• 沒有找到結果。

從共同創造到共同服務:以網際網路的脈絡為基礎之研究 - 政大學術集成

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "從共同創造到共同服務:以網際網路的脈絡為基礎之研究 - 政大學術集成"

Copied!
98
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)國立政治大學科技管理研究所 碩士論文. 從共同創造到共同服務:以網際網路的脈絡. 政 治 大 為基礎之研究. 立. ‧ 國. 學. (From Co-creation to Co-service: In the. ‧. Context of the World Wide Web). n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 指導教授:溫肇東 博士 研究生:許惟翔 撰. 中. 華 民 國 一. ○ I. 二. 年. 六. 月.

(2) 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. II. i n U. v.

(3) Acknowledgement This study would not have been possible without the strong support from many people. Special thanks to my adviser, Professor Jordan Wen, who relentlessly provide guidance, time and resource for this study despite his busy schedule. Also, many thanks to the interviewees Richard Brown, Brian Chang, Carson Chen, Cynthia Chyn and Shang-Sheng Jeng for the resources and time they have provided for this research. Thanks to my oral defense professors,. 政 治 大 on my thesis and helping me to complete a more coherent and complete thesis. 立. Professor Chong-Wey Lin and Professor Shiaw-Chun Shang for their comments. ‧ 國. 學. Thanks for my classmates from the Technology and Innovation Institute at NCCU for the personal supports throughout the duration of my Master’s study. Also. ‧. thanks to the professors at the Technology and Innovation Institute at NCCU for. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. y. their teaching that ultimately result and reflect on this research.. Ch. engchi. III. i n U. v.

(4) ABSTRACT Over the past two decades, the World Wide Web has become one of the most influential technologies that supported rapid progression and transformation in the economy and environment. New forms of collaborative practices from and support such rapid progression and transformation are constantly emerging on the World Wide Web. Co-creation is one of such collaborative practices that thrived with the support from the World Wide Web and have transformed the economy and environment. A new form of collaborative practices is emerging from the World Wide Web; however, there have not been many studies that focus on this new form of collaborative practice. This research has identified a new form of collaborative practice from an emerging concept of crowdservicing. Crowdservicing is regarded as the next evolutionary step to crowdsourcing, a mass application of co -creation on the World Wide Web. This research named this new form of collaborative practice co-service borrowing from the concept that service is the next step to creation. This research aims to establish an understand of co-service within the context of the World Wide Web by citing crowdsourcing, crowdservicing as possible reflections of co -creation and co-service on the World Wide Web. Mainly, this research aims to identify the distinguishing differences between co-creation and co-service as well as the transition procedure from co-creation to co-service. This research also aims to provide insights for managements and businesses regarding on this next possible evolutionary collaborative practice after co-creation. This research has found that co-creation and co-service can be distinguished through many characteristics including: collaboration purity, organization structure of participating agent, relationship between participating agents and the platform, value creation and consumption iteration, social and experience value creation emphasis, and recursive collective and connective collaboration iterations. This research also discovered that the key factor enabling the co -creation and co-service transition is enabling recursive iterations between collective and connective collaboration. Furthermore, the collaboration environment must enable communication channels that are both effective and transparent. Finally, a change from value creation to an iteration of value creation and consumption will enable a transition from co-creation to co-service since the incentive of more value will be present.. 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Keywords: Collaboration, Crowdsourcing, Crowdservicing, Co-creation.. I.

(5) 摘要 網際網路在過去二十年內成為了最具影響力的科技之一,並引發了快速的經濟 與環境的成長和轉變。新的協做行為不斷地從這樣的迅速的成長與轉變中出現並輔 住著這樣的成長與轉變。共同創造便是如此的協作方式之一。該協作行為藉由了網 際網路茁壯並轉變了經濟與環境。然而,一個新的協作行為正在網際網路中崛起, 但目前仍未有足夠的研究專注於研究該協作行為。 本研究從崛起中的群眾服務 (Crowdservicing) 模式中辨識出了這個新的協作 行為。 群眾服 務是被 認定 為是群 包(Crowdsourcing) 模式,一種藉 由共同 創造 (co-creation) 行為為基礎的協作模式,的下一個進化模式。本研究借取服務為創造 的下一個步驟來將這個新的協作行為命名為共創服務(co-service)。本研究將以網際. 政 治 大. 網路脈絡為基礎研究架構來建立對共同服務的認識,並將引用群眾服務與群包作為 共同創造與共同服務在網際網路上的反射。本研究將著重於找出共同創造與共同服 務的不同,也將找出從共同創造行為變遷到共同服務的行為的重要過程。此外,本. 立. ‧ 國. 學. 研究希望能透過對於共同創造行為可能的進化行為的研究提供管理階層與商業機構 對於協作行為上更多的認識。 本研究發現共同創造與共同服務可藉由許多性質上的不同作出辨別,當中包括:. ‧. 協作的純度、參與協作方的協作架構、協作方與協作方以及與平台之間的關係、價. sit. y. Nat. 值創造與消費的重覆 (iteration) 性、對於社交與經驗價值創造的注重性、以及集體 協作 (Collective Collaboration) 與連結協作 (Connection Collaboration) 之間遞迴. er. io. 的反覆性。本研究另外也發現從共同創造變遷到共同服務的關鍵因素為 (Collective Collaboration) 與連結協作 (Connection Collaboration) 之間遞迴反覆的可能性。不. n. al. i n U. v. 僅如此,協作的環境必須給協作方有效與透明的溝通橋樑。最後,從價值創造的轉 變到價值創造與消費之間的重覆將能讓共同創造行為轉變至共同服務行為因為更多. Ch. 價值將能夠提供更多的轉變動機。. engchi. 關鍵字:協作、眾包、群眾服務、共同創造. II.

