Co-Creating Knowledge Structures for Collaborative ...

CO-CREATING KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES FOR COLLABORATIVE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT JOSÉ LUIS GIRALDOi Innovation Management Department, UNE EPM Telecomunicaciones S.A, Cr. 16 No.11A sur-100, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia [email protected] JOSÉ JAVIER AGUILAR ZAMBRANO Innovation and Technology Management research group, Universidad Nacional de Colombia -Sede Medellín - Cr. 80 No. 65 – 223, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia [email protected]

There is abundant information available about the importance of company interactions with customers for improving the value provided by products and services. In this context, co-creation is a promising tool for creating a social process based on collaboration between producers and users, in order to generate value for customers. Empirical testing and a literature review of co-creation methods show that further research is necessary to understand how to carry out such work, and how to transcend the aggregation of user inputs in order to achieve joint creation of meaningful value. Using recent empirical findings, this article contributes to the interaction processes in collaborative product development by providing an analysis of three theoretical approaches: Collaborative Argumentation, Knowledge Structures, and Reputation Systems. Experimental work was carried out, based on empirical findings. From this work, a set of hypotheses were developed concerning the low level of collaborative interaction between participants. A literature review corroborates the hypotheses. Then, based on expert advice and the literature review, three theoretical approaches were selected. Each approach provides elements for interaction process construction and analysis. First, collaborative argumentation adds collaboration, argumentation, and interaction protocols; second, knowledge structures add knowledge models, and knowledge integration process; and third, reputation systems provide norms and conventions. Currently we are working on the modeling phase, which will be followed by a simulation; after that, an experiment with human agents will be carried out. We have found that co-creation as a social process requires norms, conventions, and appropriate use of the relevant resources, skills and productivity, in order to work properly. These elements can be incorporated and managed using a reputation system. Furthermore, collaborative argumentation contributes by providing an approach oriented towards obtaining well structured arguments that work as basic units of knowledge. Additionally, knowledge integration provides elements that are used to link different knowledge contributions. As a result, customer value, composed of use value and hedonic value, and the components of customer experiences, can be identified, and then addressed by the company value offer. Work on understanding the interactions that take place in the social construction of knowledge structures helps to advance the state of the art of co-creation and contributes to the solution of empirically identified problems. Global challenges require joint work by different stake holders. In this situation, the theoretical approaches presented in this paper offer elements for constructing knowledge structures, based on arguments, that serve to make decisions about the right kind of technology, or the elements of value that a particular technology must address in order to fulfill the needs of a community. Keywords: Co-creation; Collaborative Product Development; Knowledge Structures; Collaborative Argumentation; Reputation Systems

i

Software and Engineering research Group, Universidad de Antioquia, Cl. 67 Número 53 – 108, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia, [email protected].

Introduction Co-creation has been defined as a social process of collaboration between producers and users, in order to generate value for users (Promise/LSE Enterprise, 2009). As a social process, cocreation constructs knowledge through social interaction. From the perspective social constructionism Berger and Luckman (1966) propose that humans interacting together create mental representations that become their knowledge of reality. During this process, social interactions are based on social norms and reputation systems (Resnick et al., 2000) which are used as a mechanism to put into practice the social representation and social knowledge structures, based on the social interaction. Co-creation as a collaborative process of social interaction between producers and users generates a special opportunity to construct knowledge structures; however co-creation requires understanding the components of interactions around products in order to improve the value proposition offered by producers to customers. Based on a traditional definition of knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 2000) and developments in social knowledge creation (Berger and Luckmann, 1966), in the context of this article, knowledge is defined as a combination of framed experience, socially constructed reality, values, contextual information, and expert insight that is applied in the mind of the person that possesses the knowledge. This knowledge can be jointly created between producers and users. Our research problem is to understand the interactions that take place in the social construction of knowledge structures between producers and users. In our approach we propose a process for the collaborative construction of arguments. In this process, a group of human agents work together, using Toulmin’s Argument Model (Toulmin, 1958), to represent their knowledge about a specific subject. Additionally, using Henderson and Clark’s model (Henderson and Clark, 1990) we propose another two types of knowledge models to be constructed by the group of human agents. The first one is the Knowledge Component Model, defined as the knowledge structure of the core arguments, “And the way in which they are implemented in a particular component” (Henderson and Clark, 1990). The second one is the Knowledge Metamodel, defined as the knowledge structure of the ways in which the Knowledge Component Models “Are integrated and linked together into a coherent whole” (Henderson and Clark, 1990). The conceptual approach presented in this paper contributes mainly to: (1) A reduction in the quantity of unconnected information and to the improvement of the quality of proposals obtained from joint creation activities; this is achieved by incorporating the concepts of knowledge structures and knowledge integration; (2) Understanding not only what is proposed by a user, but also why that proposal is important to users; this is achieved by the incorporation of the argument as a basic unit of the knowledge structures. Previous literature has not examined these elements regarding co-creation processes. Our research methodology begins with the results of real experience, presented in the context section. We begin with a concise review of the existing co-creation literature, which provides insight into three methods in which users participate in product development. The objective research is then based on the findings on the literature review. Finally, a conceptual model is proposed and conceptually validated. We include directions for further work, particularly the validation and implementation of the model, based on empirical tests.

