D1.1 – DEFINITION OF THE WELIVE SERVICE CO- CREATION AND ... · WeLive service co-creation and...

A neW concept of pubLic administration based on

citizen co-created mobile urban services Grant Agreement: 645845

D1.1 – DEFINITION OF THE WELIVE SERVICE CO-

CREATION AND INNOVATION APPROACH

DOC. REFERENCE: WeLive-WP1-D11-REP-150618-v10

RESPONSIBLE: ENG

AUTHOR(S): UDEUSTO, ENG, TRENTO, LAUREA and INF

DATE OF ISSUE: 18/06/2015

STATUS: ACCEPTED

DISSEMINATION LEVEL: PUBLIC

VERSION DATE DESCRIPTION

v0.1 16/02/2015 First draft of the Table of Contents

v0.2 17/4/2015 Added - Innovation model / Service design approach / Service design process

models

v0.9 18/5/2015 Deliverable completed and final version ready for external revision

v1.0 12/06/2015 Reviewed by TECNALIA , INF, TRENTO and FBK.

v1.0 18/06/2015 Some minor modifications according to external reviewer’s comments.

Accepted version creation

D1.1 – Definition of the WeLive Service Co-creation and Innovation Approach page 2

INDEX

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................. 4

2. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

3. TECHNIQUES AND METHODS FOR OPEN INNOVATION ............................................................................................ 7

OPEN INNOVATION ............................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.

HUMAN CENTRED DESIGN ..................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.

USER-DRIVEN INNOVATION ................................................................................................................................. 11 3.3.

SOCIAL INNOVATION ........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.

OPEN INNOVATION AND SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR .............................................................. 13 3.5.

4. TECHNIQUES AND METHODS FOR SERVICE CO-CREATION AND CO-DESIGN .......................................................... 17

VALUE CO-CREATION ........................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1.

CO-DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.

MODELS FOR SERVICE CO-CREATION .................................................................................................................. 20 4.3.

4.3.1. The SECI model ............................................................................................................................................ 20

4.3.2. Novani e Kijima ........................................................................................................................................... 21

4.3.3. Kambil, Coates e Ramaswamy .................................................................................................................... 22

4.3.4. Vargo and Lusch.......................................................................................................................................... 22

VALUE CO-CREATION APPROACHES .................................................................................................................... 22 4.4.

5. SERVICE DESIGN APPROACH AND METHODS ......................................................................................................... 24

SERVICE DESIGN PRINCIPLES................................................................................................................................ 24 5.1.

5.1.1. User-centred ............................................................................................................................................... 24

5.1.2. Co-creative .................................................................................................................................................. 24

5.1.3. Sequencing .................................................................................................................................................. 24

5.1.4. Evidencing ................................................................................................................................................... 25

5.1.5. Holistic ........................................................................................................................................................ 25

SERVICE DESIGN PROCESSES ................................................................................................................................ 25 5.2.

5.2.1. Service Design Processes ............................................................................................................................. 25

5.2.2. Exploration – Creation – Reflection – Implementation ............................................................................... 26

5.2.3. Double Diamond Model by the Design Council ........................................................................................... 27

5.2.4. Inspiration – Ideation – Implementation (3 I Model) .................................................................................. 27

5.2.5. Service Design process by Moritz ................................................................................................................ 28

5.2.5.1. SD Understanding .................................................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.5.2. SD Thinking ............................................................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.5.3. SD Generating .......................................................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.5.4. SD Filtering ............................................................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.5.5. SD Explaining ............................................................................................................................................................ 29

5.2.5.6. SD Realising .............................................................................................................................................................. 30

6. SERVICE DESIGN, CO-CREATION AND INNOVATION APPROACH IN WELIVE ........................................................... 31

IDEA GENERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION LIFECYCLE IN WELIVE ...................................................................... 32 6.1.

6.1.1. Service Co-experience ................................................................................................................................. 33

6.1.2. Service Co-definition ................................................................................................................................... 33

6.1.3. Service Co-development .............................................................................................................................. 34

6.1.4. Service Co-delivery ...................................................................................................................................... 34

6.1.5. Service Co-elevation .................................................................................................................................... 34

7. TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO SERVICE CO-CREATION AND INNOVATION IN WELIVE .................................................... 35

OPEN INNOVATION AREA .................................................................................................................................... 35 7.1.


7.1.1. Idea Management lifecycle to be supported by the Open Innovation Area ............................................... 35

7.1.2. The features of the current version of the Open Innovation Area .............................................................. 38

7.1.3. Idea co-creation process supported by the Open Innovation Area ............................................................. 40

7.1.1. The new features of the Open Innovation Area in WeLive.......................................................................... 42

VISUAL COMPOSER .............................................................................................................................................. 42 7.2.

7.2.1. The new features of the Visual Composer in WeLive .................................................................................. 44

8. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 46

9. ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 47

10. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 48

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1 – Relation between Open Innovation, Crowdsourcing and Co-creation [12]. ................................................................................ 7

Figure 2 – Differences between Open Innovation, Crowdsourcing and Co-creation [13]. ........................................................................... 8

Figure 3 – Open Innovation Funnel .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4 – Four models of open innovation [14] .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5 – Linear Innovation Model ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 6 – Systemic Innovation Model ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 7 – Triple Helix model ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 8 – Quadruple Helix [16] ................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 9 – Human centred design model (ISO 9241-210) .......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 10 – Social Innovation [23] .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 11 – Social Innovation Framework [26] ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 12 – The process of Social Innovation [27] ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 13 – McCarthy's 4P model............................................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 14 – Goods Dominant Logic (GDL) model. ...................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 15 – Service Dominant Logic (SDL) model. ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 16 – The "spiral" SECI [54] ............................................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 17 – The SECI Model........................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 18 – Model of Co-Creating Innovation service Novani and Kijima [54] ........................................................................................... 21

Figure 19 – The Service Design process as described by Stickdorn & Schneider in [60] ............................................................................ 26

Figure 20 – The Double Diamond process adapted from the original model by Design Council ............................................................... 27

Figure 21 – The boundaries for creating successful concepts. Adapted from a model illustrated by e.g. Brown...................................... 28

Figure 22 – The service design stages described by Moritz ....................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 23 – The Service Design categories defined by Moritz illustrating the overlapping nature of the stages as well as the continuum

of the process ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 30

Figure 24 – Service Co-Creation Model in WeLive ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 25 – Idea Management lifecycle supported by the Open Innovation Area ..................................................................................... 36

Figure 26 – Relationship between Co-creation model and Idea Lifecycle .................................................................................................. 38

Figure 27 – Co-creation process of ideas ................................................................................................................................................... 40


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The WeLive project aims at transforming the current e-government approach, implemented by most public

administrations into a collaborative governance, where all the stakeholders of public administration, namely

citizens, local businesses and companies, are treated as peers (collaborators) and prosumers (providers)

instead of the usual customer role associated to them. WeLive will enable also the so called “t-Government”

(Transformational Government) by providing stakeholders with the technology tools that enable them to

create public value. In addition, WeLive is also thought to embrace l-Government (Lean Government), which

aims to do more with less by involving other players, leaving the Government as an orchestrator around

enabled platforms. Finally, WeLive fully adopts m-Government, i.e. an extension or evolution of e-government

through utilisation of mobile technologies for public service delivery. Consequently, WeLive proposes a new

concept of e-Government which provides the means, i.e. an environment or platform, analogously to the

Web, and leaves others, all the stakeholders in a city or territory, to lead the innovation process and so turn

public resource assets into artifacts to nurture economic growth and job creation.

To reach all the objectives of WeLive project, however, it is necessary to start from the definition of the

WeLive service co-creation and innovation approach. Such an approach will collect all the best practices

coming from previous experiences and from the state of the art, for adopting open innovation and enabling

service co-creation. The defined approach has been mapped in a set of recommendations to adapt the Idea

Management System and Visual Composer components. In general, the WeLive service co-creation and

innovation approach will be also the input of the whole WeLive framework, defined in WP1 and WP2.


2. INTRODUCTION

With the term Public Administration (PA) we intend all functions performed by public authorities and local

governments that provide goods and services in a number of sectors, such as bureaucracy, education and

health.

PAs are intended to protect the basic needs of the community and they have to satisfy societal challenges.

While in the private sector the innovation is mainly focused on profit maximization, in the public sector the

innovation should be focused on societal needs, e.g. the increase of the quality of life in terms of education

level improvement, unemployment rate and crime reduction, public transport improvement, the containment

of public spending, the fight of all forms of corruption. The main objective can be summed up in the need to

provide citizens with value added public services. This objective is often prevented by the need, of the public

sector, to reduce costs due to the limited financial resources. Often, the available budget of public authorities

is limited, so the resistance to innovation becomes even stronger.

Thus, the public administration is facing with a difficult challenge: to reconcile the need of reducing costs and

the need of improving the quality of services and goods offered to citizens. In many cases, however, the

limitation of financial resources affects the quality of service, thus creating discontent among stakeholders

and increase the gap between public administration and citizens [1].

Moreover, the resistance to change of PAs suffers from a basic problem: PAs rely on external rules influenced

by governments and laws, and on internal culture, which is difficult to change. As a result, many civil servants

in the public sector resist from adopting new solutions.

In the traditional innovation approach, citizens are merely consumers of services, with a limited possibility of

active interaction in the innovation process. This "top-down" approach permit improvements on a large scale

but its ability to realize them on an ongoing basis is limited, and the cause is to be found in bureaucratic

inertia. It is present, in fact, the problem of bureaucracy. Even today, the authorities provide services still too

tied to a backward technology, which is no longer able to adapt to the emerging needs of the citizen and

society.

The difficulties encountered with the application of the traditional paradigm led governments and public

administrations to adopt new innovation approaches. Several countries (e.g. US and UK) have begun to revise

their models of governance, by adopting guidelines typical of the private sector, with the objective of

decentralizing the decision-making policies and apply suitable management criteria in societal challenges in

order to create public value [2].

The theory of New Public Management (NPM) [3]represents the first step towards the adoption of "bottom-

up" strategies, which put the citizens at the centre of the process of social innovation, so enabling

participatory forms of design, production and delivery of public services by improving its efficiency.

The traditional government, as mentioned above, is based on a limited number of players who possess a

certain authority to take part in administrative processes. This provides a hierarchy of skills that must be

respected, and provides results in a closed system. On the other hand, an open system takes into account a

large number of actors with different skills that collaborate to produce public value.

The delivery of public services at both domestic and European levels in the service-driven world is becoming a

subject of considerable interest to public service theorists and policy makers alike [4][5]. Since early 1980s,

various market-based approaches to public service delivery have been used as a vehicle for Public Sector

reform in the EU, including Compulsory Competitive Tendering, Market Testing, Best Value procurement, and

Public Private Partnerships, among others. In the earliest days, the market-based approaches were seen by


policy makers primarily as a way to cut costs and improve efficiency in public service delivery. However, more

sophisticated approaches are now considered by public service theorists [2] [3] [6] [7] who realize that public

service delivery, like the private sector, creates value but, unlike the private sector, this value cannot be

simply reduced to financial profit and loss in the way it usually is by commercial organizations.

It is now understood that the value of public services can only be identified and assessed through a process of

democratic engagement between service providers and service recipients where citizenship is reinstated at

the heart of public service delivery [8], [9]. Nevertheless, the new theories on public service delivery are not

naive and idealistic. They recognize that public services come at a very great financial cost. They acknowledge

that the taxpayer is a stakeholder in any public service value negotiation, and also that value for money must

be a priority. Indeed, public service theorists have gone so far as to specifically define public service value as

the provision of public services to a community in a way determined by that community but in as cost-

efficient a way as possible [10].

WeLive wants to allow Public Administration to adopt innovative and modern open innovation approaches of

governance, by allowing the active collaboration of citizens, companies and other entities in the definition and

creation of new ideas and innovative public services. WeLive approach will be based on the "Open

Innovation" concept in order to identify an "ecosystem" of actors and public services that interoperate, in

contrast with the old “silos” approach.

In this deliverable we will set the baseline of the whole project, represented by the WeLive approach for

service co-creation and open innovation. All main outputs of the project will have to be compliant with such

an approach.

In the following sections we'll analyse techniques, methods and approaches for Open Innovation (section 3),

services co-creation and co-design (section 4) and service design (section 5). The more suitable techniques

that allow us to meet the Welive expectations are then integrated in the Welive approach for service co-

creation and innovation, described in section 6. Finally, in section 7 technical solutions for service co-creation

and innovation is described, through the identification of two WeLive components: Open Innovation Area and

Visual Composer.


3. TECHNIQUES AND METHODS FOR OPEN INNOVATION

OPEN INNOVATION 3.1.

