New forms of collaborative innovation and production on the internet

The Internet has enabled new forms of large-scale collaboration. Voluntary contributions by large numbers of users and co-producers lead to new forms of production and innovation, as seen in Wikipedia, open source software development, in social networks or on user-generated content platforms as well as in many firm-driven Web 2.0 services. Large-scale collaboration on the Internet is an intriguing phenomenon for scholarly debate because it challenges well established insights into the governance of economic action, the sources of innovation, the possibilities of collective action and the social, legal and technical preconditions for successful collaboration. Although contributions to the debate from various disciplines and fine-grained empirical studies already exist, there still is a lack of an interdisciplinary approach

New forms of collaborative innovation and production on the internet : an interdisciplinary perspective

Contents Introduction 1 New forms of collaborative innovation and production on the Internet : Volker Wittke and Heidemarie Hanekop Interdisciplinary perspectives on collaborative innovation and production: Conceptual debates 2 Customer Co-Creation: Open Innovation with Customers : Frank Piller, Christoph Ihl and Alexander Vossen 3 Governing Social Production : Niva Elkin-Koren 4 Trust Management in Online Communities : Audun Jøsang 5 Building a reputation system for Wikipedia : Christian Damsgaard Jensen 6 Cooperation in Wikipedia from a Network Perspective : Christian Stegbauer Firm driven collaborative innovation and production: Case studies 7 Managing a New Consumer Culture: “Working Consumers” in Web 2.0 as a Source of Corporate Feedback : Sabine Hornung, Frank Kleemann and G. Günter Voß 8 Prosuming, or when customers turn collaborators: coordination and motivation of customer contribution : Birgit Blättel-Mink, Raphael Menez, Dirk Dalichau, Daniel Kahnert 9 Role Confusion in Open Innovation Intermediary Arenas : Tobias Fredberg, Maria Elmquist, Susanne Ollila, Anna Yström List of Contributor

New forms of collaborative innovation and production on the internet

The Internet has enabled new forms of large-scale collaboration. Voluntary contributions by large numbers of users and co-producers lead to new forms of production and innovation, as seen in Wikipedia, open source software development, in social networks or on user-generated content platforms as well as in many firm-driven Web 2.0 services. Large-scale collaboration on the Internet is an intriguing phenomenon for scholarly debate because it challenges well established insights into the governance of economic action, the sources of innovation, the possibilities of collective action and the social, legal and technical preconditions for successful collaboration. Although contributions to the debate from various disciplines and fine-grained empirical studies already exist, there still is a lack of an interdisciplinary approach

New forms of collaborative innovation and production on the internet - an interdisciplinary perspective

The Internet has enabled new forms of large-scale collaboration. Voluntary contributions by large numbers of users and co-producers lead to new forms of production and innovation, as seen in Wikipedia, open source software development, in social networks or on user-generated content platforms as well as in many firm-driven Web 2.0 services. Large-scale collaboration on the Internet is an intriguing phenomenon for scholarly debate because it challenges well established insights into the governance of economic action, the sources of innovation, the possibilities of collective action and the social, legal and technical preconditions for successful collaboration. Although contributions to the debate from various disciplines and fine-grained empirical studies already exist, there still is a lack of an interdisciplinary approach

Research and Development of a Digital Game Based Learning Framework for Education: Designing for Educators and Students

Research has shown that gamers are motivated and engaged when playing games, however the design and development of educational games often misses the mark in capturing the essence of what actually motivates and engages the player. The studies have concentrated either on the content and pedagogy from the educational perspective or on players from the game design perspective. Researchers often state “videogames engage and motivate players” as the reason for using Serious Games, giving examples of commercial entertainment games as a starting point to their arguments. This thesis covers two main aims. To situate the terminology that exists within the domain of educational games and to research, design and develop an educational game that is suitable for both educators and students. It aims to understand the needs of both sides. It investigates, what motivates gamers and formulates a framework that could satisfy both needs. An initial focus group was started to initiate the study involving students as designers over a ten month period, followed by a survey. During this time, 2 prototypes were developed which culminated in the design and development of the final prototype. The final prototype was built around a conceptual framework taking into account what student gamers expect in a game (fun and challenging game play) and what educators expect (Game for purpose) and was subject to a Phenomenographical study. This thesis therefore examines the expectations and perceptions of both educators and students with a view to designing and developing a game framework that is suitable for both parties and asks “Can we design and develop a Game-Based learning environment that satisfies the needs of both educators and students?

