Thursday, January 18, 2018

co-creation, collaboration and open innovation

Aug 3, 2017 - While open innovation suggests active collaboration between different organisations and the sharing of intellectual property, co-creation relates more specifically to the relationship between an organisation and a defined group of its stakeholders, usually its customers.

Effective Co-Creation - A Guide to Open Innovation Programs
Feb 15, 2017 - Effective Co-Creation - A Guide to Open Innovation Programs ... There are two main drivers you commonly hear when you ask why a company is looking to do open innovation: ... And lawyers may welcome the opportunity to keep track of IP exchange within a central collaboration software platform. It's hard ...

“Collaboration and Co-Creation: The Road to Creating Value ...
May 25, 2016 - Open innovation thinking, where companies collaborate with suppliers, distributors, and customers to co-create unique value, is fast replacing traditional thinking that viewed innovation as a proprietary activity and marketing as a static, one-way broadcast.

Open Innovation or Co-creation and Coexistence of Business Models ... › CROWDSOURCING › Open Innovation
Jan 7, 2014 - Open Innovation or Co-creation and Coexistence of Business Models ... Despite the social networks allow the development of collaboration which is at the heart of today's business processes, most organizations still does not accept this “truth.Collaborate is not a simple consequence of a statement. It takes ...

Co-Innovation: beyond Open Innovation | Beyond the revolution of R&D
Feb 19, 2014 - Co-Innovation: concept introduced by Lee, Olson and Trimi in the past years. Core to the approach is collective intelligence which is now possible to formally organize in 3 pillars: 1) converges of ideas; 2) collaborative arrangement and 3) co-creation of experiences. Beyond the pillars, innovation's incipit is ...

How Co-Creation and Open Collaboration Can Drive Insurance ...
Co-creation, the process where companies and consumers work together to create better ideas, products and services has been in practice for many years. ... How Co-Creation and Open Collaboration Can Drive Insurance Innovation. co-collaboration blog banner.png. Co-creation, the process where companies and ...

begin quote from:

Co-creation - Wikipedia
The released source code is then open to modification as per the requirement of the users. Examples like, Mozilla Firefox, Apache and Linux are all based on collaborating. The Art of Co-creation. The traditional company-centric view says: (1) the consumer is outside the domain of the value chain; (2) the enterprise controls ...

