“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 (more…)

To continue the discussion from yesterday, I’d like to put forth the first in what will hopefully be an ongoing series of refinements, based on input from the group.

To briefly recap this effort’s intent, Co-creation (or Design Thinking) is currently viewed through multiple lenses, which can be confusing when discussing the topic with others who have different experiences with the subject.  By visually framing the various levels of Co-creation and its supporting principles, a common understanding of the topic could be achieved and the ability to apply it in multiple types of situations could be enhanced.

Proposed Co-Creation (Design Thinking) Framework

Originally, the Co-Creation Framework (see below) closely mirrored that of the Toyota diagram.

However, as seen in the revised model below, Problem Solving has been eliminated as a stand-along category, having been rolled into the Process category.  The reason for this update is that Problem Solving and Process are both focused on a common goal – leveraging participation by all stakeholders to address a challenge and develop a solution. (more…)

During the inaugural Copenhagen Co-Creation Summit this past August, lively debate arose regarding the scope of Co-creation (or Design Thinking).  Perfectly understandable given its application in creating new products, services, organizational structures, business models, and public policy in both developed and developing economies.

But is Co-creation…

• An all-encompassing philosophy?
• An internal organizational process?
• A method for solving complex problems with external stakeholders?

Simply put, the answer is “yes.”  Co-creation can be viewed through all of these lenses, prompting the need to more clearly frame the space so we have a common understanding of its breadth of application and the actionable principles that make it so powerful.

Fortunately, an analogous model already exists that I’d like to introduce as a potential starting point.

Toyota’s 4P Framework
While working with Toyota, Jeffrey Liker, PhD developed the 4P model, which reframes the four high-level principles that Toyota uses to govern itself.  These tiered principles, in combination with fourteen sub principles, reflect Toyota’s “deeper business philosophy…of understanding people and human motivation.”  This philosophy forms the basis for the global Toyota Production System and has shaped the company’s direction since its early days as a loom manufacturer.

Liker’s 4P model is broken into categories that encapsulate Toyota’s corporate principles:  Philosophy, Process, People & Partners, and Problem Solving. (more…)