Context Before to propose the conceptual model developed in this study, we examine the real applicability of the practice of producer-user relationship through information collected by a trial project of a telecommunication company intended to foster innovative ideas from costumers. The data collection process used in the company’s trial project comprised the following phases: (1) Focus selection, (2) Invitation to participate, (3) Submission of ideas related to the focus of the trials, (4) Commenting on submitted ideas in order to generate interactions that contribute to improving submissions, (5) Improvement of ideas to take account of comments made by other participants, and (6) Vote for favorite ideas. An adapted Internet Toolkit (Piller and Walcher, 2006) was used to support the process. Two trials were active for one month, the selection of winning ideas was performed by a committee in the first test, and by participants voting in the second test. The following conclusions emerged from the trial project: (1) In a month, the number of ideas exceeded by 300% the results of a year using the company's traditional method, which allows the submission of ideas on diverse topics, followed by annual selection by a special committee. This improvement is associated with the focus on specific topics instead of the diverse topics of the traditional method, and to the short lapse of time, which incentivizes user inputs. (2) The principal motivation of participants is winning the contest. They prefer to contribute new ideas instead of working with ideas already submitted. As a consequence, joint work between participants was scarce, and contributions from other people in the form of comments were not used to improve proposals. (3) Selection of winning ideas through mechanisms such as selection committee and direct voting by participants raised doubts about the quality of the selection procedure. Piller and Walcher (2006) identified that users tend to make a selection based on their needs, while experts make a selection with more technical emphasis. Also, the quantity of ideas makes it difficult to review them all before voting or selecting. (4) The information contained in the non-winning ideas is lost, the large quantity of ideas makes it difficult to consider them all, as a lot of company resources would be required to do so. From a producer perspective, a better option is an approach that produces more complete and elaborated concepts, integrating different proposals, instead of a large number of disperse and unconnected ideas. It is expected that collaborative work will achieve better results than aggregation of individual work. Information about user value is expected to be collected from the concepts proposed and from interactions between participants. Another aim is the identification of user expectations that can be addressed by the producer. Our research methodology begins with the analysis of the results of the real experience described in the previous paragraphs. A literature review was carried out on co-creation approaches and concepts, and three methods in which users participate in product development. Then the research problem was formulated, based on the findings of the literature review. Next, the conceptual model described in this paper was proposed. Further work to be conducted includes the continued development and testing of the model, and the execution of empirical tests.

Literature review Co-creation aproaches In the book The Third Wave Toffler (1980) introduces the concept of “Prosumer”. The Prosumer is a user that is willing to produce for his own consumption when available products do not address his needs and requirements. The co-creation concept integrates the work of the Prosumer in product development activities. For example, von Hippel (1986) characterizes a type of Prosumer called lead user, and proposes ToolKits (von Hippel, 2001) as the tools to work with lead users in activities intended to identify future needs of normal users. Other co-creation approaches presented in Table 1 illustrate different conceptualizations of user involvement in joint creation activities, from idea generation in co-innovation (Mannervik and Ramírez, 2007), to experiences with products or services in experience co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000). This shows the need for further work to clarify the meaning of the cocreation concept and the focus of these user-producer interactions. Nevertheless, we can associate co-creation approaches to specific stages of the innovation chain. We also identify the need to work with knowledge in all of these stages. Table 1: Co-creation approaches. User involvement User participation in personalization of products, taking advantage of mass production technology (Ramírez, 1999) User participation in producer’s value chain, performing activities previously reserved for the producer (Sheth et al., 2000) User participation in the definition of marketing mix fields (Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000) User-producer interactions as a source of knowledge generation

Approach Mass Customization

Source (Davis, 1987)

Value Co-production Marketing Co-creation Knowledge Co-creation Value (Experience) Co-creation Co-design Crowdsourcing Co-innovation

(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000) (Sanders and Stappers, 2008) (Howe, 2006) (Mannervik and Ramírez, 2007)

Users and producer creation of valuable and personalized experience User participation in design activities. User communities perform duties previously restricted to the producer User participation in innovation cycle activities.

Typologies Different typologies have been developed from these alternatives of work with customers, see Figure 1. Gilmore and Pine II (1997) identify four styles of mass customization: (1) Cosmetic customization, the same product is presented with different marketing elements to different customer segments; (2) Adaptive customization, the offering of an standard product that customers can adapt to their needs; (3) Transparent customization, the customer receives personalized products without knowing it; and (4) Collaborative customization, a dialogue is established between the company and the customer, to identify customer needs in order to deliver a customized product.