A survey of the use of crowdsourcing in software engineering

The term 'crowdsourcing' was initially introduced in 2006 to describe an emerging distributed problem-solving model by online workers. Since then it has been widely studied and practiced to support software engineering. In this paper we provide a comprehensive survey of the use of crowdsourcing in software engineering, seeking to cover all literature on this topic. We first review the definitions of crowdsourcing and derive our definition of Crowdsourcing Software Engineering together with its taxonomy. Then we summarise industrial crowdsourcing practice in software engineering and corresponding case studies. We further analyse the software engineering domains, tasks and applications for crowdsourcing and the platforms and stakeholders involved in realising Crowdsourced Software Engineering solutions. We conclude by exposing trends, open issues and opportunities for future research on Crowdsourced Software Engineering

Sensitivity analysis in a scoping review on police accountability : assessing the feasibility of reporting criteria in mixed studies reviews

In this paper, we report on the findings of a sensitivity analysis that was carried out within a previously conducted scoping review, hoping to contribute to the ongoing debate about how to assess the quality of research in mixed methods reviews. Previous sensitivity analyses mainly concluded that the exclusion of inadequately reported or lower quality studies did not have a significant effect on the results of the synthesis. In this study, we conducted a sensitivity analysis on the basis of reporting criteria with the aims of analysing its impact on the synthesis results and assessing its feasibility. Contrary to some previous studies, our analysis showed that the exclusion of inadequately reported studies had an impact on the results of the thematic synthesis. Initially, we also sought to propose a refinement of reporting criteria based on the literature and our own experiences. In this way, we aimed to facilitate the assessment of reporting criteria and enhance its consistency. However, based on the results of our sensitivity analysis, we opted not to make such a refinement since many publications included in this analysis did not sufficiently report on the methodology. As such, a refinement would not be useful considering that researchers would be unable to assess these (sub-)criteria

