1
Opening-up the innovation processes in the convention
industry;
A case study analyzing the success factors for co-creation in a non-crowdsourced
B2B context
Thesis: Master of Science Business Administration Entrepreneurship & Innovation
University of Amsterdam Date of submission: 23rd of June 2017
Jolien Bleichrodt - 11143622 Supervisor: Dr. W. van der Aa Second assessor: Dr. I. Maris-de Bresser
2
Abstract
Purpose – The concept of co-creation emerged at the beginning of this century, and firms started to
integrate co-creation in their traditional innovation processes. Though the importance of co-creation is increasingly became recognized, the applicability for managers have remained at a rather vague and abstract level. There was a demand from scholars for more case studies towards the concept of co-creation and the factors that lead to successful co-creative practices, particularly in a B2B context. This study aims to contribute to the theoretical development in co-creation by further conceptualizing co-creation within a non-crowd sourced B2B context. More specifically, this study focused on the underlying factors that are perquisite for successful co-creative practices.
Method- A single case study was conducted at the RAI Amsterdam Convention Center in the
Netherlands. This firm started several co-creation projects and wanted to get an in-depth understanding of the factors that lead towards success within co-creation. Interviews were conducted and a focus group was organized with five employees of the RAI who were involved in the co-creation projects. Furthermore, seven interviews were conducted with external partners involved in the co-creation.
Findings- This research provides a definition of co-creation and successful co-creation within a
non-crowd sourced B2B context. Furthermore, the research has shown that various factors influence the success of co-creation either directly or indirectly, such as: the partner-related and task-related expertise, dialog, access, transparency, risk analysis, aligned objectives, shared vision. Moreover, two other factors – engagement and trust - were discovered that seemed to be the key for successful co-creation and it is hypothesized that all factors are interrelated.
Practical implications- This study presents practitioners involved in co-creation with an overview of
factors that could lead towards successful co-creative practices. Furthermore, advice is given regarding how firms could integrate these factors into their co-creation processes.
Limitations and directions for future research- Implications of the research were limited to one
particular context; however, hopefully this study triggers further investigation towards the success factors for co-creation.
Key-words: Co-creation, success factors for co-creation, Innovation processes, Non-crowd sourced B2B
3
Table of content
Abstract ... 2
List of tables and figures... 4
Statement of Originality ... 5
Acknowledgements ... 6
Chapter 1: Introduction ... 7
1.1. Purpose and research question 7 1.2. Case company: RAI Amsterdam Convention Center 10 Chapter 2: Literature review ... 13
2.1 Opening-up the traditional innovation processes 13 2.2 Co-creation; a definition 14 2.3 Successful co-creation 17 2.4 Success factors for co-creation 18 2.4.1. Objectives ... 19
2.4.2. The stakeholders ... 21
2.4.3. (Quality of) Interaction ... 22
2.5 Conclusion 24 2.6 Conceptual framework 26 Chapter 3: Methodology ... 28 3.1 Research design 28 3.2 Case selection 28 3.3 Sample 29 3.4 Data collection procedure 30 3.3.1. Working documents ... 31
3.3.1. Interviews ... 31
3.3.2. Focus group ... 31
3.5 Data analysis 32 3.6 Credibility of the research 32 Chapter 4: Results ... 34
4.1 Working documents 34 4.2 Focus group 35 4.2.1. Defining co-creation ... 35
4.2.2. Successful co-creation ... 36
4.2.3. Success factors for co-creation ... 37
4.3 Interviews 42 4.3.1. Defining co-creation ... 42
4.3.2. Successful co-creation ... 43
4.3.3. Success factors for co-creation ... 45
4.4 Summary 54 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ... 58
5.1 Discussion 58 5.1.1. Defining co-creation ... 58
5.1.2. Successful co-creation ... 59
5.1.3. Success factors for co-creation ... 61
5.1.4. The success factors; a new perspective ... 65
5.1.6. Limitations and future research ... 66
5.2 Conclusion 67 5.2.1 Managerial implications ... 68
4
List of tables and figures
Figure 1.1: Innovation process of RAI Amsterdam Convention Center Figure 2.1: Becoming a co-creative enterprise
Figure 2.2: Alignment of objectives and the creation of a shared vision Figure 2.3: Conceptual framework
Figure 4.1: The co-creation projects in which the RAI is involved Figure 4.2: Success factors for co-creation of the RAI
Figure 4.3: Success factors for co-creation of the stakeholders
Table 2.1: Defining the concept of co-creation of value Table 4.1: Summary of the results
5
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Jolien Bleichrodt who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
6
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the assistance and support of several people who made it possible for me to write this thesis.
First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Dr. W. van der Aa for his guidance and support throughout the whole thesis period. He was always available to answer my questions and with his feedback I was able to take the thesis to a higher level. Furthermore, I would like to thank RAI
Amsterdam Convention Center for giving me the opportunity to write my thesis at their company.
Especially Bret Baas and Sylvia Molenkamp who supported me and helped me at the moments I struggled with my conceptual framework. Besides the RAI, I would like to thank their co-creation partners for taking part in the interviews. Without these parties data could not have been collected and analyzed.
7
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose and research question 1.2 The case company
1.3 Overview of the thesis
“It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed” — Charles Darwin
At the beginning of this century most firms still relied on their own resources to build a competitive advantage. However, due to continually changing customer needs and new available technologies, companies started to realize that the best innovative ideas could be found outside the firm’s boundaries (Chesbrough, 2006). Recognizing that the traditional innovation systems had become obsolete, firms started to test new business assumptions. External parties were approached for collaborations for innovation. A shift took place in value creation from a product- and firm-centric view to personalized consumer experiences (Chesbrough, 2006; Piller and West, 2014; Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010a; Von Hippel, 2005; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004b).
These developments led to the adaption of new innovation concepts. Firms recognized that not solely the exchange of knowledge, but active participation and collaboration with other firms, employees, customers and universities became key in increasing their innovative performance. This concept of
developing systems, products or services in collaboration with stakeholders became known as co-creation. Co-creation has the potential to positively influence the innovative performance and overall performance of firms (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010b; Christensen et al., 2005; Gassmann et al., 2010). Therefore, a considerable number of organizations, like Starbucks, Google and Shell, which formerly solely kept their innovation processes in-house, have already embraced the idea of co-creation by actively involving external parties into their traditional innovation chain processes (Piller and West, 2014,
Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010a). A new ecosystem is arising with greater interdependency and interconnectedness between actors. The market is changing towards a forum of interactions among consumers, communities and firms to develop new products, services and systems (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a; Roser et al., 2013).
