innovation and participatory design.
There are two main movements to be seen: (1) co-creation as an open innovation movement
and (2) co-creation as a participatory design method. The first movement also includes low
levels of collaboration with limited influence on the design or output. The results also show
models that place co-creating value opposite to more traditional business models. Traditional
business models are often seen as models with no collaboration and therefore no customer
influence on the output. The derivative meta-model can be found in Figure 3.
This category includes the models of: Bartl (2009), Fronteer Strategy (2009), Frow et al.
(2015), Kang (2014), Kukkuru (2011), Muscroft (2011), Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004),
Quintarelli (2010), Rihova et al. (2013), SALES 20|20 (2013), Sawhney et al. (2005), Sense
Worldwide (2009), Thorsten et al. (2013) and Vernette & Hamdi (2013).
These models identify different types or levels of co-creation. The types are often defined by
a set of criteria or a set of axes. From the 11 analysed models, three general criteria can be
derived to identify the types of co-creation:
» (1) The moment the co-creation takes place: at the beginning, middle or end of the
design or innovation process, or even in use phase.
» (2) The amount of direct benefit or change is there for the co-creating end-user.
» (3) The level of collaboration between the two parties.
These three criteria result in different types of co-creation. The Fresh Network (from the
business perspective) and Payne et al. (from the scientific perspective) describe the different
types of co-creation in a comprehensive way. Both describe a scale with five types of co-
creation that one can adopt (Payne et al., 2007; the Freshnetwork, 2009) but these are not
the same five types. Payne et al. consider personalized advertising on the lower end of the
co-creation scale and the Fresh Network distinguishes a last type on the co-creation scale
where consumers take over the design process. In the middle of the scale, the types are more
or less corresponding. Overall, from all models, five main types have been identified. The
five types and the three criteria are depicted in the meta-model in Figure 4.
» (1) Personal offering
» (2) Real-time self service
» (3) Mass-customization
» (4) Co-design
» (5) Community design
This category includes the models of: 90:10 (2010), Aarikka-Stenroos & Jaakkola (2012),
Castro-Martinez & Jackson (2015), Farrow Partnership (2010), Fronteer Strategy (2009),
Grönroos (2012) Grönroos & Voima (2013), IDEO (2011), Lambert & Enz (2012), Muente-
Kunigami (2013), Nagaoka & Kosaka (2012) and Sanna et al. (2012).
ServDes. 2016
Fifth Service Design and Innovation conference
The models in this last category all establish certain steps to take in a co-creation process.
They mostly include four to six steps. One can argue whether co-creation is a method, or an
approach but no consensus exists. A method is a combination of tools, tool-kits, techniques
and/or games that are strategically put together to address defined goals. The field of design
mostly uses co-creation as a method. An approach describes the overall mindset needed to
conduct process. Various fields use co-creation as an approach. Because no consensus exists,
the meta-model includes both the design method and innovation approach view on co-
creation in Figure 5.
It can be concluded, from the analysis of the 50 models of co-creation, that indeed there are
still various views on co-creation and its boundaries. The conclusion that Rosen et al. (2009),
among others, drew about a lack of clarity and uniformity of co-creation can be confirmed.
The current views on co-creation differ most in that some see it as an open innovation
movement and others as a participatory design method. This shows clearly in the meta-
model of the ‘spectrum of co-creation’ but it also shows in the other three meta-models. In
meta-model 2, ‘ the types of co-creation’, it shows that some view co-creation as a set of
different ways of creating with the customer and others view co-creation as a step in a design
process that involves the customer. In all 4 meta-models, an attempt is made at
incorporating both views. It is hoped that the meta-models can form a framework to classify
existing research as well as define boundaries for upcoming projects. In the future, this
should all contribute to the clarity, understanding and application of co-creation. Therefore,
the models are once more repeated in Figure 6 all together.
The differences aside, this article concludes with a definition of co-creation that applies on
both the general view and the specific view, as well as the open-innovation and design
perspective. This tentative definition is based on all articles cited but mostly on the works of
Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004), LSE Enterprise (2009), and Sanders & Stappers (2008).
Co-creation is the process of mutual firm-customer value creation. This facilitated (creative) process
generates an active form of interaction and sharing between firm and end consumer, instead of the
active firm, passive consumer interaction. One of the results of co-creation is that the contact between
firm and customer moves away from transactional and becomes an experience.
ServDes. 2016
Fifth Service Design and Innovation conference
Auh, S., Bell, S., McLeod, C., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty in
financial services. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 359-370.
