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.

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.

As a result, the sub principles have also been rolled together to reflect a more holistic process.  Principles in bold letters have either been moved or newly added.  (As mentioned previously, “organization” refers to any group of people who are brought together with a common goal.)

Philosophy

• Base organizational decisions on a long-term, human-centered philosophy that considers the welfare of people and their environment, in addition to the welfare of the organization.

Process

• Consider the entire experience of all affected stakeholders (internal, external)
• Go see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation
• Visualize ideas instead of verbalizing them
• Build physical prototypes to quickly test ideas – only develop them to the level required to answer the question
• Iterate repeatedly
• Ensure that Sustainability is included as a decision making criteria when evaluating various options.
• Involve all critical stakeholders in decisions and thoroughly consider all options; implement rapidly

People & Partners

• Grow leaders who understand Co-creation, live the philosophy, and can teach it to others
• Empower internal staff and involve external stakeholders in the creation of potential solutions
• Become a learning organization through ongoing reflection and continuous improvement
• Respect, develop, and challenge your people and teams
• Respect, challenge, and involve your external stakeholders

Next Steps

As mentioned previously, our collective efforts could evolve into a robust organizational structure over time that others could use to drive Co-Creation within their organizations, as well as informing the creation of DIY Co-Creation toolkit templates.

In the meantime, IDEO has developed an award-winning “Human Centered Design Toolkit” for NGO’s and social enterprises to use in conducting their own projects.  Their approach is heavily reliant on Co-Creation and could serve as an example for groups to adapt to their own purposes.

http://www.ideo.com/work/item/human-centered-design-toolkit

About Pam Nyberg

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.

The meaning of these high-level principles is further clarified by fourteen sub principles:

Philosophy

• Base management decisions on long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial goals

Process

• Use visual control so no problems are hidden
• Create process “flow” to surface problems
• Use pull systems to avoid overproduction
• Level out the workload
• Stop when there is a quality problem
• Standardize tasks for continuous improvement
• Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology

People & Partners

• Grow leaders who live the philosophy
• Respect, develop, and challenge your people and teams
• Respect, challenge, and help your suppliers

Problem Solving

• Go see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation
• Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options; implement rapidly
• Become a learning organization through ongoing reflection and continuous improvement

Although each principle doesn’t directly relate to Co-creation, some are applicable and the spirit of others can inform our discussion.  With this in mind, I’d like to introduce a slightly refined model, with supporting principles, for us to consider and further refine.


Proposed Co-Creation (Design Thinking) Framework
The diagram below closely mirrors that of Toyota, with one small exception.  The Co-Creation Process step focuses on exploration and iterative prototyping as opposed to the elimination of waste.  However, both Toyota’s Process principle and the Co-Creation Process principle advocate thoroughly understanding a situation and quickly raising people’s awareness to problems.

Variations between the two frameworks are more obvious when examining the sub principles.  These proposed Co-creation principles incorporate thoughts from Toyota, as well as other individuals and organizations including Christian Bason, Tim Brown (IDEO), and myself.

(In the principles below, “organization” refers to any group of people who are brought together with a common goal.)

Philosophy

• Base organizational decisions on a long-term, human-centered philosophy that considers the welfare of people and their environment, in addition to the welfare of the organization.

Process

• Consider the entire experience of all affected stakeholders (internal, external)
• Visualize ideas instead of only verbalizing them
• Build physical prototypes to quickly test ideas – only develop them to the level required to answer the question
• Iterate repeatedly

People & Partners

• Grow leaders who understand Co-creation, live the philosophy, and can teach it to others
• Empower internal staff and involve external stakeholders in the creation of potential solutions
• Respect, develop, and challenge your people and teams
• Respect, challenge, and help your external stakeholders

Problem Solving

• Go see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation
• Make decisions thoughtfully, by involving all critical stakeholders and thoroughly considering all options; implement rapidly
• Become a learning organization through ongoing reflection and continuous improvement

Next Steps
If people feel this initial Co-creation framework is interesting and could be valuable, please help refine the model and supplement its underlying principles.  Over time, our collective efforts could evolve into a robust organizational structure that others could use to drive Co-Creation within their organizations, as well as informing the creation of DIY Co-Creation toolkits templates.


Source
Liker, Jeffrey K., PhD. The Toyota Way. McGraw Hill.  2004.

About Pam Nyberg