Have fun watching it!

>> VIDEO

Die Marktforschung braucht das Web 2.0, Social Media & Co. und nicht umgekehrt

Bereits 2006 wurden alle Web 2.0-User zur „Person des Jahres“ im TIME Magazine gewählt, denn Sie sind es, die das Informationszeitalter kontrollieren. Das über Jahrtausende gesammelte Wissen ist verfügbar und demokratisiert. Die Liste an Social Networks zählt mehr als 700 Netze, alleine darunter ca. eine halbe Milliarde Facebook Nutzer. Doch Facebook ist bei weitem nicht alles, es existiert ein ganzes Ökosystem an Communities, Blogs und Foren zu allen erdenklichen Nischenthemen die von einer zunehmend individuellen und anspruchsvollen Kundenschaft zum Leben erweckt werden. Durch Vermittlerplattformen wie Ebay, Amazon oder Smava werden wir Kunden selbst zu Verkäufern, Händlern und privaten Kreditgebern. Testurteile, Erfahrungsberichte und Rankings sind zum zentralen Entscheidungskriterium für Kaufinteressierte geworden und nehmen Einfluss darauf ob Produkte und Services überhaupt in eine engere Auswahl kommen. Ist die Kaufentscheidung dann gefallen, wird das Internet zum Mega-Store mit unbegrenzter Produktvielfalt und besten Preisen. Im Kern all dieser Entwicklungen steckt eine nie dagewesene Souveränität der Konsumenten, eine Veränderung wie man sie sicherlich nur alle paar Jahrzehnte erleben wird. Der Mehrheit der Unternehmen, die traditionell ihrer Produkte hinter verschlossenen Türen im Labor unter punktueller Anreicherung von Marktforschung entwickelten, fällt es jedoch enorm schwer ihren Kunden und Abnehmern in deren Königreich zu folgen. Für sie ist es häufig eher ein unheimlicher als willkommener digitaler Wandel der sich hier vollzogen hat. Herzlich willkommen im Online-Zeitalter. Meines Erachtens kann die Frage nicht mehr lauten wie attraktiv Web 2.0 oder Soziale Netzwerke für Marktforschung ist, sondern wie attraktiv Marktforschung für unsere Kunden im Online-Zeitalter werden kann.

Co-Creation ist eine intensive Partnerschaft mit Endkunden und keine Panelerhebung oder Fokusgruppe wie wir sie kennen

Während in den 90er Jahren und zu Beginn dieses Jahrhunderts das Internet noch maßgeblich dazu eingesetzt wurde Effizienzvorteile bei der Abwicklung traditioneller Marktforschungsmethoden zu erzielen, wurde in den letzten Jahren ein ganzes Feuerwerk an Konzepten entwickelt, die den neuen Leitsätzen einer vernetzten Gesellschaft folgen: „Offen für das Wissen anderer zu sein“, „Wissen gemeinschaftlich zu erzeugen“ und „Wissen mit anderen zu teilen“. Vertreter dieser Konzepte haben wir als “Co-Creation”, “Open Innovation”, “Crowdsourcing“, “Wikinomics“ oder “Netnography” kennengelernt. Und hier die Gretchenfrage: Kann man diese Ansätze der Markt- und Sozialforschung zuordnen? Die Antwort ist eindeutig „ja“, denn sie helfen uns in die Welt und Sprache der Verbraucher einzutauchen, die kreative Masse zu aktivieren, und Konsumenten Werkzeuge an die Hand zu geben, damit sie ihre häufig schwer artikulierbaren Bedürfnisse besser sichtbar machen können. All dies sind Zielsetzungen die für uns Marktforscher von größter Relevanz sein müssten. Anstatt diese neuen Chancen zu umarmen, begegnet man leider allzu häufig Reaktionen wie „das machen wir doch eigentlich schon immer so“ oder „das ist unvereinbar mit dem Anonymisierungsgebot“. Die Realität ist, dass uns das eingesetzte Instrumentarium zum größten Teil noch fremd ist und, dass wir an einer fortlaufenden Aktualisierung unserer berufsständischen Verhaltensregeln in Abhängigkeit der neuen Gegebenheiten arbeiten müssen. Die uns vertraute Welt hat klare Anforderungen an das Fragebogendesign, die Güte der Stichprobe sowie an die Validität, Reliabilität und Objektivität der Messung von Items und Konstrukten. Die Qualität in der praktischen Durchführung sowie der Schutz der Verbraucherdaten und die Abgrenzung zum Direktmarketing bleiben unsere zentralen Gebote. Die Social Media und Co-Creation Welt wird uns zusätzliche Spielregeln bescheren und uns dabei helfen eine noch intensivere Partnerschaft mit den Endkonsumenten aufzubauen. Die Teilnahme basiert dabei auf Selbstselektion, der Grauen jedes Forschers der versucht Repräsentativität für ein Zielsegment in seiner Erhebungen sicherzustellen. Ein Segen für diejenigen, die in der frühen Phase der Produktentstehung frische Ideen und den Input erfahrener Anwender sowie fortschrittlicher Kunden einbinden wollen, um sicherstellen das ein Produkt geliefert wird, dass die breitere Kundschaft dann auch wirklich braucht und lieben lernt. Co-Creation ist somit der entdeckenden Marktforschung zuzuordnen. Diese kann die vorwiegend praktizierte testende Marktforschung wunderbar ergänzen, würde da nicht immer wieder eine vermeintliche Unvereinbarkeit in der Diskussion zur Berufsethik heraufbeschworen werden. Eine analoge Diskussion gab es übrigens bereits bei der schreibenden Zunft, wo aufgrund der nahezu uneingeschränkten Möglichkeit Texte zu vervielfältigen die Rede von Anarchie und Gedankenplünderung im Netz war. Man hatte nicht begriffen dass viele Menschen gerne auf aus dem Urheberrecht abgeleitete Ansprüche sowie der Nennung als Quelle verzichten und vielmehr eine maximale Verbreitung zum Wohle der gemeinschaftlichen Wissensvermehrung anstreben. Als eine Lösung wurden Copyrightregelungen durch vorgefertigte Lizenzvarianten der CreativeCommons angeboten. Hierdurch legt der Autor selbst fest in welcher Form seine Texte und Ideen wiederverwendet werden dürfen. Entweder man findet in der Marktforschung ein möglicherweise vergleichbares Modell, dass das Anonymisierungsgebot durch Incetivierungsstrukturen und Verfügungsrechten co-kreierter Werte (Property Rights 2.0) ergänzt, oder man muss auf die oben beschriebenen Mechaniken der gemeinschaftlichen Wissensgenerierung verzichten.

Zur Identitätsfindung des Marktforschers

Der uns umgebende digitale Wandel erfordert ein neues Selbstverständnis des Markt- und Sozialforschers. Datenproduzent und Analyst ist nicht mehr ausreichend, darüber sind sich alle einig. Häufig ist die Rede davon zum Berater und Premiumanbieter von strategisch relevanten Insights oder zum kompetenten Partner unserer Kunden auf Vorstandsebene zu mutieren. Für mich klingt das nach einem verzweifelten Versuch jemand zu sein, der man nicht ist und zu dem man offen gesagt auch nicht ausgebildet wurde, nämlich ein Unternehmensberater. Zudem fehlen die strukturellen Voraussetzungen für das Beratergeschäft das übrigens selbst in einer Phase der neuen Identitätsfindung steckt. Unsere Profession sollte sich nicht so sehr darum kümmern wie sie ihr Erscheinungsbild bei ihren Auftraggebern aufhübschen kann, sondern sollte sich damit beschäftigen wie sie den Konsumenten und Anwender als einen neuen Partner zur Schaffung von Werten, Erkenntnissen und Innovationen für sich gewinnen kann. Co-Creation ist der offene Verbraucherdialog auf Augenhöhe in der die Endkunden nicht mehr lediglich Objekt der Begierde zur Datensammlung sind. In Zukunft wird ein Typus Dienstleister gefragt sein, der die gemeinsame Wertgenerierung mit dem Endkunden methodisch und programmatisch beherrscht, und nicht derjenige, der der bessere Berater oder der kreativere Kopf ist.