Badke-schaub, P. et al. (2005). Human-Centered Design Methodology. Proceedings from Design
Research in the Netherlands 2005. pp. 2332.
Bettencourt, L. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service
delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383-406.
Brown, T. & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation
Review (Winter) pp.2935.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), pp.8492, 141.
Czepiel, John A. (1990). Managing Relationships with Customers: A Differentiation
Philosophy of Marketing. In Service Management Effectiveness, D. E. Bowen, R. B. Chase, and
T. G. Cummings, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 299-323.
Dong, B., Evans, K., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in co-created
service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 123-137.
Ehn, P. (2008) Participation in Design Things. Proceedings from Participatory Design Conference,
Indiana University. US. 92-101.
File, K., Judd, B., & Prince, R. (1992). Interactive Marketing: The Influence of Participation
on Positive Word-of-Mouth and Referrals. Journal of Services Marketing, 6(4), 514.
Holloway, A., Kurniawan, S. (2010). Human-Centered Design Method for Serious Games: A
Bridge Across Disciplines. Proceedings from UCSC-SOE-10-36.
Jaworski, B., Kohli, A. (2006). Co-creating the Voice of the Customer The Service-Dominant Logic of
Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centred design. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 55(4), pp.587634.
Mattelmäki, T., Visser, F.S. (2011). Lost in CO-X, Proceedings from IASDR2011, the 4th World
Conference on Design Research.
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. (2007). Managing the co-creation of value. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 36, 8396. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V., (2000) Co-opting customer competence. Harvard
Business Review 78 (1)
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., (2004). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategic
Leadership 32, 39.
Roser, T., Samson, A., Humphreys, P., Cruz-Valdivieso, E., Humphreys, P., Cruz-Valdivieso,
E. (2009). Co-creation: New pathways to value [White paper]. Promise / LSE Enterprise,
Schrage, M. (1995). Customer relations. Harvard Business Review, 154156, (JulyAugust).
Song, Jae H. and Carl R. Adams (1993), Differentiation Through Customer Involvement in
Production or Delivery. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10 (2), 4-12.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F. (2008). Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 110.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and articles. Organization, 7(2), pp.225246.
Wierdsma, A. (2004). Balanceren tussen broosheid en maakbaarheid, co-creatie van
verandering. Filosofie in Bedrijf, 15(3).
0 Joint spaces of creation
Andreu, L., Sá Nchez, I., Mele, C. (2010). Value co-creation among retailers and consumers:
New insights into the furniture market. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 17, 241250.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service
exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 39,
327339. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0200-y
Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to
the future. J. Mark. Manag. 28, 15201534. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.737357
Grönroos, C., Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-
creation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41, 133150. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3
Laamanen, M., Skålé, P. (2015). Collectiveconflictual value co-creation: A strategic action
field approach. Mark. Theory 15, 381400. doi:10.1177/1470593114564905
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. (2007). Managing the co-creation of value. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 36, 8396. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18, 514. doi:10.1002/dir.20015
Ramaswamy, V. (2008). Co-creating value through customers’ experiences: the Nike case.
Strateg. Leadersh. 36, 914.
Ramaswamy, V., Ozcan, K. (2015). Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An
integrative framework and research implications. Int. J. Res. Mark.
Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign 4, 518. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
Skaržauskaitė, M. (2013). Measuring and managing value co-creation process: overview of
existing theoretical models. Soc. Technol. 3, 115129.
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P., Akaka, M.A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service
systems and service logic perspective. Eur. Manag. J. 26, 145152.
1 Spectrum of co-creation
Coates, N. (2010). Co-creation. Past. Present. Future. CCE 2010. Retrieved October 5, 2015,
Customer Insight (2010, 02). Co-creation. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
Galvagno, M., Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review.
Manag. Serv. Qual. 24, 643683.
Kosaka, M., Zhang, Q., Dong, W., Wang, J. (2012). Service value co-creation model
considering experience based on service field concept. Proceedings from IEEE 2012.
Lin, M. (2012). Definition: Customization. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
Ojasalo, K., & Keränen, K. (2013). What is Co-Creation? Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
ServDes. 2016
Fifth Service Design and Innovation conference
Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). 11 Strategy as Discovery. In The Future of Competition
(p. 200). Boston, Massachusettes: Harvard Business School press.
Ramaswamy, V. (2008). Co-creating value through customers’ experiences: the Nike case.
Strateg. Leadersh. 36, 914.
