Design Thinking vs Co-Création :

Une étude comparative de deux méthodes d’innovation1

Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot*

Doctorante

ESCP Europe ; Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

ahemonnet@escpeurope.eu

Julie Fabbri

Doctorante

Ecole Polytechnique, CRG (Centre de Recherche en Gestion)

julie.fabbri@polytechnique.edu

Delphine Manceau

Professeur

ESCP Europe

manceau@escpeurope.eu

*79 avenue de la République 75011 Paris, ahemonnet@escpeurope.eu, 06 60 22 54 82.

1 The authors wish to thank the i7 institute for innovation and competitiveness, created and supported

by ESCP Europe.

Design Thinking vs Co-Création :

Une étude comparative de deux méthodes d’innovation

Résumé :

Si de nombreuses recherches ont été consacrées au design-thinking et à la co-création, peu de

travaux ont cherché à comparer ces deux méthodes d'innovation. Cette recherche cherche à

analyser le degré d'innovation et de pertinence avec les attentes du marché des propositions

générées par chacune des méthodes. Grâce à une étude de cas approfondie dans les services, il

apparaît que l’approche design-thinking, orientée consommateur, offre un cadre d’analyse es-

sentiel à la compréhension des usages, malgré des résultats moins opérationnels. Ces métho-

dologies ont également un impact différent selon l’étape du processus de développement de

nouveaux services où elles sont mobilisées.

Mots-clés : Co-Création de valeur, Design, Produits Nouveaux

Design Thinking vs Co-Creation: a Comparative Study of Two Innovation Methods

Abstract :

While many papers have studied innovation methods based on design thinking and co-

creation, little research has compared them. Given the increasing popularity of these methods,

one may wonder whether one approach or the other leads to innovations which are more inno-

vative and consistent with market needs. Based on an in-depth case study, we show that user-

oriented approaches lead to fewer operational results, but offer a founding framework useful

to shed light on use patterns. We also observed that some of these methodologies are more

appropriate when introduced at a specific stage of the new service development process.

Key-words: Co-Creation, Design Thinking, New Product Development

1

Design Thinking vs Co-Creation: a Comparative Study of Two Innovation Methods

Introduction

Co-creation and open-innovation have been announced as a new value paradigm in which the

firm no longer acts unilaterally, but together with external partners or customers (Chesbrough,

2003; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). This trend emerges together with the shift from firm-

centric to consumer-centered approach in the innovation process (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,

2004a, Vargo and Lush, 2004). As in the open-innovation process where companies call on

external partners to develop their R&D innovative potential, more and more service compa-

nies are integrating external expertise, such as design or consumer knowledge, to enhance ser-

vice innovativeness. While many papers have studied innovation methods based on design

thinking and on co-creation, little research has been conducted to compare these methods.

Clearly, these two innovation methods are quite different in essence. While design thinking

method contributes to create value through in-depth user observation, co-creation method

aims at creating value through user interaction. Both, however, are user-centered, aimed at

creating value though experience and fostering innovations that go beyond the internal corpo-

rate perspective while favoring product differentiation and competitive advantage. Given the

increasing popularity of these approaches among academics and companies, one may wonder

whether one approach or the other leads to different types of innovations that are more con-

sistent with market needs, and that reshape markets and product meaning. One may also won-

der to what extent these two approaches can complement each other and whether the use of

one approach is more appropriate than the other depending on the new service development

(NSD) process stage.

2

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, the literature review shows that the in-

tegration of a consumer perspective is essential in NSD and can be enhanced by both co-

creation and design thinking methods, especially through the User-Oriented Design (UOD)

approach. The specificities of these two approaches and their contribution to innovation are

analyzed. We then present our methodology based on a qualitative in-depth case study at a

major telecom operator and internet provider. After presenting the results, comparing the

methodologies and their outcomes, we discuss them and underline the limitations and mana-

gerial implications of the research.

1. Theoretical Framework

1.1 User Innovation and Value Creation

The co-creation method focuses on the mechanism to create value through the interaction be-

tween firm and customers (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004a; Payne, Storbacka and Frow,

2008) that is also called “value-in-use” creation (Payne, Storbacka and Frow, 2008; Grönroos,

2011). More precisely as Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s (2004b, p.8) suggest, “co-creation is

about creating an experience environment in which consumers can have an active dialogue”.

