The Rhythm of Co-creation in the New Service Development Process
1Cornell University, VinUni; 2Cornell University
Among the research of service innovation, knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) have been given a lot of attention and is recognised as more innovative than many other services and manufacturing sectors. However, research on service innovation – and especially on innovation in the creative industries, like advertising, is still very limited.
Reflecting the growing importance of service innovation in the changing and competitive environment, the research concerned with new service development has seen a dramatic growth in the last two decades (Papastathopoulou and Hultink, 2012; Biemans, Griffin and Moenaert, 2015). As the business environment is becoming more competitive, co-creation has been recognized as an effective approach to developing new services or new products (Kallio and Lappalainen, 2014). Many studies suggest that the customer-oriented process can generate superior service innovation and increase the success rate of the new service (Alam and Perry, 2002). Nevertheless, co-creation is still an underdeveloped research area (Rajala, Gallouj and Toivonen, 2016), especially in how to formalise the co-creation process (Payne, Storbacka and Frow, 2008) and the timing of co-creation in the co-creation process. Although the service-dominant logic accentuates the importance and the collaborative nature of value creation, but empirical studies investigating how to co-create remain underdeveloped.
Co-creation is still an underdeveloped research area, especially in how to formalise the co-creation process and the timing of co-creation in the co-creation process. Thus, this paper aims to find out the timing of co-creation by how KIBS firms co-create with their business clients.
When and how do KIBS firms co-create with their business customers during the lifecycle of new service development to maximise the effects brought by customers in innovation?
With the aim of investigating how firms conduct co-creation and the timing and pattern of co-creation in detail in the advertising industry, multiple case studies methodology was adopted to conduct the empirical research. The primary research method of data collection was elite interviews. The respondents were chief executives, founders, and the directors of the department of account, strategy, creative, and production.The format was one-to-one semi-structured interview as it helped interviewers do in-depth discussions with interviewees on the raised issues.
In order to make the selection of cases in a systematic way, a purposive sampling strategy was leveraged. The top 100 creative advertising agencies listed on the “Campaign” are used to select the appropriate interview companies. The criterion used is the creative capability that these potential interview companies have as the focus of our study is how to develop new and innovative services. Therefore, in order to ensure the interviewed companies’ innovative capability, the interviewed companies should have experience of getting creativity awards in some competitions, such as Cannes Lions, Campaign, Showcase, D&AD etc., almost every year. Firm size is another criterion. In order to ensure the variety of advertising professionals’ perspectives, the targeted interview companies should include small, medium and large advertising companies. In total, twenty-five companies were selected, and forty-five elite interviews were conducted from 2014 summer to 2016 Spring. Generally, these interviews lasted from one to two hours. In addition to interviews, this paper also used published documents, information in databases, industry journals, and the information in companies’ websites to enable triangulation as by getting data from different sources, it can enhance the validity of the data.
This paper addresses the questions of whether and when to co-create with customers in new service development process. First, we conceptualised the new service development model into 14 stages and identified that the choice of the innovation model between co-creation and closeness among these stages is quite dynamic rather than static. Second, the rhythm of customer co-creation in the new service development process follows a ‘W-shaped’ curve pattern, which highlights the importance of co-creation in the problem diagnosis stages, the idea selection and amplification stages and the evaluation and learning stages, and signifies too much involvement in certain stages (the idea generation stage and the production phase) could cause negative effects on the solution innovativeness and effectiveness. Therefore, service firms cannot use their co-creation strategy in every stage, but need to find out the reason and necessity of co-creating with customers. Third, the co-creation between KIBS firms and their customers is enabled by the information asymmetry between them. Customers’ inputs are the necessary resource for the generation of creative ideas in the new service development process, yet their involvement should be excluded in developing creative ideas.