(6) Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................................................... I 摘要.................................................................................................................................................................................. II List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................................V List of Tables............................................................................................................................................................. VI Chapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Research Motivation ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Research Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3. Research Question .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4. Research Flow.............................................................................................................................................. 7. 治 政 大 2.1 The Web as a Techno-Social System ................................................................................................ 8 立 2.1.1. Cognition................................................................................................................................................... 8. Chapter 2: Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 8. ‧ 國. 學. 2.1.2. Communication...................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3. Cooperation .......................................................................................................................................... 10. ‧. 2.1.4. Collaboration ....................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.5. Collective versus Connective ........................................................................................................ 13. Nat. sit. y. 2.2. Collaborative Practices........................................................................................................................ 14. er. io. 2.2.1. Co-creation............................................................................................................................................ 14 2.2.2. Co-service .............................................................................................................................................. 21. n. al. i n U. v. 2.3. Defining Change: Transition versus Transformation........................................................ 24. Ch. engchi. 2.4. Evolving and Developing Phases of the Web .......................................................................... 25 2.4.1. Web 1.0................................................................................................................................................... 26 2.4.2. Web 2.0................................................................................................................................................... 27 2.4.3. Web 3.0................................................................................................................................................... 31 2.4.4. Web 2.5................................................................................................................................................... 35 2.5. Mass Application of Collaborative Practices on the Web ................................................ 37 2.5.1. Mass Application of Collaborative Practices on Web 2.0 ................................................. 37 2.5.2. Mass Application of Collaborative Practices on Web 3.0 ................................................. 37 Chapter 3: Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 39 3.1 Research Framework ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.2. Research Variables ................................................................................................................................ 40 III.

(7) 3.3. Research Design ...................................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.1. Research Method ............................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.2. Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 43 3.3.4. Research Limitations........................................................................................................................ 45 Chapter 4: Data Collection and Derivation ............................................................................................ 46 4.1. The Relationship between Co-creation and the Web ........................................................ 46 4.2. Identifying a Common Understanding of Co-service ......................................................... 47 4.2.1. Co-service as a Collaborative Practice...................................................................................... 47 4.2.2. Co-service in a Techno-social System ....................................................................................... 51 4.2.3. Co-service and the Phases of the Web ...................................................................................... 52 4.2.4. Implication of Co-service................................................................................................................ 54. 政 治 大 4.3.1. Relationship between 立Crowdsourcing and Crowdservicing .......................................... 55. 4.3. Crowdsourcing and Crowdservicing ........................................................................................... 54. ‧ 國. 學. 4.3.2. Supporting Secondary Case Study .............................................................................................. 58 Chapter 5: Research Analysis and Discussion...................................................................................... 66 5.1. Understanding Co-service.................................................................................................................. 66. ‧. 5.1.1. Co-service as a Collaborative Practice...................................................................................... 66. y. Nat. 5.1.2. Applying Co-service in the Web .................................................................................................. 70. sit. 5.2. Collaborative Practice Paradigm Shift in the Web .............................................................. 70. er. io. 5.2.2. Changes in the Collaborative Practice Environment.......................................................... 72. al. n. v i n C h of Co-creation 5.3. Toward an Integral Understanding e n g c h i U and Co-service........................... 75 5.2.3. Shifting from Crowdsourcing to Crowdservicing ................................................................ 74 5.3.1. Differentiating Co-creation and Co-service ............................................................................ 75 5.3.2. From Co-creation to Co-service ................................................................................................... 80 Chapter 6: Conclusion and Suggestions ................................................................................................... 81 6.1. Answering the Research Questions.............................................................................................. 81 6.2. Implications of Research.................................................................................................................... 82 6.3. Future Works ............................................................................................................................................ 84 References................................................................................................................................................................. 85. IV.

(8) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1.: Research Flow…………………………………………………………………………………... 7 Figure 2.2. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..13 Figure 2.1. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..17 Figure 3.3. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..18 Figure 2.4. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..26 Figure 2.5. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..27 Figure 2.6. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..31. 政 治 大 Figure 2.8. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..38 立 Figure 2.7. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..36. ‧ 國. 學. Figure 3.1.: Research Framework ………………………………………………..……………………..40 Figure 4.1. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..60. ‧. Figure 4.2. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..60. sit. y. Nat. Figure 4.3. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..63. al. er. io. Figure 4.4. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..63. v. n. Figure 5.1. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..77. Ch. engchi. i n U. Figure 5.2. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..77. V.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.2. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..16 Table 2.2. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..20 Table 2.3. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..30 Table 3.4. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..41 Table 3.2. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..44 Table 4.1. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..49 Table 5.1. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..69. 政 治 大. Table 5.2. …………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..72. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. VI. i n U. v.

(10) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. RESEARCH MOTIVATION The rapid progressions in technology have been transforming the economy and environment in ways that were never thought possible. This is especially true for the rapidly progressing Internet. Over the last two decades, the Internet, a massive communications network that connects digital devices globally has changed the social and economic construct of the world and continues to do so with its on-going progression. It has challenged and changed the way traditional business functions. 政 治 大 provides. Namely, the Internet provided a multitude of medium that redefines 立 communication, consumption and supply. The medium includes the World Wide. and operates as well as the relationship between consumers, producers and service. ‧ 國. 學. Web, commonly known as the Web, email, data transferring, remote computing, real-time communication, etc.. ‧. The Web, among many other Internet medium that has introduced many. sit. y. Nat. significant disruptive innovations is the most prominent medium of the Internet (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012). It is the largest transformable information. io. n. al. er. construct to date introduced and formulated conceptually by Tim Burners-Lee. i n U. v. (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012). Namely, the Web provides access to data such as. Ch. engchi. documents, images, audio, video and many other resources while interconnecting its stakeholders and the available data. More importantly, according to its key initiator, Tim Burners-Lee, “the Web does not just connect machines, it connects people.” Since its introduction in 1989, the Web has gone through a series of on-going evolution and progression that enabled emerging and groundbreaking web technologies. which. significantly. impacted. the. world. socially,. politically,. economically, environmentally and more. One of the easier to measure aspects of the evolving and progressing Web ’s influence is its economic impact on the world. The on-going evolution and progression of the Web provided the possibilities and opportunities for virtual and 1.