Consumer can co-construct personalized experience even if the product is the same. Yet, co-

creation is not about outsourcing activities to customers such as product design or to proceed

to mass-customization that increase product choice but not capitalize on consumer’s unique

desires and preferences (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004b).

Different approaches can be adopted in order to implement co-creation. When using this ap-

proach, companies can ask customers about their opinions, desires and needs, but also aim to

capitalize on their problem-solving and creative skills (Füller, 2010). Either companies choose

to integrate customers very early in the process from idea creation to communication or com-

3

panies choose to integrate consumers later in the development process to keep the lead on idea

generation (Vernette and Tissier-Desbordes, 2012). Choosing customers specific attributes is

therefore crucial to enhance new product success (Grüner and Hombourg, 2000). In the idea

generation phase, firms can resort to lead users, i.e. avant-garde consumers who anticipate fu-

ture needs that will shape and influence the market offering in the coming years while increas-

ing new product success (Von Hippel, 1986). Companies can also refer to innovators commu-

nities (Franke and Shah, 2003) or to customer network of actors which favors the innovation

of leading companies enabling them to be more imaginative when devising their value propo-

sition (Cova and Salle, 2008). Last, with the emergence of digital marketing, more and more

companies are capitalizing on virtual co-creation and crowd- sourcing all along the NPD pro-

cess to observe, test and develop new value propositions with customers (Füller, 2010).

Co-creation is therefore a means not only to develop more innovative propositions but also to

stimulate positive reactions from consumers both in terms of brand image and in terms of fi-

nancials. The literature suggests that using the co-creation method has many advantages. First,

literature shows that customer participation improves the effectiveness of the new product de-

velopment process (Fang, Palmatier, Evans, 2008) while influencing product innovativeness

and speed to market (Fang, 2008). Second, research that focuses on customized products

shows that co-design experience significantly influence perceived global value (Merle, Chan-

don and Roux, 2008). Last, customer participation seems to favor an enhanced perception of

the firm, a willingness to recommend the firm to others, as well as a higher purchase intent

and willingness to pay (Schreier, Fuchs and Dahl, 2012).

1.2 User Observation and Value Creation

Design-thinking approach is a human-centered innovation process which aims at discovering

unmet needs and opportunities to convert them into demand and create value through custom-

4

er experience (Brown, 2010; Lockwood, 2010). This innovation method is based on applying

designers’ methods to solve problem, especially management issues, through a process based

on the following steps: inspiration, ideation and implementation (Brown, 2010).

Understanding users’ needs is therefore crucial in this innovation process, especially in the

early steps to identify what the users really need even though they cannot ask for it. Many de-

signers therefore develop “empathy” towards consumers through in-depth visual observation

and ethnographic research techniques (Leonard and Rayport, 1997). This specific approach,

also called User-Oriented Design (UOD), helps to collect insights by getting close to the users

and their needs (Veryzer and Borja de Mozota, 2005). It is a way to positively affect idea gen-

eration and product superiority (Veryzer and Borja de Mozota, 2005). Thanks to their creative

skills, their divergent thinking and their problem-solving approach, designers are then more

likely to identify new solutions that will lead to new product offers (Brown, 2010). Moreover,

thanks to the combination of their capacity to visualize concepts, plans and ideas and their

ability to represent these ideas using different tools such as sketching or prototypes, designers

contribute to making tacit knowledge become alive. This helps to make communication more

efficient, enabling teams to focus on a tangible production (Utterback & al., 2006; Brown,

2010).

Designers also have the ability to interpret and address emerging lifestyles and social trends

which helps them create products that generate meaning and emotion (Dell'Era and Verganti,

2010). This creation of new meaning contributes to create value that relies on the experience

of consumption rather than on product characteristics (Verganti, 2006). Strengthening the

unique set of meanings embodied in the brand also fosters uniqueness and desirability for con-

sumers (Ravasi and Lojacono, 2005).

Many research underlines the positive link between design management and firm performance

(Gemser and Leenders, 2001; Hertenstein, Platt and Veryzer, 2005; Chiva and Alegre, 2009).

