Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.2. Collaborative Practices
2.2.1. Co-creation
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
With reference towards the general definition of Cooperation and Collaboration as participating agents working towards common goals, different modes of operation are available for these two techno-social processes. From the definition of Cooperation, since the process does not extend beyond the common goal and is regarded as a collective action (Collinson 2004), thus, Cooperation would operate under the Collective Mode. However, from the definition of Collaboration, since Cooperation is a subset of Collaboration, and Collaboration accomplishes beyond the common goal, thus, Collaboration can operate under the Collective and/or Connective mode. For instance, the Stigmergic Collaboration model would suggest that the smaller collaboration nodes “Collects” information whilst the overall Collaborative process “Connects” the smaller collaboration nodes (Elliott 2006).
2.2. C OLLABORATIVE P RACTICES
2.2.1. Co-creation
Co-creation is the practice that focuses on collective development jointly executed by two or more participating agents such as individual and organizational stakeholders (Sanders and Simons 2009). It is a specific type of collaboration with the intent of achieving beyond the prospected joint goals (Sanders and Simons 2009) derived from mashing-up the words collaboration and creation (Sense Worldwide 2009). In other words, co-creation is a type of collaboration that focuses on creating and attaining values (Vargo and Lusch 2006) & (Payne, Storbacka et al. 2008). Since this type of collaboration reflects the nature of innovation, which seeks solutions that can satisfy prospect goals and generate values beyond original vision; thus, co-creation is a practice that reflects innovation through collaboration. There are at least three types of values associated with co-creation: monetary, use/experience and social (Sanders and Simons 2009). The three types of values and their relationship with co-creation are as follow and can be summarized in Table 2.1.:
‧
are created and attained beyond the intended and/or prospected joint goals of the two participating agents. The monetary value of co-creation usually strongly associated with business circles (Neumeier 2005). Co-creation that results in monetary value is driven by the objective to make money in new and more efficient ways, or in ways that provide sustainable revenues over longer periods of time. It is worth noting that co-creation for monetary value is a quantitative proposition based on relatively short-term needs (Sanders and Simons 2009). Further, co-creation associated with monetary value may not require direct contact between the collaborating agents because the conversation can be mediated by tools of information and communication. Experience Value
The Experience Value is the sense of satisfaction after consuming the results from achieving beyond the prospected joint goals of the two participating agents including products, services, brands and branded environments. It is the next practice in the co-creation in terms of value creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). It is not the results that can be directly reflected and translated to monetary values, but is the experience that can create such values (Bauwens 2007). Co-creation associated with experience value can be contacted directly or indirectly through various tools for communication (Sanders and Simons 2009).
Social Value
The Social Value of co-creation reflects on the aspirations for longer term, humanistic, and more sustainable ways of living beyond the prospected vision of the two participating agents. (Sanders and Simons 2009). It supports the exploration of open-ended social questions such as “how can we improve the quality of life?” (Sanders and Simons 2009). Co-creation of this type involves collective integration of experts and non-experts working
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
closely together. Direct contact between participating agents is necessary for this type of co-creation and empathy between co-creators is essential (Sanders and Simons 2009).
Table 2.3. Values associated with co-creation and their relationship with co-creation(Sanders and Simons 2009)
There are 4 types of Co-creation defined over two central dimensions:
openness and ownership (Pater 2009). Openness refers to the restriction and selection criterion for prospect participating agents to join in; ownership refers to the possession of the co-creation result. As show in Figure 2.2., the two central dimensions will divide into four quadrants and translate to 4 types of co-creation. In the figure, initiator is defined to be the participating agent that instigated the co-creation opportunity, whereas the contributor is the participating agent that joined with the initiator to commence the co-creation activities. However, it is worth noting the participating agents could possibly share a producer-consumer relationship, thus, the practice of Co-creation can blur the distinction between the producer and the consumer (Humphreys and Grayson 2008).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
Figure 2.4.: The 4 Types of Co-creation (Pater 2009)
Regardless of the type of Co-creation, it can be initiated through a few routine steps (Pater 2009). The first step is to inspire participation, which encourages and invites other agents to participate hence commence the co-creation process. The second step is selecting the suitable participating agents for the co-creation process.
The third step is to connect and bond the participating agents to maximize the co-creation results. Fourth, after the co-creation result is collected, then, the results would be shared to the participating agents or more stakeholders depending on the type of co-creation. Lastly, the co-creation process needs to be continued. The steps can be summarized in Figure 2.3. There are several practical models that resonate with the 4 types of co-creation and partly reflect the guiding principles of co-creation as shown in Table 2.2.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
Figure 7.3.: Summarized Guiding Principles of Co-creation (Pater 2009)
It is worth noting that co-production is not the same practice as co-creation, rather, it is a subset of co-creation (Frow and Payne 2012). Co-production is the distribution and acceptance of tasks. The common goal in co-production is reached via the process where the initiating agent sets the goal, then, the contributing agent accepts the goal (Vargo and Lusch 2008). It is not the same common goal setting process as co-creation, where the initiating agent and the contributing agent could set the common goal together (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). From the 4-types of co-creation, although not always, the quadrants indicating that the ownership of the result only belongs to the initiator, usually reflects the co-production practice (Plé and Chumpitaz 2009). Co-production does not resonate with the collaborative behavior that Co-creation has. In essence, co-production resonant more with co-operation since it does not extend beyond the mutual goal, hence not creating any values (Plé and Chumpitaz 2009). By the same token, practices such as co-design, co-promotion, co-pricing, co-distribution, co-consumption, co-maintenance, co-outsourcing, co-disposal, co-experience, and co-meaning creation are also subsets of co-creation (Frow and Payne 2012).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
1. Large corporations who call for ideas by offering a one-off contest with prize money or a manufacturing run.
2. Consultancies or agencies who set up and facilitate the whole co-creation project to act as a bridge between a network of collaborators and a corporation.
3. Large corporations who call for agencies to submit ideas to then partner with or broker a deal.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
20
4. Large corporations who outsource briefs to communities that are fostered online.
5. Large corporations that host an online platform where individuals submit ideas or requests based on the brand, which that business can then select for development.
6. Large corporations who engage with a community of advocates to co-create on an ongoing basis.
Table 2.2.: Practical models that correspond to the 4 types of co-creation andreflect the guiding principles of co-creation (Sense Worldwide 2009)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
21