Open Innovation is a term promoted by Chesbrough in 2003 [11], professor and executive director of the

Center for Open Innovation at Berkeley. For the first time Chesbrough supports the concept of "opening" the

sense of cooperation and creation of strategic links between different actors of a system with the aim to

generate innovative inputs useful for the market. The paradigm of Open Innovation changes the way a

Company do business, because it promotes the use of resources and stimuli from both inside and outside of

the infrastructure, using them as input to the process of innovation. The term Open Innovation is overlapping

with others terms like user-driven innovation, crowdsourcing or co-creation. The following paragraphs clarify

their relationship, highlighting their dependencies and differences.

Applying the concept of Open Innovation model to value network, it can be stated that open innovation

within a network means to foster collaboration and interaction between public and private organizations that

work together in order to innovate.

Figure 1 – Relation between Open Innovation, Crowdsourcing and Co-creation [12].

Open innovation creates an environment where individuals and organizations can actively get involved in the

creation of mutually beneficial solutions. Through open innovation decision making is becoming a truly

democratic process. It allows for a bolder, wider approach to problem solving. It suggests interacting with

broader groups of stakeholders and it builds collaborative community engagement around specific challenges

and issues: ideas and input flow into organizations from outside and smart, innovative solutions are easily

generated. Open innovation is an inclusive, social way of solving complex issues and improving processes.

User-driven innovation is a technique in which companies gain insights from users, which can be used in the

innovation process. A key element in user-driven innovation is the observation of users rather than the use of

questionnaires and focus groups.

Crowdsourcing occurs when an organization outsources projects to the public. An organization decides to tap

into the knowledge of a wider crowd and input is sourced from a large and undefined group of people.

Crowdsourcing requires a lower level of engagement and involvement than open innovation and co-creation.

An organization using crowdsourcing will set a challenge to the public and ask for opinions, insight and

suggestions. It is an open call to the public whereby the organization solicits solutions from the crowd – not

genuine contribution and collaboration. Open innovation and co-creation imply a stronger involvement from

the stakeholders who are included in the value and creation process.


Co-creation relates more specifically to the relationship between an organization and a defined group of its

stakeholders, usually its customers. The most common definition is: “An active, creative and social process,

based on collaboration between producers and users that is initiated by the firm to generate value for

customers.” (C.K. Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy, Co-Opting Customer Competence, 2000). Co-creation

means working with the end users of your product or service to exchange knowledge and resources, in order

to deliver a personalised experience using the company’s value proposition. While crowdsourcing is people

creating a great idea for you, co-creation is about people working with you to make a good idea even better.

Co-creation is also a way of enhancing customer engagement by directly involving them in the company’s

value creation and product development processes.

Figure 2 – Differences between Open Innovation, Crowdsourcing and Co-creation [13].

As depicted in Figure 2 is superset of crowdsourcing and co-creation, where different organizations

collaborate to solve a common problem. With the crowdsourcing sub-type the end-results all return to the

imitating organization. With co-creation the results also go exclusively to the initiating organization but

external users and organizations’ views are taken into account.

Figure 3 – Open Innovation Funnel Figure 4 – Four models of open innovation [14]

With respect to the arguments just discussed, you can identify four modes of open innovation:

The closed innovators model corresponds to companies that access external sources of knowledge only for a

specific, single phase of the innovation funnel and typically in dyadic collaborations. This is the case, for

example, in companies that access to external prototyping services in the new product development process.

The specialised collaborators model corresponds to companies that are able to work with many different

partners, but concentrate their collaborations at a single point of the innovation funnel. This is the case, for

example, of companies that involve a wide set of actors (customers, experts, suppliers, research centers) in

the idea generation phase of the innovation process.


The integrated collaborators model corresponds to companies that open their whole innovation funnel, but

only to contributions coming from a few types of partners (typically, suppliers and/or customers).

The open innovation model corresponds to companies that are really able to manage a wide set of

technological relationships, that impact the whole innovation funnel and involves a wide set of different

partners [14].

HUMAN CENTRED DESIGN 3.2.

After the end of World War II innovation meant to simply define a linear succession of functional activities,

where opportunities were scientific input to create and generate applications and improvements that only

later were placed on the market.

In Figure 5 is shown the old Linear Innovation Model.

Figure 5 – Linear Innovation Model

Soon this model showed strong limitations due to the obvious impossibility of dividing an evolutionary

process in sequential stages and the unidirectional approach applied that does not take into account the

feedback and interim assessments in the process.

The failure of this approach has led to the search for new models and theories of innovation and the need to

define a cooperative process "open" and centred on the needs of the user, shifting the focus to a systemic

approach and open to "innovation networks".

Figure 6 – Systemic Innovation Model

The model told "Triple Helix", created in 1995 by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [15] comes from the observation

of the strategic importance in the development and marketing of new products and services that resides in

the interaction between the universities and research centers, public institutions and the alliance of large and

small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Basic Research

Applied Research development Marketing

and Sales


Figure 7 – Triple Helix model

This model has a very strong limit, namely that is not taking into account the user as the fourth actor in the

innovation system.

Hence, the need to define a new model of innovation told "Quadruple Helix" that includes an active user,

creating a more user-centric approach.

Figure 8 – Quadruple Helix [16]

ISO 9241-210:2010 provides specifications for human-centered design principles and activities, through

requirements and recommendations, in the lifecycle of computer-based interactive systems.

In specific part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems [17] is discussed the Human centered

design model shown in Figure 9.


Figure 9 – Human centred design model (ISO 9241-210)

USER-DRIVEN INNOVATION 3.3.

The concept of user-driven innovation is defined as "the phenomenon by which new products, services,

concepts, processes, distribution systems, or marketing methods are inspired or are the result of needs, ideas

and opinions resulting from buyers or external users. The user-driven innovation involves customers (existing

and/or potential). The processes are based on research, recognition and contact with the knowledge and

ideas (both explicit and implicit) from users" [18].

The innovative capacity of enterprises is based not only on the ability to have access to knowledge and

expertise accumulated both internally and externally, but also on the capability to respond to changes in the

economic environment, social and consumer preferences is essential to compete in the international markets.

The productive exchange of ideas and resources with all stakeholders of the company and, in particular, with

its customers can promote and improve the processes of learning and innovation in business. The relationship

with customers or users can increase the degree of innovation, or facilitate it through exposure to specific

attitudes and situational behaviour. Stimuli for innovative user can then play a role as a driving force that

helps to determine the direction and the importance of innovative activities [18].

The methods used for user-driven innovation can be of various types, and encompass tools such as surface

observations, interviews or the direct involvement of users in the process of co-creation. These methods can

be classified on the basis of the involvement of customers and the size of the population that contributes to

the process of innovation [19][20][21][22]. In specifically, companies can conduct activities related to [18]:

Access to the data;

Interpretation of the information;

Conducting experiments and tests;

Stimulation of creativity.

SOCIAL INNOVATION 3.4.

As part of the new paradigms of sharing and collaboration provided by the web, the Social Innovation is an

approach that aims to convert innovation into "social innovation" in order to solve common unresolved

problems. The ultimate goal is thus to identify innovative solutions to promote sustainable growth, create

new jobs and promote competitiveness in a social context more and more rapidly evolving.


Figure 10 – Social Innovation [23]

Based on the definition given by Murray, Calulier-Grice and Mulgan within "Open Book of Social Innovation"

[24], social innovation can manifest itself in the form of new products, services, structures and approaches,

aimed at the satisfaction of social needs. The application of these forms of innovation includes the

involvement of those benefited by the intervention, the activation of resources not previously exploited, the

generation of new forms of relationship between public and private, and the correct use of financial

instruments not conventional or traditionally neglected.

Another definition is given by Stanford Social Innovation Journal [25], a scientific journal on social innovation,

says: "new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than

alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words they are innovations that

are not only good for society but also enhance society’s capacity to act" [26].

The different aspects that are involved in social innovation are represented in Figure 11.

Figure 11 – Social Innovation Framework [26]


It is possible identify six steps in the process of Social Innovation, as shown in Figure 12. They do not occur

necessarily in that order, they can be overlapped between them and each stage can have players with

different skills [27].

Figure 12 – The process of Social Innovation [27]

1. Prompts and inspirations: it is framed the problem and identifies the need

2. Proposals and ideas: the stage of idea generation

3. Prototypes, pilots and trials: test on idea

4. Sustaining: identifying budgets, teams and other resources for the long term sustainability

5. Scaling and diffusion: growing and spreading an innovation

6. Systemic change: the ultimate aim of social innovation, it involves many elements and new ways of

thinking and doing.

OPEN INNOVATION AND SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 3.5.

In the last years, open innovation and social innovation in the public sector have been mainly focused on

citizen engagement. This aspect enables us to implement the quadruple helix approach.

Citizen engagement could be seen as the set composed by interactions and coordinated actions leaded by PAs

to involve the citizens into policy processes and into the management of the commonweal, in order to

guarantee the effective functioning of democracy, correctness of the government and the achievement of

social goals [28]. According to the Open Innovation and Open Government approaches, the most important

reasons why government should promote the citizen engagement are because citizens have knowledge,

experience and opinions from the real world, that are crucial for the decision-making. As Canadian Policy

Research Networks reported in [29], thanks to the citizens engagement, the PAs will be able to use the

collective intelligence to identify the social problems in more efficient way, to prioritize the issues reducing

the conflict of interest and to legitimate the cost-effective solutions taking into account all minorities

requirements. Instead, there are several reason why the citizens would be engaged, among which the

possibility to act as individuals (without intermediary) to have a say in the issues that affect them every days,

and contribute actively in the policies and programs to the development of long-term solutions. There are

many different ways to support the citizens interaction with government and the effective prosuming of Open

Government Data (OGD) to create public value. Traditional face-to-face meetings between stakeholders in the

town hall are obsolete. Nowadays, new Internet based interaction channels (such as the social networks,

blogs, and the online thematic communities) speed-up the information sharing, simplify the feedback


collection and enables the contribution in mobility. In particular, the ICT standards reduce the manual

activities required to share OGD and enable the interoperability between the services hosted by PAs and the

third parties [30]. Many governments provide some institutional web portals, for example the UK portal

[data.gov.uk/data-request], to open-up the OGD and collect the citizen’s comments and feedback, useful to

calculate the sentiment and the potential impact of datasets. But these initiatives are not enough to promote

the effective OGD public use, because the interaction paradigms are often expert oriented and penalize the

citizen involvement.

In order to overcome this lack of citizen involvement into the decision-making processes, a Citizen Reporting

Platforms (CRP) has been developed. It is an on line application like an Idea Management System and an

Journalism Platform, that supports effectively the collaboration between individuals and the PAs in the co-

definition of the territorial issues and the co-creation processes finalized to create new public value in form of

OGD or services. Some good CPR examples are: Granicus [granicus.com], FixMyCity [fixmycity.de], Hunchbuzz

[hunchbuzz.com], Santander City Brain [santandercitybrain.com] and Ushahidi [Ushahidi.com]. Moreover,

there are other innovative applications, named Citizen Observatories, that applying an IoT approach, enable

citizens to generate data about their environment such as: air pollution, personal devices performance,

energy building consumption, car speed and position, etc...

As companies are adopting Open Innovation strategies, also the public administrations have to adapt their

policies for boosting these strategies. Chesbrough and Vanhaverbeke [31] suggest a set of recommendations

for promoting Open Innovation policies in Europe, summarized in the five areas below:

1. Education and human capital development. As well as creating highly qualified labour, universities

and related research institutes also play an important role in advancing basic research. As majority of

central R&D labs from large industrial companies have been dismantled along the 1990s, research

systems, national labs and major universities have acquired a key role when researching for these

companies. Nowadays, while many companies are focused on applied sciences and the development

and commercialization of technologies, universities became the mayor institutions driving basic

science research. The success of this collaboration model can be seen at the Defence Advanced

Research Project Agency (DARPA); how decentralized research institutions can yield cumulatively

important research outcomes.

2. Financing Open Innovation: the funding chain. The funding chain conceptualizes the need to have

appropriate types of financing for all stages: from research to the establishment and growth of a new

venture. Compared to the traditional policy guidelines in Europe, more attention should be paid to

the appropriate funding of the commercialization of new ideas into real business opportunities.

However, the size of the venture capital (VC) market in Europe is about on quarter that in the US,

being the role of VCs to finance ventures for a number of years. These ventures then need to grow

and become competitive.

