Influence of virtual co-design experiences on consumer engagement and consumer-product relationship
Faculty of economic sciences and management of Sfax, Tunisia
In this paper we draw attention on packaging co-design practices through virtual platforms. Specifically, by adopting S-O-R model, we empirically test the joint influence of virtual co-design activities (prototype generation and prototypes evaluation) and their design contexts (S) on consumer engagement state (O), which, in turn, influence consumer-product relationship (R).
In the co-creation context, consumer engagement has always been a superior indicator of the co-creation strategies’ success (Vivek et al., 2012). The engagement construct is defined as individual’s contextual psychological state that “occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative experiences” (Brodie et al., 2011, pp. 260). This contextual nature of the engagement construct implies that situational (co-design activity and platform) and contextual factors (co-design task) affect consumers’ engagement forms (cognitive, emotional, physical/behavioral). Accordingly, we assert the joint influence of co-design activity and its specific task on consumer engagement state.
Various researches (e.g. Fuch et al., 2010) acknowledged that individual engagement in product development brings in positive outcomes in favor of consumer-product relationship building, such as feeling of possession and ownership (Pierce et al., 2003) and greater loyalty intention (Dwivedi, 2015). Therefore, we assume that consumer engagement state influences the strength of consumer-product relationship.
Engagement in task or activity has been neglected in marketing researches, which is very conflicting considering the rise of co-creation and crowdsourcing practices. In addition, S-O-R model haven't yet been employed to understand the influence of different stimuli factors related to virtual co-creation experiences on consumer-product relationship.
How to use co-design tools, activities and tasks in the way to enhance consumer engagement?
To what extent consumer engagement in co-design practices enhances consumer-product relationship?
How co-design activities should be designed in order to boost consumer-product relationship?
We designed an online between-subject experiment involving 608 respondents from USA who participated in Web-based survey via Qualtrics. We choose olive oil packaging to work on and we have developed different virtual co-design stimuli by manipulating the co-design activities (prototype generation vs. prototypes evaluation) and the task of each of the co-design activities in the way to engage the participant in typical vs. atypical prototype(s) generation/evaluation.
Links of co-design platforms used in experiments.
For data analysis, we employed Process Macro (Hayes, 2013) using model number 8. The findings revealed only significant influence of the design activity on consumers’ emotional engagement (βdesign_activity= -.246; t(565)= -2.09; p<.05) and consumers’ ownership psychology (βdesign_activity= -.868; t(562)= -5.93; p<.00). In addition, the effect of the interaction between the design task and the design activity was merely significant on consumers’ psychological ownership (βown-psy= -.472; t(562)= -2.29 p<.05).
In addition, the important positive influence of consumer emotional engagement on his ownership psychology feeling toward the packaging (βemotional_eng=.761; t(562)= 9.56; p<.00) and loyalty intention (βemotional_eng=.392; t(562)= 7; p<.00), approve the stated hypothesis and shows the role of the emotional engagement construct in improving consumer-product relationship. The analysis of moderated mediation revealed that the indirect effect of co-design activity on consumer-product relationship (βown_psy= -.187; LLCI= -.391; ULCI= -.006; βloyalty = -.096; LLCI= -.206; ULCI= -.002) was merely significant via consumers’ emotional engagement and only for consumer generation of typical designs.
Contribution to Scholarship
This research extends crowdsourcing, co-design and engagement literatures. Indeed, we are not only focusing on the intensity of consumer engagement (low vs. high), but also on engagement type (cognitive, emotional, physical and/or behavioral) in each of co-design activities and contexts. Also, we expand existing knowledge by highlighting the important role of consumer engagement in enhancing consumer-product relationship in the co-design framework.
Contribution to Practice
This research help managers recognize the most captivating and effective co-design strategy that enhances consumer engagement and boosts his relationship to the product. Indeed, this study's findings revealed great weight of typical packaging prototype generation activity on increasing consumer emotional engagement, which promotes consumer-product relationship.
This conference’s topics match our research work and interest, hence, we believe that the present research adds new knowledge and updates to the co-creation area, as well as, certainly to co-design field.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271.
Dwivedi, A. (2015). A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 24, 100-109.
Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The psychological effects of empowerment strategies on consumers' product demand. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 65-79.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 122–146.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), 84-107.
Determinants of organizational Open Source adoption
UPHF, laboratoire IDP; PhD iae Lyon Magellan, France
Open Source appeared in the software industry in the early 1980s under the name “free software” (Von Hippel, 2001).
At first a community based movement (West & Gallagher, 2006), it has become important in business models for many industries, especially in a context of Open Innovation (Morgan et al., 2013).