Roser, Th., Samson, A., Humphreys, P., Cruz-Valdivieso, E. (2008). Co-creation: New pathways
to value. An overview [white paper]. (2008). Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign 4, 518. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
Wulfsberg, J.P., Redlich, T., Bruhns, F.-L. (2010). Open production: scientific foundation for
co-creative product realization. Prod. Eng. 5 (p.5). doi:10.1007/s11740-010-0286-6
2 Types of co-creation
Bartl, M. (2009, 12) Co-creation 360. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
Fronteer Strategy (2009). Co-creation’s 5 guiding principles [white paper]. Retrieved October 5,
2015, from
Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing Co-creation Design: A
Strategic Approach to Innovation. Br. J. Manag. 26, 463483. doi:10.1111/1467-
Kang, J.-Y.M., 2014. Repurchase loyalty for customer social co-creation e-marketplaces. J.
Fash. Manag. 18.
Kukkuru, M. (2011, 12, 20). Co-creation Is Today's Most Accepted Model For Innovation. Retrieved
October 5, 2015, from
Muscroft, J. (2011, 04, 22). Co-Creating Brands & the Co-Creation Process. Retrieved October 5,
2015, from
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18, 514. doi:10.1002/dir.20015
Quintarelli, E. (2010). Enterprise 2.0 Pilots. Yes or No? It depends. Retrieved October 5, 2015,
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., Gouthro, M.B. (2013). Journal of Service Management
Social layers of customer-to-customer value co-creation. J. Serv. Manag. 24, 553566.
Rodes, M. (2008, 08, 26). THE CO-CREATION SPECTRUM. Retrieved October 5, 2015,
Roser, Th., Samson, A., Humphreys, P., Cruz-Valdivieso, E. (2008). Co-creation: New pathways
to value. An overview [white paper]. (2008). Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
SALES 20|20 (2014, 05, 31). How to move from value based selling to value co-creation with customers?
Retrieved October 5, 2015 from
Sawhney, M., Verona, G., Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The Internet as a
platform for customer engagement in product innovation. J. Interact. Mark. 19, 417.
Sense Worldwide (2009). The Spirit of Co-creation, risk-Managed Creativity for Business [white
paper]. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
Thorsten, R., DeFillippi, R., Samson, A. (2013). Managing your co-creation mix: co-creation
ventures in distinctive contexts. Eur. Bus. Rev. 25, 2041.
Vernette, E., Hamdi, L. (2013). Co-creation with customers: who has the competence and
wants to cooperate, International Journal of Market Research, 55, 4, 539-561
3 Steps of co-creation
90:10 (2010, 03, 31). Co-creation is more than just a philosophy! Retrieved October 5, 2015 from
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Jaakkola, E. (2012). Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business
services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process. Ind. Mark. Manag. 41,
1526. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.11.008
Castro-Martinez, M.P., Jackson, P.R. (2015). Collaborative value co-creation in community
sports trusts at football clubs. Corp. Gov. 15, 229242.
Farrow Partnership (2010, 03, 03). Funnels, Tunnels, Liquid Arrows? Retrieved October 5, 2015
Fronteer Strategy (2009). Co-creation’s 5 guiding principles [white paper]. Retrieved October 5,
2015, from
Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to
the future. J. Mark. Manag. 28, 15201534. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.737357
Grönroos, C., Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-
creation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41, 133150. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3
IDEO (2011). Human Centred Design Toolkit, 2nd edition (P.8-9). Retrieved October 5, 2015,
Lambert, D.M., Enz, M.G. (2012). Managing and measuring value co-creation in business-to-
business relationships. J. Mark. Manag. 28, 15881625.
Muente-Kunigami, A. (2013). Co-Creation of Government Services. Retrieved October 5, 2015,
from World Bank:
Nagaoka, H., Kosaka, M. (2012). Management Method and Technology for Value Co-
creation Model KIKI Model. Proceedings from IEEE 3.
Sanna, A., Vinci, S., Bellini, S. (2012) City of the Future living labs. What we do. Retrieved
October 5, 2015, from
... In particular, Ramaswamy (2000, 2004) have devised the concept 'value co-creation' to position consumers as users, a lens that orients the design, production, and marketing of products and services around people's preferences, values, and needs. Value co-creation, then, results from the purposeful engagement of customers desiring to improve how a product or service is experienced by the user (De Koning, Crul, & Wever, 2016). Under this view, consumers are transformed into active contributors, or co-creators, who cultivate value in a product or service, so that they can exploit it (Brandsen, Steen, & Verschuere, 2018;Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008), and which is associated with a service-dominant logic (in contrast to a goods dominant logic) (cf. ...
