CO-CREATION IN THE NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY IN THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRY
Master’s thesis, MSc Business Administration Entrepreneurship & Innovation Track
Amsterdam Business School University of Amsterdam, March 2015 Laura Rijsenbrij Student number: 10654852 Supervisor: Dr. W. van der Aa Co-assessor: Drs. A. Gruijters
2
ABSTRACT
Within the literature, there is an increased emphasis on a close collaboration between organizations and external parties in the development process of new products and services. Models that provide structure to new product development (NPD) processes have been developed that enable companies to open up by looking for ideas and technologies from the outside. However, despite increased attention has been drawn on opening up innovation efforts, few is known about the precise use of co-creation in NPD. For that reason, this research examines how organizations that are operating in the food and beverage industry effectively use co-creation in their NPD processes.
A multiple case study has been performed including four food and beverage organizations situated in the Netherlands. Interviews have been conducted with nine participants while focusing primarily on the company objective of using co-creation, the external participants invited to collaborate, and the modes of co-creation that are employed in the three central phases of NPD. In addition, primary factors determining the effective use of co-creation were discussed.
The findings show that co-creation is mainly initiated by innovation and marketing departments in the fuzzy front-end of NPD. Here, it is perceived as a new and refreshing way to approach the market. Several types of external participants are selected for co-creation, and different modes of co-creation are chosen, depending on the phase of NPD and the topic of the challenge. A number of factors have been identified that contribute to the effectiveness of creation. These broadly include the type of external participants and the context of co-creation, the involvement of relevant internal stakeholders, and the preparedness of the internal culture and structure of the organization.
This research provides practitioners with an overview of the types of external participants to invite and what modes of co-creation to choose in different phases of NPD. As well, it provides them a list of factors to take into account that are likely to influence the effectiveness of co-creation processes positively. Furthermore, it underscores the use of co-creation in order to enhance external thinking within the organization. Lastly, opportunities and recommendations are provided for future research.
Key words: co-creation, (open-) innovation, service-dominant logic, new product development (NPD), food and beverage industry
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction...5
1.1 Purpose and research question...6
1.2 Overview of the thesis...7
2. Literature review...8
2.1 Co-creation: what is it about?...8
2.1.1 New paradigm in NPD...8
2.1.2 Definition: co-creation of value...10
2.2 Organizational objective of co-creation...11
2.2.1 Outcomes of co-creation...11
2.2.2 Shift from closed to open innovation...13
2.2.3 The Service-Dominant logic...14
2.3 Co-creation in the NPD process...15
2.3.1 Innovation Value Chain and open Stage-Gate process...15
2.3.2 Effectiveness of co-creation in different phases of NPD...17
2.3.3 Type of external participants...19
2.3.4 Modes of co-creation...21
3. Conceptual framework...23
4. Methodology...25
4.1 Research design...25
4.2 Data collection...26
4.2.1 Sample- and case selection...26
4.2.2 Case characteristics...27
4.2.3 Data collection procedure...28
4.2.4 Data analysis...28
4.3 Strengths and limitations: credibility of the research...29
5. Analysis...30 5.1 Case analysis...30 5.1.1 Company A...31 5.1.2 Company B...36 5.1.3 Company C...40 5.1.4 Company D...45 5.2 Cross-case analysis...50
4
6. Discussion...58
6.1 Co-creation objective...59
6.2 External participants in co-creation...60
6.3 Used modes of co-creation...61
6.4 Co-creation in the NPD process...63
6.5 Outcomes of co-creation...65
6.6 Effectiveness of co-creation in NPD...66
7. Conclusions...67
7.1 Conclusion...67
7.2 Practical implications...70
7.3 Limitations and directions for future research...70
References...72 Appendices...76 Appendix I...76 Appendix II...77 Appendix III...80 Appendix IV...81
5
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION § 1.1 Purpose and research question
§ 1.2 Overview of the Thesis
“There has been some great changes in business and society, market by shifting competencies toward external communities. By including the global talent of external parties, firms confirm the importance of collaboration with customers in order to create new value in the current society” (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b).
A trendy topic in business is ‘collaborative creation’, also referred to as ‘co-creation’. Broadly speaking, co-creation reconsiders how organizations involve external parties in the development of new products and services, which is seen as a joint process between the two. The growing interest in co-creation can mainly be assigned to the changing nature of communication technologies such as the Internet, which led to empowered consumers and changed the ways they can now interact with organizations. As a consequence, this has caused organizations to switch towards a more open approach to innovation and changes the process of value creation. Whereas value was first determined by the organization, consumers being passive receivers of products and services being offered to them, value is now perceived and determined by the consumer that actively interacts with organizations (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). A considerable number of organizations which formerly solely produced in-house, now opened up for ideas coming from the outside world. As an illustration, Nivea’s deodorant ‘black and white’ is the result of including customers in the value creation process. By listening carefully to the voice of the customer, going beyond traditional market research methods such as focus groups, Nivea was able to develop a product that is still very successful on the market. Another example includes Nike, who responded to the changes in how customers are now connected by means of a co-creation platform called NikePlus. Being a collaboration between Nike and Apple, this online platform allows the company to engage runners and their social networks in conversations that generate deep knowledge and insights into the running experience. Hereby, Nike is co-creating value with their customers, whose generated input can bring great ideas for potential innovations (Ramaswamy, 2008).
As well as the growing use of co-creation in practice, in the last decade two concepts have emerged in innovation management and marketing literature, both embracing the importance of a more frequent and close collaboration between organizations and external parties in the development process of new products and services. These concepts comprise of the principles of open innovation and the service-dominant logic, thus covering
6
support for the use of co-creation in innovation processes, and highlighting the beneficial outcomes it can bring to organizations. Amongst others, co-creation can allow organizations to generate ideas faster, enhance their current products and services, reduce time to market and improve customer relationships.
1.1 Purpose and research question
As described in the introduction, the taking part of customers in innovation processes, becoming collaborative partners of the firm by means of co-creation, has gained increased attention by academics and in practice. Within the literature, the outcomes of co-creation are described well (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b), as well as the company objectives of using it (Chesbrough, 2003, 2007; Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Nambisan & Nambisan, 2009). However, key for organizations is to understand what leads to the benefits of co-creation.