The term “Open Source” (OS) now refers to both Free and Open Source practices (Von Hippel & Von Krogh, 2003); it is a philosophy and a method (Schrape, 2017). “Open Source Software, broadly defined, is software where users can inspect the source code, modify it, and redistribute modified or unmodified versions for others to use” (Von Krogh, Haefliger, Spaeth, & Wallin, 2012, p. 649).
Organizational OS adoption is poorly studied (Hauge, Ayala, & Conradi, 2010), and is mainly studied through the lenses of intensive software organizations.
Organizations face dilemmas when thinking of adopting open strategies (Boudreau, 2010; Chesbrough, 2003; Ciesielska & Westenholz, 2016; Hautz, Seidl, & Whittington, 2017; Laursen & Salter, 2014; West, 2003), and need to assess advantages and risks of such open strategies.
To our knowledge, dilemmas of open strategies have been studied qualitatively so far (Boudreau, 2010; Ciesielska & Westenholz, 2016; Hautz et al., 2017), and only one study investigated the determinants of Open Source adoption (Chauhan, Jaiswal, Rai, Motiwalla, & Pipino, 2018). The reasons why organizations adopts OS remain unclear.
What are the positive and negative determinants of corporate Open Source adoption for organizations ?
We performed a survey in France together with the organizers of the Paris Open Source Summit, 1st European Free and Open Source event, in 2017-2018.
The respondents were organizations from all industrial or service sectors, using OS software. The typical respondent was either an executive or an IT manager of the organizations.
After data cleaning, we obtain 160 respondents. We develop a comprehensive measurement scale for determinants of Organizational OS adoption among non-software companies, through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
We use R, an OS statistical language and tool, with the Psych and the Lavaan packages to perform our analyses.
We propose 27 questions with 5 points Likert scales to assess perceived advantages and risks of Open Source adoption, and 5 items to evaluate Open Source Adoption.
We obtain 329 answers for Open Source adoption, among which 160 managers using Open Source also answered questions about risks and advantages.
The exploratory factor analysis enabled us to identify 3 positive and 3 negative dimensions.
The first advantage dimension “efficiency” refers to strengthening liability and independence (Proportion of variance PVAR 14%; alpha 0.81; rho 0.88).
The second advantage dimension “marketing” refers to differentiating from competitors and improving reputation (PVAR 12%; alpha 0.77; rho 0.85).
The third advantage dimension “market” refers to meeting customer demands and settling a sustainable standard (PVAR 9%; alpha 0.69; rho 0.81).
The first risk dimension “Technical Risks” refers to the uncertain maintenance and the lack of competencies (PVAR 12%; alpha 0.78; rho 0.86).
The second risk dimension “offer constraints” refers to the impossibility of adopting OS due to non-modularity of own offers, to the lack of adapted OS propositions from suppliers, and to the customer liability requirements (PVAR 11%; alpha 0.71; rho 0.82).
The third risk dimension “ current suppliers” refers to satisfying and integrated relationships with current suppliers (PVAR 7%; alpha 0.82; rho 0.92).
The confirmatory analysis confirms the exploratory factor analysis (all loadings above 0.5; rmsea 0.073; rmsea-pvalue 0.001).
When considered separately, all determinants impact OS Adoption, when considered all together, only “Offer constraints” explains OS adoption (pvalue=0.034 , Bëta=0.467)
Contribution to Scholarship
We contribute to scholarship by providing a quantitative scale for organization determinants to Open Source adoption for non-software organizations.
Contribution to Practice
We contribute to practice by providing editors and open source service providers with a comprehensive measurement of the perceived advantage of risks of their offers through the eyes of their potential customers.
The main constraints that prevent organizations from using Open Source are the non-modularity of their offer, the liability requirements of their industrial customers and the lack of adapted Open Source solutions proposed by their suppliers.
For organizations, the first challenge is to decide whether they go for collaborative innovation or not. Our study aims at providing answers to what determinants make them decide to go for it or not, by studying Open Source software as an emblematic case of collaborative innovation.
Boudreau, K. (2010). Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849‑1872.
Chauhan, S., Jaiswal, M., Rai, S., Motiwalla, L., & Pipino, L. (2018). Determinants of adoption for open-source office applications: A plural investigation. Information Systems Management, 35(2), 80‑97.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation, the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Ciesielska, M., & Westenholz, A. (2016). Dilemmas within commercial involvement in open source software. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(3), 344‑360.
Hauge, Ø., Ayala, C., & Conradi, R. (2010). Adoption of open source software in software-intensive organizations – A systematic literature review. Information & Software Technology, 52(11), 1133‑1154.
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open Strategy: Dimensions, Dilemmas, Dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 298‑309.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867‑878.
Morgan, L., Feller, J., & Finnegan, P. (2013). Exploring value networks: theorising the creation and capture of value with open source software. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(5), 569‑588.
Schrape, J.-F. (2017). Open Source Projects as Incubators of Innovation: From Niche Phenomenon to Integral Part of the Software Industry. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 1‑33.