1.1. Purpose and research question
The importance of co-creation is widely recognized as it could result in improved performances and a sustained competitive advantage. The question is not whether firms should create, but how co-creation should be structured effectively to realize successful outcomes (Roser et al., 2013). Mere the intent to innovate with (external) stakeholders does not automatically guarantee the co-creation of value (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007; Bhalla, 2016). Top performers in the industry have well-crafted, robust
8
new product processes in place, that drives New Product Development (NPD) projects from idea to launch and beyond; these processes emphasize up-front homework, voice-of-customer input, quality of execution, and performance results metrics (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007).
Several scholars have already focused on the concept of co-creation by analyzing the influence of different dimensions of co-creation on firm’s performance. For instance, the studies focus on the
relationship between co-creation and the overall performance of the firm (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010b), take a customer perspective on the co-creative processes (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004b) or analyze the relation between co-creation and customer loyalty (Payne et al., 2008; Füller, 2010).
Furthermore, case studies on co-creation practices in several well-known firms were carried out (Ford et al., 2012; Hossain and Islam, 2016; Fronteer Strategy, 2011; Roser et al., 2013).
The importance of co-creation is widely understood; however, the applicability for managers has remained at a rather vague and abstract level (Saarijärvi, 2013). Rowley et al. (2005), Grönroos and Voima (2013) and Barczak (2012) emphasize that further research is required in several areas of co-creation to get a more in-depth understanding about, for instance the mechanisms, processes and tools that enable effective creation within different contexts. In particular, more research is needed towards co-creation in Business to Business (B2B) contexts (Roser et al., 2013; Lambert and Enz, 2012). According to Roser et al. (2013), co-creating within a B2B context differs from co-creating with end-users/customers, since these collaborations are based on more equal and contractual relationships. In order to get a more in-depth understanding of the concept of co-creation and the factors that lead to successful co-creative practices within B2B contexts, more case studies and comparative research are needed to refine the existing theories and to develop new theories (Roser et al., 2013; Lambert and Enz, 2012).
The RAI Amsterdam Convention Center, the largest convention center in the Netherlands, commenced its in-house innovation process and is moving towards co-creation. In April 2017, an InspirationLAB was built with the aim to create new products and services in active collaboration with external stakeholders. However, for the RAI it is not yet completely clear how these co-creation processes should be managed and which factors are most important to consider in order to achieve success in creation. Therefore, this firm will be an interesting starting point of an in-depth case study towards co-creation practices.
This study will contribute to the contemporary research and practical needs in the field of co-creation. More specifically, it will focus on generating an understanding of the factors within co-creation that help firms to achieve the desired outcome of the initiative; creating innovative products, services and systems. Therefore, this research will contribute to theory development in the emerging field of co-creation in B2B contexts. Furthermore, this study will offer practical implications for the RAI, and other firms within the convention industry, as it will offer valuable insights concerning success factors for
co-9
creation within B2B contexts, which will help managers organize the co-creation processes more
effectively. For the co-creation projects of the RAI, stakeholders were primarily firms within the business network of the RAI. Therefore, the co-creative practices addressed in this study may be labeled as; non-crowdsourced co-creation within B2B contexts. This information leads to the following research question:
Which factors determine the success for co-creation in a non-crowdsourced B2B context? For further explanation and support of the main research question, the following sub-questions were formulated:
- How is co-creation defined in a non-crowdsourced B2B context?
- How is the term successful co-creation interpreted by the RAI and involved stakeholders? - What are the success factors for co-creation?
10
1.2. Case company: The RAI Amsterdam Convention Center
The RAI Amsterdam Convention Center became the main subject of the case study since this firm is increasingly engaging towards co-creation and this firm requested more research towards the factors that could lead towards successful co-creation.
The RAI is the largest convention center in the Netherlands and competes with convention centers on an international level. More than 500 conventions, exhibitions and events are held in this venue each year. With more than 400 employees working for the RAI it can be classified as a large enterprise. The RAI developed a short profile to describe itself:
“As the facilitating party, RAI Amsterdam Convention Centre creates the ideal conditions for inspiring meetings to take place in and strong ties to develop in. As the organizing party, RAI Exhibitions connects context, content and communities utilizing national and international consumer and professional trade fairs. It is a place that brings people together in the physical and virtual world, crossing borders and providing inspiration.” (RAI, 2017)
The innovation process:
Four years ago, the RAI set-up its own innovation department. A separate innovation department could be seen as unique compared with other convention locations, since this department could primarily focus on the research and development of new products and processes.
The RAI first started with a basic, in-house and rather closed, innovation model. This model looked similar to the Stage Gate Model (Cooper,2008), however no external knowledge was integrated in the innovation processes. Generated ideas of the employees could be send via an email to the innovation manager. However, the RAI recently changed this model to give innovation more focus. Ideas were solely taken into consideration when these ideas were a reaction towards the demands or trends from the external environment and were in line with the overall strategy of the firm. The current innovation model could be found below:
11
Figure 1.1: Innovation process of RAI Amsterdam Convention Center
Opening-up the traditional innovation process
To enhance this innovation model, the RAI is starting to approach stakeholders to participate in their innovation process. A building of glass, called “The InspirationLAB”, was placed in front of the RAI where these co-creative processes will take place. This new approach will enhance the traditional innovation model of the RAI as the firm will get access to new resources and capabilities of involved stakeholders and customers. The aim of these co-creative practices is to enhance the customer experience during the conventions/exhibitions and to discover new possibilities to improve different aspects in the convention industry.
“ The InspirationLAB is a fertile ground for innovation, ideas and experiments. It facilitates work with start-ups and stakeholders, enabling us to give fresh boost to our events and business. The InspirationLAB also ensures that we remain open to all current and future developments, in close cooperation with the city of Amsterdam.” (RAI, 2017)
Relevant themes for the co-creation projects include new processes or products that can increase mobility of people who are visiting the RAI. In this case firms from other industries (e.g. traffic firms, universities, firms experienced in big data) may be approached to share their expertise in this field that might result in collaboration for the development of the new idea. As the RAI is hosting more than 500 events per year, it could offer an experimental playground to test these generated ideas.
In this study, the focus will be on these active collaborations with external stakeholders with the aim to innovate. More specifically, this study will focus on the factors leading towards success factors within a non-crowdsourced B2B context. With the findings of this report, implications will be presented to the RAI by giving an presentation.