Open Innovation & Crowdsourcing Examples - Board of Innovation
OPEN INNOVATION & CROWDSOURCING EXAMPLES. Open Innovation, crowdsourcing, co-creation… overlapping terminologies to describe a trend towards more open business models and a closer collaboration with customers. On this page we gather a list of inspiring examples.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Co-creation is a management initiative, or form of economic strategy, that brings different parties together (for instance, a company and a group of customers), in order to jointly produce a mutually valued outcome.[1] Co-creation brings the unique blend of ideas from direct customers or viewers (who are not the direct users of the product) which in turn gives a plethora of new ideas to the organization.
Co-created value arises in the form of personalized, unique experiences for the customer (value-in-use) and ongoing revenue, learning and enhanced market performance drivers for the firm (loyalty, relationships, customer word of mouth). Value is co-created with customers if and when a customer is able to personalize his or her experience using a firm's product-service proposition – in the lifetime of its use – to a level that is best suited to get his or her job(s) or tasks done and which allows the firm to derive greater value from its product-service investment in the form of new knowledge, higher revenues/profitability and/or superior brand value/loyalty.[2]
Scholars C. K. Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy popularized the concept in their 2000 Harvard Business Review article, "Co-Opting Customer Competence".[3] They developed their arguments further in their book, published by the Harvard Business School Press, The Future of Competition, where they offered examples including Napster and Netflix showing that customers would no longer be satisfied with making yes or no decisions on what a company offers.[4]
Within the study of Prahalad and Ramaswamy,[5] they defined co-creation as “The joint creation of value by the company and the customer; allowing the customer to co-construct the service experience to suit their context” (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004, p. 8).
The process of Co-creation
The process of co-creation essentially involves 2 core steps:
  1. Contribution: Submission of contributions by the public to the firm
  2. Selection: Selection of the most promising and appealing contributions/submissions
Types of Co-creation
Depending on the degree of control exercised by the firm/public over the contribution and selection activities, co-creation may be broadly classified into 4 categories:
  1. Tinkering: Public exercises control over the contribution activity while the firm exercises control over the selection activity
  2. Submitting: Firm exercises complete control over both the activities
  3. Co-designing: Firm exercises control over the contribution activity while the public exercises control over the selection activity
  4. Collaborating: Public exercises complete control over both the activities
Tinkering is a customer co-creation model that involves procurement of contributions from the public by the firm, a comprehensive and scrupulous examination of the contributions, selection of the most promising and enterprising contributions by the firm and finally implementation of the contributions.For example, Little Big Planet, a puzzle platform video game by Sony Interactive Entertainment allows the gamers to create their own levels in the game.The created levels can then be shared with other gamers or submitted to Sony. Owing to this "Create and Share" feature, this game has the tagline 'Play, Create, Share'.The most promising contributions are incorporated into the final game and the contributors are rewarded.
In the case of submitting, the firm exercises control over the contribution activity by placing constraints on the basic design, contribution size etc. and also the selection activity by selecting the winning contributions.
Co-designing involves placement of constraints by the firm on the contribution activity and selection of the winning contributions by the contributors themselves. For example, Local Motors employs the co-designing model of customer co-creation to develop its vehicles.In 2010, Local Motors developed a car named Rally Fighter in a record 18 months, which is about 5 times faster than what a conventional car manufacturing process takes.By empowering a community of over 2000 designers to submit their designs while still placing some constraints on the basic design, color schemes etc., Local Motors effectively utilized the co-designing model of customer co-creation.The winning designing (By Sangho Kim) was chosen as the winning design by the designer community through voting.
An interesting bit of trivia about Local Motors is that it doesn't even have a design team. All the designing is done by the public itself.
Threadless, one of the leading T-shirt manufacturing brands in America also employs co-designing.
Also known as open sourcing, collaborating involves releasing the source code of the product and making it accessible to the general public.The released source code is then open to modification as per the requirement of the users. Examples like, Mozilla Firefox, Apache and Linux are all based on collaborating.
The Art of Co-creation
The traditional company-centric view says: (1) the consumer is outside the domain of the value chain; (2) the enterprise controls where, when, and how value is added in the value chain; (3) value is created in a series of activities controlled by the enterprise before the point of purchase; (4) there is a single point of exchange where value is extracted from the customer for the enterprise. The consumer-centric view says: (1) the consumer is integral part of the system for value creation; (2)the consumer can influence where, when, and how value is generated; (3) the consumer need not respect industry boundaries in the search for value; (4) the consumer can compete with companies for value extraction; (5) there are multiple points of exchange where the consumer and the company can co-create value. In the customer-centric mass production and marketing of automobiles, for example, suppliers provide raw materials, components, subcomponents, and systems to manufacturers, who create value by assembling these inputs into vehicles. Consumers actively decide what vehicle to buy, but companies decide what their choices will be. Cars are sold by dealers acting as intermediaries for the automakers. For companies reliant on this scenario, value creation is defined solely by extracting profit from end consumers. The Saturn Corporation, billing itself as “a different kind of car company,” has spurned the industry’s traditional ways. In 1985, when the General Motors Corporation launched Saturn, it didn’t just start a new car company, it created a “community.” Saturn works with its customers in the design, manufacturing, and sales processes, and it engages Saturn owners to help continuously innovate and improve its cars. Consumers think about the place of a car in their life — how it fits their budget, their desire for comfort, their need for peace of mind, their aesthetics. Companies think about their competitive strategy and their operations — engineering, differentiation, logistics, pricing, and, above all, revenue and profit. Although these views of value do clash, they’re not irreconcilable. Saturn is a company trying to merge these two ways of looking at value. In the pages that follow, we present a framework — a new value creation paradigm — to suggest how companies can better understand the consumer’s view of value and productively work with them to co-create more satisfying value for both sides.[6]


The four building blocks of interaction

Prahalad and Ramaswamy[7] suggested that in order to apply co-creation, the following fundamental requirements should be prepared in advance.
Terms Definition Managerial Implication
Dialogue Interaction between customer Two-way connection instead of one-way selling strategy
Access Allow customer to access the data Create value with customer; beyond traditional value chain process
Risk-benefit To monitor risk and gaps between customer and firm Share the risk of product development with guest through communication (In later work of Ramaswamy,[8] this is replaced by "reflexivity")
Transparency Information among business is accessible Information barriers should be eliminated to certain degree in order to gain trust from guest