Customer co-creation in innovations : a protocol for innovating with end users

The transition into the information revolution or age has made it possible for consumers and users to interfere in the conceptualization, design, production and sales processes of firms. Consumers and users can express their needs in more direct way to producing firms, they have access to the way products and services are made, and last but not least, have access to information on competing products and services that even producers don’t know about. Consumers have become more knowledgeable and are therefore capable of designing and producing their own products and services. The success of innovations or new product and service development is highly dependent on whether they take in consideration the needs and demands of potential users and consumers. In other words, a market orientation is essential for the success of an innovation. Firms would therefore welcome the idea of consumers and users expressing their demands and probably appreciate consumers who want to participate in the new product or service development, because they would have immediate feedback on the potential success of the innovation. Question is, however, how to achieve this and how to successfully co-create with customers in the innovation process. This design research addresses customer co-creation in innovations for product and service industries. It addresses how firms should successfully activate customers or users and what process they should follow, i.e. the kind of customers or users to involve, the tools and techniques to apply, and procedures to be followed. It develops the appropriate interventions for this in a Customer Co-Creation in Innovations (3CI) - Protocol. The nature of this research is prescriptive, based on the Design Science principles, aiming to design a solution for firms that are interested in the co-creation role that customers can play in their organizations regarding innovations. The research results in a protocol which organizations that want to co-create with customers in their innovation process, can use or apply, to effectively co-create with these customers. Effectively in this sense means that the customer input will be of added value to the innovation, resulting in the outcome that the organization succeeds in bringing the innovation into the market or in use. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the innovation will be a commercial success, because this success depends on more and other factors than just customer co-creation. But, in this context customer co-creation gives the organization the necessary confirmation that the innovation fits needs and demands in the market, and thus leads to a higher adaptation than one should expect when not co-creating with customers. There is an abundance of literature that argue the benefits of involving customers in the innovation process, while other address the issue of which customers to involve, so, the research focuses itself on best practices, experiments, and such to develop this protocol. This has been accomplished by studying the diverse modes or appearances of customer involvement in product or service development, such as market research, empathic design, user-centered design, co-design, mass customization, user innovation, open source software development, user generated content, crowdsourcing, and customer co-creation. Although there is a lot of overlap and similarities among these modes of involvement, there are also many differences, indicating that customer co-creation in innovations is contingent on many factors and aspects. To reduce the confusion, a construct of customer co-creation in innovations has been developed, which has been defined as the process where product manufacturers and/or service providers actively engage with their end users or customers in (parts or phases of) innovation projects to jointly perform innovation activities and co-create value, with the aim of increasing effectiveness and efficiency of the innovation process. Effectiveness refers to (1) the result of meeting users’ and customers’ needs and demands in a better way; and (2) increasing customer loyalty. Efficiency refers to (1) the reduction of research and development costs; and (2) the reduction of development time. And to analyze differences and similarities so that the appropriate design propositions can stated, a 3CI framework was developed, covering the following topics: (1) how to determine whether a firm can co-create with its customers in innovations, which are the so called context conditions; (2) how to identify, select, and motivate potential customers to participate in customer-open innovations; (3) how to engage and involve these customers in the innovation process in an effective and efficient way, the process, procedures and methods one can follow, the tools one can use to accomplish this. With this framework the practice of customer co-creation was analyzed by means of five case studies, in which two of them, the author was an actor in designing and executing the process of co-creation. The cases, selected for their diversity, reveal the opportunities and challenges of customer-inclusive innovation. Customer involvement was at least a partial success in all cases. At the same time, it was never a ‘silver bullet’ to permanently transform the way the company worked. 3CI seems to be capable to support both incidental and repeating innovation initiatives of a firm. Another observation is that, whether a B2B or B2C type of firm, a manufacturer or service provider, small or large firms, all seem to be capable of and suited for 3CI. Common in all cases, however, is that the organization’s offerings and markets should be heterogeneous, thereby containing opportunities to either develop line extensions or really novel (radical) offerings. The technology base of the organization, however, does not seem to be a prerequisite. Another theme cutting across the cases is the nature of an ‘innovation community’, where users test, experiment with and modify or enhance existing prototypes and products, paving the roadway to innovation. As for the relationship between innovation type and type of customer, the cases undoubtedly demonstrate that ‘ordinary’ users can provide useful input to develop radical or novel innovations. The cases also demonstrate that nearly all innovation activities can be conducted by co-creating with customers, including needs assessment, ideation, the screening of ideas or concepts, concept testing, design and development, the commercialization of the innovation and even the re-innovation or use stage. So, although one could get the idea of 3CI being of particular interest in the front end of an innovation stage, we see