There is a growing interest in adapting the Stage-Gate process to facilitate open innovation practices in the new product development (NPD) process (Grönlund, Sjödin & Frishammer, 2010). The external sourcing of ideas also finds support in the innovation value chain (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007). Despite both of these models emphasize on opening up innovation efforts, they do not specifically provide an understanding on the exact use (i.e. the practice of co-creation in innovation processes in order to create value) of co-creation in the NPD process. Although it appears that co-creation can effectively be used in different phases of the NPD process, it is not clear what mode of co-creation (Pisano & Verganti, 2008) is suitable during each phase. In addition, despite some external participants’ characteristics have been identified (von Hippel, 2005; Alam, 2006; Gruner & Homburg, 2000), little is still known about the type of people selected for co-creation. It is therefore interesting to explore which customers can be targeted in each co-creation phase (Hoyer et al. 2010).
Despite several case studies have been done illustrating how customers engage in the co-creation of value, sample companies often include companies in the service industry, for example service providers (Payne et al. 2008). Less research has investigated how product manufacturers use co-creation in innovation projects. This might be due to the fact that back in the days, customers were more likely to participate in the production of services rather than goods (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). It is, therefore, interesting to investigate how the co-creation of value is created in organizations that supply tangible products. More specific, for food and beverage companies the consumer is as a very important source of information in order to improve existing products and create new ones. Probably for this reason, the amount of co-creation initiatives has increased significantly within the industry (Roth, 2013).
7
Therefore, it is interesting to examine in more detail how food and beverage companies can make use of co-creation in their innovation processes.
Thus, although there has been an increased focus on co-creation in the literature and in practice, little combined research has been conducted explaining for what objectives companies use co-creation and in which NPD phase, what kind of external participants are therefor involved, and which mode of co-creation is therein appropriate (i.e. how co-creation can be used). In addition, few is known about what factors essentially determine whether the expected outcomes of co-creation are actually met (i.e. how to effectively use co-creation). By means of a review of the existing literature and empirical examination this research strives to investigate the following research question:
“How can organizations effectively use co-creation in the development phases of new food and beverage products?”
In order to support the research question, the following sub-questions have been formulated: How is the term co-creation interpreted?
What are company objectives of using co-creation in NPD?
Which external participants are selected and what mode of co-creation is used in different phases of NPD?
- What type of external participants can be chosen for co-creation? - What co-creation modes can be used?
What are the primary determinants of an effective co-creation process?
1.2 Overview of the Thesis
This research is organized as follows. In Chapter 2, literature as well as relevant theories in the field of co-creation is presented. Next, Chapter 3 presents the conceptual framework that emerged from the literature review. Chapter 4 introduces the research methodology that was used to collect the empirical data. In Chapter 5, the empirical section of the research is discussed by presenting the findings of the within- and cross-case analyses. Interviews were conducted at four organizations operating in the food and beverage industry. A total number of nine interviewees provided insights into how their organizations used co-creation in their innovation processes. After this, Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the findings and its implications for the co-creation theory. Lastly, Chapter 7 concludes the thesis, explains the limitations of the research and proposes future recommendations.
8
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
§ 2.1 Co-creation: what is it about? § 2.2 Organizational objective of co-creation
§ 2.3 Co-creation in the NPD process
The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the literature in order to give an initial answer to the question that is central to this research. It will start by describing the main factors that have given rise to the concept of co-creation and a general definition. In the second paragraph, company objectives of using co-creation will be elaborated on. Also, since co-creation appears to be used the most for innovation and marketing objectives, trends in the literature on innovation management and marketing are discussed to explore the use of co-creation further. The third section of this chapter focuses on models that structure the new product development (NPD) process, and how co-creation can be utilized in the process. In addition, the characteristics of external participants are examined together with the activities that they perform in co-creation projects along the track of NPD.
2.1 Co-creation: what is it about? § 2.1.1 New paradigm in NPD
§ 2.1.2 Definition: co-creation of value
The ability of consumers to communicate more often and more directly with organizations, as well as with each other, has increased tremendously thanks to advancements in information and communication technologies (Normann & Ramírez, 1993; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010; von Hippel, 2005). Partly assigned to dissatisfied consumers and the revolution in interactive technologies (von Hippel, 2005; O’Hern & Rindfleisch, 2008) there has been a shift from a classic process design of NPD to a more experience-based approach: from a primary focus on maximizing returns of the firm, to a focus on all stakeholders affected by a new product or service (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b). This strategy towards new product development is highly being acknowledged in recent literature and can be reffered to as a ‘co-creative strategy’.
2.1.1 New paradigm in NPD
In recent years, companies are struggling to sustain their competitive advantage. A critical process for the survival of organizations is the development of new and innovative products. In addition, within innovation processes and value creating activities, the involvement of customers in ‘collaborative creation’ can be of great benefit to the organization (Nambisan &
9
Nambisan, 2009). Even though the participation of customers by means of collaborative creation or ‘co-creation’ received increased recent attraction, the basic ideas behind the principle are not that new. For example, Bendapudi and Leone (2003) provide a chronological review of the literature done in the field of customer participation in the production of goods and services. The authors show that the first work in this area was carried out quite some decades ago. For example, in 1979 Lovelock and Young already demonstrated that “customers can be a source of productivity gains as a consequence of customer participation in the production of services” (Lovelock & Young, 1979, in Bendapudi & Leone, 2003, p.16). As well as the work of Lovelock and Young, a lot of early work in the customer participation literature focuses mainly on benefiting the company when engaging customers in production in terms of productivity gains (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003).
