• No results found

An analysis of incentives for co-creation, co-production and open innovation in the energy market : a qualitative research

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "An analysis of incentives for co-creation, co-production and open innovation in the energy market : a qualitative research"

Copied!
74
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

An analysis of incentives for co-creation, co-production and

open innovation in the energy market: A qualitative research

Jeroen Bakker

5876044

Business Studies – Strategy

Supervisor: Arno Kourula

(2)

2

Table of Contents

Abstract ... 4 1 Introduction ... 5 2 Literature review ... 8 2.1 Sustainability ... 8 2.2 Consumer behavior ... 10 2.3 Supplier behavior ... 12

2.4 Open innovation, co-creation and co-production ... 14

2.4.1 The outside-in process ... 17

2.4.2 The inside-out process ... 18

2.4.3 The coupled process ... 18

2.5 Incentives for innovation ... 19

3 Theoretical framework ... 24

3.1 Designs for open innovation ... 25

3.2 Incentives for innovation ... 27

4 Methodology ... 30 4.1 Research design ... 30 4.2 Research sample ... 31 4.3 Data gathering ... 33 4.4 Data analysis ... 36 4.5 Research quality ... 37 4.5.1 Reliability ... 38 4.5.2 Validity ... 39 4.5.3 Limitations ... 40 5 Results ... 41 5.1 Findings ... 41 5.1.1 Incentives ... 41 5.1.2 Process design ... 45

5.1.3 Conditions for the cooperation ... 49

5.1.4 Behavior ... 52

5.2 Discussion ... 55

6 Conclusion ... 60

(3)

3

6.2 Managerial and policy implications ... 62

6.3 Limitations and avenues for future research ... 63

References ... 65

(4)

4

Abstract

Since global warming and costs saving are becoming two important topics in our everyday lives, there is a focus on sustainability in the energy market. Consumers are often not aware of the effects their energy consumption have, but often know a lot about how their house could be made more energy efficient. Activities such as open innovation, creation and co-production are becoming more common for suppliers. These trends create interesting

possibilities for both energy suppliers and consumer to become more sustainable, which saves both financial resources and the environment.

To research how these activities could be best organized in a way that consumers want to participate, qualitative research has been conducted among consumers. For this research a group of 17 people, that are currently searching for a new house, have just bought a new house or have recently moved into their new house were interviewed. Their housing situation ensured a mindset that was focused on the aspects and possibilities of their new house.

Theories suggested that monetary incentives and the intention-behavioral gap, which needs to be overcome, are key in this process. Also, a good process design is needed to ensure

participation.

The findings indicate that monetary incentives are indeed the most important, as suggested from earlier research. Without a monetary incentive, consumers lack the urge to participate. However, the intention-behavioral gap is not supported in this setting. This comes from the different characteristics of the energy market. With these findings, conditions for the cooperation are established to create a framework that helps suppliers shape processes and activities around open innovation, co-creation and co-production.

(5)

5

1

Introduction

Al Gore stated in his “An inconvenient truth” (2006) one of the most important reasons for the changing environment on earth; the composition of air. People influence the composition. The main form of influence is the production or consumption of energy gained from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the main resources that are used for the production of energy currently, and turn into greenhouse gasses during the process. Along with that, the economic crisis that started in 2008, created a form of awareness about the over consumption and inefficient usage of many products and resources. Especially energy producing companies showed interest in reducing the use of fossil resources, which would reduce costs and enable sustainable energy solutions (Masanet, Worrell, Graus, & Galitsky, 2008). To build a sustainable future both companies and consumers are now searching for possibilities to reshape processes or completely cut the usage of fossil resources. This trend can be found when the goals and missions of larger Dutch firms, such as Unilever and Philips, are examined. The efficiency of a production process or consumption activity needs to be increased. The goal is to do more with the same or even less resources. It would be even better to completely stop activities that rely on fossil fuels. However, this is not possible for all activities. Therefore efficiency and substitutes are currently the points of attention.

The efficiency of a production process or consumption activity can be increased by two possibilities of change. First, a substitute can be used that is more efficient. This can be in terms of costs, pollution or both. Secondly, the current process or activity can be changed in a way that it is more efficient in its resource consumption. It is important to explain the term substitute. A substitute does not necessarily replace a resource by a more sustainable one that is only one way of looking at the possibilities (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). It can also imply doing an activity in a completely different way.

(6)

6 The search for more sustainable energy is a good example of this. A power plant can be made more efficient by fine-tuning the turbine or engine that is used to generate electricity. On the other hand, a new production process is possible. For example, solar energy, which is then a substitute for the process of producing energy from fossil fuels. Enhanced resource

productivity makes companies more competitive according to Porter and Van der Linde, which is a desirable effect for the company.

It is important to make clear what a substitute is since this defines the search for innovations in the energy market. Savings and sustainability are the main goals of these innovations. Ottman, Stafford and Hartman (2006) stressed the balance between the two. The marketing of a new invention should be balanced between highlighting the value creation possibilities and the sustainability aspect. Consumers only value a new product, which is therefore challenging the current activity or product, if it is sustainable and gains value for the customer. An

example mentioned by Ottman et al. is an energy saving light bulb. The cost of buying it is higher than that of a regular light bulb. However, people will save more than the price difference, compared to a regular light bulb, during its lifetime on energy costs.

The energy market in The Netherlands is upfront in decreasing the environmental footprint. This is established by many academics, which will be discussed in the literature review. Most research has focused on the relationship of policymakers towards companies and

policymakers towards customers. However, current marketing campaigns by Dutch energy suppliers are focused on making consumers more aware of their behavior. Which is the third line in the triangle of this interaction. Many suppliers see a change in the consumption of energy (Energie Trends 2012, 2013, Energie-Nederland). According to the energy suppliers, the change in the consumption is influenced from two sides. One side is the government, the other is the consumer himself. Innovations changed the way consumers are relying on electricity and changed the way we use energy.

(7)

7 Another trending topic is the change in the creation of new products, resources and

innovations made by consumers. Globalization and technological progression in information technology contributed to decrease the distance between suppliers and consumers. Consumers are currently more involved in many processes which were traditionally executed by a

supplier. Activities as co-creation, co-production and open innovation are used more frequently by companies (Humphreys & Grayson, 2008).

Research has been done, based on open innovation, co-creation and co-production, for many different markets (Ozaki, 2010; Kemp & Rotmans, 2009; Dahlander & Gann, 2010).

