pdma npd essentials: 'open innovation' - chapter 6

c06 135 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

135

6 USER COLLABORATION

THROUGH PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNITIES

Thomas Troch InSites Consulting

Tom De Ruyck InSites Consulting

6.1 Introduction There’s a common understanding that involving (potential) users in the development of goods and services results in propositions that better fi t the needs of users and have a higher chance of success when they hit the market. By allowing (potential) users to participate in innovation, the organization will become more “open” and thus move from inside‐out thinking to outside‐in thinking. To anticipate the changing needs and expectations of users, it’s not enough to do this at one moment in time. Private online communities provide a working tool to collaborate with users and structurally inte-grate their voice in every phase, making innovation more agile. Embedding the voice of the user in the internal processes supports fast decision making—not only to validateinsights, ideas, and concepts, but to co‐develop them in iterative cycles.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide the product development professional with a hands‐on guide to integrate user collaboration through private online communi-ties in the innovation practice. The chapter starts with the rationale for collaboratingwith (potential) users; and provides a comparison of diff erent methods and when to use them. The next section describes the main objectives of such collaboration, illustrated with case studies. The remaining sections provide a step‐by‐step manual to setting up your user community.

136 USER COLLABORATION THROUGH PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNITIES

c06 136 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

6.2 From Crowd‐Everything to Co‐Everything Business success is contingent upon the adoption of innovations, and new products, processes, and ideas. In turn, this is dependent upon consumers’ acceptance and per-ceptions of an innovation. One of the major challenges for designers is to build empathy with the (potential) users of their creations. These users increasingly start to develop their own solutions to unfulfi lled needs.

Users are the experts of their own experience and are spontaneously “defi ning opportunities” based on problems they encounter with the products in their lives. These are often shared on social media, mentioning the concerned brand or product. Moving forward to “ideation” and “concepting,” everyday people have the power to dis-rupt entire industries. Think about Airbnb, an online service allowing individuals to rent unoccupied living space and providing an alternative to expensive and often imper-sonal hotel stays. To tap into the expertise of users in innovation, designers need tomove beyond observation in setting up an iterative collaboration.

Traditionally, the consumer is treated as a passive player in the innovation process, mainly because consumers are often relegated to the role of “validator” through tradi-tional methods of consumer inquiry (Roberts et al., 2005). Stimulated by social media, innovation is moving from a dominantly “to consumers” approach to a “through consumers” approach. Examples of crowd‐everything—the active and spontaneous participation of the crowd in key innovation challenges (Figure 6.1 )—range from adapting existing products to better solve the needs of an individual to the funding of products through platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. This willingness of users to collaborate provides a massive opportunity for companies, following the emerging view (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000; Van Belleghem, 2012) that organizations

Figure 6.1: Crowd‐Everything: The Active and Spontaneous Participation of the Crowd in Key

Innovation ChallengesCopyright © InSites Consulting

c06 137 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

CROWDSOURCING, CO‐CREATION, AND STRUCTURAL COLLABORATION 137

should extend their search for competencies by coopting consumer competence as a competitive strategy.

Muji is a Japanese consumer goods fi rm that experimented with taking both user‐generated and designer‐generated products to prototyping and commercialization. In the fi rst year after introduction, sales revenues from user‐generated products—like the Floor Sofa—were three times higher than those of designer‐generated products. These eff ects increased over time and the user‐generated products were more likely to survive the three‐year period the results were observed (Nishikawa et al., 2012). While customers and designers were generating ideas separately in the Muji case, it is rec-ommended to set up a more interactive collaboration for more complex product or product‐service ecosystems.

Not only the end result of such collaboration is creating value, the act of collabora-tion in itself is creating value for users. When people construct products themselves—like IKEA furniture—or apply “postlaunch improvements,” they tend to overvalue theircreations, a phenomenon known as “the IKEA eff ect” (Mochon et al., 2012).

The empowered consumer provides huge opportunities for companies, but the other side of the coin is that it is also creating urgency; if organizations are not fast enough, consumers will do it themselves. In this context, it seems to be vital for companies to embrace the creativity of (potential) users and to be able to react quickly to what happens in the consumer world by moving from crowd‐everything to co‐everything.

6.3 Crowdsourcing, Co‐creation, and Structural Collaboration There are different ways of being open (Figure 6.2 ); the most popular ones are crowdsourcing and co‐creation. The main characteristic of crowdsourcing is that it is an open call to the world to help solve a problem. And everyone may participate. Crowdsourcing can be done as a one‐off initiative focused on a specific issue: a chal-lenge that is put online by a company. The crowd is asked to, for example, send in their ideas for a new campaign or product with little or no interaction between users. Lay’s “Create Your Taste” campaign is an example of crowdsourcing new product ideas. A company can also ask consumers to bring in ideas for improve-ments or new products/services in a more structural way: ongoing and about a wide range of topics. A great example is “My Starbucks Idea,” an open online platform launched in 2008 by Starbucks to continuously be able to grasp the ideas from the crowd around its product portfolio and shops. It allows people to post an idea, to vote on ideas from others, and even to make those ideas better through conversa-tions with other participants.

Co‐creation typically takes place having a smaller group of well‐chosen people with a specifi c profi le in a closed environment. In this case, the goal is to go in‐depth on a certain matter and to gain a rich understanding of the issue by being connected with


c06 138 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

users in an intense way, but for a short period of time. The objective is to formulate answers to relevant business frictions, by working together as a group. Typically fi rms have involved consumers in co‐creating value at the early stages of innovation using well‐established marketing research techniques. For example, focus groups and lead users are commonly used to develop and narrow down the product concept. However, these techniques are expensive because they require a lot of face‐to‐face time. In addi-tion, they provide limited consumer‐fi rm interactions as they involve small numbers of users during a short period of time. New technologies related to the World WideWeb that enable consumer‐fi rm and consumer‐consumer interactions are drastically changing the value co‐creation landscape (Sawhney et al., 2005).

To really tap into the power of consumers for complex innovation challenges, a structural approach is recommended. In comparison to crowdsourcing, structural col-laboration is a more iterative way of building on each other’s ideas and developing con-cepts. It’s not an open call to everyone; only the users who are able to generate rich output are invited. In contrary to most co‐creation initiatives, structural collaboration is not an ad hoc interaction moment; it is taking the voice of users from the very front endto the back end of innovation.

6.4 Private Online Communities This chapter introduces a tool that facilitates co‐creation with users and is especially suitable to set up a structural collaboration throughout the innovation process. Private online communities were developed as a research tool to take advantage of the char-acteristics of modern users, matching their social media behavior and emphasizing the dialogue between brands and (potential) users. It’s like a private Facebook that you

Figure 6.2: DNA of User Collaboration Methods Copyright © InSites Consulting

c06 139 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNITIES 139

use just for innovation purposes. Managing these interactions online has a plethora of advantages, from being able to set it up fast and cost‐effi ciently to covering all geo-graphic markets with Internet penetration.

A private online community can be defi ned as “a small group (up to 150) of highly engaged people joined together by a common passion, connected online for a longer period, who are systematically engaged by applying various social media techniques” (De Ruyck et al., 2010). By defi nition, communities are not representative, as they work best with participants who identify with the topic and/or the brand hosting the plat-form. Although merely qualitative, communities are typically a hybrid methodology, combining the best of both qualitative and quantitative tools to generate rich insights or ideas. By connecting for a longer time span with users, knowledge that is gained in a fi rst stage can be applied immediately, which automatically gives the discussions more depth.

Communities are upon invitation‐only and with an innovation focus. These private communities focus on a specifi c product category, brand, or user segment. They allow innovation teams to observe, facilitate, and join conversations between (potential) users. Participants enjoy this more participatory research approach and the interaction reintroduces the social context often missing from other tools that conceive the user as subordinate and approach them in a top‐down isolated fashion.

In terms of taxonomy there are several labels and defi nitions for private online commu-nities used in practice today, which may lead to some confusion and some may even debate whether all of the labels classify as real communities. The labels range from virtual customer environments (VCEs), market research online communities (MROCs), blogs, bulletin boards, community panels, access panels, and so forth. While “virtual customer environment” refers more to the technology than to the approach, “MROC” refers to an industry where they are already successfully in use; market research. Private online communities distinguish them-selves by keeping a balance between the duration, the intensity, and the level of interac-tion or conversation (Table 6.1 ). They are also referred to as “consumer consulting board,” indicating the position it can have within a company. The name embodies the idea that companies need to see and treat their consumer community as a board of advisors. They rely on them almost every single day, for most business decisions taken across the diff erent departments of the company, including but not limited to innovation.

A private online community involves users in a more structural way in comparison to focus groups—one of the most popular approaches to involve users in innovation. The private online community has many benefi ts:

■ Size: Larger than focus groups, they include users with a diverse set of backgrounds and allow for coverage across diff erent target segments.

■ Depth: Given the longitudinal nature of research communities, it is possible to go much deeper on a given topic than in a focus group, from a snapshot of reality to a holistic view on the context.

■ Breadth: The social platform allows for performing a multitude of diff erent tech-niques: observational and discussion research to give insight in the behavior,attitudes, and values of users, ideation exercises to co‐create new product ideas, and task‐driven diaries to test prototypes and gain a holistic view of the product experience.


c06 140 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

■ Flexibility: The ability to adjust the approach and activities as you go to respond to emerging themes and to follow the iterative nature of the innovation process.

■ Reach: Given the online format of research communities, they are able to cover most international markets, depending on Internet penetration.

These characteristics make private online communities an Open Innovation tool that is particularly eff ective in executing the three stages of the innovation process shown in Table 6.2 and further defi ned in the discussion that follows.