Fazit

Das Verhältnis der Marktforschung mit Social Media ist derzeit stark geprägt von Vorurteilen, Missverständnissen und erheblichen Widerständen des Nicht-Wissens, Nicht-Könnens und Nicht-Wollens. Dieses Moment der „schöpferischen Zerstörung“ haben neue Entwicklungen nun mal so an sich, und Social Media ist eben noch jung. Um allerdings der Gefahr einer lähmenden Selbstbeschäftigung unserer Profession mit diesem Thema vorzubeugen, dürfen Regeln und Berufsansichten nicht als Dogma verstanden werden, sondern müssen Raum für Diskussion und neue Disziplinen ermöglichen. Co-Creation mit Konsumenten, d.h. die partnerschaftliche Erzeugung von Werten, Erkenntnissen und Innovationen, ist eine dieser neuen Disziplinen, die sehr gut mit den traditionellen Fertigkeiten des Markt- und Sozialforschers harmonieren. Eine einmalige Chance für die Marktforschung sich aufs Neue zu beweisen, vor der Industrie, vor den Konsumenten und vor sich selbst.

www.wuv.de/michaelbartl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHdwx88zxsk

Co-creation has become a prevalent approach taken by innovation leaders to excel in innovation management and complement internal R&D activities. In this article the authors will introduce the co-creation process at Nivea and describe how Nivea co-developed a new deodorant with consumers. The focus will be on two different co-creation tools – the netnography method geared to gain consumer insights from social media and an online co-creation session to evaluate and further enrich ideas.

THE WORLD IS OUR LAB

Traditionally, companies with superior R&D centers had been technology-driven innovation leaders with a long-term competitive advantage arising from ongoing proprietary R&D activities. “Picking a man of genius, giving him money, and leaving him alone” (Conant 2002) had long been the managerial maxim in the heyday of internal R&D excellence, which is epitomized by institutions such as AT&T’s Bell Labs or Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (Chesbrough et al. 2006). Initiated by MIT Professor Eric von Hippel’s work on the active role of users in new product development and on the ‘sources of innovation’ outside a company’s walls (von Hippel 1988), innovation management was ushered in a new era. It was found that innovations not only originated from the manufacturers’ domain but also to a large extent from users (von Hippel 2005). Since the turn of the millennium many companies such as 3M (von Hippel et al. 1999), Xerox (Chesbrough et al. 2006), BMW (Bartl et al. 2010) or Procter&Gamble (Huston/Sakkab 2006) have undergone a radical change in their innovation strategies by opening up their innovation processes to external stakeholders. Companies finally had to acknowledge that powerful resources, knowledge, creativity and experience are widely distributed and that even the most sophisticated R&D organizations have to tap external sources of innovation. In 2000 former P&G CEO A.G. Lafley set forth the goal to acquire 50% of the company’s innovations outside the company – up from 15% in 2000, 35% of P&G’s new products stemmed from outside the company in 2005 (Huston/Sakkab 2006).

CO-CREATION POWERED BY SOCIAL MEDIA

Today, companies and consumers jointly create value at multiple points of interaction which has become generally known as co-creation (Prahalad/Ramaswamy 2000; Füller 2010). In contrast to open innovation which is “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation” (Chesbrough et al. 2006, 1), co-creation is an outside-in approach focusing users and end consumers in particular. It can be defined as an “active, creative and social process, based on collaboration between producers and users, that is initiated by the firm to generate value for customers” (Roser et al. 2009). Co-creation has mutated from a niche phenomenon to a prevalent approach of collaborative innovation taken by innovation leaders such as P&G, BMW, Siemens, Nokia or Beiersdorf. With the advent of the internet and with web 2.0 applications reaching critical mass, a proliferation of ‘outside-in’ innovation concepts and models emerged tremendously easing the way for companies to engage and collaborate with users. Approaches such as crowdsourcing (Howe 2006), mass customization (Franke et al. 2010), collaborative innovation (Sawhney et al. 2005; Prandelli et al. 2006) netnography (Kozinets 2002), virtual customer integration (Dahan and Hauser 2002; Bilgram et al. 2009), community based innovation (Füller et al. 2006), user innovation (von Hippel 1988, 2005), open innovation (Chesbrough et al. 2006) or co-creation (Prahalad/Ramaswamy 2000; Füller 2010) have been developed to explain and utilize the phenomenon of external stakeholders being involved at various stages of the innovation process as co-creators. A co-creation process consists of alternating outbound and inbound exchanges of information to connect internal innovation activities and the input of users. By that means internal technological know-how can be merged with external knowledge and creativity. These sequences of inbound flows of creativity and knowledge from users and outbound flows of information from inside the company may be considered a co-creative ‘ping-pong game’.

METHODS & TOOLS FOR CO-CREATION

There is a whole landscape of methods available to companies for collaborative innovation with users. Most developments and advancements of these techniques are driven by using the web as a vast library of dialogue on products and brands (Kozinets 2002) as well as a network to identify and connect creative minds (Sawhney et al. 2005). In the following the authors introduce two co-creation techniques which were applied consecutively in the case of Nivea leading to the new Black & White deodorant.

Netnography

Netnography, a linguistic blend of ‘interNET’ and ‘ethNOGRAPHY’, is a qualitative empathic research methodology utilizing adapted ethnographic research techniques to enable researchers to deeply immerse in online consumer conversations (Kozinets 2002; Bartl et al. 2009). Largely on account of the emergence of the social media phenomenon and user-generated content, the internet has become a place where thousands of highly involved consumers exchange personal experiences, concerns and opinions on a huge variety of products and brands as well as on product usage. Besides, users go even further and discuss possible solutions for product-related issues, modify existing products or even develop innovative products themselves. Due to the passive and unobtrusive observation of online communities, forums and other social media content companies are able to gain unbiased consumer insights. Instead of directly asking and thus inevitably biasing the consumer’s response the netnography approach aims to understand the emotional, social and cultural context of consumers’ product experiences in a merely observant fashion. As opposed to more quantitative web monitoring approaches, listening to consumers rather than asking them, understanding rather than measuring consumers’ attitudes and behaviors, are core principles of netnography. One of the greatest challenges for researchers conducting netnographies is to identify ‘diamonds in the rough’ – the most relevant and inspiring insights in the abundance of user statements online. For that reason a systematic software-aided five-step process was conceived as illustrated in figure 1 (Bartl et al. 2009).

Figure 1: The NetnographyInsights© Process

Online Co-Creation

Online co-creation studies or communities offer an inspiring and compelling environment for users enabling them to generate, enrich and evaluate ideas or concepts (Füller 2010; Nambisan/Nambisan 2008). Within that online setting qualitative and quantitative research techniques and tools are combined to obtain both creative input and market research data. Various co-creation modules such as configuration tools or drag&drop features constitute a playful experience resulting in a high engagement of users. For example, interactive online toolkits allow users to compose a product concept along certain feature dimensions receiving instant feedback on their actions and decisions. Coupled with research in the backend of the application users’ preferences and needs can be observed and multiple attributes can be jointly measured. Online co-creation can be either conducted on an individual basis, i.e. each user is integrated separately, or in a networked and collaborative structure of a community adding a social dimension and allowing users to connect and communicate with one another. Integrated communication features such as online discussion forums allow for rich interaction on a user-to-user as well as on a user-to-company level and may be either moderated or free-flowing.

CO-CREATING THE NEW BLACK&WHITE DEODORANT

Nivea is the best-known brand of the multinational skin care corporation Beiersdorf based in Hamburg, Germany. The company is a worldwide research and development leader in the area of skin care. Innovation efforts at Nivea have long been predominantly technology-driven harnessing superior internal R&D capabilities. Even though open innovation is not a new concept to Nivea consumers had not been incorporated as co-creation partners in open innovation activities until recently. In the last few years Nivea has recognized consumers as valuable sources of innovation (Bartl et al. 2009). In order to integrate the consumers’ voice beyond traditional market research techniques like concept tests or focus groups, the Nivea Deodorant and Antiperspirant Division instituted a holistic co-creation approach with users in the fuzzy front end of innovation. In this paper the authors focus on two projects to show how Nivea embraced consumers to develop a new deodorant: (1) the analysis of online communities and social media via the netnography method and (2) an online co-creation study for the enrichment and selection of ideas.