5

Design helps to strengthen product differentiation and increase purchase intent (Kotler and

Rath, 1984) while enhancing consumer delight (Bloch, 1995; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Ma-

hajan, 2008). It enables company to improve the fit with market needs while conceiving

unique products and services that create value (Hoffman & al., 2007) and many service com-

panies are looking to improve their customers’ experience and enhance their service design by

resorting to design (Cova, 2004).

Moreover, calling on external design agencies in the innovation process is also a way of gen-

erating more radical innovation than in-house or mixed approaches (Von Stamm, 2003, Perks,

Cooper and Jones, 2005, Abecassis-Moedas and Benghozi, 2012). Since they reside outside

the boundaries of the firm, external designers bring fresh ideas and knowledge (Dell’Era and

Verganti, 2010). They are less hampered by political and internal rigidities while being rela-

tively autonomous.

1.3 Integrating consumers in the new service development process

Human-centered approaches appear to be essential when dealing with experiential services

that are services that focus on the experience of customers rather than just on the functional

benefits of service delivered (Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010). Moreover with the emergence of

the service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lush, 2004), marketing is moving away from the tradi-

tional producer-centric perspective of service innovation and emphasizing the importance of

integrating consumers in the NSD process (Perks, Grüber and Edvardsson, 2012).

This integration of consumers helps companies gain a better understanding of their needs and

therefore favors service development success since it helps to create additional value for both

service providers and customers (Edvardsson & al., 2008; Grönrooss and Helle, 2010). Yet up

to now, the typical new service development (NSD) process only integrates customers during

the testing phase. Defined as the overall process that moves a project from the idea generation

6

through to launch (Cooper et al., 1994), the NSD process is based on the following stages:

concept creation, analysis, detailed design, and launch (Froehle and Roth, 2007). Contrary to

NPD process, NSD process is less likely to include manufacturing stage. Crucial phases are

concept generation and detailed design (Griffin, 1997). It is built on a formal procedure for

generating and evaluating new service ideas, a drawing-board approach for service design, and

a new services testing phase that involves customers (De Brentani, 1991). In terms of the NSD

process, research shows however that customer involvement throughout the process has a pos-

itive effect on innovation speed, which has an indirect effect on competitive superiority and

sales performance (Carbonell, Rodriguez-Escuerdo and Pujari, 2009).

1.4. Comparison Criteria

To integrate users in the NSD process, both methods - co-creation and design-thinking- can

help to create value. The first thanks to the formal involvement of the consumer either from

the outset or at the end of the process, the other thanks to an in-depth observation and under-

standing of their needs from the beginning of the process. Both methodologies help to im-

prove the front-end of the NSD process by identifying consumers needs (Vargo and Lush,

2004). They are both based on a dynamic, non-linear process, capitalizing on prototyping and

aim at creating value through experience.

Yet, to identify whether these two innovation methods differ in terms of processes and out-

comes when applied to an NSD process, comparison criteria have to be determined. Im-

portance of cost and time to market are both raised by NPD and Open-Innovation literature as

major criteria to evaluate projects (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1005; Howells, Gagliardi and

Malik, 2008). Open-Innovation literature also tends to focus on criteria such as the im-

portance of learning effects and the importance of supplier’s commitment (Howells, Gagliardi

and Malik, 2008).

7

Building on this theoretical framework, the aim of our research is thus to identify how these

two customer-oriented approaches differ in terms of processes and outcomes when applied to

an NSD process. It will also contribute to analyzing whether the use of one approach is more

appropriate than the other depending on the NSD process stage.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Case selection and research setting

Since this research focuses on the analysis and comparison of the process and the output of

two innovation methods applied to the very same situation, a single case study with embedded

units of analysis was considered to be particularly appropriate (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2009).

Moreover, having the opportunity to study a unique and rare case also justifies the use of a

single case study (Yin, 2009). The case was selected from the information and communication

technologies sector, specifically one of the major French telecom operators and internet pro-

viders. In the context of always on web access available everywhere, the issue of entertaining,

educational products and services that allow children to learn and play at the same time ap-

peared to be a major objective for this company. Yet, while innovation in this field usually

comes from a new technology or a new product, this company decided to adopt a new ap-

proach by focusing on innovation by usage to create a unique experience. This company was

therefore looking for new concepts for edutainment tools, that is entertaining, educational

products, and offered the rare opportunity to conduct a comparative study of co-creation and

design thinking methods.

