Co-creation as a concept and process has been prominent in both marketing and design research over the past ten years. Referring respectively to the active collaboration of firms with their stakeholders in value creation, or to the participation of design users in the design research process, there has arguably been little common discourse between these academic disciplines. This article seeks to redress this deficiency by connecting marketing and design research together—and particularly the concepts of co-creation and co-design—to advance theory and broaden the scope of applied research into the topic. It does this by elaborating the notion of the pop-up store as temporary place of consumer/user engagement, to build common ground for theory and experimentation in terms of allowing marketers insight into what is meaningful to consumers and in terms of facilitating co-design. The article describes two case studies, which outline how this can occur and concludes by proposing principles and an agenda for future marketing/design pop-up research. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Overdiek A. & Warnaby G. (2020), "Co-creation and co-design in pop-up stores: the intersection of marketing and design research?", Creativity & Innovation Management, Vol. 29, Issue S1, pp. 63-74, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12373. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. LinkedIn: https://nl.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345
MULTIFILE
Co-creation in a quintuple helix, the art of including natural environments of society in a living lab that includes different types of stakeholders and monitoring the quality of this process of co-creation.In the last decade, co-creation has not only become a widely used concept in academic discourses but also in public policies that aim to tackle so called 'wicked problems', a term coined in the 1970s (Rittel & Webber, 1973) that is nowadays often interchangeably used with societal challenges or SDGs.This focus on tackling societal challenges by governments in collaboration with citizens opened the door for new concepts such as ‘living labs’ in 2006 (Rădulescu et al., 2022) ‘policy labs’, ‘innovation hubs’, ‘co-creation labs’ and recently ‘public sector innovation (PSI) labs’ (Fuglsang & Hansen, 2022; Hansen & Fuglsang, 2020; McGann et al., 2021; Torvinen & Jansson, 2022). The use of labs has also been addressed by the OECD in their publication on innovation in the public sector outlook to make policymakers aware of the importance of public sector innovation (OECD, 2015).Literature research in combination with questionnaires into these types of labs showed that the definitions of PSI labs are quite ‘fuzzy’, sometimes even interchangeable and are heavily dependent on the national, regional and local context as well (McGann et al., 2018). In addition, research also showed that it is difficult to distinguish good practices, let alone to define specific conditions for these good practices (Meister Broekema et al., 2022).In addition, an inductive analysis of a large number of EU policies shows that on a conceptual level, the EU uses specific interpretations of social innovation (Moulaert & MacCallum 2019) and co-creation in open innovation (‘Open Innovation 2.0’ 2013), influenced by the concept of triple- and quadruple helix innovation in which universities, governments and enterprises are collaborating, sometimes for the benefit of society as a whole (Carayannis & Campbell 2012; Leydesdorff 2010). Co-creation as such is used merely as a criterion within social innovation projects that aim to tackle societal challenges, therefore neglecting the quality of the process of co-creation (Meister Broekema et al. 2021).In order to maximise the impact of co-creation and be able to tackle societal challenges such as climate change, it is therefore essential to focus more on the quality of co-creation between 4 helixes in these processes and include the environment as a fifth helix (quintuple helix innovation as defined by Carayannis et. al. 2012). In the talk, a novel framework will be presented that will support collaborators in a project that aims to tackle a societal challenge by including the right stakeholders at the right time and monitor progress and satisfaction continuously (Meister Broekema 2023) in a quintuple helix setting.This presentation will contribute mostly to SDG 17 (partnership for the goals) and SDG4 (Quality Education) and is best suited for SDG13 (Climate Action).The insights can be used to enable multiple stakeholders from government, education and research, enterprises and citizens within a natural environment (mountains & oceans) to co-create in a quintuple helix setting, maximising their impact on climate change and strengthening partnerships for this goal.
DOCUMENT
In this study, we regard co-creation as a collaborative process where students, lecturers and working field professionals from outside the university jointly develop innovative products, processes or knowledge. In co-creation all stakeholders equally contribute to the collaborative process and aim to create beneficial outcomes for each participant. Co-creation can be used as a valuable pedagogical method to support continuous interaction between learning and working in higher education to foster innovation. However, this process is not necessarily mastered by co-creation groups. In order to identify which components of this collaboration process can be further improved, we developed a questionnaire to assess co-creation processes in higher education. Students, lecturers and working field professionals participating in co-creation projects completed the questionnaire. We validated the questionnaire using a principal component analysis. The seven extracted scales proved to be sufficiently reliable. The final questionnaire consists of seven components: positive interdependence, individual accountability, collaboration, shared mental models, safe and supporting conditions, creative community, and group evaluation. We described how the tool can be used in practice.