Normann and Ramírez (1993) were one of the first to notice that a main strategic task for companies is to redefine their business system, and shift from a company-centric view where customers are only ‘consuming’ value, to a focus on the entire value-creating system of all its stakeholders. Here, customers taking part in the value creation process are creating value not only for the sake of the organization, but also for themselves. Building on the work of Normann and Ramírez (1993), Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000) state that customers have for a long time been ignored by researchers and managers. Nevertheless, partly assigned to technological advancements they now moved from being a passive audience towards playing an active role in creating value with companies. It is now the role of organizations to find ways of controlling the competencies of their customers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000). Hence, despite there has been some focus on the engagement of customers in terms of productivity gains, traditional literature and practice on NPD assumes that it is mainly an internal firm activity where customers have little influence upon the NPD process (O’Hern & Rindfleisch, 2008). However, this has been challenged by empowered customers now expecting more involvement in the innovation process (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b; Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft & Singh, 2010; O’Hern & Rindfleisch, 2008). More companies are now encouraging an active dialog with their customers and co-creating personalized experiences (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000), enabling customers to take that more active role in NPD. Also, companies are placing more emphasis on proactive market-orientation where the customer becomes a collaboration partner, jointly discovering latent needs with the business (Kristensson, Matthing & Johansson, 2008).
10
value creation, where customers are only the receivers of products and services being offered to them, towards joint value creation, where customers become part of the innovation process of a product or service through personal engagement (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b), has found increased support by both academics and practitioners. It is even found that integrating various stakeholders in the early phases of NPD can have a significant contribution to the overall success of the process (Riel, Neumann & Tichkiewitch, 2013). Nonetheless, still many companies fail to break free from the firm-centric paradigm of value creation (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b). This ‘fail’ may be partly due to concerns about handing over a part of managerial power, disclosing valuable company information, and having less control over brands (O’Hern & Rindfleisch, 2008). Additionally, as argued by Grönlund et al. (2010), for years organizations have trained their employees to think ‘internally’. An essential change is therefore needed to enhance external thinking. The unwillingness or inability of companies, company departments or employees to accept breakthrough ideas, products or services from outside the organization is also known as the “not invented here” (NIH) syndrome. The NIH syndrome can afflict many large organizations (Chesbrough, 2003).
2.1.2 Definition: co-creation of value
While co-creation may sometimes be confused with customization (Prahalad & Ramswamy 2004), Kristensson et al. (2008) point to the difference between the two, and make an effort in defining the concept of co-creation at the same time. Instead of listening to the voice of the customer at the end of an innovation project, which is the case with customization, co-creation implies that customers actively exchange useful ideas with the organization, and collaborate more closely during the whole innovation process. Gassmann and Schweitzer (2014) refer to the difference between co-creation and traditional market research techniques. The authors argue that traditionally, consumers are seen as providers of needs-information, allowing companies to reduce technical or market uncertainties, and to adapt products to fit customer needs better. Nevertheless, it can be challenging for organizations to obtain needs-information due to its sometimes difficult accessibility, caused by implicit knowledge or latent customer needs. By means of co-creation as a new market research tool, consumers are seen as both consumers and producers of ideas, providing both need- and solution-information which makes it easier to translate needs into product requirements (Gassman & Schweitzer, 2014). In their book ‘The power of co-creation’ (2010b), Ramaswamy and Gouillart refer to the work of Ramaswamy and Prahalad who called for co-creation due to internal competencies shifting toward external communities that they discovered in businesses in the
11
period 2000 to 2004. As such, they see co-creation as “the practice of developing systems, products, or services through collaboration with customers, managers, employees, and other company stakeholders” (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b, p. 4).
Despite there is not one generally applied definition of co-creation, the underlying principles of the concept formulated in the work of authors like Normann and Ramírez (1993), Bendapudi and Leone (2003), Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000), Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010; 2010b), Gassmann and Schweitzer (2014), and Kristensson et al. (2008) do form a base for determining the primary criteria of co-creation. (1) The use of co-creation can take place during the whole innovation process of products and services, (2) there is an active and close collaboration between the company and its customers, (3) the company is provided with useful needs- and solution-based ideas, (4) resulting in new types of valuable products or services. To conclude, the literature on co-creation finds support for the use of it since it is promoted by empowered customers demanding a more proactive role in the production of goods and services. While allowing individuals to become co-creators of new products, companies may discover needs and ideas that were first hidden. After providing insights into the principles of co-creation in this section, the next paragraph will focus on the organizational objectives of using co-creation. As well, it describes trends within innovation and marketing literature where the use of co-creation appears to receive the greatest support.
2.2 Organizational objective of co-creation § 2.2.1 Outcomes of co-creation
§ 2.2.2 Shift from closed to open innovation § 2.2.3 The Service-Dominant logic
After discussing the concept and main criteria of co-creation in the previous section, this paragraph focuses on the objectives that co-creation is being used for within organizations. From the theory, it is found that the outcomes of co-creation mainly relate to two company processes, namely innovation and marketing, in specific customer relationship management. In the innovation literature, a leading topic is that of open innovation, stressing that innovation should be an interactive process with the external firm environment (Chesbrough, 2006). Within the marketing literature, the service-dominant logic has gained increased attention, a philosophy that emphasizes on viewing customers as co-creators of value rather than recipients of goods (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; 2006).
12 2.2.1 Outcomes of co-creation
Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010b), two experienced men working with companies to develop co-creation practices, present a framework of ‘the four powers of co-creation’. By describing the outcomes that co-creation brings to both organizations and customers, the authors indirectly and partly point to the ‘why’ in creation. In other words, to the reasons that co-creation is implemented in the NPD process of organizations. In addition, their findings form a basis for determining where in the organization co-creation plays an important role. The result can be found in Table 2.1 and will be further elaborated on below.
