Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas
Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas
Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas
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