3. Adopt a balanced approach to intellectual property. Ironically, in an Open Innovation world strong

intellectual property (IP) protection is vital to permit firms to share knowledge; but at the same time a

balance must be struck to ensure rapid flow of ideas. In fact, Open Innovation would literally be

impossible without IP protection, as firms would resist sharing their ideas for fear competitors would

steal them. Nowadays, each member country of the EU manages its own IP policies increasing the

complexity and costs for EU patents. A single EU patent, backed by a unified judicial process is

needed, to lower the costs of patent protection to those of rival regions. In addition to this, the need

of the universities on maximizing the royalty income they receive from publicly funded research may

limit the flow of knowledge to industry. A more balanced funding approach would be to give greater

weight to the diffusion of the research output within society.


4. Promoting cooperation, competition, and rivalry. In an Open Innovation era, a narrow focus of policy

on large companies is no longer effective. The policy makers should redirect the policy focus from

single large companies towards networks or ecosystems in which innovation partners jointly create

new business opportunities. To spur Open Innovation, policy makers should facilitate the creation of

start-ups and encourage entrepreneurship in the European economy. They must also spur

cooperation between SMEs and large companies to discover knowledge about the functioning of

technologies and enact new technological ecosystems as system integrators.

5. Expanding Open Government. Governments are the owners of the largest databases in the world

with unprecedented possibilities for new and functional technologies and information for commercial

and other uses. However, the most powerful information sources are nowadays not in the hands of

the governments, but in hands of large corporations like Google [32]. Thus governments have to be

vigilant and monitor the evolution of online repositories to ensure that private companies do not

have a monopoly over information that is useful for society. Furthermore, governments need to

design effective legislation and policies to support collaboration among different stakeholders like

citizens, PAs or companies. Data must be processed and an Open Government ecosystem should be

created.

Some examples of Open Innovation strategies can be found along different governments and public

administrations in Europe [33] and America. Among the most important:

Your Country Your Call [34]: a global initiative launched by the Irish Government in February 2010,

with the aim of finding two ideas that would serve to boost the country's economy and also creating

new job opportunities. The initiative was launched using the technique of brainstorming and after

three months from the publication of the site, the government had received more than 9000

proposals. Immediately after proclaiming the winners, the government even bothers to create a

development team to implement the two winning proposals. The proposals implemented were

delivered in May of 2011, tested and released.

Crowdsourcing Iceland’s Constitution [35]: In 2008, Iceland decided to rewrite its constitution and

decided to involve the citizens and use the approach of crowdsourcing and social media to enable

people to share their ideas. The government selected 950 citizens and discussed what they wanted to

include in their Constitution. In November 2010, the Icelandic Parliament formed a board of 25

members to manage the reform process. The citizens could interact with the Council through the

Social Network. The came out proposed constitution was approved by two thirds of the population

during the referendum of October 2012, but was suspended in Parliament until the following spring.

This result, unexpected and disappointing, pushed the project to failure.

Challenge.gov [36]: it is an online platform sought by President Barack Obama in order to apply the

concepts of Open Innovation, widespread in the private sector [37], in government processes. In

particular, the platform aims to engage the collective intelligence in the solution of public problems.

The platform launches challenge to the citizens and can receive awards for citizens who are able to

solve the problem. From 2013 it was launched several challenges in the platform and competitions

attended by more than 16,000 citizens.

Toronto Transit Camp [38]: it is an initiative to solve problems in a collaborative way.

MindLab Denmark [39]: a cross-ministry unit for citizen-centered innovation that involves citizens and

businesses in developing solutions for a variety of projects such as climate change, immigration and

better regulation.

In the Netherlands, in addition to the Innovation Platform, a part of the Ministry of Economic Affairs,

there are several initiatives boosted outside of government. One of these initiatives is "De publieke


zaak" ("the Public Cause") [40]: an initiative, , established by hundreds of citizens concerned with the

quality of the public domain. This public forum serves as a meeting place for citizens, governors and

companies aiming to increase the quality of public services and policy.

In the UK, a country in which public sector innovation has been a major topic of governance, the

government agencies have developed a wide range of initiatives. Some examples of these initiatives

are the Public Services Lab (to find innovative ways of delivering more effective public services at

cheaper cost), Show Us a Better Way [41] (a web site that invites developers to suggest ideas for new

products which reuse public sector information such as statistics, maps or event listings), Keeping

House (to create new ways of assisting older an disabled people to find domestics services) or

FixMyStreet [42] (a web site that helps people to discuss local problems that they have found to their

local council by simply locating them on a map).


4. TECHNIQUES AND METHODS FOR SERVICE CO-CREATION AND Co-DESIGN

The economies and the economic growth of the advanced countries is being dominated by the service sector,

as since the mid-1980s it has represented more than 70 % of the western countries’ gross domestic product

(GDP) and more than 80 % of the employment e.g. in the US [43] [44] [45]. Thus, the modern economies are

shifting from a manufacturing way if thinking, i.e. Goods-Dominant logic (GDL), towards a Service-Dominant

logic (SDL), which Lüftenegger [46] describe as an innovative mindset in response to the paradigm shift

towards service centred way of thinking. According to Lüftenegger [44] the SDL has been developed by

marketing scholars aiming to develop the marketing theory, which has traditionally been based on the GDL, as

illustrated by e.g. McCarthy’s 4P model (price, product, place and promotion).

Figure 13 – McCarthy's 4P model.

The GDL is also referred in the literature as “manufacturing logic” and “old enterprise logic” according to [44].

The GDL is rooted in the industrial revolution when the production shifted from the households to the

factories, separating the roles of a consumer and a producer [44] [47] [48]. In this manufacturing paradigm,

the role of a company was to create value by maximizing production for the sale of goods, i.e. the company

earns money in return of the created value within the value chain. In this mind-set, all organizations have a

position in the value chain, adding value to inputs and then passing them to the customers, who are the

actors in the end of the value chain [47] and the customers are seen through segments, which the companies

try to capture and act on [44] [49]. Companies act autonomously, design products and production processes,

craft marketing messages with no or little interference from customers, who are considered as an external

part, outside the company [47] [48]. The focus of quality in organizations is on improving internal processes

and on developing product features and functionalities [45] [47] [50].

Ojasalo [49] describe that also a third “dominant logic”, a Customer Dominant Logic (CDL) has been defined.

According to them the CDL takes the SDL thinking even further emphasizing a deeper understanding and

knowledge of the customer’s daily life and the service experience as long-term, context related process. In

CDL, it is essential for companies to also understand how the value emerges in the customer’s mental and

emotional experiences; to understand the customer experiences before and after the actual service

interaction, and to know how the customer experiences the value in his own context, i.e. what is the

customer doing in order to accomplish their goals [49]. Thus in CDL, the value is emerged, when the service

becomes embedded in the customer’s own context, processes, activities and experiences.

The Co-Creation is the space that the supplier decides to open the client, to work together, in a process of

horizontal participation. It is the direct link between the supplier and its audience, where the latter is an


active player and can, thanks to their creativity and experience, submit innovative ideas translated into

products and services.

The user in fact, experienced or not, may propose his own idea: every idea is then shared, voted by the

community and when submitted to a careful analysis of feasibility by the company.

The customer is generally influenced by the perception that a certain service / product or from previous

experiences, by advertising, by what he heard, from the awareness of the existence of the best competitors

from the image of the brand, and other factors.

If the supplier only meets the expectations of the consumer, does not provide a basis on which to build a

working relationship; as opposed, if the supplier exceeds customer expectations, the product / service

becomes interesting and the customer is more brought to continue the relationship with the supplier, with a

collaborative.

In this context, the concept of Co-Creation is linked to that of market research [51]. An example of the

current online market research is business blogs through which companies can acquire information much

faster than traditional means of research.

Consumers using the new means of sharing, provide information to companies both responding to specific

questions that are submitted, either spontaneously providing opinions or comments.

Through market research are obtained reliable information from their customers about their expectations of

the service or product provided. This process cannot be considered, however, Co-Creation.

You have to make a further step to switch from market research to the Co-Creation, from the knowledge of

customer expectations to value creation.

The Co-Creation requires more effort on the part of customers and suppliers than normal interactions, this is

because they have to strain in thinking about what they want to achieve through the cooperative relationship;

in fact, the most critical phase of this process is that relating to the moment you make clear their

expectations.

The process of Co-Creation is based on the Co-Experience, i.e. the set of processes and methods, which allow

multiple parties to share their vision of the world and their own mental models.

VALUE CO-CREATION 4.1.

As discussed, in the traditional value chain approach, the GDL, each company has its own place in a value

chain, adding value to the inputs coming into the production process and then passing the output to the

customers in the end of the value chain. The focus is in the manufacturing of goods and products. In this

context, the value creation occurs inside the company through its production process and the value-added is

considered equal with the cost incurred by the company. Thus, value is embedded in the output (value-in-

exchange) and these goods produced present the fundamental units of exchange. The relationship between

the company and the customer is transaction based and the transactions are the ultimate drivers of financial

value, taking place in the end of the value chain [45] [47] [52].

In the SDL however, the customers are seen as an integral part of the company and the value is defined by the

customer, who is always a co-creator of value as ”there is no value until an offering is used” (value-in-use).

The relationship between the service provider and the customer can be characterized as complex due to the

active role of the customer, i.e. being a co-producer of the service. This means that the customers are often

present and active participants in the service production process, bringing input resources (Customer as


Resource) and producing parts of the service on their own or together with the service provider (Customer as

Co-producer) [47].

Figure 14 – Goods Dominant Logic (GDL) model.

Figure 15 – Service Dominant Logic (SDL) model.

In recent years, the meaning of value and the value creation process have rapidly evolved from a product and

company centric view to more personalized and holistic customer experiences defining what is valuable for

them [47] [48]. As a result, a distinction of the terms ”co-production” and ”co-creation” has emerged in the

literature.

According to Ojasalo [47] and Prahalad & Ramaswamy [48] value co-creation is defined as ”joint creation of

value by the provider and the customer”. In value-co creation, the value is determined by the customer.

Ojasalo explains that for value determination, the understanding of customer experiences and perceptions

are essential; and the value is created in the actual consumption phase (value-in-use).

According to Prahalad & Ramaswamy [48] the informed, empowered, networked and active customers are

increasingly co-creating value with the service providers. They state that the interaction between the

customer and the companies is becoming the locus of value creation and value extraction. Ojasalo describes

that the interaction takes place in multiple touch points through diverse channels in complex environments

including physical elements (e.g. spaces, signs and technology), processes and people ( e.g. employees), all

offering opportunities for value creation. Ojasalo [47] states that when value is co-created, the company

offers value proposition that supports the customer’s value creation process, and the customer’s role is to

actualize the value.

Ojasalo describes that building the company-customer relationship and learning together drives financial

value and profitable business. Furthermore, she states that the value co-creation may result in unique value

initiated by a spontaneous idea achieved through interaction between the service provider and the customer.

In value co-creation, the customers are proactively involved in every stage of service development enabling

the service provider potentially to identify customers’ latent needs and wants [47]. This learning and new

insight enables the company to co-create service innovation and to acquire deep customer insight about what

really creates value for the customer. This provides the company opportunities for differentiation and

competitive advantage [47].

The transition from the company centric view towards value co-creation is fundamental as the role of the

company is shifting from being a producer of a value to a supporter of value; and as the value becomes a joint

activity between the service provider and the customer [47] [48].

CO-DESIGN 4.2.

According to Mattelmäki & Visser [53] the terms co-creation and co-design appear widely in the scientific

literature; and these terms are often mixed due to their contradictory interpretations. The discussion dates

back to 1970s and there are several research publications describing these terms; and whether co-creation is


considered part of co-design or co-design seen as one form of co-creation, depends entirely on the author and

the scientific perspective.

Taking the design perspective, in [53] authors define co-design as the following. Co-design is used in design

context, in activities driven by designers, aiming to explore, envision and identify new potential ideas and

solutions in collaboration with potential customers and other stakeholders. In [53] authors describe co-design

as an empowering and experience driven mindset; engaging, giving voice and possibilities to those who are

affected by the design and were not traditionally part of the design process, to influence the design.

Furthermore, the participants are considered as beneficial contributors to the design process by offering their

competence, creativity, expertise and knowledge as a resource. According to [53] the co-design is a set of

tools and a process enabling collaborative engagement, learning and exploration e.g. in co-design events and

workshops.

MODELS FOR SERVICE CO-CREATION 4.3.

4.3.1. The SECI model

SECI (Socialization, Externalization, Internalization,

Combination) is the theory of organizational knowledge

creation developed by Ikujiro Nonaka [54].

Initially it has been proposed as a theory of knowledge

creation. The first "epistemological" dimension is the place

of "social interaction" in which knowledge, whether tacit

or explicit, is converted from one form to another, so

generating new knowledge.