Table 2.1 | The four key powers of co-creation (based on Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b)
Enterprises Individuals
a) Increased returns and strategic capital c) New experiences of value
b) Lower risks and costs d) Lower risks and costs
By means of co-creation companies can generate: a) new strategic capital - learning from customers, get direct customer input, generate new ideas quickly, and build deep customer relationships and trust (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b). In addition, financial returns can be increased by effectively interacting with consumers during NPD. Products are now more likely to match customer needs, reducing product failure rates and increasing financial returns respectively (Hoyer et al. 2010). In terms of b) lower risks and costs, operational costs of organizations are reduced by consumers taking over some, or sometimes even all of the workload of employees in the NPD process. Additionally, since co-creation increases the base of information about needs (Piller, Ihl & Vossen, 2011) other expensive costs like traditional market research techniques or advertising campaigns can be removed (Hoyer et al. 2010; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b). Lower risks relate to reduced product failure; whereas previously consumers were only the receivers of value, they now participate in value creation. Hence, products are more likely to be valued by companies’ consumers that increases the probability of NPD success (Hoyer et al. 2010). On the other side, c) the overall customer experience is enhanced by organizations following a co-creative strategy. Companies are now able to create new types of valuable experiences within their product or service by increasing customer engagement (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b). Lastly, d) risks and costs for individuals are reduced. Since customers are now part of creating a product or service offering, the risk of them being dissatisfied with the product or service decreases
13
(Ramaswamy, 2008). Although co-creation can take place in different parts of the organization (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b), the outcomes of co-creation seem to be mostly related to two core company practices. For example, whereas building deeper customer relationships and trust appear to be related to marketing or customer relationship management (CRM) matters, involving customers in the NPD process to lower operational costs or enhance products seem to be more related to innovation issues. This is confirmed by Nambisan and Nambisan (2009) who argue that the benefits of consumer co-creation relate to 1) the innovation itself, for example enhancing innovativeness and appeal of products, and 2) CRM, where building deep customer relationships can result in increased customer satisfaction. It can thus be argued that co-creation is mostly being used for innovation and CRM or marketing objectives. Therefore, the next paragraph will further focus on innovation management, where the open innovation literature emphasizes on using co-creation. As well, it will elaborate on marketing theory, where support for the use of co-creation is ascertained in literature about the service-dominant logic (S-D logic).
2.2.2 Shift from closed to open innovation
“The trick to having good ideas is not to sit around in glorious isolation and try to think big thoughts. The trick is to get more parts on the table.” – Steven Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation.
As opposed to internally generating, developing and commercializing new ideas, the focus of innovation projects has changed. Rather than depending solely on internal R&D, the innovation performance is now more dependent on the ability of including external innovators into the innovation process (Grönlund et al. 2010; Piller, 2011). Reason for this is that companies own different assets, resources, and market positions. In addition, when certain ideas require specific assets, resources or market positions that are not available within a company, ideas should be able to be implemented in places where they fit best (Chesbrough, 2007). Hence, innovation does not only happen within the organization anymore through a closed innovation process, rather innovation is performed through an interactive process with external innovators. As a consequence, many organizations try to open up innovation by leveraging input from external innovators (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010). With this, organizational boundaries are blurred as organizations outsource innovation and value creation (Roser & Samson, 2009). This new paradigm, being one of the leading topics in innovation management, is referred to as ‘open innovation’ (Chesbrough, 2003; 2007). Besides the relevance of a more open approach towards innovation is highly being
14
emphasized in the literature, many large organizations also underscore its necessity.
The idea behind open innovation is pretty straightforward. At first, ‘outside-in open innovation’ implies that organizations use not only internal ideas, but search for external ideas as well and implement these in the innovation funnel. Simultaneously, ‘inside-out open innovation’ allows internal innovations to move to the market giving unused internal technologies the opportunity to flow outside (Chesbrough, 2007). Also, organizational processes are made transparent to customers, which enables them to interact with the processes, allowing them to create new personal experiences (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b). The main results of open innovation business models are at first that product development costs and time are reduced tremendously by including external R&D resources. In addition, it creates new revenue opportunities by in- and out-licensing technologies that can result in new successful products. By means of the open business model organizations are not only enabled to be more efficient in creating value by increasing the amount of ideas, it also allows them to more efficiently capture value by using a company’s resources in other businesses as well (Chesbrough, 2007).
2.2.3 The Service-Dominant logic
Within marketing, the concept of co-creation has gained recognition in the literature about the service-dominant logic (S-D logic). As opposed to the goods-dominant logic (G-D logic), where the purpose of the company is to ‘make and sell’ units of output, the aim of the S-D logic is rather different. Instead of goods being the units of exchange, according to the S-D logic the fundamental basis of exchange are services, in this context defined as “the application of specialized competences (knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 2). Here, specialized competences, or knowledge and skills (i.e. operant resources) of company actors are seen as the key to acquiring a competitive advantage. In addition, the service-dominant view of marketing sees marketing as a constant process where the firm, together with operant resources, continually strives at creating superior value propositions (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). From the S-D logic point of view, products or services serve as a ‘distribution mechanism’ or medium for service provision, enabling services to add improved value to tangible products (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Lusch, Vargo & O’Brien, 2007; Lusch & Nambisan, 2012). This in contrast to considering products or services as direct output. Hence, as opposed to ‘market to customers’ which is incorporated in early marketing thought (Lusch et al. 2007), the S-D logic supports considering customers as operant resources. With this,
15
organizations strive to maximize collaboration with their customers by co-creating value, emphasizing on ‘market with customers’ (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Lusch et al. 2007). The S-D logic thus implies that value is defined by and co-created with the customer rather than embedded in output (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 6). Additionally, by aiming at building customer value, the service-centered view cultivates relationships with customers since they are now involved in the development of value propositions.
As explained in this paragraph, the use of co-creation is highly being emphasized in the literature on innovation management and marketing. However, the focus is mainly on the objectives and outcomes of co-creation rather than what leads to those benefits. It is, therefore, important to focus on models that structure the NPD process, and to look at how in this process co-creation can be used in order to reach the desired outcomes.
2.3 Co-creation in the NPD process
§ 2.3.1 Innovation value chain & open Stage-Gate process § 2.3.2 Effectiveness of co-creation in different phases NPD § 2.3.3 Type of external participants
§ 2.3.4 Modes of co-creation
The NPD process is a cycle that (new-) products have to undergo from conceptualization to the final commercialization into the market. This section focuses on models that can be used to structure the NPD process. In addition, there will be an examination of when in the NPD process co-creation has the most relevance. It appears that co-creation can be used effectively during the entire process of innovation. However, how it can be used is dependent upon the type of external participants and the mode of co-creation respectively.
2.3.1 Innovation value chain & open Stage-Gate process
Proposed by Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) the innovation value chain (IVC) structures innovation by means of a three-phase process, across which six tasks must be performed by management. An overview of the IVC is provided in Table 2.2 on the next page. The primary objective of the IVC is quite evident; companies should view their innovation process as a value chain. A company should be able to recognize where in the chain it has a firm performance and where there are points for improvement. Hence, innovation performance is optimal when the links in the chain equally complement each other. For example, there can be plenty of good ideas, however, when they are not screened properly, good ideas might disappear. As showed in Table 2.3, the innovation value chain supports the external sourcing of ideas as a source of innovation productivity. Also, Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) argue
16
that firms can increase both the quality and quantity of generating ideas by building links with external networks.