(11) digital businesses to emerge, hence forming the virtual and digital economy. Though accurate measurements of the virtual and digital economy remain debatable, the estimated size’s order of magnitude still plays a substantial role in the overall economy. In 2012, The Boston Consulting Group estimates the size of, what it terms the “internet economy” for 2010, at $2.3 Trillion for the G20 group of countries, or approximately 4.1% of their Gross Domestic Product (David Dean, Sebastian DiGrande et al. 2012). According to another research conducted by International Data Corporation summarized by Oxford Economics, the economy size of the Web, when global business-to-business, consumer transactions, global markets for digital products and services are added together, will equate to an estimated $20.4 trillion. 政 治 大 perspective, in terms of just singular successful businesses, the economic values that 立. in 2013 (Raman Chitkara, Tom Archer et al. 2011). From a narrower economic each of these businesses have created remain substantial. For instance, the evolving. ‧ 國. 學. and progressing Web has provided opportunity for innovative giants such as eBay, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and many others to thrive and attain economic. ‧. successes.. sit. y. Nat. Being the most prominent portion of the Internet, the Web’s evolution and. io. er. progression not only provided tremendous amount of business opportunities and technological advances that that would eventually asserts the Web’s direct influence. n. al. Ch. i n U. v. in the overall economy, it also enabled the web to further spread its influences to the. engchi. evolving and progressing Internet, even the entire digital world. In other words, the evolution and progression of the Web plays a significant role in the evolution and progression of the Internet, which would in turn permeate to the fundamental building block of the modern world, the digital world. Therefore, to thrive in a constantly changing environment of the modern world, it is crucial for the Web ’s stakeholders, namely, all those that are affected by the Web to understand how the Web evolves and progresses. The Web evolves and progresses in an extremely complicated manner involving many different components of the Web and the other Internet media. These components interact in multi-directional relationships involving variant factors and 2.

(12) intertwined processes. Despite the complexity of the interaction between differe nt components, the Web, or the Internet as a whole, serves the ultimate high-level purpose to establish and enhance people-to-people, machine-to-machine and machine-to-people connections and relationships. Therefore, the evolution and progression of the Web would center and focus around establishing and enhancing these connections and relationships. This characteristic of the Web resonates with a techno-social system’s characteristics, hence, the Web’s evolution and progression would center and focus on enhancing the processes of cognition, communication, cooperation and collaboration (Fuchs, Hofkirchner et al. 2010). Different from other techno-social systems, the Web is a techno-social system. 政 治 大. that involves more than 2 billion stakeholders (Lynn 2010). As a platform. 立. connecting and relating such massive crowd along with the data that the crowd has. ‧ 國. 學. generated in a relatively accessible and convenient fashion compared to traditional connection and relating platforms, the evolving and progressing Web is not only. ‧. supporting and enhancing the process of cognition, communication, cooperation and collaboration, the evolving and progressing Web might be changing them.. io. er. communication, cooperation and collaboration to develop.. sit. y. Nat. Specifically, this would imply that the web could be causing new forms of cognition,. al. Innovation, regardless incremental or disruptive is dependent on the process of. n. v i n Ch cognition, communication, cooperation and collaboration; thus, changes in the engchi U process of cognition, communication, cooperation and collaboration would imply changes in the innovative processes. This further implies that these changes can. introduce changes in business and the economy since it is well noted that innovation is closely related to growth in business and the economy (Ahlstrom 2010). Therefore, close examination of how the evolving and progressing Web changed cognition, communication, cooperation and collaboration could provide insights to how it changed the innovative processes, hence, the business and the economy growth.. 3.

(13) Co-production (Bendapudi and Leone 2003) and co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004) were among some of the collaborative practices derived and summarized from the changes in the process of cognition, communication, cooperation and collaboration. The inclusion of these two collaborative practices in the innovative processes has inverted the innovative processes. This would indicate that these collaborative practices connected the relationship between changes in the innovation processes and the changes in process of cognition, communication, cooperation and collaboration. The Web’s evolution and progression in have enabled the possibility, viability and convenience of bringing such collaborative practices into the innovative processes. For instance, the Web has enabled. 政 治 大 co-production and/or co-creation concepts by crowd involvement over the web 立 crowd-sourcing, a mechanism that harnesses and maximizes the advantages of the. (Zwass 2010). This mechanism established the possibility and viability of crowd. ‧ 國. 學. involvement in the innovative processes via the co-production and/or co-creation concepts. However, as the Web evolves and progresses, a new mechanism,. ‧. crowdservicing. (Davis. 2011), have emerged. Dissimilar. to the. previous. y. Nat. crowd-souring mechanism based on the concepts of co-production and co-creation,. io. sit. this new mechanism appears to be based on a different concept with emphasis on. n. al. er. services (Davis and Lin 2011). In other words, the evolving and progressing web. i n U. v. have introduced a new concept by causing changes in the process of cognition,. Ch. engchi. communication, cooperation and collaboration. Since this new concept is also derived from the changes in the process of cognition, communication, cooperation and collaboration; thus, to resonate with the terms co-production and co-creation, this new concept would be termed co-service. As a part of a constantly and rapidly evolving and progressing techno -social system, stakeholders of the Web are subjected to turbulence that can either lead to rapid success or failure. Therefore, understanding key factors that lead to success and failure in such turbulent environment is crucial for its stakeholders. The introduction and application of the co-production and co-creation innovative process in the Web has generated immense positive impacts and business 4.

(14) opportunities. For instance, web Giant eBay among many others has benefited greatly from the use of the crowd-sourcing mechanism that promoted co-creative activities between its users, while many other firms that did not enable co -creation via the crowd-sourcing mechanism has suffered deeply from this turbulence (Howe 2006). From this perspective, though co-service is a rather preliminary concept, understanding the implications of the co-service concept in the context of the Web may provide a better understanding on future trends in the Web’s turbulent environment. Furthermore, if co-service can provide as much benefit as co-creation had or more, the application of co-service on the Web can greatly benefit businesses and organizations. In essence, understanding a preliminary concept of co -service. 政 治 大 organization to understand the possible turbulences created by the Web as well as 立. and the changes from co-creation to co-service may allow businesses and the opportunities created by the Web. In addition, if the co-service concept would. ‧ 國. 學. revolutionize the Web, the Internet, and even the digital world resembling the co-creation concept did and had, understanding the co-service concept would. ‧. provide a more comprehensive understanding of future paradigm shifts in the. sit. y. Nat. digital world, subsequently, the world.. n. al. er. io. 1.2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES. i n U. v. Extensive amount of researches have been conducted in understanding the. Ch. engchi. Web. Since the Web constantly evolves and progresses, the development of the Web has been divided in to different phases based on certain characteristics. These stages and phases also provided clues and marked the reference point for identifying the Web’s incorporation and realization of different collaborative practices in the innovative process. The co-creation and co-production collaborative practices were introduced in one of the phases, while co-service appears to be introduced in another phase. With the established correlation between different phases of the Web and the collaborative practices, this research aims to understand the following:. 5.