Four modes of knowledge conversion were identified,

illustrated in Figure 16. Figure 16 – The "spiral" SECI [54]

Tacit knowledge -> Tacit knowledge (Socialization)

The "Socialization" dimension explains social interaction as transfer of tacit knowledge that is through direct

comparisons (face to face) or through the sharing of experiences. Examples of this type of interaction are

meetings and brainstorming. As tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize, it can only be acquired through the

shared experience, like spending time together or live in the same environment. The transfer of knowledge

through socialization usually takes place in a traditional apprenticeship, where apprentices learn the tacit

knowledge required in their craft through practical experience, rather than from written manuals or

textbooks.

Tacit knowledge -> Explicit knowledge (Externalization)

The transition from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge is via externalization (such as publishing articles) of

growth factors that contain within them the same knowledge that allows communication. For example,

concepts, images and documents are able to support this type of interaction. When tacit knowledge is made

explicit, it is "crystallized". In this way, you can share it with others making it the basis for new knowledge. The

concept of the creation, new product development, is a classic example of this conversion process.

Explicit knowledge -> Explicit knowledge (Combination)

The transition from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge happens through the combination, by merging

different types of explicit knowledge, for example, through the construction of prototypes. Creative use of

communication networks and large databases are able to support this mode of knowledge conversion.


Explicit knowledge -> Tacit Knowledge (Internationalization)

The transition from explicit knowledge to tacit

knowledge (internalization) is the main feature

of the concept of "learning by doing". On the

other hand, the explicit knowledge becomes

part of the individual knowledge, and will be a

new "resource" for the company.

Internalization is also a process of continuous

individual and collective reflection as well as

the ability to see connections and recognize

patterns and to make sense of the ideas that

are transformed into concepts.

After internalizing the process continues to a

new "level", from which the metaphor of a

"spiral" of knowledge creation [55], often

referred as the SECI model.

Figure 17 – The SECI Model

4.3.2. Novani e Kijima

In the model defined by Novani and Kijima, when the supplier and customers work together to create a

service, they develop a first phase of Co-Experience, in which neither the supplier nor the client have clear

expectations of what they want from the service. During the Co-Experience the users have a sharing of tacit

knowledge held by the customer and the information held by the company, in order to have a common vision

of a service. The next phase is the Co-Definition, essential in the realization of the shared model between

customer and supplier.

Figure 18 – Model of Co-Creating Innovation service Novani and Kijima [54]

The process of co-creation, as shown in Figure 18, can be divided into two main phases that correspond to

two main stages of the innovation process, one that includes the Co-Experience and Co -Definition, and what

comprises the Co-Elevation and Co-Development.

The four phases of Co-Creation can be grouped into two main phases, which are called "What" and "How",

respectively dedicated to the identification of the products/services to achieve and how to achieve them.

The "What" macro-phase includes the Co-Experience and Co-Definition. It takes place when the supplier and

the consumer begin the processes of definition and identification of a service. These stages are very delicate

because the supplier and consumer of the service do not know exactly what purpose would like to achieve.


The second macro-step ("How") includes the Co-Development and Co-Delivery, which generate the Co-

Elevation. It is focused on how to implement the idea. These two phases are always characterized by a strong

participation of the actors.

4.3.3. Kambil, Coates e Ramaswamy

According to Kambil [56], Co-Creation creates a new dynamics in the relationship supplier-customer, where

the customer is directly involved in the production of value. The direct involvement of the customer in the Co-

Creation of value is a novel and innovative process for both the company and the customer, and has some

inherent difficulties due to its complexity.

According to Coates [57], the Co-Creation is an active, creative and social, based on the collaboration between

supplier and customer, activated by the supplier in order to foster innovation. The goal is to improve the

processes of organizational knowledge, involving the customer in the creation of value. The Co-Creation turns

customers into active collaborators in the development of future value, creating a relationship of mutual

influence of customers and suppliers, reshaping the way they think, interact and innovate.

Ramaswamy [58] said that the process of Co-Creation, presents an approach to sustainable growth, an

advantage in business and new opportunities for innovation. The customer and the supplier have traditionally

opposed goals in the world market, the first is to reduce costs, the second is to maximize profit; Co-Creation is

therefore proposed to combine these two objectives through collaboration.

4.3.4. Vargo and Lusch

Vargo and Lusch [59] refer to the Co-Creation of value as an upper element containing the Co-Design, which is

constituted by a sequence of phases where the first is "co-design" with the client, getting the Co-Creation of

value.

The subjects involved in the process of co-design are identified by distinct roles: the customers and the

companies; these, coming up to play a common work for Co-Design, they get a mutual benefit from each

other. The two actors exchange information and then return to play its role, in which companies try to meet

the expectations of customers with the development of the products or services and customers are waiting to

fulfil the expectations created with the contribution provided for obtain a product or service with added value

compared to the standards. In fact, the benefits of Co-Design is a chance to find hybrid products, that is not

conceivable at the beginning of the work and that can introduce a type or category of product completely

new and not initially planned.

The Co-Design can be declined in four sub-types, each of which is characterized by a level of involvement of

users more or less stringent.

VALUE CO-CREATION APPROACHES 4.4.

In the process of creating value both manufacturer and user of the service have a crucial role: the service

provider is responsible for the creation of value and the public is invited to participate as co-creator. In

particular, the role of the provider is to ensure the steps of developing, designing, manufacturing and

delivering the services so that users generate value. In this context, the supplier is no longer the exclusive

creator of value, but rather becomes a facilitator of value (value facilitator), because only by interactions

direct or indirect (through new technology) can generate new value.

In particular, technological innovations have triggered new types of interactions. The IT systems and mobile

technology are intelligent systems that, within certain limits, can run flexibly actions of customers.


Traditionally, in the property market, not occurring interactions between the provider and the customer after

the purchase stage. The supplier becomes inactive and silent.

In this new context, however, the interaction between the customer and the enterprise will occur

dynamically, in order to simultaneously initiate the process of Co-Creation.

From the point of view of value creation, in fact, the interactions will result in a continuous dialogue that

combines the two processes of production of the service and value creation in a single integrated process in

which both parties are active, learning the 'each other and influence each other. The customer becomes Co-

Producer and becomes part of the resources of the provider. At the same time, the supplier undertakes and

operates as a resource for creating customer value.

The process, therefore, appears as a single interactive process consists of two main phases, which are the

Production process, interest of the provider, and Value creation, consumer interest.

So that it can be a real and proper interaction Co-Creation of value between the parties, it was proposed a

model called "The Building Blocks of Co-Creation" [50]) consists of four key elements:

The dialogue, which implies a deep commitment, the capacity and the will to act on both sides. It has

to solve problems of common interest, and that is why between the consumer and the company must

clearly define the rules of the relationship and there must be a shared learning and collaboration. The

dialogue must be built around the experience that the consumer is looking for.

Access: to build the interaction must be torn down all sorts of information asymmetry, which is why

customers must have free access to information of the company.

Transparency, which as access helps eliminate the information asymmetry between the parties

creating a mutual trust.

The risk, which is defined as the probability of harm to the consumer. Through dialogue you order

established greater trust between customer and company that allows the customer to understand

more awareness about the risks and the benefits that it will experience.


5. SERVICE DESIGN APPROACH AND METHODS

This section describes approaches and methods for the development of Service Design. In section 5.1 five

principles for the service design definition are described, and in section 5.2 several service design process are

analyzed.

SERVICE DESIGN PRINCIPLES 5.1.

According to Stickdorn & Schneider [60] there seems not to be a common definition of service design. In the

absence of the mainstream definition, they describe service design as a way of thinking incorporating five core

principles: user-centred, co-creative, sequencing, evidencing and holistic. These five core principles are

described in more detail in the following sub-sections.

5.1.1. User-centred

Due to their inherent nature of being intangible, services cannot be stored in an inventory like standardized

products or goods and they are created through the interaction between the service provider and the

customer [45] [49] [60]. The intrinsic objective of services is to satisfy the customer’s needs, according to [60].

To meet these customer’s needs, the user is essential to be placed in the center of the service design process,

requiring a deep common understanding as described by Stickdorn & Schneider in [60]. They explain that this

kind of genuine understanding cannot be obtained through mere statistical descriptions (e.g. demographic

and geographic factors) or empirical analysis about the customer’s needs. Gaining authentic customer insights

requires a thorough application of various methods and tools enabling the service designers to understand

the customer’s individual needs and service experiences in a wider context. Thus, Stickdorn & Schneider state

that the services should always be designed through the eyes of the customer. The user-centered approach

and understanding the different needs and mindsets of different customers, is the basis of service design

thinking; and offers a common language for the interdisciplinary service design teams.

5.1.2. Co-creative

Providing services requires usually various stakeholders, e.g. front-line sales personnel, back-office employees

as well as technical or digital interfaces, such as vending machines and websites. Thus, a single service

interaction normally involves several actors, employees, interfaces and potentially different customer groups.

All of these different stakeholders along with the actual customers need to be involved in the definition and

development of the service proposition.

Stickdorn & Schneider in [60] note that is the service designers role to generate this type of co-creative

environment that facilitates the service development with heterogeneous stakeholder groups. They explain

that there are several methods and tools for gathering insights from different actors and perspectives in all

stages of the service design process. Stickdorn & Schneider argue that co-creation and the facilitation of the

interaction among the different stakeholders, is a fundamental part of service design and essential for

increasing customer satisfaction, loyalty and long-term engagement.

5.1.3. Sequencing

As described, services are created through the interaction between the service provider and the customer in a

dynamic process taking place over a certain period of time. Every service process follows a three stage

continuum from pre-service period to the actual service period and finally to the subsequent post service

period.

According to Stickdorn & Schneider in [60], it is the role of service design to deconstruct the service processes

into single touch points and interactions, i.e. service moments, between the service provider and the


customer. These touch points can happen through different interfaces, such as human to human and human

to technology.

Stickdorn & Schneider argue that these service moments should be visualized and well organized as a

sequence of interrelated actions, enabling a pleasant rhythm and progress of the customer’s mood by

communicating the story inherently to the service through each touch points.

5.1.4. Evidencing

Due to the intangible nature of services, physical evidence or artefacts, e.g. souvenirs, brochures, emails, bills

or signs, can enhance the customer experience by triggering positive associations and memories about the

service moments. Physical or tangible service evidence can therefore prolong the service experiences from

the actual service period far into the post-service period, potentially increasing customer loyalty and

engagement. It is crucial however that the service evidence is designed as an integral and natural part to the

service and the sequence of touch points [60].

5.1.5. Holistic

When designing services, the wider context of the environment, in which the service process takes place,

should be considered. This means that the service designers should understand and be consciously aware of

what the customers may subconsciously perceive with their senses about the entire service environment.

These subconscious perceptions can have a profound impact on the service experience. Furthermore, when

designing a detailed touch point, it is necessary to understand the holistic perspective of the whole customer

journey and thus, to know where this particular touch point lies in relation to the entire customer experience

[60]. Stickdorn & Schneider also argue that holistic approach needs to be incorporated to the entire

organization of the service provider. The organizational culture, values, norms along with its structure and

processes are important elements for the success of service design and the service provider as a whole. Thus,

there cannot be any inconsistencies between the corporate identity and objectives with the corporate image

perceived by the customer according to [60].

SERVICE DESIGN PROCESSES 5.2.

5.2.1. Service Design Processes

In the domain of Service Design applied in business and innovation, there are several service design processes

or frameworks available consisting of three or even up to seven stages, but fundamentally all these service

design processes share the same logic and mindset (Stickdorn & Schneider [60]; Tschimmel [61]). According to

Stickdorn & Schneider in [60], the service design process can start at any stage, e.g. directly at prototyping if

there is already a clear understanding of a service idea. Ultimately, the first step in each service design project

should be to design the process suitable for that particular context.

According to [60], the service design processes are presented in having a clear and chronological structure

allowing taking virtually any idea from concept to outcome in organized and thorough fashion. However, in

reality, the service design processes are nonlinear and iterative by nature. Stickdorn & Schneider explain that

it is quite common that the designers may need to go back to the previous stages of the process at any time

during the design project or start from scratch.

The iterative approach is fundamental for service design processes enabling the designers to learn from the

mistakes and take the process in the right direction based on these learning. The key is to make those

mistakes as early as possible in the design process and before actually implementing the new concept. The

cost of iteration is marginal compared to making changes to the concept that has already been launched full

scale [60] [62].


In the following section, a selection of perhaps the most well-known and used service design processes are

introduced.

5.2.2. Exploration – Creation – Reflection – Implementation

Stickdorn & Schneider in [60] present a service design process that has been divided into four stages:

exploration, creation, reflection and implementation (Figure 19).