Uncover New Insights The fi rst innovation objective where communities can be applied to collaborate with users is the shaping of insights. Ethnographic thinking plays an important role in the front end of innovation; the explorative way of observing what people need provides access to actual behavior, attitudes, and values. The essence of this approach is to develop robust insights that can shape innovation concepts. The term “insight” is often

Table 6.1: Overview of Online Consumer Listening and Interaction Methods

BlogsBulletinBoards

Private OnlineCommunities

CommunityPanels

AccessPanels

Description 1‐on‐1

asynchronous

discussions and

observations

Asynchronous

focus groups

or short‐term

discussions

with small

samples

Asynchronous

discussions with

medium‐size

samples and

variable duration

Internet

access

panels with

interactive

social media

applications

Internet

access panels

Duration Short Short Short to long

term

Long term Long term

Intensity High High High to medium Low None

Conversation 1‐to‐1 Many‐to‐many Many‐to‐many Little No

Research techniques

Qualitative

only

Qualitative

only

Qualitative only Quantitative,

some

qualitative

Quantitative

De Wulf and De Ruyck, eds., 2013

Table 6.2: Innovation Stages and Objectives

Innovation Stage Objective

Uncover new insights Explorative interaction with users; observational tasks and discussions

lead to an immersion in the life of the target group and the discovery of

new insights

Generate and craft ideas and

concepts

Co‐create new ideas within a predefi ned solution space and develop

them into concepts

Prototype and prelaunch the

proposition

Users adopt a prototype in their lives and participate in task‐driven

activities to improve the product and brainstorm about the go‐to‐market

strategy.

c06 141 28 June 2014 9:32 PM


misused to describe observations or superfi cial fi ndings. Figure 6.3 highlights the four characteristics of a consumer insight.

■ It’s me: All insights should be relevant for the consumer; they need to feel under-stood. Ideally the insight is also endorsed by the consumer’s environment; it should therefore be contagious.

■ Aha!: An insight should be fresh, providing a new way of looking at things. This includes both discovering something completely new and uncovering an existingreality in a new way. An insight should not be immediately apparent; it is latently present and often you only realize that it is true the moment you hear it. It brings to the surface what was there subconsciously.

■ Emotion: An insight should have an emotional valence. It can be a friction or problem that consumers want to solve, but it can also be a desire for something. Consumers should be excited about having a potential solution.

■ Business potential: A good insight can unlock brand potential, uncover innovation, and lead to more successful communication and consumer activation. Ultimately it leads to more sales; an insight can be the start of diff erent marketing elements in the marketing mix.

Case

Clubbers Inspire the Creation of aProgressive Heineken Nightclub

The Heineken‐sponsored global design project, which went under the title of Open Design Explorations Edition 1: The Club, invited 19 emerging designersfrom around the world to co‐create the club of the future. To immerse them-selves in the nightlife journey, the design team connected with a community of 120 design‐savvy clubbers.

In the development of a relevant and impactful take on club design, it is crucial to understand the needs of clubbers, which is why The Heineken Concept Clubcommunity was set up—a three‐week online journey with 120 design‐savvy clubbers in the 20 hottest cities in the world. This inspirational adventureprovided the design team with relevant consumer insights, acting as a briefi ng,a source of inspiration, and a springboard for ideation. Through discussions, diaries, pictures, and videos, these clubbers shared their experiences and the role of clubbing in their lives together with their expectations toward the idealnightlife journey.

Figure 6.3: Defi nition of a Consumer Insight (Verhaeghe et al. 2013)

(continued)dd


c06 142 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

R&D and design activities typically integrate more traditional ethnographic tech-niques like observations, fi eld visits, and interviews to uncover insights (Sanders andStappers, 2008), while contemporary users are seamlessly switching between offl ine and online interactions in their lives. By ignoring the online conversations, we’re not only missing out on valuable insights, as emotions are often the trigger to share an experience on social media. We’re also missing out on a natural tool to capture the online and offl ine behavior of individuals in an effi cient way. By increasing the reach of ethnography, it can have a higher impact on business decisions. In addition, the variety of social tools—from diaries and discussions to mood boards and video challenges—increases the richness and eventually the depth of the data.

The dialogue with this dynamic target group resulted in over 2000 comments, providing a unique view on the essence of clubbing. To engage and inspire the designers with the results, a customized reporting format was developed. The analysis of the discussions resulted in 28 insights, each linking a challenge for the design team to the needs of their audience. Service‐design thinkinginspired the integration of these insights—spread over six touchpoints—in a customer journey map that visualized the experiences, needs, and motivationsof the clubbers.

The customer journey was presented in an interactive infographic, stimulating designers to discover the touchpoints and consumer insights. The full interactive consumer journey map is available on http://nightlifejourney.com.

Example of an Insight

“It is so frustrating not to be noticed by the bartender! I’m clearly trying to get his attention, but others are being served before me.”

How does this insight relate to the defi nition? It’s me : For everyone who regularly goes clubbing and has already tried to order a drink, this shouldbe recognizable. Aha!: It’s a latent need that has not yet been addressedin current clubs. Emotion: The situation is causing a negative emotionof frustration; clubbers feel a lack of attention. Business potential : The insight is closely linked to the products of Heineken; it’s about orderinga drink. Solving this friction can lead to a delighting and conversational experience.

This insight inspired the designers to deconstruct and carefully consider the simple act of ordering a beer, anticipating the clubbers’ need to attract theattention of the bartender. The complete surface of the bar was transformed into an interactive screen. Tap a bottle‐shaped icon on the interactive barsurface and pulsing, concentric circles attract the server’s attention andtell him that you have priority over the guy next to you. When your beer is served, the bartender taps the icon to “explode” it, showing that the order has been fulfi lled.

c06 143 28 June 2014 9:32 PM


Private online communities facilitate a unique approach for insight activation, maximizing chances to detect strong and diff erentiating insights. Insights gener-ated through research communities have proven to be 82 percent more eff ective in the market (Peters, 2012). Multimedia ethnography allows the community members to share their experience and habits through stories, pictures, and videos on a private and personal blog. The meaningful observations from this blogging stage can then be further shaped in the discussions. The blog stories and forum discussions are analyzedthrough info structuring and pattern detection while visual analysis principles (Pink, 2007) provide understanding of the visual output.

Case

Activation and Deprivation of Heinz Ketchup Consumption

When H.J. Heinz was in need for insights on ketchup and cold sauce usage for the front end of their innovation funnel, they integrated private online commu-nities in their process. To gain understanding in the true usage of cold sauces, the approach needed to go beyond recall and capture usage in the heat of themoment. To understand the variety of usage moments, more people needed to be invited, for a longer period of time, making private online communities the ideal method.

Four different groups of consumers were invited to join the community: Heinz ketchup users, consumers who use ketchup but not Heinz, people whouse other cold sauces, and people who typically use ketchup out of home butdo not buy it for in‐home consumption. A personal blog on the community allowed them to share their daily food moments with the Heinz team, in pictures and stories.

Example of a Used Technique

All participants were asked to report on personal and family usage of ketchup and cold sauces. In order to reveal consumers’ latent motivations, they partici-pated in activation and deprivation exercises. During activation, people were asked to start using ketchup more often. During deprivation periods, they couldn’t consume any ketchup for a couple of days and had to report about the moments when they missed it.

KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ Uncovering new insights is not only about engaging the community members

to blog about their lives and specifi c situations like their meals. To get everything out of the data and not miss out on crucial details, the perspective of the (design)


c06 144 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

researcher is not enough. The researcher is looking at the data from a personal per-spective, which is diff erent from the perspective and context of the user. “Crowd interpretation” involves users in the analysis to get a more holistic view on the data. Participants take the observations of their peers in three steps, from a description and an interpretation to an insight. Crowd interpretation is a powerful mechanism: it helps shed new light on the data and delivers 20 to 40 percent complementary insights which are of a similar quality to the ones derived from researchers (Ver-haeghe et al., 2011).

PITFALLS TO AVOID ■ Ethnographic projects are explorative and diverging by nature; consumer insight

activation processes through private online communities can easily lead to dozens of insights that can all serve as a springboard for innovation. However, in the currentcommercial environment dollars are not limitless, so a selection of insights with the highest level of potential is becoming more crucial. A quantitative validation of the insights through an online survey can help distinguish the insights with the greatest innovation potential. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to validate insights are listed in the subsection titled Step 1: Defi ne Your Objectives in section 6.5 “How to getstarted with private online communities” later in the chapter.

Generate and Craft Ideas and Concepts The previous objective of uncovering new insights enhances the empathy of the design team by immersing itself in the life of the user. A deliverable in this phase is the defi nition of the design space and the specifi cation of actionable problems. This solution space is based on high‐potential insights and rich user information collected in the multimedia ethnography; it serves as a springboard for ideation. Although there is typically no lack of ideas in innovation teams, generating them together with users increases their relevance. Having this holistic view on the user also cre-ates an understanding about which ideas are the ones to chase. Users don’t only like to be involved, they expect organizations to involve them in defi ning their future. Collaborating with them in the product or service development fl ow creates a sort of self‐fulfi lling prophecy.

Not every user is fi t to co‐create. Private online communities only work with people who are highly engaged, as shown at the top of the vertical axis on Figure 6.4 . Eric von Hippel already coined the notion of leading‐edge users in the 1980s (Von Hippel, 1986). Lead users sense needs before the entire market does and they are interested in fi nding a solution for them. For innovation research it is advisable to approach users who are among the fi rst to try new products and are prepared to take a risk with them. But while we need a group of innovators, diff usion of innovations happens when an innovation is “communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (Rogers, 2003). Therefore it is recommended to add a second dimension to the user profi le: social independence versus interpersonal infl uence—the horizontal axis of Figure 6.4 . As such we propose two complementary types of (potential) users to ideate and develop concepts within a certain product category:

c06 145 28 June 2014 9:32 PM


■ Independent innovators: These users formulate their vision about an innovation independently. They base this vision solely on their own experience and opinions, without taking into account what might be popular. They like to try new things and generally have more extreme views than the average user.