Eight styles of co-creation (Lawer, 2006)

Four styles of mass customization (Gilmore and Pine II, 1997) (1) (2) (3) (4)

Cosmetic Adaptive. Transparent Collaborative

Five styles of customer knowledge management (Gibbert et al., 2002) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Prosumerism Team-based Co-learning Mutual Innovation; Communities of creation Joint intellectual property.

(1) Product “Finishing” (2) New Product Design and Development (Lead User) (3) Existing Product Adaptation (Customer Feedback) (4) Mass Customization (5) Open Community Ideation and Product Design and Development (6) New Service Design (7) Real-Time Marketing & Service Adaptation; (8) Personalized Experience, Value and Knowledge Co-Creation.

Eight approaches to co-creation (Promise/LSE Enterprise, 2009) (1) Collaborative innovation (2) Consumer / customer Involvement (3) Co-production (4) Mass Collaboration (‘Wikinomics’) (5) Mass Customization (6) Open Innovation (7) User Generated Content (8) User Involvement

Figure 1 Co-creation Typologies

Gibbert et al. (2002) propose five styles of customer knowledge management: (1) Prosumerism, production with customers; (2) Team-based Co-learning, reconfiguring relationships, value system, and organization based on customer knowledge; (3) Mutual Innovation, innovation with Lead Users; (4) Communities of creation, interaction groups between company employees and customers; (5) Joint intellectual property, customers have a portion of the intellectual property of the company. Lawer (2006) identifies eight styles of co-creation, based on the customization of value created and if that value is created inside or outside the company: (1) Product “Finishing”, the customer finishes the product or executes the last activities of value creation; (2) New Product Design and Development (Lead User), Lead Users contribute to design and product development; (3) Existing Product Adaptation (Customer Feedback), Feedback from customers is used to improve products; (4) Mass Customization, a standard product or service with a set of customizable options is offered; (5) Open Community Ideation and Product Design and Development, open source activities allowed or sponsored by the company; (6) New Service Design, customer participation in product design and pilot tests; (7) Real-Time Marketing & Service Adaptation, “allows individual customers to change the value presented by the firm in real-time” (Lawer, 2006); (8) Personalized Experience Value and Knowledge Co-Creation, value is created throughout the experiences generated in the customer-company interactions. Promise/LSE Enterprise (2009) describes eight approaches to co-creation based on who, the company or the customer, performs the leadership of the process and the type, standard or personalized, of value created: (1) Collaborative innovation, opening of the innovation cycle of the company to external participants; (2) Consumer / customer Involvement, some way of customer involvement by the execution of specific tasks or by its perception about the product; (3) Co-production, an active participation of customers in production activities; (4) Mass Collaboration (‘Wikinomics’), “large numbers of contributors or participants work independently but in collaboration on a single modular project” (Promise/LSE Enterprise, 2009); (5) Mass Customization, (6) Open Innovation, the intellectual property of the products is partly owned by the company due to the participation of other companies or institutions in the innovation cycle; (7) User Generated Content, amateur content available through some technology; (8) User Involvement, participation of representatives of future users in the development process.

Methods in which users participate in product development. Three methods described in the scientific literature were studied to identify user participation. One of the methods studied is open source projects. Feller and Fitzgerald (2000) describe this projects method as a massive and parallel code development and debugging that involves decentralized, cooperative and free contributions from individual developers. Open source projects begin with a personal idea or need, “A personal itch” (Raymond, 1999). Work is not assigned, but is taken and implemented by volunteers, and there is no project plan, schedule or list of deliverables (Mockus et al., 2000). There is no explicit design at the system level, nor a detailed design; code developing is what encourages participants’ collaboration (Vixie, 1999). Piller and Walcher (2006) propose a method and a web-based toolkit for collecting ideas from users for product development. These authors identify several elements that require further attention by administrators and researchers, including: Tool usability, interaction methods, idea pre-screening methods, user involvement in evaluation of ideas, procedures for idea formulation, and tools for collaborative creation of ideas. Another method has been developed by The Virtual Innovation in Construction project, Its goal is to build an information and communications technologies “ICT supported methodology VICMET to involve building end user in a creative innovation process together with building designers, to capture and formulate end-user needs and requirements on buildings and their functionality” (Christiansson et al., 2008). A conclusion of this work establishes that “There is a need to further develop ontologies, functional building descriptions, and sequential methodologies to support a creative design in an open innovation environment” (Christiansson et al., 2008). It is noted that in each of the methods described in Table 2, where there are different options, a designated group takes a decision or makes a final selection. There is a lack of processes that allows users to work on: (1) Integration of different contributions, (2) creation of new and better options when different perspectives between the user and producer are present, (3) idea formulation, and (4) user participation in evaluation of ideas. These important processes in joint creation activities need further development, and the work on collective construction of knowledge structures represents an advance in that direction.

User Value Co-creation “is initiated by the firm to generate value for customers” (Promise/LSE Entreprice, 2009). Therefore, a knowledge structure describing user value is the first objective of the application of our approach. The components of user value are described in the following paragraphs.

