Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Master thesis Business Administration, Specialization: Strategy & Organization Supervisor: Prof. Dr. T. Elfring Joost de Boer Student number 1517597 Regarding to the feedback that was provided to parties that were actively involved in a co-‐creation project, the results were dichotomous. One part of the organizations would ‘thank the participant for his or her contribution’ and would then move on in the process without further directly involving the customer. Another way of providing feedback was seen at Company D, where the involved interviewees were kind of proud about the way that participants received feedback and were involved afterwards. Considering the other interviewees, many of them saw plenty room of opportunity for (in their eyes necessary) improvements on the way their organization provided feedback to participants. As one of the interviewees of Company A mentioned: “We should cherish that our customers want to be involved in our organization”. Considering the entire NPD-‐process, some interviewees initiated the idea for installing something that might be referred to as ‘Co-‐creation Councils’, consisting of both internal and external parties of the organization. These councils should then be assigned with the budgets and time to constitute a core team of people to select and develop the co-‐created ideas outside the organization. This would then either be done by setting up incubator programs or by creating more traditional settings like corporate ventures. In addition, these would then also have to deal with the time-‐to-‐time evaluation of the development process, measuring and testing its progress and content. Results and measurement Discussing the results of co-‐creation, it quickly appeared that only few projects really delivered in terms of new products. Considering the fact that many of the co-‐creation projects were initiated for idea generation, the lack of results in terms of new products or services might imply that many of these co-‐creation projects failed. However, most interviewees explained that co-‐creation had contributed to the organization and their new product development processes in another way than simply by delivering complete products or services. Although new ideas were in fact generated during co-‐creation projects, these were often ideas that had earlier already been thought of by employees of the organization. Nevertheless, multiple interviewees indicated that because of the increased priority that was given to co-‐creation projects and their outcomes by higher management levels, co-‐creation functioned as a wheelbarrow for ideas, leveraging them towards a new level. In addition, customers were found to provide useful feedback on new ideas and on products or services that already existed. Next to these product-‐related results, co-‐creation also proved to be a new way of communicating between the organizations and its stakeholders. Several interviewees indicated that they felt co-‐creation ‘shook up’ the organization, directly involving employees with the people they really work for: their customers. In addition, co-‐creation appeared to be a strong PR-‐tool, enhancing the relationship between the organization and its customers. The actual measurement of the results of co-‐creation was more difficult than just telling what is results were. It is quite difficult to express the monetary value of new (unrealized) ideas, useful feedback and enhanced customer relations that were the result of co-‐creation. Organizations appeared to deal with this differently. Where some of them were actually still seeking for ways to measure results in terms of ‘return on investment’ by for example calculating what an ideas’ potential model would look like, other organizations made sure that 59
Master thesis Business Administration, Specialization: Strategy & Organization Supervisor: Prof. Dr. T. Elfring Joost de Boer Student number 1517597 the results of the co-‐creation projects were distributed throughout the organization, automatically creating some form of supportive basis for its use. It can also be said that different types of co-‐creation also have a different type of measurability. Where the Club of Experts -‐mostly used for idea generation – has a quite difficult measurability of results, the Crowd of People can for example more easily be measured by looking at its degree of participation. In either way, interviewees also indicated that there were still ideas resulting of co-‐creation projects that yet remained undeveloped – highlighting its potential for the long term. Encountered difficulties using co-‐creation Before, during and after the NPD-‐process, there were several difficulties organizations encountered when using co-‐creation. Although not all of these difficulties could directly be found at every organization, it may be expected that they are applicable on multiple organizations. In total, seven difficulties were identified that organizations might face when using co-‐creation as illustrated by figure 4.13. • Commitment -‐ three factors can be distinguished that strongly affect the level of commitment co-creation projects can expect to receive: available budget, available time and the priority that is given to the project. First, the availability of time employees have for participation and dedication to co-‐creation projects can be separated in two types: the individual available time of each employee to be involved in the co-creation project, and the available time during the process to involve external parties. Co-‐creation cannot be done instantly or as something that is done in spare hours. Second, the available budget plays a crucial role. During the research, it appeared that when an organization suffers under financial stress, innovation projects – and among them co-‐creation – are under high pressure of cutting losses. Third, the level of priority that is given to the project by both employees and higher management levels, is relevant for its success. Especially when generated ideas do not directly fit in a certain business line, it still requires the responsibility and dedication of employees and management. As one of the interviewees remarked: “I think that co-‐creation should be implemented both top-‐down and bottom-‐up to become a real success”. • Organizational culture – even though the organizational culture will be one of the toughest things in the organization to change, it is crucial that it embraces co-‐creation. Although co-‐creation is largely influenced by other factors such as available time and available budget, co-‐creation must be embedded in -‐ as what some interviewees referred to as -‐ ‘the way of working’ – rather than considering it as another tool. • Organizational structure – co-‐creation requires flexibility and anticipation for the future. Most of the larger -‐and therefore often more hierarchical designed – organizations found it more difficult to translate co-‐created ideas into successful services. • External influences – the external environment of organizations appeared to be an important predictor for possible problems. Organizations that felt to be under high environmental pressure as a result of 60
Page 1 and 2:
Idea generation ********** Idea dif
Page 3 and 4:
Master thesis (in progress) Bus
Page 5 and 6:
Master thesis (in progress) Bus
Page 7 and 8: Master thesis (in progress) Bus
Page 27 and 28: Master thesis Business Administr
Page 57: Master thesis Business Administr
Page 81: Master thesis Business Administr
show all

Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?