However, the energy market has not been researched for this specific setting. This is

interesting since consumers have their own production place, R&D lab and activity center at hand. Their house is a place where all these activities can come together. Consumers can save, innovate and even produce energy at home. Based on earlier generated theories, an analysis of their usefulness for the energy market will be made.

The framework is created by answering the following research question.

What are the incentives and conditions that have to be met for consumers to play an active role in the co-creation, co-production and open innovation process in the energy market?

An important factor that influences the outcome of the mentioned processes is behavior. This aspect is researched in terms of how behavior influences the actually applicability of the created framework. The main forms of behavior and their characteristics that apply to this setting are researched and explained for the framework.

(8)

8

2

Literature review

The following paragraphs review the main theories and insights of existing literature and research on the fields of sustainability, consumer and supplier behavior, open innovation and incentives for open innovation. These topics are at the core of this thesis and influence the research and the framework created. First sustainability will be addressed. The definition and what it holds is important to clarify for the research. Secondly, both the behavior of

consumers and suppliers that has been established in earlier research is described. Finally innovation and the incentives for this process are discussed. The main findings from the literature were used for this research, questions for the interviews were guided by these.

2.1 Sustainability

The term sustainability is frequently used. Most commonly used, is the definition as stated in “Our Common Future” by the United Nations (1987). The definition as stated by the United Nations is:

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

It contains two key concepts:

- The concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and

- The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

The second key concept is most suitable for this research. It focuses on the environment in respect to our technological and social state.

(9)

9 Technology, in combination with our behavior as the social aspect, influences how we use our environment for our needs. To fulfill our needs we take things out of the environment and put new things in it. These extractions and additions, in terms of resources and waste/pollution, influence the environment. Only when there is a balance, will the environment be able to maintain itself at the current state. Whenever there is an imbalance, the environment will change. These changes, which become more apparent lately, may harm our everyday activities and world standards. Therefore the United Nations set a goal in 1985 to start

activities that would lead to sustainability in all sectors (United Nations, 1985). This was done because serious levels of atmospheric pollution are estimated to occur around the year 2030. Pollution has influence on a global scale. Therefore, many companies have adopted this goal. This is best described by Ozaki (2010) in terms of the energy market. According to Ozaki energy suppliers became more aware of the influence the production of energy has on the environment. Since then, suppliers are actively looking for ways to become more sustainable. These changes come through innovations made in the production and consumption process of energy.

Sustainability, as stated by the United Nations (1987), is the main goal for the production of energy. Energy is at the basis of our everyday activities. Also, the production of energy is currently indicated as one of the main activities that changes our environment (United Nations, 1987; Energie Nederland 2012, 2013). The production process changes resources into energy and the end product is energy and waste material. The waste material, mostly carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses pollute our environment, and create an imbalance in the environment, at the current rate of consumption. Innovations such as solar energy, nuclear energy and other forms of green energy change the production process and decrease pollution. However, these innovations do not provide enough energy for our needs and may have other downsides to them.

(10)

10 According to Dunphy, Griffiths and Benn (2008) corporations are actively changing their perspective on everyday activities. Corporations are often large entities that bundle resources and direct activities. This holds not only within the corporations but also for its customers and their activities through the corporations’ products. A trend of redesigning the corporation was spotted by the authors and is recommended as a guideline for future changes for corporate sustainability. This aspect of sustainability, redesigning corporations with the addition of introducing consumers in the design, indicates that corporations and their management have adopted the goal set by the UN (1987). Sharma & Ruud (2003) stated that the sustainability aspect needs social integration. As indicated by Dunphy et al. (2008) managements have already accepted their social obligation towards sustainability and the integration of consumers. Sharma & Ruud supplement this with a supporting network, with management and consumers, to provide the basis to improve corporate environmental practices. Active interaction and involvement is needed according to Sharma & Ruud to integrate consumers in the process.

2.2 Consumer behavior

The behavior of consumers is important in the innovation process. It influences how

consumers value the environment, predicts future behavior towards change and indicates how consumers cope with a topic like sustainability. It is interesting to start with a finding from research conducted by Unilever (2012) among its clients.

“68% of wastage of our products comes from the consumption by consumers self”.

Behavior in many ways influences activities and outcomes. As established by Unilever, which is interesting since it combines behavior and pollution, behavior plays the biggest part in the total picture. So if we are able to shape or modify behavior, the highest gains can be made.

(11)

11 This is in terms of how we use resources, how we establish awareness/cooperation and how behavior influences activities such as innovation and downsizing pollution. Behavior plays a part for the incentives that can be used to change activities. One main finding from research conducted by Ozaki (2010) stresses the importance of behavior from consumers. As

mentioned, companies are looking for sustainable changes and innovations. One main problem they face, is the consumer self. It is their behavior that influences the success of an innovation. Ozaki found that even consumers that had first stated that they had a strong feeling towards the environment and valued the search for sustainability, ultimately did not change behavior and were not willing to invest in sustainable products or projects. This finding is supported by Verbeke, Vanhonacker, Sioen, Van Camp, & De Henauw (2007). Their research focused on the fish industry. Although participants were very concerned about the oceans and the fish population, almost no one actually bought environmentally friendly fish. The behavior patterns consumers already have, are strong. So strong that they are not ready or willing to change, although consumers do indicate that they actually would prefer the environmentally friendly choice. Success of a sustainable product depends on the willingness from consumers to participate, the actual participation is crucial. An addition to this finding, is found in the article on “The Green Marketing Myopia” from Ottman, Stafford, & Hartman (2006). The Green Marketing Myopia describes how sustainable innovations fail to change activities. There has to be a balance between value and sustainability. An imbalance will pave the way to failure. Another important aspect is found in the actual value for consumers. As indicated before, consumers that had a strong feeling towards sustainable products rarely bought them. Shephard, Magnusson, & Sjödén (2005) researched how consumers really value the benefits of green products. The findings indicated that the feeling that their choice of a green product actually made a difference to the environment was very low.

(12)

12 Most people thought, although not grounded by data, that their consumption of green products would it actually change anything. Aspects such as better health, social statements and morals were more important. This indicates that it is important to stress the actual difference a green product makes, to change consumer behavior. This behavior and the problem that has to be solved, is called the ‘attitude - behavioral intention’ gap by Vermeir & Verbeke (2006).