Name Description Participants

Table 2. Methods in which users participate in product development Idea Collection (Piller and Walcher, Vicmet (Christiansson et al., 2008) Open Source (Sharma et al., 2002) 2006) Open source software development Method to collect product development Virtual innovation in construction with process ideas from users user participation Developers and users Users and company experts Designers and users (1) Problem discovery (1) Interviews with managers and experts (1) Anthropology and applied ethnography (2) Finding volunteers for tasks (2) Prototype (2) Context selection (3) Solution Identification (3) Tests (3) Functional building systems design (4). Code development and testing

Steps

Tools User participation

(4) Selection of participants

(4) Functional building subsystems consolidation (5) Code change review (5) Contribution of ideas (5) Component building systems solutions (6) Code commit and documentation (6) Evaluation of ideas by a group of (6) Component building systems company experts requirements (7) Release management (7) Awards. (7) Building component systems design solution (8) Construction (9) Requirements fulfillment evaluation E-mail, Newsgroups, CVS Toolkit VIC SPACE Platform Users can participate in each step, User takes part in submission of ideas. Users don’t participate in functional according to their capacities and Idea selection is made by a group of building subsystems consolidation. reputation. When different options are company experts. available, a central group makes a selection.

One of the main figures of scholasticism, Pierre Olivi (1248-98), proposes three fundamental sources of value “Scarcity (a relative quantity), utility (an objective want- satisfying power), and desirability (a subjective desire to gratify satisfactions)” (Letiche, 1969). Adam Smith (1776) describes two different meanings of the concept of value. In his theory of value, Value in Use was referred to as “the utility of some particular object”, and Value in Exchange was defined as “the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys”. Throughout the industrial revolution, economic and marketing practices followed the concept of value in exchange, leading to the prevalence of Product Centered Paradigm (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). The advent of a services economy encountered difficulties with Product Centered Paradigm, so Services Centered Paradigm based on Value in Use emerged; in the new paradigm “Goods are best viewed as distribution mechanisms for services, or the provision of satisfaction for higherorder needs” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Addis and Holbrook (2001) analyze two types of features of a product; utilitarian features provide Value in Use or Utilitarian Value, and hedonic features provide Hedonic Value. These types of value remind us of the sources of value proposed by Pierre Olivi; utility and desirability.

The concept of experience and consumption experience The concept of experience, in general, and consumption experience, in particular, has had different interpretations and perspectives from different fields. These fields include behavioral science, anthropology, sociology, and economics among others. However, the concept of customer experience has transcended towards relational aspects between the facts and the ways individuals experience things. This situation has changed the consumption experience

perspective from the consumer behavior discipline to be supported by other disciplines. Thus the definitions of experience and consumption experience have been addressed differently from the practical perspective and from an academic perspective. They have proposed different concepts and definitions (Hartsuiker, 2008; Tynan and McKechnie, 2009), Table 3 shows several examples. Table 3 Summary of experience definitions (Source: Hartsuiker, 2008; Tynan and McKechnie, 2009; Gentile et al., 2007) Concept Source Definition Consumer (Holbrook and Experience is a dimension of the consumer behavior. This type of consumer is looking for fun, experience Hirschman, 1982) entertainment, stimulation of the senses, pleasure and fantasy. The experience arises when the company intentionally uses the services as stages, and the Memorable (Pine and Gilmore, products as theatrical tools to engage individual customers in a way that creates memorable experiences 1998) events. Personal consumer experiences occur when experience arises from interaction with intangible aspects of things. The experiences provide multi-sensorial; emotional, cognitive, and Experience (Schmitt, 1999) behavioral values. In some cases these types of experience replace functional values such as product features. Management of The mechanisms to recognize all the elements that may be collected in the buying process. This total customer (Berry et al., 2002) process is the result of all the combination of emotions evoked by the product or service. experience Successful (Poulsson and Kale, The successful experience captures the consumer and has a personal significance for him/her. experience 2004) The experience offers novelty and surprise while generating learning. Experience co(Prahalad and Experience created in cooperation with the customer. creation Ramaswamy, 2004) Brand experience is the way the customer gets “to know a brand through a wide range of the contacts” (Kotler et al., 2005), the perception of prices, etc. It involves the concept of value proposition. The companies serve consumer needs by delivering a value proposition, i.e. a set Brand experience (Kotler et al., 2005) of benefits or need satisfactions which they promise to customers. The value proposition is delivered through a range of marketing strategies (a combination of products, services, information, or experiences offered to a market to satisfy a need or desire). Customer experience is originated from a set of interactions between a client and a product which causes a reaction. This experience is strictly personal and embodies the client's Customer (Gentile et al., 2007) experience at different levels (rational, emotional, sensory, physical and spiritual). Its experience evaluation depends on the comparison between customer expectations and the interaction with the company and according to different moments of contact.