Von Hippel, E. (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. MIT Sloan management review, 42(4), 82‑86.
Von Hippel, E., & Von Krogh, G. (2003). Open Source Software and the « Private-Collective » Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209‑223.
Von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S., Spaeth, S., & Wallin, M. W. (2012). Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 649‑676.
West, J. (2003). How Open Is Open Enough?: Melding Proprietary And Open Source Platform Strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), 1259‑1283.
West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331.
Evolution of the Java specification process: towards a fully open co-creation paradigm building on Open Source experience for a major software technology
Our research work aims to follow the perspective of Rayna and Striukova (2015) and their input-output typology in relation to a new model of open co-creation: the evolution of the specification process of a major software industrially oriented technology, Java Enterprise Edition.
Open Innovation became a determining research sector of innovation management and strategy (Chesbrough, 2006; Enkel et al., 2009; West and Bogers, 2014). The field focuses on organization processes of innovation based on a combination of the complementary vectors of knowledge resources inflows (integration of external knowledge resources) and outflows (opening of internal knowledge resources with the aim of generating innovative external inputs), and the associated business models to create and capture value (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014).
Rayna and Striukova (2015) analyzed the advent of a new paradigm of Open Innovation 2.0 characterized by a structural analogy with Web 2.0 technologies that allow horizontal cooperation departed from unity of place with a potential large range of agents. This paradigm emphasizes co-creation with contribution of producers, users and costumers. Rayna and Striukova established an input-output typology of co-creation “to identify challenges common to the various existing (and future) forms of co-creation”.
The literature gap is related to the novelty of the open co-creation evolution of the specification process. Thus, will be analyzed the issues of the current transfer of the Java specification process, from the leading of the Oracle Corporation to the non-profit Open Source Eclipse Foundation.
What are the issues of the evolution of the Java specification process to a fully open co-creation paradigm?
This work builds on two methodological axles:
- a theoretical approach related to the fields of Open Innovation, co-creation, standardization and Open Source software.
- a practical line of qualitative investigations according to an in-depth case study (following Yin, 2014) about the Java specification process' co-creation evolution and move from the leading of Oracle Corporation to the Open Source Eclipse Foundation.
Because specification processes aim to generate standard values, our choice to undertake an in-depth case study follows the most established scholar method concerning this thematic. As Simcoe (2008) indicates: “Most of the empirical evidence on the committee standard setting process is based on case studies”.
For this in-depth case study, we built on referential guidance of Yin (2014): “Compared to other methods, the strength of the case study method is its ability to examine, in-depth, a ‘case’ within its ‘real-life’ context”.
A combination of primary and secondary qualitative data will be part of the case study. Secondary data will involve a systematic analysis of the complete external and internal available files and documents related to the evolution process. In addition, primary data will include interviews of 10 Java specification process' members (including of major firms as IBM) and organizers of the Eclipse Foundation.
Including into the expected results, will be detailed the complete novelties augured by the evolution of the Java specification process to a fully open co-creation paradigm and the issues for the IT industry, considering the major role of Java for the sector.
In particular related to the challenges emphasized by Rayna and Striukova (2015): “However, just like any form of Open Innovation, co-creation comes with associated challenges mainly in terms of motivation, costs and IPR issues”. In this perspective, the previous program to certificate the specification was paying under a closed software property of Oracle Corporation. The new certification program is ruled by the Eclipse Foundation to be free and developed as an Open Source software.
Will be analyzed that the evolution of the specification process builds on Open Source high experience of the Eclipse Foundation. In particular, the novelty of using a prior Open Source development to shape the specification. By contrast, when Oracle Corporation was leading the process, the specification was prior to any development.
Other analyzed issues of the open and co-creation evolution will include the enhancement of agility, community dynamics and release rhythm, and the raise of industrial trust within neutrality and transparency.
Contribution to Scholarship
The case study will lead to integrate the evolution of the Java specification process as an open co-creation form into the typology of Rayna and Striukova (2015). This typology allows the classification of the different models of co-creation according to the combination of an axis of consumer input (differentiated / integrated) and an axis of produced output (customized / mass product). Will be analyzed that the open evolution of the Java specification process takes place at the down / right second quadrant, as Open Source software, even if this innovative co-creation specification process and Open Source have differences and singularities that will be detailed. The consumer input is integrated because of the standard value of the open specification.
Contribution to Practice
Our work expects to both contribute to practice in an up to date way with a full analysis of the current evolution of the specification process of one of the most used software technology, and to scholarship within the co-creation typology developed by Rayna and Striukova (2015).
We especially undertook this work to be in relevance with the R&D Management Conference theme. In particular, this work shares issues with the thematic tracks of:
- Theme 2: Co-creation, Creativity & Design
- Theme 3: Digital Technology
- Theme 4: Ecosystems
- Theme 8: Open Innovation
Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H., and Bogers, M. (2014) Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation. Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West eds. New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Forthcoming: 3-28.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., and Chesbrough, H. (2009) Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4): 311-316.