... Co-creation vis-à-vis the conceptualisation of and deployment in design principles encompasses a multitude of definitions posited across disciplines, such as co-design, participatory design and open innovation. For instance, De Koning et al. (2016) provide an analysis of 50 co-creation methods and definitions, presenting a comprehensive analysis of this concept. The result of this work clearly shows that while co-creation has been linked to several applications, a complete and coherent framework is still lacking (De Koning et al., 2016). ...
... For instance, De Koning et al. (2016) provide an analysis of 50 co-creation methods and definitions, presenting a comprehensive analysis of this concept. The result of this work clearly shows that while co-creation has been linked to several applications, a complete and coherent framework is still lacking (De Koning et al., 2016). But it is possible to find common features across co-creation methods. ...
... Co-creation aligns with participatory research 23 , engaging stakeholders in co-design or co-production approaches 15 and enables those stakeholders to construct a shared agenda that facilitates a collective action, creating useful solutions. 18,24 de Koning et al. 25 , analysed and clustered 12 models of co-creation into a six-step continual research cycle. We used this framework to prototype the use of co-creation as an overarching concept that involves codesign and co-production ( Figure 1). ...
... Adapted from: de Koning et al.25 ...
Full-text available
Collaboration between community members, researchers, and policy makers drives efforts to solve complex health problems such as obesity, alcohol misuse, and type 2 diabetes. Community participation is essential to ensure the optimal design, implementation and evaluation of resulting initiatives. The terms ‘co-creation’, ‘co-design’ and ‘co-production’ have been used interchangeably to describe the development of initiatives involving multiple stakeholders. While commonalities exist across these concepts, they have essential distinctions for public health, particularly related to the role of stakeholders and the extent and timing of their engagement. We summarise these similarities and differences drawing from the cross-disciplinary literature, including public administration and governance, service management, design, marketing and public health. Co-creation is an overarching guiding principle encompassing co-design and co-production. A clear definition of these terms clarifies aspects of participatory action research for community-based public health initiatives.
... However, co-creation is a multi-disciplinary concept with origins in several different disciplines and is also applied in many different areas, e.g., in design (Sanders and Stappers, 2008), participatory design (Kaulio, 1998), innovation (Franke andPiller, 2004;Piller, Ihl and Vossen, 2011), social innovation (Voorberg et al., 2015), management and marketing (Grönroos, 2012;Grönroos andVoima, 2013), urban planning (Schaban Maurer, 2013), and public services (Itten et al., 2020) among others. It also connotes many ideas, approaches, tools, and methods (De Koning, Crul, and Wever, 2016). There is a lack of clarity and uniformity in definitions, and research on co-creation is rarely based on strong theory (see De Koning, Crul, and Wever, 2016;Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2015). ...
... It also connotes many ideas, approaches, tools, and methods (De Koning, Crul, and Wever, 2016). There is a lack of clarity and uniformity in definitions, and research on co-creation is rarely based on strong theory (see De Koning, Crul, and Wever, 2016;Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2015). ...
Full-text available
Any separation between technology and society can be claimed to be artificial. Technological material systems are intertwined with human everyday life practices and ways of living, values, and belief systems. When we design and develop new technological systems, we are also designing opportunities for new daily living practices to emerge. The involvement of people for whom new sustainable systems are intended, and who will be using and consuming the novel systems, is therefore crucial for industry and societies aspiring to reduce carbon emissions, energy use, and overconsumption of material resources. People are not just a resource for design, nor are they merely users or consumers of technology. Rather, they are knowing and changing subjects with complex everyday lives, who can (re)format the existing unsustainable systems towards sustainable ones in multiple ways and through multiple identities and roles. People are co-creators in the modes of living and the technological systems supporting them. This dissertation is about co-creation, a design and development approach that seeks to share the design authorship of sustainability and drive collective transition. The purpose of this inquiry is to study how multiple actors can co-creatively design and develop sustainable systems, and the potential of the outcomes to support transition. The context of the study is primarily transportation systems as socially-critical systems supporting everyday living. Socially-critical systems imply those products, services, and technologies upon which human everyday life activities depend. The study takes an interdisciplinary perspective by bridging participatory, democratic, and inclusive design approaches and innovation studies to develop theory towards co-creation of new sustainable systems. Six individual papers are appended presenting empirical results from three research cases set up as living laboratories in real living and working environments, involving multiple private and public actors. A mixed-method research approach using both qualitative and quantitative methods has been employed to gather and analyse empirical data. Six main