2.3 Supplier behavior

Suppliers shape how consumers use products. Unilever regarded it as their responsibility to change the behavior of consumers through creating awareness, indicating how a change is possible and providing new solutions. The behavior of Unilever is focused on changing the use of their products towards a sustainable environment. Ozaki (2010) researched what influences the decision of consumers to adopt a green electricity tariff. Consumers are the main focus of this research, but the behavior of suppliers is described to identify what they want in and from the market. Ozaki does this to indicate where the incentive to become more sustainable comes from. Suppliers, according to Ozaki, have acknowledged the need to become sustainable. In their opinion, sustainability is not only the key to our survival but also for the company’s survival. Although it is self-evident from the term itself, maintaining activities without harming future generations, it applies to something less big as the environment as well. To survive, companies must make sure that the resources needed for their activities will be available in the future, this is then related back to become more sustainable (Callens & Tyteca, 1999). Another aspect mentioned by Ozaki is social pressure. Ottman et al. (2006) and Orsato (2006) described this as well.

According to Orsato, “green” is a selling point. Orsato defined when green sells and when not. Depending on what the product is, and how it is different from substitutes, a different level of sustainability and awareness increases sales.

(13)

13 In terms of energy, the product is the same from every supplier. Therefore the differentiation can come from a production process which impact on the environment is reduced compared to others. This justifies the decision of a manager to invest in sustainability programs. The findings from Ottman et al. relate to these findings in terms of when green sells.

Another interesting point made, (Orsato, 2006; Ozaki, 2010) is the fact that companies see a monetary incentive in the sustainability process. Orsato makes it a monetary incentive since it is based on selling products. Ozaki describes this in terms of survival. Survival can be

described as securing future cash flows to keep the company running. Therefore the behavior of suppliers is based on what sells. Consumers determine what sells and this creates

interaction between the two parties.

Looking further at suppliers, and their behavior, they can be described as highly influenced players in the market. As indicated, their behavior is influenced from what the consumer wants. Influence in this form is described as a form of social pressure. Social pressure can be put on scientists, consumers and suppliers (Antikainen, Mäkipää, & Ahonen, 2011).

Next to that, the behavior of suppliers is influenced by policymakers. Since suppliers are guided by monetary aspects linked to their actions, policymakers use forms of tax structures and subsidiaries to guide behavior. This theory is supported by the Dutch energy supplier association, Energie Nederland. In their yearly reports for 2012 and 2013 one of their key players in terms of influence is the government (Energie Trends 2012; Energie Trends 2013). Since governments adopted a program to reduce carbon pollution such as the Kyoto

agreements (Energie Trends 2012), the intermediation from policy makers increased.

These findings all indicate that the behavior of suppliers is guided by one main goal, which is survival. Suppliers seem to have an incentive to maintain in the market and therefore do what is necessary to survive.

(14)

14 This can be described as followed; what policymakers force them to do and what consumers want them to do. According to Collins & Porras (1996) companies shape their visions around these influences, mixed with their own input. Currently this means that sustainability in the Dutch market is key in the process. Innovations and investments for sustainability are therefore, as described by Orsato (2006), justified. This is because the policymakers force them to take certain steps towards sustainable solutions and consumers show a desire for sustainable products. Policymakers are at the other side of suppliers, compared to consumers, guiding the behavior of suppliers via tax structures and subsidiaries. This makes suppliers somewhat unreliable in terms of what they value. Since it seems that they only value survival, and therefore do whatever is necessary to achieve, their actions are guided by external

influences. However, it also indicates that as long as a community or the government values a certain future state, companies will follow. Especially when governments share these visions and adopt programs and policies accordingly.

2.4 Open innovation, co-creation and co-production

Innovation is defined by Van de Ven (1986) as the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional order. This definition highlights two important aspects of innovation, change and people. For this thesis the focus is on how people can provide ideas for change and interact with the firm. The interaction is defined by the term “Institutional order”. This new idea, by which people engage in innovative activities, is called open innovation. Traditionally, innovation was regarded as an activity that was conducted within a firm. The Research & Development department’s purpose was to find out what consumers wanted or needed and provide

innovations fitting the needs and wants. Cohen and Levinthal (1990; as in Gassmann & Enkel, 2004) define open innovation as systematically encouraging and exploring a wide range of internal and external sources for innovative opportunities.

(15)

15 Consciously integrating exploration with firm capabilities and resources, and broadly

exploiting these activities. This means that the traditional view has expanded in a way that external input is used to innovate. Consumers are a form of external input, and became more powerful in the process during the last decade. The process of open innovation is according to Bughin, Chui, & Johnson (2008) still in its earliest stage. Through new technologies

consumers can form communities and communicate with companies. Even the

communication with companies changes with the invention of new technologies. This supports new forms of innovation. Chesbrough (2003) called this the innovation of innovation. The innovation process can now be changed and more input from outside,

compared to the conventional model, can be used. In that way new thoughts, a faster supply of feedback and end user preferences shape, through the new possibilities from technology, the new standard for innovative activities.

To fully understand why open innovation is an important aspect in the search for inventions in the energy market, an aspect of the increase of the dexterity of work according to Smith (1776) gives insight. Smith found that the wealth of nations came through large firms. Large firms where capable of doing more because they could specialize their workforce in one more tasks. This increased the dexterity of work, which means that the knowledge and capabilities of doing that specific task increased. A useful side effect of this aspect became a better

understanding of the task itself, and resulted in employees inventing machinery or better tools for their specific task. This same principle holds for our everyday activities, so therefore the activity of using or producing energy as well. Complementing this with the possibilities of open innovation, the consumer can play a significant role in the generation of new inventions. Jeppesen (2005) described how groups of consumers support each other in open innovative activities and that the groups develop products that are valued by the end users and provide for the needs of consumers.

(16)

16 Open innovation empowers consumers to create their own desired product features.

Consumers know how they use energy. A large pool of potential scientists, the consumers, has the odds of walking around with a brilliant idea (Antikainen et al., 2011, p. 109). However, combining this knowledge and fully exploiting it is a challenge, especially for the companies involved. Encouraging participation from consumers seems difficult.

A step further in the process is co-creation and co-production. The traditional model of value creation depends on a production process within a company. Since interaction with consumers becomes more accessible and is possible on a high quality level, companies can involve consumers in their value production process (Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008). The authors describe that this does not change the role of a company. A company is still the entity that combines multiple resources. Their focus is the firm’s output and price. Through new

channels, in this setting an intersection of supplier and consumer activities for the creation of value chains, companies can create value.