that in all later stages 3CI can be beneficial as well. Typical across all cases is also the contingency of the channel of involvement (online versus face-to-face) with the amount of customers involved, which we have typed as the degree of openness. The more people are involved, the more open (no secrecy) the co-creation is and the more the involvement is obtained through the online channel, either with communities or on an open call. Conversely, the less participants, the more secrecy is needed and the sooner the physical presence or offline participation seems to be imminent in participation. Finally, regarding the use of tools it can be concluded that sophisticated methods for customer co-creation are a complement rather than the sole source of user information. More important seems to be the occurrence of a dialogue between firm and participating customers, implying that the quality of the interaction depends on mutual trust, appreciation, commitment and equality. Tools that support this dialogue, such as the ZMET¿, OBR, or similar techniques, seem to be important to assure effective and efficient contribution from customers. Subsequently, the design process was conducted, first by defining 16 design requirements for the protocol – subdivided in functional and use requirements, and design restrictions and boundary conditions – followed by the development of the design propositions. A grand total of 28 design propositions have been identified, regarding the context of 3CI (10 propositions), the customer requirements (10 propositions) and process (8 propositions). The context propositions reflected the context decisions to be made, i.e. the appropriate strategy, the suitability of the firm’s market, the initiator for the co-creation (firm or customer), and the type of innovation (incremental vs. radical, open vs. closed mode). Wherever appropriate we have also reviewed the appropriate methods, tools and techniques for the best implementation of the interventions. These are the first decisions the firm has to make when undertaking the 3CI Journey. Only when these decisions are made a next step, i.e. determining which customer requirements are appropriate, can be made. It has been argued that any organization can co-create with its customers in innovations, provided that they adopt and maintain a market oriented strategy, along with the necessary tools, space, freedom and transparency for customers to participate. Customer co-creation leads to at least effective incremental innovations, but when the organization applies Customer Knowledge Methods it increases the chance for an effective radical innovation. If secrecy is required, a closed mode approach of co-creation can be followed, entailing that a minimum amount and diversity of external participants are involved, provided that there is a clear scope of innovation objectives and the market it is intended for. Finally, organizations can either rely on customer-initiated ideas or initiate an innovation itself. In the first approach the organization is recommended to create and maintain a customer community, which can be observed and interacted with to elicit the customers’ ideas. The 10 customer design propositions deal with the type of customers to co-create with in innovations and the available interventions to engage with and maintain involvement from the selected participants. We have argued that all (potential) customers are eligible to participate, as long as they have a certain use experience with the product, service or category of innovation. Only in the case of a radical innovation, the company can choose to add some lead users in order to increase the chance of generating really novel ideas or concepts. To find these lead users, the company can make an appeal on the customer community, since lead users are usually known in communities. In order to benefit in the best way from the participating ordinary and lead users, the company should select them on the basis of their willingness to participate. On top of that, participants should be trained or educated in the tools, techniques and methods that are applied during their involvement. To prevent a decrease of intrinsic motivation with participants, companies have to be very prudent with the promise and administering of financial rewards. Rewards can be given, but preferably unexpected and contingent on task complexity and performance demonstrated by the participant. Depending on the channel of involvement, a minimum of 15 to an undetermined maximum of participants is possible, provided that the company reserves sufficient resources to handle the amount of participants. To our initial 20 design propositions we have added an additional 8 design propositions regarding the process of co-creation. We have seen that all innovation stages are suited to co-create with customers. For the appropriate activities in which these customers can contribute we have developed a table depicting activities and contributions per innovation stage. Co-creation can take place in one, more or all stages; to receive the most benefit, customers should be involved as early as possible in the innovation process. To prevent loss of attention, de-motivation and premature abandonment, we have proposed to change participants with ongoing activities; relying on the same customers in all stages can result in ‘myopic’ results. Both online and offline co-creation are possible, depending on openness, amount of participants and available resources. If participation is online, we recommend applying crowdsourcing methods and techniques, preferably within the customer community. To support an effective communication, we finally proposed to use metaphor or analogy based ‘language’ and to treat the participants as if they were team members. Through scrutinizing and analyzing the 28 design propositions in relation to one another and some pre-defined design requirements, we have identified four main routes – metaphorically named the dreamcatcher, contest, touchstone and employment route – that a company can follow when aiming to co-create with customers in the innovation process. The dreamcatcher route appeals on a user community – existing or yet to be created, preferably online, but with a physical possibility – where existing products, services or platforms are used, reviewed and discussed by customers. The company observes and participates in this discussion through a dialogue, possibly also moderating the community. Opportunities are identified by the company and translated into innovation projects by the company, in which customers again can participate. In the contest route the company can pose users with a specific question or request, a challenge, for which they are expected to think of a solution, of