■ Social infl uencers: This group discusses innovations while taking into account what their social environment thinks. Infl uencers are regarded as creative specialists, whoare quick to see the advantages of new innovations. Consequently, their opinions about such innovations are frequently asked for, and followed.

The longitudinal connection with the user community is especially benefi cial in the con-

text of ideation. Although live brainstorms can generate a multitude of ideas, the creative

process is not limited to this one moment in time; users can think of an idea in the evening,

the next day, or during a completely diff erent activity on the weekend. Most traditional tech-

niques don’t capture ideas that are shaped in the mind of users over time. Ideas that occur in

this second stage have a higher chance for breakthrough (Kahn, ed., 2004). The online environment is particularly stimulating for the generation of ideas; users

receive challenges based on the defi ned problems and can build further on each other’s ideas to make them more relevant. In a combination of synchronous (live) and asyn-chronous interaction waves, the moderator is probing to move the participants from

Figure 6.4: Innovation Profi le of Users Copyright © InSites Consulting


c06 146 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

Case

Air France and KLM Co‐create the Future Transfer Experience with Frequent Flyers

In order to further improve the experience of their travelers, the airline com-panies Air France and KLM connected with their frequent fl yers in a staged innovation approach. This project included both the uncovering of new insights and the generation and crafting of ideas and concepts. The objective of the project was to improve the transfer experience, as transfer fl ights are often perceived as complex and stressful and they evoke a lot of negative emotions.

In order to turn the current situation into an opportunity, Air France and KLM collaborated with frequent travelers during a six‐week co‐creation project. By connecting with 40 frequent fl yers in a three‐week ethnography community, the passengers shared over 400 observations in text and pictures. Their personal blogs allowed the team to immerse in the world of transfer using a mobile application which allowed them to share their experience and pictures on‐the‐go during their journey. Based on these insights, 10 insight platforms were defi ned, emphasizing their needs, emotions, and expectations.

The insight platforms from the blogging phase were used during the second stage of the My Transfer Idea community, where another group of 50 frequent travelers joined forces to generate over 450 ideas and comments to improve the transfer experience. While the fi rst group was selected based on having a lot of transfer experience and having a transfer fl ight scheduled in the period of the community, in this phase travelers were selected who fulfi lled the innovator and infl uential requirements of the innovation team. The innovators were challenged to generate as much ideas as possible to the ideationchallenges connected to the insights. The infl uentials were commenting on the ideas to improve them and make them relevant for a broader audience. Three of the fi nal service concepts are being investigated by Air France and KLM: a mobile transfer application including real‐time consumer notifi cations and communication about travel details; a new in‐fl ight transfer video; and a concept known as “The Agent of the Future.” Furthermore, the insights and the other 29 concepts have laid the blueprint for future service innovations in thetransfer zone and many other new initiatives.

known to unknown solutions. By setting up a live online discussion or chat, a multitude of ideas can be generated in a short time. But for the shaping of breakthrough ideas,an incubation period is needed. The asynchronous community platform allows users to share new ideas and comment on each other’s thoughts anytime, anywhere. Chal-lenges typically introduce the insight to set the scene, followed by the problem defi ni-tion in the “How to . . . ” format.

c06 147 28 June 2014 9:32 PM


KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ In contrast to the previous phase, which is centered on the observations of users,

in the phase of idea generation it is crucial for the design team to actively interactwith the community. It is recommended to observe their ideas in the fi rst wave, after which the design team can request participants to elaborate on their ideas. The company can share their own ideas for participants to comment on in a third wave.

■ As part of the guidelines on software, the use of gamifi cation elements will be discussed further in this chapter. Gamifi cation elements have proven to increase participant engagement in communities (De Ruyck and Veris, 2011) and the playful-ness they evoke is especially useful in the context of ideation. Think about addinga countdown to ideation challenges, giving the ideas a status depending on their quality and unlocking information based on the eff orts by the community as a whole (e.g., share sketches by a designer after reaching a certain number of ideas).

PITFALLS TO AVOID ■ Co‐creating ideas and concepts with users results in a multitude of shaped concepts.

It’s crucial to judge the quality of this output without prejudices. Ideas need support within the organization or team to take them forward, but the belief should come from the intrinsic qualities of the idea and not because of political or personal motives. Therefore, it is recommended to closely connect the team with the users during the co‐creation, so the professionals can truly empathize. In addition, more objective testing can be set up; the strengths of the co‐created concepts and products can be validated from idea screening to concept testing and in‐home user testing.

Prototype and Prelaunch the Proposition In the NPD process the cost of changes increases over time while the fl exibility to make changes decreases. Therefore, it is recommended to collaborate with users in a private online community from the very front end as previously described; by starting from relevant insights and co‐creating concepts and ideas with innovators and infl uencers. But there are still a lot of variables to get right between defi ning a proposition and launching a product or service to the market. Therefore, getting the prototype or solu-tion out of the lab as soon as possible is important in order to understand and optimizethe actual user experience. From pre‐launching a service to exploring the journey of a product and continuously improving existing services; involving users allows you to assess and develop a delightful user experience.

Example of an Ideation Challenge

“Travelling can sometimes feel unhealthy, taking away your energy. Your transfer is the ideal moment to catch your breath and recharge your batteries. How can you transform your transfer time into a healthy experience? You can imagine new products, services, complete environments . . . The sky is the limit!”


c06 148 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

A private online community can be set up in this phase, but ideally users were already involved in an earlier stage and in this case the collaboration can easily be reactivated as both the platform and the users are already available. By setting up diff erent collabo-ration waves along the innovation process, a truly user‐centric approach emerges. In comparison to setting up ad hoc interactions through traditional techniques, this is also when private online communities become most cost‐effi cient.

The objectives of a prototype or prelaunch wave diff er depending on the type of product and the level of detail of the prototype, but there are typically four building blocks, described in detail below.

■ Understanding the customer journey■ Prioritizing improvements■ Support and service ■ Go to market and positioning

Users live with products over time; a two‐hour interview in an artifi cial setting simply doesn’t give a realistic view on their usage and context. To get a holistic view on their experience, the journey needs to be captured from fi rst impressions to ongoing use. The longitudinal character of a private online community allows users to capture and share these experiences near the moment of truth. By gaining qualitative insight and map-ping frictions and delighters on the journey, the design team gains insight in the mental model of the user and where in the journey there is a risk for dropout.

The customer journey (Figure 6.5 ) starts with the “discovery” phase: “What are the fi rst impressions and expectations? What is the out‐of‐box experience like?” Next up is the internal conceptualization or “understanding”: “Is there a fi t with the initial expecta-tions? Do users understand the features and benefi ts?” An initial opinion is shaped in the “evaluation” phase: “Will the product make life easier or solve a problem? Will it refl ect how users see themselves and how others see them?” The product is fi rst used in the “trial” phase when the user determines the worth or usefulness: “Is the performance as expected? What is the learning curve?” The use is confi rmed when there’s a fi t between the needs of the user and the solution off ered: “adoption.” When the user decides to

Figure 6.5: Example of a Customer Journey Copyright © InSites Consulting

c06 149 28 June 2014 9:32 PM


continue use and an emotional bond is formed the “repeat” phase is reached: “Will the solution continue to solve a problem? Is this now the preferred way to solve this need?”

When collaborating with users the number of improvements and ideas that’s already present in the company will increase and gain relevance. To know which improvements to chase and how to prioritize them, a thorough understanding of the user expectations is needed. By discussing the context and the experience with users while stimulating them to share their suggestions for new features, a qualitative satisfaction model can be created.

The customer satisfaction model adapted from Kano (1984) divides product attri-butes into three categories: basic attributes, performance attributes, and excitement attributes (Figure 6.6 ). The model connects user expectations to the investment required to develop them, thus merging objectives of the user and the organization. Basic expectations are threshold attributes; their presence will go by unnoticed, but

Figure 6.6: Customer Satisfaction Model Adapted from Kano et al., 1984


c06 150 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

their absence will cause extreme frustration. An example of such an expectation would be the audio control on the remote of a TV. The investment in performance attributesis directly proportional to the user satisfaction it will generate; the more the better. Users are also willing to pay a premium for products with more performance attributes. Most features users come up with fall in this category. Having access to more TV chan-nels is an example of a performance attribute. Excitement or addiction attributes are the diff erentiating characteristics of your product. As these are often unexpected and linked to latent needs, they require an intensive interaction with users. Being able to continue watching the movie you were watching on TV, on your smartphone would be an example of such a delighter. In the evolution of a product, attributes can drop from excitement to performance and basic. A structural connection with users will keep organizations in the driving seat to delight customers and be ahead of the competition.

Case

Testing Prototypes of Internet Services for Vodafone In order to grow their market share and average revenue per user (ARPU), Vodafone needed to engage with fi rst‐time smart phone users. The business objective for Vodafone in fi scal year 2012 was to launch 10 new commercialservices and gain buy‐in for up to 21 local markets. To meet and surpass theexpectations of their customers, user participation in the lean development of these services was crucial. Traditional ways of testing digital services—such as user diaries, applied in user experience (UX) testing—did not provide the instantaneous feedback nor the quantitative heft to convince internal stake-holders. The solid approach of private online communities—supported by connecting with more people, for longer periods of time, and having all the contributions registered—combines the richness of qualitative understandingwith the credibility of a quantitative validation. In addition, Vodafone waslooking for an integrated approach to be rolled out in multiple countries, pro-viding a holistic view and incorporating three core areas: understanding the customer journey, prioritizing improvements, and defi ning the go‐to‐marketstrategy and positioning.