Netnography – Listening to Consumers

In the case of the Nivea’s Black & White deodorant co-creation aimed to start new product development from scratch at the very beginning of the innovation process. Due to Nivea’s innovation strategy and roadmap deodorant and antiperspirant staining was a high-priority topic within R&D which was to be further explored from a consumer standpoint. The netnography was used as an entry project into the co-creation process helping R&D to immerse and orientate itself in the consumers’ world. The goal was to draw a landscape of needs, wishes, concerns, consumer language and potential product solutions by users, which are explicitly and implicitly expressed in online communities and social media. In the following the authors will outline the netnography process and results of the method (see figure 1).

A team of researchers and designers started the netnography on ‘Deodorant and Antiperspirant Staining’ with a creative session to uncover potential search fields, topics and analogue markets. Additionally, an initial set of keywords and phrases was conceived which was continuously developed and refined in the course of the subsequent identification and selection of social media sources. Starting out with a broad search, more than 200 social media sites in three languages were screened covering all kinds of online ‘consumer tribes’. In addition to general search engines and specific search tools designed to explore social media and user-generated content the search also utilized an extensive internal database containing communities, forums, blogs, advice portals, UGC platforms, question & answer sites and social networks. Apart from social media sites on cosmetics, health, beauty, lifestyle, fashion, sports and do-it-yourself, relevant consumer statements were also identified in conversations revolving around bodybuilding or wedding preparations, in which users have extreme needs and take enormous efforts when they prepare themselves for a competition or the day of their wedding. Applying qualitative as well as quantitative selection criteria, e.g. the size and activity of communities or the quality of the conversations, the most relevant and insightful communities were observed and analyzed in-depth.

In a next step threads of consumer conversations were retrieved from the social media sites and observed. Using software for qualitative data analysis the content was then systematically analyzed and clustered in different topics. A selection of topics identified during the observation is adduced in the following.

Topic 1: Types of Stains

The consumers’ perception and description of different types of stains was one of several topics discussed online. The consumer dialogue revealed that users speak about a number of very different stains. Among others, users differentiated between yellow stains, white marks, discolorations, hard residues, sweat smell residues and sweat stains. Although consumers have a distinct classification of stains, they are using their own language resulting in an inconsistent wording. From the stain classification in the user conversations a ‘stain manual’ was derived aligning the users’ wording with the technical terminology used in Nivea’s R&D unit. The ‘stain manual’ was enriched by user-generated content such as pictures of the respective stains and tutorials (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Consumer Insight – “Stain Manual”

Topic 2: Causes of Staining

“If the stain is yellow or green in color and has a crunchy or crispy texture, it’s due to perspiration. If the stain, however, is white or clear with a greasy texture, it’s due to the antiperspirant and should be treated as a grease stain with the appropriate solvent”. This statement is just one of many user quotes clustered in a second topic. They show how consumers try to identify the sources of different deodorant stains in a ‘jungle of causes and effects’. It was found that consumers are not fully aware of the complexity and interactions of multiple drivers such as sweat, deodorant ingredients, laundry detergent or textiles. Usually consumers identify a single source or the interaction of a maximum of two factors which, in their opinion, account for the deodorant staining. Due to the general confusion regarding the causes and effects of stains, myths about the origin for deodorant stains are prevalent. Some consumers ascribe deodorant stains to nutrition, nicotine consumption, the laundry dryer or the hormone level from menopause or pregnancy.

Topic 3: Stain Removal

The discussion on stains is inseparably connected to the discussion on how to remove them from clothes or on how to prevent stains. Users undergo extensive ‘trial-and-error’ to find the right cures and report their experiences online. In order to fight deodorant stains users, for instance, resort to citric acid, lemon juice, white vinegar, salt, bicarbonate, bleach and self-made remedies but also divert substances from their intended use. Preventive measures range from wearing undershirts or wiping the armpit with alcohol (see figure 3) to the ‘armpit care strategy’. This strategy is related to the consumers’ assumption that deodorant stains are caused by deodorant that was still liquid when clothes were put on. Users talk about preventing stains by letting the deodorant fully dry before putting on clothes. Users describe that they just wait a few minutes, that they wear a different ‘dirt shirt’ first and then change before leaving the house or that they blow-dry their armpits after applying deodorant.

Certain needs, concerns or suggestions for product improvements repeatedly occurred in consumers’ online conversations or bore cogent anecdotal evidence and thus proved to be relevant. The ‘gold nuggets’ within the content analysis, i.e. fresh, inspiring and enduring findings, were then aggregated to consumer insights.

In the final step of the netnography product designers joined the research team and helped to interpret and translate the consumer insights into initial product ideas which form the basis for subsequent discussion, testing and design phases. The consumer insights and initial product solutions helped Nivea to develop a deep understanding of consumers, the language they use and of what truly bothers them.

Figure 3: Consumer Quotes on Preventing Stains by Thorough Disinfection Prior to Application

Online Co-Creation – Interacting with Consumers

Following up the netnography as well as various ideation and co-creation sessions with external stakeholders, an online co-creation study was conducted. The previous netnography helped to get a profound understanding of the users’ needs and values as a result of the context-rich qualitative analysis. In order to test the hypotheses and ideas derived from listening to the consumers’ conversations a quantitative online co-creation study was carried out with a carefully selected sample of consumers. The goal of the online co-creation study was to enrich and evaluate existing ideas incorporating the consumers’ voice and eventually ease the selection of the best ideas.

In a first step the ideas were visualized to ensure a common understanding of the concepts and to make the study more vivid. The research design was developed also taking into account the consumer insights gained in the netnography, hence, allowing the researchers to ask the right questions about the product ideas in the users’ language. For instance, the research team could address staining issues in the users’ language by aligning corporate and user wording.

Consumers were introduced to the deodorant ideas in the form of verbal concepts and visualizations. Having explored the concepts consumers evaluated the ideas. Drag&drop tools were designed to realize methodological advantages and to offer a compelling co-creation experience. “The survey has got some awesome drag and drop capability that I’ve never seen in a survey/study ever before – got to hand it to German engineering, huh?” the Undershirt Guy stated and promoted the study in his network (http://www.undershirtguy.com/2009/07/31/wanna-participate-in-the-coolest-deodorant-innovation-study-in-the-world). TUG, as he calls himself, is a leading-edge user in the field of undershirts and deodorants who was identified in the course of the netnography.

Apart from the evaluation of the ideas users were also given the opportunity to enrich and improve the ideas, raise questions or concerns and name potential fields of applications (see figure 4). In more than 500 comments per idea users approved the ideas, described potential fields of application or mentioned additions to the original idea. Finally, users were asked to take on the role of a developer and gate-keeper having to decide which ideas to further develop and which to drop. The massive input from consumers was systematically analyzed and structured. In the final evaluation of all ideas the idea leading to the new Black & White deodorant was ranked third by the consumers supporting the relevance of the concept.

The consumer feedback acquired via the netnography and in the co-creation study was assimilated in two workshops right after each project. Applying the netnography method Nivea was able to obtain innovative product and marketing ideas which were eventually absorbed in the Black & White deodorant. After the netnography the consumer input was discussed, aligned with the perspective of Nivea R&D and Marketing and incorporated in the concepts before it was played back to the consumer to be evaluated and enriched in the co-creation study. The R&D department at Nivea drew on the evaluation of ideas and insights to further develop the most promising ideas and to apply the right technologies to meet consumer needs. In the specific case of the deodorant staining issue, the consumer insights derived from the netnography method and the co-creation study were incorporated in the new Black & White deodorant by Nivea. The Black & White deodorant addresses two major concerns consumers uttered in online communities: Nivea’s technology prevents both white marks on black textiles and yellow staining on white clothing – “Black stays black, white stays white for longer”.