To gather innovative insights for developing new edutainment tools while better understand-

ing consumer expectations regarding young people’s learning experience, this firm decided to

launch three different innovation methods simultaneously based on the same initial brief. The

8

first two were related to design thinking. First, they worked with a design consultancy, recog-

nized for its user-centric innovation approach rooted in ethnography and human sciences

(UOD approach). Second, they collaborated with students from a design school, asking them

to create new products (design thinking creative approach). Third, they used a crowd-sourcing

web platform to post questions and gather innovative ideas from creative consumers. These

insights were then used in beta testing with the online innovation community of the firm (co-

creation approach).

2.2. Data collection and analysis

To understand the idiosyncrasies of the three experiences we combined semi-structured inter-

views and the collection of secondary data (Yin, 2009). Several semi-structured interviews

were conducted with the telecommunications firm and the contributors of each approach. We

also conducted group interviews with both the firm and the contributor when possible. These

interviews were enriched with other material that was essential to gain a sound understanding

of the role and input of each actor throughout the process. We collected briefs from the com-

pany to the contributors, the minutes of kick-off and interim meetings, the results of creative

sessions held by the design agency, and the final recommendations of each contributor (story-

boards, videos or pictures). We also were granted access to internal documents from the com-

pany with their own evaluation and synthesis of each method. Table 1 contains summary of

the collected data.

Interviews Archival Data

Co-Creation

Crowdsourcing - 1 interview with the 2 - Client’s briefs*

9

projects leaders of the crowd-

sourcing company

- Announcements of the crea-

tive projects posted on the

crowd-sourcing company’s

website

- List of creations*

- Reports and analysis of the

crowd-sourcing company *

Client’s Innovation

Community

- Evaluations of crowd-

sourcing’s proposals by this

innovation community

Design-Thinking

Design Consultancy - 1 interview with the designer

and project leader

- 1 interview with project man-

agers of both design consul-

tancy and client

- Client’s Brief

- Agency’s reformulation of

the brief

- Minutes of kick-off meeting

- Synthesis of the observations

in situ

- Report and analysis of the

design consultancy including

story-boards

Design School - - 1 interview with the design

teacher and researcher, leader

of this pedagogical project

- Client’s Brief

- Students’ presentations

- Minutes of intermediary mee-

10

tings

- Client’s feedbacks to design

school

Client - - 1 interview with the project

leader

- Client’s synthesis of the

global approach with

evaluation. Internal document

for the purpose of Innovation

and New Markets Direction

*Data available for both branded and unbranded sessions

Table 1. Summary of data collection

Data analysis consisted of three different steps. First we analyzed the propositions generated

by the three methods independently. The design consultancy suggested three concepts as sto-

ryboards whereas design students produced eleven collective projects as short movies. The

crowd-sourcing company ran a two-stage co-creation project. The first stage was not branded

with the company name and focused on developing a product that facilitates the learning ex-

perience. The second stage, three months later, was branded and focused more on the learning

experience itself. About fifty videos and photos were generated in both cases. All these crea-

tive outputs were then submitted to the firm's online innovation community to be evaluated.

We focused on their top 5 ranking for the analysis. Second, we analyzed and compared the

outputs of these three approaches to depict the impact of the methodology on the type of inno-

vative projects. Despite the apparent heterogeneity of the submissions, we focused our analy-

sis on the scenario for the user rather than on the suggested support. We then developed an

analytical grid using criteria based on both the literature on performance evaluation in NPD

11

and open-innovation, that are cost, lead time between the brief and the output, co-learning ef-

fect and commitment of the firm during the project. We also added four dimensions that

emerged from our data: time invested by the firm prior to the project, relevance to the firm's

initial expectations, reliability of contributors’ proposals and final utility of the output. We

then evaluated each of these criteria on a 5-point scale with the firm’s manager (Table 2). Fi-

nally, we investigated whether the output of these methodologies had been implemented by

the company and how.

3. Findings

The analysis of their propositions revealed convergence and divergence in their approaches.