Contribution to Scholarship
First, the theoretical framework developed in this paper contributes to a process perspective of co-creation based upon empirical evidence that the choice of the innovation model between co-creation and closeness is quite dynamic rather than static. Second, the rhythm of customer co-creation in the new service development process follows a ‘W-shaped’ curve pattern. This demonstrates that the co-creation with customers is not a good thing in all stages. Third, this paper contributes to the co-creation literature by identifying the timing, the drivers of co-creation, the enablers of the transition between co-creation model and the closed model, and how to co-create with customers, which provides a framework for KIBS firms to shape their mode of how to co-create with their customers to maximize the success rate of new service development.
Contribution to Practice
Our research findings should assist managers in how to conduct and manage co-creation with business customers in knowledge intensive contexts. Managers can set an outline to list the resource that should be provided by clients, the activities clients should perform and the role that they play at each stage of the co-creation process to enable clients to have an explicit understanding of what they can contribute to the process. This research highlights the importance of co-creating with clients at an early stage. This article also suggests specific insights of the timing and degree of co-creation in the process.
This research is closely related to the Theme2: Co-creation, Creativity & Design. It is based on the advertising industry - one of the creative industries. The purpose of this research is to investigate how advertising companies co-create with their business clients in the co-creation process.
Alam, I. and Perry, C. (2002) ‘A customer-oriented new service development process’, Journal of services marketing, 16(6), pp. 515–534.
Biemans, W. G., Griffin, A. and Moenaert, R. K. (2015) ‘New service development: How the field developed, its current status and recommendations for moving the field forward’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(4), pp.382-397.
Kallio, K. and Lappalainen, I. (2014) ‘Learning about service orientation in KIBS: Understanding the customer as an active actor’, Service Science, 6(2), pp. 78–91.
Papastathopoulou, P. and Hultink, E. J. (2012) ‘New service development: An analysis of 27 years of research’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), pp. 705–714.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P. (2008) ‘Managing the co-creation of value’, Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), pp. 83–96.
Rajala, R., Gallouj, F. and Toivonen, M. (2016) ‘Introduction to the special issue on multiactor value creation in service innovation: Collaborative value creation in service’, Service Science, 8(3), pp. iii–viii.
How a digital platform can trigger a European shared vision through co-creation? — A Proposed Model
1Politecnico di Milano, Italy; 2Politecnico di Milano, Italy; 3Politecnico di Milano, Italy; 4Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Focusing on a public-sector context, there is a growing disconnect between policy-making and citizens.Governments across Europe are challenged by techno-savvy citizens in need of more digital-friendly public services(Bason,2010).At the same time,is necessary to tackle unresolved problems incentivizing innovation policies,co-creating a shared vision through a tool which leverage digital interconnectedness(OECD,2011).
Co-creation is a form of open policy making where those implicated by the outcome are directly involved in its creation (Morse,2010) Citizen engagement aims at opening up new avenues for empowering citizens to play an active role in the ongoing process of service innovation, the processes of interaction and decision-making that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of new meanings (Verganti,2009;Bourgon,2008;Hufty,2011).Practically, this is represented by a co-creative and experimental approach to innovation policy, aimed at formulating and testing shared direction of new socio-technical challenges in a model under real-world conditions (van Oudheusden, 2011;Thorpe and Gregory,2010). The rationale behind is to open government boundaries toward their environment and to harvest creative ideas and work capabilities existing among different stakeholders, is similar in its approach to other open methodologies (Chesbrough and Appleyard,2007) with the clear aim to bring out the potential link between collaboration and innovation (Bommert, 2010;Sørensen & Torfing,2011).
Despite of a flourishing research ongoing regarding open innovation at a corporate level, there is quite restricted research examining open innovation strategies regarding citizen engagement (Fuglsang, 2008;Nam,2010; Bourgon,2007).Here, since the development of digital tools for crowd-policing is rather a new research area, the amount of supporting theories is still limited.
How can a new public engagement framework enable the co-creation and deployment of innovation policies through a digital tool? What are the advantages/disadvantages for successful implementation of this online participatory method which provides input to policy and participatory foresight?
The lack of a precise representation of an archetypal model for public engagement, through a digital tool, underlays a lack of common understanding of what this kind of instrument might precisely do, even more, if connected to innovation policies. For this reason, a conceptual theoretical paper is crucial in order to offer a comprehensive view that can direct attention to this evolving topic, which is still emerging in the literature.