Another form where the traditional model is challenged, is co-production. Co-production is best described as a situation in which consumers collaborate with companies or with other consumers to produce things of value (Humpreys & Grayson, 2008). Although this changes the production process, it does not change the exchange roles for companies in the economy according to the authors. Companies can enrich their production capacity through

co-production. Since more production possibilities arise, through consumers, the possibilities for companies increase. Catherine Needham (2008) describes how co-production has the potential to improve services and processes since many parties join the activities necessary to produce a good or service. More thoughts on the process will lead more innovative ideas and better problem solving. This relates to the idea of Antikainen et al. (2011), that the chances of someone walking around with a brilliant idea are better in a large pool.

(17)

17 Needham concludes, through a case study workshop, that a collective dialogue and

deliberation between co-producers is important.

Transactional forms of co-production will not bind the group of co-producers and the company. One benefit from a co-production process according to Phil Hope (as in; Boyle & Harris, 2009) is the higher level of understanding and awareness on production or creation of a service or good. This illustrates how co-production in the energy market could increase awareness on the production process and therefore directly on pollution accompanied with it.

As indicated in the consumer behavior section, from research done by Ozaki (2010),

consumers do not always maximize their outcome, nor do they always conduct in possibilities to do so even if they stated that they have incentives or feelings that guide them towards these activities. Antikainen et al. (2011) researched the motivations for open innovation. One of their participants said “The biggest source of innovation will be based on collective

creativity”. So open innovation in terms of using the knowledge of external parties has great potential, however, it is hard to establish and manage.

Designs for open innovation have been made and their usefulness is described by Gasmann & Enkel (2004). The authors describe three designs for open innovation.

2.4.1 The outside-in process

Enriching the company’s own knowledge base through the integration of external knowledge. Thus increasing a company’s innovativeness. Companies that choose for the outside-in process invest in co-operation with external parties and integrate the external knowledge that is gained. Formats like listening to client needs, buying intellectual property and investing in global knowledge creation fit this design.

(18)

18 This design is especially suitable when the consumer-supplier relationship depends mostly on products that must fit external needs and wants. Companies gain access to information for which they first had a department that was responsible in terms of forecasting needs and wants.

2.4.2 The inside-out process

Profits are earned by bringing ideas to the market and selling intellectual property that is multiplying technology by transferring ideas to the outside environment. This design is best for creating a basis on which innovations are made. Companies that choose this design, focus on the externalization of the company’s knowledge and innovative thinking in order to bring ideas to market faster that they can through internal development. Activities that focus on this design, work best when the company has a main product (the basis) that needs further

additions, changes or refinements, to be marketable. The outside environment can use its knowledge to finish the product.

2.4.3 The coupled process

Coupling the outside-in and inside-out processes by working in alliance with complementary partners in which give and take is crucial for success. All the core processes represent an open innovation strategy, but not all are equally important for every company. The design describes two way traffic of intellectual property. Enriching the knowledge can be done from either side of the innovation process. There is a need of a good understanding from every party of what they know and what the main goal is. This design is best suitable for radical changing innovations when all parties can benefit. When all parties can benefit, they are willing to cooperate and many different angels and forms of input, which alternate from outside-in and inside-out, shape a good basis for evaluating possibilities or finding solutions.

(19)

19 These designs, as described by Gassmann & Enkel (2004), are supported by Dahlander & Gann (2010). Both studies indicated a design with interaction from both parties as the best design. From the three designs indicated by Gassmann & Enkel this is the coupled design.

Although Dahlander & Gann did not use these designs for their research, their findings describe how interaction plays a crucial role in the innovation process and that both parties should have an equally active, or feel equally connected to the role for the innovativeness. Just like the coupled process as described by Gassmann & Enkel.

2.5 Incentives for innovation

The incentives for innovative activities are important to map since influencing behavior works best when the incentives are known. Like policymakers use tax structures and subsidiaries to influence behavior, and most people and companies are driven by monetary incentives, companies can use these incentives for consumers to encourage them to participate in their activity. Heiskanen & Lovio (2010) describe that consumers and suppliers can benefit from each other, especially in the energy market and the search for sustainable innovations. Since the groups combined have all the necessary information available to innovate, it seems a profitable collaboration. However, the information the players have is described as sticky, by which is meant that the information is rough and not directly understandable for the other party. Therefore both parties should reach around their conventional model of competence exploitation. Incentives should be aligned so that all parties join and communicate

understandable information, which is difficult, to support interaction.

When looking at the statement on how policy makers influence behavior, it is interesting to see that this especially holds true for the energy market. The association for Dutch energy suppliers, Energie Nederland, publishes yearly statements about the energy market in The Netherlands.

(20)

20 The statements from the last two years, 2012 and 2013, both have a large section about

governmental influence. Energy suppliers feel the pressure from both the Dutch government and the European parliament to be innovative and become more sustainable (Energie

Nederland 2012, Energie Nederland 2013). This indicates one major incentive for innovation.

Many governments around the world, especially in Europe, have agreed on downsizing pollution. The production of energy is a process which environmental footprint has great impact in the complete picture. A beneficial side effect is the monetary incentives governments put on innovative activities and downsizing pollution. As indicated in the ‘supplier behavior’ section, suppliers tend to follow whatever makes them survive. The government helps them to survive if they meet the standards the government would like to see. Innovation is key for this.

The Dutch market is by many authors (Antikainen et al., 2011; Kemp & Rotmans 2009) described as a front running market in terms of policy systems towards innovation and sustainability. It can therefore be assumed, based on statements from Kemp & Rotmans (2009) and trends in the energy market (Energie Nederland 2012, 2013), that policymakers make good use of their power in The Netherlands and suppliers are responding to it. This not only indicates that current policies do support change, also the incentive in The Netherlands to become sustainable seems therefore stronger than anywhere else.

The research from Kemp & Rotmans (2009) indicates that although the incentives are in place, change has to be accepted by all players involved. This relates back to the designs for innovations. The main finding from the research is that when all players accept the change, they participate in the process. Incentives should therefore make change acceptable. Only then can an innovation progress to the ‘take off phase’ in which the innovation challenges the status quo.

(21)

21 Acceptance on change from suppliers relies mostly on short term profits. Research from Norberg-Bohm (1999), conducted in The United States, found that companies value short term profits and awareness on the environmental change the most. This relates to survival of the supplier, according to the managers of the participating firms. Short term profits provide suppliers with financial resources which they can use for innovative activities. This then relates to survival in the long term. Awareness is the justification, as stated by Orsato (2006), for the investments in these activities.

