1 CO-CREATION: A TYPOLOGY AND CONCEPTUAL ... - ANZMAC

1
CO-CREATION: A TYPOLOGY AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Pennie Frow, University of Sydney. pennie.frow@sydney.edu.au
Adrian Payne, University of New South Wales. a.payne@unsw.edu.au
Kaj Storbacka, Hanken School of Economics. kaj.storbacka@hanken.fi
Keywords: co-creation, co-production, taxonomy, conceptual framework.
Abstract
Much of the extant literature discusses co-creation and co-production at a summative level, either
treating these terms as interchangeable or suggesting distinctions between them. There is little
discussion that explores different forms of co-creation. The purpose of this research is to explore
the concept of co-creation, identify key forms of co-creation and to develop a conceptual
framework for co-creation design,
Co-Creation
The MSI Research Priorities 2010-2012 highlight the imperative for research “to improve firms‟
capabilities for co-creation”. We argue that deconstructing co-creation into more discrete forms
has considerable benefit as it can assist firms to focus on a more innovative range of co-creation
opportunities. The purpose of this research is to identify key co-creation forms and to develop a
conceptual framework for co-creation design. Our theoretical contribution is twofold: (1) we
identify a co-creation typology; and, (2) we develop a conceptual framework for co-creation
design. Our managerial contribution is to provide practitioners with a tool for identifying new cocreation
opportunities.
Many authors discuss value co-creation in terms of co-production (e.g., Bendapudi and Leone
2003). However, more recently, scholars argue that co-production is distinct from co-creation,
describing customer involvement in the core offering and is a subcategory of co-creation (Vargo
and Lusch 2008). Various other aspects of co-creation have been explored, including: the output
of co-creation (Jaworski and Kohli 2006); competing through service (Lusch, Vargo and O‟Brien
2007); management issues (Etgar 2006); and, the process of co-creation (Prahalad and
Ramaswamy 2004; Payne, Storbacka, and Frow 2008). However, much of the work is at a
general level and there is little discussion that identifies and explores different forms of cocreation.
Further, an extended perspective is required, encompassing the interaction and
integration of resources amongst multiple actors.
Despite several attempts to define value co-creation, the concept remains vague (Prahalad and
Ramaswamy 2004) and requires clarification. From our review of this literature we conclude that
co-creation of value includes: (1) active involvement between at least two „actors‟; (2) the
integration of resources that creates novel and mutually beneficial value; (3) a willingness to
interact and co-create and, (4) a „spectrum‟ (Sheth and Uslay 2007) of potential forms of
collaboration. Drawing upon this work we define co-creation as: “An interactive process,
involving at least two willing resource integrating actors, which are engaged in specific form(s)
of mutually beneficial collaboration, resulting in value creation for those actors.”

2
Research Approach
In our research we follow Reibstein, Day and Wind (2009) who point to the importance of
engaging with managers to design new tools by practitioner involvement. We utilize „interactive
research‟ (Gummesson 2002) where interactions with managers “play a crucial role” in testing
concepts (p. 345). Our approach is qualitative involving the three phases explained in Table 1.
Table 1: Research Approach
Forms of Co-Creation
Our objective is to develop a typology, not a taxonomy of mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets
of co-creation forms. As Doty and Glick (1994) identify, typologies do not provide rules for

