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 co-creation 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 inter-organisational 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 Co-

2

Creation-Wheel’ (Ehlen et al., 2014b). It is a comprehensive model that demonstrates 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 co-creation 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, Relation-emotion, 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 co-creation 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, 24-27June, 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