12
Overview of the study
In order to answer the research questions of this theses several steps will be taken. In the next chapter, chapter 2, the main literature and the relevant theories concerning co-creation will be outlined.
Furthermore, the model that emerged from the literature will be further discussed. Subsequently, chapter 3 will describe the research methodology for the collection of field data. Chapter 4 will outline the results that were derived from the collected data. First, the data derived from the employees of the RAI will be presented and second, the results from the interviews with the co-creation partners will be shown. Finally, in chapter 5 the results of the research will be discussed and compared with the literature. On the basis of this an overall conclusion will be formulated, as well as limitations, directions for further research and practical implications.
13
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 Opening-up the traditional innovation processes 2.2 Co-creation; a definition
2.3 Successful co-creation 2.4 Success factors of co-creation 2.5 Conclusion
2.6 Conceptual framework
The aim of this chapter is to provide a critical overview of the literature concerning co-creation. The section will start with discussing traditional innovation models and the importance of integrating external stakeholders within innovation processes. Second, the definition of co-creation will be discussed.
Furthermore, the success that co-creation could bring will be explained followed by a discussion of the success factors that might influence the success of co-creation.
2.1 Opening-up the traditional innovation processes
There could be various reasons for firms to innovate, however most of the time the aim is to create new products or services that will lead to the creation of new value. New Product Development (NPD) or New Service Development (NSD) could best be described as the process from the concept (the idea) to the commercialization (diffusion) of the product or service into the market. In the past innovation theories where primarily based on a Good-Dominant-Logic, focusing on manufactured output, tangible resources, transaction and embedded value. However, last decade a new perspective, the Service-Dominant-Logic, emerged in marketing based on intangible resources, relationships and co-creation of value. Where the G-D-L is focused on optimizing and managing tangible outcomes of economic processes, the S-G-D-L is not focused on the output but rather on the process of serving (Lusch and Nambisan, 2015). A trend may be observed that increasingly services and experiences are getting more prominent over products (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Goods are not the unit of exchange, rather it are the specialized competences like
knowledge and skills (the operant resources).
The development of these new services and products is important for the innovative performance of a firm, however different strategic factors, development process factors, market environment factors and organizational factors influence the success of NPD and NSD (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007). To manage the NPD and NSD processes, various scholars developed models which can be used from idea to launch. The Innovation Value Chain, New Service Development Cycle and Stage-Gate Model are examples of models that are used by firms to manage the new service development processes.
All the mentioned models start with the generation of ideas which seems to be a crucial step in the NSD process. Therefore this study will be particularly interested in co-creation practices in the early stages of the innovation processes of firms. Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007) and Kristensson (2008) argue that collaborations within business units, across business units and with external stakeholders could
14
enhance the ide generation within NSD and NPD. This is acknowledged in the scholars of Cooper as well, since these studies argue that firms could reach out to start-ups, investors, partners, consumers and
corporates as a source for idea generation. External idea scanning, handling and screening can be built into the existing Stage-Gate processes to create new capabilities (Cooper, 2008). Grönroos (2010) developed an open Stage-Gate model by adding several activities to the different stages of the innovation process. According to Grönroos (2010), the project evaluation criteria in the gates need to be expanded with the import and export of alternatives developed outside the organization.
These theories show that there are possibilities to integrate knowledge of external stakeholders into the existing innovation processes, however these scholars do not describe how this active involvement of stakeholders (e.g. co-creation) could lead to the desired outcome of the initiative; the development of new products and services. The next section of this study will elaborate further the concept of co-creation, success in co-creation and the critical success factors that could lead to successful co-creative practices.
2.2 Co-creation; a definition
At the beginning of this century, major business discontinuities like technological improvements,
globalization, deregulation and the evolution of the internet have blurred the boundaries of firms (Prahalad and Ramaswamy; 2000). Firms started to realize that their own resources were not enough to stay
innovative and therefore external stakeholders were integrated into the traditional innovation processes of firms. This shift towards building long-term relationships with firms, customers and other stakeholders started in the late 1990s and the term “co-creation” was first coined by Ramaswamy (2000). Co-creation is defined by Ramaswamy (2000) as the practice of developing systems, products, products, or services through collaboration with employees, managers, customers and other stakeholders of the company. A more recent definition comes from Perks, Gruber and Edvardsson (2012) who interpret co-creation as the joint creation of value by the firm and its network of various entities (such as the suppliers, distributors and customers). The joint creation of value between the firm and its stakeholders became the locus of the co-creation process. The joint creation of value is seen as the core of the co-creative processes. Again, various definitions are proposed by several scholars about the joint creation of value. According to Saarijärvi (2013) the concept and practicability of value co-creation is still rather vague and abstract. This resulted in an environment with different definitions, interpretations and perspectives on how joint value is created between the firm and the stakeholders or customers. Different definitions about co-created value could be found in the table 2.1.
15
Author Definition
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b, p. 6) “Armed with new tools and dissatisfied with the available choices, consumers want to interact with firms and thereby “co-create” value”…”The changing nature of the consumer-company interaction as the locus of co-creation of value redefines the meaning of value and the process of value creation”…”Co-creation is about the joint creation of value by the company and the customer. It is not the firm trying to please the customer”.
Vargo and Lusch (2006, p. 284) “Value can only be created with and determined by the user in the ‘consumption’ process and through use or what is referred to value-in-use. Thus, it occurs that at the intersection of the offer and the customer over time: either in direct interaction or mediated by a good..”
Kristensson (2008, p. 475) “Co-creation refers to the collaboration with customers for the purpose of innovation and has become a foundational premise of the service dominant logic”… “According to the notion of co-creation, and the S-D-L, value can only be determined by the user during the consumption, usage, process.”
Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010, p. 5) “Managers had to make the fundamental shift to go beyond their conventional goods-services mind-set to an experience mind-set – defining value based on human experiences rather than features and processes.”
Grönroos (2011, p. 282) “Value creation is defined as the customer’s creation of value-in-use. “A firms value co-creation can be characterized as joint value creation with the customer”… Co-creation can take place only if interactions between the firm and the customer occur. If there are no direct interactions, no value-creation is possible”. Saarijärvi (2013, p. 10) “Diversity in the concept of value co-creation is due to the
difference in interpretations of what constitutes “value”, the “co-“ and the “creation” within the definition.”
Frow et al. (2015, p.464) “Co-creation involves the joint creation of value by the firm and its network of various entities (such as customers, suppliers and distributors) termed here actors” .
Table 2.1: Defining the concept of co-creation of value.