First, our data showed that there was no difference between the three methods in terms of the

cost of data collection and final utility of the output. The design consultancy approach, how-

ever, was the one that brought the largest amount of new knowledge thanks to its in-depth un-

derstanding of the phenomenon and the relevant meaning of its proposals. The crowd-

sourcing company was the one that required the longest preparation time prior to the project

from the firm but was the fastest to get tangible results (three weeks versus three months for

the other methods). Last, design students required a higher level of commitment from the firm

during the project which resulted in greater reliability in their proposals.

Cost* Lead-

time**

Time

invested

by the

firm*

Firm's

Com-

mitment*

Rele-

vance*

Reliabi-

lity*

Co-

learning*

Utility*

Students 3 3 2 4 4 4 1 3

12

Crowd-

sourcing

3 5 5 3 4 3 1 3

Design

Consultancy

3 3 4 2 3 3 4 4

*1: low 5, high

**1: slow, 5, fast

Table 2. Evaluation of the three approaches

Second, we identified many similar propositions between the crowd-sourcing company and

design students; we checked that students were not contributors of the crowd-sourcing com-

pany. Their final proposals consisted either of videos or almost finalized professional proposi-

tions. It is interesting to note that even though the participants of the crowd-sourcing commu-

nity used new media resources and new technologies in their designs, the ideas submitted

were often imagined as everyday objects. Design students used a lot of images, pictures,

sketches and sometimes prototypes to design their proposals before making their movies.

Their proposals were not always consistent with the brand, but it was a means for company to

collect fresh and new ideas. Even though the outputs of these two approaches (crowd-sourcing

and design students) were quite similar, the crowd-sourcing supplier managed to bring addi-

tional value to the firm by integrating their final proposals into a larger presentation based on

a semantic analysis of the outputs. On the other hand, the design consultancy output consisted

of three storyboards that emerged from an in-depth observation of potential users in-situ

(young people at home and after school) and interviews with both children and parents. After

a creativity phase involving the firm, these ideas were transformed into storyboards that were

then tested among consumers. The design consultancy also provided the firm with an in-depth

analysis of their issue and a large amount of verbatim citations. According to these findings,

13

we managed to cluster these different approaches into two dimensions: creativity-oriented and

usage-oriented proposals (Table 3).

Creativity Usage

Co-Creation Crowd-sourcing

Creativity-Oriented Co-Creation

Innovation Community

User-Oriented Co-Creation

Design-Thinking Design School

Creativity-Oriented Design

Design Consultancy

User-Oriented Design

Table 3. Clustering of Innovation Methods

Third, we observed that none of these outputs had been used as is by the firm. Innovation

teams made use of these suggestions to develop new ideas that are at the crossroads of all the

propositions. These ideas led to the testing of two concepts: “Webcam remote control” and

“An incredible day at the museum”. The results of these two methods helped the company to

fuel and enrich existing projects under development such as the creation of an interactive and

educational TV channel for kids. Finally, this case study revealed that some approaches were

more appropriate than others depending on the NSD stage in this firm. For example, using a

crowd-sourcing supplier or design school students appeared to be more relevant during the

ideation phase. Integration of the online innovation community of the firm was most suitable

during the testing phase to run beta tests. Last, outputs from the design consultancy (story-

boards) were referred to all along the NSD process from idea creation to launch (Table 4).

14

NSD Process Stage

Concept Detailed Design Testing Phase Launch

Crowd-Sourcing

Design School

Innovation Community

Design Consultancy

Table 4. Innovation methods according to the NSD process stage

4. Discussion

The goal of this research was to better understand how these two customer-oriented approach-

es differed in terms of processes and outcomes when applied to an NSD process and whether

the use of one approach was more appropriate depending on the stage in the NSD process.

Through this unique, in-depth case study, this research extends prior research in the design-

thinking, co-creation, NSD and marketing literature.

First, this research contributes to the NSD literature showing the influence of different innova-

tion methods at different stages of the NSD process. It also extends Zomerdijk and Voss’s

work (2010) showing that both methods, one based on a business-to-business relationship

with design consultancies, the other based on direct relationship with customers, can influence

the design of new experiential services.

Second, these findings show that UOD approaches lead to fewer operational results but offer a

founding framework that is very useful in shedding light on use patterns and that can be re-

ferred to at every stage of the NSD process.