Another incentive for innovation is not only the pressure from policymakers, but also the awareness that is created. It became more evident that our behavior is most likely one of the main reasons that the environment is changing. When yearly statements from companies such as Unilever (Yearly statement, 2012), and associations as Energie Nederland (2012, 2013) are examined, awareness and the desire to become a neutral energy consuming and pollution free entity seem to become more important. This partially relates back to the monetary and

survival aspect. But, as stated by Paul Polman (UvA at Carré, 2013-2014), only when it is at the true beliefs and heart of the company and its workforce, sustainability activities will last. Consumers show the same behavior, which is best described by findings of Antikainen et al. (2011). Many of the interviewees mentioned recognition and self-esteem from innovations they made as an important aspect. The recognition came from the fact that there seems to be a social pressure on becoming sustainable. The person who makes this possible, through his or her innovative thinking and ideas, gains a certain status which cannot be expressed in

monetary terms.

One important incentive for sustainable innovations is the environmental aspect self. Cerin & Karlson (2002) describe how changes in the level of awareness about the influence people have on the environment shifted attention to sustainability.

(22)

22 Incentives to change the environment are often described as ideology and therefore do not find support in economic terms. The authors describe that suppliers are not obliged nor stimulated enough by policy incentives to act from a sustainable development perspective. It seems therefore that this form of incentives can be described as a belief of what is good. However, recent research has acknowledged that incentives to create a sustainable environment are becoming more economical lately. Sibbel (2009) describes how schools should justify sustainability in their education to secure economical activities in the future. This relates to the survival aspect as stated by Callens and Tyteca (1999). Sustainability is finding more support from a business perspective and is therefore becoming more than an ideology.

The last incentive is monetary. This incentive is viewed from the consumer side of the process since monetary incentives for suppliers have been included in terms of tax structures and subsidiaries. One monetary incentive that can be shared between suppliers and consumers is efficiency gains. Gains, which come from the innovation that is created together, can be directly distributed among participating players.

However, gains or savings can also be made on the consumer side. A good example is solar energy. Consumers have to invest in equipment that enables them to produce energy from the sun. These investments, depending on situational factors, gain savings in the long-term. The energy bill decreases since part of all used energy, is produced in situ. This incentive is one of the strongest among consumers. As found by Ozaki (2010), monetary incentives are the most powerful tool to influence consumer behavior. Whenever the investment in solar power equipment is proved to gain savings, this justifies the investment for consumers. The Dutch energy suppliers association confirmed that the awareness and the improved durability of the equipment made many consumers decide to use solar panels.

(23)

23 Panzone (2013) describes a balance point in the prices of energy and the amount of

investment needed for energy saving solutions. Consumers and companies react to changes in the prices of energy. According to Panzone, the current prices of energy are too low to

produce innovative thinking or willingness to invest. It seems that activities that would lead to a decrease in the usage of resources are only valuable when the prices of the resources justify the costs of innovative activities and investments.

It is important to understand the balance between the value consumers attach to current costs and possible savings and the accompanied investments.

Earlier, these activities were seen as a combination of parties that were willing to cooperate. This willingness came from incentives, beliefs and pressure the parties experienced. Research by Peterman, Kourula & Levitt (2012) describes designs both on a voluntary and mandated basis. Especially the term mandated basis is interesting. Currently there is no form of mandated participation in an innovative process. However, governments have signed a mandate to reduce pollution and carbon emission. This lower level has to be met at a set time in the future. This mandate can later be transferred to suppliers and consumers, which are represented by the governmental decision. Consumers could be forced to meet a set level of emission. This might incline a mandatory participation in emission reducing activities such as innovative activities.

(24)

24

3

Theoretical framework

This thesis works on the theory that open innovation in the energy market is influenced by the process design and by the incentives for innovation. These two aspects are both influenced by behavior, market conditions and beliefs on sustainability. Interaction between the aspects gives many possibilities to test. Certain incentives or conditions work best with a set design. Findings that are contradicting, such as the fact that monetary incentives are the most important for consumers in one research and were not supported by other research (Ozaki, 2010; Ottman et al., 2006; Antikainen et al., 2011), need to be tested to find what works in the energy market. Multiple supported findings, as the use of designs (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004; Dahlander & Gann, 2010) have to be tested for their appropriateness for the energy market.

As mentioned, different aspects influence these two main aspects of the framework. An understanding on how these aspects work, has influence on both sides. A change in one of these aspects, for example the social recognition on intellectual property, might imply that a change on the other side of the framework is necessary as well. In terms of the social

recognition, the design might need a more appraisal oriented basis to provide recognition for the innovator.

I expect that both theories on the open innovation process guide towards an interactive design in which monetary incentives and recognition are the most important incentives. The

interactive design is supported by findings from Dahlander & Gann (2010) as the most effective design for radical change. Since there is a need to radically change the way we produce and use energy, a coupled process (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004) is most suitable. The incentives are supported by theories building on monetary incentives as most important and the awareness on the environment. The awareness created a higher value for recognition and self-esteem.

(25)

25 3.1 Designs for open innovation

The designs that were used for this thesis are described by Gassmann & Enkel (2004). The outside-in, inside-out and coupled process were used to test which design suits the open innovation process in the energy market best. Findings from research conducted by Dahlander & Gann (2004) guide towards a coupled process as best suitable. The coupled process

combines the inside-out and the outside-in process. The combination means that the

knowledge is enriched from two directions. Since both sides of the process are involved, the intellectual property is best used and expanded. Because of the fast manner of enriching knowledge, this design suits a situation that is in the need of radical change best. However, this only holds when the expectations hold the need of radical change. This differs on how the energy market is looked upon. One view is that the energy market, in the way we use fossil fuels, needs a radical overhaul. Fossil fuels have two negative characteristics. One, the

process by which we produce energy by burning fossil fuels is very polluting. Secondly, fossil fuels have their limits in terms of supply. Calculations differ, but it is certain that at the

current level of consumption the resources will be all used up at a nearby point in time. Therefore a radical change is needed in the way we use fossil fuels. A substitute, like electric or energy cell powered cars, is necessary which challenges the status quo. On the other hand, the change might not need to be that radical. Solar energy, for example is a good and

upcoming solution for the electricity supply for our everyday lives. Changes that enhance the efficiency of the solar panels are not radical but very efficient in terms of decreasing the use of fossil fuels.