Figure 4: User Comments on the Cleansing Wipes Idea

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPANIES

The case of Nivea’s Black & White deodorant shows how co-creation is able to complement internal R&D activities and drive innovation from scratch. Co-creation has become an essential part of the innovation strategy which is indispensible even for formerly technology-driven companies to develop truly innovative and user-centric products. From a methodological perspective co-creation with consumers proved to be most effective when qualitative and quantitative techniques are applied in alternating sessions for ideation and for evaluation and selection. As far as the organizational structure and the corporate culture are concerned, a new mindset, job positions tailored to the co-creation challenge and responsibilities have to be established to promote open innovation and co-creation principles. Co-creation needs to be considered a programmatic approach that aligns internal R&D capabilities and external knowledge and creativity beyond single projects. The open innovation paradigm radically changes the traditional roles of researchers, developers and consumers alike. Hence, collaborative innovation requires a rethinking throughout the entire ecosystem in order to ensure that the value of co-creation can be captured by both partners in co-creation – consumers and companies.

REFERENCES

Bartl, M./Hück, S./Ruppert, S. (2009): Netnography Research: Community Insights in the Cosmetics Industry, in: Conference Proceedings ESOMAR Consumer Insights 2009, Dubai.

Bartl, M./Jawecki, G./Wiegandt, P. (2010): Co-Creation in New Product Development: Conceptual Framework and Application in the Automotive Industry, in: Conference Proceedings R&D Management Conference – Information, Imagination and Intelligence, Manchester.

Bilgram, V./Füller, J./Rieder, B. (2009): How to be Successful in Co-Creation Research? – The Swarovski Innovation Research Community, in: Conference Proceedings ESOMAR Online Research 2009, Chicago.

Chesbrough, H./Vanhaverbeke, W./West, J. (2006): Open Innovation – Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford.

Conant, J. (2002): Tuxedo Park, New York.

Dahan, E./Hauser, J. (2002): The Virtual Customer, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 5, S. 332-353.

Franke, N./Piller, F.T. (2004): Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: Exploring User Interaction and Value Creation in the Watch Market, in: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 6, S. 401-415.

Franke, N./Schreier, M./Kaiser, U. (2010): The ‘I Designed It Myself‘ Effect in Mass Customization, in: Management Science, 56, 1, S. 125-140.

Füller, J. (2010): Virtual Co-Creation of New Products and its Impact on Consumers’ Product and Brand Relationships, in: California Management Review, 52, 2, S. 98-122.

Füller, J./Bartl, M./Ernst, H./Mühlbacher, H. (2006): Community Based Innovation: How to Integrate Members of Virtual Communities into New Product Development, in: Electronic Commerce Research Journal, 6, 1, S. 57-73.

Howe, J. (2006): The Rise of Crowdsourcing, in: Wired Magazine, 14.

Huston, L./Sakkab, N. (2006): Connect and Develop: Inside Procter & Gamble’s New Model for Innovation, in: Harvard Business Review, 84, 3, S. 58-66.

Kozinets, R.V. (2002): The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities, in: Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 1, S. 61-72.

Nambisan, S./Nambisan, P. (2008): How to Profit from a Better ‘Virtual Customer Environment’, in: MIT Sloan Management Review, 49, 3, S. 53-61.

Prahalad, C./Ramaswamy, V. (2000): Co-opting Customer Competence, in: Harvard Business Review, 78, 1, S. 79-91.

Prandelli, E./Verone, G./Raccagni, D. (2006): Diffusion of Web-Based Product Innovation, in: California Management Review, 48, 4, S. 109-135.

Roser, T./Samson, A./Humphreys, P./Cruz-Valdiviesco, E. (2009): Co-Creation: New Pathways to Value, Report.

Sawhney, M./Verona, G./Prandelli, E. (2005): Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a Platform for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation, in: Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19, 4, S. 4-17.

von Hippel, E. (1988): The Sources of Innovation, New York.

von Hippel, E. (2005): Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge.

von Hippel, E./Thomke, S./Sonnack, M. (1999): Creating Breakthroughs at 3M, in: Harvard Business Review, 77, 5, S. 47-57.

AUTHORS

Abdelkafi, Nizar / Bartl, Michael / Füller, Johann / Ihl, Christoph / Rieger, Markus (2010): The Open School Vision – For  More Openess at Universities, in Klaus-Peter Fähnrich and Bogdan Franczyk (Ed.): Proceedings of Informatik 2010 : Service Science – Neue Perspektiven für die Informatik – Band 1, Bonn: Gessllschaft für Informatik 2010, pp. 949-955.

1 INTRODUCTION

The last years witnessed many initiatives that encourage the diffusion of knowledge in higher education. Open University, open education, and open courseware are all phenomena reflecting the mindset of openness. Universities are increasingly putting their teaching resources and working papers available online for free. Once, these materials were only accessible to the enrolled students and internal staff. The phenomenon of opening up the institution’s boundaries to the outside is not new. In his seminal work, Chesbrough demonstrates that open innovation is an imperative in today’s business [Ch06]. Companies should not only rely on their internal R&D capacities, but should make their boundaries permissible to innovations from the outside. The open source model of software development constitutes an extreme form of open innovation [Ga06]. Innovations are generated by geographically distributed developers who work collaboratively to jointly develop complex pieces of software, e.g. [RP06].

Open education, open innovation, and open source all have openness in common. But in open education, the extent of openness is still limited; it only focuses on enabling learners worldwide to have access to educational resources [LMH08]. Furthermore, open education is neither concerned with innovation, nor with the application of the open source principles of product development. Open education is also different from open content. The contents that the university publishes on the website represent a closed area; only the university’s staff can update the contents.

The next section describes a serious problem at our universities; in spite of their endeavors for more openness to the outside, we notice that universities are still closed vis-à-vis their students. Higher education institutions lose a real opportunity when they do not fully use the intellectual potential of their students. Therefore, section 3 introduces and then defines the open school concept, as a solution to cope with this problem. Section 4 demonstrates the feasibility of the open school in practice, by means of three case studies of German higher education institutions. Section 5 discusses the insights derived from the cases, and section 6 concludes and provides directions for future research.

2 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

What may be the picture that we have of our classrooms at universities? Students are sitting in a big room, waiting for the professor, who then enters the class, gives the talk; answers questions if any, and leaves. Students hear professor’s speech, take notes, and learn the assigned materials. Students are the learners; they are passive consumers of the knowledge that is prepared by the teaching staff.

Students may claim that the materials (e.g. lecture slides) distributed by the professor are difficult to understand. To improve comprehension, students may suggest including more practical examples. The lecturer may seriously consider this feedback information or not. If it happens that this feedback is taken into account, there is a big chance that the students of the current class do not profit from the improvement, since eventual modifications are introduced in the next class.

In addition, many situations at the university, in which things can go wrong, may come from outside the classroom. An example may be long waiting times in the queues of the canteen’s food counters, or frequent book stock outs in the library, leading to delays in getting the required titles. Students can be usually confronted with such problems in the university’s life. When students see themselves as service consumers, they expect the university’s personnel to solve the problem. But students should be, at least, as equally concerned as their administration because these problems affect them directly. Therefore, in their openness endeavors, universities should target their students. Universities should increasingly open up their processes vis-à-vis their students. In so doing, students will not be considered as consumers or passive learners, but as university’s staff and even knowledge producers.

3 THE OPEN SCHOOL CONCEPT

The university should open up its boundaries to enable closer connections to its students. Information technology that supports open source development, online communities, open contents, and idea contest can be used to achieve this goal. The result of this opening process is the so-called open school. The open school is an innovative platform that the university’s staff can use to capture ideas and innovative solutions from students. The open school platform involves students in different types of activities. The variety of activities is basically unlimited. It may range from asking students to generate simple ideas, e.g. to improve university’s life conditions, to more complex tasks such as developing innovative learning materials and contributing to research projects.

Students can share their ideas, concepts, or drafts to help gradually develop solutions to the problems posted on the platform. In line with the principles of Internet communities and open source innovation, students can work collaboratively, improve the ideas of their peers, and create new ones. In this way, universities have a better access to an intellectual resource, which has been insufficiently exploited so far. Students’ participation is a crucial element for the success of these projects. In open source development, for instance, the level of participation depends on internal factors such as intrinsic motivation or altruism, and external rewards such as self-marketing or revenues, e.g. [Hi05] and [HO02]. A plethora of projects failed because they did not attract the critical mass of developers or contributors, e.g. [ABR09].