which typically one, or a limited amount of solutions are eligible. The intention is to specifically involve the customer in the front end of the innovation, because the company does not know or is not aware yet of customer needs and wants, or the intended product or service requirements. Customer input is then required in the first stage (Conception), but is not necessary excluded in later stages, where customers can test prototypes, assist in the commercialization and the re-innovation. In the touchstone route the company can decide to co-create with customers in any, arbitrary stage or activity of the innovation process, a sort of a one off. In such a case, the company usually has already identified the opportunities, the innovation project and its goals. Customer co-creation is opportune to verify assumptions, fill in details, and provide additional, not thought of product or service requirements. Of course it is possible to co-create with the customer in more than one activity, but this approach is seen as discrete co-creation activities to support just that particular and specific stage, in which the co-creation is required, usually in the implementation stage and thereafter. Finally, in the employment route the company can integrate one or more (limited amount of) customers in the innovation project, e.g. by temporarily employing them. This approach is of particular interest in idea generation, design and development activities, i.e. the Conception and Implementation stage, but later stages aren’t excluded. We can see this approach applied in customized projects, where it is the intention to create something for a specific set of customers or segment. This can be on request by the customer or because the company has discovered an unfulfilled or unattended set of needs with these customers, e.g. through dreamcatching. To decide which route(s) is or are appropriate we have discussed some premises and considerations – objectives for co-creation, stages and contributions for co-creation, type and openness of innovation – that a company has to assess systematically. Each route was elaborated on, providing preparation steps and do’s and don’ts for an effective and efficient contribution from customers. The four routes are also interrelated and do not exclude one another, but nevertheless provide a company with the optimal approach for 3CI. The 3CI-protocol is therefore a robust, handy guideline for companies to co-create with their customers in innovations. Because of the systematic and rigorous analysis and synthesis of theory and practice, the protocol can be applied in most situations. To test and prove the correctness of this last assertion we validated the design by having it reviewed by some potential users, some experts and some scholars, and to base the conclusion of its validity on the opinions of these reviewers. A total of 25 potential reviewers, both national and international, consisting of product/service developers, co-creation intermediaries, consultants and scholars were approached independently from and ‘blind’ to each other to conduct this review. Ten of them consented in participation; three abandoned the review process prematurely for personal reasons, leaving a total of 7 reviewers that have submitted comments. It was agreed on to enhance the review with a Delphi if responses were very divergent. All reviewers found the protocol useful and helpful for guiding the process of customer co-creation. Comments or critique referred mainly to the readability of the protocol, with the remark that users might lose attention because of the academic reasoning. Some of them provided useful additions to the protocol in order to enhance the readability. Also, suggestions were made to promote the protocol to practice, for instance by publishing it via a community and a management book. The comments did not contain divergent viewpoints on the subject, the design and its content, so the Delphi was left out. Based on these comments and suggestions by the reviewers, we have redesigned the protocol into the 3CI Protocol version 1.0, which can be published as a separate document, detached from this thesis, which all potential users can get hold of and apply without having to acquire a copy of the thesis. We propose to use this protocol to further validate it in practice and giving us feedback on its effectiveness. Our main contribution to research in management and organization has been to develop a comprehensive how-to guideline for practitioners, based on and grounded in a diversity of theory. Therefore, we believe that we have contributed with a design that is applicable in all kind of business and organizational contexts where the interaction with end users is aimed at developing new offerings. However, modesty is also in place, when we observe that this has to be proven, yet. Further research can be aimed at obtaining this proof, while other research could focus on the underlying assumptions, which we named generative mechanisms, of the design

Design Strategies for Adaptive Social Composition: Collaborative Sound Environments

In order to develop successful collaborative music systems a variety of subtle interactions need to be identified and integrated. Gesture capture, motion tracking, real-time synthesis, environmental parameters and ubiquitous technologies can each be effectively used for developing innovative approaches to instrument design, sound installations, interactive music and generative systems. Current solutions tend to prioritise one or more of these approaches, refining a particular interface technology, software design or compositional approach developed for a specific composition, performer or installation environment. Within this diverse field a group of novel controllers, described as ‘Tangible Interfaces’ have been developed. These are intended for use by novices and in many cases follow a simple model of interaction controlling synthesis parameters through simple user actions. Other approaches offer sophisticated compositional frameworks, but many of these are idiosyncratic and highly personalised. As such they are difficult to engage with and ineffective for groups of novices. The objective of this research is to develop effective design strategies for implementing collaborative sound environments using key terms and vocabulary drawn from the available literature. This is articulated by combining an empathic design process with controlled sound perception and interaction experiments. The identified design strategies have been applied to the development of a new collaborative digital instrument. A range of technical and compositional approaches was considered to define this process, which can be described as Adaptive Social Composition. Dan Livingston