(15) . The. distinguishing. characteristics. between. different collaborative. practices in the context of the evolving and progressing Web . The relationship between collaborative practices in correlation with the evolution and progression of the web.. 1.3. RESEARCH QUESTION Since co-production is a subset of co-creation (Frow and Payne 2012) (Lusch and Vargo 2006), thus, this research will focus on understanding the relationship between co-creation and co-service in the context of the evolving. 政 治 大. and progressing Web. In addition, this research aims to understand the. 立. relationship between co-creation to co-service in correlation with the evolution and. ‧ 國. 學. progression of the Web. Since the power of the Web lies in its capability as a system that supports a massive user population and involve a massive amount of. ‧. stakeholders, the more ideal approach to this study would directed towards understanding the relationship between co-creation and co-service from. Nat. sit. y. perspectives based on mass application conditions. The research objective can. al. er. io. be broken down into the following research questions:. n. 1. How does one distinguish between the collaborative practices of co-creation and co-service?. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. a、 What are the overlapping and distinguishing characteristics between the co-creation and co-service? 2. How would co-creation transit and/or transform into co-service? a、 What are the key factors enabling the co-creation to co-service transition and/or transformation? b、 What kind of environment would enable and/or drive such a transition and/or transformation in the collaborative practice from co-creation to co-service? c、 What are the processes that enable the transition transformation from co-creation to co-service? 6. and/or.

(16) 1.4. RESEARCH FLOW This research focuses on conceptualizing and solidifying the co-service concept as well as understanding the relationship between co -creation and co-service. Interview and secondary case study will be conducted to solidify of the hypothesized concept of co-service and its relationship with co-creation. Figure 1.1 illustrates the research flow. Define Research Motivation and Objectives. Literature Review. 政 治 大. Establish definitions and necessary background concepts. 立. ‧ 國. 學. Research Methodology. Establish assumption and logic flows Identify limitations of the research.  . ‧. Nat. y. Interview. Secondary Case Study. Understand and distinguish between co-creation and co-service practices over the Web Understand the relationship between co-creation and co-service practices over the Web. io. n. al. . er. . . Ch. engchi. Distinguish between Co-creation and Co-service . sit. . i n U. v. Secondary case study will be made to accommodate the interview process as examples. Analyze the transition/transformation from Co-creation to Co-service. Extracting similarities and differences from Interview results and secondary case study. . Extracting similarities and differences from Interview results and secondary case study. Conclusion and Future Works Figure 5.1: Research Flow 7.

(17) CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 THE WEB AS A TECHNO-SOCIAL SYSTEM Since the initiation of the concept of the Web, Tim Burners-Lee have pointed out that the key construct of the Web is to “connect.” Indeed, the Web’s ongoing technical evolution and progression over the years have centered on the notion of connecting machines and more importantly, people. Therefore, from a social perspective, the Web can be viewed as a techno-social system (Vespignani 2009) that supports and enhances the processes of cognition, communication,. 治 政 大is integrated by the Web techno-social system represents a community that 立 (Vespignani 2009). To understand how the Web functions and influences co-operation and collaboration (Fuchs, Hofkirchner et al. 2010). In essence, this. ‧ 國. 學. collaborative practices such as co-creation and co-service, it is crucial to establish an understanding on cognition, communication, co-operation and collaboration as well. ‧. as the relationship among them from the perspectives of the Web.. sit. y. Nat. 2.1.1. Cognition. er. io. Cognition is a mental process that enables humans to understand and process. al. information (Blomberg 2011). This process enables mental functions, mental. n. v i n processes or thoughts, as wellC ashserves as the foundation of intelligent entities, engchi U including humans, collaborative groups, human organizations, highly autonomous. machines, and artificial intelligences (Blomberg 2011). From this perspective, it is evident that cognition is the necessary prerequisite for activities involving understanding and processing of information in a techno -social framework. In other words, cognition is the necessary prerequisite for communication, which, when combined with cognition, could form the precondition for the emergence of cooperation (Raffl, Hofkirchner et al. 2009) and possibly collaboration. The Web is a complex system that links, receives and accesses information (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012). This indicates and implies that the Web’s features and constructs are closely related to cognition. Specifically, the Web both 8.

(18) enhances cognition and is enhanced by cognition (Fuchs, Hofkirchner et al. 2010). Specifically, the Web provides its user easily accessible information, which would enhancement its users’ cognition via convenience and accessibility (Smart 2010). In addition, the Web could also organize the information that it has received from its users to create automations that enhances its ability to process information, in oth er words, its own cognitive process (Verizon 2010). As a techno-social system that enhances cognition, it is evident that the Web would greatly influence and impact other fundamental techno-social processes such as communication, cooperation and collaboration.. 2.1.2. Communication. 政 治 大 Communication is the process of exchanging meaningful information between 立 groups or individuals participants through the exchange of thoughts or information. ‧ 國. 學. via linguistic and/or nonlinguistic means including speech, visuals, signals, writing, or behavior (Keyton 2010). This process requires a sender, amessage, and a. ‧. recipient (Cheney 2011). The sender encodes the idea into a message by selecting. y. Nat. the method and medium of communication then sends the message via various. io. sit. mediums that are independent or dependent of space and time (Lunenburg 2010).. n. al. er. Such mediums include paper, social media, television, telephone, e-mail, the Web,. i n U. v. face-to-face interaction, etc. (Lunenburg 2010). For instance, if writing was chosen. Ch. engchi. to be the method and papers were chosen to be the medium of communication, the sender would encode the message in words and send the message through the medium, paper. The recipient then decodes the received message into meaningful information. Since communication is a process of exchanging information, effective interaction between the sender and the recipient is strongly dependent on feedback, which enables the participants to determine whether the desired the information is received via the message (Lunenburg 2010). “Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organization. It is central to the information society” (ITU 2003) thus, it is apparent that communication is the prerequisite for social processes such as cooperation and 9.