From an anthropological perspective, an experience is the means in which culture involves the way a person receives events in his/her consciousness (Caru and Cova 2003, cited in Walls et al. 2011, p. 11). This type of approach has done that despite of broad definitions of consumer experience, nowadays these definitions have coming to understand what happen when individuals have experiences during consumption. Addis and Hoolbrook (2001) explain that a consumer event is an interrelationship between the features that embodies a subject (consumer or customer) and an object. In this relationship, the object has certain features or objective characteristics, while the consumer enters a personality prepared for sensitivity to various types of subjective responses. These responses refer to various aspects of psychology, such as the satisfaction of higher order needs (self-esteem, selffulfillment, membership) (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982) and beliefs, feelings (pleasure (O'Keefe, 2005), rewarding satisfactions (Letiche, 1969)), or habits related to loyalty. Thus, in the consumption experience is incorporated of symbolic nature, hedonic, and aesthetic. In this same direction Addis & Hoolbrook (2001) note that the value that consumers get through the experience of consumption is achieved through the interaction between subject and object, that is, between the subjective responses of the subject and objective characteristics of the object.

However, the experience of consumption is different for each object and subject due to the relative weights assigned to the mixture of subjective responses of the subject and objective characteristics of the object (Addis and Holbrook, 2001). In this way two types of consumption experience are used. When the weight ratio establish those facets of consumer behavior that is related to multi-sensory experience (which includes tasting, sound, tactile and visual impressions), it is called a hedonic consumption. Moreover, if the responses of consumption experience are related to the objectivity of a feature, which is closely related to the functionality of the product, it would be a utilitarian consumption. This same approach helps to understand the three types of products that suggest (Addis and Holbrook, 2001): utilitarian products, balanced products and hedonic products (Figure 2). In this way, the value of utilitarian products for the consumption experience is based on an objective function, while the value of the consumption experience on a hedonic product is related with the generation of multi-sensory experiences. Finally, balanced products are conceived if they have both values: utilitarian values and hedonic values.

Figure 2 Utilitarian and Hedonic consumption (Source: Addis & Hollbrook (2001), excerpt of figure p. 60)

Thus, because the consumer value is the value in the consumption experience, Holbrook (1999) proposes a typology of consumer value with three dimensions: (1) Extrinsic/intrinsic value. The extrinsic value is created at the same moment when some product features are showed, while the intrinsic value occurs when the experience is appreciated as the final result. Besides the intrinsic/extrinsic value, exist two orientations around the people: (2) Personal oriented value/Others oriented value. In the first case, the value is oriented toward him/herself. In the other case, when the consumption occurs because its effects towards other people. Finally, there is (3) Active/Reactive value. The value is active when it involves some participation of the consumer and reactive when the consumer is passive and other people are doing something. Different models of customer experience components can be found in the literature (Lemke et al., 2010; Tynan and McKechnie, 2009; Verhoef et al., 2009; Harrison, 2008; Gentile et al., 2007). Gentile et al (2007) developed a theoretical approach based on various perspectives about

the experience (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Addis and Holbrook, 2001; Pine and Gilmore, 1998; Schmitt, 1999; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Gentile et al. (2007) show that a good consumption experience has integral elements and systematic participation of the different levels of the individual. From this perspective, these authors use the concept of modularity of mind (Pinker, 1997, quoted in Gentile et al. 2007). They linked three basic systems of interaction during the interaction between subject and object into consumption experience: sensation, cognition and affection. Under this perspective, their arguments consider that each of these basic systems has structures associated with the actions (utilitarian value), and on the other hand, systems of values, beliefs, lifestyles, and their interrelationship based on the hedonic value experience (see Table 4). Table 4 Components of experience (Source: based on Gentile et al, 2007). Components of experience Sensorial component

Definition Stimulation of senses, visual, hearing, touch, taste and smell to awake aesthetic pleasure, and satisfaction.

Emotional component Stimulation of the affective system by generating emotional moods, feelings and emotions. Cognitive component Stimulation of thinking or conscious mental processes, involving the customer in creative activities or problem solving activities. Pragmatic component Experience from doing something practical during product use experience. Lifestyle component Stimulation of the system of personal values and beliefs, often through the adoption of a lifestyle or behavior. Relational component Stimulation of individuals and his/her social environment, social promotion, outreach to the community, construction of community, activities between people, reaffirmation of social identity.