This research also brings additional knowledge to co-creation and marketing literature, ex-

tending the study of Payne, Storbacka and Frow (2008) which suggests that customers have to

be involved at each stage of the NPD process since our findings underline how each innova-

15

tion method can help to integrate customers according to the NSD process stage. This research

also extends service-dominant logic literature (Vargo and Lush, 2004) since it underlines that

value-creating processes can be generated by a combination of different innovation methods.

It also shows that within co-creation, methods are not mutually exclusive and can be easily

combined to be more effective (crowd-sourcing and the firm’s online community). Another

result concerns the importance of the right initial key question to stimulate relevant innova-

tion. As said Peter Drucker, “The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers;

it is to find the right question”.

In terms of methodology, this study offers a new analytical grid that helps to compare these

different approaches. In terms of managerial implications, as customers' involvement in the

NSD process becomes essential to create value, these findings provide guidelines for compa-

nies to identify which of the main approaches is the most appropriate during their NSD pro-

cess and why. More precisely, thanks to the clustering of innovation methods, this research

enables to identify which is the most appropriate innovation tool according to firms’ objec-

tives: either focus on creativity or usage innovation.

This research also has limitations. Investigation in a telecom company at the early stage of the

co-creation process is noted and a comparison with other services categories would be needed

to enlarge the external validity of our findings. Future research could extend this study to ana-

lyze whether using design thinking or co-creation has an impact on performance. Moreover,

this research has adopted a supplier perspective, with the edutainment service provider as the

central actor. Further research might contrast this viewpoint with the one of market and cus-

tomers to run a larger analysis of the impact of these two innovation methods on both firms

and final customers. Last, future research could also study knowledge transfer by comparing

the absorptive capacity between firm and supplier during the co-creation and the design-

thinking process.

16

Bibliographie

Abecassis-Moedas C. and Benghozi P.J. (2012), Efficiency and innovativeness as

determinants of design architecture choices, Journal of Product Innovation Management

29, 3, 405-418.

Bloch P. (1995), Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response, Journal of

Marketing, 59, 16-29.

Brown T. (2010), Change by design. Paris, Pearson.

Carbonell P., Rodriguez-Escuerdo A.I. and Pujari D. (2009), Customer involvement in new

service development: an examination of antecedents and outcomes, Journal of Product Inno-

vation Management, 26, 5, 536–550.

Chesbrough H. (2003), Open-innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from

technology, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Chitturi R., Raghunathan R. and Mahajan V. (2008), Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic

Versus Utilitarian Benefits, Journal of Marketing, 72, 48-63.

Chiva R. and Alegre J. (2009), Investment in design and firm performance: the

mediating role of design management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 4,

424–440.

Cooper R. G. and Kleinschmidt E.J. (1995), Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors

in new product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management 12, 5,

374–391.

Cova B. and Salle R. (2008), Marketing solutions in accordance with the s-d logic: co-creating

value with customer network actors, Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 3, 270–277.

Cova V. (2004), Le design des services, Décisions Marketing, 29-40.

de Brentani U. (1991), Success factors in developing new business services, European Jour-

nal of Marketing, 25, 2, 33–59.

17

Dell’Era C. and Verganti R. (2010), Collaborative strategies in design-intensive industries:

knowledge diversity and innovation, Long Range Planning, 43, 1, 123–141.

Edvardsson B., Gustafsson A., Kristensson P. and Witell L. (2008), Service innovation and

customer co-development, Handbook of Service Science, 561–577.

Fang E. (2008), Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness

and speed to market, Journal of Marketing, 72, 4, 90-104.

Fang E., Palmatier R. W. and Evans K. R. (2008), Influence of customer participation on cre-

ating and sharing of new product value, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 3,

322-336.

Flyvberg B. (2007), Five misunderstandings about case study research, London, Sage.

Franke N. and Shah S. (2003), How communities support innovative activities: an exploration

of assistance and sharing among end-users, Research Policy, 32, 1, 157-178.

Froehle C.M. and Roth A.V. (2007), A resource-process framework of new service develop-

ment, Production and Operations Management, 16, 2, 169–188.

Füller J. (2010), Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective, California Man-

agement Review, 52, 2, 98-122.