(19) collaboration (Elliott 2006). Furthermore, the efficiency and effectiveness of cooperation and collaboration is strongly dependent on the efficiency and effectiveness of communication (Elliott 2006). The ideology behind the Web was to create a common information space in which people could communicate by sharing information (Berners-Lee 1998), thus it is a system designed and built to enhance and facilitate communication. The Web not only enabled and supported the communication between its massive user populations; it has also introduced different communication methods that enhanced and facilitated indirect communications independent of space and time. Thus, the Internet, including the Web not only enhanced and facilitated communication, but. 政 治 大 introduce changes in. has also changed it (Cicso 1998). Such changes in communication introduced by the. 立. Web would then impact and. social processes such as. cooperation and collaboration (Elliott 2006).. ‧ 國. 學. 2.1.3. Cooperation. ‧. Cooperation, also referred to as Coordination is the process of participating. y. Nat. agents working together solely to accomplish common goals (Johnson and Johnson. sit. 2007). The common goal is a representation and agreement based on mutual. n. al. er. io. benefits of the participating agents (Johnson and Johnson 2007). Cooperation also a. i n U. v. process that is dependent on communication; in other words, communication is the. Ch. engchi. necessary condition for cooperation (Fuchs, Hofkirchner et al. 2010). This would then imply that process and outcome of cooperation is dependent on the methods and medium chosen for communication (Fuchs, Hofkirchner et al. 2010). In addition, since communication is dependent on cognition, thus, cooperation is also dependent on cognition. However, although the quality of cooperation is dependent on cognition and cooperation, since the purpose of cooperation is solely to accomp lish common goals, it would not enhance the process of cognition and communication (Moll and Tomasello 2007). Since the Web is a system designed and built to enhance and facilitate cognition and communication of its massive user population, the changes introduced to 10.

(20) cognition and communication by the Web would also reverberate to cooperative activities performed by its massive user population. Namely, the Web has enabled mass Cooperation as well as introduced new forms of cooperation while enhancing previous forms of cooperation (Cardon and Aguiton 2007). The Web not only enhanced the previously cooperation process that requires participating agents working closely together by introducing convenience in communication and cognition (Matzat 2004); it has also introduced new forms of cooperation between loosely coupled participating agents (Benkler 2007).. 2.1.4. Collaboration. 政 治 大 common goals. Specifically, it is a recursive process where two or more participants 立 or organizations interact together to realize shared goals (Marinez-Moyano 2006). Collaboration is a joint effort of multiple participating agents to accomplish. ‧ 國. 學. In other words, Collaboration is both a process and an outcome that aims to accomplish common goals (Gardner 2005). The collaborative process is a synthesis. ‧. of different inputs from participating agents and the collaborative outcome is the. y. Nat. development of integrative solutions that exceed an individual participant agent’s. sit. vision or ability (Gardner 2005). Different from Cooperation, Collaboration not only. n. al. er. io. aims to accomplish the common goal, but also focuses on elaborating the recursive. i n U. v. collaborative process (McInnerney and Roberts 2009). Namely, Collaboration. Ch. engchi. thrives on differences and requires the sparks of dissent to function effectively (Denise 1999) since differences and feedbacks provide an opportunity for participating agents to recursively review, revise and improve on current accomplishments. (Kroenke. 2008).. Though. different. from. Cooperation,. Collaboration can be considered the enhanced and expanded version of Cooperation since collaboration not only enabled participating agents to accomplish common goals identical to that of cooperation, but also enabled participating agents to accomplish beyond the initial common goals (Laudon and Laudon 2011). In other words, Cooperation is a subset of Collaboration; thus, whenever Collaboration is apparent, Cooperation must occur but not vice versa. Collaboration is a process 11.

(21) dependent on communication (Elliott 2006), which, similar to Cooperation would suggest that the process and outcome of Collaboration is dependent on the methods and medium chosen for communication (Laudon and Laudon 2011). In addition, since Communication is dependent on cognition, thus, cooperation is also dependent on cognition. Since Collaboration is a recursive process, it is both dependent and influential on Cognition, Communication and Cooperation, which implies that it could enhance and improve the Cognition, Communication and Cooperation process (Laudon and Laudon 2011). Figure 2.1. shows a summary of the relationship between Cognition, Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration. Since the Web enhanced and changed recursive processes within Collaboration,. 政 治 大 cognition, communication and 立. namely, Cognition, Communication and Cooperation, it would imply that the changes introduced to. cooperation would also. reverberate to Collaboration. Not only did the Web enabled the possibility for mass. ‧ 國. 學. Collaboration between its users, it has also introduced new forms of Collaboration while enhancing previous forms of Collaboration (Laudon and Laudon 2011).. ‧. Specifically, the Web has introduced new forms of collaboration between loosely. y. Nat. coupled participating agents, allowing them to Collaborate independent of space. io. sit. and time (Laudon and Laudon 2011). An example of such forms of Collaboration. n. al. er. would be Stigmergic Collaboration, a collaborative process that joins multiple. i n U. v. smaller recursive nodes of collaborative processes into a targeted Collaboration effort (Elliott 2006).. Ch. engchi. 12.

(22) Communication. Cognition. Cooperation. Collaboration. 政 治 大. Figure 2.6.: Relationships between the four techno-social processes of the Web. A blue arrow indicates a necessary condition while a green arrow indicates an influence.. 立. ‧ 國. 學 ‧. 2.1.5. Collective versus Connective. When participating agents are working towards common goals, there would. y. Nat. arise two different modes of operation, namely, the Collective Mode and the. io. sit. Connective Mode. This idea is referenced from two different modes of intellectual. n. al. er. social interaction, namely, Collective Intelligence and Connective Intelligence. i n U. v. (Downes 2007). Collective Intelligence is defined to be a form of intelligence that. Ch. engchi. emerges from the joint work of many individuals and is “collected” towards a central institution (Downes 2007). Connective Intelligence on the other hand is a form of intelligence formed by individual creation of information, idea and concepts which are then shared with others, connected and re-created and extended based on the interaction (Downes 2007). Therefore, from the definition of the two modes of intellectual social interaction, the Collective Mode is defined to be a form of joint work that “collects” efforts from participating agents towards a central institution in order to complete the common goal. The Connective Mode is then defined to be a form of joint work that “connects” efforts from participating agents without a central institution in order to complete the common goal. 13.

