3 D Co-Creation: Dialectic Development Theory –Practise – Theory.
Testing the usefulness of the Co-Creation-Wheel by practitioners in
innovation practices
Dr. Corry G.J.M. Ehlen, Director CoCreata, The Netherlands.
Sylvia Schoenmakers, MSc, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, senior researcher
CoCreata consultancy, coaching, research
Kastanjelaan 27
6131 KA, Sittard
The Netherlands
+31 653388104
www.cocreata.nl
corry.ehlen@cocreata.nl
Stream 3
Creativity, Innovation and Sustainability
Working Paper
1
Introduction
In order to create added value, today’s organisations need to respond to the technological and
social changes in order to stay ahead of the global competition. In this process of constant
innovation human resources are a factor of utmost importance. More and more, innovations
require multidisciplinary and even inter-organisational approaches, as single organisations
often do not have the resources and employees to face these challenging and complex
innovations. These approaches are a challenge for professionals in the innovation networks,
since they need to collaborate with others outside their familiar domain, with other values,
jargon and different perspectives.
Co-creation has become one of the promising answers. Although the term is mostly used in
the business domain (Sanders and Stappers, 2007), recently the concept appears also in the
management and educational field. Co-creation can be regarded as a collective process where
people or organizations together generate and develop new products, processes or services
(Ind and Coates, 2013). The social dynamics of the processes within co-creation networks,
appears to be an under-developed area, as was discussed several times by scholars at recent
international conferences (SDIN, Heerlen, May 2014; UFHRD, Edinburgh, June 2014; PI,
Genk, June 2014; IHRM, Cracow, June 2014). In particular, the presence of supportive
conditions, required competences and the contribution of HRM/D to innovative co-creation,
appear to be topics that need further elaboration (De Cieri, 2014).
This paper regards an empirical study in progress. With this study we test the practical
function of the instrument the ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’, a model on success factors for cocreation in innovation teams. This instrument is recently tested by experts form science and
practice (Ehlen et al., 2014), and is based on the results of two earlier large-scale interorganisational case-studies between business, governement and professional education, on the
relation between social capital, knowledge productivity and organisational innovation (Ehlen,
et al., 2012, 2013).
The study is part of a longitudinal research project about the contribution of social capital to
organisational innovation (Ehlen et al., 2012, 2013, 2014). Social capital is defined as “the
network of social relations, based on shared norms and values, trust and integrity, by which
knowledge and material resources become available, which are valuable for the members of
the network and the action in the network” (Ehlen, et al., 2013).
A first case-study (Ehlen et al., 2013) unravelled the effect of the dimensions of social capital
on innovation processes, demonstrated innovation as a twofold process of professional
learning as well as organisational innovation, and stipulated consequences for HRD. In a
second case study emphasis was laid on the knowledge activities of innovation teams. To this
purpose the model of ‘knowledge productivity’ was applied: ’to identify, gather and interpret
relevant information, use this information to develop new skills, apply these skills to improve,
and radically innovate operating procedures, products and services’ (Kessels, 2001). This
study resulted in a more worked-out model for knowledge productivity, as well as 18 new
indicators for social capital and knowledge productivity and implications for HRD (Ehlen et
al., 2014).
On the basis of the indicators which we found in these two case-studies, we developed and
tested a model of the main success factors for inter-organisational co-creation, called ‘the CoCreation-Wheel’ (Ehlen et al., 2014b). It is a comprehensive model that demonstrates
2
multiple dimensions and factors of co-creation. The model intends to serve as a guideline, and
reflection instrument for practitioners in innovation projects as well as for HRD in sustaining
the innovators.
The goal of this present study is, to further design the instrument for its use by practitioners,
and, secondly, to test the usability of this instrument in several innovation practices in
different fields and in profit- as well as in non-profit organisations. The purpose of the testing
is twofold, to explore which functions the instrument ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’ can have in
different practices, and which contributions practitioners eventually add to the instrument to
improve its usefulness.
Figure 1 The Co-Creation-Wheel
3
Research questions
1. Which function does the ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’ have in the different innovation practices?
2. Which contributions do practitioners add to the instrument, to improve the usefulness of the
‘Co-Creation-Wheel’?
Method
Setting and participants
We have chosen for different settings with different groups of participants: a mix of
innovation teams, existing out of practitioners in business and education, entrepreneurs, staff,
teachers and students.
The research field exists out of 6 different research settings.
1. Communities of Practice (n = 30) in the field of primary education in the south region
of the Netherlands. These Cop’s exist out of 8-10 teachers (totally n = 300), directors
and students from one or more primary school, with the goal to professionalise by
research, study and knowledge exchange, oriented at their own work questions.
Regularly these Cop’s meet each other to exchange knowledge and experience with
guidance of a lector of the University.
2. ‘The district of Tomorrow’, a so called KIC (=knowledge innovation community),
situated at a terrain in the Dutch-German Eu-region. It is a large-scale longitudinal
multi-organisational Industry-School innovation Project (ISP) , and it consists out of
businesses in the Built Environment, as well the regional and national governance, as
well as the lower, medium and higher professional education sectors. The innovators
are teams of employees of different businesses in the building sector, teachers and
lecturers and students (n = 15). The Industry-School innovation Project recently has
finished, but the KIC continues with several young starting entrepreneurs (n = 8).