Rayna, T., and Striukova, L. (2015) Open innovation 2.0: Is co-creation the ultimate challenge? International Journal of Technology Management, 69(1): 38-53.
Simcoe, T. (2008) Open standards and intellectual property rights. Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West eds. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 161-183.
West, J., and Bogers, M. (2014) Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4): 814-831.
Yin, R. K. (2014) Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th Edition), Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Social Innovation: what does it mean?
University of São Paulo, Brazil
The literature on Social Innovation has spread considerably in the latest years. One reason is the extension of the Brazilian’s social problems. Motivated by serious socio-environmental issues resulting from the forms of current economic production and gaps in public services, products and services targeted to social inclusion have been created.
In the paper, we discuss some definitions about Social innovation found in researches made by Cajaiba-Santana (2014), Mumford and Moertl (2003), Alvord et al. (2004), Neuvonen et al. (2014), Seyfang and Longhurst (2016) and Pol and Ville (2009), for example.
The field of study deals with an ambiguous Social Innovation term and faces a lack of agreement about its meaning because it is considered a polysemic and multidisciplinary definition.
The research intends to understand how the term Social Innovation is handled and conceptualized. We also look for a precise definition that can be applied inside the management field. If it was not found, we would suggest a new one.
In our analysis, we discuss the critical issues in the conceptualizations made in previous researches and propose a new concept to Social Innovation. In order to exam the literature, we used bibliometric analysis. After we have investigated the meaning of Social Innovation and analyzed qualitatively the definitions found, we proposed a new concept, which attempts to solve some problems recognized in other definitions found in the review. We also present three social innovation examples to help us to explain our Social Innovation definition.
We realize two main approaches to address the SI term. There are some articles, which contents indicate that the application of SI drives up the changes in relationships among agents and the structure framed by them in an organization. The other cluster identified relates the SI term to social entrepreneurship definition. In our analysis, we discuss the key issues in conceptualizations made in previous researches in these clusters and propose the new concept to SI to support the integration of the research field.
We have defined Social Innovation as the development and implementation of new ideas (products, services, processes, and methods); which the main purposes are to fit the needs of people from the bottom of the pyramid in order to improve their life quality; and which the financial goals are directed to sustain the initiative, but those goals must not be the central guides of organization. Then, by our definition, Social Innovation encompasses 1) to be an innovation which 2) social purpose must be primary and 3) profit goals should be secondary.
Contribution to Scholarship
Broadening the understanding of the Social Innovation definition intends to enhance the development of studies and encourage new priorities for researches in the area. Significant work is still necessary to position the more discipline-bound analytical, conceptual and theoretical contributions. Thun, the paper’s goal is to promote a more precise and complete understanding of the emerging Social Innovation field and to encourage further researches in the topic.
Completing the previous conceptual discussions, our paper did a literature review in order to understand the Social Innovation field and to look for a suitable and robust concept to the term for using in the futures researches about social innovation in the arena innovations studies. Then our approach addresses the heterogeneity problem and contributes to the accumulation of knowledge and growth of the emerging researches on Social Innovation.
Contribution to Practice
The paper can contribute to the creation of public incentive policies and stimulate the performance of practitioners interested in developing business for inclusive intentions. The paper premise is that innovations can help improve the social problems of poor or emerging countries, then we claim that understanding the Social Innovation definition and suggesting a more precise one can help to develop new products and services.
Creating and implementing solutions to complex social problems are challenges that managers face today. The theory about the innovation process was built on technological issues, mostly, but its consequences to society have been disregarded. Then we need to concentrate on researching about social innovation to adress those problems.
ALVORD, S. H.; BROWN, L. D.; LETTS, C. W. Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, v. 40, n. 3, p. 260–282, 2004.
CAJAIBA-SANTANA, G. Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, v. 82, n. 1, p. 42–51, 2014. Elsevier B.V. Disponível em: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008>.
MUMFORD, M. D.; MOERTL, P. Cases of Social Innovation: Lessons From Two Innovations in the 20th Century. Creativity Research Journal, v. 15, n. 2–3, p. 261–266, 2003. Disponível em: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651418>.
NEUVONEN, A.; KASKINEN, T.; LEPPÄNEN, J.; et al. Low-carbon futures and sustainable lifestyles: A backcasting scenario approach. Futures, v. 58, p. 66–76, 2014.
SEYFANG, G.; LONGHURST, N. What influences the diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community currency niches. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, v. 28, n. 1, p. 1–23, 2016. Taylor & Francis.
POL, E.; VILLE, S. Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? Journal of Socio-Economics, v. 38, n. 6, p. 878–885, 2009.