The main result of the framework is the definition of an enhanced version of the policy-cycle which encompasses the engagement of citizens in the co-creation of a shared vision for future scenarios through digital-based co-creation experiences, specifically, in the phases of policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation.
This is possible through the conceptual explanation of three different layers of the impact of this approach which are conceptual, capacity building and instrumental analyzed at three analytical levels: micro, meso, or macro.
This conceptualization of engagement, do not only represent an ambition but also provide a multitude of new opportunities if the right network is leveraged into the creation of new inputs which can rapidly turn into useful policies for a more efficient direction for the policy-making process.
The main result is the affirmation that co-creation had become a desired key resource in the innovation process to achieve responsible innovation and that the digital implementation is a condicio sine qua non. Co-creation answers to recent calls for greater responsiveness and responsibility in innovation practice, and broader trends to organize innovation more openly, democratically, and with a view towards concrete needs and contexts.
Contribution to Scholarship
The main scientific contribution would regard a new public engagement review of the pre-existing theories in the attempt to establishment an original conceptual framework that focuses on the importance of practices of co-creation with citizens through a digital platform, which aims to foster better mutual understanding and the delivery of a more effective policy agenda that is capable of stimulating Responsible Research and Innovation.
Specifically, the framework developed aims at building a more scientifically e-literate citizenry able to actively participate in and support democratic processes, and science and technology developments, with the goal of stimulating a new method which collects perspectives and creativity in a more meaningful way, based on a truly shared consensus.
Contribution to Practice
This topic is still largely an unexplored phenomenon that may create important impacts for the agenda of innovation in the public sector and for the society as a whole. This framework is useful for the deployment of technology to accommodate civic participation on a large scale. Even if some governments are successfully levering technology to implement large-scale co-creation efforts there is still a need for the conceptualization of an instrument. This approach can provide a powerful response to this challenge by inspiring governments to migrate from a service-centric operating model to a people-centric vision.
The paper fully fits the 2019 theme. Specifically, it underlies the importance of co-creation, in the context of an innovative policy-making process which calls for greater responsiveness and responsibility in innovation practice, and broader trends to organize innovation more openly, democratically, and with a view towards concrete scenarios.
Bason, Christian. 2010. Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-Creating for a Better Society. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Bommert. B. 2010. “Collaborative innovation in the public sector”, International Public Management Review 11 (1).
Bourgon J. 2007. Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a new public administration theory.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(7).
Chesbrough, H., Appleyard, M.M., 2007. Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review 50 (1).
European Commission. 2011. Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications of the European Union.
Følstad, A. 2008. Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organisations and Networks 10 (Special Issue on Living Labs, 100- 131).
Morse, Ricardo S. 2010. Integrative Public Leadership: Catalyzing Collaboration to Create Public Value. Leadership Quarterly 21(2).
Nam, T. 2010. The wisdom of crowds in Government 2.0: Information paradigm evolution toward wiki-government. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (article 337).
OECD. 2001. Engaging citizens: Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/34/2384040.pdf
Sorensen, E., and J. Torfing. 2011. “Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector.” Administration & Society 43 (8).
Thorpe, Charles, and Jane Gregory. 2010. "Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science." Science as Culture 19 (3).
Van Oudheusden, M. (2014). Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1).
Verganti, R. 2009. Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston.
von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
The challenge of co-building mediating objects in innovative collaborative projects
1Université de Lorraine, France; 2Ecole spéciale des travaux publics de Paris, France
Innovative collaborative projects are complex projects with multiple actors and stakeholders that rarely share the same language, meanings, practices, and interests. Those projects become even more difficult to manage today with the spreading of digital devices and the requesting from people for more consultation and bottom-up processes.
Innovative collaborative projects are often lead by temporary multiparty teams that are defined as a set of highly qualified people working together on a complex task for a limited period of time (Kerosuo, 2015).
There are more or less distances between stakeholders involved in innovative collaborative projects: geographical distances but also cognitive, organizational, institutional, social and cultural distances (Boschma, 2005).