A dedicated subcommunity of 75 participants was set up for every service to be tested, in different three‐week waves and involving multiple key markets(Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK) in their native language. For every service, participants were recruited from the Vodafone customer database in at least two relevant markets, the research guide wastranslated in the native language of these countries, and the communities were managed in parallel by local moderators.

By enlarging the user base wave after wave, the communities were evolving toward a structural collaboration. This hybrid approach, combining blogs and

c06 151 28 June 2014 9:32 PM


When customers gain access to a prototype or product in beta phase, their questions and information needs will be very similar to those of postlaunch users. These discus-sions on the private online community can guide the development of the product sup-port, both in terms of content and channels. More and more organizations are moving from call centers to online and social media support to increase cost‐effi ciency, while the level of service is often an excitement attribute in itself for users. Understanding this mechanism for specifi c product categories can turn a negative experience into a posi-tive and conversational one.

A fi nal building block is the go‐to‐market and positioning. By mapping the product in the competitive space and understanding the brand perception, the positioning becomes clear from a customer perspective. The stories of users and the drivers and barriers that are detected provide additional insights for the go‐to‐market strategy and messaging. It is crucial to emphasize the open‐ended and spontaneous nature of these discussions among users. In addition to these four building blocks, the overall question is a relevance check of the product: “Is it solving a need? What is its reason to exist?” Most traditional techniques are focused on asking questions, while the room and time for users to start spontaneous discussions among each other on the community can teach us even more.

KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ To get a rich understanding of the prototype experience, it’s crucial to target users

with a variety of backgrounds to cover as many user scenarios as possible. When

discussions (to understand and capture the customer journey, detect bugs, and develop new features) with live chat conversations (for detailed Q&Asessions with the development team) and short surveys (to get a pre‐ and post‐impression on satisfaction and recommendation) allowed for swiftreactivations of the communities whenever necessary.

So far, the screening and prioritization analysis led to the launch of Guardian, Protect, Cloud, Contacts, Discover, and joyn. These services all reached or surpassed their targets. Depending on the market, a selection of these services is now combined in the Vodafone Red proposition.

The community also supported the go‐to‐market strategy, including volume uptake forecasts in each country.

Example of a Customer Journey Technique

With the objective of testing prototypes, task‐driven discussions take on a cen-tral stage. In addition to the natural discovery and use of the product, users receive instructions to test the product in specifi c situations, for example, on 3G instead of Wi‐Fi, or abroad. By uploading screenshots of the service via the mobile community application, they could easily share their thoughts along the way. In addition to the Vodafone products, users also perform the same tasks with competitive apps to create a qualitative “experience benchmark.”


c06 152 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

testing smart phone applications, for example, private online communities allow you to invite users with diff erent brands of smart phones and diff erent versions of the supported OS.

PITFALLS TO AVOID ■ Depending on the product category, it won’t always be possible to uncover the

complete customer journey with one target group. Although private online commu-nities work best with people who are already involved with your product or brand, to understand the initial phase it can be necessary to collaborate with nonusers. Users are not always able to remember what their initial impression of the product was, therefore it is recommended to capture this near the moment of truth with nonusers. To guarantee a successful and constructive interaction, it’s important to ensure they are not rejecters of the brand.

Impact The impact of collaborating with users on one or more of the previously described objectives is threefold: on the level of the product, the brand, and the company.

Companies that work together with users come up with more consumer‐relevant goods and services. In a project to generate and craft ideas for H.J. Heinz, the ideas generated by consumers in a private online community were compared with ideas gen-erated by the company team in a concept screener (De Wulf and De Ruyck, eds., 2013). Ideas generated internally at H.J. Heinz were signifi cantly more perceived as being “unique.” Ideas originating through the community, on the other hand, were evaluated as more “consumer relevant” and obtained a higher “buying intention” in the same test among a representative sample of the population. To get to the best of both worlds, professionals should co‐create ideas with users.

Case

Evaluation of the Heineken Nightclub The day after enjoying the new clubbing experience in the Heineken conceptclub, visitors of the club during the Milan Design Week were invited for anonline interview (De Ruyck et al., 2012). Recruitment for this interview hap-pened via Twitter and the database of people invited to the opening. Twenty‐four club goers were selected for the interviews: 16 males and 8 females. Atthe core of the interviews were three basic exercises: write a review, give theclub a score, and select and rank your favorite design objects that were show-cased in the club.

Overall, the club got a report fi gure of almost 9/10 and was seen as a surprisingand innovative initiative of Heineken. Moreover, the concept club was perceivedas a different and more entertaining experience than a regular club.

c06 153 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

HOW TO GET STARTED WITH PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNITIES 153

In a different study (Van Dijk, 2011) two different pack designs for the same product were compared. A claim was added to one of the packs: “co‐created with consumers.” The other pack did not carry any such claim. Again, it was found that the pack with the claim was perceived as more “consumer relevant” and had a higher “buying intention.” This shows that it is not only about collaborating in itself; it is also about communicating about the fact that you do it. This leads to a human-ization of the brand. Companies that are open to the outside world actually do something users expect from organizations nowadays. They are perceived as more contemporary and genuine. And through the positive (brand) experience, commu-nity members will generate positive conversations about the brand and become brand advocates for life.

Last but not least, organizations that are structurally collaborating with users gain the ability to move rapidly. It makes teams work on a project together, striving toward a common goal. And it is the user who determines the agenda and prioritization of fea-tures on the roadmap. The end result is a more agile company.

6.5 How to Get Started with Private Online Communities The previous sections described the main objectives and the impact of collaborating with users, discussing how private online communities can be applied to reach these objectives. The remaining sections provide a step‐by‐step manual (Table 6.3 ) on how to get started and set up your own private online community.

Step 1: Defi ne Your Objectives As with any project it is crucial to clearly defi ne the objectives from the start. Setting up collaboration with users is a step‐by‐step approach that needs to be customized to how the company and the teams are structured. There are three things to keep in mind: (1) Is it an ad hoc or continuous collaboration? For ad hoc projects focus is important; reach one objective within one project. In a structural collaboration, multiple objectives and projects can be combined in waves. A wave in a structural project or an ad hoc collaboration has a focus on one of the three objectives previously described; uncover new insights, generate and craft ideas and concepts, or prototype and prelaunch the

The “Top 5 Design Concepts,” according to the visitors, were: (1) the interactive bar, (2) the special editions of the award‐winning “aluminum bottle” in which the beer was served, (3) the staff’s clothing, (4) the exit including thetaxi service delivered by the concierge, and (5) the entrance of the club, which was giving the clubbers a glimpse of the vibes inside. The ideas behind allof these concepts were based upon the consumer insights from the privateonline community.


c06 154 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

proposition. (2) Although these phases are sequential, it is not necessary to start with the fi rst one; the collaboration with users can start in any of these phases. (3) These objectives are fl exible and complementary; idea generation can be combined with additional ethnographic activities to inject fresh inspiration. It can be necessary to takea step back to understand the complete picture.

In the fi rst phase of uncovering new insights it is the goal to be divergent through individual observations. It aims at discovering and shaping insights about people (target users and their needs), processes (decision‐making process), and products (triggers and barriers for buying and using a product/service). While this exploratory phase can be about a broader topic or category, the other phases take place in a more defi ned solu-tion space and are targeted toward converging relevant bits of inspiration into ideas, concepts, and improvements.

Clear objectives include agreeing on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that need to be measured and standards that need to be reached. Without the latter, it is impossible to prove what the collaboration adds to the innovation process. It is defi nitely a challenge to measure the impact of such a qualitative approach, but that’s no excuse not to mea-sure or start with a user‐centered approach in the fi rst place. By capturing and listing the existing insights, assumptions, and ideas within a project before the start, these can easily be compared to the outcome of the user collaboration. What is confi rmed, declined, and complemented to the knowledge and creativity within the organization?

Table 6.3: Overview of the Step‐by‐Step Manual

Step 1: Defi ne your objectives How to match the role of users within the innovation

phase of your project?

Step 2: Select the right technology What are essential features of a platform and what type of

tools do you need?

Step 3: Recruit the right participants What are channels and criteria to fi nd users to collaborate

with?

Step 4: Engage your participants How to combine intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

techniques?

Step 5: Set up your interaction guide How to initiate the interaction with users? What is

gamifi cation?

Step 6: Manage the interaction What is the role and the importance of the moderator?

Step 7: Analyze the results What techniques are recommended for the analysis of the

results?

Case

Air France and KLM Co‐create the Future Transfer Experience with Frequent Flyers

The previously described project to improve the transfer process of Air France and KLM included both the “uncover new insights” and “generate and craftideas and concepts” objective. Before initiating the collaboration with frequent

c06 155 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

fl yers, the knowledge available across different reports and departments was captured in internal workshop sessions (Verhaeghe et al., 2012). Each partici-pant to the workshop was asked to go through previous research and had topick the three most important transfer learnings from each report. These were presented and for each fi nding, further probing led to the insight explaining the fi nding. This exercise was wrapped up by clustering the insights based on the fi ndings across research reports.