(23) 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 go al 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. 政 治 大. Collaborative process “Connects” the smaller collaboration nodes (Elliott 2006).. 2.2. COLLABORATIVE立PRACTICES. ‧ 國. 學. 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. Nat. sit. y. stakeholders (Sanders and Simons 2009). It is a specific type of collaboration with. er. io. the intent of achieving beyond the prospected joint goals (Sanders and Simons 2009) derived from mashing-up the words collaboration and creation (Sense Worldwide. n. al. Ch. i n U. v. 2009). In other words, co-creation is a type of collaboration that focuses on creating. engchi. 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.:. 14.

(24) . Monetary Value As the term suggests, monetary value is the monetary achievements that 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. 政 治 大 because the conversation can be mediated by tools of information and 立. value may not require direct contact between the collaborating agents communication.. ‧ 國. 學. . Experience Value. The Experience Value is the sense of satisfaction after consuming the. ‧. results from achieving beyond the prospected joint goals of the two. y. Nat. participating agents including products, services, brands and branded. io. sit. environments. It is the next practice in the co-creation in terms of value. n. al. er. creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004).It is not the results that can be. i n U. v. directly reflected and translated to monetary values, but is the experience. Ch. engchi. 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 15.

(25) 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).. 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Table 2.3. Values associated with co-creation and their relationship. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. with co-creation(Sanders and Simons 2009). i n U. v. There are 4 types of Co-creation defined over two central dimensions:. Ch. engchi. 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). 16.

(26) 政 治 大. 立. ‧ 國. 學 ‧. Figure 2.4.: The 4 Types of Co-creation (Pater 2009). sit. y. Nat. io. er. 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. n. al. Ch. i n U. v. invites other agents to participate hence commence the co-creation process. The. engchi. second step is selecting the suitable participating agents fo r 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.. 17.

(27) Figure 7.3.: Summarized Guiding Principles of Co-creation (Pater 2009). 立. 政 治 大. ‧ 國. 學. 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. sit. y. Nat. 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. io. n. al. er. set the common goal together (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). From the 4-types. i n U. v. of co-creation, although not always, the quadrants indicating that the ownership of. Ch. engchi. 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).. 18.

(28) 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. 政 治 大. the. whole. co-creation. project to act as a bridge between a. 立. network. of. collaborators. and. a. corporation.. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. v i n Ch 3. Large corporations who call for e n gagencies chi U to submit ideas to then partner with or broker a deal.. 19.

(29) 4. Large corporations who outsource briefs to communities that are fostered online.. 立. 政 5.治 大. Large corporations that host an online. platform where individuals submit ideas or requests based on the brand, which that. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. business can then select for development.. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 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) 20.

(30) 2.2.2. Co-service Co-service is a term that has not been specifically and explicitly defined in various academic fields. This research will utilize the term Co-service as a hypothetic variable that related to co-creation. In other words, this research regards Co-service as the unknown variable “x” that is by some means related to Co-creation. From such assumption, that Co-service, much like Co-creation, would be related to practices jointly executed by two or more participating agents such as individual and organizational stakeholders. Also, as a logical extension of Co-creation, it is assumed to be a specific type of collaboration with the intent of achieving by beyond the prospected joint goals. Therefore, as a hypothetical practice. 政 治 大 collaboration and service. Like Co-creation, since this type of collaboration reflects 立 the nature of innovation, which seeks solutions that can satisfy prospect goals and. related to Co-creation, Co-service is too a word derived from mashing-up the words. ‧ 國. 學. generate values beyond the original vision; thus, co-service is also a practice that reflects innovation through collaboration. To better define and describe Co-service,. ‧. related literatures from different academic fields that focus on studying the. y. Nat. relationship between collaboration and service will be cited and referenced. Since. sit. this research focuses on the management and innovation perspectives within the. n. al. er. io. business academic field, only literatures that focus on studying from the. i n U. v. management and innovation perspectives would be utilized. Also, since different. Ch. engchi. literatures utilize different vocabulary to explore the relationship between collaboration and service, this research will cite studies that utilize the term “collaborative services”, and combine various academic perspectives on “collaborative services” to describe Co-service, since the term “collaborative services” literally suggest a relationship between collaboration and services. Thus, “collaborative services” is regarded as an interchangeable term with co-service in this section. Although this research explicitly defines the hypothetical variable Co-service in this section, this research will later reverse engineer and prove that Co-service is related to Co-creation.. 21.

(31) Before describing Co-service, it is important to understand the basics of services. Service can be described from the following generic key characteristics (Heizer and Render 2000): . Intangibility Services areintangibleandinsubstantial, thus, there is neither potential nor need for transport,storageor stocking of services. Furthermore, a service can be sold or owned, but it cannot be physically turned over from the service provider to the service consumer. The service delivery can only be commissioned to a service provider who must generate and render the. 政 治 大. service at the distinct request of a service consumer. . Perishability. 立. Services are perishable when the relevant resources, processes and systems. ‧ 國. 學. are assigned for service delivery within a timeframe. If the designated service consumer does not request and consume the service during this period, the. ‧. service cannot be performed. Services are also perishable when they are. y. Nat. completely rendered to the requesting service consumer. Service irreversibly. al. er. Inseparability. io. . sit. vanishes as it has been consumed.. iv n U to the requesting service. n. The service provider is essential for service delivery as the service provider. Ch. must promptly generate and render the. engchi. service. consumer. In many cases the service delivery is executed automatically but the service provider must preparatory assign resources and systems and actively keeps up appropriate service delivery readiness and capabilities. Additionally, the service consumer is an integral part of service delivery because he/she is involved in it from requesting it up to consuming it. . Simultaneity Services are produced and consumed during the same period of time. As soon as the service consumer has requested the service to be delivered, the service must be generated and consumed. 22.