Co-creation is mentioned in two of the ten foundational premises in de Service-Dominant-Logic (S-D-L) developed by Vargo and Lusch (2004). According to these premises, value is always created through the interaction between the involved parties and is co-created and controlled by the stakeholders rather than embedded in output. All proposed definitions above are based on this these premises of the S-D-L and all authors acknowledge that value is not solely created by the firms. If a firm will be able to actively engage with the stakeholder’s value creation process in the joint sphere, opportunities will rise for value co-creation with the stakeholders. (Grönroos and Voima, 2013).
16
Figure 2.1 shows this process of value creation. Value is not created “one way” by the firms as it was done traditionally, but is based on the interaction between stakeholders and the co-creative enterprise. Emphasis lies on the stakeholder-initiator relationship through dialog (Payne et al., 2008; Grönroos, 2012; Frow et al., 2015). This conceptualization of interaction as the key of co-creation is in line with earlier work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b) and Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a). Stakeholders fulfill no longer a passive function in the marketing actions of a firm, but are interacting with the firm to determine and create value.
The outcome of these collaborations, interactions and behavior between these parties could be new ideas, services and products. Therefore, co-creation has the potential to enhance the innovation processes of firms and could unlock new sources of competitive advantage. Co-creation could be seen as a specific form of open innovation where the involved parties are actively participating in the process of the development of new services and products (Frow et al., 2015). Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a) state that the activity chain remains key in creating goods and services, however the external parties are no longer limiting their experience by receiving the offer, but are becoming active participants in the process of value creation. Still there are semantic discussions about a comprehensive definition of co-creation (Frow et al., 2015) and other concepts like production, crowdsourcing, customer innovation and co-design could be used interchangeably. However, all co-creation definitions share two main features (Roser et al., 2013; Grönroos and Voima, 2013):
(1) Expansion of organizational boundaries (2) The involvement of co-creators
From an innovation perspective, a third dimension is added; (3) the creation of new value in collaboration with stakeholders (Roser et al., 2013).
Literature shows that co-creation is an increasingly important topic in the marketing and innovation literature (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010a). From the innovation perspective, co-creative practices could enhance the traditional NPD and NSD models and assists in the accomplishment of the desired outcome; the creation of new products and service (Roser et al., 2013; Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010a). Once an organization is accepting interaction and involvement of stakeholders it could start with building new unique capabilities and experiences which create a competitive advantage (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Lee et al. 2014). The next section will go more into depth into the success of co-creation and the factors that might lead to this success.
17
2.3 Successful co-creation
Within co-creation the value that is created is not created “one way” by the firms as it was done
traditionally, however it is created together with the stakeholders via interactions between the firm and the stakeholders (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010a). According to Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a+b), co-creation could be classified as successful if value is created for all the involved stakeholders. From the innovation perspective the value that is created must be “new” (Roser et al., 2013). It is widely recognized that co-creation could have a positive influence on the firm’s performance and the development of new products and services (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004b; Von Hippel 2005; Hoyer, 2010; Fronteer Strategy, 2011). However, besides new products and services, co-creation could have several other outcomes. According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a+b), interaction forms the locus for the creation of value for all stakeholders. Entrepreneurial actions within the co-creation determine the value created and therefore this study will focus on success derived from these entrepreneurial actions.
First, the success of co-creation might be determined by an improved financial performance. Financial performance could be measured in terms of profit and growth (Colvin and Slevin, 1991). Furthermore, Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a) state that the strategic capital of both the stakeholders and the initiating firm could increase. Next to this, costs and risks of the co-creation project could be decreased since this will shared with all the involved stakeholders (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010a).
Co-creation could lead to various other successes than improved financials. Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a+b) argue that it can create new experiences for the involved stakeholders and the
initiating firm. According to Cooper et al. (2007) and Stuart and Abetti (1987), performance could be seen as the degree of success independent from a financial outcome. Examples of non-financial outcomes of co-creation are addings to the learning cycle of the firm or added value to other existing products or services. Another important intangible success mentioned by Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a), is the improved relationship between the firm and the stakeholders for co-creation.
Meeting the expectations or objectives that are set for the co-creation could be seen as another measurement of success. Success could be defined as the achievement of something planned, attempted or desired (Maidique and Zirger, 1985)
Co-creation could result in both tangible and intangible results. However, Grönroos and Voima (2013) argue that firms should pay attention that co-creation could be co-destructive as well. Therefore, handling the co-creation process carefully would be important for firms.
18
2.4 Success factors for co-creation
Co-creation could lead to several successes for the firm and the stakeholders, however there is little guidance in the determination of the factors that are critical for the success of co-creation in B2B contexts (Lee et al., 2012). Research provides evidence that external integration in the NPD and NSD processes has a positive effect on innovation performance, however managers could face major obstacles while moving towards co-creation (Homburg and Kuehln, 2013). Examples are conflicts over resources and intellectual property, time and budget concerns or finding the appropriate partners. Four scholars were found within this study that focuses on areas within co-creation wherein decision are made that could contribute positively successful co-creation. The findings of the scholars will be shortly discussed below.
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004 a+b): These scholars see interaction as the locus of co-creation and without interaction, the creation of value will be made impossible. Interaction seems to be an
interesting area for further research towards success factors. However it is not the interaction itself, but the quality of interaction that determines how much value could be generated within the co-creation projects. Therefore, this study expects that there might be factors within the area of interaction that could positively influence the quality of interaction and therefore the success of co-creation.
Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a): This scholar proposed four premises that must be met in order to achieve successful co-creative practices; (1) co-creation must provide value for the stakeholders, (2) focus on the experience of all stakeholders and not just the customer, (3) the involved stakeholders must be able to interact transparently with each other, (4) the initiating firm should provide a platform that stimulates interaction and that enables stakeholders to share their experiences. From these premises could be derived that the stakeholders, interaction and the platform might play a role in the success of co-creation.
Roser et al. (2013) and Bhalla (2016): Both of the scholars defined several distinctive decision areas of co-creation in which success factors could be determined. Two of these areas are mentioned in both scholars; (1) stakeholders and (2) objectives .
Since Bhalla (2016) and Roser et al., (2013) shared a similar view that factors for success of co-creation could be found within the areas of stakeholders and objectives, these areas became subject of this study. Furthermore, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a+b) and Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a) both argue that interaction is seen as the locus of value creation in co-creation and therefore success factors within this area will be discussed as well.
The objective – What will be the purpose of the co-creation? The stakeholders – Who will be involved in the co-creation? Interaction – What makes interaction possible?