Found by Robert Cooper, the original Stage-Gate process attempts to manage the NPD process by effectively structuring the way for moving a new product from idea to launch (Cooper, 2008). As the name already reveals, the Stage-Gate process is made up of several stages, overall consisting of five phases: 1) scoping, 2) build business case, 3) development, 4) testing and validation, and 5) product launch. Each of the stages are followed by a gate deciding whether there is a stop or go and whether there should be further investments in the project (Cooper, 2008). Note that the gates are based on Closed Evaluation Criteria (CEC), reviewing whether there should be continued in-house development (Grönlund et al. 2010). Despite the original Stage-Gate process is highly being appreciated and successfully applied by organizations (Grönlund et al. 2010), it is only carried out internally by cross-functional company departments. Here, open innovation activities only happen ad-hoc with no formal procedure. For this reason, Grönlund et al. (2010) developed a Stage-Gate model that allows companies to open up their NPD processes, stressing the importance of exchanging external and internal know-how and technology during the entire innovation process. The latter directly points to the difference between the traditional Stage-Gate model of Cooper. As a consequence, the evaluation criteria of the gates on which the eventual stop or go decision is made are expanded with import and export alternatives for an NPD project in each gate. Traditional evaluation criteria for continued in-house development of a project are complemented by opportunities for importing external know-how and technology, as well as external paths to market (Grönlund et al. 2010, p. 14). This complementary set of evaluation Table 2.2 | Innovation value chain (based on Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007)
Phase Tasks
Idea Generation - In-house idea generation: creative thinking within-functional groups
- Cross-pollination: across-unit brainstorming
- External sourcing: tap into insights and knowledge outside the firm
Idea Conversion - Selection: screening and funding of ideas for further development
- Development: turning selected ideas into revenue-generating products
17
criteria is referred to as ‘Open Innovation Evaluation Criteria’ (OIEC). In Figure 2.1, an overview of the open Stage-Gate model is presented.
Figure 2.1 Open Stage-Gate process (Grönlund et al. 2010)
Note that in the above innovation funnel, internal and external know-how and technology can be exchanged during the entire innovation process; from idea generation to product launch. Hence, by means of the open Stage-Gate model external knowledge and technologies can be used in the NPD process. However, despite the IVC and open Stage-Gate model both support open innovation activities, the models do not yet specifically mention when co-creation can be used most effectively. The following section will, therefore, focus on the use of co-creation in several phases of the NPD process, and its impact on product performance.
2.3.2 Effectiveness of co-creation in different phases of NPD
Research indicates that the early stages of NPD can largely influence the subsequent phases of an NPD process in terms of required costs, time, and resources. These early stages are also known as the ‘fuzzy front end’, where uncertainty and ambiguity are usually high (Gassman & Schweitzer, 2014). In addition, one of the success factors in the early stages of the NPD process is the integration of various external stakeholders (Riel et al. 2013), since they can
18
provide solution-information that reduces uncertainty (Gassman & Schweitzer, 2014). Hence, customer interaction in the early stages ‘idea generation’ and ‘product concept development’ of an innovation process can have a great positive impact on the performance of new products (Gruner & Homburg, 2000). Except that the involvement of customers in the fuzzy front end stages of an NPD process can save time and money, it can also reduce the risks of failure of a new product (Hoyer et al., 2010).
Whereas with new service development (NSD) interacting with customers in the early stages of an innovation process seem to be most relevant (Alam, 2006), this does not entirely correspond with findings in NPD. According to Hoyer et al. (2010), who include ideation, product development, commercialization and post-launch as the stages of NPD, co-creation in the later stages (commercialization and post-launch) has not yet received much attention. However, research did find that interaction in these stages can have a significant effect on product performance. For example, Gruner and Homburg (2000) found that co-creation in the later stages of ‘prototype testing’ and ‘market launch’ can increase new product success. In addition, in their research the authors refer to ‘project definition’ and ‘engineering’, or the technological development stage. Customer interaction during these so-called medium stages does not seem to have a positive impact on product success (Gruner & Homburg, 2000). Despite the models of structuring NPD and studies about customer interaction in NPD as described above use different naming of NPD stages, they do have corresponding characteristics. For the purpose of this thesis, the phases of the IVC will further be used when referring to the use of co-creation in the process of NPD as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Phases of the NPD process
The above shows that companies can choose to use co-creation in different phases of the NPD process. This may in turn be dependent upon the enterprise objective of involving customers by means of co-creation. Despite research is limited, it indicates that co-creation can be effective in both the early- and later stages of NPD (Alam, 2006; Hoyer et al. 2010; Gruner & Homburg, 2010), in the context of this research during idea generation, idea conversion and idea diffusion.
Besides the objective, other factors that are assumed to influence the use of co-creation Idea generation Idea conversion Idea diffusion
19
are the type of external participants and the activities that they perform within the process. In turn, this is likely to differ dependent on the timing of co-creation. The above literature does, however, not yet describe how customers are being selected for participation. In addition, there is not yet an explanation about the type of activities customers perform within each stage. The next paragraphs will, therefore, focus on participants’ characteristics and customer activities by means of the mode of co-creation.
