Models of Co-creation

Abstract

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.

Full text

Models of co-creation
Jotte I.J.C. De Koning, Marcel R.M. Crul, Renee Wever
Jottedekoning@gmail.com
TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
Abstract
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.
KEYWORDS: co-creation, service design, innovation, model, visual representation,
framework
Introduction
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
models.
266

ServDes. 2016
Fifth Service Design and Innovation conference
Literature
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,
2001).
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
267

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.
Method
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
268

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.
Results
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
images.
Figure'1'Models'organized'per'category'from'left'to'right'
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.
269

CO-CREATION MODELS
0 Joint
space of
creation
1 Co-
creation
spectrum
2 Co-
creation
types
3 Co-
creation
steps
Total
Only SciVerse Scopus (31)
11
4
7
6
28
Only Google Images (29)
0
7
9
6
22
Total
11
11
16
12
50
Table'1'Number'of'models'per'category'and'search'method'
!
The!joint!space!of!creation!
!
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.
Figure'2:'The'joint'space'of'creation'
The!spectrum!of!co2creation!!
!
This category includes the models of: Customer-Insight (2010), Galvano & Dalli (2014), Lin
(2012), Kosaka et al. (2012), Ojasalo & Keranen (2013), Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004),
270

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.
Figure'3:'The'spectrum'of'co?creation'
The!types!of!co2creation!!
!
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
271

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
Figure'4:'Five'types'of'co?creation''
The!steps!of!a!co2creation!process!
!
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).
272

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.
Figure'5:'The'steps'in'a'co?creation'process'
Conclusions
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).
273

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.
'
Figure'6:'The'4'meta?models'of'co?creation''
274

ServDes. 2016
Fifth Service Design and Innovation conference
References
Literature
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. 23–32.
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.29–35.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), pp.84–92, 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.587–634.
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, 83–96. 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, 3–9.
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,
London.
Schrage, M. (1995). Customer relations. Harvard Business Review, 154–156, (July–August).
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), 1–10.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and articles. Organization, 7(2), pp.225–246.
Wierdsma, A. (2004). Balanceren tussen broosheid en maakbaarheid, co-creatie van
verandering. Filosofie in Bedrijf, 15(3).
275

Models
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, 241–250.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.02.001
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,
327–339. 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, 1520–1534. 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, 133–150. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3
Laamanen, M., Skålé, P. (2015). Collective–conflictual value co-creation: A strategic action
field approach. Mark. Theory 15, 381–400. doi:10.1177/1470593114564905
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. (2007). Managing the co-creation of value. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 36, 83–96. 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, 5–14. doi:10.1002/dir.20015
Ramaswamy, V. (2008). Co-creating value through customers’ experiences: the Nike case.
Strateg. Leadersh. 36, 9–14.
Ramaswamy, V., Ozcan, K. (2015). Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An
integrative framework and research implications. Int. J. Res. Mark.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.07.001
Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign 4, 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
Skaržauskaitė, M. (2013). Measuring and managing value co-creation process: overview of
existing theoretical models. Soc. Technol. 3, 115–129.
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, 145–152.
doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003
1 Spectrum of co-creation
Coates, N. (2010). Co-creation. Past. Present. Future. CCE 2010. Retrieved October 5, 2015,
from http://www.slideshare.net/nickcoates/cocreation-past-present-future-cce-2010
Customer Insight (2010, 02). Co-creation. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
http://www.customer-insight.co.uk/sites/default/files/volume-7-issue-1---february-
2010_0.pdf
Galvagno, M., Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review.
Manag. Serv. Qual. 24, 643–683.
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
https://thesismusen2012.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/definition-customization/
Ojasalo, K., & Keränen, K. (2013). What is Co-Creation? Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
https://www.laurea.fi/en/projects/coco-tool-kit/coco-tool-kit-in-general/what-is-co-
creation
276

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, 9–14.
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
http://www.promisecorp.com/documents/COCREATION_REPORT.pdf
Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.
CoDesign 4, 5–18. 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
http://www.michaelbartl.com/article/co-creation-360/
Fronteer Strategy (2009). Co-creation’s 5 guiding principles [white paper]. Retrieved October 5,
2015, from http://www.fronteerstrategy.com/uploads/files/FS_Whitepaper1-Co-
creation_5_Guiding_Principles-April2009.pdf
Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing Co-creation Design: A
Strategic Approach to Innovation. Br. J. Manag. 26, 463–483. doi:10.1111/1467-
8551.12087
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 http://www.forbes.com/sites/infosys/2011/12/20/co-creation-
innovation-bte/
Muscroft, J. (2011, 04, 22). Co-Creating Brands & the Co-Creation Process. Retrieved October 5,
2015, from http://www.facegroup.com/blog/co-creating-brands-the-co-creation-
process/
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18, 5–14. doi:10.1002/dir.20015
Quintarelli, E. (2010). Enterprise 2.0 Pilots. Yes or No? It depends. Retrieved October 5, 2015,
from http://www.socialenterprise.it/en/index.php/2010/04/23/enterprise-2-0-pilots-
yes-or-no-it-depends/
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, 553–566.
Rodes, M. (2008, 08, 26). THE CO-CREATION SPECTRUM. Retrieved October 5, 2015,
from http://www.freshminds.net/2008/08/the-co-creation-spectrum/
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
http://www.promisecorp.com/documents/COCREATION_REPORT.pdf
SALES 20|20 (2014, 05, 31). How to move from value based selling to value co-creation with customers?
Retrieved October 5, 2015 from http://www.slideshare.net/SalesCubes/sales-cocreation-
35336385
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, 4–17.
doi:10.1002/dir.20046
Sense Worldwide (2009). The Spirit of Co-creation, risk-Managed Creativity for Business [white
paper]. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from https://senseworldwide.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/08/Sense-Worldwide-The-Spirit-of-Co-creation-whitepaper.pdf
277

Thorsten, R., DeFillippi, R., Samson, A. (2013). Managing your co-creation mix: co-creation
ventures in distinctive contexts. Eur. Bus. Rev. 25, 20–41.
doi:10.1108/09555341311287727
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
http://www.9010group.com/countries/9010-middle-east/co-creation-is-more-than-just-
a-philosophy
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,
15–26. 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, 229–242.
Farrow Partnership (2010, 03, 03). Funnels, Tunnels, Liquid Arrows? Retrieved October 5, 2015
from https://farrowpartnership.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/funnels-tunnels-liquid-
arrows/
Fronteer Strategy (2009). Co-creation’s 5 guiding principles [white paper]. Retrieved October 5,
2015, from http://www.fronteerstrategy.com/uploads/files/FS_Whitepaper1-Co-
creation_5_Guiding_Principles-April2009.pdf
Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to
the future. J. Mark. Manag. 28, 1520–1534. 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, 133–150. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3
IDEO (2011). Human Centred Design Toolkit, 2nd edition (P.8-9). Retrieved October 5, 2015,
from http://www.slideshare.net/akaplan716/ideo-hcd-toolkitfinalccsuperlr
Lambert, D.M., Enz, M.G. (2012). Managing and measuring value co-creation in business-to-
business relationships. J. Mark. Manag. 28, 1588–1625.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.736877
Muente-Kunigami, A. (2013). Co-Creation of Government Services. Retrieved October 5, 2015,
from World Bank: http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/co-creation-of-government-services
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 http://www.eservices4life.org/cityofthefuturelab/what-we-do/
278