28.11.2014 Views

Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas

Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas

Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Master thesis Business Administration, Specialization: Strategy & Organization <br />

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. T. Elfring <br />

Joost de Boer <br />

Student number 1517597 <br />

addition, it might also be used to seek for partnerships in fields where cooperation between two organizations <br />

might not be as obvious (Company A). <br />

Figure 4.11 | Types of co-creation among involved organizations<br />

Crowd of People<br />

Community of Kindred Spirits<br />

!<br />

!<br />

!<br />

Openness<br />

Club of Experts<br />

Coalition of Parties<br />

! !<br />

!<br />

!<br />

!<br />

!<br />

!<br />

Ownership<br />

Co-­‐creation in the NPD-­‐process <br />

Figure 4.12 on the next page shows a comparison of the different NPD-­‐processes in the involved organizations. <br />

As already discussed in the previous sections, it immediately points out that all the organizations tend to use <br />

co-­‐creation for the purpose of idea generation. However, this illustration also shows that all the involved <br />

organizations tend to do a form of research in the stage before involving external parties by using co-­‐creation. <br />

This form of early research can be done in the way that Company A does, by using context mapping, or for <br />

example by letting a relatively small number of involved employees define a set of themes like in Company C. In <br />

either case, it may be clear that no organization uses co-­‐creation with the scope of an entire greenfield by <br />

leaving the involved parties completely free in which direction they take. <br />

Next, all the involved organizations appeared to make a thorough selection of the generated ideas after the <br />

idea generation-­‐phase. The exact way that these selections were made differs per organization: some use very <br />

tangible criteria such as predefined benchmarks, and others use a somewhat more ‘gut feeling’ approach. The <br />

importance of a clear scope for co-­‐creation projects becomes more obvious when seeking for selection criteria <br />

and ways to communicate the follow-­‐up of generated ideas towards participants of co-­‐creation sessions. <br />

Considering the development phase, what immediately meets the eye is that most of the actual development <br />

of products and services is done internally – behind closed doors and without directly involving any external <br />

parties by using co-­‐creation. There were no clear indications why the development of ‘openly’ generated ideas <br />

was done without direct involvement of the involved external participants. One of the possible reasons could <br />

be the lack of knowhow of externals or an organizations refusal to share information that is sensitive to <br />

57

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!