Gemser G. and Leenders M.A. (2001), How integrating industrial design in the product

development process impacts on company performance, Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 18, 1, 28–38.

18

Griffin A. (1997), PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends

and benchmarking best practices, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 6, 429-458.

Grönrooss C. and Helle P. (2010), Adopting a service logic in manufacturing: conceptual

foundation and metrics for mutual value creation, Journal of Service Management, 21, 5, 564–

590.

Grönroos C. (2011), Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis, Marketing Theo-

ry, 11, 3, 279-301.

Grüner K. E. and Homburg C. (2000), Does customer interaction enhance new product suc-

cess?, Journal of Business Research, 49, 1, 1-14.

Herstenstein J. H., Platt M.B. and Veryzer R.W. (2005), The impact of industrial design effec-

tiveness on corporate financial performance, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22,

1, 3-21.

Hoffman J., Mathieu J.P., Roehrich G. and Valette-Florence P. (2007), Le processus de déve-

loppement de nouveaux produits : une collaboration risquée entre marketing et design. Mar-

keting et Communication, 7, 3, 104-115

Howells J., Gagliardi D. and Malik K. (2008), The growth and management of R&D out-

sourcing: evidence from UK pharmaceuticals, R&D Management, 38, 2, 205–219.

Kotler P. and Rath A. (1984), Design: A Powerful but Neglected Strategic Tool. Journal of

Business Strategy, 5, 16–21.

Leonard D. and Rayport J. F. (1997), Spark innovation through empathetic design, Harvard

Business Review, 75, 6, 102–113.

Lockwood, T. (2009), Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience, and

brand value, Allworth Press.

19

Merle A., Chandon J. L. and Roux E. (2008), Comprendre la valeur perçue de la customisa-

tion de masse. Une distinction entre la valeur du produit et la valeur de l'expérience de co-

design. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 23, 3, 27-50.

Payne A. F., Storbacka K., and Frow P. (2008), Managing the co-creation of value, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1, 83-96.

Perks H., Cooper R. and Jones C. (2005), Characterizing the role of design in new product de-

velopment: an empirically derived taxonomy, Journal of Product Innovation Management,

22, 2, 111–127.

Perks H., Gruber T. and Edvardsson B. (2012), Co-creation in radical service innovation: a

systematic analysis of microlevel processes, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29,

6, 935–951.

Prahalad C. K. and Ramaswamy V. (2004a), Co-creating unique value with custom-

ers, Strategy & Leadership, 32, 3, 4-9.

Prahalad C. K. and Ramaswamy V. (2004b), Co-creation experiences: the new practice in

value creation, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 3, 5-14

Ravasi D. and Lojacono G. (2005), Managing design and designers for strategic

renewal, Long Range Planning, 38, 1, 51-77.

Schreier M., Fuchs C. and Dahl D.W. (2012), The innovation effect of user design: exploring

consumers’ innovation perceptions of firms selling products designed by users, Journal of

Marketing, 76, 5, 18-32.

Utterback J.M., Vedin Bengt-Arne A.E., Ekman S., Sanderson S., Tether B. and Verganti R.

(2006), Design-inspired innovation, New York, World Scientific.

Vargo S.L. and Lusch R.F. (2004), Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal

of Marketing, 68, 1, 1-17.

Verganti R. (2006), Innovating through design, Harvard Business Review, 84, 12, 114.

20

Vernette E. and Tissier-Desbordes E. (2012), La Participation du Client, la Co-Production, la

Co-Creation. Un Nouvel Eldorado pour le Marketing ? Décisions Marketing, 65, 5-8.

Veryzer R.W. and Borja de Mozota B. (2005), The impact of user-oriented design on new

product development: an examination of fundamental relationships, Journal of Product Inno-

vation Management, 22, 2, 128–143.

Von Hippel E. 1986. Lead users, a source of novel product concepts, Management Science,

32, 7, 791–805.

Von Stamm B. (2003), Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity, Chichester, UK,

Wiley & Sons.

Yin R.K. (2009), Case study research. design and methods (4th

ed.), New York, Sage Publica-

tions.

Zomerdijk L.G. and Voss C.A. (2011), NSD Processes and Practices in Experiential Services,

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 1, 63–80.