3
classification, instead they identify multiple ideal types that may be partly overlapping. From the
interactive research process, described in Table 1, we ultimately developed a final typology (see
Table 2): consisting of 12 types of co-creation co-conception of ideas; co-design; co-production;
co-promotion; co-pricing; co-distribution; co-consumption; co-maintenance; co-outsourcing; codisposal;
co-experience; and co-meaning creation. A future full length journal article will provide
fuller details of this co-creation typology including: a detailed description of each type; evidence
and illustrations of organizations adopting them; and, relevant supporting literature.
Table 2: A Typology of Forms of Co-Creation
Conceptual Framework for Co-Creation Design
In Figure 1, we show the five key components of the conceptual framework for co-creation
design that were identified as a result of the research process explained in Table 1. Our approach
involved exploring the complex process of co-creation design and its components, considering
the relationship between these components and representing them within a conceptual
framework. The co-creation framework in Figure 1 draws on the interactive research with
executives and insights from business model design, stakeholder and actor perspectives in
relationship marketing, learning processes, engagement platforms as well as prior work on cocreation.
In the central section of the framework in Figure 1, we show the 12 types of co-creation
described above. These forms represent options available to the focal actor in designing,
influencing or responding to co-creation opportunities involving a broad range of actors. Each
form of co-creation provides an opportunity for actors to collaborate and enhance the value
shared within the context of a marketing system. In a specific context, some forms will be more

4
appropriate than others, but their identification highlights potential opportunities for designing
value enhancements through collaboration. As noted earlier, the 12 forms of co-creation include
two broad categories. The ten forms of co-creation depicted horizontally in Figure 1 are more
discrete in nature. The two forms of co-creation depicted vertically, co-meaning creation and coexperience,
are more aggregative and cumulative in nature and may be impacted other forms of
co-creation. The arrows in the central section of Figure 1 represent the iterative and recursive
nature of collaborative co-creation activities, with the focal firm and particular actors influencing
each other in an ongoing interactive process of resource integration.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Co-Creation Design
The left section in Figure 1 represents the focal actor (firm) and its business model. When a focal
actor designs co-creative activities, it seeks to achieve mutual benefit for itself and the other
resource integrating actors. A business model can be understood as “the design or architecture of
the value creation, delivery and capture mechanisms” (Teece 2010, p. 191). Business models are
typically governed by overriding design themes (Zott and Amit 2010) that define the main design
principles, how resources are configured and how capabilities are utilized. Co-creation can be
viewed as a design theme around which business model elements are organized. A firm wishing
to engage in co-creation needs to design an „open‟ business model that permits customers and
other actors to interact with and influence design elements. Here, we utilize Nenonen and
Storbacka‟s (2010) representation of business models and their interrelated elements of design
principles, resources, and capabilities.
On the right hand section of Figure 1 we identify categories of external actors, or „actor groups‟
that have potential for engaging in co-creative activity. Because a firm may be concerned with
identifying relevant actors beyond the domain of its customers and exploring co-creation
opportunities with them, we reviewed different stakeholder models that provide guidance on
actor identification. Following a review of several relationship marketing stakeholder
frameworks, we integrate here key elements from the Ross and Robertson (2007) and
Christopher, Payne and Ballantyne (1991) models. While much of the discussion on co-creation