Those distances engender knowledge boundaries (Carlile, 2004) and require ways to build links and to share knowledge between the different stakeholders.
The literature highlights several ways to cross boundaries, including boundary objects (Koskinen, 2005) and boundary-spanning (Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001).
To work in a collaborative way, the different stakeholders involved in a project have to co-build artefacts to explain their collective tacit knowledge (Collins, 2010) and to make sense together. For that, a boundary-spanner is often needed, who can be a researcher or a cross-sectional manager (des Lauriers, 2018).
When several stakeholders try to innovate together, fostering innovation across geographical places and technical domains is needed. The literature gap is to highlight the ways to build bridges and to overtake boundaries between stakeholders coming from different places and domains, and to understand how those ways can foster innovation.
We raise two questions: Why co-building mediating objects is a challenge for collaborative projects? And how mediating objects make it possible to overtake knowledge boundaries and to innovate? This latter question is about the conditions under which objects can play a mediating role and boundary spanners can ease those conditions.
We used a qualitative methodology developed in a pragmatist approach which do not separate theory and practice and which is based on three concept-keys (Lorino, 2016): the semiotic mediation which connects the situation with social experiment and history; the inquiry which brings together narrative thought, logical reasoning and experimental action; and the dialogism which applies that the direction is not the fruit of a subjective thought but emerges from exchanges in acts processes.
More specifically, we build several case studies (Yin, 2014) in different fields and contexts as construction sector, energy transition, interdisciplinary education, public hospital, territorial projects.
According to the case studies, we used several methodological tools as participative observations, artefacts co-building sessions, video-collecting, self-confrontation interviews, feedbacks sessions.
In participative observations, researchers and practitioners accept to transform their thoughts and practices.
Artefacts co-building sessions are often recorded to better describe and analyze how people interact and share knowledge. They are very important to allow the stakeholders to become aware of their specific collective tacit knowledge and the knowledge boundaries they engender.
Video collecting is a precious basis for the self-confrontation interviews and the feedback sessions. It gives a precise track of the activity and makes the transcription of the verbal and nonverbal interactions possible.
Self-confrontation interviews make it possible to come back to the course of the activity that has been video-recorded.
Feedback sessions are important to take a step back and crystallize new practices.
We highlighted several results from our different case studies.
First of all, we have shown that differences and distances between stakeholders actually create tensions and misunderstandings, delays in projects, or discouragement, especially when political actors come into play, without the actors identifying the reasons or really being aware that there are problems of this kind in the project. And we showed that in these cases it was important to get the actors to interact around artefacts, otherwise the project was just a sum of results without any real links between them.
We then highlighted the different roles played by the artefacts, some of which are used more to explain collective tacit knowledge (e.g., Aladdin’s cube), others to co-construct meaning together over the course of the project (e.g., silent drawing).
Finally, we highlighted the role of boundary objects in the innovation process and the role of boundary-spanners. Indeed, researchers or cross-cutting managers can exercise a mediation and translation function, in particular by facilitating the explanation and reflexivity.
These results still need to be developed and put into perspective.
Contribution to Scholarship
Our research constitutes a contribution in the scientific fields of project management and collaborative innovation.
We showed that the different stakeholders involved in a project explain their collective tacit knowledge and share meanings and practices by constructing artefacts together. For this, a boundary-spanner is often needed, who can be a researcher or a cross-sectional manager. All those processes and actors facilitate knowledge boundaries crossing and innovation.
Contribution to Practice
Our research has also a contribution to practice. Practitioners are often disadvantaged by the difficulties of managing complex projects.
Although they are based on case studies and are not generalizable to all situations, some of the ways we propose are transferable to most multi-party projects and temporary teams. Thus, in situ and distributed processes of explaining, reflexivity and co-construction of boundary objects are valuable tools that we recommend to any transversal manager or researcher who would like to facilitate innovation in a multi-party project.
Among others, cognitive and cultural differences are critical for innovation in multi-party projects and teams. However these differences engender boundaries between stakeholders involved in innovative processes. Mediating artefacts can play the role of boundary objects by allowing the stakeholders to better explain and share their language, meanings, practices and interests.