It is an illusion to think that all information is explicitly captured. Often, decisionsare made based on the assumptions designers have about users. To also capture this more implicit information within the company, projective techniques can beused to bring assumptions to the surface. Based on personifi cation techniques, the Air France and KLM team played a board game placing them in the shoes of their customers. The team members were all assigned a persona representing a typical passenger. During the board game, they had to come up with needs and problems their persona could have during transfer. In order to stimulate out‐of‐the‐box thinking, they were given probing cards revealing more information about the persona. This could both be a more intrinsic characteristic of the persona (e.g., you are always up to date with the latest technologies) or contextual information(e.g., you are coming back from a long business trip after three weeks and miss your family). By applying these techniques, the project got a head start. Existing knowledge was recycled, so no time and resources were spend on unnecessary topics. It was fundamental in aligning the focus and expectations of the team, because everyone was confronted with the knowledge gaps.

The workshop led to a knowledge map summarizing all existing insights, knowledge, and assumptions that were present in the organization before starting the actual private online community. This resulted in 26 transferinsights leading to the defi nition of fi ve consumer insight platforms. In the “uncover new insights” phase, 68 transfer insights were discovered, of which42 were new, an increase of 61 percent. Five more insight platforms could beadded. Moreover, the research also rejected 6 of the 26 assumptions that were generated during the workshop.

For each objective, there are three types of KPIs: (a) the direct outcome of the collaboration approach, (b) the infl uence on the innovation process, and (c) the impact on the performance of the organization (change of image, increase in sales, etc.). The latter are connected to the strategy of the organization.


“UNCOVER NEW INSIGHTS” KPIS ■ Quantity of observations (a) ■ Quantity of confi rmed, declined, and new insights (a)■ “Clarity” of the insights: “Is it written in consumer language? Does the wording need

improvement?” (b) ■ “Relevance” of the insights: “To what extent can users personally identify with this

statement?” (b)


c06 156 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

■ “Freshness” of the insights: “Aha, users did not think of this issue or idea this way before!” (b)

■ “Excitement” of the insights: “How excited would users be if a solution or message was developed to address the issue?” (b)

■ “Contagious conversations” power of the insights: “How often are people talking about the issue?” (b)

“GENERATE AND CRAFT IDEAS AND CONCEPTS” KPIS ■ Quantity of ideas and concepts (a) ■ Quantity of ideas initiated by the users versus the company (a)■ “Trial relevance” of ideas and concepts: “Is this useful for people?” (b)■ “Repeat relevance” of ideas and concepts: “How often would people use it?” (b)■ “Uniqueness” of ideas and concepts: “Is it unique compared to what users know

today?” (b) ■ “Credibility” of ideas and concepts: “Do users believe the product or service will

deliver upon its promise?” (b) ■ “Emotional excitement” of ideas and concepts: “Will users actively look for it if it is

available?” (b)■ “Talkability” of ideas and concepts: “Would users talk about it with their peers?” (b)■ “Feasibility” of ideas and concepts: “Is this timing/cost/production feasible?” (b) ■ “Brand fi t” of ideas and concepts: “Does it fi t the long‐term brand strategy?” (b)

“PROTOTYPE AND PRELAUNCH THE PROPOSITION” KPIS ■ Quantity of basic attributes (a)■ Quantity of performance attributes (a) ■ Quantity of excitement attributes (a)■ Product‐specifi c performance indicators (b)■ Revenue: performance in the market versus targets (c)

KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ Engaging the complete team at the company side from the start is crucial for a

successful user collaboration. Without their involvement and buy‐in there is a low chance that the insights, ideas, concepts, and improvements resulting from the ini-tiative will have impact in the innovation process. In combination with the longitu-dinal characteristics of the method, they can adjust the direction along the way and reap the benefi ts of the intensive connection with (potential) users.

PITFALLS TO AVOID ■ Although defining the objectives is a critical phase in the project, it is recom-

mended not to keep the objectives too narrow. Objectives should be flexible and complementary. Leave room for answers to questions you didn’t ask by stimulating participants to spontaneously start new discussions themselves. Every interaction with users entails the opportunity to engage with them struc-turally. Keep the option open to engage with the community at a later stage in the innovation process. This proactivity will have an impact on the recruitment

c06 157 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

of participants and the communication toward them (e.g., engaging them for more than one wave).

Step 2: Select the Right Technology To facilitate the online collaboration with users, a platform is needed. Private online communities are inspired by the social media behavior of contemporary users. There are both free social media services available as well as dedicated platforms under a license fee. Specialized collaboration agencies typically have their own custom platform to match the objectives with the right tools, optimize user engagement, and increase the effi ciency. Essential features of such platforms are the possibility to give only a select group of people access (protected with password) and features that allow inter-action with and between participants. Password protection might seem a contradiction to “open innovation,” but it is in fact a crucial element to create a community feeling and build a relationship of trust with the participants. It allows the company to invite users with the right profi le and provides a sense of exclusivity to the participants; not everyone is invited to take part. In addition, it also allows the company to protect the intellectual property of the ideas.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FREE SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES LIKE WORDPRESS AND DEDICATED PLATFORMS TO INTERACT WITH USERS ARE FOURFOLD: 1. Fusion: Free services are typically usable for one type of activity—like a forum dis-

cussion or chat—and don’t allow the fusion approach of merging diff erent types of activities to get a holistic view on the topic. To guarantee a user‐friendly approach, it is not recommended to combine diff erent platforms.

2. Experience: With their single‐activity focus, most interfaces of free social media solutions are very much optimized. They are, however, not optimized to engage participants to actively collaborate for a longer period of time. Creating adelightful experience can be triggered visually, by setting up a custom‐designedplatform, often integrating the visual language and logo of the brand. But also by integrating “gamifi cation” elements and other engagement techniques, allowing participants to collect badges and reach diff erent levels based on their activity.

3. Moderation: Dedicated platforms off er tools to track the activity of the participants and probe for additional depth with moderation tools. Integrated communication channels allow the moderator to send newsletters and/or text messages to the participants with a call to action to take part in new activities.

4. Analysis: Engaging a community of users who are interesting and interested typi-cally results in a lot of rich user information. Dedicated collaboration platforms have integrated tools to digest this information, facilitating tasks like tagging con-tributions and interpreting the outcome.

To be able to collaborate with users throughout the innovation process, these are the tools that a platform should support:

Forum for discussions: A tool where people can interact in the form of posted mes-sages. To allow members to express themselves, this should not be limited to text.



c06 158 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

The platform should also support integration of pictures, movies, and the integration of external services like YouTube, . . . The interaction is asynchronous, diff ering from chat rooms in that interaction is not live and is typically a lot richer as participants can choose when and where to contribute, giving them time to think and rethink,leading to richer contributions. Every element of the project is discussed in a dif-ferent “thread,” a single conversation. Ideally these threads are clustered in “rooms” (Figure 6.7 ) to guide the mindset and the attention of the participants. These group discussions are often at the core of a private online community, capturing the con-versation value of users in innovation.

Blog for observations : A blank canvas to allow participants to express and projectthemselves creatively and individually. Blogs typically remain open for longerperiods and are used for activities that require multiple interactions and multimedia uploads. Blogs allow participants to conduct self‐ethnography and share snapshots of their lives throughout time. This is not about group interactions, but about a pri-vate interaction between the moderator and the participant.

Ideation for challenges : While a discussion is structured vertically or chronologically, idea generation activities take on a cluster‐like structure. Members are able to post ideas as a reaction to ideation challenges and have the possibility to build up on each other’s ideas by adding comments. Typically there is also a voting function to get a quantitative feel about the appreciation of the ideas.

Survey and poll for numbers : Although private online communities are qualitative in nature, it is truly a fusion tool, also incorporating short surveys and polls. As a community is not representative, the quantitative results should not be used as a validation, they should be communicated to the community as a trigger for further discussion. For these objectives, the survey features can be limited to single answer, multiple answer, and open answer.

Chat for online focus groups : An online focus group based on instant messagingtechnology. Participants still have the freedom to join from home or any other location, but the live sessions start and end at a given time. This activity can be complementary to discussions, for example to capture spontaneous reactions to a sketch. It is often used to kick off a new collaboration wave with the user community, as a way of introducing them to the objectives, expectations, and the platform.

Voice over IP (VOIP) for in‐depth interviews : Invite a select number of participants for an in‐depth interview to get more context on a specifi c topic that was discussed on the private online community. (Potential) users with a remarkable story or experi-ence can provide additional details. In combination with desktop sharing, this can also be applied to understand the experience of a website or other digital service.

Specialized features : Depending on the topic, more specialized features—allowingparticipants to compose a mood board or to sketch their ideas for example—can bea valuable addition to the previously described activities.

Profi le : In order to interpret the user contributions, it is necessary to gain insight into their individual background and context. A private profi le allows users to introduce themselves to the moderator and enter a bio with pictures. Making this profi le publicwithin the community has the additional benefi t of increasing the community

c06 159 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

feeling. When users get to know and trust each other they will share more personal stories and feedback.

With the number of smart phones rapidly overtaking the number of computers, mobile is a natural enhancement to such a collaboration, and the next evolutionary platform. Mobile interaction though is not the mere translation of current dialogue on a smaller screen. The use of smart phones represents a perfect complement to the desktop platform, leading to more personal and contextual contributions. It allows par-ticipants to capture pictures and videos, to upload them and comment on the spot. It allows on‐the‐go interaction, which can be extremely useful in an environment where participants receive tasks, which could be out of home.

Figure 6.7: Screenshot of a Private Online Community Platform



c06 160 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

It’s an illusion to think all participants will spontaneously fi nd their way to the com-munity on a daily basis; they need to be continuously triggered and engaged to check out “what’s new” and join recent activities. A successful technology setup goes beyond the plat-form by integrating an intelligent communication system. This can go from an email system that supports targeting of specifi c groups of participants based on their activity to updates in their social media feed, for example, through updates in a private Facebook group.

KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ It’s easy to get lost in the plethora of features and possibilities. In selecting the tech-

nology it’s important to match the objectives and focus on the intuitiveness of the software, both for users and internal stakeholders.