5
focuses on the focal actor (firm) and another actor (usually the customer), each of the forms of
co-creation can also occur within and between actors, even without the direct involvement of the
focal actor. This is reflected in Figure 1 with the black arrows on the right side of the actor
groups indicating potential inter-actor co-creation and short grey arrows on the left side of each
actor group indicating the potential for intra-actor co-creation (e.g., co-conception or co-design
activities within a customer brand community).
The focal firm may design its business model to support collaboration, but this alone does not
ensure successful engagement. To support co-creation, a focal firm should consider development
of an engagement platform (shown in the lower section of Figure 1), or gain access to a platform
provided through a third party, with the purpose of attracting actors to become involved in
relevant form(s) of co-creation. Engagement platforms are where knowledge is stored,
categorized and shared through interaction between and within actors (Sawhney, Verona and
Prandelli 2005; Ramaswamy and Gouillart 2010).
The inter-actor and intra-actor learning processes, shown in the lower section of Figure 1,
represent a key element in co-creation. A focal actor wishing to engage in design co-creation
needs to influence other actors involving inter-actor learning so that their views regarding the
benefits of co-creation become a shared construction. Intra-actor learning occurs within actor
groups such as customer brand communities. Where multiple actors are involved, a number of
factors impact on this learning including trust, commitment and how coordination is facilitated.
Although each actor within a marketing system may be involved in a range of collaborations, a
sustained involvement is likely only when the outcome is beneficial to those actors. A focal firm
will typically utilize a planned design approach in seeking co-creation opportunities. However,
not all value co-creation opportunities can be planned. Some may emerge more organically as
new combinations of resources are found to create new value-enhancing opportunities.
Discussion
The conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 aims at enabling a focal actor (firm) to more
purposely design its co-creation activities. By engaging in more purposeful and focused cocreation
activities the focal actor is more likely to engage in value enhancing co-creation. Our
work represents a further step towards understanding co-creation. However, much research
remains to be done in exploration of the multifaceted field of co-creation. Our work also has
limitations that also point to specific opportunities for further research. First, empirical work and
detailed case study research will provide additional insights relevant to applying our framework
in diverse contexts, including both business and consumer markets. Such empirical work could
also include understanding customers‟ interest in engaging in different forms of co-creation in
different product contexts and how this may vary across different customer segments. Second,
other forms of co-creative activity may emerge through further investigation. Third, the extent of
the broader actor involvement in co-creation, beyond the customer-supplier actor dyad, needs
fuller exploration. Fourth, we suggest investigation of the process of co-creation in specific
contexts, as some forms of co-creation are commonly used whilst other forms are relatively
unexplored. Exploring firms in different industry sectors and contexts and identifying the
opportunity for adopting less-developed forms of co-creation offers a further topic for

examination. Further work remains to be done to unravel such complexity and discover the full
extent of opportunities to use co-creation in an increasingly collaborative world.
REFERENCES
Adams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R., 2006. Innovation management measurement: a review.
International Journal of Management Reviews 8 (1), 21-47.
Bendapudi, N., Leone, R., 2003. Psychological implications of customer participation in coproduction.
Journal of Marketing 67 (1), 14-28.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., 1991. Relationship Marketing: Bringing Quality,
Customer Service and Marketing Together. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Doty, D. H., Glick, W., 1994, Typologies as a unique form of theory building. The Academy of
Management Review 19 (2), 230-251.
Dubois, A., Gadde, L-E., 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research.
Journal of Business Research 55 (7), 553-560.
Etgar, M., 2006. Co-Production of services: a managerial extension, in The Service-Dominant
Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, R. F. Lusch and S. L. Vargo, eds. M.E.
Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 128-138.
Gummesson, E., 2002. Practical value of adequate marketing management theory. European
Journal of Marketing 36 (3), 325–349.
Jaworski, B., Kohli, A.K., 2006. Co–Creating the voice of the customer, in The Service-
Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, R. F. Lusch and S. L. Vargo,
eds. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 109-117
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., O‟Brien, M., 2007. Competing through service: insights from servicedominant
logic. Journal of Retailing 83 (1), 5–18.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., Tanniru, M., 2010. Value networks and learning. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 38 (1), 19-31.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., 2008. Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 36 (1), 83-96.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004. The Future of Competition: Creating Unique Value with
Customers. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Ramaswamy, V., Gouillart, F. 2010. The Power of Co-Creation. Free Press, New York.
Reibstein, D. J., Day, G., Wind, J., 2009. Is marketing losing its way? Journal of Marketing 73,
1–3.
Ross, W., Robertson, D., 2007. Compound relationships between firms. Journal of Marketing 71
(July), 108-123.
Sawhney, M., Verona G., Prandelli, E., 2005. Collaborating to compete: the internet as a platform
for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 19
(Autumn), 4-17.
Sheth, J., Uslay, C., 2007. Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from exchange to
value creation. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 26 (2), 302-307.
Teece, D. J., 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43
(2/3), 172-194.
Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R.L., 2008. From goods to service(s): divergences and convergences of
logics. Industrial Marketing Management 37 (3), 254-259.
Zott, C., Amit, R., 2010. Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long Range
Planning, 43 (2/3), 216-226.
6