Boschma, Ron A. (2005). “Proximity and innovation. A critical assessment”, Regional Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 61-74.
Carlile, P.R. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries, Organization Science, 15(5), p.555-568.
Collins, Harry (2010). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge, University of Chicago Press.
des Lauriers T. (2018), Managez en transversal. 6 règles d'or pour un management non hiérarchique, Ed. Eyrolles, 154 p.
Kerosuo Hannele (2015). “BIM-based collaboration across organizational and disciplinary boundaries through knotworking, 8th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization”, Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, 201-208.
Koskinen, Kaj U. (2005). “Metaphoric boundary objects as co‐ordinating mechanisms in the knowledge sharing of innovation processes”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 Issue: 3, pp.323-335.
Lorino, Philippe (2016). « L’apport de la pensée pragmatiste à l’approche processuelle », dans Vaujany F.X. de ; Hussenot A. ; Chanlat J.F., Théories des organisations. Nouveaux tournants, Economica, Paris, p. 279-298.
Rosenkopf Lori ; Atul Nerkar (2001). “Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry”, Strategic Management Journal, 22: 287–306.
Yin, Robert K. (2014). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 5th ed., 282 p.
From the Co-creation of new knowledge to the creation of innovative Start-ups: the role of Living Lab’s configuration
Université de Tunis El Manar, Tunisia
The technological upheaval has given rise to a new sharing economy based on the Co-creation of value; which serves to combine the informal social aspect with the formal productive aspect in order to Co-create value. It is in this context that we study the co-creation process into innovation Living Labs.
The concept of living lab refers to the Involvement of multiple stakeholders, including users, in the exploration, Co-creation and evaluation of innovations within a Realistic setting (Ballon et al., 2018). By focusing on the phenomenon of co-creation was adopted in several areas and for different purposes. As for co-creation activities in the innovation Living Labs lacks a thorough analysis on the implementation of the Co-creation process adopted (Spagnoli & Van der Graaf, 2019); and the role of the Living Labs structure in the success of these Co-creation activities (Brown, 2018).
In addition, very few studies are based on C-K theory in the IO field (Schenk & Guittard, 2016), and which adopt the iKCP method in knowledge Co-creation (Ollila et al., 2013; Agogué et al, 2013; Le Masson & Mcmahon, 2016). This leads us to restudy the phenomenon of co-creation adopted in the Living Labs while referring to the logic C-K.
To understand the phenomenon of co-creation, to unveil the phases related to its realization and to understand its fundamental role in the completion of Co-OI projects; it is essential to study it in depth, observing it continuously in its application context (De Koning et al., 2016).
We will interest in this paper on methodologies and challenges of Co-creating innovation with ecosystem members. The main interest to understand how Co-workers Co-create innovative ideas into innovation Living Labs? And haw Living Labs assist the transformation of these ideas to real projects?
we pursue a qualitative methodology through a longitudinal case study in Tunisian Living Lab where carried out an international open innovation project (Smart City). Indeed, the demand for such this methodological approach is made to understand present dynamics within specific environments (Eisenhardt, 1990; Lee, 1989). Then, to examine and understand in depth the Co-creation dynamics during an open and collaborative innovation project, the integration of the real context in the analysis of the studied phenomenon seems fundamental (Yin, 1990; Roussel & Wacheux, 2005; Thietart et al., 2014).
The choice of this Living Lab to finish this research work is justified by the organizational structure of the Living Lab and by the project takes in work during the design phase of this research work (2016-2018). However, to settle its mission to liven up the digital economy by creating synergy between stakeholder communities, "Elghazala Innovation Lab" offers a frame to build companies which develop new knowledge with high added value. This frame integrates all stakeholders to establish the value chain which will be the main pillar of growth and sustainability of the digital economy. To analyse the evolution of Co-creation process we pursue a longitudinal observation from 2016, we participate in C-K workshops organized by the Living Lab community and we realize ten interviews with project members. The empirical analyse of data will be done through the "AMI Enterprise Intelligence".