Figure 19 – The Service Design process as described by Stickdorn & Schneider in [60]

In exploration phase, the service designer’s task is to identify the problem he/she should start working on and

to create an understanding about the maturity of the company related to service design, i.e. do they

understand what service design thinking means and are they prepared for this kind of process and way of

working. After this, the next step is to gather insights and empirical data via different tools and methods.

Thus, according to [60], the objective and key in the exploration phase is to define the problem and gain a

clear understanding of the situation from existing and new customers’ points of views.

During the creation phase, the objective is to create possible solutions based on the problems identified and

insights generated (e.g. customer needs, motivations and expectations) in the exploration phase.

Furthermore, it is crucial to take the service provider’s processes and constraints into consideration when

developing the solutions concepts.

Reflection stage means testing the ideas via prototyping and gathering feedback from customers in order to

iterate the solution to become even better and eventually matching the customers’ expectations. According

to [60], prototyping physical products is usually fairly simple as the new product can be build using e.g.

cardboard or Lego bricks and visualized in many different ways such as sketching, images and wireframes.

However, when testing intangible services, the prototyping may become more complex. According to [60],

the customers need a mental image of the future service concept, i.e. it is important to be able to consider

the emotional aspect of the service. Thus, to achieve this, authors in [60] suggest the utilization of e.g. comic

strips, storyboards, videos or image sequences. However, generating emotional engagement with customers

is not enough. Stickdorn & Schneider in [60] argue that the actual user interaction needs to be tested as well

and in order to do this, it is essential to test the new service concepts in a real situation or in circumstances

close to reality e.g. using staging and role-plays.

The successful implementation of a new service concept usually requires elements from change management

according to [60]. The implementation has to be planned properly and naturally reviewed after the actual

implementation has taken place [60] [62]. The implementation should be based on the consistent service

concept developed and tested in the previous stages of the service design process. Employee engagement is

one of the key success factors for the implementation. Including the employees in the interdisciplinary team


throughout the service design process for developing and testing the service concept usually creates the

required engagement. Service blueprinting is a method that helps visualize the customer journey and touch

points as well as all the onstage and backstage actions required by the organization to produce the service

[43] [45] [60] .

5.2.3. Double Diamond Model by the Design Council

The Double Diamond Model (or 4D Model) by the Design Council (Figure 20) is a simple way of mapping the

service design process, describing the divergent and convergent stages of the service design process [61]. The

model has been divided into four distinct phases, Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver, similarly as in the

service design process defined by Stickdorn & Schneider in [60].

In the Discovery phase the designer

is searching for new opportunities,

new markets, new information,

trends and new insights. The Define

stage acts as a filter in which the

initial insights are reviewed,

selected or discarded. Furthermore,

the Define stage also includes the

preliminary development of the

ideas. They main activities in the

Definition phase are project

development, project management

and corporate sign-off. After the

Figure 20 – The Double Diamond process adapted from the original model by

Design Council

corporate and financial sign-off, in the Development phase, the design led solutions are developed, iterated

and tested by multidisciplinary teams and using the service design tools and methods. In the last phase, i.e.

the Deliver stage, the final solution concepts are taken through final testing, signed-off, produced and

launched [61].

Various tools and methods can be used in each stage, depending on the desired outcome.

5.2.4. Inspiration – Ideation – Implementation (3 I Model)

The 3 I model (Inspiration, Ideation, Implementation) was developed by IDEO in 2001 in the context of social

innovation. As IDEO was increasingly asked to work on challenges and themes far away from traditional

design (e.g. health care, learning environments), they wanted to distinguish this new type of experience

oriented design work from industrial design [61].

The nature of design thinking according to Brown [63] is such that it is impossible to provide a simple and easy

to follow process that would ensure the success of every service design project. He claims that there is no one

best way to go through the process and describes that there do exist useful starting points and landmarks

along the way. However, Brown describes the innovation process as a continuum of system of overlapping

spaces, not a sequence of steps happening in an orderly manner.

Brown states that the reason for the iterative, nonlinear nature of the design process is that design thinking is

essentially an exploratory process, invariably enabling unexpected discoveries, which usually can be

integrated into the ongoing process without disruption. Using a service design process instead of a traditional,

linear and milestone based processes will lead better results, i.e. truly customer centred solutions.


The Inspiration stages includes the following stages: the identification of the service design problem

motivating the search for solutions; the elaboration of the design brief providing the service design team a

framework; and the observation of the customers for gathering deep insights about the behaviour and needs

of the users in their own environment. In the Ideation stage is the process of generating, developing and

testing ideas. In this phase, the interdisciplinary service design team aims to synthesize the observations and

learning they have gathered in the Inspiration phase into insights reflecting opportunities and ideas for new

solutions, i.e. the ideas for solving the initial problem or opportunity are brainstormed and visual

representations of the new service concepts are made. The selected concepts are tested, iterated and

improved through prototyping. The Implementation phase takes the project from concepts to the market, i.e.

once the final product or service has been created based on the feedback gathered from the users; a

communication strategy is developed to help communicate the designed solution inside and outside the

organization [61] [63].

The three overlapping spaces of

innovation described above

provide the necessary

boundaries, without which the

design simply cannot happen

according to Brown (2009, 17-

18). Brown takes this thinking

further by stating that the

acceptance of these boundaries

is the foundation of design

thinking.

Brown states that these

constraints can be visualized as

three overlapping criteria for

successful concepts: feasibility

(what is functionally possible),

viability (is it possible to create a

Figure 21 – The boundaries for creating successful concepts. Adapted from a model

illustrated by e.g. Brown.

sustainable business model), desirability (what makes sense for people, do they want to use the solution and

does it satisfy their needs).

5.2.5. Service Design process by Moritz

Moritz in [64] presents a service design (SD) process as a set of tasks that have been grouped into six

categories (Figure 22): SD Understanding, SD Thinking, SD Generating, SD Filtering, SD Explaining and SD

Realizing. According to [64] the categories enable an easy application of the list of tasks and also tools to be

utilized in a service design project. All categories have their objectives (e.g. understanding the customer) and

each task acts as an intermediary step helping to reach these objectives. Moritz states that these service

design categories have two functions: to create a simple and generic framework helping to understand service

design and to establish what various mindsets are needed in service design. Thus, each category or stage can

require a different set of skills, mindset, attitude, focus and environment. Furthermore, in each of these

categories, a different constellation of the team may be required to accommodate the skills needed in the

particular stage. Moritz emphasizes however, that the service design categories can interlink and overlap. In

the following sections, the six categories are explained in more detail.


Figure 22 – The service design stages described by Moritz

5.2.5.1. SD Understanding

SD Understanding is about finding out and learning. Moritz in [64] defines this category as researching the

customers both conscious and unconscious or latent needs It is about finding out about the context, the

constraints and resources as well as exploring different possibilities. This is an extremely broad and important

area according to Moritz (2005) connecting the service design project and its reality, i.e. that the results are

true to reality, relevant and appropriate. In this stage, insights identifying areas the company should aim for

are generated. SD Understanding takes the project beyond things that the participants are already familiar

with through exploring the customer’s wants, needs, motivations and contexts as well as investigating the

business and technical requirements and constraints, i.e. what do the customers desire, what is feasible and

viable [64].

5.2.5.2. SD Thinking

SD Thinking identifies the purpose and objectives for the project, provides strategic direction for the service

design project by setting the parameters for the other categories, making sure that all other categories work

in line with the strategy. According to [64] this phase often has a transitional role between the other

categories; as it is about identifying criteria, developing the strategic frameworks, specifying and scoping the

details as well as transforming the complex data and information gathered in the SD Understanding into

insights.

5.2.5.3. SD Generating

SD Generating includes the development of relevant, intelligent and innovative ideas, the creation of role-,

design- and concept alternatives as well as crafting details and consistency [64]. In practice, this stage is about

doing, creating and coming up with ideas and strong solution concepts. In addition, the service experience is

developed, including all the details, spaces and elements required for providing superior experiences

matching the customer needs [64].

5.2.5.4. SD Filtering

In the SD Filtering stage, the most relevant and promising ideas are selected and evaluated against specific

criteria, requirements and measures (e.g. subjective, heuristic, economic, technical and legal). The

performance and quality and the service components of these selected solutions are tested and measured

[64].

5.2.5.5. SD Explaining

According to [64], a comprehensive understanding of the key learnings and insights, ideas and processes is

vital for ensuring a successful of SD Explaining phase. This means that the purpose, target group and context

need to be clear. Moritz (2005) notes that the SD Explaining usually connects the SD Generating with SD

Realizing, but is naturally important for all other categories as well. The SD Explaining is a necessary step for


creating shared understanding within the multidisciplinary team and stakeholders by visualizing the ideas and

concepts; as well as testing the service experiences by prototyping [64].

5.2.5.6. SD Realising

SD Realising is about making it happen as described by Moritz in [64]. It is about developing and implementing

prototypes, solutions and processes, writing business plans, instructions and guidelines as well as conducting

training and briefings for ensuring consistent touch points, i.e. everything that is needed to plan, specify and

rollout a service. According to [64] SD Realizing can be done either by testing an experience prototype or the

actual service, ensuring the best possible service performance. However, as service systems are complex and

the environment likely to change, it will always be necessary to continue improving the service. Thus,

according to Moritz the SD Realizing should be considered a new beginning instead of the end of the service

design process (Figure 23).

Figure 23 – The Service Design categories defined by Moritz illustrating the overlapping nature of the stages as well as the

continuum of the process


6. SERVICE DESIGN, CO-CREATION AND INNOVATION APPROACH IN WELIVE

The service co-creation and innovation approach in WeLive is based on some of co-creation and service design

models described in the sections 3 , 4 and 5.

From the open innovation point of view: the "Quadruple Helix" described in 3.2 is the reference model in

WeLive. From the point of view of these new user-oriented innovation strategies, it is arguable that the fourth

helix of Quadruple Helix should be the user. This is also the approach we have chosen in our research. The

Quadruple Helix type of innovation activity enables a larger variety of innovations than the Triple Helix model

does. The Triple Helix type of innovation activity focuses on producing high-tech innovation based on the

latest technology and research knowledge. Because of this, the Triple Helix model is considered to lend itself

better for science-based high-tech companies than for other kind of businesses .The Quadruple Helix type of

innovation activity, instead, can focus on producing other kinds of innovations and applying existing

technology and research knowledge and user knowledge as well. To SMEs, the increase in quadruple and

user-oriented type of innovation activities could open up new possibilities to participate in innovation activity,

as also other types of SMEs could participate than only strongly science-based ones or firms having science-

based firms as clients.

From the co-creation models point of view: the model of Co-Creation used in the project "WeLive" is the

result of an elaboration of the model theorized by Novani and Kijima in [65]. In the preliminary analysis, the

model of Co-Creation of value proposed by Novani S., K. Kijima was coupled with the phases of a standard

model of the innovation cycle and with the same conversion SECI Knowledge Process.

Furthermore, according to Nambisan [66] there are four different roles that citizens can play in public service

co-creation and problem solving, namely: explorer (citizens identifying and defining emerging and existing

problems), ideator (citizens conceptualize novel solutions to well-defined problems), designers (citizens

design and/or develop solutions), and diffusors (citizens can support or facilitate the adoption and diffusion of

the public service innovation among the targeted population). Different tools and techniques can be applied

to co-create with citizens, for instance online contest and competitions, innovation jams, virtual design and

prototyping tools, participatory design workshops, online communities, etc. Co-creation with citizens (or

users) is not something relatively new: “What has changed in recent years is the ability of individual citizens to

not only develop innovative solutions to problems, but to play a more active role in discovering or identifying

the root problems and in developing and/or implementing solutions. A large part of this can be attributed to

new technologies that facilitate easier access to public data, enhance government transparency, and reduce

the distance between the citizen innovator and the government agency “. WeLive approach on service co-

creation and open innovation assumes that the citizen will both play the role of the explorer, ideator and

designer (in collaboration with the local technical partners) by making paper and digital prototypes for new

public services.

This study has led to the definition of a new model that will be taken as reference in the rest of the project

and that is able to provide an interpretation closer to reality than the original model Kijima. This model was in

fact suitably revised and evolved with the addition of a phase, known as Co-Delivery, during which the service

is put into operation through the collaboration between consumers and providers. In particular, in the model

of Co-Creation of reference for the project WeLive, the phase of Co-Experience aims to reconcile the mental

and conceptual models of the various stakeholders, analogously to what described in the dimension of

socialization of the model SECI. Note that new model of Co-Creation created deviates significantly from that

of Kijima not only by the addition of the phase of Co-Delivery, but also for the repositioning of the phase of

Co-Elevation, which originally was placed in parallel to that of co-Development and before the


implementation of the service, and now it cuts across all other phases and directly connected to the

successive iterations of the cycle of co-Creation.

