A Boundary Practice Perspective on Co-creation of ICT Innovations

Research has shown that collaboration and co-creation among different groups of stakeholders add complexity and challenges to the innovation process. In this paper a study of co-creation in a multi-stakeholder innovation process is presented. The co-creation is explored and described from a boundary practice perspective. The empirical data presented in the study is based on a user-centric innovation project, Free2Ride, where researchers, developers and members of two equestrian clubs co-created a piece of ICT safety equipment consisting of a transmitter (on the horse) and a receiver (application on a smartphone) to be used by equestrian club members during their everyday riding activities. Three episodes were extracted from the empirical data and presented in the paper. From these episodes the researchers have identified four characteristics of the spanning of boundaries in co-creation from a boundary practice perspective. One of the contributions in the papers is a description of boundary practice-spanning. The research approach adopted in the study is the action case approach.

[1]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999 .

[2]  J. West,et al.  Open innovation : researching a new paradigm , 2008 .

[3]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[4]  Lars Svensson,et al.  Dynamics in an innovation boundary context : Exploring a living lab process from a community of practice perspective , 2011 .

[5]  A. Orders.  Cultivating communities of practice , 2013 .

[6]  Varun Grover,et al.  Cocreating IT Value: New Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm Environments , 2012, MIS Q..

[7]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Co‐creating unique value with customers , 2004 .

[8]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  Qualitative Research in Information Systems , 1997, MIS Q..

[9]  S. L. Star,et al.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

[10]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation , 2005 .

[11]  Vadim E. Kotov.  Project START , 1991, CACM.

[12]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing , 2002, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[13]  Bill Doolin,et al.  Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Peter M. Senge,et al.  Bookshelf - High Output Management, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization , 2006, IEEE Softw..

[15]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[16]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[17]  E. Hippel.  Horizontal Innovation Networks - By and For Users , 2007 .

[18]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation , 2004 .

[19]  John Mingers,et al.  Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[21]  P. Senge,et al.  The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook , 1994 .

[22]  Judy McKay,et al.  How well do we understand boundary practices? empirical evidence from a practice of business analysts , 2011, ECIS.

[23]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Forming future IT: the living lab way of user involvement , 2008 .

[24]  H. Chesbrough.  The Era of Open Innovation , 2003 .

[25]  Philip Powell,et al.  Furthering Distributed Participative Design , 2009, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Jesper Simonsen,et al.  MUST: A Method for Participatory Design , 1998, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[27]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[28]  A. Bakker,et al.  Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects , 2011 .

[29]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  A milieu for innovation : defining living labs , 2009 .

[30]  Judy McKay,et al.  A framework to support the planning and implementation of work-practice research: an example of using boundary practice lens on the work of business analysts , 2011 .

[31]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of practice: A brief introduction , 2009 .

[32]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Living Lab: An Open and User-Centric Design Approach1 , 2011 .

[33]  F. Piller,et al.  A Typology of Customer Co-Creation in the Innovation Process , 2010 .

[34]  Judy McKay,et al.  The roles and practices of business analysts: a boundary practice perspective , 2010, ICIS 2010.

[35]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[36]  Suzanne D. Pawlowski,et al.  Bridging User Organizations: Knowledge Brokering and the Work of Information Technology Professionals , 2004, MIS Q..

[37]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design , 1991, CACM.

[38]  M. D. Jong,et al.  [Bespreking van: H. Chesbrough (2011) Open service innovation: rethinking your business to grow and compete in a new era] , 2011 .

[39]  Kristin Braa,et al.  Balancing interpretation and intervention in information systems research: the action case approach , 1997 .