2.3.3 Type of external participants
Referring back to the definitions about co-creation (Kristensson et al. 2008; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010b), it appears that co-creation participants can range from consumers to company employees. However, one would expect that not just anyone can join a co-creation project. This is confirmed by research stating that not every consumer is equally appropriate to contribute to an innovation process (Piller, 2011). Therefore, the people involved in co-creation are assumed to possess particular characteristics (Gruner & Homburg, 2000; Gassmann & Schweitzer, 2014). In addition, “the selection of collaborating consumers should be made carefully because the success of interaction depends on the strategic fit between the consumers and the firms that interact with them” (Alam, 2006, p. 470). However, research did not pay many attention yet on targeting specific consumers in each phase of NPD (Hoyer et al. 2010), although it is argued that the identity of consumers contributing to the NPD process varies with the product development stage (Biemans, 1991). The objective of the empirical chapter in this research is therefore partly to examine the particular consumers in the different phases of the NPD process. Initiated by von Hippel in 1986, the inclusion of consumers with so-called lead-user characteristics is highly appreciated during the early stages of NPD (von Hippel, 2005). Characteristics of lead-users are that (1) they are trend-setters of products since they face needs earlier before the rest, and (2) they experience great benefits by obtaining solutions to those needs (Gruner & Homburg, 2010). In addition, lead-users often develop products for their personal use that are later being commercialized by companies (von Hippel, 2005). Therefore, it is managers’ role to look actively for input from lead-users (Alam, 2006). In their research, Gruner and Homburg (2000) and Alam (2006) found support for von Hippel’s argument that consumers with lead-user characteristics have a positive impact on new product success. An interesting addition to directly using lead-user input for product commercialization, Alam (2006) found that companies frequently discuss lead-user ideas with average consumers to first test their usability.
20
Two other types of characteristics are identified, having a positive effect on new product success. One of them includes involving close consumers that already found support by earlier research of Biemans (1991). Companies tend to involve people with whom they have close personal relationships, mainly due to confidentiality reasons. As such, companies will be more likely to share private information with close consumers, enhancing the effectiveness of developing new products (Gruner & Homburg, 2000; Alam, 2006). In addition, financially attractive consumers seem to be interesting to interact with during the NPD process. Consumers’ financial attractiveness depends on how representative they are in terms of a target market segment, and what their reputation is within the target market (Gruner & Homburg, 2000). Financially attractive consumers may refer to famous designers integrated as co-developers in the innovation process of a product (Gassman & Schweitzer, 2014). For example, Coca-Cola integrated a famous designer as a co-designer of limited Coca-Cola light bottles. These type of consumers may be interesting when reducing the risk and cost of innovating is a central driver (Gassman & Schweitzer, 2014, p. 44).
Co-creation strategy consultant Fronteer Strategy also underscores the importance of the selection of the appropriate participants for co-creation. In their White Paper ‘Getting the best people for co-creation’, Fronteer Strategy (2012) outlines what external parties can be involved in co-creation projects. They argue that selecting the right people for co-creation depends upon the challenge at hand, however, to make the process easier one can use a core set of characteristics as selection criteria. Figure 2.3 shows an overview of the ideal mix of external experts’ characteristics for co-creation according to Fronteer Strategy (2012).
Figure 2.3 Best external people for co-creation (Fronteer Strategy, 2012)
One main characteristic is that the external people selected for co-creation are not just average consumers, rather they are all seen as ‘experts’ with a different background. This focus on
21
involving experts is partly related to the lead user concept of von Hippel (2005) who also emphasizes on including not just the average customer. Also, it corresponds with Hoyer et al. (2011) who argue that co-creation often involves highly knowledgeable and involved consumers who are significantly different from the average consumers. One can also see that the group of people, as presented in Figure 2.3, are quite diverse. This may correspond to a finding of Kristensson et al. (2008) that for successfully utilizing users in product development, it is required that the involved parties represent a heterogeneous group. In addition, participants considered as being ‘the best’ ones have three personality traits in common: (1) they are willing to share knowledge and expertise, (2) they inspire both the challenge and other involved parties in order to go to the next level, and (3) they can ‘create’ by thinking critically and constructive, and having a creative mind (Fronteer Strategy, 2012). 2.3.3 Modes of co-creation
Argued by Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010b), the vital element of co-creation are so called engagement platforms, which can be both online and offline and allow for creating new types of valuable experiences. Whereas the previous section questioned with whom organizations can co-create value, another important question to ask is what kind of collaboration in engagement platforms is right for an organization.
Co-creation projects appear to have a high variance in the degree to which customers are empowered by being active participants (O’Hern & Rindfleisch, 2008). According to Pisano and Verganti (2008), there are different types of collaboration or co-creation, of which each type can result in a varying impact on product outcomes. In turn, when organizations fail in making the right collaboration decision they may end up with poor new products (Pisano & Verganti, 2008). The authors distinguish between four modes of co-creation based upon (1) participation, i.e. how many people are invited or selected to solve the challenge at hand, and (2) the form of governance, i.e. who is taking the lead in deciding upon critical issues, like the problem to be solved and solutions to adopt. As argued by Nambisan and Nambisan (2009), the nature of governance or leadership of a co-creation platform is likely to shape the nature of outcomes (Nambisan & Nambisan, 2009, p. 347). The four types of collaboration for innovation projects described by Pisano and Verganti (2008) are presented in Figure 2.4 and will be further elaborated on below. In addition, insights from the work of O’Hern and Rindfleisch (2008) will be added based upon their model of co-creation activities, having similarities with the model of Pisano and Verganti (2008).
22
Innovation mall: a co-creation project of this type allows organizations to open up innovation by formulating particular challenges, for example by means of crowdsourcing platforms. Anyone who feels appropriately concerned can provide solutions to the problem, there is thus no specific selection of participants. Eventually, the organization determines which solution is considered to be the best.
Elite circle: an organization carefully selects the best experts out there to provide solutions to a challenge formulated by the organization. Here, participants directly communicate tangible ideas for new product offerings. In the end, the firm takes control over the selection process of submitted ideas.
Innovation community: here, anyone can contribute ideas and solutions, and together customers can develop or improve (new-) products. In addition, the ‘community’ has complete freedom in selecting the most valuable solutions, and organizations do not need to own the intellectual property hidden in the solution.
Consortium: this type of co-creation implies that an organization selects the best experts, followed by jointly selecting challenges and developing solutions. Often, this mode involves a collaboration between two or more firms.
However, no matter what mode of collaboration is chosen, in order for the co-creation of value to be facilitated organizations should emphasize on four building blocks as developed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004). The authors offer the DART (dialog, access, risks-benefits, transparency) model that aims at managing co-creation of value processes. In addition, the authors argue that the four building blocks of which the model consists are the condition for co-creation success. The DART model highlights an equivalent dialog between firms and consumers that aims at developing shared solutions to organizational challenges by
23
a deep engagement with both parties. For an effective dialog, consumers must have easy access and transparency to information, thereby avoiding information asymmetry between companies and consumers. Next, consumers must be enabled to perform an explicit evaluation of the risk-benefits of their decisions, which can result from dialog, access, and transparency. Eventually, according to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), the engagement of customers as collaborators in value creation can be enhanced by a cautious combination of the building blocks as described above.