From the service design point of view: WeLive collects many features of the models showed in the section 5,

and the result is a combination of all models.

From Exploration - Creation - Reflection - Implementation process by Stickdorn & Schneider [67],

WeLive leverages all stages of the process. Exploration is mapped with needs of citizen, creation is

mapped with the generation of solution through the idea, reflection and implementation are the

prototyping and development of the solution.

From Double Diamond Model by the Design Council, Discovery phase is mapped with citizens

elicitation, Define with selection and improvement, while Definition, Developer and Deliver refer to

the implementation of the solution.

From the 3 I model (Inspiration, Ideation, Implementation) by IDEO, WeLive leverages all stages of the

process. Inspiration is mapped with needs of citizen, Ideation is mapped with the generation of

solution through the idea, implementation is the development of the solution.

From the Service Design process by Moritz, WeLive leverages all stages. Understanding is mapped

with citizen’s elicitation, Thinking with the ideas, Generating with the development of ideas, Filtering

with selection of idea, Explaining with the refinement of idea and Realising with the implementation.

In the light of this, in the next section is shown the complete approach for service co-creation and open

innovation in WeLive, through the service co-creation lifecycle (from idea generation to digital services

implementation) followed by the WeLive approach.

IDEA GENERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION LIFECYCLE IN WELIVE 6.1.

The model of Co-Creation of reference for the project WeLive is the result of an evolution of the model

theorized by Novani and Kijima, described in section 4.3.2, and the Innovation wheel proposed by FORA [22].

The Innovation Wheel is a model, which can be used to describe a company’s innovation process – and the

involvement of users throughout the process – in a consistent way. Companies use different approaches

when working with innovation and may use a range of different terms to describe the process. The Innovation

Wheel has been developed based on interviews with forty design and business consultancies in USA and

Europe and their experience with innovation processes with a large number of companies. Findings from

these interviews are summarized in FORA’s concept design report [22].

Those models were suitably revised and evolved to meet the requirements of WeLive expectations, with the

addition of a phase, known as Co-Delivery, during which the service is put into operation through the

collaboration between the consumer and provider.

The motivation of selecting the Novani and Kijima and FORA models, in WeLive, is motivated by the strong

nature of co-participation intrinsic to these models. In fact, they represent the more complete baseline where

the co-creation approach in WeLive could take place.

Figure 24 shows the service co-creation approach in WeLive. It is an iterative process composed by a tailoring

of the four macro-phases of the Navani and Kijima model: Co-experience, Co-definition, Co-development and

Co-delivery.


Figure 24 – Service Co-Creation Model in WeLive

Below the explanation of each macro-phase is given.

6.1.1. Service Co-experience

Despite the potential value generated by users, to access and integrate the collective knowledge of users

could be difficult. The users knowledge base is tacit and difficult to transfer to companies [68].

The intent of an innovative experience, that is the Co-Experience, is not to improve a product or service, but

the sharing of information in order to have a common vision of the product or service itself.

This phase allows suppliers and customers to understand each other's needs, and allows them to

communicate and thus define a service in a shared manner.

In WeLive Project, the phase of Co-Experience aims at reconciling the conceptual models of the various

stakeholders, analogously to what described in the dimension of the SECI socialization model and the first

quarter of the Innovation wheel provided by FORA [22].

6.1.2. Service Co-definition

The collaboration between users and the supplier is critical in a process of Co-Definition, in which there is an

exchange of information in order to create a unique representation of the service resulted from the sharing of

expectations.

Collaboration and knowledge sharing between all actors involved in the creation of a service is crucial [69], as

this interaction can create a basic model service, through externalization of preferences of the customer and

the skills owned by the company.

Opportunity

identification

Data collection

Pattern recognition

Concept

ideasConceptualization

Prototype

Test

Deployment &

Use

Co- experience

Co- definitionCo- development

Co- delivery

WHATHOW


In WeLive, the phase of Co-Definition, as well as the size of externalization of the SECI model and the second

quarter of the innovation wheel of FORA [22], allows the conversion of tacit knowledge created during the

Co-Experience in explicit and shared knowledge.

6.1.3. Service Co-development

The Co-Development is supposed as a participatory moment, in which the actors involved initiate a process of

development and collaborative design getting an impact on innovation. This is referred to Co-Innovation

generated by the relations between the various entities.

This design phase is very important as it defines the interaction and integration between the various

components that make up the service. It is also very important at this stage to define what are the processes

for the exchange of flows of information and expertise, which allow to increase the value perceived by the

customer and to leverage the customer experience to create interaction processes simple and inclusive. This

involves the identification of possible changes, improvements (Co-Development) and radical innovations (Co-

Elevation).

In WeLive, the phase of Co-Development, which can be associated with the size of the combination of SECI

and the third quarter of the innovation wheel FORA [22], leads to the combination of the knowledge gained

in the previous stages through a creative synthesis.

6.1.4. Service Co-delivery

The phase of Co-Delivery is associated with the size internalization of SECI and the last quarter of the

innovation wheel of FORA [22]. An increasing need for customization of the service creates a need in the

process of providing the service itself to give rise to a phase of Co-Delivery, in which, from time to time, the

user can obtain a service or product different and that reflects and meets their needs. So, the service offered

has to have the right balance between standardization and customization. The processes with high value

added should ensure the satisfaction of the special needs of each customer, allowing the differentiation of the

product or service. At this stage the provider and the consumer through the interaction between them in the

delivery of service carry out the new explicit knowledge.

In Welive, the phase of co-delivery aims at deploying and using the co-created service is the field in order to

ensure that the service meets the expectation of different kinds of users.

6.1.5. Service Co-elevation

The Co-Elevation, through continuous iterations, is aimed at improving the level of quality of service expected

and its social impact. The Co-Elevation is the first step of the spiral, represented in Figure 16 (The "spiral"

SECI), which is the model of Co-Creation, on an increase of public value thanks to the capabilities of the

service provider and the expectations expressed by the consumer.

Note that new model of Co-Creation created deviates significantly from that of Kijima not only by the addition

of the phase of Co-delivery, but also for the repositioning of the phase of Co-Elevation, which originally was

placed in parallel to that of co-Development and prior to the implementation of the service, and now cuts

across all other phases and directly connected to the subsequent iterations of the cycle of co-Creation.

In WeLive, the co-elevation phase will support the continuous improvement of the service in order to easily

adapt to the different expectations of users.


7. TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO SERVICE CO-CREATION AND INNOVATION IN WELIVE

Starting from the co-creation and innovation approach in WeLive described in section 6, the state of the art

reports various tools that could enable innovation in co-creation of public services and open innovation, but,

as reported in previous sections, they could act only in very specific aspects analysed, without any cohesion.

This aspect motivated the WeLive consortium to propose two tools that are able to support WeLive

approach for co-creation of public services and open innovation:

The Open Innovation Area, described in section 7.1;

The Visual Composer, described in section 7.2.

OPEN INNOVATION AREA 7.1.

The Open Innovation area in WeLive is based on a specific Idea Management System provided by ENG.

The Idea Management Systems (IMS) are processes useful for the recognition of needs, the generation and

evaluation of ideas. As well as the ideas are the raw material for innovation, their management can be

considered the heart of innovation and is essential for the success of a project. The Idea Management

Systems are becoming increasingly popular within companies, because they can improve the degree of

innovation by increasing revenue and reducing business costs [1] [70]. These point to the enhancement of

knowledge and intelligence by employees and customers as a vector of innovation and differentiation [71].

Also for the company, it is not only an accessory element for the development of business systems but above

all a platform as social environment of great collaboration.

The Open Innovation area, in WeLive, will be a social co-creation environment where needs, ideas and

possible "solutions" can be matched and asked to Public Administrations for implementation. This will be the

place where requests meet possible offers. Needs are made public and so highlighted to the community.

Several ideas will be suggested in order to satisfy a specific need (e.g. coming from citizens or directly from

PAs). It offers: a) tools for eliciting, analysing and improving the ideas; b) tools to vote and select the ‘best’

ideas for a specific need, c) tools to allow companies to offer technical solutions to selected ideas and be

funded by interested citizens or the P.A. Once an idea has been selected and a match between the demand

from citizens and P.A. and the offer of the developer found, the idea will be refined by citizens and enriched

with some other details that make clear the requirements. When the refining phase is done, the idea is ready

to be implemented, so it comes to the implementation phase. The implementation of an idea can be

performed from scratch (i.e. the building blocks are fully developed by technicians and published into the

Marketplace) or by means of the data mashup / composition of existing building blocks performed by using

the Visual Composer.

7.1.1. Idea Management lifecycle to be supported by the Open Innovation Area

The Open Innovation Area will be based on an Idea Management Cycle, which is defined as a life-cycle model

to generate, acquire, develop, enhance, evaluate, select and implement ideas that can respond to specific

problems in order to obtain incremental or radical innovations.

The concept of Idea Management is based on an iterative phased model, where each phase has special

characteristics, which depend on the type of innovation that it intends to implement, and requires models,

approaches and tools heterogeneous. Figure 25 shows the idea management lifecycle supported by the Open

Innovation Area in WeLive.


Figure 25 – Idea Management lifecycle supported by the Open Innovation Area

Below the features of each phase is analyzed.

Inspire and Involve

At this first phase there is the involvement and the creation of groups of people, which define and report a

specific problem they want to solve. They provide a solid starting point (such as: a) the information that

others have solved a similar problem; b) ethnographic studies and marketing that highlight the behaviour of

customers and the market). The collaboration between users and the exchange of ideas and insights are very

important in this phase.

To encourage the continuous participation of users in the process of creating new ideas, it is also appropriate

to indicate, with periodic intervals, the best ideas and provide any recognition (even symbolic) to those who

created, according to a gaming approach.

Idea Generation

At this phase, each user generates its own idea and provides an accurate description in order to promote

discussion and collaboration among all users involved in the process. The final product of this phase is one or

more semi-formalized ideas.

Every proposed idea will be accompanied by a set of data such as: title, summary, category, tags, creation

date, additional information, etc.

Roles

Tools

Incentives

GOAL

Inspire and involve

Idea generation

Idea evaluationand selection

Idea refinement

Idea Implementation

Idea monitoring


Evaluation and Selection

The comments and discussions of users are a natural way to improve the ideas and express opinions.

However, this type of input becomes more and more difficult to analyze when thenumber of users and

comments increase. The operation becomes complex due to the characteristics of the data, from the previous

phases: high volume, redundancy, the presence of obvious ideas, etc. Consequently, they are often required

additional tools to quantify and evaluate ideas.

The three main techniques to deal with this problem are:

• Idea assessment: revisions made periodically and in parallel to the selection process.

• Machine aided data pre-processing: calculation operations supported by statistics, detection patterns,

etc.

• Filtering and clustering: textual and graphical methods, applied during the selection, for the

improvement of ideas, navigation and search operations.

The output of this phase is the selection of some ideas to propose to the next phase of refinement. The

evaluation of the ideas made by the auditors, also allows you to align the community on what are the

objectives, strategies and business needs.

Idea refinement

This is the phase of collaboration and collective development of ideas. Inputs of this phase are the

requirements for improvement coming from the Evaluation and Selection phase.

Once generated, ideas are shared with other users in order to collect their opinions. This way, before the

evaluation phase, the proposals are incubated in the community for a certain period of time and improved by

continuous comparison. In this phase, the requirements for improvements are distributed among

collaborators, which will be responsible for their coverage in the final version of the idea.

Each user involved in the process can contribute to the enrichment of the ideas proposed by the addition of

comments, images, links, etc. This way, starting from one or more initial ideas, a process of Co-Creation that

leads to the generation of new ideas is performed. Users select the most interesting proposals and then

prototypes are generated, in order to highlight the feasibility and sustainability of ideas.

Idea Implementation

The best ideas selected and approved, are implemented. The objective of this phase is to turn ideas into

innovative products or services to be launched on the market. During the implementation phase, in order to

continue to engage users and encourage them to continue their collaboration in the process of generating

new ideas, it is appropriate to provide additional information such as:

Updates on the status of implementation of the idea;

Resources (technical, human, etc.) associated with implementation of the ideas;

Information about any problems encountered in the implementation phase;

Financial data;

Post-Implementation Learning & feedback

At the end of each stage, interviews, surveys and reviews are performed in order to produce a "lessons

learned" report. Ideally, the beginning and the end of each phase is enclosed in a loop that allows the reuse of

data and experience, in order to improve the quality of future ideas and the whole process of Idea

Management [72].


Figure 26 – Relationship between Co-creation model and Idea Lifecycle

The Figure 26 shows the relationship between the model of Co-creation used in WeLive and the various

phases of the idea management lifecycle supported by the Open Innovation Area.