(32) . Variability Services are often unique. It is one-time generated, rendered and consumed and can never be exactly repeated as the point in time, location, circumstances, conditions, resources are different for the next delivery, even if the same service consumer requests the same service. Many services are regarded as heterogeneous and are typically modified for each service consumer or each new situation.. Co-service, or collaborative service is the practice where the final users are. 治 政 大 that co-service includes (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008). From this definition, it is apparent 立 subset practices from co-creation, namely, co-design and co-produce. Further, from actively involved and assume the role of service co-designers and co-producers. ‧ 國. 學. this definition, there appears to be a relationship between co-service and the developing service via the co-creation practices. Indeed, collaborative services are. ‧. executed by collaborative organizations that consist of collaborating agents in order. y. Nat. to co-create commonly recognized values (Cipolla 2004, Cipolla 2008). Collaborative. sit. services focus on developing values emerged from relationship qualities, i.e. out of. er. io. meaningful and dynamic relationship (Cipolla 2004, Cipolla 2008). Further,. al. v i n Ch involved and are based on their capacity/willingness e n g c h i Uto act (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008). n. Collaborative services is enabled by direct action of the participating agents. Another characterizing aspect of collaborative services is that their organizational. model challenges traditional ways of thinking and go beyond the conventional polarities of mainstream modern organizational models including private to public; consumer to producer; local to global, need to wish (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008). Most importantly, collaborative services would cause the formation of collaborative organizations that blur the distinction between producer and user (Un, Rocchi et al. 2008). Such characteristics of collaborative services or co-service show a strong resemblance in relationship with the characteristics of co-creation. However, collaborative organizations propose solutions that make private, social and 23.

(33) environmental interests converge because they are always motivated by a complex mix of needs and wishes (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008). Namely, they are initiatives that are profoundly rooted in a place and at the same time, strongly connected to other similar ones on a massive scale (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008). Furthermore, collaborative services are based on a variety of “economy mixes”: different combinations of self and mutual help, barter and gift as well as market and non-market economies (Horst and Luiten 2008). Collaborative services should be considered as bottom-up initiatives not because all of the activities occur at grassroots level, but because the precondition for their existence is the active involvement of people directly interested (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008). Consequently. 政 治 大 of a complex interplay between bottom-up, top-down and peer-to peer interactions 立 their starting up, their daily life and their possible improvement usually emerge out (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008). Collaborative services are supported by specifically. ‧ 國. 學. designed “enabling solutions”, which describe systems of products, services, communication, and whatever else necessary, to improve the accessibility,. ‧. effectiveness and ability to replicate a collaborative service (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008).. y. Nat. However, the initial purpose of collaborative services is to develop “enabling. er. io. recursive practice.. sit. solutions” (Bala, Cagnin et al. 2008), thus, collaborative service, or co-service is a. al. n. v i n U 2.3. DEFINING CHANGE:CThRANSITION e n g c h i VERSUS TRANSFORMATION. In this research, Change is described in two forms, one form is gradual the. other is subtle, thus it is important to distinguish the two terms. Since transition is defined to be the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another (Dictionary), this term will be utilized to describe gradual change. Since transformation is defined to be the action of changing in form, shape, or appearance (Dictionary), this term will be utilized to describe subtle change, i.e. changes that are associated with the emergence of a new state or condition and the replacement of the previous state or condition by the new state or condition. 24.

(34) 2.4. EVOLVING AND DEVELOPING PHASES OF THE WEB The World Wide Web or the Web is a techno-social system with ongoing evolution and development. There are several phases associated with each evolution and development, namely, Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and so forth. The changes from different phases of the Web were transitional (Fuchs, Hofkirchner et al. 2010), thus the exact definition and description of each phase has not been standardized among different academic studies. However, there still exists many common signature techno-social characteristics marked by the transformational effects of the Web on the world that resonant among different academic studies;. 政 治 大. thus, this research will define and describe each phases of the Web in accordance with the common definition and description that resonant among different. 立. academic studies. Figure 2.4. provides a summarized outline between the different. ‧ 國. 學. evolving and developing phases of the Web as well the technologies associated with them, i.e. from Web 1.0 to Web 4.0. Since Web 4.0 is still an ambiguous estimation of. ‧. the Web’s evolution and development, this research will not study beyond Web 3.0. To understand the Web as a techno-social system, it is crucial to understand it. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. transition progress and transformational effects on the World.. Ch. engchi. 25. i n U. v.

(35) 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學 y. Nat. Figure 2.4. Outline of each developing and evolving phases of the Web. n. al. er. io 2.4.1. Web 1.0. sit. as well as associated technologies (Ivanova and Ivanova 2009). Ch. engchi. i n U. v. The earliest incarnation of the Web is referred to as Web 1.0 by it initiator, Time Berners-Lee (Berners-Lee 1998). Web 1.0 is a defined and described as the Web with read-only platforms that are static, mono-directional and non-interactive (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012) as displayed in Figure 2.5. Consequently, in the initial version of the Web, Web 1.0, businesses could only provide information to their customers through this static, mono-directional and non-interactive platform (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012). The economic value of revenue generation from the Web 1.0 phase was made by concentrating on creating the most visited webpages, and the most frequent update releases (O'Reilly 2005). The websites during the Web 1.0 phase are closed for external editing and contribution 26.

(36) (Krishnamurthy and Cormode 2008) and are support by the HTTP, HTML and URL technologies (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012). During this phase, the main goal of the websites was to publish the information for anyone at any time and establish an online presence (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012). Therefore, this incarnation of the Web focuses on removing time and space restrictions of information transfer; in other words, enhancing cognition (Raffl, Hofkirchner et al. 2009, Fuchs, Hofkirchner et al. 2010, Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012).. 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Figure 2.5.: The relationship between the Web, the Users, and. sit er. io. 2.4.2. Web 2.0. y. Nat. Content Providers in Web 1.0 (Bernal 2010). al. n. v i n Cthe Web 2.0 is the next phase in h eWeb’s n g progression c h i U marked by the introduction. of interactivity as suggested by the O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference in late 2004, it is the extension and enhanced version of its predecessor, Web 1.0 (O'Reilly 2005). In other words, Web 1.0 is a subset of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is also known the wisdom web, people-centric web, participative web, and read-write web. With reading as well as writing, the web could become bi-directional (Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012) as depicted in Figure 2.6. Like all of the developing and evolving phases of the Web, Web 2.0 is not a phase in the Web’s progression that can be defined and described by hard boundaries, but rather, gravitational cores. These gravitational. 27.