Construction and Integration of Knowledge structures There are three major schools of thought about knowledge creation. From the point of view of rationalism, knowledge is discovered by reasoning. On the other hand, empiricism emphasizes that knowledge comes from experience. And there are combinations of rationalism and empiricism, such as logical positivism that recognizes formal knowledge and empirical knowledge (Hjørland, 2005). Other perspectives challenge traditional thinking about knowledge creation. From a social perspective, knowledge is constructed through social interaction, Symbolic Interactionism (Mead, 1934) places a special emphasis on communicative interactions, meaning is created “with the adjustment to one another of the acts of different human individuals within the human social process” (Mead, 1934). Social Constructionism (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) proposes that humans interacting together create mental representations that become their knowledge of reality; the process is described as three moments: (1) Externalization: The rapid outflow of human activity (physical and mental) into the world; (2) Objectivation: The experience of the world, the reality, created by externalization, and (3) Internalization: In the course of socialization, the world as it is experienced is internalized and interpreted (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). From the perspective of psychology, social interactions allow the acquisition of knowledge by the individual (Vygotsky, 1934). Once created, knowledge is organized in knowledge structures or schemes, like scripts, goals and plans (Adelson and Black, 1986). These knowledge structures can be represented using knowledge models, and can be used to work on, and share knowledge with other humans during

social interactions, following the moments of externalization, objectivation, and internalization. This collective construction of knowledge is achieved by a process of collaborative argumentation (Andriessen, 2006) intended to improve the arguments of others. In our approach, the first knowledge representation to be constructed is an argument. Arguments have been widely used for knowledge representation (Bentahar et al., 2010), knowledge representation for problem solving (Clark, 1990), and knowledge representation for agreement seeking (Morge and Routier, 2007). Using Toulmin’s Argument Model (Toulmin, 1958), different participants collaborate to construct arguments using their knowledge about a specific subject. A basic argument model contains three components. (1) Claim: A statement or proposition about the subject under construction. This is the equivalent of an idea in a traditional idea contest, but here it also represents other elements of a knowledge structure, such as, a relationship between two statements or propositions (r1, ... r6 in Figure 3). (2) Data: Evidence and facts that support (1): Argument (2) Knowledge Component Model 1 r1

r2

r3

User1 r5 r6

User2

r4

rn

Knowledge Component Model n

(3) Knowledge Metamodel

Figure 3 Knowledge Structure Construction Process: (1) Argument Construction; (2) Using a set of arguments a Knowledge Component Model is Constructed; (3) Using a set of Knowledge Component Models, a Knowledge Metamodel is constructed.

the claim; and (3) Warrant: The link between the data and the claim, stating how the claim has been derived from the data. A complete argument model includes three more components: (4) Backing: Statistics, experiences, research that support or confirms the warrant; (5) Rebuttal: Conditions or situations where the statement is not appropriate, pertinent or important; (6) Qualifier: An indication of the force or confidence of the claim. Components 2 to 6 include information about user context, preferences, experiences, and user value expectations provided by users. And information about producer resources, capacities, value offers, and assumptions about user preferences provided by producer employees. An interaction protocol (Morge, 2005) guides participants through the process of argument construction, facilitating the process and motivating interactions.

Using Henderson and Clark’s model (Henderson and Clark, 1990) we propose another two types of knowledge models to be constructed by the group of human agents; see Figure 4. The first one is the Knowledge Component Model, defined as the knowledge structure of the core arguments and the way in which they are implemented in a particular component. Using a set of arguments, a Knowledge Component Model is constructed, identifying relations between arguments. An interaction protocol guides participants through the process of Knowledge Component Model construction. Social Construction of Knowledge Structures Social Construction

Knowledge Structure

(Mead 1934) (Berger & Luckmann 1966)

(Adelson & Black 1986)

Collaborative Argumentation (Andriessen, 2006)

Arguments (Toulmin 1958)

Interaction Protocol (Morge, 2006)

Knowledge Integration

Knowledge Component Models (Henderson & Clark 1990)

(Linn 2000)

Reputation system (Muller, 2006)

Knowledge Metamodel (Henderson & Clark 1990)

Figure 4. Components of the Social construction of Knowledge Structures

The second knowledge model to be constructed is the Knowledge Metamodel, defined as the knowledge structure of the ways in which the Knowledge Component Models are integrated and linked together into a coherent whole (Henderson and Clark, 1990). The Knowledge Metamodel is constructed by the identification of the relations between Knowledge Component Models and arguments. Again, an interaction protocol guides the users through the process of Knowledge Metamodel Construction, also known as the Knowledge Integration Process. Based on Linn (2000) definition, the knowledge integration process is described as the process of linking, connecting, distinguishing, organizing, and structuring Knowledge Component Models in a Knowledge Metamodel. Important knowledge creation opportunities take place when different perspectives come into view in argument construction activities or in knowledge integration activities. These opportunities require the formulation of a new argument that represents a better perspective for both the users and the producer. Social control mechanisms are present in social interactions. A reputation system is an example of social control mechanisms (Jøsang et al., 2007). Reputation systems “Collects, distributes, and aggregates feedback about participants’ past behavior” (Resnick et al., 2000). This collective measure stimulates a well conduct from participants, producing a public score of their behavior from the point of view of the community (Jøsang et al., 2007). A reputation system can be prescriptive, indicating the norms that participants must obey; descriptive, allowing some classification of participants; and predictive if future behavior or achievement of participants can

be inferred by or from the system. Also, a reputation system can be user driven if the scores are based on users’ valuation or content driven if the scores depend on user content accomplishment instead of users’ valuation (Adler and de Alfaro, 2007). In a social interaction each person has to perform some tasks, “A task can in part be characterized by the state(s) of affairs to be brought about or maintained by the person in certain circumstances” (Tuomela, 1995). A Reputation system can be used as a mechanism for social evaluation of the execution of the tasks require in a joint creation process, to identify users with skills that contribute to the creation effort, and to infer the future accomplishments. The evaluation could be applied directly by the users or by a system as proposed by Muller (2006).