findings are discussed: 1) The form of involvement defines who co-creates new sustainable systems; 2) Both users and non-users contribute to co-creating new sustainable systems at various intensities; 3) Users are driven by similar concerns as developers to co-create new sustainable systems; 4) Common design language aligns co-creation process and actors; 5) Co-creation generates learning and strategic direction; and 6) Co-creation immerses people in behavioural changes by exposing them to the possibilities for change. Based on the findings, three main conclusions are drawn: first, that people can be involved in new systems in various ways whether or not they are users of the system. Through their use or non-use practices, people can give direction to new sustainable systems, and through every involved or uninvolved person, a new system is affected both positively and negatively; thus, both users and non-users co-create sustainable systems. This thesis finds that involvement in co-creation is neither binary nor a one- time occurrence. Rather, it is a spectrum of varying intensities regarding how individuals immerse themselves in and throughout a process. The second conclusion is that co-creation generates multi-dimensional learning and strategic direction for all involved parties. In addition, it immerses people in behavioural changes by exposing them to possibilities for change, thus building trust in new energy-efficient and carbon-reducing alternatives, validating the logistical workability of new sustainable systems and its true impacts, and stimulating further engagement in new sustainable system development. Thirdly, the co- creation approach is still new in practice and proves challenging from a managerial standpoint when common visions and objectives are not sufficient to align stakeholders. The results suggest that common design language, which uses both cognitive and physical tools to facilitate co- creation among users and stakeholders, supports co-creation by aligning both actors and the process. Finally, this thesis provides empirical support that people can be meaningfully involved in creating opportunities and possibilities for change, which challenge the present mechanisms used to influence societal behavioural changes, e.g. incentives and nudging. It suggests that design can foster the presence of people for whom the designed systems are intended, and do so in places where they are contextualised, e.g., installation of proto-designs in real living/working environments. Through involvement of diverse users and non-users, co-creation shows to be quite necessary not only to develop new transport systems, but also to increase the accessibility of sustainable transport innovations. Increased involvement in design and development of new systems could serve to delegitimise participation in the old systems.
... Nonostante sia raramente adottato, l'approccio co-creativo alle decisioni pubbliche è una forma di partecipazione in cui, attraverso l'utilizzo di metodi creativi, viene enfatizzata sia l'innovazione, sia l'elevato e costante coinvolgimento dei cittadini e di qualsiasi altro stakeholder in tutti gli step del processo decisionale (Pappers et al., 2020). Fig. 2 Step del processo di co-creazione, come approccio e come metodo di progettazione (adattata da De Koning et al., 2016) Storicamente la co-creazione fonda le sue radici nel settore dell'industria: il cliente, direttamente coinvolto nello sviluppo di un nuovo prodotto, grazie all'interazione attiva con l'azienda, viveva un'esperienza anziché una mera transazione, generando quindi valore sia per sé stesso, che per l'azienda (basti pensare alla riduzione dei costi di marketing o di ricerca e sviluppo). Con il passare del tempo, è stato riprodotto lo stesso approccio in altri settori, con le opportune modifiche per adattarlo al contesto specifico. ...
This chapter is part of the Annual Report of the Italian Society for Transport Policy. It includes a review of methods and tecnique for Stakeholder engagement in transport and mobility sector, and a state of the art of the legislation in Italy.
... Co-creation is an approach that emerged from participatory design practice, with a focus on generating ideas with users as partners rather than subjects/participants [33]. The past two decades have seen an increase in co-creation within many fields, which has led to variations of definition [33,34]. Figure 1 presents the definition of co-creation that the article will use, which seeks to assist in translating new knowledge into healthcare practice [35]. ...
Full-text available
People who either use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have used services provided by a prosthetic rehabilitation centre, hereafter called users, are yet to benefit from the fast-paced growth in academic knowledge within the field of upper limb prosthetics. Crucially over the past decade, research has acknowledged the limitations of conducting laboratory-based studies for clinical translation. This has led to an increase, albeit rather small, in trials that gather real-world user data. Multi-stakeholder collaboration is critical within such trials, especially between researchers, users, and clinicians, as well as policy makers, charity representatives, and industry specialists. This paper presents a co-creation model that enables researchers to collaborate with multiple stakeholders, including users, throughout the duration of a study. This approach can lead to a transition in defining the roles of stakeholders, such as users, from participants to co-researchers. This presents a scenario whereby the boundaries between research and participation become blurred and ethical considerations may become complex. However, the time and resources that are required to conduct co-creation within academia can lead to greater impact and benefit the people that the research aims to serve.