3. ‘Chill’, (chemical industry living lab) is also a longitudinal Industry-School
innovation Project (ISP), and a so called KIC. It is a cooperation between the
Chemical Industry, as well the regional and national governance, and the medium and
higher professional education sector in the South of The Netherlands. It is part of the
Chemelot Campus, a regional innovation campus. The innovators are teams of
employees of the Chemical Industry, teachers and lecturers and students (n = 15).
4. An innovation team of VGZ (n = 7), a national Health Insurance Company.
5. PUM experts (n = 20). PUM is a Dutch national NGO of senior experts out of all kind
of industries, advising SME’s in development countries in innovation and
improvement questions. Participants are individual experts, gathered at a national
training meeting.
4
6. An innovation team in the Caribbean region, Colombia (n = 8), starting with a cocreation project between Industry-Government-University, initiated by the University
Simon Bolivar of Barranquilla.
Design and instrument
To make the instrument usable for the practitioners, the instrument ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’ is
designed according to specific design principles (Van Aken and Andriessen, 2011).
This resulted in the use of the 4 colors, to emphasise each dimension, in the use of only three
elements per dimension, and the use of the inner- and outer circle as attractive form. Also in
the use of the acronym CREA, to emphasise the four dimensions Construction, Relationemotion, Expertise, and Action.
C - onstruction = the structure of the innovation practise
R - elation - emotion = the relation – emotion dimension mainly in the team
E - xpertise = the cognitive dimension mainly in the team
A - ction = the design and implementation activities in the innovation practise
Each dimension is specified with three elements.
Construction
Elements of this dimension are: autonomy, facilities and support. They have to be constructed
to an inviting and powerful innovation environment.
Relation - Emotion:
Mechanisms of this dimension are: trust, team-spirit and good atmosphere. These are
conditions for an inspiring and safe innovation team.
Expertise:
Mechanisms of this dimension are: shared goals, subject matter expertise and innovative
capability.
Action:
Mechanisms of this dimension are: collaboration, communication, courage and decisiveness
to act.
In the inner circle:
Urgency = the starting point for co-creation
In the outer circle:
The external conditions = Organisational innovation capability, External expertise,
Technological possibilities, adoption by users.
5
To use the instrument ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’ as intervention or evaluation instrument, each
element is specified in, again, only three sub-elements.
Construction
Autonomy
-
work according individual passion and motivation
-
freedom to experiment
-
to be owner of the method and the results
Facilities
-
enough time
-
enough finance, material and ICT
-
suitable work conditions
Support
-
support of the management
-
support of colleagues
-
support of future clients
Relation - Emotion:
Trust
-
based on integrity between co-innovators
-
between management and innovators
-
confidence in the feasibility of the task
Team spirit
-
connectivity
-
individual interest is subordinate to team goal
-
co-operative leadership
Good atmosphere
-
fun to be together
-
pleasure
-
relaxed work atmosphere
Expertise:
Shared goals
-
agreement about goals,
-
between stakeholders, innovators, levels
6
-
shared values
Subject matter expertise
-
the right expertise and skills for the job
-
multi-disciplinary diversity
-
a combination of different viewpoints
Innovation capability
-
ability to create new combinations of knowledge
-
ability to design
-
ability to think in a user-oriented way
Action:
Collaboration
-
between innovators and initiator/grant-giver
-
between innovators and internal and external networks
-
between innovators and future users
Communication
-
transparent communication with internal stakeholders
-
transparent communication with external stakeholders
-
constructive communication in the innovation team
Courage and decisiveness to act
-
focus on results
-
be boundary crossing
-
dare to take unusual decisions
The participants in the several research settings could use a questionnaire, as help, to reflect
on the instrument ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’ in relation to their innovation practice.
Here is given an example of the questions of an element out of each dimension:
Autonomy
-
Are you motivated fort his innovation?
Do you feel owner of your method?
Are you free to experiment?
Are you, as a team, free to design the results?
Trust
7
-
Do you have trust in each other’s integrity and expertise?
Is there trust between management and innovators?
Does the team trust the feasibility of the task?
Subject matter expertise
-
Do you have the right subject matter expertise for your task?
Is there the right combination of expertise in the team?
Do you use external expertise?
Courage to act
-
Is the team result oriented?
Is there courage to think out of the box?
Is the team able to implement the results together with the users?
Each research setting could choose each own way to use the instrument ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’.
With or without the specified questionnaire.
Data collection
The instrument up to this moment is used in setting one, two, four and six. Open interviews
and participatory observation is used to collect data. Data-collection is realised between
January and April 2015. The instrument will be used later on in setting three and five.
Results
Research question 1 :Which function does the ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’ have in the different
innovation practices?
Setting 1: The instrument is used as evaluation instrument by 30 COP’s in the field of primary
education. There have been organized four training meetings, one meeting for each COP.