(37) cores resonate with the transitional progressions from Web 1.0 into Web 2.0. Specifically, Web 2.0 circled around the cores of enabling (O'Reilly 2005): . The Web as Platform: The Web is no longer just a network for enhancing cognition and communication, but is a platform for cooperation and collaboration.. . Harness of Collective Intelligence: With the possibility for online cooperation and collaboration enabled, the Web can harness the collective intelligence from its massive user.. . Harness of Mass Data: The quantity and quality data can be increased from the emerging Platforms that collect data from its massive user population.. . 立. 政 治 大. End of the Software Release Cycle: Upgrades can be made rapidly and. ‧ 國. 學. constantly since applications are served across the Web Platforms as services.. Introduction of Lightweight Programming Models: New scripting. ‧. . languages and file formats enable faster, more interactive websites that. Nat. al. sit. er. Enrichment of User Experiences: The web became a more dynamic and. io. . y. can interact with users and data sources.. n. entertaining place that allows contents to be produced and consumed by its massive users.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. From the gravitational cores of Web 2.0 as a Platform that enables the Web’s ability to interact, collect and enrich, websites that adopt the Web 2.0 gravitational cores have extremely different key characteristics from the Web 1.0 websites. Specifically, the Web 2.0 websites strongly embraced in the concept of “openness” which allowed and enabled their users to interact, cooperate, and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual platform such as Wikis and Blogs, as opposed to the previous in the previous Web 1.0 phase where people are limited to the passive consumption of content 28.

(38) (O'Reilly 2005, San 2007, Ivanova and Ivanova 2009). The transition into Web 2.0 spawned a social transformation that decentralized content into the hands of its users (Funk 2009). Not only did Web 2.0 decentralized content creation and rights, its gravitational core of collective intelligence has also encouraged an environment for content creators to share knowledge via the Web 2.0-based platforms and make use of others’ contributions for growth (San 2007, Ivanova and Ivanova 2009). Further, due to the decentralization phenomenon of Web 2.0, the previous categorization and organization of content in Web 1.0, or Taxonomy has evolved to a more advanced and efficient form of categorization and organization executed via Folksonomy. It is a system of classification derived from the practice and method of. 政 治 大 humans to annotate and categorize content (Pink 2005, Peters 2009) derived from 立 cooperatively and collaboratively creating and managing tags by machines and the portmanteau of “folk” and “taxonomy”. The Software as a Service or SaaS model. ‧ 國. 學. was also enabled in Web 2.0 (Funk 2009) and software applications can now be hosted on the internet and delivered on demand via the Web (Funk 2009). Different. ‧. from Web 1.0 were the Web is merely an information portal for available services,. y. Nat. Web 2.0 transformed the Web itself into a platform that is capable of delivering. io. sit. services (Funk 2009). Not only so, the Mashup technologies in Web 2.0 enabled. n. al. er. different software applications to leverage resources and functions to combine and. i n U. v. provide better services demanded by the users. Table 2.3 displays a simplified. Ch. engchi. comparison of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 characteristics (Funk 2009, Aghaei, Nematbakhsh et al. 2012).. 29.

(39) Web 1.0. Web 2.0. Read. Read/Write. Centralized. Decentralized. “One to Many” communication. “Many to Many” communication. Taxonomy. Folksonomy. Owning. Sharing. Services sold over the Web. Selling web services. Information Portals. Platforms. 政 治 大 Since the Focus of Web 2.0 is building platforms that can harness resources 立 resulted in interactions, thus, success in Web 2.0 is dictated from harnessing the Table 2.3.: A simplified comparison of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. ‧ 國. 學. power of different platforms such as social, computing, media and opinions, and advertising (Funk 2009). Further, to maximize the advantages of Web 2.0, based on. ‧. its characteristics, the presence of feedback loops between the users and producer is. y. Nat. a meaningful and integral part of an individual platform that is based on Web 2.0. sit. (Funk 2009). From the interactive characteristics of Web 2.0, many business,. n. al. er. io. innovation and management concepts emerged, such as prosumers, long tail, etc and. i n U. v. are practiced in accordance with the collaborative practices of co-creation (O'Reilly 2005).. Ch. engchi. 30.

數據

Figure 5.1: Research Flow
Figure 2.6.: Relationships between the four techno-social processes of the Web.  A blue arrow indicates a necessary condition while a green arrow
Table 2.3. Values associated with co-creation and their relationship    with co-creation(Sanders and Simons 2009)
Figure 2.4.: The 4 Types of Co-creation (Pater 2009)
+7

參考文獻

相關文件

本刊“99年第3季(7~9月)就業服務統計資訊"主要資料來源為「行政院勞

 區域網路 (Local Area Network, LAN) 為規模最小 的網路, 範圍通常在 2 公里內, 例如:同一層樓的 辦公室, 或是同一棟建築物內的網路。...

計畫推動持續在學科建立團隊共識。專業研習 的部分則以PLC核心成員為主做課程研發,再

以前參加科展時,在網路上看過水果發電的研究,覺得很好奇,便到網路上查相關的資

由於較大型網路的 規劃必須考慮到資料傳 輸效率的問題,所以在 規劃時必須將網路切割 成多個子網路,稱為網 際網路。橋接器是最早

From the doctrinal structure of this `sastra`, it has been found that this work has only amended some errors committed in the `Abhidharma-ynana-

Co-teaching has great potential when defined as a form of collaboration that involves equal partners contributing different types of expertise to the process of planning,

mid: 左半部 array 的最大 index high: array 最大的 index.. 股市大亨 之