... These scholars propose that both producers and consumers work to create value [48], suggesting a third approach to value. Vargo and Lusch propose that rather than viewing value as created by a single actor, value is created as the joint integration of resources by the multiple actors associated with an exchange [49]. What we interpret from these formulations is that to co-create value with the external world, the firms' boundaries must be porous enough to facilitate the exchange of ideas, concepts, or prototypes, whether it is an outside-in or inside-out exchange. ...
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to synthesize the widely used theories about co-creation from two main perspectives: co-creation as an innovation process and co-creation as a design process applied to the service concept design in the built environment context. The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry do not have much application of end-user-oriented service design in general, especially with intensive co-creation processes. To facilitate such a process, we are using a living lab environment as a laboratorial model of the real built environment, but with the opportunity to have access to the end-users and different types of stakeholders. Using the KTH Live-in-Lab explorative case study, we were able to discuss the concept of co-creation by distinguishing between co-creation as innovation and co-creation as a design process, facilitating the process of co-creation of service concepts for the proposed built environment including methods from both perspectives: innovation and design, and evaluating the process of service concepts co-creation for the built environment from the point of innovation, knowledge transfer, sustainability, and user experience.
... According to De Koning et al. [15] and Faliu et al. [16], co-design consists of the collaboration of all stakeholders in a project that reflects decisions taken together. These authors argue that in a participatory process, there are several steps needed from the provision of information, to the development of ideas and requirements within all stakeholders. ...
In this paper we present and assess tools for visualizing architectonic modifications of existing housing in co-design projects with inhabitants. These tools should enable inhabitants to explore and understand design variations of alterations of their houses. This contribution is part of ongoing research on the use of artificial realities for supporting the transformations of existing housing in architectonically responsible ways. Such transformations may be needed after the delivery of housing, say after five years or later, due to changed regulation, the need of updates or changed living conditions of inhabitants. For arriving at architectonically responsible transformations, we use shape grammar system for defining possible modifications of the housing. For empowering inhabitants to understand and explore these modifications to their housing, we develop a transformation grammar tool—MyChanges—to visualize the modifications by three visualization modes, from fully immersive to non-immersive. Interviews and tests with real inhabitants were performed, and preliminary conclusions show that a tool like the MyChanges would have a good acceptance among inhabitants.
Full-text available
People who either use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have used services provided by a prosthetic rehabilitation centre, experience limitations of currently available prosthetic devices. Collaboration between academia and a broad range of stakeholders, can lead to the development of solutions that address peoples' needs. By doing so, the rate of prosthetic device abandonment can decrease. Co-creation is an approach that can enable collaboration of this nature to occur throughout the research process. We present findings of a co-creation project that gained user perspectives from a user survey, and a subsequent workshop involving: people who use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have experienced care services (users), academics, industry experts, charity executives, and clinicians. The survey invited users to prioritise six themes, which academia, clinicians, and industry should focus on over the next decade. The prioritisation of the themes concluded in the following order, with the first as the most important: function, psychology, aesthetics, clinical service, collaboration, and media. Within five multi-stakeholder groups, the workshop participants discussed challenges and collaborative opportunities for each theme. Workshop groups prioritised the themes based on their discussions, to highlight opportunities for further development. Two groups chose function, one group chose clinical service, one group chose collaboration, and another group chose media. The identified opportunities are presented within the context of the prioritised themes, including the importance of transparent information flow between all stakeholders; user involvement throughout research studies; and routes to informing healthcare policy through collaboration. As the field of upper limb prosthetics moves toward in-home research, we present co-creation as an approach that can facilitate user involvement throughout the duration of such studies.
A kölcsönös értékteremtés a vállalat és a fogyasztó közötti interakcióban nyilvánul meg. Jelen kutatás a szolgáltatáspiacon megvalósuló fogyasztói döntéshozatal vizsgálatát mutatja be, megvilágítva az igénybe vevői preferenciákban megjelenő kölcsönös értékteremtési tartalmat. A kutatás két területen vizsgálódott. Az egyik a szolgáltatásválasztási információgyűjtés és mérlegelés szakaszában megjelenő fontos szempontok, fókuszban a turisztika szolgáltatástermékeivel. A kutatás fókuszcsoportos interjúkon alapul, ahol az átiratok összefüggéseit szövegelemző szoftver segítségével tárták fel. A vizsgálat során kitűnt, hogy a kölcsönös értékteremtéshez kapcsolódó fogalmak előfordulása figyelemre méltó. A szövegben kirajzolódó kódstruktúra alapján a kölcsönös értékteremtéshez fűződő következő igénybe vevői elvárások társíthatók: kommunikáció, értékajánlat, elérhetőség, rugalmasság és élmény. Ezeken túl a komplexitás, továbbá a fogyasztók személyisége is hatással van az igénybe vevő elvárásaira. A kutatás eredményeit egy, a kölcsönös értékteremtési elvárások azonosítására javasolt modellbe építették be. A szolgáltatásmarketing elméletének nézőpontjából megállapítható, hogy a kölcsönös értékteremtés az adaptálás és az aktív ügyfélpolitika kombinációja, egyúttal a feltárt modell lehetőséget teremt a minőségmenedzsment fejlesztésére.