Conclusions The conceptualization and practice of co-creation has been advancing due to the work of various authors and companies. Different options for co-creative work between users and producers are still under development, with a variety of enabling aspects requiring special attention. The literature review revealed the need to develop interaction methods, procedures for idea formulation, and procedures for user involvement in idea prescreening and evaluation. It is noted that in each of the methods described, where there are different options, a designated group takes a decision or makes a final selection. There is a lack of processes that allow users to work on the integration of different contributions and the creation of new and better options when there are different perspectives between users and producers. A co-creation definition involves the concepts of social interaction, and collaboration. Social interaction is an important source of knowledge for the individual and society and contributes to creation of reality. Collaboration, and specifically collaborative argumentation, facilitates the construction of knowledge structures. Based on these concepts, social construction using collaborative argumentation, interaction protocols, knowledge integration processes, and reputation systems can contribute to co-creation processes by facilitating the interactions of participants in the construction of knowledge structures. The knowledge structures composed of arguments, Knowledge Component Models, and a Knowledge Metamodel can be used to describe a co-created object or concept required in product design processes; for example, knowledge structures of user value and experience. This paper contributes to the concept and practice of co-creation with a conceptual approach that facilitates: (1) A quantity reduction of unconnected information and the improvement of the quality of proposals obtained from joint creation activities; this is achieved by incorporating the concepts of knowledge structures and knowledge integration, (2) Understanding, not only what is proposed by a user, but also why that proposal is important to users; this is achieved by the incorporation of the argument as a basic unit of the knowledge structures. (3) Facilitating interactions between participants by proposing the incorporation of interaction protocols. These elements were absent from the literature we reviewed about co-creation. Further work includes the detailed specification of the model to be tested and the execution of empirical tests of the proposed approach using human agents, in order to identify the impact of

this approach compared to current practice. This approach also needs to be applied to the different stages of the innovation chain that require knowledge from users.

Aknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Ana Maria Calle Lopez, Corporate Development Manager of UNE EPM Telecomunications S.A. for her advice about the current practical limitations of co-creation activities and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This work has been supported by UNE EPM Telecommunications S.A. in the Colombian ARTICA Center of Excellence in ICT. ARTICA was created with the support of Colciencias and the ICT Ministry of Colombia.

References Addis, M, and MB Holbrook (2001). On the conceptual link between mass customisation and experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1(1), 50-66. Adelson, RP and JB Black (1986). Introduction. In Knowledge Structures, JA Galambos, JB Black and RP Abelson (eds.), pp. 1-18. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. Adler, BT and L de Alfaro (2007). A content-driven reputation system for the wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW '07, pp. 261–270. New York, NY, USA: ACM. Andriessen, JE (2006). Arguing to learn. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, K Sawyer (ed.), pp. 443-459. Cambridge: Cambridge University press Bentahar, J, B Moulin and M Bélanger (2010). A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33(3), 211-259. Berger, PL and T Luckmann (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Berry, LL, LP Carbone and SH Haeckel (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 85-89. Christiansson, P, KB Sørensen, M Rødtness, M Abrahamsen, LO Riemnann and M Alsdorf (2008). User Driven Innovation in the Building Process. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(S1), 248-254. Clark, P. (1990). Representing knowledge as arguments: Applying expert system technology to judgemental problem-solving. In Research and Development in Expert Systems VII, T Addis and R Muir (eds.), pp. 147-159. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Davenport, TH and L Prusak (2000). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Davis, SM (1987). Future Perfect: A Startling Vision of the Future We Should Be Managing Now. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Feller, J and B Fitzgerald (2000). A framework analysis of the open source software development paradigm. In Proceedings of the twenty first international conference on Information systems, pp. 58-69. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: ACM Gentile, C, N Spiller and G Noci (2007). How to Sustain the Customer Experience: An Overview of Experience Components that Co-create Value With the Customer. European Management