Based on the above, it can be argued that the use of co-creation is partly dependent on the mode of co-creation chosen by the company, i.e. whether there is open or closed participation, and whether co-creation activities are proposed and led by the organization or the crowd. Although the above presents a clear overview of the different modes of co-creation, it does not suggest when in the NPD process each mode can be used, i.e. during idea generation, idea conversion or idea diffusion. This may in turn also have an influence on the selection of participants. In addition, none of the above-described literature explains what factors mainly determine whether the use of co-creation in NPD will eventually satisfy the expectations. The next chapter, which covers the empirical section of this research, will address these issues further.
CHAPTER 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The focus of the previous chapter was on the existing literature in the field of co-creation, more specifically on research providing insights into the use of co-creation in new product development processes. The findings of the literature review will be presented here, providing a partial answer to the research question. In addition, a conceptual model has been developed for the objective of the next chapter, which covers the empirical section of this research and further investigates on the effective use of co-creation.
The previous chapter started with providing insights into the principles of co-creation. It appeared that co-creation is initiated by organizations to enable their customers to become active collaborators in innovation processes. Rather than innovating for their customers, companies now jointly create new types of valuable products and services with them. After discussing the outcomes of co-creation, it appeared that co-creation can be beneficial for both the organization and its customers. Also, it turns out that co-creation is mostly being initiated for innovation and marketing activities, which is further supported by the literature on open innovation and the service-dominant logic (S-D logic). There, the most predominantly organizational objectives are related to the organizational outcomes of co-creation in
24
accordance with Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010b), which include increase returns, generate new strategic capital, and lower risks and costs.
Furthermore, models structuring the NPD process were discussed as well as ways of incorporating co-creation. Using the phases of the innovation value chain – idea generation, idea conversion, and idea diffusion – as a reference for the use of co-creation in the NPD process, it appears that co-creation can effectively be utilized in all three phases. Additionally, it seems that how co-creation can therein be used is partly dependent upon the choice with whom a company performs a co-creation project, along with how participants are enabled to perform certain activities by the chosen mode of collaboration. Nevertheless, the co-creation literature does not yet cover which external participants can be selected for co-creation at each phase of the NPD process, and what mode of collaboration is chosen at that specific moment.
Based on the literature review, a conceptual model was developed which can be found in Figure 3.1, serving as input for the empirical section where the research problem will further be examined. In this research, the focus is on how co-creation can effectively be used in innovation processes. The use of co-creation appears to depend on the company objective of co-creation and when in NPD it is used, the type of customers invited to collaborate with, and the mode of creation respectively. What exactly determines whether the use of co-creation leads to the predetermined expectations, is not clearly described in the literature. Therefore, the conceptual framework consists of three factors, which are all likely to influence the use of co-creation in New Product Development processes. The first category refers to the objective of using co-creation, where the subdivided variables represent different company purposes for the use of co-creation in NPD. The second category refers to the collaborating external participants: these variables describe participant characteristics that are found to influence the (interaction-) success of co-creation positively. The third category refers to the chosen mode of collaboration, where each variable is different in how (-many) external people are selected and invited, and who is taken the lead in making important (selection-) decisions. It is anticipated that different combinations of these categories might be held within different phases of the NPD process.
Figure 3.1 Conceptual framework
Innovation and marketing
activities
New Product Development process
Idea generation
Idea conversion
Idea
diffusion New food
and beverage products
Collection of insights and knowledge for ideas concerning a product, concept or service
Selection of ideas, and the development of ideas into final products. Also, testing/ validating final products
Spreading the product/ idea, both inside and outside the organization (market penetration)
25
CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY § 4.1 Research design
§ 4.2 Data collection § 4.3 Strengths and limitations
The aim of this chapter is to explain the process that was used in order to collect information and data for the research. At first, there will be a description of the research design, including a description of the research methodology. After this, the data collection method is discussed, including how cases were selected, the characteristics of the selected cases and the procedure for data collection. Lastly, the credibility of the research is explained.
4.1 Research design
As specified in the previous chapter, the focus of this study is to provide complementary information on how co-creation can effectively be used in the phases of new product development for organizations operating in the food and beverage industry. The purpose of the research is, therefore, exploratory, aiming at providing more comprehensive and deeper insights into the co-creation literature. According to Saunders et al. (2012), exploratory research is very valuable when the research aim is to clarify a (managerial-) problem, which, in this case is a lack of information about the usability of co-creation in NPD.
For the aim of this paper, qualitative research is conducted. In accordance to Rynes and Gephart (2004), qualitative research is a multi-method research using an interpretive and inductive approach to the subject. The goal of qualitative research is to describe meanings and understandings about the subject matter, where phenomena are being studied within their natural environments. It is thus about descriptions of actual human interactions in real-life contexts (Rynes & Gephart, 2004). In addition, exploratory case studies are used as a strategy in the qualitative research method to collect and analyze empirical evidence. As proven in former studies, the benefits of well-organized case studies are related to generating highly valuable and detailed information, in order to thoroughly answer how and why questions (Eisenhardt, 1989, Yin, 2009). As the type of case study, a multiple-case study is used. Despite multiple-case studies require more resources and are more time-consuming, the evidence is found to be more compelling than with single-case studies (Yin, 2009).
26
4.2 Data collection
§ 4.2.1 Sample- and case selection § 4.2.2 Case Characteristics § 4.2.3 Data collection procedure § 4.2.4 Data analysis
In this section, the data collection method is described covering the selection of the cases, as well as the case characteristics. Semi-structured interviews as a method of collection the data is elaborated on, as well as how data is analyzed.