4 CASE STUDIES

Now, is there any evidence that the open school idea can actually work in practice? In other words, are there any experiments that show the feasibility of such a project? In the following, three case studies, in line with the spirit of the open school will be described.

4.1 University of Erlangen-Nuremberg

In the School of Business and Economics of the prestigious University of Erlangen-Nurnberg in Germany, each winter semester since the academic year 2007/2008, an open innovation contest is used as a teaching tool within the class “Basics of E-Business”. To setup this open innovation contest, the teaching staff uses HYVE AG’s software, IDEANET, which is an open web-based platform for Crowd Sourcing. Each winter semester more than 1200 first year bachelor students are confronted with a demanding innovation challenge. For instance, in winter semester 2009/2010 the task was to create and submit business concepts for service innovations based on Smartphones. The platform automatically groups the registered students in teams of five students. The groups can enter their own innovation concepts and then refine them. So the concepts develop progressively over time. One incentive for students to make contributions is the final grade. The grade obtained for the participation in this innovation contest accounts for 25% of the overall course grade.

In total, in winter semester 2009/2010, there were 241 submissions in the fields of education, entertainment and healthcare. Each group has to provide a short description of the business idea, to clearly identify the value that the business generates to the customer, and to think seriously about the technical feasibility and implementation. The concept that was best evaluated by the experts (faculty plus decision makers from corporate partners) – thus the winner of the innovation contest – is called “Timeless shopping”. The group defines a well thought-out business concept on using a Smartphone for ordering groceries from supermarkets, and analyzes the feasibility of the idea from many perspectives. In particular, the students provide an excellent video, which shows how the business concept actually works in practice. The student teams of the winning concepts also get follow-up support for the implementation of their concept from the corporate partners involved.

4.2 RWTH Aachen

Subsequently, in 2010, the same Internet platform, IDEANET by HYVE AG, has been used to initiate an idea contest at RWTH Aachen, an elite university in Germany. Here, the students are asked to submit ideas that aim to improve the university’s life conditions and processes. Almost 60 students participated in this contest. They came up with diverse ideas, ranging from the improvement of signposting inside the campus, over the enhancement of public transport connections to the campus buildings, to more revolutionary concepts, such as RWTH 2.0, the digital university. Unlike the innovation contest at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, grades were not an incentive in this competition. The university’s staff promised students, however, that the most discussed ideas, which receive many stars, will be actually considered for further evaluation by experts. These ideas have a real chance to be implemented later on at the university.

4.3 HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management (Handelshochschule Leipzig)

In 2007, HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management, a German elite private university, won a Germany-wide competition by Germany’s Donors’ Association for the Promotion of Sciences and the Humanities, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) with its “Open School Initiative”. Compared to the projects described above, HHL’s Open School Initiative follows a broader vision of bringing open innovation in the university context. Building on its university tradition of open exchange with partners from industry and trade since 1898 and in line with the principles of open innovation, the HHL Open School Initiative aims to implement additional mechanisms of open innovation in the structure and processes of the educational and research environment. The main idea is that the co-creation of management knowledge should take place in close collaboration between academia and business practice [MM08, p. IX]. To intensify collaboration and exchange between the university and companies, the project makes use of several transfer platforms, like the HHL industry forum, the HHL Student AG, and Innovation Lab Germany.

The openness to industry resulted in many joint projects, and many case studies have been developed in tight collaboration with the corporate partners. Students had a major role in this project. They participated in the activities done with the companies and actively contributed to the case writing seminars. Though the project so far predominantly applies offline mechanisms of openness, it obviously shows the important role of students in developing materials that can be used in research and teaching—the case studies.

5 DISCUSSION

So far, the IDEANET platform has been used within a small context—the single class. In the first case study, students were asked to produce entrepreneurial ideas. In the second, they had to explore areas to improve the university’s life conditions. The first insight we can derive from both case studies is that students are willing to use the platform and are capable of generating original ideas.

The cases show that the reward mechanisms that target grades or promise an improvement in real life conditions can motivate students in an open school project. The grade has been used as a reward mechanism in the first experiment. Although grade had a certain weight in this experiment, participation was not obligatory, and students could still choose whether to participate or not. Because the written exam contributed with 75% of the final grade, a student can miss the innovation contest, without losing any chance to pass the course. Nevertheless, the level of student participation was extremely high. Therefore, open school projects focusing on voluntary behavior and competition among students can work effectively in practice.

The use of grades, as a means to push motivation among students, can sometimes lead to conflicts. For instance, a student can come up, by chance, with an idea that is similar to the idea of another participant. Therefore, it is not fair to penalize the student, only because the idea is uploaded a little bit later. Another student may submit a modified version of an idea posted by other students and claim its originality. The ability to resolve such conflicts is necessary to conduct a successful open school project.

Whereas the first two case studies demonstrate that students can generate good entrepreneurial ideas and are willing to improve their universities, the HHL case provides compelling evidence that students can contribute to the creation of high quality research and teaching materials. Since the HHL experience took place in an offline environment (seminars), it is interesting to conduct an online experiment, in which students work collaboratively to create innovative learning resources.

In addition to its main target that is to exploit students’ intellectual resources, an open school project that is supported by the IDEANET platform generates big volumes of data. Researchers can analyze this data in order to answer diverse research questions. For instance, the databases can be evaluated to better understand the behavior of online communities and the mechanisms of contributing to open source innovation and open contents.

6 CONCLUSIONS

In sum, the open school concept offers two big benefits. First, it advances the creativity, innovation capabilities, and entrepreneurial thinking of students. It considers students as knowledge producers and members of the university’s staff; it involves them in various activities with practical or industrial applications. Second, the open school platform represents a laboratory setting to generate scientific insights within the open innovation field. The platform captures data that enables researchers to better understand the behavior of online communities and the mechanisms of creating innovations according to the open source principles.

The case studies, which have been conducted in Erlangen-Nuremberg, Aachen and Leipzig, demonstrate the feasibility of the open school concept in practice. However, the open school initiative should go beyond the context of single classes or lectures. The long-term vision is to implement a platform that can be operated campus-wide and independently by lecturers, professors, or even students themselves.

In the future, we will expand the implementation scope of the open school platform at two levels: inside the single university, and among universities located in different geographical regions. A comparison across regions provides insights into the differences in the acceptance of the concept. In addition, the experiments generate big data volumes that will be analyzed to deal with current research issues in the field of open innovation and open source mode of product development.

REFERENCES

[ABR09]               Abdelkafi, N.; Blecker, T.; Raasch, C.: From Open Source in the Digital to the Physical World: A Smooth Transfer? Management Decision, Vol. 47, No. 10, 2009; pp. 1610-1632.

[Ch06]   Chesbrough, H.: Open Innovation – The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston 2006.

[Ga06]   Gassmann, O.: Opening up the Innovation Process: Towards and Agenda, R&D Management, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2006; pp. 323-228

[HO02]  Hars, A.; Ou, S.: Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open-Source Projects, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002; pp. 23-37.

[LMH08]              Lerman, S. R.; Miyagawa, S.; Hargulies, A. H.; OpenCourseWare: Building a Culture of Sharing. In (Iiyoshi, T.; Kumar, M.S.V. Eds.): Opening Up Education – The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge. The MIT Press; Cambridge, London 2008; pp. 213-227.

[MM09]                Möslein, K.; Matthaei, E.E.: Strategies for Innovators. Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2009.

[RP06]   Reichwald, R.; Piller, F.: Interaktive Wertschöpfung – Open Innovation, Individualisierung und neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung. Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2006.

[Hi05]    von Hippel, E.: Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, London, 2005.

The “Co-Creation Lab” addresses all essential dimensions of a programmatic view on co-creation. The lab is a virtual meeting place for individuals interested in car-related topics and eager to share their ideas and opinions on tomorrow’s automotive world with one of the leading car manufacturers. The web-based platform is designed to become a central hub offering various virtual user integration projects. Multiple activities and tasks relating to different automotive fields positioned at different stages in NPD can be accessed from the lab as a Meta-platform at the same time. The integrated methods range from idea contests, user toolkits, virtual concept tests, and innovation research studies up to lead user application forms. Over time a logical sequence of the deployed methods and tools make up an ongoing co-creation roadmap allowing utilizing synergies of multiple single co-creation encounters. The history of user interactions is displayed and communicated on the platform. This initiative clearly indicates that the BMW Group is not only interested in their own research and development departments, but also in the creative minds outside the BMW Group in order to secure the long-term innovation and technology leadership.