19 2.4.1. Objectives
Firms could have several reasons to make attempts to move towards creation. The process of co-creation starts for the firms with an objective (Bhalla, 2016). According to Roser et al. (2013) a distinction could be made between two types of objectives for firms to engage in co-creation; (1) co-innovation and (2) validation and improvement. Bhalla (2016) shares a similar view, however this author argues that co-creation projects can be classified into three categories; (1) generation, (2) refinement and (3) co-creation. When a firm pursue a generation objective, the aim is to solicit suggestions, ideas or design from stakeholders. Refinement refers to the collaboration with a specific group of stakeholders to improve or enhance specific features in the firm (e.g. challenges within a customer journey or other processes within the company). This will help the firm to improve performance and will increase the customer experience. This objective is similar to the “validation and improvement” objective of Roser et al. (2013). Last, when firms approach other professionals to work together on a new product or service this can be classified as a creation objective. The “co-innovation” objective of Roser et al. (2013) could be seen as a combination of the generation and creation objectives of Bhalla (2016). As co-creation includes both idea generation and co-production with partners with the aim to innovate, this study will follow the objectives used by Roser et al. (2013).
Besides the objectives of the initiating firm, the objectives of the participating stakeholders must be taken in consideration. As mentioned by one of the premises of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2010b):
“Stakeholders won’t wholeheartedly participate in customer co-creation unless it produces value for them, too.”
Objectives of the stakeholders could be similar to the objectives of the initiating firm, however could differ as well. Incentives are an important consideration for stakeholders to participate in the co-creation (Frow et al., 2015). An incentive could be seen as a stimuli that compels stakeholders to fulfill a specific task; in this case participating in co-creation (Füller, 2010). Incentives increase the willingness of
stakeholders to participate and motivate them to reach the desired objective of the co-creation. Both Füller (2010) and Bhalla (2016) make a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards stakeholders would like to receive in return for the time and effort these parties put in the co-creation. Monetary rewards still is an important driver for stakeholders to contribute (Füller, 2010; Bhalla, 2016), however most often incentives that the participating parties would like to receive are heterogeneous and a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Füller, 2010). Examples of intrinsic rewards mentioned by Bhalla (2016) are an increased image, sense of belonging, supporting causes and the need of finding a solution to a common problem. Furthermore Füller (2010) discuss several additional motivators that encourage
20
participation in co-creation including curiosity, the intrinsic interest in innovation, expanding knowledge and the opportunity of showing ideas to a broad public.
There is a wide variety in the objectives to participate in co-creation. According to Frow and Payne (2011) and Roser et al. (2013) success in co-creation depends on alignment, agreement and transparency between the expectations of the initiating firm and the stakeholders. Furthermore, it is important for the success of co-creation to create an unambiguous understanding of the value proposition among individuals whose power, goals and experiences have been shaped by the function and the firm to which they belong (Frow and Payne, 2011; Lambert and Enz, 2012)
Both, Lambert and Enz (2012) and Holmberg and Cummings (2009), argue that the first step within interfirm collaborations, is the alignment of objectives and the formulation of a shared vision. This idea could be illustrated as followed:
Figure 2.2: Alignment of objectives and the creation of a shared vision
This critical step of alignment in objectives and the creation of a shared vision is often missing in practice. Especially within dynamic external and/ or internal environments there is an even greater need for
alignment of the stakeholder objectives and the shared objectives for the co-creation projects. (Holmberg and Cummings, 2009). However, shared objectives solely make sense if they leverage and support
corporate objectives and strategies of the firms to which the stakeholders belong (Lambert and Enz, 2012). The actualization of the shared objectives occurs through interaction of the stakeholders
representing various functions from both sides of the relationship (Lambert and Enz, 2012; Grönroos, 2011). Therefore, the stakeholders and interaction will be discussed within the next section (Lambert and Enz, 2012 r nroos, 2011).
Firm A Objectives
Desired outcomes in support of firm’s strategy
Environmental factors
Key economic, technological and other trends
Firm B Objectives
Desired outcomes in support of firm’s strategy
Align objectives
21 2.4.2. The stakeholders
Different stakeholders could be approached when firms would like to engage in co-creative processes. These external knowledge resources might, via co-creation, enhance the resources and capabilities of the firm. The more open a firm is towards external knowledge sources, the more knowledge and information will be shared resulting in improved innovative performance (Caloghirou et al., 2004). As external knowledge partners might bring new innovative ideas, resources and capabilities, these parties are
considered to be an important source to create new value for the firm. Therefore, decisions within the area of stakeholders might have its influence on the success of co-creation.
According to Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010), firms can involve different stakeholders into their co-creative processes like other firms within the industry, firms outside the industry, suppliers, employees, customers and even universities. Firms most often collaborate with suppliers and other firms in within the industry, however companies in other industries and universities are rarely used for co-creation (Den Hertog, 2011). According to Frow et al. (2015) scholars are increasingly emphasizing to extend the focus to include a wider range of stakeholders and multiple actors in the co-creation process as this could increase the range of co-creation opportunities (Gummesson and Melle, 2010). Furthermore, Fronteer Strategy (2011) argues that a wider variety in stakeholders leads to different roles within the co-creation which could positively influence the co-creation process. Taken the ideas of these scholars together, it could be assumed that variety within the participating stakeholder might lead to successful co-creation.
Besides the variety in stakeholders, the expertise of stakeholders seems to be of influence on the success of the co-creation (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). According to this scholar stakeholders are often selected based on task-related expertise or partner-related expertise. Task related expertise could refer to a complementary product or skill this stakeholder possesses, technological capabilities, access to a customer base, financial resources, reputation, image or governmental relationships which could
contribute to the development of innovative products and services (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). Besides selecting stakeholders based on expertise, partner-related criteria could be taken into
consideration. This includes selecting stakeholders based on reciprocal relationships, strategic fit, compatible goals, prior ties and successful prior association or ease of communication with these stakeholders (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). Both, task-related expertise and partner-related criteria, could enhance the quality of the co-creation and are therefore influencing the success of co-creation.
22 2.4.3. (Quality of) Interaction
Interaction is seen by various scholars as the linking pin between value creation and the creation of value for all stakeholders(Prahalas and Ramaswamy, 2004a+b; Grönroos, 2011). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004 a+b) see interaction as the locus of co-creation and argue that the critical success factors lay within the field of interactions between the firm and the involved stakeholders. If firms are not able to interpret the concept of interaction, co-creation will be made impossible (Grönroos, 2011). Interaction describes in the co-creative process how stakeholders interact, behave, interpret the experience and evaluate the social construction in which these parties participate (Ranjan and Read, 2016). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004 a+b) developed a model to ensure successful interaction during co-creative practices. According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004 a+b) there are four factors that could increase the quality of interaction and therefore the creation of value for all stakeholders. Dialog, access, risk-benefits and transparency (DART) form the foundation for the interaction between the stakeholder and the initiating firm within co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a).