Full-text available
The COVID‐19 pandemic has forced organizations and employees worldwide to drastically rethink their way of working. While drastic process changes normally tend to fail or are challenged by employee resistance, the COVID‐19 pandemic has reduced this impediment so that organizations actually experience how alternative (i.e., more simple and digitalized) working alternatives can look like. This opinion paper calls for more business process management (BPM) ambidexterity in organizations, so that the alternatives experienced during COVID‐19 can be evaluated and remain after the pandemic. For this purpose, a BPM tree is proposed to outweigh incremental process improvements from more radical ones, in order for organizations to exploit good practices but also to better explore emerging opportunities.
Full-text available
Since the introductory article for what has become known as the “service-dominant (S-D) logic of marketing,” “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” was published in the Journal of Marketing (Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a)), there has been considerable discussion and elaboration of its specifics. This article highlights and clarifies the salient issues associated with S-D logic and updates the original foundational premises (FPs) and adds an FP. Directions for future work are also discussed. KeywordsService-dominant logic-New-dominant logic-Service
Full-text available
Co-creation offers firms and their network of actors significant opportunities for innovation, as each actor offers access to new resources through a process of resource integration. However, despite the significant advantages that co-creation can offer, there is surprisingly little research providing a strategic approach for identifying the most advantageous co-creation opportunities, especially when many possible options are available. Recently, scholars have called for research that develops tools and processes related to co-creation. This study addresses these priorities, making two contributions. First, in contrast to previous work considering co-creation more generally, or focusing on one specific form only, e.g. co-production, this paper offers a detailed and granular approach to co-creation design. A co-creation design framework is developed, which incorporates multiple design dimensions and categories that can reveal new co-creation opportunities. Second, the research extends the application of a design approach, specifically within the context of co-creative activities. The authors use field-based research with senior executives to develop a framework that includes key co-creation design elements. A morphological approach is used to explore how a lead firm can identify attractive co-creation opportunities. An innovation solution in one organization provides an illustration of how the co-creation design framework can be applied.
Full-text available
Purpose — the article is to provide a holistic view on concept of value co-creation and existing models for measuring and managing it by conducting theoretical analysis of scientific literature sources targeting the integration of various approaches. Most important and relevant results of the literature study are presented with a focus on changed roles of organizations and consumers. This article aims at contributing theoretically to the research stream of measuring co-creation of value in order to gain knowledge for improvement of organizational performance and enabling new and innovative means of value creation. Design/methodology/approach. The nature of this research is exploratory – theoretical analysis and synthesis of scientific literature sources targeting the integration of various approaches was performed. This approach was chosen due to the absence of established theory on models of co-creation, possible uses in organizations and systematic overview of tools measuring/suggesting how to measure co-creation. Findings. While the principles of managing and measuring co-creation in regards of consumer motivation and involvement are widely researched, little attempt has been made to identify critical factors and create models dealing with organizational capabilities and managerial implications of value co-creation. Systematic analysis of literature revealed a gap not only in empirical research concerning organization’s role in co-creation process, but in theoretical and conceptual levels, too. Research limitations/implications. The limitations of this work as a literature review lies in its nature – the complete reliance on previously published research papers and the availability of these studies. For a deeper understanding of co-creation management and for developing models that can be used in real-life organizations, a broader theoretical, as well as empirical, research is necessary. Practical implications. Analysis of the literature revealed limited existence of conceptual and, even more importantly, empirically tested models for managing co-creation. With importance of rising customers input, it is crucial to find ways of managing co-creation. This article can be considered as an initial phase into building conceptual model for measuring co-creation Originality/Value. Even though co-creation of value with customers is a widely discussed topic in scientific world, little attempt has been made to find means for organizations to influence and manage customer’s involvement. This work aims at reviewing existing models in order to present empirically tested model based on past research. Research type: literature review.