>> Enter the Lab

Unter dem Schlagwort Open Innovation wird derzeit über einen einschneidenden Umbruch im Innovationsmanagement gesprochen. Der Ansatz steht für die Öffnung der Unternehmensgrenzen und damit für die aktive strategische Nutzung der Außenwelt zur Vergrößerung des eigenen Innovationspotenzials. Ein derartiges Leitbild ist eng verknüpft mit dem Wandel von einer Industriegesellschaft hin zu einer vernetzten Wissens- und Kommunikationsgesellschaft, in der die unzähligen Innovationsimpulse und Ideenquellen nur noch im Rahmen einer interaktiven Wertschöpfung verarbeitet werden können. Zu Open Innovation gehört somit, „offen für das Wissen anderer zu sein“, „Wissen gemeinschaftlich zu erzeugen“ und „Wissen mit anderen zu teilen“. Dieser Umgang mit Wissen, Ideen und Kreativität als Wirtschaftsgut ist angemessen für die heutige mediale Umgebung und fordert dazu auf, die leblosen Modellgedanken bestehender Innovationsprozesse auf den Prüfstand zu stellen. Diese sind schlichtweg nicht mehr in der Lage die Vielfalt und Launen der Innovationsvorhaben in der heutigen unternehmerischen Realität abzubilden. Die Welt ist zu schnelllebig geworden, um mit starren Systemen auf immer kürzere Technologie- und Produktzyklen, Globalität, Bedürfnisdiversifizierung, Wissensmobilität sowie auf den Einfallsreichtum bei der Kreation neuer Business Modelle reagieren zu können. Versetzt man nun den traditionellen Neuproduktentwicklungsprozess in die heutige Innovationsumgebung, so wird deutlich, dass der idealtypische Ablauf durch die Einflüsse und Verfügbarkeit externer Inputs aufgeweicht wird. Der Wettbewerbsdruck zwingt zu unvermittelten Anfangs- und Endpunkten der Innovationsaktivitäten, Wissen und Ideen außerhalb der Firmengrenzen werden eingegliedert (Outside-in), neue Prozesse entstehen und koppeln sich ab (Inside-out), Prozessschritte werden vorgezogen (Frontloading und Virtual Prototyping), durchlaufen Schleifen und existieren nebeneinander. Die notwendige Flexibilität und das Reaktionsvermögen, um sich in der heutigen dynamischen Innovationslandschaft zu bewegen, spiegeln sich in dem Leitbild von Open Innovation wider. „The lab is our world“ wird zu “the world is our lab”, “not invented here” wird zu “proudly found elsewhere”.

Abbildung 1: Innovation traditionell und heute

Die Zukunft besteht darin, einzigartige Werte mit dem Kunden gemeinsam zu schaffen.

Skeptiker erkennen in dem Open Innovation Ansatz keine neuartige Erkenntnis, ist doch bereits in der Netzwerktheorie die Einbeziehung externer Partner in umfassende Innovationsnetzwerke behandelt und die Vision des virtuellen und grenzenlosen Unternehmens entstanden. Für sie handelt es sich um einen Management Mode, mit dem insbesondere multinationale Großunternehmen die Verringerung ihrer Forschungsausgaben theoretisch begründen. Entwicklungskooperationen mit Lieferanten oder Firmenpartnern, Wagniskapital, University Relations oder Spin-Offs sind schließlich bereits weit verbreitet, um neue Produkte und Dienstleistungen zu schaffen und zählen per Definition und aus forschungstheoretischer Sicht ebenfalls zu Open Innovation. Diesem Einwand ist grundsätzlich nichts entgegenzusetzen, die eigentliche Revolution und Faszination des Phänomens Open Innovation ist allerdings auf eine andere Ursache zurückzuführen. Im Zentrum des Wandels im Innovationsmanagement steht ein neues Rollenbild des Kunden bei der Entwicklung neuer Produkte und Dienstleistungen. Die nach wie vor bedrohlichen Flopraten von 35% bis 70% in Konsumgütermärkten bei gleichzeitig sinkenden F&E Budgets zeigen, dass man sich kompromissloser als bisher an den Bedürfnissen, Anforderungen und Wünschen der Kunden ausrichten muss. Was könnte größere Klarheit darüber verschaffen, wie der Kunde denkt und empfindet, als mit ihm direkt in Dialog zu treten und ihn – als bisher stiefmütterlich vernachlässigte externe Wissens- und Ideenquelle – systematisch in die unternehmerischen Innovationsaktivitäten einzubinden. Hier sollte die Devise gelten: Je früher, desto besser, denn wahre Kundenorientierung beginnt bereits im Fuzzy Front End der Produktentwicklung und kann sich weder auf klassische Marktforschungstests beschränken, die kurz vor oder nach der Produkteinführung durchgeführt werden, noch auf die Versuche den Kunden zuvorkommend und zügig im Rahmen der Verkaufs- und Marketingaktivitäten zu bedienen. Wenn Hersteller dem Kunden zutrauen, ein Produkt später beim Kauf zu verstehen, wieso also nicht, solange es sich noch im Entwicklungsstadium befindet. Häufig sind es fortschrittliche Kunden und Anwender, sogenannte Lead User, die über detaillierte Verwendungserfahrungen und enormes kreatives Potenzial verfügen und damit einen entscheidenden Beitrag zur erfolgreichen Produktgestaltung leisten können. Alles läuft auf eine frühe und aktive Kundeneinbindung hinaus, um Bedürfnisse und Lösungsvorschläge schon in der Produktentstehungsphase berücksichtigen und umsetzten zu können. Kunden werden somit von Verbrauchern und Leistungsempfängern zu aktiven Mitgestaltern, Wertschöpfungspartnern und Co-Innovatoren. Diese Evolution des Kundenbildes spiegelt sich augenscheinlich in dem facettenreichen Angebot an publizistisch wertvollen Beiträgen wider, die derzeit mit Schlagworten wie „User Innovation“, „Open Source“, „Co-Creation“, „Crowdsourcing“, „Democratizing Innovation“, „Outside In Perspective“, „Wikinomics“, „Do-it-yourself-Society“, „Creative Economy“, oder „Reverse Economy“ um Beachtung bei der Leserschaft buhlen. 

Wo begegnet man möglichst vielen und außergewöhnlchen Kunden? Natürlich im Internet.

Stellt man nun die Frage, warum man sich gerade in der jüngsten Zeit der verstärkten Integration des aktiven, vernetzten und informierten Kunden zuwendet, so ist dies dem drastischen Wandel der medialen Umgebung in den letzten Jahren zuzuschreiben. Interessierte und aktive Konsumenten treffen sich zu tausend in Online Communities, um über ihr gemeinsames Hobby, ihre Lebenssituation oder ihre Lieblingsmarke zu diskutieren. Dabei tauschen sie ihre Erlebnisse und Sichtweisen aus, schildern ihre Erfahrungen im Umgang mit Produkten in bestimmten Anwendungssituationen, erörtern Möglichkeiten zur Lösung erlebter Probleme und Schwierigkeiten und arbeiten gemeinsam an Produktmodifikationen und Neuproduktideen. Online Communities stellen somit für Unternehmen eine einzigartige Wissens- und Innovationsquelle dar, die in dieser konzentrierten und geballten Form vor dem Internetzeitalter nicht anzutreffen war. Netnography [interNET & ethNOGRAPHY] hat sich als die geeignete Methode herausgestellt, um die Innovationskraft von Online Communities nutzbar zu machen. Die Firma Beiersdorf hat sich beispielsweise dieser explorativen Methode bedient, um die Online-Konversation und soziale Interaktion in Selbstbräunungsforen mit bis zu 10.000 Mitgliedern qualitativ zu erforschen. Auf diese Weise konnten unverfälschte und damit alltagsnahe Einblicke (Consumer Insights) zur Nutzung von Selbstbräunerprodukten gewonnen werden, die Ausgangspunkt neuer Innovationsaktivitäten sind. Die Durchführung der Netnography erfolgt nach festgelegten methodischen Schritten, die durch ein systematisch aufeinander aufbauendes System von Software Komponenten unterstützt wird.