Dialog seems to be the key vehicle for the exchange of information between stakeholders within co-creation (Kaptein and Tulder, 2003). Dialog implies deep engagement, interactivity, and the ability and willingness to act from the firm and the stakeholders. (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a). Within the dialog opinions are exchanged, and expectations and interests are discussed. Dialog is necessary
throughout the whole co-creation process and especially to jointly establish objectives for the co-creation (Lambert et al., 2010). Ultimately dialog increases the mutual understanding about the interests and perceptions of different stakeholders (Kaptein and Tulder, 2003; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a). Equality of stakeholders and clearly defined rules seem to be important for structuring the dialog (Kaptein and Turlder, 2003). However, it might be hard to increase the quality of dialog when there is no access and transparency of information.
Access to information is the next success factor mentioned by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a). To create a meaningful dialog, access is needed (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a+b). Access refers to the access of the involved stakeholders to information and tools of the initiator of co-creation and other stakeholders. Opaqueness of prices, profit margins and costs could be no longer assumed as, within the co-creation, resources of other stakeholders are needed to create new ideas, services and products (Hatch and Schultz, 2010). According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a) and Hatch and Schultz (2010) access is becoming increasingly important for creating trust and engagement of the stakeholders.
The concept of access is closely related to transparency. Transparency refers to the lack of information asymmetry between the involved stakeholders (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a+b). When information about business systems, technologies and products becomes more accessible for the involved stakeholders, it will be increasingly desirable to increase transparency (Hatch and Schultz, 2010).
23
Both transparency and access help the stakeholders to gain additional knowledge about products, technologies and processes. This knowledge could be turned into the creation of value through dialog. However greater transparency and access could enhance risk as well. The increase in transparency and access might lead to an increase in espionage as it will become easier for stakeholders to get involved into internal processes (Hatch and Schultz, 2010).
The last factor, the risk-benefits, is referring to accessing the potential risks and benefits of the co-created experiences and products (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a+b). There is always the probability that the co-creation might harm the stakeholders. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b) refer to different risks like the risk of harm on reputation, losing distinctiveness as the result of stakeholders copying culture or management practices, risk of loss of control as governance shifts towards all stakeholders within the co-creation.
The factors are all interrelated and a combination of the factors could lead to an improved quality of interaction (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a). Since interaction is seen by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a+b) as the locus of co-creation to create value for all stakeholders, the quality of interaction seems to be one of the critical success factors for successful co-creation.
Based on the assumption of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a+b) that the factors are interrelated, Hatch and Schultz (2010) developed an integrative framework including these four factors. This scholar agree that the quality of interaction has an influence on the success of co-creation, however argue that combining the factors within interaction could lead to an increase in engagement and organizational self-disclosure. Within this framework two combinations were made;
Dialog + access = engagement
Transparency + risk = organizational self-disclosure
Engagement entails the commitment of stakeholders towards the co-creation project (Hatch and Schultz, 2010). Dialog will link the stakeholders within the co-creation and will help to formulate shared objectives (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). Furthermore, an increase in access will enhance the engagement as more information and tools will come available (Hatch and Schultz, 2010).
Self-disclosure defines the interrelated effects of transparency and risk. When firms are becoming more transparent, the risk of being harmed increases (Hatch and Schultz, 2010). Firms have to make decisions within this fine line between transparency and risks (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a+b).
24
2.5 Conclusion
From the literature review, it appeared that co-creation is still a broad concept with various views from innovation and marketing perspectives. Co-creation could be seen as a specific form of open innovation where the involved parties actively participate in the process of the development of new services and products (Frow et al., 2015). Still, there are semantic discussions about a comprehensive definition of co-creation (Frow et al., 2015), and other concepts like co-production, crowdsourcing, customer innovation and co-design are sometimes used interchangeably. The aim of co-creation within the RAI is to innovate and therefore this study will adopt the definition proposed by the innovation literature which includes three features; (1) Expansion of organizational boundaries, (2) the involvement of co-creators and (3) the creation of new value in collaboration with stakeholders (Roser et al., 2013).
In the literature, it was discussed that co-creation could be classified as successful when value is created for all the involved stakeholders (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010). However, since this study is takes an innovation perspective on the co-creation process, it could be assumed that this value that is created must be “new”. The success of co-creation could be measured in various ways and this study will focus on both financial and non-monetary rewards that are results of the entrepreneurial actions within co-creation. Examples of non-financial outcomes of co-creation could be contributions to the learning cycle of the firm or improved relationships between the initiating firm and the stakeholders (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010; Frow et al., 2015). The last measurement off success mentioned in the literature review, is the achievement of expectations or objectives that were set at the start of the co-creation (Maidique and Zirger, 1985).
From the literature three main areas came forward, that could be of interest for successful creative practices in B2B contexts. Therefore this study will primarily focus on success factors for co-creation within these three areas. Since Bhalla (2016) and Roser et al., (2013) shared a similar view that factors for success could be found within the areas of stakeholders and objectives, these areas became subject of this study. Furthermore, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a+b) argue that interaction is seen as the locus of value creation in co-creation and therefore success factors within this area were analyzed as well.
Within the area of objectives two success factors were derived from the literature; alignment in objectives and the creation of a shared vision. According to Roser et al. (2013), firms could have two main reasons to turn to co-creation, namely: (1) co-innovation and (2) validation and improvement. Stakeholders could have similar objectives; however, the objectives to participate in co-creation could differ as well. According to Frow and Payne (2011) and Lambert and Enz (2012) successful co-creation depends on (1) alignment between the objectives and expectations of the initiating firm and the
25
vision will assist in creating value for all stakeholders and is therefore suggested as a contribution to the success of co-creation.
Success factors found within the area of stakeholders include having a wide range of and/or multiple stakeholders involved in the co-creation process (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). By including more stakeholders from various backgrounds, new ideas might be generated that lead to opportunities for new products and services. However, it cannot be assumed that having multiple stakeholders could lead directly towards success; therefore, this study solely assumes that a wide range of stakeholders will positively influence the co-creation projects. Furthermore, the expertise of stakeholders seems to be important to the success of co-creation. The expertise of stakeholders includes task-related expertise and partner-related expertise (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). It is expected that by combining the expertise of different stakeholders together (bundling the resources), new services and products could be developed.
