“What are all these people talking about?” This was my main take away from day two of the summit in August. I have written it in capital letters on a double side of the little notebook, which was handed out at the conference. It shows my initial wonderment at this so-called new path for the method of user-driven innovation and this wonderment is the also the basis for my master’s thesis from the Department of Anthropology at the University of Copenhagen.

So what is this thing we call Co’Creation? I will try to explore this new business phenomenon because I’ve found there are certain important aspects in need of a good looking at. The following will be a quite critical stance on Co’Creation. It is not to say that I cannot see any potential for new value based profit generation – I am simply trying to point out some obstacles for this our new joint venture. Hopefully this will push the discussions and development in a fruitful direction.

I have distinguished between the levels of analysis here: the discursive level (equivalent to “what people say it is”) and the practical level (how it’s actually done). Based on anthropological qualitative research in a Copenhagen-based design company and with a Dutch artist heavily engrossed in similar creative processes, I have found the following to be true:

- Co’Creation is not necessarily something new
- Co’Creation is something inherently impossible
- Other groups (such as artists) have been using the method for at a long time
- The relation between form and content; process and result is integral to the understanding and implementation of new business models such as Co’Creation

First of all: is Co’Creation new?

The discursive level indicates that it is something completely and ontologically new. It is being talked about as if it was the golden altar on which our future rests – and not only our future in regards to business – also in relation to public management and government policy. We have apparently struck gold here, people…

Co’Creation is apparently something so new and refreshing that it requires immense amounts of clarification and elaboration from the beginning on. It could be deemed fair to compare the practice (or phenomenon as I think of it) to a very young bird unable to fly without the total vigilance and guidance of its parents. It needs to be kept on its wings – but why is this? In the great and powerful mojo of global capitalism the doctrine would be fly or die – not fly or “we will keep you on your wings”. This poses the question: why is it fruitful to engage in these endeavours of keeping the concept afloat? My answer is this: It is important exactly because it is a much needed concept of an integral nature – namely that of the “new”. In that sense it follows tropes such as ‘user-driven’, ‘innovation’, and ‘creative’ as the proverbial new ‘black’ – hence the title of this blog entry.

But can this feeling of “newness” bring forth bright new wonderful things or is it merely an apparition; a grand design by business leaders and innovators? Isn’t it just yet another sparkling new hollow buzzword to rally under? That remains to be seen.

Maybe Co’Creation is inherently impossible? As a discursive concept it has very real and tangible consequences; we are being moved and are moving the world in return – hence the importance of taking this thing seriously. So: why should Co’Creation be impossible you might ask? Good question. It isn’t. But it does require a certain change of mindset unlike anything seen in the world of business since the industrial revolution and the advent of modern capitalism. It is indeed true that the Co’Creation manifesto tries to incorporate this idea of a new mindset but two important questions arise: Does it do so successfully and is this truly a new mindset?
I find the answers to be ‘no’ and ‘no’! The manifesto does try to take into account the need for the devaluation of the expert role, the necessity of flat non-hierarchical structures and the importance of knowledge sharing. But does it do it itself?
‘We are not experts’ but we sure act like them. There is such a great distance between the design level and Helvetica thinking of the inhabitants of this network and the very people with whom we are trying to co’create, that it seems implausible to lower ourselves to their level. And this is exactly what the discourse is in grave danger of doing. We are not on any particularly different ‘level’ – we are simply on a different kind of scale. Even the term ‘Co’Creation’ seems so heavily to be thought up at a higher level that it is almost impossible not to keep the notion of a hierarchical ‘level’ in the back of our minds.

In my opinion, we should never try to comprehend our informants. We should try to take them seriously and heed the call of “thinking with them”. They offer equally valid tools for understanding the world as we could ever dream up. So instead of thinking outside the box (and various other clichés) we should open our eyes and ears and experience, in a very tactile way. We have to sensitize ourselves to the very real and dirty and ugly world outside the conference room or ‘think tank’.

This would open the way to understanding better why Co’Creation is a valid method. Based on my work I would suggest first thinking harder about what Co’Creation is. Taken at face value it is a promising new land for the business of innovation. When delved into a bit harder it seems a new perverted monster of neo liberalism. And here is the trick: Co’Creation is face value. The content is the form. Co’Creation is a new shape of business thinking in which the content is the actual powerfully real outline of the concept itself. It is a meaningful empty concept.

Furthermore: it is a conceptual method in which the result is the process. What does this mean? It means that the very object of concern for co’creational processes is not an end result – it is the means by which we arrive at those ends. It is a shape/form of business modelled on the simple notion of open process – free flowing open uninhibited honest unmanipulative creative process. But is this even feasible? I would point to artists’ communities around the globe and how they are working together on making their projects come to life. Many of them – I have learned – talk of how their materials speak to them. The very real shape, colour and feel of their materials encourage them to perform certain actions with them, manipulate them. Here is a clear parallel to what could/should be the method of Co’Creation. The process is the centre of attention – the materiality and values of people’s lives is what should be speaking to us. We should be taking them seriously and letting the process assume their unpredictable shape. That is the way forward.

Now let me make this completely clear: I am definitely a proponent of Co’Creation but I am simply insisting on using the method on it’s own terms – not ours. To do Co’Creation is in my view to take seriously any and all input and aesthetics. It also entails a disregard of the classically economistic modes of business. Can we do this? This, also, remains to be seen.

Ladies and gentlemen – we have unleashed a monster designed to trample on with or without us. Our only choice is to jump on it’s back, adapt to it and hope it can be wielded as powerfully as it promises – not hide behind big words and reduce it to just another buzzword.

About
Jesper is a student of cultural anthropology at the University of Copenhagen who is currently undertaking fieldwork and theoretical work on the method of Co’creation – specifically on the intersections between creativity and sociality. He has conducted fieldwork in a Copenhagen based design company and among artists in the Netherlands to shed some anthropological light on the social processes of creation. This light is intended to be an illumination of aspects of ownership (ideas, processes, methods, results), time perceptions in relation to the notion of potentiality and first and foremost creativity from a critical stance.