Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Co-creating in practice: results and challanges | Mulder & Stappers


Published on

Mulder, I. & Stappers, P.J. Co-creating in practice: results and challenges. Presented at the 15th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: ICE 2009, Leiden, The Netherlands, 22 – 24 June 2009.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Co-creating in practice: results and challanges | Mulder & Stappers

  1. 1. ICE 2009, the 15th international Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, 22-24 June 2009, Leiden, the Netherlands co-creating in practice: results and challenges Session 2-1: Collaborative Innovation (1) 1
  2. 2. need for user-centric innovation •  only one out of 3000 product ideas makes it on the market, meaning that there are hundreds of unsuccessful ICT products behind every success •  75% of all users find their ICT tools more stressing than relaxing •  user-centric development and validation can play an important role in speeding up effectively innovation processes through addressing actual user needs 2
  3. 3. Living Labs as answer to •  implement user-driven open innovation •  get a better understanding in what triggers innovations and which innovations proof to be successful in different contexts •  bring the users early into the creative process •  bridge the innovation gap between technology development and the uptake of new products and services •  allow for early assessment of the socio-economic implications 3
  4. 4. Living Labs open opportunities to get users involved, however, the concept does not explain how to involve motivated users? 4
  5. 5. collaborative innovation •  The Living Lab initiative stresses the collaborative nature of modern product and technology development. •  Collaborative innovation plays a part on two levels. 1.  between Living Labs 2.  within each lab 5
  6. 6. co-creative Living Labs •  European Network of Living Labs as one platform for collaborative and co-creative innovation •  where users are involved and contribute to the innovation process •  to ensure that common methodologies are developed 6
  7. 7. Living Labs Harmonization Cube •  useful technique enabling definition of a shared reference of methods and tools •  it represents the most important perspectives •  it also specifies bridges between existing Living Labs •  it helps the different Living Labs •  to learn from each other •  benchmark the validation of user behaviour studies exchange best practices •  and interconnect existing Living Labs 7
  8. 8. co-creation in Living Labs •  core service of a Living Lab is to facilitate co-creation of a product, service, or application •  identification of methods and tools that integrate end-users and other stakeholders •  mapped to various stages of an innovation process •  each phase enables co-creation with different methods and tools 9
  9. 9. taxonomy of methods and tools 10
  10. 10. about co-creation in Living Labs •  overall, mainly traditional methods used •  methods and tools used are very heterogeneous, making it hard to compare results across the Living Lab sites •  Living Labs do not currently benefit from the promising Living Lab methodology that comes close to the user as well as make use of the potential of Living Labs as a methodology to get richer insights in what drives people 11
  11. 11. co-creation is about participation •  user participation is often after-the-fact testing •  users can react to a concept prototype in a demonstration, a focus group or in a usability test •  earlier phases are mostly conducted within the lab or company, or based on literature study •  emphasis is put on ‘demonstrators’ •  involving users in earlier phases is important to ensure that developed concepts of products and services fit into target groups’ daily lives 12
  12. 12. user concerns move to the front… 13
  13. 13. co-creation is about context •  building an understanding of the context of product use •  who, where, what, when, how, and why which surrounds the product •  This fuller understanding of the context is even more necessary as current product and service design increasingly address complex interactions between users, products, services, and infrastructure, with increasing opportunities for mistakes due to ‘blind spots’ in the development team 14
  14. 14. contextmapping 1.  generative activity having people create artefacts as a way to stimulate observation, reflection, and discussion 2.  sensitizing letting participants go through a process of reflection over several days or weeks, in order to deepen their insights 15
  15. 15. 16
  16. 16. contextmapping •  Both tools of expression and time for reflection are needed to work the participating user into the ‘expert of their experience’ and to have users contribute the Living Labs process •  This goes far beyond current practice of demonstration-and-reaction, both in the amount of time and commitment that is invested from all parties as well as in the depth and breadth of results that can be harvested from that 17
  17. 17. co-creation is hot, co-creating is limited •  In industry, product- and concept-testing are becoming commonplace. •  However, techniques to involve end-users in the idea generation phases are not often applied in practice •  partly due to technology push •  part because existing methods such as (design) ethnography are expensive and require changes in current product development processes 18
  18. 18. context is changing... •  (mainly academic) projects have shown the viability and value of use-inspired approaches and have delivered new, appropriate methods. •  new methods have also found their way into large (US) industries such as Microsoft •  co-creation techniques are also finding their way into education and consequently – through the new generation of designers – into practice 19
  19. 19. challenges for co-creation •  most existing Living Labs don’t exploit the full potential of a community-driven open innovation approach (yet) •  current practices largely emphasise the Lab part, a predominant use of traditional methods for evaluation •  rather than the Living part, i.e., methods of participation and co-creation •  how can current methods stressing participation and co-creation strengthen Living Lab practices? 20
  20. 20. role of ‘user’ is changing Liz Sanders (2000) 21
  21. 21. 22
  22. 22. user as co-creator •  the challenge to keep Living Labs living is: •  involving active users by making use of generative techniques •  practicing a ‘user as co-creator’ approach 23
  23. 23. community-driven innovation as the new way of product development •  technology push technological tricks in boxes, with a button to start their use •  market pull caters only to needs people are explicitly aware of The competition on user qualities requests a third force: •  contextual push – people insights push 24
  24. 24. three forces of new product development 25
  25. 25. in sum, current Living Lab practices •  reactive users rather than users as active co-creators •  not exemplary in demonstrating the added value of a Living Lab over traditional user-centric methodologies •  In order to have the Living Lab methodology growing to maturity •  it is crucial to awake the living part by making use of its infrastructure •  and by continuously evaluating in all phases, thus also during use and in-situ 26
  26. 26. living methodologies •  to come close to the user and his rich experiences •  and so, capturing rich experiences and social dynamics of everyday life •  to include the fuzzy front end to decipher invaluable insights •  Living methodologies such as generative tools and contextmapping techniques proved to be successful for that as well •  in this way Living Labs make far better use of the promised ecological validity 27
  27. 27. thank you! More info: Email: 28