Abbildung 2: Netnography – Online Communities als Innovationsquelle

Neben der Beobachtung bestehender Onlineforen durch den Netnography-Ansatz darf in einer Toolbox für Open Innovation der gezielte Aufbau neuer Community-Plattformen nicht fehlen. Diese sollen es Anwendern erlauben ihre Ideen und Produktkonzepte in Eigenregie voran zu treiben. Das Traditionsunternehmen Swarovski, deren Kristalle als Basismaterial für Kreationen internationaler Designer im Rahmen von Accessoire-, Schmuck- und Home-Decor-Kollektionen Berühmtheit erlangt haben, hat im Zuge der Lancierung der neuen Produktmarke Enlightened™ eine für jedermann zugängliche Webplattform geschaffen. Uhren- und Design-Liebhaber sowie alle Personen, die sich gerne mit innovativen Uhrenmodellen beschäftigen und selbst Ihrer Kreativität freien Lauf lassen möchten konnten auf der als Wettbewerb betriebenen Plattform eigene Modelle edelsteinbesetzter Armbanduhren einstellen. Diese wurden mit Computer bzw. in Form von Handzeichnungen frei gestaltet oder mit Hilfe eines Toolkits aus einer vorgegebenen Anzahl an Gehäuseformen, Armbändern, Ziffernblättern und Farbvarianten konfiguriert und mit Edelsteinen besetzt. Alle eingereichten Entwürfe konnten durch die Community kommentiert und bewertet werden. In nur zwei Monaten gingen insgesamt über 2.000 Designs von insgesamt ca. 1.650 Community Mitgliedern aus der ganzen Welt ein. Ein Drittel sind frei gestaltete Designs. Zwei Drittel wurden mit Hilfe des in der Abbildung 2 dargestellten Toolkits entworfen, mit dem insgesamt über 140.000 Edelsteine virtuell bewegt wurden. Weiterhin erfolgten ca. 5.000 Entwurfsbewertungen durch die Community. Die außergewöhnlichsten Schöpfungen wurden auf der Baselworld, der Weltmesse für Uhren und Schmuck, ausgestellt und prämiert.

Abbildung 3: User generierte Uhrendesigns (Quelle: www.signity-watch-design-contest.com/)

Wer nach diesem eindrucksvollen Beispiel nun glaubt, man könne eine demokratische Saite im Innovationsprozess nur dann anklingen lassen, wenn es sich um emotionale High-Involvement-Produkte handelt, der irrt. Der IT-Insfrastruktur Hersteller Fujitsu Siemens Computers treibt Service-Innovationen ebenfalls durch eine Open Innovation Plattform voran. Ca. 350 Ingenieure, Systemadministratoren, IT-Begeisterte, Kunden, Studenten und Professoren aus aller Welt haben sich dem Thema „IT Services für das Rechenzentrum von morgen“ angenommen (Quelle: http://innovation-contest.fujitsu-siemens.com). In der entstandenen Community für Rechenzentren sind 160 Ideen entwickelt und mit derselben Begeisterung, inneren Motivation und Hingabe entwickelt und diskutiert worden, wie es der Fall im Uhrendesign war. Ein weiteres Werkzeug aus der Open Innovation Toolbox wurde erstmals bei Audi eingesetzt. Im Audi Virtual Lab, ein sogenanntes User Design, hatten über 6.200 Autobegeisterte in Deutschland, USA und Japan die Möglichkeit das neue Audi-Multimediasystem aktiv mit zu entwickeln und die Systeme nach ihren eigenen Vorstellungen und Bedürfnissen zu entwerfen. Die gewählten Design- und Featureoptionen, technische Zwänge und Verbote sowie Preisänderungen wurden unmittelbar mit Hilfe eines virtuellen Prototyps am Bildschirm angezeigt. Bis zu 45 Minuten investierten die Teilnehmer, um das ideale Gerät der Zukunft zusammenzustellen.

Abbildung 4: Das Audi User Design

Einsichten zu Open Innovation aus der Praxis. Ein Überblick:

• Web 2.0 als erstmals sozial erlebte und nicht nur technisch ermöglichte Vernetzung einer nahezu unbegrenzten Zahl an Kunden und Anwendern, die Präsentation virtueller Produkte und Welten sowie eine neue Generation softwaregestützter Analyse- und Testverfahren sind die zentralen Treiber der Entwicklung offener und interaktiver Innovationssysteme.
• Ein Toolkasten für Open Innovation (Netnography, User Design Tools, Virtual Concept Testing, Innovation Community-Plattformen etc.) erlaubt es, die „richtigen“ Kunden (Lead User, Early Adopter, repräsentative Käuferschicht etc.) in sämtlichen Phasen des Innovationsprozesses, von der Ideengenerierung über die Entwicklung bis hin zum Test und Launch des Produktes, zu integrieren. Dies gilt für den B2C, genauso wie für den B2B-Bereich.
• Produktinnovation in virtueller Partnerschaft mit Kunden ist nicht ausschließlich großen Konzernen vorbehalten, sondern ist durch den Einsatz effizienter webbasierter Instrumente genauso für klein- und mittelständische Unternehmen erschwinglich.
• Eine Partnerschaft beruht immer auf Gegenseitigkeit, d.h. der Austausch von Ideen, Wissen, Kreativität kommt nur dann zustande, wenn alle Beteiligten davon profitieren. Noch sind es die inneren Motive wie Spaß, Altruismus, soziale Anerkennung und die Neugierd,e an etwas Neuem mitzuwirken, die Kunden dazu bewegen, Hersteller bei deren Innovationstätigkeiten zu unterstützen. Finanzielle Anreize spielen eine untergeordnete Rolle. Mit zunehmender Verbreitung des Co-Creation Ansatzes wird sich das Bewußtsein der Kunden dahingehend schärfen, dass ihre Beiträge einen nicht unerheblichen Wert für die Produktentwicklung von Unternehmen darstellen. Dementsprechend werden Hersteller um die Gunst der innovativsten Kunden werben müssen und die Bedeutung von Erfolgsbeteiligungsmodellen wird zunehmen.
• Die Praxis zeigt uns: noch sind die angeführten Einsichten getrübt von Vorurteilen, Missverständnissen und erheblichen Widerständen des Nicht-Wissens, Nicht-Könnens und Nicht-Wollens. Dies gilt für Unternehmen weit mehr als für ihre Kunden. Dabei steht Open Innovation keineswegs für ein kurzfristiges Programm zur wirtschaftlichen Verwertung unternehmensexterner Wissensquellen. Vielmehr erfolgt ein tiefgreifendes Umdenken in allen Bereichen der Gesellschaft, nicht nur in der Wirtschaft, wie der offene Umgang mit Kreativität und Wissen ein positives und stabiles Innovationsklima schaffen kann.

>> Download 

CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT, OPEN INNOVATION, CO-CREATION and CROWDSOURCING – these are the hot topics covered by the 45th annual BVM (German Association for Market and Social Research) conference. For me, this event carried out by the market research community demonstrates two notable changes in the innovation management landscape:

:: Web2.0 applications are finally entering the arena of value creation in innovation management

Looking at the program and the speaker contributions I am very happy to see that utilizing social media is not restricted any more to brand advertising, search marketing and monetizing UGC in channels such as Facebook, Twitter & Co . Finally the exchange with empowered consumers in the web is used for matters of value creation, i.e. get fresh ideas, identify fields of innovation, problem solving in NPD, collaborative concept development etc.