Full-text available
Drawing on the theory of strategic action fields, this article explores a collective–conflictual perspective on value co-creation. Following recent developments and calls for research with a holistic outlook, we review streams of research that discuss both collective and discordant elements in social relations and subsequently relate this to value co-creation. We outline a conceptual framework for value co-creation, focusing on collective action that includes various actors, interactions, practices, and outcomes. This article pioneers the underdeveloped collective–conflictual perspective on value co-creation. Our framework enables empirical research in value co-creation that accounts for multiple actors nested in fields of collective action.
We present an integrative framework of brand value co-creation with theoretical underpinnings in joint agencial experiencial creation of brand value. Central to this framework are brand engagement platforms entailing both relational activities and offerings, at the intersection of joint agency of experiencial co-creators (whether in their role as customers, employees, partners, or any other stakeholder) and co-creational enterprises as organizing the practice of brand value co-creation (whether in their role as innovating or marketing offerings, or managing network relations). Using two illustrative examples of Starbucks and Apple, we discuss how brand value co-creation is enacted through brand engagement platforms, embodied in brand experience domains, and emergent from brand capability ecosystems, valorizing outcomes with stakeholding individuals. Subsequently, using another illustrative example of Nike, we discuss the concept of co-creational enterprises as a nexus of co-creational platforms of engagements, and elaborate upon the organizational practice of brand value co-creation in a digitalized world. We conclude with several implications for future brand research.
Co-creation is a new discipline. In the sources we’ve reviewed, we’ve found a wealth of applications, but a lack of conceptual clarity. This report aims to disentangle some of the knots. We think this report is important because it stresses the value of co-creation as... 1 Creative: co-creation is a form of collaborative creativity, that’s initiated by firms to enable innovation with, rather than simply for their customers 2 A rich mix: co-creation draws on a combination of management and marketing approaches, the psychoanalytic tradition, and processes related to innovation, knowledge and 3 A facilitated process: co-creation thrives on fantasy, play and creativity, but the role of the facilitator or facilitating organisation is often overlooked 4 All about relationships: we stress the importance of focusing on the quality of the interactions between people rather than on technologies per se 5 A learning process: we need to intertwine knowledge and processes in an overall co-creation framework, rather than just enabling co-creativity, if we want to achieve wider organisational impact
Lead users and emergent nature consumers are two highly attractive targets for marketing co-creation. Based on a representative sample of the French population (n = 995), we show that the competence and engagement in co-creation of these two target groups are significantly greater than for other consumers. This result is encouraging for market research companies that face a growing reluctance of customer participation in marketing studies. In addition, we have normed the distribution of lead user and emergent nature consumer scores among the population. This results in specific reference points for naming customer data while at the same time making it easier to filter respondents for future co-creation initiatives.
Purpose-The purpose of this conceptual paper is to introduce a new governance model based on collaborative co-creation of value that leads to the strategic integration of football clubs and their community trusts. This paper also introduces a new process framework that can be instrumental to practitioners and can be operationalised by researchers. Design/methodology/approach-The paper is underpinned by social strategy literature, the service-dominant (S-D) logic framework of value co-creation, stakeholder thinking and the creating shared value (CSV) framework. The process framework is based on the P.A.S.C.A.L. (perception, analysis, synthesis, choice, action and learning) decision-making process introduced by Goodpaster (1991). Findings-Although the evidence that we have presented shows that some clubs are already applying some of the strategies that are part of our process framework, the paper highlights further opportunities particularly for clubs with less-developed social schemes. Research limitations/implications-This paper is a conceptual paper based on an ongoing multi-case study of four English Premier League clubs. The evidence we introduce is to bring our proposed process framework to life. As implications for future research, the process framework can be tested empirically. Future studies might also focus on how the international footprint of the community trusts influences their strategic integration with the rest of the club. Lastly, the leader plus team might be used as a new unit of analysis in future research. Practical implications-This conceptual paper can mitigate the separation fallacy that decouples social schemes from football and commercial objectives. Our process framework illustrates how stakeholder relationships are governed and lead to value creation. The strategies within the CSV framework are a roadmap for expanding social and economic value co-creation. Social implications-Our process framework for collaborative value co-creation can guide practitioners on how to develop and implement their social strategies. Originality/value-The originality of this paper is in the application of the S-D logic and the CSV framework to social strategies in football clubs and the introduction of a process framework that may be operationalised by researchers and applied by practitioners as they develop and implement their social strategies.