Since electricity is used in more ways, for instance cars that charge via the electricity net at home, it depends on how a consumer looks at the process. On the other hand, the investment in a solar panel might be regarded as a radical change as well. Therefore it seems likely that a radical change process is most suitable, however testing this assumption is necessary.

(26)

26 Another point of interest for the design is the level of understanding and knowledge people have on this subject. If people feel confident about their knowledge and have an

understanding about their contribution, they value their own basis and input more than when they need a basis to build on from a supplier (Kemp & Rotmans, 2009). Confidence about the level of knowledge fits with the inside-out process. Consumers can enrich the knowledge a supplier has. The other way around, a need for specialization suits the outside-in process. Consumers generate ideas and suppliers compliment and refine these ideas with their expertise. The expectation is that consumers differ and therefore a coupled process is best suitable. The coupled process gives both types of intellectual property the opportunity to maximize their knowledge. Knowledge might even be maximized from one consumer to the other. As a new form of a coupled process.

Findings from Dahlander & Gann (2004) indicate that the design must cope with the psychological aspect of cooperation in an innovative activity. Understanding, appreciation, recognition, and consumers’ belief in the environment should all be taken into account when designing the process. To start the takeoff phase, as described by Kemp & Rotmans (2009) a mobilized group is key. Mobilizing a group can only be done when a mutual understanding of the goal is in place.

Finally the mandatory designs were taken into account. As described by Peterman et al. (2012) a mandatory design to further implement energy efficient processes, designs and products were established in commercial buildings. This form of regulation might become an aspect of energy using for consumers as well. Energy is currently a valuable commodity and ideas on putting a maximum on the total emission a person may make, might force a

mandatory participation in innovative activities. This implies that a mandatory design or regulation for houses, the amount of energy used per person or the way a person can use energy units might be interesting to look at.

(27)

27 This is all for the long term, but it is interesting to test this idea during the interviews. The expectation was that consumers don’t like to be forced and therefore it was necessary to take special care of this aspect in the interviews. It is of value since it might develop a new form of process designs, which can be an addition to the existing designs. Especially when radical change is necessary, mandatory participation is a useful instrument. This could be used in a form where exceeding the maximum emission comes with mandatory participation credits for example.

3.2 Incentives for innovation

The incentives for open innovation are grouped in three groups. Monetary incentives, Environmental incentives and other incentives. The term other incentives relates to aspects such as self-esteem, recognition or social pressure. Research by Antikainen et al. (2011) indicated that other incentives are evident in sustainable innovation processes.

The monetary aspect was expected to be the most important. This is supported by findings from Antikainen et al. (2011), Ozaki (2011) and Ottman et al. (2006). Every research values the monetary incentives in other ways. The term monetary is at the basis of the incentive. Therefore the term monetary incentive is used as a basis as well for this thesis. The open area of what this monetary incentive is, was used to guide how value is distributed or used to influence behavior. Distribution takes place whenever value is created and distributed between participating partners. Monetary incentives can also come from tax structures or subsidiaries. As Ottman et al. describe, there has to be a balance between the sustainable aspect and the value creation. Panzone (2013) describes a balance point in the prices of energy and the amount of investment needed for energy saving solutions. Consumers and companies react on changes in the prices of energy. According to Panzone, the current prices of energy are too low to produce innovative thinking or willingness to invest.

(28)

28 It seems that activities that would lead to a decrease in the usage of resources are only

valuable when the prices of the resources justify the costs of innovative activities and

investments. It is important to understand the balance between the value consumers attach to current costs and possible savings and the accompanied investments.

Environmental incentives point out the need to become more sustainable for survival of our everyday lives. Since the supply of fossil fuels for our energy is becoming scarce, substitutes are necessary to maintain our current standard in the long term. Innovative thinking is key to find substitutes. These incentives will most likely have strong influence on consumers that show a high level of awareness. As Kemp & Rotmans (2009) describe, understanding about the main goal mobilizes a group to work towards this goal. The mobilization is a reaction that comes from the awareness that is created. The research needs to test if awareness is already created, and if it has the expected outcome, which means that people feel another need, next to monetary incentives, to participate. This need will be in a form of sustaining the current standard of life that is supported by our consumption of energy. Another possibility is that there is currently no awareness and therefore this has to be created first.

The aspect of other incentives relates to the first two forms of incentives. Self-esteem and personal reasons, other than monetary and environmental, are linked to the first and second set of incentives. Self-esteem and recognition, for example, can come in different forms. One may find the recognition in a form of finding his name connected to a radical change

important. Others may value a monetary incentive mostly because it is a form of recognition that they have done something important. Antikainen et al. (2011) found that scientists participated in research activities more easily and actively when they already had made an important innovation. The recognition they got for their work was a motivation to do their “magic” again. The recognition was good for their self-esteem.

(29)

29 The two sets of theories were tested and explored during the interviews. First the response towards single aspects of a theory or structure was examined. Further in the interview the interaction between different theories and angles were tested. It was expected that this way supports or indicate contradicting aspects from the theory. The supporting or contradicting findings will in the end describe conditions, incentives, behavior and a design that is most suitable for an innovative activity in the energy market. The end result is a framework as the one below, which is a rough version. Through the findings the aspects of the rough version will get a grounded explanation and provide guidelines for open innovation, co-creation and co-production in the energy market in The Netherlands.

Figure 1. First version, the blue print, of the model for open innovation, co-creation and co-production in the energy market.

Process Design

Incentives

for

consumers

Conditions

for the

cooperation

Consumer

Behavior

that

influences

activities

(30)

30

4

Methodology

This section describes how the research was structured, what measures have been taken to ensure a high quality of research and a description of the interview and the setting of the interview.

4.1 Research design

The research question guides the research towards an exploratory setting, and therefore a form of qualitative data collection and analysis was used. So far, research has not been done in the energy market in terms of open innovation, co-creation and co-production. Existing findings on these activities, and on sustainable innovations in other sectors, will be used as a basis for this research. A framework is created and explained on the basis of the answers given in the interviews. This approach is labeled as an inductive approach by Saunders & Lewis (2012). However the findings from other fields make the research partially deductive. To create a framework, persons are interviewed and studied on their behavior, incentives and process design preferences on open innovation in the energy market. The research focuses on cases where the process of moving into a new house has just finished, is currently going on or is likely to start in the near future. This characteristic is very important since it creates a better understanding about the subject of this research. When moving into a new house, the energy characteristics that influence the fix costs for a house and the construction and building possibilities are analyzed. Especially for the framework that is created, a good understanding of these possibilities and the state of mind with this situation is important. According to Saunders & Lewis an interview works best whenever the interviewee is currently affected by the research topic or has a strong feeling towards it. Especially the effect aspect is apparent in this setting.