PITFALLS TO AVOID ■ There are great collaboration platforms on the market, which can be customized

to meet the needs of a specifi c organization without big investments. It is not rec-ommended to build a proprietary platform from scratch when managing user col-laboration is not the main activity of the organization. Keeping up with evolutions in technology can result in unforeseen costs, e.g., updating a mobile application to support a new release of a mobile operating system.

Step 3: Recruit the Right Participants Although technology is facilitating the interaction, at the core a community is about people. Not just a random group of people, but people who are interesting and interested.

Case

Campbell’s “Come Dine with Me” Campbell’s has set up a private online community to investigate the evolution of the Australian evening meal and to answer questions such as: “What doesthe evening meal look like these days? How did it get there? What does thismean for the next 5 to 10 years?” The company is trying to fi nd inspiration and insights to ideate from, to come‐up with new and innovative food solutions.

The mobile community app allowed participants to upload photos and videos “in the heat of the moment,” i.e., photos while out shopping, while preparing ameal, and so forth. It has proven to be an excellent tool to gain deeper insightsinto cooking/shopping behavior, especially when in situ (Luke et al., 2012). The mobile contributions provide an additional layer of information, not based onmemory like in the case of a diary written at the end of the day, but rather on emotion. Participants took pictures of what they felt was interesting in that particular moment for that particular task, thus enriching the collaboration by allowing the collection of more personal and more contextual data.

c06 161 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

“Interesting” because they have experience with the product or brand the community or wave is centered around and like to share this. “Interested” because they have a brand and/or topic identifi cation and they are engaged to make a diff erence. Yes, these users are biased, but they refl ect an illustrative user reality and generate in‐depth discussions (De Ruyck et al., 2013).

Just like other methods, discussions in private online communities also have a “theo-retical saturation” point—collecting more comments is deemed to lead to no additional new arguments and has thus no additional value. In an online discussion, this point is reached around 30 comments on a specifi c thread. To reach this goal, it is recom-mended to engage with a minimum of 50 participants (Schillewaert et al., 2011).

More traditional techniques recruit users from (online) panels; this is also a valid way to target users to take part in private online communities. But why recruit fans of a brand from (online) panels if they already come together themselves on fan pages of social networking sites like Facebook and other “natural” communities? It’s also pos-sible to recruit research participants from client databases. Recruitment often requires a custom approach and it requires more creativity to fi nd the more creative profi les; for example, placing posters with a QR code in venues they tend to visit or even setting up a “call for collaboration” in the media.

All participants are carefully screened, through an online survey, telephone, or face‐to‐face interview. Especially brand and/or topic identifi cation is a crucial criterion as it is an important predictor of active participation within the community.

TYPICALLY THIS SURVEY INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ■ Willingness to collaborate for the given timeframe■ Internet literacy (experience with social media and fora)■ Willingness to share opinion online ■ Brand and/or topic identifi cation, a Likert scale with statements about the brand

and/or topic ■ Experience with the brand and/or topic ■ Socio‐demographic characteristics to select a specifi c target group (e.g., youngsters)

or to ensure a heterogeneous community■ Experience with or ownership of specifi c technology (e.g., smart phone) if necessary

Specifi cally for the objective of generating and crafting ideas and concepts, an addi-tional requirement is needed: the innovation profi le of the participant. There are two approaches to target innovators and infl uencers; the fi rst approach is self‐proclaimed to a set of statements. Literature on co‐creation provides guidelines on statements to include in order to identify the most competent users. Following are two alternative scales for the self‐proclaimed approach:

GENERALIZED LEAD “USERNESS” (BÉJU‐BÉCHEUR AND GOLLETY, 2007)■ I had expectations on the use of products or services long before others. ■ I have had ideas on how to improve products or services that have since been taken

up by others.■ Companies off er ideas that I have had for a long time. ■ My ideas are innovative compared to current practices.



c06 162 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

EMERGENT NATURE CONSUMER (HOFFMAN ET AL., 2010)■ When I hear about a new product or service idea, it is easy to imagine how it might

be developed into an actual product or service. ■ Even if I don’t see an immediate use for a new product or service, I like to think about

how I might use it in the future. ■ When I see a new product or service idea, it is easy to visualize how it might fi t into

the life of an average person in the future. ■ If someone gave me a new product or service idea with no clear application, I could

“fi ll in the blanks” so someone else would know what do to with it.■ Even if I don’t see an immediate use for a new product or service, I like to imagine

how people in general might use it in the future.■ I like to experiment with new ideas on how to use products and services.■ I like to fi nd patterns in complexity.■ I can picture how products and services of today could be improved to make them

more appealing to the average person.

The second approach is “proven” by reaching out to users who have already shared ideas and suggestions (e.g., on social media), by including creativity questions and/orby asking users to formulate ideas in the intake process. This is also referred to as the “critical incident technique.” This approach can cross the bridge between crowdsourcing and co‐creation, giving users a challenge during the intake process and inviting the ones with the best ideas to join the private online community. It’s even possible to com-bine the self‐proclaimed and the proven approach to target innovators and infl uencers.

KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ The fundamentals of the community approach work on a global scale. In the fol-

lowing sections, the required “localization” of the methodology is highlighted as part of the keys to success. As long as the Internet penetration for the country or the target group is high enough, there are no boundaries to the geographic mar-kets companies can collaborate with through private online communities. It is, how-ever, recommended to set up communities in the native language of the users to allow them to share their thoughts fl uently and spontaneously. This also guarantees nuanced opinions in the discussions. Only when there is a guarantee that the targetgroup is fl uent in another language than their mother tongue, it is possible to set up a private online community in a non‐native language, often English with partici-pants from multiple countries (De Ruyck et al., 2013). In this case, it is recommended to include a TOEFL language test in the selection process.

PITFALLS TO AVOID ■ The recruitment of users is just the start, to evolve from a group of people who don’t

know each other to a community, it is important to build trust and engagement. To get a head start, a chat session can be organized before the kick‐off to brief the par-ticipant about the project, the expectations, and the timeline (De Ruyck et al., 2008). Other engagement techniques are discussed in the next section.

■ Although private online communities are mostly integrated in business‐to‐consumer organizations, it is also possible to set up such collaboration in a business‐to‐business

c06 163 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

context. As long as there is an intrinsic driver to have an impact on the future of the brand, category, or product, it is possible to engage more professional users with this tool. Providing a learning experience and proving the impact of the collabora-tion is a requirement for a successful collaboration with professionals.

Step 4: Engage Your Participants The focus in private online communities is often too much on technology while the common ground real communities share is engagement. To keep all members engaged, the perfect mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators needs to be created. Intrinsic moti-vation implies that members contribute for no reward other than the interest and enjoyment that accompanies the activity. In contrast, extrinsic motivation implies that the reason for participating is something other than an interest in the community itself (Deci and Ryan, 1985). In addition to these intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, social norms play an important role in private online communities. Certain members partici-pate based on more self‐centered reasons such as vouchers, where they seek fi nancial benefi ts for themselves. Other members might feel morally obliged to participate and help the brand; they receive satisfaction from the fulfi llment of their community tasks (Deutskens, 2006). The following framework presented in Table 6.4 and the following discussion shows how the key dimensions group the main ingredients for the cocktailof engagement (De Wulf and De Ruyck, eds., 2013).

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION 1. Interest, enjoyment, and curiosity: Users want to talk about topics they are interested

in. Moderators need to play upon this need by enabling members to share their pas-sions with each other. An example: empower them to start sharing tips and tricks. By playing on their shared interests, members learn new things about their favorite topic. Furthermore, by mixing diff erent questioning techniques such as brainstorms, polls, and battles, the moderator can trigger curiosity for what will happen next.

2. Impact: Participants want to feel that they have an impact on the brand or the company. Representatives of the company need to speak to the community par-ticipants and tell them what they learned and which actions will be taken based upon the input of the community. Participants tend to be realistic in this: they know that companies cannot tell them everything, that some things cannot be implemented because there is no fi t with the company’s strategy, or that it simply takes time to change things. In the end, it is all about managing the expectations toward users from the beginning.


Table 6.4: The Cocktail of Engagement

For myself/me For others

Intrinsic 1 Interest, enjoyment, and curiosity 2 Impact

3 Sense of belonging

Extrinsic 5 Financial rewards 4 Need for status and recognition

(De Wulf and De Ruyck, eds., 2013)


c06 164 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

3. Sense of belonging: The value for participants goes beyond sharing their feedback and ideas; they typically want to connect with like‐minded people and learn more about them. All members have a shared goal they want to reach together. Themoderator needs to emphasize this goal to create a group feeling and make par-ticipants feel proud to be part of this group.

4. Extrinsic motivation: Need for status and recognition: Nonmonetary returns are part of the engagement cocktail, such as the status and recognition members receive from the community. Members like to feel appreciated for their eff orts. They want to be recognized as an expert on the topics they are passionate about. The next step describes how gamifi cation on an individual level—by granting badges—is a technique to anticipate this.

5. Financial rewards: While extrinsic rewards with a monetary value are not the main reason for staying engaged on the community, this type of incentive still needs to be added to our cocktail. When members receive their fi rst invitation to join the community, this monetary incentive (a voucher or topic‐related gift) is con-sidered to be very important. However, as soon as the community has kicked off , there is a shift in motivations. Members get hooked to the community; the weekly challenges and the feedback they receive from the company keeps them energized and motivated to continue. When members are only motivated by tan-gible rewards, it will put them in the reward mindset of a gold rush. They link their behavior to the anticipation of the reward. This does not trigger rich data and rap-idly reduces activity.

KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ From the first invitation to join the community onward, it needs to be clear

what’s in it for the participants. In almost all countries, the main reason to participate is the possibility to have an influence on the future of a brand or a product. But some countries are more extrinsically motivated than others. This is especially the case in the United States and Eastern European countries, but for different reasons. Americans consider it to be normal that there is a payment in return for performance. In most Eastern European countries, on the other hand, an (monetary) incentive is perceived as a nice extra on top of their monthly income. In Asian countries like China, the intrinsic part is more important: they like to be connected with aspirational brands and share their wisdom (De Ruyck et al., 2013).

Step 5: Set Up Your Interaction GuideCollaborating with users for longer periods of time ensures a fl exible approach, but it is still recommended to build an interaction guide for each collaboration wave upfront, leaving room for changes along the way. Thinking about this upfront is benefi cial for both the participants and the internal team for the following reasons:

■ Schedule topics in parallel with the internal fl ow and deadlines of the project■ Manage the expectations of the team toward the scope of the collaboration wave

c06 165 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

■ Reverse‐engineer the outcome; if visual inspiration is crucial to engage the team, these types of tasks should be included

■ By structuring the topics in a logical order, the story can take participants on an engaging journey. The storyline of a private online community can be compared tothe script of a good movie.

■ Plug in more personal topics at a later moment in time; move from “we” to “me” once trust is built.

■ Include a feedback loop: build back on previous learnings to take full advantage of consecutive learning eff ects.

This is also the phase to already anticipate the processing of the community output; composing a tagging framework and analysis plan. The next four steps translate the overall objectives of user collaboration into a detailed interaction guide:

1. From objectives to themes: To create an intuitive experience for participants, it is recommended to structure the discussions in diff erent “rooms” with each having a specifi c theme or focus (Figure 6.7 ). When it is the objective to prototype and prelaunch the proposition, previously described themes like “understanding the customer journey” and “prioritizing improvements” can be discussed in diff erent areas in the community. Also foresee a social corner where participants can start new discussions themselves or interact off ‐topic.

2. From themes to topics: “What are the information needs for each theme?” Start with the more explorative topics before initiating conversations on specifi c ele-ments and map these topics on a timeline. It is recommended to limit the amount of topics to about six per week to keep it manageable for all stakeholders. When the wave is about generating and crafting ideas and concepts, the topics are typi-cally diff erent ideation challenges, each sharing an insight to trigger users to come up with their solutions.

3. From topics to techniques: What you “do” to people is as important as what you “ask” them. Connect each topic to a technique: give participants tasks to perform and use projective techniques to go beyond the rational. Ensure there is enough variety and alternate more diffi cult topics (e.g., a shopper safari where they go to a store and take pictures of diff erent touchpoints along the way) with lighter ones. The techniques you can use will also depend on the activities available on your platform—from blog and discussions to short surveys.

4. Written topics: The fi nal step is writing out the topics. First describe the goal of the activity. Write each topic in an engaging and entertaining way. What you give is what you get; consistently embedding rich data like pictures and videos in topics will result in rich data from the participants. Avoid yes/no questions and make sure the topic is easy to comprehend and is free from jargon.

5. Analysis plan: Defi ne how the topics are contributing to the overall objectives of the project. Develop a tagging framework to process the contributions of the par-ticipants in the analysis phase (Step 7).

Turn the interaction guide into an engaging experience by adding gamifi cation ele-ments: applying the principles and psychology behind games to motivate people and



c06 166 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

enhance their performance. This can be done on four diff erent levels (De Ruyck and Veris, 2011):

■ Question level: Turning ordinary questions into small challenges ensures that par-ticipants spend more time on answering them. Instead of asking people, “What isyour favorite meal?” ask them, “If you had one minute in the supermarket and an unlimited budget, what would you grab?” Instead of asking people, “What does cool mean for you?” ask them, “Can you photograph exactly fi ve things that explain what cool means?”

■ Individual level: Reward members for great achievements in the community by granting them with badges that give them a certain status. The badges indicate that users were part of a specifi c project or that they signifi cantly contributed to an important breakthrough. The badges appear on the profi le page of the communitymembers.

■ Group level: The beauty of working with a diverse group of people is that it leads to rich discussions. In order to stimulate interaction, which always leads to a better out-come, one can organize battles of arguments between groups with diff erent opin-ions or ask groups of people with the same interest to play against another team.

■ Community level: A fi nal option is to build milestones that the members should try to reach by a given date. If the target is reached, a special prize or gift is unlocked. A visualization of an idea, sketched by a designer is a great “gift” in the context of ideation challenges.

Gamifying your community on the four levels described above can lead to seven times more on‐topic arguments (De Ruyck et al., 2011). This results not only in more answers, but richer answers. People think harder by spending more time while answering the questions and performing the tasks.

KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ Tweak the interaction guide to your target group; for youngsters it is recommended

to keep topics shorter and integrate a wide variety of techniques and tools, while older participants prefer to have less but more intense topics with a structured list of questions or tasks.

■ Select the moderator to match the target group. A private online community about technological or digital products, for example, should be moderated by a tech-nology‐savvy moderator.

■ Take over the vocabulary of the target group to accelerate the bonding. It’s possible to adapt wording along the way, but this can also be done upfront by “scraping” a selection of relevant consumer conversations on natural communities that are freely accessible on the web. Doing so enables you to gain fi rst feelings with the topics from a user perspective and to get things right from the start (Kozinets, 2010).

■ A diff erent culture means diff erent attitudes and values, leading to a diff erent way of reacting to certain questions, tasks, and exercises. Some cultures, for instance, love to share a lot of details about themselves and their lives. Others prefer to talk about the group, which is considered to be a safer option. The same holds for ide-ation exercises. It is not a given in every culture that people are very used to taking

c06 167 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

initiative. They feel better when they are only asked to give feedback about what already exists (De Ruyck et al., 2013).

■ Adding elements of gamifi cation to the community brings more richness to the table, but the level of and the intensity by which private online communities can be gamifi ed diff ers from country to country. In Germany, for example, it is wise to limit it to a minimal level as it is culturally less accepted.

PITFALLS TO AVOID ■ Don’t be afraid to share pictures and stories yourself, to “lead by example.” As long

as you infl uence participants to use the right format instead of infl uencing the con-tent of their contributions, it will stimulate a richer outcome. When discussing their perception of diff erent brands in the airline category, it can be useful to give an example from the soda category.

■ Give the members of the private online community the freedom and time to start new discussions themselves. Posting too many topics or topics with too many sub-questions or tasks is counterproductive to the contributions of participants.

Step 6: Manage the Interaction Setting up a private online community creates expectations, within the organization and within the community. Although diff erent employees can introduce themselvesand can be active in the community, it is recommended to have one dedicated mod-erator who posts the new topics and moderates the discussions. It can be benefi cial to have an independent and objective party to moderate and analyze the activities—an external moderator (from an agency). Good moderators have outstanding writing skills, are creative, and apply “social media” in human interaction. He or she must follow the four values of “openness” (being authentic, honest about the goals of the collabora-tion, and honest about themselves), “dedication” (the online environment is accessible24/7 environment), “passion” (given the nature of communities, the moderator must be engaged with the topic), and “forward thinking” (to foresee actions that are needed tomake sure that the community stays healthy in the future).

Each topic should be at least moderated twice, informally and formally. Informal moderation occurs shortly after the topic is posted and fi rst replies are in. The goal is to show appreciation to participants, empower them if they are unsure about their con-tributions, and give open feedback to guide the format of their contribution into the expected direction. Formal moderation takes place once the moment of theoretical sat-uration has been reached, 30 lengthy comments in a discussion. When hypotheses are shaped during the intermediate analysis, they can be translated to consumer languageto probe for additional arguments, details, or examples in the formal moderation.

KEYS TO SUCCESS ■ The Cultural Iceberg model of the American anthropologist Edward Hall suggests

that language is only a small part of culture (Dupuis, 2007). In order to fully grasp the local context and situation, it is recommended to work with a moderator who does not only speak the language, but a native who also understands all the other



c06 168 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

cultural aspects of a country (common values, beliefs, traditions, attitudes, and per-ceptions), next to the local market situation and the business context.

Step 7: Analyze the ResultsPrivate online communities are a fusion tool, combining diff erent methods and activi-ties. For each activity type there is an ideal approach for analysis. As surveys won’t be sent to a representative sample, statistics are not in the scope of this section. For the analysis of participant pictures, it is recommended to follow visual analysis principles (Pink, 2007). Techniques to analyze textual contributions from blog and discussion activities can be derived from the Grounded Theory (Savin‐Baden and Major, 2013) while creativity techniques like SCAMPER (Eberle, 1971) can help to go from a huge list of co‐created ideas to a fi ne selection of concepts. The latter two analysis techniques are described below.

A successful collaboration leads to a lot of online conversations, plenty of data to process. The qualitative analysis of the output is a combination of top‐down (starting from hypothesis, like in traditional social science research) and bottom‐up principles (starting from the data, like the Grounded Theory method). The latter occurs in fi ve steps, adding the phase of “patterns and relationships” to the Grounded Theory method.

1. Structure the data: Code and tag meaningful observations or discussions. This is the most descriptive and easy phase of the analysis.

2. Label the data: Bundle your thoughts and group collections of codes with similar content into categories.

3. Check the data: Critical refl ection to check if the list of codes and categories is complete.

4. Establish patterns and relationships: “What is the logic behind the fi nding, the reason why? How are the categories related to each other?”

5. Make models and conclusions: Leave the data and generalize the fi ndings to a col-lection of explanations that make sense of the subject.

It is recommended to perform the fi rst three steps during the moderation of the community to increase the effi ciency of the approach and to feedback intermediate learnings to the participants for probing and confi rmation.