In particular:

1. The Co-experience stage is supported by the Inspire and involve phase

2. The Co-definition stage is supported by: idea generation, evaluation and selection phases

3. The Co-development stage is supported by the Implementation and refinement phases

4. The Co-delivery stage is supported by the Monitoring phase.

7.1.2. The features of the current version of the Open Innovation Area

The different nature of the target users of the Open Innovation Area to provide functionality easy to use. In

the Open Innovation Area there are 3 types of users:

Citizen

PA

System administrator

Each of them has specific roles and privileges within the Idea Management lifecycle, participating in the co-

creation and innovation process. The System administrator only performs technical tasks on the IT system.

The PA user is a representative of a government, its role is to collect people's needs, to open and to

management challenges of ideas, but its most important role is to select ideas in its challenges, based on

feedback from the community.

Opportunity

identification

Data collection

Pattern recognition

Concept

ideasConceptualization

Prototype

Test

Deployment &

Use

Co- experience

Co- definitionCo- development

Co- delivery

WHATHOW

Inspire and

involve

Idea

generation

Evaluation

and selectionRefinement

Implementation

Monitoring


The citizen proposes ideas, offers solutions to problems, evaluates and comments the ideas proposed by

other citizens.

The interface available to citizens will be user friendly and allows:

To create a new idea

To associate the idea to a challenge

To assign the title and description

To upload and assign a representative image

To assign tag and categories

To add collaborators

To attach documents

To assign geolocated Point Of Interest (POI) from a map

To view all the details about the its ideas

To view all the details about the ideas who collaborates

To get a picture of its ideas grouped by status

To mark ideas and challenges as favorite and get a picture of its

To see statistics about its ideas

To search ideas and challenges of all

To search ideas and challenges on the base of tags and categories

To view all the details about challenges and propose ideas

To comment and/or evaluate ideas and challenges

To make a social interaction with the other citizens in the community

To receive notifications about the progress of its idea

To advance its idea in the lifecycle (when permitted)

To improve its idea, after a first screening by the PA user

Instead, the interface oriented to the PA user, for management review and selection process, allows:

To create a new idea, and in particular:

To associate the idea to a challenge

To assign title and description



To add collaborators

To attach documents


To create a new challenge of ideas, and in particular:



To assign an opening date and a closing date


To attach documents


To view all the details about the its challenges

To view all the details about the its ideas

To get a picture of its ideas grouped by status

To mark ideas and challenges as favourite and get a picture of its

To get a picture of ideas for its challenges grouped by status


To search ideas and challenges of all

To search ideas and challenges on the base of tags and categories

To view all the details about challenges and propose ideas

To comment and/or evaluate ideas and challenges

To make a social interaction with the other citizens in the community

To receive notifications about the progress of its idea

To advance its idea in the lifecycle (when permitted)

To improve its idea, after a first screening by the other PA users

To screening and selection of ideas;

To collecting opinions and/or scores from reviewers and evaluators;

The System administrator has tasks of:

Management of alerts and reminders via e-mail to the user;

Workflow management.

Management of the categories vocabulary

7.1.3. Idea co-creation process supported by the Open Innovation Area

The key aspects that must be taken into account in the process of Co-Creation and the actors involved in the

process have been graphically represented in the diagram of Figure 27.

Figure 27 – Co-creation process of ideas


Generation and Processing (Elaboration)

The first step of the lifecycle of an Idea is the elaboration phase in which citizens can prepare, promote and

develop their own ideas, in collaboration with other users of the system.

The users draw ideas/issues using texts, diagrams and multimedia files. The ideas can be associated to a

Challenge proposed by the PA or not, in order to meet specific needs of the territory or of citizens.

During this phase the users of the community can view the Idea, evaluate it, comment on it and participate in

the definition. The publication of the comments may be immediate or moderated by one person of the

proponent team (author and collaborators).

Users wishing to participate in a Challenge of Ideas have to organize with respect to the deadline associated

to the Challenge. After the expiration the PA can select the most promising ideas and then assess its

feasibility.

Each Idea Author (or Proposer):

Can choose whether to propose an Idea independently or as part of a Challenge of ideas;

Can directly invite collaborators;

Can make changes to the Idea.

A user-Collaborator instead:

Can actively contribute to the development of the Idea;

Can receive notifications and updates regarding the Idea via email, messaging or Social Network.

The ideas are written by users, according to the following aspects:

Give a title to your idea.

Describe your idea.

Do you want to publish some photos or video?

Do you want Tagging / Geotag Your Idea?

Do you want to invite someone to collaborate?

Evaluation and Selection

As part of the Challenge of Ideas, the task "Evaluation and Selection of the Idea" is the responsibility of the PA,

which, through a board of experts decides which ideas to bring to the next stage, called "Refinement".

All the ideas that were not selected will be preserved and made available for future reference.

The evaluation is done through indicators that allow the monitoring of the degree of appreciation of ideas,

whether stand-alone or within Challenges. The indicators can be displayed and analysed in the dashboard of

the evaluators.

The ideas evaluated positively proceed with the phase of "refinement", while the ideas considered "not

viable" are not advertised to avoid frustrating mechanisms and abandonment of the platform.

Refinement

Citizens and other individuals involved in the Co-Creation, refine the ideas selected. In this phase are used

tools made available by the system.

The refinement of the Idea can cover two areas: business refinement and technological refinement.


The business refinement is used to model and simulate the impact of the Idea in the real world, analysing the

gap between the As Is (i.e. the current scenario) and To Be (the scenario that would result from the

application of the Idea) and evaluating the effects of the transition both economically and socially.

Technological refinement is the application of modeling techniques of application components, both in the

Graphical Interface (collaborative modeling of MockUp) and in the level of services and application interfaces

(composition of Services). Examples of technological refinement tools are represented by those for

collaborative Mockup or those for the composition of services (Visual Composer, that we will see later).

Realization (implementation)

This phase is the responsibility of the Head of Implementation, which can be a Company or other skilled

people, selected ad hoc, which have specific skills within the scope of the idea.

At this phase the Community is regularly updated during the progress of the implementation.

Monitoring

The step of monitoring is downstream of the step of realization. It consists of the verification of the

requirements of the project just realized, both in order to detect discrepancies compared to Co-Designed,

that to make the necessary corrections, propose, as appropriate, innovative approaches to the solution of

problems.

7.1.1. The new features of the Open Innovation Area in WeLive

During the WeLive project, new features of the Open Innovation Area will be implemented.

In the current version the elicitation of citizen needs is not automatic; a new feature will be the Topic

Detection. The aim is to provide a dashboard to PA user, that allows collecting and analysing conversations

from their content, for a faster and more precise identification of issues and relevant trends. Through this, the

PA can be guided on the identification of problems related to their context and generate challenges of idea

about this.

To increase the level of collaboration among users of the platform, the open innovation area will include a

chat that allows instant communication between users within idea lifecycle, thus generating a group chat

related the team. In this way, users will have the possibility to exchange opinions and suggestions while they

work on a common idea.

During creation of a new idea, the user has the possibility to choose some collaborators for co-creation

process. The system, based on the expertise of each user, will suggest possible contributors to the idea.

Finally, when the building blocks related to an idea are created, these BB have to be linked to the idea. The

link will be visible to the Open Innovation Area in implementation and Monitoring states. When a Building

block is published into the marketplace, the reference to the ideas will be reported.

VISUAL COMPOSER 7.2.

Visual composer in WeLive is based on a tool provided by ENG. The visual composer will support the

Implementation phase of the co-development and co-delivery phases included into the WeLive co-creation

and innovation approach shown in 6.1.

Usable by non-technical users, the Visual Composer will guide them through a wizard based, intuitive,

interface in the composition of new apps from existing apps and building blocks following a data workflow

approach, similar to that followed by existing services such as Yahoo! Pipes. It will allow to "almost" every

actor, living and working in the territory, to create new services in order to overcome a specific and common


need or just a personal one. It will guide users when interacting with the Marketplace and the Decision Engine

in order to identify the right building blocks. Through it, the development process will not be monopolized by

highly specialized companies, it will also be accessible to freelance developer or skilled amateurs. Indeed,

HTML5-based apps are the way to reach M-Government, allowing people to interact with services using

devices they normally use in their daily life.

The Visual Composer will be a web tool for the composition of technological services (Web Services and REST

services) and/or open data, by creating service mashup in a graphical way and without requiring technical

skills. Thanks to a particular editor, the user will have the possibility to model his or her own mashup in a

completely visual way. Through a visual interface, client side, the user can select the data and services in the

catalogue, and define, for each of them, the input and output data, and render the result of the Mashup in

mockup projects. Following the modeling, the Visual Composer will allow the citizens to generate a new public

service.

The tool will provide an additional editor, called Mockup Editor, which allows the user to define the graphical

interfaces for their mashup projects, in the form of HTML5 pages.

The user will have a workspace for managing:

Services and open data;

Mashup projects;

Mockup projects.

Through the section of management services and open data, the user:

Can view the catalogue of imported services;

Can view a catalogue of imported open data;

Can import new services (REST, SOAP);

Can import new open data sources.

When a service/open data is imported, it will become available in the catalogue, and the user:

Can see the details of the service/open data;

Can change the visibility of the service in order to make it usable by the members of its workgroup;

Can delete the service/open data.

The services and open data imported in the catalogue constitute the basic elements through which the user

can make their own mashups.

As regards the management of mashup projects, the user will have the possibility of:

Viewing the list of projects in which it cooperates;

Creating a new project, and in particular:


To assign tag

To assign a workgroup

Importing a project from file

When a project is created or imported, this will become visible in the list of projects. Hence, by selecting a

particular mashup, the user:

Can change general information;

Can export the project;

Can delete the project;

Can leave comments, in order to share information with other members of the workgroup;


Can add members to the project;

Can access the mashup dashboard.

The mashup dashboard is the main instrument of the Visual Composer. Through the canvas present in the

dashboard, the user can shape its own mashup in a completely visual way, dragging & dropping and linking

services and open data from the available catalogues, making use of a wide range of operators that allow to

modify the flow of data between a service and another. The dashboard allows the user:

To view the list of available services/open data;

To view a list of the operators;

To import services and open data;

To define input and output of the mashup;

To drag services, open data and operators in the drawing, connecting them together;

To save the project;

To preview the mashup.

As regards the management of projects mockup, the user has the possibility of:

Seeing the list of projects in which it collaborates;

Creating a new project, in particular:

o To assign title and description

o To associate a mashup project

o To assign tag

o To assign a workgroup

When a new mockup is created, it is added to the list of projects. Hence, by selecting a particular project, the

user:

Can change general information;

Can export the project as HTML project;

Can delete the project;

Can leave comments, in order to share information with other members of the workgroup;

Can add members to the project;

Can access the dashboard mockup.

The mockup dashboard allows the user to model the GUI, related to a particular mashup, in form of HTML

project. The tool provides an extensive set of components, from basic html tags to advanced components

such as maps and media players; through them, the user can dial its mockup in a totally visual way,

performing drag and drop in the drawing area.

The mockup dashboard allows users:

To view the list of components, grouped by categories;

To drag the components on the canvas;

To change the properties of the components;

To add new html pages;

To add resources (stylesheets, script files, images etc.)

To save the project;

To preview the project on the default browser.

7.2.1. The new features of the Visual Composer in WeLive

To cover the needs of WeLive project, the Visual Composer will be extended with new features.


A new module in the Visual Composer will enable the application to interact with the WeLive Marketplace,

another module of the project.

This new module will consist of the following parts:

• Service search from the Marketplace

• Service publication into the Marketplace

Through a search engine available in the user workspace, the module will allow the user to import new

services (REST and SOAP services) from those published in the Marketplace. Each search result will show the

main information about the service, like the title and a brief description. The imported services will be

instantly available for the mashup operations.

The integration module will also allow the user to publish its own gadgets into the marketplace. Once a

gadget was created through the Mockup editor, the user will be able to easily publish it into the Marketplace

showcase.

Another extension will be the possibility to generate, starting from the mashup project; gadgets comply with

the "Open Social Gadget Specification" [73]. Once made the mashup the user will have the possibility to

download the gadget or to publish it in the MarketPlace, making it available to all users of the community.

To increase collaboration among users, an extension will be to add a form of instant messaging. In this way,

users will have the possibility to exchange opinions and suggestions while they work on a common project.

In the current version the user has the ability to connect to a mockup project to a single mashup project. A

useful extension is to give the opportunity to associate with a mockup project, multiple mashup projects.