4.2.1 Sample- and case selection
The appropriate selection of cases is an important aspect of building theory from case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 536). Flyvbjerg (2006) proposes several strategies for the selection of samples, distinguishing between two main forms of selection criteria: (1) random selection, and (2) information-oriented selection. Since the objective of this research is to obtain as much information as possible about the subject matter, the latter seem to be the most appropriate strategy. The relevance of using information-oriented selection criteria is confirmed by the theoretical sampling theory of Eisenhardt (1989) arguing that random sampling is not preferable in conducting case studies. Rather, the author argues that cases must be selected that are likely to replicate or extend the emergent theory, and are therefore non-randomly selected. Considering the criteria for selection, the following set of selection criteria have been determined. At first, several companies have to be chosen from a population of organizations that are using or have been using co-creation in their NPD processes. Second, with a focus on the food and beverage industry, only the cases of companies operating within this industry are selected. Third, taking into consideration the exploratory nature of the research, there is no particular selection of organizational size. All food and beverage companies either being small, medium or large, can provide interesting findings on the subject matter, and there will, therefore, be no exclusion of any company size. After selecting the appropriate organizational cases, criteria is determined for the selection of respondents. There are no specific job descriptions that the respondents have to comply with. However, the individuals must have been closely involved in the co-creation project of the selected organization. In addition, access to the selected cases and respondents is made possible via co-creation consultant Fronteer Strategy. Companies and respondents were contacted either via telephone or e-mail. In Appendix I, the introductory e-mail to the participants can be found.
27 4.2.2 Case Characteristics
Case companies included in this research are four organizations operating in the food and beverage industry, and have been using or are using co-creation in their NPD process. For privacy policies, the names of the organizations and interviewed employees will not be mentioned. Here, an overview of the involved organizations is provided, where names of the organizations are replaced by letters (A - D).
COMPANY A
A Dutch company that is operating in the food industry, well-known for its chocolate. Despite the relatively small amount of employees, the brand is growing steady and increasing in brand awareness. The company initiated a co-creation project for a new communication focus and occasionally uses co-creation to get consumer input on new product flavors.
COMPANY B
Being headquartered in the Netherlands this international company is well-known for their soft drinks. It has several brands being commercialized over 80 countries throughout the world. The company used co-creation once to get consumer insights and ideas for the development of a new drink.
COMPANY C
Being a daughter of an international brewer company, this company specializes in soft drinks. The company has several popular brands and experience in over 30 countries. Innovation is a top priority for the company since it continuously wants to challenge the market they operate in with a very broad category of products. The organization used co-creation once to get out-of-the-box ideas for the development of a drink for a yet uncovered customer segment.
Food &
Beverage 19 employees
Interviewees: Brand manager & Sales manager
Food & Beverage
+/- 2.000 employees
mployees
Interviewees: International marketing manager & Consumer insights specialist
Food & Beverage
+/- 400 employees mployees
Interviewees: (former-) Innovation manager & Consumer-, market intelligence and media manager
28
COMPANY D
An international company present over the entire globe. It has four businesses in healthy food where the organization operates at the top. Amongst others, Company D used co-creation to get direct tangible ideas regarding new product and services concepts for two of its newly discovered innovation platforms.
4.2.3 Data collection procedure
The data collection method that was used is semi-structured interviews, conducted at four organizations with nine interviewees. According to Leech (2002) there are many types of interviews and various ways in how questions can be asked. In turn, the use of semi-structured interviews can allow for providing detail and depth, and is a middle way between structured (i.e. closed questions) and unstructured interviews (i.e. very open question). Therefore, an interview protocol (see Appendix II) was developed with open-ended questions, allowing respondents to talk freely but in a focused way since the interviewer already has sufficient knowledge about the topic. In addition, all interviews were recorded and transcribed described afterward. Since seven out of nine interviewees are of Dutch origin, the interviews were mostly held and transcribed in Dutch.
4.2.4 Data analysis
After collecting the data, it was analyzed using NVivo, which is qualitative data analysis software useful for researchers working with large text-based information. In order to analyze qualitative data, Miles and Huberman (1984) have defined some specific techniques. These include intensive coding, which is an interpretive method allowing for organizing data, and a variety of devices like tabular displays and graphs to manage and present qualitative data (Miles & Huberman, 1984 in Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534). In addition, according to Yin (2005) difficulties of analyzing data can be reduced when the researcher uses a general strategy. Moreover, Miles and Huberman (1984) argue that data analysis consists of three main steps: data reduction, data display, and conclusion. Since the first step involves coding of data, each interview was read, and every quote considered to be relevant coded. Hence, there were no start lists of codes since they were created after analyzing all interviews. Codes were assigned labels like definitions, objectives, external participants or co-creation mode. This way,
Food & Beverage
+/- 100.000 employees Interviewees: Global consumer strategy and insights manager & (Former and current-) Global innovation marketing manager
29
patterns in how organizations use co-creation in NPD could later more easily be identified. Some codes and quotes were not directly related to the use of co-creation. Depending on their relevance, these codes were used as additional insights or deleted from the data analysis. After assigning codes to the information from the interviews, the coded data was grouped and organized by means of a data display. In accordance with Miles and Huberman (1984), the data display is a collection of all the available information, allowing a researcher to draw proper conclusions and to identify specific patterns. After this, conclusions and meaning were drawn from the data display and coded data. Moreover, key themes of how organizations use co-creation in their NPD process were searched for. The findings of the case analyses are presented in the following chapter.
4.3 Strengths and limitations: credibility of the research
In order to ensure the rigor of the research and draw the right conclusion on the findings, the following concepts are central: validity and reliability. Validity refers to whether the research measures what it intends to measure (Saunders et al. 2012). In order to ensure the validity of this study, data from different interviews are obtained both within the same organization and across organizations, with this triangulating different sources of data. Reliability refers to what extent data collection and analysis produces consistent findings (Saunders et al. 2012), i.e. whether other researchers would come to the same conclusions when conducting the same study. During the collection of data, all interviews were recorded and afterward carefully transcribed in order to enhance transparency. In accordance with Gibbert and Ruigrok (2010), by using these means reliability is increased. The main limitation of this research is that since the researcher has no prior experience in conducting interviews, the objectivity of the researcher might be limited. Also, since no second researcher confirmed the findings of this research, there is a minor chance of misinterpretation of the data. Furthermore, since case study research often includes only a limited amount of cases and participants, it is difficult to make a broad generalization of the results.