DOCUMENT
Citizens and urban policy makers are experimenting with collaborative ways to tackle wicked urban issues, such as today’s sustainability challenges. In this article, we consider one particular way of collaboration in an experimental setting: Urban Living Labs (ULLs). ULLs are understood as spatially embedded sites for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions by conducting local experiments. As such, ULLs are supposed to offer an arena for reflexive, adaptive, and multi-actor learning environments, where new practices of self-organization and novel (infra-) structures can be tested within their real-world context. Yet, it remains understudied how the co-creation of knowledge and practices actually takes place within ULLs, and how co-creation unfolds their impacts. Hence, this paper focuses on co-creation dynamics in urban living labs, its associated learning and knowledge generation, and how these possibly contribute to urban sustainability transitions. We analyzed empirical data from a series of in-depth interviews and were actively involved with ULLs in the Rotterdam-The Hague region in the Netherlands. Our findings show five distinct types of co-creation elements that relate to specific dynamics of participation, facilitation, and organization. We conclude with a discussion on the ambivalent role of contextualized knowledge and the implications for sustainability transitions.
LINK
Amsterdam Science Park (ASP) is a pearl in the crown of the Amsterdam knowledge economy, with its high-level research institutes (the Faculty of Science of the University of Amsterdam, several institutes of the NWO, the Dutch national science organisation) and a growing number of knowledge-based companies that reside in the multi-tenant Matrix buildings at the park. At ASP, the number of examples of co-creation is steadily growing. Larger tech firms (including Bosch and ASML) have located there and engage in deep collaboration with university institutes. Many more companies have expressed interest in collaborating with researchers located at ASP, not only in order to gain access to promising talent, but also to more extensively involve university researchers in their R&D processes. Another trend is the growth of science-based start-ups, now hosted at ASP’s Start-up Village: an appealing hotspot, made of sea containers. Players from business and university signal a rising need for new and more integrated concepts that facilitate collaborations between larger firms, start-ups and research groups. And also, the ASP management would like to see more co-creation. From its spatial and organisational design, the park is however characterised by a separation of activities: each faculty and institute operates its own building and facilities, with the firms hosted in the multitenant Matrix buildings. ASP is being developed along the lines of a masterplan based on strict zoning (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). This study explores how, and under what conditions further co-creation could be facilitated at ASP.
DOCUMENT
Summary Project objectives This study fits into a larger research project on logistics collaboration and outsourcing decisions. The final objective of this larger project is to analyze the logistics collaboration decision in more detail to identify thresholds in these decisions. To reach the overall objectives, the first step is to get a clearer picture on the chemical and logistics service providers industry, sectors of our study, and on logistics collaboration in these sectors. The results of this first phase are presented in this report. Project Approach The study consists of two parts: literature review and five case studies within the chemical industry. The literature covers three topics: logistics collaboration, logistics outsourcing and purchasing of logistics services. The five case studies are used to refine the theoretical findings of the literature review. Conclusions Main observations during the case studies can be summarized as follows: Most analyzed collaborative relationships between shippers and logistics service providers in the chemical industry are still focused on operational execution of logistics activities with a short term horizon. Supply management design and control are often retained by the shippers. Despite the time and cost intensive character of a logistics service buying process, shippers tendering on a very regular basis. The decision to start a new tender project should more often be based on an integral approach that includes all tender related costs. A lower frequency of tendering could create more stability in supply chains. Beside, it will give both, shippers and LSPs, the possibility to improve the quality of the remaining projects. Price is still a dominating decision criterion in selecting a LSP. This is not an issue as long as the comparison of costs is based on an integral approach, and when shippers balance the cost criterion within their total set of criteria for sourcing logistics services. At the shippers' side there is an increased awareness of the need of more solid collaboration with logistics service providers. Nevertheless, in many cases this increased awareness does not actually result in the required actions to establish more intensive collaboration. Over the last years the logistics service providers industry was characterized by low profit margins, strong fragmentation and price competition. Nowadays, the market for LSPs is changing, because of an increasing demand for logistics services. To benefit from this situation a more pro-active role of the service providers is required in building stronger relationships with their customers. They should pay more attention on mid and long term possibilities in a collaborative relation, in stead of only be focused on running the daily operation.
DOCUMENT
In the Netherlands, client and family participation in care for people with intellectual disabilities has been in vogue for a long time, and increasingly receives attention (KPMG and Vilans 2017). However, the perspective and experiential knowledge of service users and relatives is often still insuBiciently used for the co-creation of care. The professional perspective is often still dominant. In addition, professionals mainly focus on clients and less on relatives, even though relatives often play an important role in the client’s (quality of) life (Wiersma 2017). The project ‘Inclusive Collaboration in Disability Care’[1] (ICDC) focusses on enhancing equal communication between people with intellectual disabilities, their relatives, and professional caregivers, and hence contributes to redressing power imbalances in longterm care. It investigates the question: “How can the triangle of client, relative and professional caregiver together co-create better care and support?”.
DOCUMENT
This paper analyses co-creation in urban living labs through a multi-level network perspective on system innovation. We draw on the case House of Skills, a large, multi-stakeholder living lab aimed at developing a ‘skills-based’ approach towards labour market innovation within the Amsterdam Metropolitan Region. Ouranalysis helps understand stakeholder dynamics towards system innovation, drawing on an innovative living lab example and taking into consideration the multi-layered structures that comprise the collaboration. Our conceptual framework provides an important theoretical contribution to innovation studies and offers a practical repertoire that can help practitioners improve co-creation of shared value in living labs, towards orchestrating flexible structures that strengthen the impact of their initiatives.
LINK
Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers’ understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.
DOCUMENT