According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a+b), interaction could be seen as the locus of co-creation and if firms are not able to interpret the concept of interaction, co-co-creation will be made
impossible (Grönroos, 2011). Therefore, it is assumed that the quality of interaction seems to influence the success of co-creation. Four factors influence the quality of interaction: dialog, access, transparency and risk-benefit (DART). The factors are interrelated, and a combination of the factors could lead to an increase in the quality of interaction. Since interaction is seen as key to the creation of value for all stakeholders, DART is taken into consideration as success factor for co-creation within this study.
The above presents a clear overview of factors that might influence the success of co-creation; however, empirical research is needed to test the validity of these statements. Therefore, the next chapters will cover the empirical portion of the research.
26
2.6 Conceptual framework
A conceptual model is proposed by utilizing the insights gained from the literature. The main aim of this research is to investigate the critical success factors for co-creation within a non-crowdsourced B2B context. The conceptual model forms the foundation for the following chapters of this research - the empirical investigation of success factors for co-creation.
Defining co-creation
Since differences in interpretations of co-creation exist, this study will first make an attempt to define what co-creation actually means within a non-crowdsourced B2B context. The literature showed that there were different perspectives on defining co-creation. From the innovation perspective, it was derived that co-creation is; (1) an expansion of organizational boundaries, (2) where co-creators are involved and (3) new value is created with these stakeholders (Roser et al., 2013). It might be assumed that the definition within this study might show similarities since the RAI aims to develop new products and services with external firms, however this will be empirically tested.
Success in co-creation
Before a determination could be given of the factors that could lead to successful co-creation, success within the non-crowdsourced B2B context will be analyzed. According to Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010), co-creation could be classified as successful when value is created for all stakeholders.
Furthermore, from the innovation perspective, co-creation should ideally lead towards the development of new products and services (Roser et al., 2013). Co-creation could lead to both monetary and
non-monetary outcomes (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010a; Cooper et al., 2007; Maidique and Zirger, 1985) and both of these outcomes of co-creation will be taken into consideration in this study.
Success factors for co-creation
The above mentioned successes could be explained by various critical factors. From the literature it appeared that there are three main areas within co-creation in which decisions could be made that could lead to success; the objectives, the stakeholders and interaction. Roser et al., (2013) and Bhalla (2016) share a congruent view that decisions within the area of objectives and stakeholders could lead to success. Furthermore, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) focused on interaction as the locus of co-creation.
Therefore, the literature in this study focused on success factors found in these three main areas.
The literature showed, that within the area of objectives, two factors seem to influence the success of co-creation; alignment in objectives and creating a shared vision (Lambert and Enz, 2012; Cummings and Holmberg, 2012; Roser et al., 2012). Furthermore, success of co-creation could be influenced by
27
including a wide range and/or multiple stakeholders. Expertise of the stakeholders is important for the development of new products and services and a distinction could be made between task-related expertise and partner-related expertise (Cummings and Holmberg, 2012). Last, dialog, access, transparency and the risk-evaluation are interrelated and seem to have an influence on the quality of the interaction (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a+b). Since interaction is seen as the locus of creating value for all stakeholders in co-creation, these factors are included in the conceptual model.
From the above, the following model is derived which will form the foundation for the empirical part of this research.
Figure 2.3: Conceptual framework
Stakeholders Wide range Multiple actors Expertise (Task-related, partner-related) Objectives Alignment in objectives Shared vision (Quality of ) Interaction Dialog Access Transparency Risk-benefit Successful co-creation:
New product/service development Value for all stakeholders
Monetary rewards
28
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research design 3.2 Case selection 3.3 Sample
3.4 Data collection procedure 3.5 Data analysis
3.6 Credibility of the research
This chapter will give an in-depth overview of the methods used to conduct the research and how data is collected. First the research design will be explained followed by the case characteristics, sample and the data collection procedure. Furthermore it will be described how data is analyzed and the validity,
reliability and credibility of the research will be discussed.
3.1 Research design
The research was conducted within the context of internship at the RAI Amsterdam Convention Center at the Innovation and Marketing Department. The co-creative practices of this firm were analyzed within a time frame of four months. In April 2017, the RAI launched the InspirationLAB with the aim to co-create innovations with external stakeholders and therefore it was of great interest for the firm to gather
information about the success factors for co-creation in a non-crowdsourced B2B context.
Since this thesis aims to analyze and discover success factors for co-creative practices in the convention industry, this research could be classified as exploratory. According to Saunders et al. (2007) exploratory research could be very useful when the aim is to clarify a (managerial) problem.
According to Eisenhardt (1989) and Saunders et al. (2007), case studies could offer highly valuable and detailed information about a contemporary phenomenon within real life contexts. For this study, a single case study design is chosen as this offers a unique opportunity to understand the micro-practices of co-creation. Lee et al. (2012) and Roser et al. (2013) argued that more empirical research is needed in the field of co-creation to fully understand the factors that lead to successful co-creative practices. A single case setting could help in offering a detailed overview success factors for co-creation within a certain context and will therefore be relevant for the creation of managerial theories about co-creation (Kohtamäki and Rajala, 2016). It offers a unique opportunity to get an in-depth understanding of a particular phenomenon, in this case factors that lead to successful co-creative practices.
3.2 Case selection
Selecting cases in an appropriate manner is a crucial aspect of building theory from the case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989). The RAI Amsterdam Convention Center became the main subject of this study since there was a demand for investigation towards the factors that lead towards successful co-creative
practices. The InspirationLAB led to an increase in co-creation projects with external stakeholders. Due to this increase and the emphasis on co-creation, the RAI requested to investigate what the factors are within
29
the co-creation that could lead towards success. This is in line with the request from scholars for more empirical research towards co-creation within B2B contexts (Bhalla, 2016; Roser et al., 2013)
Furthermore, the RAI was interesting to become subject of this study since there are only a few convention centers in the Netherlands. The RAI is the largest convention center in the Netherlands and this firm competes on international level with convention centers all over the world. By giving insights into this specific case, results might be applicable as well to other convention venues on an international level.