(31)

31 An interviewee that has a strong feeling towards savings, which can be made in his house, shows very clear incentives in that way and can describe the aspects of the framework for his situation.

4.2 Research sample

For this research participants that are currently, or have lately been, active in the search for a house are needed. To map behavior, feelings, incentives or intended actions towards a topic, participants need active involvement in the topic (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). As indicated by the Dutch association of energy suppliers, Energie Nederland, especially people that are moving houses are analyzing possibilities to change the characteristics of their house to save on energy (Energie Nederland 2012). These changes often include construction or investing in new equipment. According to Gephard (as in; Rynes & Gephart, 2004) qualitative research is best conducted in a setting where the researched activities naturally occur. The selection criteria ensure that participants are not forced to place themselves in a situation. The

researched subject is about their current situation. Next to that, a person that is focused on a specific topic, task or activity becomes an ‘expert’ in that field. Field experts are the most likely to invent machinery, new techniques or identify possibilities in current activities in their field of expertise. The aim of this research is to map incentives, behavior and process designs in a framework for open innovation, co-creation and co-production in the energy market. With the focus on the consumer side of this relation, the participants need to be consumers of the energy market. The sample used for this research, consisting of people that are currently involved in the topic, provides the most supporting findings based on their housing situation.

(32)

32 Further than the aspect of moving into a new house, no selection criteria were used. Age, gender or any other personal characteristic does not influence the sample group for this research. As the focus is on consumers, and in the energy market nearly everyone is a

consumer, no further selection was made. Ottman et al. (2006) indicated that their finding on the green marketing myopia was valid for the complete market and did not fit any group in particular. It is important, no matter what market or target group, that values and efficiencies are distributed equally among consumers and suppliers.

Access to people that fit the required conditions was granted via a private real estate investor in Amsterdam. Connections from this investor through Noord-Holland, which is the province Amsterdam is in, were used. This form of sampling is convenience sampling since the group is available through gained access (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Through this network a group of people that were in the process of moving into a new house, in search for a new house or had just moved into a new house, were selected. Each possible participant was asked to participate in this research. This was done in person since most of the possible participants frequently visited the office building in Amsterdam. Participation was completely voluntary and no pressure or influence was used to ensure participation. The possible participants were asked to be part of an interview in which their feelings and experience towards sustainable innovations in terms of the energy market were examined. The possible participants were told that the interview would take around 30 minutes of their time. Earlier finished interviews, that were held to test the interview, were used to measure the needed time and test the interview guidelines. A list of the guidelines and selected possible questions can be found in the appendix.

The findings are based on 16 interviews. Although 17 interviews were held, the total number of interviews used for the results was reduced to 16. One interview did not include any answers that were supported by further explanation.

(33)

33 This participant didn’t seem to have many thoughts on the subject nor did he provide any supporting explanation or evidence for his behavior or preferences. Because of the low quality of this specific interview, the choice was made to exclude this interview from the end results. The aim of the research, with this sample, is not to find generalized results. Instead, from this sample group a set of interesting cases were present which provides further understanding on how known theories apply to this setting and field of interest. The findings section contains quotes that represent these cases.

4.3 Data gathering

The interviews were held at an office in the center of Amsterdam which is regularly visited by most participants since they work nearby, have colleagues or friends to visit in the office or have still unfinished business in relation to their search for a new house. In total 17 interviews were held which took approximately between 24 and 37 minutes. All interviews were held in Dutch. Because of the low level of responsiveness and depth of the answers during one interview, the choice was made to erase the results from this interview from the data for the findings. A complete overview of the recorded ethnographic information of the interviewees is available in the appendix. Because of the regular visits, the level of inconvenience was kept to a bare minimum. Also, the location where the interviews were held, provided a meeting room to use for the interviews. The room and place had no relation to the interview subject, nor any other distraction points, which made sure that participants could answer freely and had no pressure on possible desired answering.

The time necessary for the interview depends on the answers given. However, testing revealed that most interviews would take approximately 25-35 minutes, depending on the answers. The longest test interview took 42 minutes, which included every question possible and had medium answers in terms of their length.

(34)

34 The shortest interview took 25 minutes to finish. This interview did not cover all the

questions, this was seen by the answers that were given, the answers were often medium to long in terms of their length. Those two numbers were the exceptions and the average was a little more than 30 minutes.

The interview started with the question if the participant was comfortable with a recording being made during the interview. If agreed, the audio recorder was started. If not, no recordings were made and results came from the coding and notes made during the

interview. Recording the interview provides the opportunity to later check quotes or complete sections of the interviews.

For the structure of the interviews a structured form was chosen. The semi-structured form, as defined by Saunders & Lewis (2012), guides the interview based on the findings from the literature review. However, it is open for additions or follow-up questions if necessary. Since this research is both inductive and deductive, there must be room for

exploration and explanation. The deductive part is structured by questions that cover the fields found in the literature. Questions covering feelings on the energy market and how the

processes can be structured, have a more inductive approach as they try to explore what theory can be found on this subject. For example, people were asked how they looked at energy in general. Do consumers value energy as an economical or an environmental cost. Insight in how people perceive energy paves the way for theories on how to influence consumers not only by their incentives but also about their values connected to energy. Secondly, the way the process is designed can be defined as the basis of the relationship between consumer and producer. There are several possibilities on how information, resources and information flows between these two parties. Since consumers need to feel comfortable in the relationship, a good understanding of their preferences is necessary.

(35)

35 For example, the designs indicated by Gassman & Enkel (2004) are useful, accompanied with information on in which conditions consumers tend to cooperate.

The topics that will be used to structure the interviews are indicated below. A complete list of selected possible questions, follow up questions and guidelines for the interview can be found in the appendix, on page 73.

- Incentives - Behavior - Process design

- Conditions for combined activities.

During the interview, topics that are mentioned will be explored. If multiple participants mention the same aspects or topics, these can later be included in the research. At the end participants were asked if there were any questions that were not asked but in their opinion should have been asked. This provided the opportunity for participants to guide the interview towards topics that were not covered in the interview. When the interview was finished, the participant was asked if he or she could be contacted afterwards if new questions should arise. If the participant agreed, contact details were added to the notes. This information will only be used for follow-up questions if they occur. Also, if participants wanted the results from the research their contact information was asked for. The results will be sent at the end of the research to them if asked for. A complete overview of the characteristics of the interviewees is available in the appendix.