This longitudinal case study allows us to understand the methodology of co-creation of new knowledge as well as the process of its transformation into concrete innovations. Indeed, through the adoption of the collaborative knowledge creation methodology (iKCP), the Living Labs community organized C-K workshops to invite all Co-workers (public-private-population actors) to share their knowledge base, to discuss, to imagine and to explore new concepts. These conceptual co-creations set themselves in a process of continuous improvement so that they have the status of new knowledge and can meet the objectives of the Smart City project.
Similarly, through our daily presence in the Elghazala Innovation Lab, we have identified the major role of the Living Lab's configuration in carrying out these Co-creation activities. In fact, the implementation of the innovative project is based on a configuration involving the various actors. And this, via a range of spaces (coworking space, doctoral space, support and acceleration space, laboratory space). The application of such configuration by the Living Labs communities ensures a better generation of innovative ideas and the co-creation of innovative products and services. We will present in the full version of this paper the innovative creations of «Elghazala innovation Lab».
Contribution to Scholarship
This paper closes the theoretical gap that covers the phenomenon of co-creation within the living Labs. Hence, we will present a practical model that explains the methodology of co-creation of new knowledge in Living Labs; while adopting the principles of the design theory (C-K theory). Accordingly, an orderly explanation of the iKCP process is presented, in order to fill the void both theoretical and empirical in the field of innovative co-creation.
Similarly, we will disclose the various process phases that ensure the transformation of this Co-created knowledge into real innovations; as well as the role of the configuration structure of the Living Lab in achieving this concretization. A structure that goes beyond simple innovative exploration and moves to exploit these explorations through the commercialization of new products and services or even the creation of innovative Start-ups.
Contribution to Practice
The case of the Smart City project presents for practitioners a relevant model, starting from the co-creation phase of innovative ideas via C-K workshops, until the deployment of Smart Innovations. Similarly, since this project is international and involves actors from different countries, the configuration of the “Elghazala Innovation Lab” can be a model for operators who wish to opt for this public-private-population partnership policy.
Also, we present the role of the Living Lab in the development of the economy through the implementation and support of three types of projects, namely Projects ideas; Incubation projects; and Enterprise projects.
In keeping with the theme of the conference, our paper serves to present a practical case that responds to the challenges of innovation in the digital age; by engaging public-private-population partners in a series of co-working activities that generate ideas, products and even innovative projects.
Agogué, M., Yström, A., Le Masson, P. (2013), Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, World Scientific Publishing, 17 (2), pp.1-24.
Ballon, P., Van Hoed, M., Schuurman, D. (2018), The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Measuring the impact of living labs, Telematics and Informatics, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.02.003.
Brown, J. (2018), Curating the “Third Place”? Coworking and the mediation of creativity, Geoforum 82 (2018) 112–126, www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum.
De Koning, I.J.C., Crul, R. M., Wever, R. (2016), Models of co-creation, Paper No. 31, TU Delft, The Netherlands.
Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., Weil, B (2009), Design theory and collective creativity: a theoretical framework to evaluate KCP process, Internationnal conference of engineering design, ICED’09, Stanford Université, STANFORD, CA, USA.
Le Masson, P., Mcmahon, C. (2016), Armand Hatchuel et Benoit Weil La théorie C-K, un fondement formel aux théories de l'innovation. Les grands auteurs du management de l'innovation et de la créativité, In Quarto - Editions Management et Société, pp.588-613, <hal-01243331>.
Ollila, S., Ystrom, A., Agogué, M. (2013), Stepping out of the zone of territorial protection enables open innovation collaboration. 20th IPDM conference., Paris, France. <hal-00931185>.
Schenk, E., Guittard, C. (2016), Crowdsourcing et développement d’un écosystème d’affaires: une étude de cas, Innovations 2016/1 (n° 49), p. 39-54.DOI 10.3917/inno.049.0039.
Spagnoli, F., Van de Graaf, S., Brynskov, M. (2019), The Paradigm Shift of Living Labs in Service Co-Creation for Smart Cities: SynchroniCity Validation, Organizing for Digital Innovation.