Journal, 25(5), 395-410. Gibbert, M, M Leibold and G Probst (2002). Five styles of Customer Knowledge Management, And how smart companies put them into action. European Management Journal, 20(5), 459-469. Gilmore, J and BJ Pine II (1997). The Four Faces of Mass Customization. Harvard Business Review, January, 91-101. Harrison, CM (2008). Exploring emotional web experience: More than just usability and good design. PhD Thesis, University of York, Department of Computer Science. Hartsuiker, D (2008). Towards a “Unified Experiences Theory”. In 19th Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society. La Jolla, California. Henderson, RM and KB Clark (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 930. von Hippel, E (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791-805. von Hippel, E (2001). User toolkits for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(4), 247-257. Hjørland, B (2005). Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 130-155. Holbrook, MB (1999). Introduction to Consumer Value. In Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, MB Holbrook (ed.), pp. 1-28. London, England: Routledge. Holbrook, MB and EC Hirschman (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140. Howe, J (2006). The Rise of Crowdsourcing - Forget outsourcing. The new source of cheap labor is everyday people using their spare cycles to create content, solve problems, even do RD. Wired Magazine, 14.06 June. Promise/LSE Entreprice (2009). Co-creation: New pathways to value. An overview. London, England: Promise Corporation. Jøsang, A, R Ismail, and C Boyd (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618-644. Kotler, P, G Armstrong, J Saunders and V Wong (2005). Principles of Marketing. 4th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Ltd. Lawer, C (2006). Eight Styles of Co-Creation: A Model and Definitions. The Empty Whitecoat. http://chrislawer.blogs.com/chris_lawer/2006/05/eight_styles_of.html. [25 February 2009]. Lemke, F, M Clark and H Wilson (2010). Customer experience quality: an exploration in business and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,1-24. http://www.springerlink.com/content/7312l77854565g58/ [11 November 2010] Letiche, JM (1969). The History of Economic Thought in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Journal of Economic Literature, 7(2), 406-425. Linn, MC (2000). Designing the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796. Mannervik, U and R Ramírez (2007). Customers as Co-Innovators: An Initial Exploration of Its Strategic Importance. In Involving Customers in New Service Development. Series on Technology Management, Vol. 11 B Edvardsson, A Gustafsson, P Kristensson and J Matthing (eds.), pp. 5775. London, England: Imperial College Press. Mead, GH (1934). Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. CW Morris (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago. Mockus, A, RT Fielding and J Herbsleb (2000). A Case Study of Open Source Software Development: The Apache Server. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software

engineering, pp. 263-272. Limerick, Ireland: ACM Morge, M (2005). Système dialectique multi-agents pour l’aide à la concertation. PhD Thesis, Ècole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint Etienne. Morge, M and J Routier (2007). Debating over heterogeneous descriptions. Applied Ontology, Special issue on Formal Ontology for Communicating Agents, 2(3-4), 333-349. Muller, G (2006). Utilisation de normes et de réputations pour détecter et sanctionner les contradictions Contribution au contrôle social des interactions dans les systèmes multi-agents ouverts et décentralisés. PhD Thesis. Ècole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint Etienne. O'Keefe, T (2005). Epicurus on freedom. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Piller, FT and D Walcher (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Management, 36(3), 307-318. Pine, BJ and JH Gilmore (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97-105. Pinker, S (1997). How Does the Mind Work. New York: Norton Poulsson, S and S Kale (2004). The Experience Economy and Commercial Experiences. The Marketing Review, 4(3), 267-277. Prahalad, CK and V Ramaswamy (2000). Co-opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1) January 1, 79-87. Prahalad, CK and V Ramaswamy (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14. Ramírez, R (1999). Value Co-Production: Intellectual Origins and Implications for Practice and Research. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 49-65. Raymond, ES (1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. O´Reilly & Associates, Inc. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ [12 April 2009]. Resnick, P, K Kuwabara, R Zeckhauser and E Friedman (2000). Reputation systems. Communications of the ACM, December, 45–48. Sanders, EB and PJ Stappers (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5-18. Sawhney, M and E Prandelli (2000). Beyond customer knowledge management: customers as knowledge co-creators. In Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations, Y Malhorta (ed.), pp. 258281. London: Idea Group Publishing. Schmitt, B (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of marketing management, 15(1-3), 53-67. Sharma, S, V Sugumaran and B Rajagopalan (2002). A framework for creating hybrid-open source software communities. Information Systems Journal, 12(1), 7-25. Sheth, JN, R Sisodia and A Sharma (2000). The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer-Centric Marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 55-66. Smith, A (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London, England: W. Strahan and T. Cadell. Toffler, A (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Morrow. Toulmin, S (1958). The Uses of Argument. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tuomela, R (1995). The importance of us: a philosophical study of basic social notions. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Tynan, C and S McKechnie (2009). Experience marketing: a review and reassessment. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(5/6), 501-517. Vargo, SL and RF Lusch (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. Verhoef, PC, KN Lemon, A Parasuraman, A Roggeveen, M Tsiros and LA Schlesinger (2009). Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies. Journal of Retailing,

85(1), 31-41. Vixie, P (1999). Software Engineering. In Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, C DiBona, S Ockman and M Stone (eds.), pp. 91-100. Sebastopol, CA, USA: O´Reilly. Vygotsky, L (1934). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. Walls, A, F Okumusb, Y Wagb and D JoonWuk (2011) An epistemological view of consumer experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 10–21.