8. CONCLUSIONS

Through this deliverable the WeLive approach in terms of service co-creation and open innovation has been

defined. After reporting the most recent state of the art of methods for open innovation, techniques for

service co-creation and service co-design, and service design approaches and methods, the best practices

have been selected and formalized in order to be part of the WeLive approach.

In particular, from the open innovation point of view: the "Quadruple Helix" is the reference model in

WeLive, where the fourth helix of QH is the citizen. From the co-creation models point of view: the model of

Co-Creation used in the project "WeLive" is the result of an elaboration of the model theorized by Novani and

Kijima. This model allowed us to formalize the idea generation and implementation lifecycle composed by a

set of phases: service co-experience, service co-definition, service co-development, service co-delivery and

service co-elevation. Furthermore, WeLive approach on service co-creation and open innovation will allow the

citizen will both play the role of the explorer, ideator and designer by making digital prototypes for new public

services.

The whole consortium is committed to such an approach, in fact a set of recommendations have been

formalized for the WeLive tools that will enable the WeLive approach: Open Innovation Area and the Visual

Composer in WeLive. These recommendations, together with the whole approach will be taken into account

both for the definition of the WeLive framework requirements and architecture (T1.4) and WP2, in order to

tailor a well cohesive framework, which will be used in pilots and could be replicated in contexts external to

the project.

After the releasing of D1.1, the WeLive consortium intend to fulfil the Objective “O1.1: To establish the

guidelines to enable effective service co-creation and innovation”.


9. ABBREVIATIONS

EU European Union

CDL Customer Dominant Logic

GDL Goods-Dominant Logic

IMS Idea Management System

KPI Key Performance Indicators

NPM New Public Management

PA Public Administration

POI Point Of Interest

REST Representational State Transfer

SECI Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization

SD Service Design

SDL Service-Dominant Logic

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

SOAP Simple Object Access Protocol

VC Venture Capital


10. REFERENCES

[1] European Commission. A vision for public services. Draft Version dated 13/06/2013.

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/vision-public-services

[2] Moore, Mark Harrison. in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Harvard university press, 1995.

[3] Mark Freedland, M., Sciarra, S., ‘Public Services and Citizenship in European Law: Public

and Labour Law Perspectives’ , Oxford University Press, 1998.

[4] Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V.: The New Public Service: Serving , not Steering Armonk, NY:

M.E. Sharpe, 2003

[5] Bourgon, J.: Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public

Administration theory , in International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73 (7), 2007

[6]

Benington, J., ‘From Private Choice to Public Value? ‘, 2007,

www.centreforexcellence.org.uk/UsersDoc/John%20

Benington%20-%20From%20Private%20Choice%20to%20Public%20Value.pdf

[7] Horner, L., Lekhi R, and Blaug, R., ‘Deliberative Democracy and Public Value: Final Report of

the Work Foundation’s Public Value Consortium ’, 2006,

[8] Horner, L., Lekhi R, and Blaug, R., ‘Deliberative Democracy and Public Value: Final Report of

the Work Foundation’s Public Value Consortium ’, 2006,

[9] OECD, Engaging Citizens: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-

making

[10]

Cole, M. and Parston, G., ‘Unlocking Public Value: A New Model for Achieving High

Performance in Public Service

Organisations ’, John Wiley and Sons, 2006.

[11] Chesbrough, Henry William. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and

profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press, 2006.

[12] Vannig Roth, "Academic representations of crowdsourcing, co-creation and open

innovation", (October 2011)

http://yannigroth.com/2011/10/18/academic-representations-of-crowdsourcing-co-

creation-and-open-innovation/

[13] Michel Neumann,"Open Innovation vs Crowdsourcing vs Co-creation", (April 2014).

http://www.wazoku.com/blog/open-innovation-vs-crowdsourcing-vs-co-creation/

[14] Lazzarotti, Valentina, and Raffaella Manzini. "Different modes of open innovation: a

theoretical framework and an empirical study." International journal of innovation

management 13.04 (2009): 615-636.

[15] Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. "The dynamics of innovation: from National

Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations."

Research policy 29.2 (2000): 109-123.

[16] Open government. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. January 1, 2015, 19:30 UTC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_government&oldid=640546904.

[17] DIS, ISO. "9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: Human-

centred design for interactive systems." International Standardization Organization (ISO).

Switzerland (2009).

[18] Hjalager, Anne-Mette, and Sara Nordin. "User-driven innovation in tourism—a review of

methodologies." Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 12.4 (2011): 289-

315.

[19] Bason, Christian. "Velfærdsinnovation: Ledelse af innovation i den offentlige sektor

[Innovating Welfare: Leading Innovation in the Public Sector]." (2007).

[20] Kelly, T., and J. Littman. "The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from IDEO." NEW.

ARCHITECT 7.6 (2002): 52-53.

[21] Kulturministeriet. (2009). Reach Out. Inspiration til brugerinddragelse og innovation in


kulturens verden [Reach out: Inspiration for participation and innovation in cultural

activities]. København, Denmark: Kulturministeriet.

[22] Wise, Emily, and Casper Høgenhaven. "User-Driven Innovation-Context and Cases in the

Nordic Region." Innovation Policy (2008).

[23] Jenny Barrow, "What is Social Innovation?", (December 2012).

http://barrowfotu.com/blog/2012/12/what-is-social-innovation/

[24] Murray, Robin, Julie Caulier-Grice, and Geoff Mulgan. The open book of social innovation.

National endowment for science, technology and the art, 2010.

[25] Phills, James A., Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale T. Miller. "Rediscovering social innovation."

Stanford Social Innovation Review 6.4 (2008): 34-43.

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_innovation

[26] Innovative Dutch, "Topics of Innovation Management"

http://www.innovativedutch.com/topics-of-innovation-management/

[27] Social Innovator, "The process of social innovation"

http://www.socialinnovator.info/process-social-innovation

[28] Guidelines on Open Government Data for Citizen Engagement , United Nations, New York

2013

[29] A. Sheedy, “Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond Consultation,” March 2008

[30] U. Nations, «Guidelines on Open Government Data for Citizen Engagement,» 2013.

[31] Chesbrough, Henry, and Wim Vanhaverbeke. "Open innovation and public policy in

Europe." (2011).

[32] De Jong, Jeroen PJ, et al. Policies for open innovation: Theory, framework and cases. Tarmo

Kalvet, 2008.

[33] Van Looy, Bart, et al. "Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia:

towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?." Research Policy 33.3 (2004):

425-441.

[34] Your Country Your Call Determine your future http://www.yourcountryyourcall.com/

[35] Icelandic constitutional reform, 2010–13. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. April 12, 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_constitutional_reform,_2010%E2%80%9313

[36] Mergel, Ines, and Kevin C. Desouza. "Implementing open innovation in the public sector:

The case of Challenge. gov." Public administration review 73.6 (2013): 882-890.

[37]

Hilgers, Dennis, and Christoph Ihl. "Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open

innovation to the public sector." The International Journal of Public Participation 4.1

(2010): 67-88.

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/imported/Journal_10January_V

ol4_No1_6_Hilgers%26Ihl_Citizensourcing.pdf

[38] Matthew Blackett, "Toronto Transit Camp wrap-up", (February 2007).

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2007/02/05/toronto-transit-camp-wrap-up/

[39] MindLab, http://mind-lab.dk/en/

[40] De Publieke Zaak, http://www.publiekezaak.nl

[41] UK Business, Uk Public. ”Communicating with business”.

http://www.showusabetterway.co.uk/

[42] FixMyStreet, https://www.fixmystreet.com/

[43] Bitner, Mary Jo, Amy L. Ostrom, and Felicia N. Morgan. "Service blueprinting: a practical

technique for service innovation." California management review 50.3 (2008): 66.


[44] Lüftenegger, E.R. Service-Dominant Business Design. Doctoral dissertation,

Proefschiftsmaken, The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology. 2014

[45] Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J. & Gremler, D. D. 6th ed. Services Marketing – Integrating

customer focus across the firm. New York: McGraw-Hill. (2013)

[46] Lüftenegger, E., Grefen, P., & Weisleder, C. The Service Dominant Strategy Canvas:

Defining and visualizing a service dominant strategy through the traditional strategic lens.

Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Publication of the School of Industrial Engineering,

Eindhoven University of Technology. 2012

[47] Ojasalo, Katri. "The shift from co-production in services to value co-creation." The Business

Review, Cambridge 16.1 (2010): 171-177.

[48] Prahalad, Coimbatore K., and Venkat Ramaswamy. "Co-creation experiences: The next

practice in value creation." Journal of interactive marketing 18.3 (2004): 5-14.

[49] Ojasalo, K. & Ojasalo, J. “Adapting Business Model Thinking to Service Logic: An Empirical

Study on Developing a Service Design Tool.” In Viitanen, J. & von Koskull, C. (eds.) The

Nordic School – Alternative Perspectives on Marketing and Service Management. Helsinki,

Finland: Publications of Hanken School of Economics. 2014

[50] Prahalad, C. K. "Ramaswamy. V.(2004). Co-creating Value with Your Customers: How

experience-quality management and the role of IT will enhance the personal effectiveness

of line managers." 1-5.

[51] Cooke, Mike, and Nick Buckley. "Web 2.0, social networks and the future of market

research." International Journal of Market Research 50.2 (2008): 267.

[52] Prahalad, Coimbatore K., and Venkat Ramaswamy. "Co-creating unique value with

customers." Strategy & leadership 32.3 (2004): 4-9.

[53] Mattelmäki, Tuuli, and Froukje Sleeswijk Visser. "Lost in Co-X: Interpretations of Co-design

and Co-creation." 2011). Diversity and Unity, Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World

Conference on Design Research. Vol. 31. 2011.

[54] Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Noboru Konno. "The concept of “5, 4”: building a foundation for

knowledge creation." Knowledge management: critical perspectives on business and

management 2.3 (2005): 53.

[55] Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese

companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press, 1995.

[56] Kambil, Ajit, G. Bruce Friesen, and Arul Sundaram. "Co-creation: A new source of value."

Outlook Magazine 3.2 (1999): 23-29.

[57] Coates, Nick. "Co-creation: new pathways to value: an overview." Research Director

(2009).

[58] Ramaswamy, Venkat, and Francis Gouillart. "The power of co-creation." New York (2010).

[59] Lusch, Robert F., and Stephen L. Vargo. "Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and

refinements." Marketing theory 6.3 (2006): 281-288.

[60] Stickdorn, Marc, and Jakob Schneider. This Is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases.

Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

[61] Tschimmel, Katja. "Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation." Proceedings of

the XXIII ISPIM Conference: Action for Innovation: Innovation from Experience, Barcelona.

2012.

[62] Liedtka, Jeanne, and Tim Ogilvie. Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for

managers. Columbia University Press, 2011.

[63] Brown, T. "Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires

innovation: HarperBusiness." New York, USA (2009).

[64] Moritz, S. "Service Design-Practical access to an evolving field. London: Köln International

School of Design. Tallennettu 16.6. 2013." (2005).


[65] Novani, Santi, and Kyoichi Kijima. "Value co-creation by customer-to-customer

communication: social media and face-to-face for case of airline service selection." (2012).

http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-9201428_18242.htm

[66] Nambisan, Satish, and Priya Nambisan. Engaging Citizens in Co-Creation in Public Services:

Lessons Learned and Best Practices. IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2013.

[67] Stickdorn, Marc, and Jakob Schneider. This Is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases.

Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

[68] Von Hippel, Eric. "Novel product concepts from lead users." Urabe/Child/Kagono:

Innovation Management (1988): 81-101.

[69] Metcalfe, Mike. "10. Strategic knowledge sharing: a small-worlds perspective." (2005).

[70] Bothos, Efthimios, Dimitris Apostolou, and Gregoris Mentzas. "Collective intelligence with

web-based information aggregation markets: The role of market facilitation in idea

management." Expert Systems with Applications 39.1 (2012): 1333-1345.

[71]

Stefano Mizzella (2011), "Nell’azienda che vorrei? Open Innovation + Idea Management"

http://www.socialmediascape.org/nellazienda-che-vorrei-open-innovation-idea-

management/

[72] Westerski, Adam, Carlos A. Iglesias, and Tadhg Nagle. "The road from community ideas to

organisational innovation: a life cycle survey of idea management systems." International

Journal of Web Based Communities 7.4 (2011): 493-506.

[73] OpenSocial Core Gadget Specification 1.0, (March 2010) http://opensocial-

resources.googlecode.com/svn/spec/1.0/Core-Gadget.xml#rfc.section.C.7.1

D1.1 – DEFINITION OF THE WELIVE SERVICE CO- CREATION AND ... · WeLive service co-creation and...

Documents

Transcript of D1.1 – DEFINITION OF THE WELIVE SERVICE CO- CREATION AND ... · WeLive service co-creation and...