:: With the rise of Co-Creation and Open Innovation the lines between disciplines, industries and departments are blurring

When immersing in the online world of social media there is still a sentiment of irritation for many company representatives in Marketing, R&D, Design and Research alike. They are confused by the lack of formal relationships and rules they are used to rely so heavily on in their daily business practices. Now you are at eye level with thousands and millions of users and you can simply ask for help, advice and creative ideas to solve problems. This attitude based on non-bureaucratic interactions in the social web will open up so many new business opportunities not only for the big brands but especially for the thousands of small and medium sized firms. As a result of a this “anytime communication mode” with consumers the interface discussions between the departments will gain momentum. It is not clearly defined yet who finally is in charge to involve the consumers in the value creation tasks. Should it be Marketing, R&D, Research or is it feasible for any of these areas at the same time? Not only are the lines between departments blurring but also between whole industries. We see Consultants including Co-Creation research as more visible and touchable work in their offerings. Media Agencies start to outgrow their habits of collecting emails via funny banners or online puzzle games. Market Researcher found out that the online environment allows much more vivid interaction compared to transferring boring paper pencil questionnaires to the online medium. Advertisers had the great new idea of a creative consultancy and try to expand their original expertise in commercialization into a new world for them - involving consumers in the actual creation of products long before they are ready to be promoted by advertising. In the end it seems that the intensified connection to end consumers has triggered a change of mindsets for all these disciplines.

Now the German Association of Market and Social Research sets a clear statement by dedicating their most important yearly event to the phenomenon of Co-Creation before other industry associations will follow to do so. Compliments!

>>Program of the conference

>> Fast Company reports about the Five Steps for Consumer Brands to Earn Social Currency.

>> Following http://www.context-digital.com/ you find how Vivaldi Partners and HYVE use powerful tools, technologies and methods to create, nurture and manage social currency.

>> Here you find the US Study

>> To Download the German study introducing Social Brand Value follow this LINK

THE CHANGING ROLE OF PRODUCT DESIGN FOR INNOVATION
Industrial design is an applied science whereby the aesthetics and usability of mass-produced products are improved for marketability and production. The role of an industrial designer is to create and execute design solutions towards problems of form, usability, user ergonomics, engineering, marketing, production, brand development and sales. Design is based on the essential ability to combine empathy, creativity and rationality to meet user needs and drive business success. Unlike analytical thinking, design thinking is a creative process based around the “building up” of ideas. There are no judgments early on in design thinking. This eliminates the fear of failure and encourages maximum creativity and outside the box thinking in the ideation stage. This distinct role description was put up to test by Sam Lucente, the legendary design and innovation guru at HP. At the MacWorld conference in 2007 he described his epiphany that designers can no longer design products alone, using their brilliance and magic. They are no longer in the business of product and service design, he stated; they are really in the business of customer co-creation. In today’s world Designers have to meet the wants and needs of end users and consumer tribes which are connected, cutting-edge and informed in such an intense way that never existed before. This phenomenon will intensify year by year in the future. But if everyone is creative, then what is the role of the designer? First of all as releasing creativity is an original ability of designers they should play a central role in developing the techniques for non-designers that allow them to express and utilize their innovative power. Presently the development of web-based interaction tools such as crowdsourcing platforms and idea contests is mainly driven by software developers focusing on technical features and functions rather than on the objective to motivate consumers to unleash their visions of new products and services. Hence designers should engage as catalyst, amplifiers and pointsman to channel distributed creativity into creativity of the crowds. The sense for product aesthetics and the expert knowledge beyond creativity to realize complex products will stay an undisputed skill of excellent product designers.

THE CHANGING ROLE OF MARKET RESEARCH FOR INNOVATION
Generally spoken market research is “the collection and analysis of data regarding opinions, needs, awareness, knowledge, views and behaviors of a population, through the administration of surveys, interviews, focus groups, polls, observation, or other research methodologies. The researcher serves mainly as translator between the outside world of consumers and the development and design disciplines inside the company. Right now we are living in a thriving world of digital networks with major impacts on social exchange as well as on the access to knowledge. Here the question arises for market researchers whether it is sufficient to simply mash together traditional market research techniques and social media in order to basically do research the same old way in a new web 2.0 environment. In the era of open innovation and co-creation consumers are encouraged to talk to each other rather than to researchers, opinions are offered, agreed with, disputed, challenged and developed. The traditional anonymous and one-way question and answer format changes towards a personal and two-way discussion and dialogue. Researchers will need to learn how to provide platforms and tools that support and serve peoples’ need for creative expression. The direct channels of customer interaction have to be complemented with interactions focusing on aggregating and disseminating customer-generated knowledge. Researchers will have to act as mediators, facilitator or innovation brokers creating continuous virtual bridges between companies and consumers. The challenge lies in evolving the ability to actually listen to and participate in online conversations, to utilize online communities as continuous source of innovation and building relationships by offering tools to communicate and co-create products together with other consumers.

HUMAN-CENTERED INNOVATION: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK
In being aware of the changing roles of product design and market research in a connected world of empowered consumers, it is necessary to expand the current view of closed innovation and the mostly still prevailing manufacturer-active-paradigm. Human-centered innovation brings together (1) the creativity and product expertise of design and R&D experts, (2) the know-how and analytical skills of market researchers and (3) the consumer’s knowledge acquired through the actual use of the products which make them an essential external resource for new product development. The participatory mindset of consumers as co-creators goes beyond observing and listening to the point of a lively partnership throughout the innovation process. It is about communicating and interacting at eye level with consumers instead of squeezing out information by applying different techniques or making vague assumptions about their wants and needs. Human-centered innovation as indicated in figure 1 is embedded in the internal collaboration of the disciplines product design, R&D and market research and the external collaboration with consumers and users.

Figure 1: Interdisciplinary Framework of Human-Centered Innovation

Traditionally, innovation is mapped as a linear process from consumer insights, opportunity and idea generation to concept and product development on to test, evaluation and commercialization. In this process the customer is mostly the inactive object of study, and the researcher contributes data and knowledge by applying techniques like surveys, interviews or observations. The results are handed over to the designer who decides to assimilate or discard the information in order to be in line with his creative thinking and technological limitations. A human-centred approach ensures that innovation is not solely driven by data reports or hard science and engineering known as technology push. It sets a counterbalance which puts the human and social imperatives first and foremost. The linear model of innovation is embedded in the interdisciplinary collaboration of market researcher, developer, product designer and consumer in all stages of product development from end to end. The strict sequential separation and allocation of single innovation tasks either to a group of designers or researchers should be replaced by an ongoing team up (see figure 2). Although there are economies of specialization the activity of innovating successful products is an inductive one. Collecting and analyzing “need information” and the matching with “solution information”, technological feasibility and desirable products can only be realized in a strongly connected environment. This idea of interlocking innovation teams is not a new one especially in organizational theory. However until now, especially in large firms, there is no convincing answer to overcome still existing interface problems. This discussion is now gaining a new momentum as the era of co-creation and open innovation brings in the consumer as a new player in the value creation processes. Suddenly the question arises who is allowed to and who is in fact responsible to actively interact with the empowered consumer throughout the innovation process. Web-based practices speed up the realization of human-centered innovation improving speed, accuracy, and usability of customer input to the product development process.

Figure 2: Interdisciplinary and Interlocking Team up throughout the Innovation Process

OUTLOOK
The ultimate goal of human-centered innovation is to drive a customer focus deep within a corporation and create an attitude and culture to be open for knowledge, share knowledge and collaboratively generate knowledge within and outside the firm. This new openness, however, does not mean any kind of looseness in innovation management but calls for coordination and facilitation with the help of concrete tools and methods for human-centered and open innovation. Besides promoting the opportunities of co-creating products together with external consumers, the main intention of this article is to emphasize the increased importance of strong interdisciplinary internal collaboration of product designers, R&D and market researchers for breeding successful innovation. Only the combination of external co-creation and internal collaboration maximizes the success of co-creation and open innovation programs (>>  Co-Creation360) . Moreover embracing human-centered innovation also means to intervene in existing structures of power within the company which are built upon hierarchy. Co-creation threatens these structures as control is emitted to customers and users outside the firm. This change regarding the ownership of activities in the innovation process is only possible because the web has given a voice to end-users and consumers all over the world who were previously not even part of a dialogue. Only over a longer period of time this change in attitude will settle within firms, at the latest when the generation of digital natives is settled in the managing positions. Another challenge is the relation between researchers and designers. There will be a hassle about who is best suited to apply tools and methods to integrate customers. Again the lesson to learn is that a human centered-innovation process requires the initiative of an interlocking team of both disciplines. Designers and researchers may even be the same person having hybrid research and design skills.

>> Download