At each meeting, the instrument is presented by the chair, a lecturer, at a training meeting of
the participants, via a web-lecture of the designer of the instrument. Later on each participant
was given a picture of the Wheel and the questionnaire. Each member filled out the
questionnaire individually. Together with the members of the own COP, the questions were
discussed. Finally the answers were presented to the other COP’s and discussed.
Setting 2: In the KIC ‘The District of Tomorrow’, the coordinator of this living lab, has
presented the ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’ to participants of this living lab, being young starting
entrepreneurs. After this presentation the entrepreneurs could decide individually to use the
Wheel in their enterprise.
Setting 4: The ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’ is presented by a member of a steering committee at the
start of an innovation project of a large national Health Care Insurance Company.
The function was to get inspiration to start-up. After the ppt presentation by the designer of
the Wheel, the committee discussed 2,5 hour about the application of the dimensions and
elements of the Wheel in the new innovation project.
8
Setting 6: The starting Living Lab ‘Macondo-Lab’ in Barranquilla had organized a meeting to
discuss about principles of co-creation between government, enterprises and education, with
European experts on co-creation out of education, and with local enterprises, staff and
teachers. An European expert presented the Co-Creation-Wheel, and the coordinator of the
Macondo-lab adapted the elements of the Wheel to the starting co-creation Macondo-lab.
After this presentations there was a discussion about the elements of the Wheel and the cocreation situation that had to be realised.
Research question 2: Which contributions do practitioners add to the instrument, to improve
the usefulness of the ‘Co-Creation-Wheel’?
Setting 1: All participants found the Co-Creation Wheel a very useful evaluation instrument,
which presented many elements they had experienced as important, and also showed elements
which they had not realized, but found now important too. Most of them wanted to use the
instrument later on in their Cop for further evaluation and for discussion with more
colleagues. The instrument gave them ‘words’ to tell their experiences. They did not find
‘missing elements’. The presentation of the Wheel and the questions were found very useful.
Setting 2: From the 8 entrepreneurs 2 decided to use the Wheel in their work, as a reflection
instrument. They asked for a plastic representation of the Wheel at A3- format, to be able to
present it at the wall of their office, or as discussion picture.
Setting 4: The 7 members of the steering committee of the new innovation project were
inspired by the ppt presentation of the Wheel and used the plastic A3-picture of the Wheel in
their discussion of the start-up of the innovation project. They found the Co-Creation-Wheel
very useful as it was, especially the combination of inner team elements and outer conditions.
Setting 6: The starting Macondo-lab, used the Wheel as it was. Despite the different culture in
Colombia and Europe, all the elements were recognized as important. Especially the element
trust. It was appreciated that the ppt and the Wheel was translated in Spanish.
Conclusion and Discussion
The findings of RQ 1 show that the Co-Creation Wheel is a very useful instrument for
practitioners in different innovation practices. Even outside Europe, in Latin America.
It shows too that the instrument serves different functions: inspiration and ordering as start-up
instrument, reflection and evaluation instrument during a longterm innovation project, and
guiding instrument during innovation activities.
The findings of RQ 2 show that no contributions are necessary in the content of the Wheel.
Concerning the presentation, it proved useful to present first the theory and the Wheel as a
whole instrument by ppt, or oral, before using the instrument in discussion and in relation to
the real practise. Presenting the Co-Creation-Wheel in different languages proves to be useful.
Also presenting the instrument in plastic A3 format increases its practical usefulness.
9
References:
De Cieri, H. (2014). Global uncertainty, dynamics and IHRM: the challenge of workplace
innovation, workforce well-being and performance. Keynote at IHRM conference, 2427June, Cracow, Poland.
Ehlen, C. G., Van der Klink, M., Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2012). One Hundred Years of ‘Social
Capital’: Historical Development and Contribution to Collective Knowledge Creation
in Organizational Innovation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Ehlen, C. G., Van der Klink, M., Roentgen, U., Curfs, E. C., & Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2013).
Knowledge productivity for sustainable innovation: social capital as HRD target.
European Journal of Training and Development, 38(1/2), 54-75.
Ehlen, C. G., Van der Klink, M., Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2014). Unravelling the social dynamics
of an Industry-School Partnership: social capital as perspective for co-creation.
Manuscript accepted.
Ehlen, C.G., Van der Klink, M., Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2014). The Co-Creation Wheel: twelve
mechanisms to enhance collaborative innovation and to engage professionals.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013). The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review, 25(1),
86-95.
Kessels, J.W.M. (2001) Verleiden tot Kennisproductiviteit. [Tempting knowledge
productivity]. Inaugural speech Human Resource Development. University Twente.
Kessels, J. W. M., & Poell, R. F. (2004). Andragogy and Social Capital Theory: The
Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human
Resources 6(2), 146-157.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Poell, R. (2012). The future of human resource development: from a management tool to an
employee tool as well. Human Resource Development International, 15(1), 1-3.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of
design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18.
Sheehan, M., Garavan, T. N., & Carbery, R. (2014). Innovation and human resource
development (HRD). European Journal of Training and Development,38(1/2), 2-14.
10