Case characteristics
RAI Amsterdam Convention Center Amsterdam
+/- 400 employees 7 interviews, 1 focus group
3.3 Sample
After the selection of the firm for the case study, the samples within the firm were determined. Two different groups were selected within this researcg; the employees of the RAI who are involved in co-creation projects and the partner firms for co-co-creation. The projects are based on the different
subjects/issues that the RAI is dealing with. The RAI addressed several areas of improvement and
different partners were approached to participate in innovative solutions. Views of both, the initiating firm and the participating firms, were researched to give an complete overview of success factors in
co-creation. All stakeholders within the co-creation process are equally important and therefore it was of great interest to compare the views of the initiating firm with the view of the stakeholders. Furthermore, by comparing the view of the stakeholders with the view of the RAI, the co-creation process could be optimized.
The internal group consisted of the managers that were involved in the practices concerning co-creation via the InspirationLAB. In total five employees of the RAI are involved within co-co-creation. As these employees have a clear view on the co-creation processes, these employees could provide valuable information concerning the main topic of this research. An overview of the employees who participated in the focus group can be found below.
30
Employees involved in co-creation RAI
Employee name Function
Respondent 1 Manager ICT Respondent 2 Innovation Manager
Respondent 3 Manager Media and InnovationLAB Respondent 4 Product Manager Communities
Respondent 5 Virtual Strategy Manager (not able to attend)
Since co-creation is an process with two or more different parties involved, the view of the stakeholders involved in the co-creation should be considered as well. All stakeholders that were currently involved in co-creation projects with the RAI became part of the sample. The RAI is still at a starting point of co-creation with external stakeholders and therefore the sample was limited. From the eight firms that could be contacted, seven firms approved to become part of the research. Since these stakeholders might have a different view on the co-creation process, including these stakeholders in this study will be of vital importance. From every firm, one employee participated in the co-creation projects. An overview of the interviewees could be found below.
Co-creation partners of the RAI
Firm Function interviewee
Interviewee 1 Microsoft Territory business manager
Interviewee 2 PostNL Strategic Project Manager PostNL
Interviewee 3 TUDelft Postdoc researcher in PASSME
Interviewee 4 4TU Secretary at 4TU Federation
Interviewee 5 Accenture Innovation lead Accenture NL
Interviewee 6 Nationale Nederlanden Project- en Changemanager Strategic Innovation
Interviewee 7 Schiphol/ Yellow concepts Concept and innovation manager Schiphol
CEO/ Owner Yellow concepts
3.4 Data collection procedure
The case study was conducted within the time frame of four months. Within this period of time different qualitative research methods were used. To get an overall understanding of the issues the RAI is facing and for the formulation of the main research question, interviews were held with the employees of the RAI who are involved in the co-creation. Furthermore, the author of this study attended several meetings of the RAI with its co-creation stakeholders. This information was used to formulate the research question, however became nog subject of this study. Furthermore, during the four months a few working documents became available which were used to provide information about the innovation processes and co-creation
31
projects of the RAI. To answer the research question, information derived from a focus group and data from interviews with the external partners was used to analyze.
Research method Respondents Date
Internal interviews 5 February 2017
Working documents May 2017
Focus Group 4 9th of May 2017
Interview partners RAI 7 May- June 2017
3.3.1. Working documents
During the research, a few working documents became available that provided information about the innovation processes and co-creation projects (appendix 4). Information derived from this secondary data was used to provide support to answer the research questions. Since these documents give detailed
insights into the innovation and co-creation processes of the RAI, a better understanding will be generated about the co-creation projects in which the RAI is involved.
3.3.1. Interviews
The main method to collect qualitative data for the research were semi-structured interviews. In-depth interviews could be very helpful to find out what is happening or seek for new insights (Robson, 2002). The interviews were conducted with different partners of the RAI. Within the interviews there is a small quantitative part in which the participants could rate the importance of the success factors for co-creation that were derived from the literature. This is done via a 4-point Likert scale.
According to Saunders et al. (2007) semi-structured interviews are a convenient way to collect data within a case study context. To get the right information from the participants in the research, several questions concerning co-creation were listed beforehand to structure the interviews. The structure of the interviews is in line with the structure of the literature review and the conceptual model. The first part of the interviews focused the co-creation in general, the second part on successful co-creation and the last part discusses the factors that lead towards success in co-creation. All questions in the interviews were open ended to give space to interviewees to talk freely about the different topics within co-creation. An example of the interview template can be found in appendix 1. All interviewees had a Dutch nationality and therefore the interviews were held and transcribed in Dutch.
3.3.2. Focus group
Besides interviews, focus groups could be useful to gather details about a specific theme (Saunders et al., 2007). Focus groups are seen as a group interviews where one person is interviewing several participants at the same time. Carson et al. (2001) define a focus group as a “group interview where the topic is
32
defined clearly and precisely and there is a focus on enabling and recording interactive discussion between participants”. A presentation was prepared with the topics that needed to be discussed. The template for the presentation could be found in appendix 2. Again the key themes discussed in the focus group were derived from the literature and the conceptual model. Since all the participants of the focus group were involved in the co-creative processes of the RAI, these employees were considered to have adequate knowledge about the topic. Organizing a focus group with these employees could be considered as useful since from the introduction interviews was derived that there is still no consensus about the organization and position of the co-creation projects in the RAI. Within the focus group, the employees were able to share and discuss their opinions concerning the topic.
3.5 Data analysis
In order to structure and analyze data adequately, Saunders et al. (2007) have suggested to record the semi-structured interviews and focus group and transcribe it afterwards. The transcribed documents formed the basis for the analysis. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. These transcriptions could be found in a separate document. The duration of the interviews varied from 41 minutes to 1 hour and 17 minutes. Furthermore the focus group was completed within 1 hour and 5 minutes. After all the data was gathered and summarized, further structure was created by categorizing and coding the different sub-topics. According Mortelmans (2013) the process of appropriately analyzing data consists of four steps. Within the first step, the researcher has to read and organize the data within the transcripts. Secondly, the most relevant data selected and this information was added to themes via open coding. The main themes were primarily derived from the literature and conceptual model; defining creation, successful co-creation, success factors in co-creation. Within the theme of success factors different sub-themes were constructed such as objectives, stakeholders and interaction. Within the third step the data derived from open coding will be arranged and connected within categories via axial coding. This data analysis formed the basis for the next chapter within this study; the results. A complete overview of quotations and coding schemes could be found in appendix 3.
3.6 Credibility of the research
The credibility of the research will be explained by discussing the validity, reliability and generalizability of the study results (Saunders et al., 2007).
Validity of the data refers to the accuracy of measuring what is intended to be measured (Saunders et al., 2007). Since different qualitative research methods were used within this research, triangulation of the data can be assured. A focus group was organized to represent the view of the RAI (initiator) on creation, while the interviews represent the view of the involved stakeholders on the