(36)

36 4.4 Data analysis

The interviews are recorded for their analysis. Next to that, notes were made to indicate emotions or responses that were expressed physical and therefore not noticeable on the recordings. For example, if an interviewee has a highly disapproving look or frown when a question was asked or a statement about a subject is made, it is of value to attach this emotion to the answer given.

The analyses partially started during the interviews, by the notes made. Expressions are connected to feelings about the subject or questions asked. However, it is important that these notes were added to the coding afterwards, to decrease the chance of bias in the coding based on the notes. If someone shows a disapproving look, this may not imply that his answer is disapproving as well. For instance, many people feel that information about their financial background or value distribution are discretional subjects and are therefore more secretive about these subjects. Further analysis was done after all the interviews were held. Codes, corresponding to the findings from the literature, were assigned to answers given. These codes where directly extracted from the literature used in the literature review. It is important to start with an objective coding structure to decrease the chances of observer bias (Miles &

Huberman, 1984). By doing this, answers were all put in a category. The possibility exists that a single answer covers multiple categories from the same subject or from different subjects. Sometimes answers were given that indicated something about incentives but also about behavior. The answer was then assigned to both subjects. Possible notes, that were made during the interview, were attached to the coding sheet for further explanation after the coding was done. An example of the coding and answers to which they applied, can be found in the appendix.

(37)

37 After coding all the answers, trends were looked for based on the coding. This research

focuses on the possibilities of open innovation, co-creation and co-production in the Dutch energy market which in the end will be described by a framework that meets consumers’ preferences and expectations best. Therefore the trends that were indicated from the answers given in the interviews were used to create a framework. An example of the framework was already given in the theoretical framework section from the literature review. The coding was used to support findings for the separate sections of the framework’s blue print. Explanation of the framework was given based on the answers, and possible attached notes, given by the interviewees.

It is important to understand why there is a preference or expectation regarding a specific subject to better understand how a setting should be made and interact with the consumer. The notes were especially important and useful for this aspect of the framework since these hinted if there were touchy subjects, which was mostly made clear by physical expressions, that needed more attention or exploration for a good cooperation.

4.5 Research quality

When doing qualitative research there is already a form of bias implied with the

characteristics of qualitative research. Researchers attach their own feelings and expectations to the research. Since the interviews are, in this case, done by the same person that structured and analyzed the interviews, measures are needed to maintain a high level of quality.

To indicate which aspects of the research have to be kept in mind to maintain a good quality, the separate subjects are discussed.

(38)

38

4.5.1 Reliability

The reliability of this research is mostly threatened by two factors. These are described by Saunders & Lewis (2012) as observer error and observer bias. Observer error means that an observer, in this setting the interviewer, asks questions in such a way that he or she is biasing the results. It is therefore important to fully understand which research subject is touched with the question and keep the answer possibilities as open as possible. No indication should be given towards a specific answer. This is done by asking the questions from this interview as simple and open as possible. The questions were designed in a way that they did not indicate any theory that was behind it or was tested through the question. Testing the interviews fine-tuned the possible questions. Due to the testing, it was clear how long the interviews on average would take.

Next to that, questions that were unclear could be reshaped based on the findings from the testing. For example, some questions used to much field specific terms which were then replaced by explaining sentences on the subject. This ensured that participants felt less intimidated or ignorant about the subject. The testing was very useful to gain insight in the quality of the questions and the way participants respond to certain styles of questioning. Secondly the way of structuring the interview is important. At first, no examples or hints were given about possibilities. Even when interviewees asked for further explanation, only a

description of what he could describe was given. No examples were used that came from the literature review to keep the level of bias towards it as low as possible. After the answer was given, terms or information from the literature were used to check if the answer given by the interviewee was corresponding to what the interviewer observed. This was only done when no clear statements or descriptions were given. To overcome observer bias, a researcher needs distance from the field that is being researched (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Also, a good understanding of the interviewer of all the possible answers is important.

(39)

39 When the interviewer understands what the difference in the possible answers are, he is able to decide which theory or coding suits the answer given best. This is very important since a lack of understanding could simplify the analysis or answers could be misinterpreted. To maintain a high level of reliability, all possible answers and theories were studied. This form of self-reflexivity is described by Tracy (2010) as an important factor to overcome biases and inclinations of the researcher. Since there was no connection between the outcome of the research and the interviewer, the reliability was not at stake due to attachment between interviewer and research subject. The conclusion was made that the chance of influencing or guiding the interviews or answers was small. Therefore the reliability level was regarded as secure.

4.5.2 Validity

There are two forms of validity. Namely, internal validity and external validity. Especially internal validity is important for this research since the external validity looks for the

possibility that can be generalized in other fields. This research specifically aims at the Dutch energy market and is therefore not in search of a framework that is generalized but only suited for this field. The internal validity is concerned with the aspect that the findings are really about what they appear to be about (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The main factors that may threaten this research are concerned with the sampling method. Since a form of convenience sampling was used, the possibility exists that a non-representative group was used. This form of bias is on the field of participant selection (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). However, for the current setting the sample group was sufficient to gain better understanding in the influences that creates the framework from this research. This research is not focused on the construction of a generalizable framework that suits the market as a whole. Insights and theories are tested for their usefulness. The used sample group is selected on their current interest on this subject.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of

- Opdracht 3: welke instellingen kunnen worden benaderd, hoe ga je dit doen, studenten benaderen welke momenteel op stage zijn. Plan van aanpak bijstellen nav feedback en

This research has aimed to discover how awareness of workarounds in healthcare processes can enable the continuous improvement of work systems, by exploring whether a level of

Also, our study showed that companies with multiple auditors have a higher use of most wealth defence related features in their subsidiary network than companies with a

– Secure young brains being able to work on these new value chains • At Hanze University of Applied Sciences, together with partners from. industry and society we co-created En Tran

In 2012-2013 the innovation of the business model value proposition elements products and services, gain creators, the strategic orientation product leadership were classified

‘To provide Philips with an understanding of the approach of Co-Creation and a well-defined judgment about the applicability of Co-Creation as an approach to enhance speed and

The findings present that the quality of an interaction leads to dialogue, therefore: proposition 2  the quality of an interaction is determined by