Co‐creating concepts and ideas is by nature a more iterative process where ideas are shaped along the way, merging contributions from both the internal team and the user community. Ideas can be analyzed in a similar way to discussions, thus creating additional understanding about their context and “reason why.” By analyzing the ideas,the outcome is more than the sum of the diff erent ideas. It can provide context and insight for future ideation. Creativity techniques can be applied during the moderation to increase the quantity of the contributions in a fi rst stage and to further develop ideas into concepts in a second stage. One technique to develop ideas is SCAMPER (Eberle, 1971), a mnemonic that stands for Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, and Reverse.

■ Substitute: “What materials or resources can you substitute or swap to improve the product? What other product or process could you use? What rules could you

c06 169 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

CONCLUSION 169

substitute? Can you use this product somewhere else, or as a substitute for something else? What will happen if you change your feelings or attitude toward this product?”

■ Combine: “What would happen if you combined this product with another, to create something new? What if you combined purposes or objectives? What could youcombine to maximize the uses of this product? How could you combine talent and resources to create a new approach to this product?”

■ Adapt: “How could you adapt or readjust this product to serve another purpose or use? What else is the product like? Who or what could you emulate to adapt this product? What else is like your product? What other context could you put your product into? What other products or ideas could you use for inspiration?”

■ Modify: “How could you change the shape, look, or feel of your product? What could you add to modify this product? What could you emphasize or highlight to create more value? What element of this product could you strengthen to create something new?”

■ Put to another use: “Can you use this product somewhere else, perhaps in another industry? Who else could use this product? How would this product behave diff er-ently in another setting? Could you recycle the waste from this product to make something new?”

■ Eliminate: “How could you streamline or simplify this product? What features, parts, or rules could you eliminate? What could you understate or tone down? How could you make it smaller, faster, lighter, or more fun? What would happen if you took away part of this product? What would you have in its place?”

■ Reverse: “What would happen if you reversed this process or sequenced things dif-ferently? What if you try to do the exact opposite of what you’re trying to do now? What components could you substitute to change the order of this product? What roles could you reverse or swap? How could you reorganize this product?”

To make sure something is done with the results and to build a user‐centric thinking culture within companies, it’s necessary to apply similar engagement techniques to internal stakeholders than to participants. There’s a three‐step approach to communi-cate the outcome to the business: engage, inspire, and activate (De Wulf and De Ruyck, eds., 2013):

■ Engage is about confronting the team with the world of the user and with their own (lack of ) knowledge about the matter.

■ In the inspire phase the internal stakeholders are inspired with the gained insights in an interactive workshop.

■ The activate stage of a workshop is about working with the results and turning insights into actions through ideation, concept‐writing exercises, and the like.

6.6 Conclusion Private online communities provide a contemporary solution to Open Innovation challenges. The intense interaction with users allows teams to make better decisions faster. It is inspired by the social media usage of users, off ering them a tool to share


c06 170 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

their stories and ideas with companies. The private characteristic creates an intimate environment where participants are confi dent to talk about themselves and allows organizations to protect their intellectual property. To give users a structural place in the innovation fl ow through this tool, it is recommended to experiment with the idealsetup. Creating the right eco‐system of technology, participants, topics, techniques, and interaction with internal stakeholders is crucial for embedding the voice of users in the innovation practice.

References Béji‐Bécheur , A. , and M. Gollety , 2007 , Lead user et leader d’opinion: deux cibles majeures

au service de l’innovation , Décisions Marketing , 48 , 4 : 21 – 34 .De Ruyck , T. , F. Gennart , P. De Vuyst , and F. Naessens , 2013, “Inspirational Customer Dia-

logues,” ESOMAR 3D Digital Dimensions 2013. De Ruyck , T. , H. Eising , T. Troch , F. De Boeck , and C. Van Hoff , 2012, “Designing the Club of

Tomorrow,” ESOMAR Congress 2012. De Ruyck , T. , and E. Veris , 2011, “Play, Interpret Together, Play Again and Create a Win‐

win‐win,” ESOMAR 3D Congress. De Ruyck , T. et al., 2011. “Engage, Inspire, Act: Three‐Step Stones towards Developing

More Impactful Products,” ESOMAR General Congress. De Ruyck , T. , M. Van Kesteren , S. Ludwig , and N. Schillewaert , 2010, “How Fans Become

Shapers of an Ice‐cream Brand,” ESOMAR Qualitative Research Conference 2010.De Ruyck , T. , N. Schillewaert , and J. Caudron , 2008, “Together We Build the Future,”

ESOMAR Congress 2008. De Wulf , K. , and T . De Ruyck , eds., 2013. The Consumer Consulting Board , InSites Consulting .dDeci , E. , and R. Ryan , 1985 . Intrinsic Motivation and Self‐Determination in Human Behavior ,r

New York : Plenum Press . Deutskens , E. , 2006. From Paper‐and‐Pencil to Screen‐and‐Keyboard: Studies on the Eff ec-

tiveness of Internet‐Based Marketing Research .Dupuis , C. , 2007, The Iceberg Model of Culture. Retrieved from http://ebookbrowse.com/

theiceberg‐model‐of‐culture‐pdf‐d219931240 .Eberle , B. , 1971 , SCAMPER: Games for Imagination Development, Dok Pub . tHoff man , D. L. , P. K. Kopalle , and T. P. Novak , 2010 , The “right” consumers for better con-

cepts: Identifying consumers high in emergent nature to develop new product con-cepts , Journal of Marketing Research , 47 , 5 : 854 – 865 .

Kahn , K. B. , ed., 2004 , PDMA Handbook of New Product Development, 2d Edition , New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc .

Kano , N. , S. Nobuhiku , T. Fumio , and T. Shinichi , 1984 , Attractive quality and must‐be quality , Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control , 14 , 2 : 39 – 48 . l

Kozinets , R.V. , 2010 , Nethnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online . Sage Publications .Luke , M. , T. De Ruyck , A. Willems , and R. Grant , 2012, “Come Dine with Me, Australia,”

AMSRS 40th Conference. Mochon , D. , M. I. Norton , and D. Ariely , 2012 , Bolstering and restoring feelings of compe-

tence via the IKEA eff ect , International Journal of Research in Marketing , 29 , 4 : 363 – 369 .

c06 171 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

Nishikawa , H. , S. Martin , and S. Ogawa , 2012 , User‐generated versus designer‐generated products: A performance assessment at Muji ,” International Journal of Research in Mar-keting, 30 , 2 : 160 – 167 .

Peters , A. , 2012, From insight to foresight, RW Connect , http://rwconnect.esomar.org/tfrom‐insight‐to‐foresight‐in‐2012/ .

Pink , S. , 2007 , Doing Visual Ethnography: Figures, Media and Representation in Research , London : Sage . Revised and expanded 2d edition.

Prahalad , C.K. , and V. Ramaswamy , 2000 , “ Co‐opting customer competence ,” Harvard Business Review , 78 , 1 . w

Roberts , D. , S. Baker , and D. Walker , 2005 , “ Can we learn together? Co‐creating with con-sumers ,” International Journal of Market Research , 47 , 4 .

Rogers , E. , 2003 , Diff usion of Innovations , New York : Free Press . Sanders , E.B.‐N. , and P. J. Stappers , 2008 , Co‐creation and the new landscape of design,

special issue of CoDesign , 4 , 1 : 5 – 18 . Savin‐Baden , M. , and C. Major , 2013 , Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory

and Practice , London and New York : Routledge . Sawhney , M. , Verona , G. , Prandelli , E. , 2005 . Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a

Platform for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation . Journal of Interactive Mar- keting, 19 , 4 , S. 4 – 17 .

Schillewaert , N. , T. De Ruyck , T. Ludwig , and M. Mann , 2011. “The Darkside to Crowd-sourcing in Online Research Communities,” CASRO Technology Conference, June 2011.

Van Belleghem , S. , 2012 , The Conversation Company, Kogan Page .yy Van Dijk , J. , 2011, “The Eff ects of Co‐creation on Brand and Product Perceptions,” MSc

Thesis on Economics of Consumers and Households, Wageningen University. Verhaeghe , A. , A. Smith , D. Teixeira , and F. De Boeck , 2013, Digging for Gold: How to Select

Consumers’ Insights That Will Change Your Business, InSites Consulting. Verhaeghe , A. , C. Hageman , T. De Ruyck , and T. Troch , 2012, “Doing More with Less,”

ESOMAR Qualitative 2012. Verhaeghe , A. , N. Schillewaert , J. Van den Bergh , P. Claeys , and G. Ilustre , 2011. “Crowd Inter-

pretation: Are Participants the Researchers of the Future?,” ESOMAR General Congress. Von Hippel , E. , 1986 , Lead users: A source of novel product concepts , Management Sci-

ence , 32 , 7 : 791 – 806 .

About the ContributorsThomas Troch is Senior Research Innovation Manager at InSites Consulting. With a

background in product and service design and a passion for understanding people, Thomas connects global brands like Heineken, Unilever, Vodafone, and Philips with their consumers through new techniques like private online communities.

Tom De Ruyck is Managing Partner and Head of Consumer Consulting Boards at InSites kConsulting. He is a keynote speaker and co‐author of “The Consumer Consulting Board.” Tom is also Co‐founder and President of the research association BAQMaR, and he sits on the board of several other organizations: MOAbouts Committee,NGMR, and SAMRA.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS 171

c06 172 28 June 2014 9:32 PM

pdma npd essentials: 'open innovation' - chapter 6

Business

needs of users

expertise of users

potential users toparticipate

innovation process

innovation practice

iterative collaboration

voice ofthe user

upyour user community