From co-production

In their review of the literature on "customer participation in production", Neeli Bendapudi and Robert P. Leone found that the first academic work dates back to 1979.[9]
From 1990 onwards, new themes are emerging: John Czepiel suggests that customer's participation may lead to greater customer's satisfaction.[10] Scott Kelley, James Donnelly and Steven J. Skinner are dealing with productivity but suggest other ways to look at customer participation: quality, employee's performance, and emotional responses.[11]
Although not reviewed by Bendapuli and Leone, the groundbreaking article by R. Normann and R. Ramirez suggests that successful companies do not focus on themselves or even on the industry but on the value-creating system.[12]
Michel, Vargo and Lusch recognize the influence of Normann on their own work and acknowledge similarity between the concepts of co-production and co-creation: "his customer co-production mirrors the similar concept found in FP6".[13] The authors suggest that Normann enriched the S-D Logic particularly through his idea of "density" of offerings.
In a letter sent to the editor of the Harvard Business Review in reaction to an article by Pine, Peppers and Roger ("Do you want to keep your customers forever"), Michael Schrage argues that not all customers are alike in their capacity to bring some kind of knowledge to the firm.[14]
Wikström sees the role of consumers changing.[15]
Firat, Fuat, Dholakia, and Venkatesh introduced the concept of customerization (which is a buyer-centric evolution of the mass-customization process) and stated that it enables consumers to serve as "the co-producer of the product and service offering".[16] However, Bendapudi and Leone (2003) concluded in an empirical paper that "the assumption of greater customization under co-production may hold only when the customer has the expertise to craft a good or service to his or her liking".[9]
As noted by Zwass in his 2010 taxonomy and review article on co-creation[17], the term "co-creation" was initially framed as a strategy by Dr. Ajit Kambil and his coauthors in two articles in 1996 and 1999. In "Reinventing Value Propositions" (1996), Kambil, Ginsberg and Bloch illustrate how co-creation can be utilized as a strategy to transform value propositions working with customers or complementary resources[18]. In "Co-creation: A new source of value" (1999), Kambil, Friesen and Sundaram build out the concept of co-creation being a key source of value enabled by the Internet and provide a balanced view of risks companies must consider in utilizing this strategy[19].
At the turn of the century, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000) popularized co-creation building on the prior work.[3]
In 2004, Prahalad and Ramaswamy kept working on their ideas published four years earlier.[20] At the same time, Vargo and Lush (2004) published on the service-dominant logic of marketing. The process of value creation is dealt with in FP6. Opposing the goods-dominant logic and the service-dominant logic, the authors state: "the customer is always a coproducer". FP6 will be later (Vargo and Lush, 2006) altered in "the customer is always a co-creator".
Prahalad commented in an issue of the Journal of Marketing on Vargo and Lusch's FP6 and found that the authors did not go far enough.[21]
In the same book, Kalaignanam and Varadarajan (2006) also follow Prahalad's comments and elaborate on the IT implications on coproduction. As the authors put it "developments in information technology [...] enable customers to create value by collaborating with the firm". The main contribution of the authors in this article is a conceptual model of the intensity of customer participation as function of product characteristics, market and customer characteristics, firm characteristics. In their conclusions and directions for future research the authors deal with three promising topics. First they propose to study supply-side issues and how increasing communication, participation from the customers and the emergence of communities enable customers to interact between them, sometimes leading to new creations. Second they see the "locus of innovation" as of interest and in particular how the shift of firm-centric networks to user-centric networks can lead to increased innovation capabilities. Third they wonder whether demand-side issues may not result in negative consequences on satisfaction. The third issue is already mentioned by Bendapuli and Leone: "A customer who believes he or she has the expertise and chooses to co-produce may be more likely to make self-attributions for success and failure than a customer who lacks the expertise. A customer who lacks the expertise but feels forced to co-produce [...] may make more negative attributions about co-production".[9]

Early applications

In the early 2000s, consultants and companies deployed co-creation as a tool for engaging customers in product design. Examples include Nike giving customers online tools to design their own sneakers. At a MacWorld conference in 2007, Sam Lucente, the legendary design and innovation guru at Hewlett-Packard, described his epiphany that designers can no longer design products alone, using their brilliance and magic. They are no longer in the business of product and service design, he stated; they are really in the business of customer co-creation.[22]
During the mid-2000s, co-creation became a driving concept in social media and marketing techniques, where companies such as Converse persuaded large numbers of its most passionate customers to create their own video advertisements for the product. The Web 2.0 phenomenon encompassed many forms of co-creation marketing, as social and consumer communities became "ambassadors", "buzz agents", "smart mobs", and "participants" transforming the product experience. Other examples of co-creation can be found in arts.[23]

Digital era: types of customer co-creation

Types of co-creation
According to recent research conducted by Aric Rindfleisch and his former doctoral student, Matt O'Hearn, customer co-creation was categorized into four different types based on a two-by-two matrix. It was based on two key steps in the customer co-creation process.The X axis had the contribution step towards the idea creation/suggestion.The Y-axis had the selection step for the proposed ideas. And each of this axis had both a high and a low degree of customer control over each process. Under contribution, the first box was fixed, which means that the customer has very little control over the contribution process and the firm will fix the types of contribution that it wants. On selection, under the firm-led process, it was largely the firm that does the selection activity and the firm pick the winning submissions. In the customer-led category, the firm relies more on the customers to select the winning submissions.
Thus defining the four types of customer co-creation as below:
  1. Submission – This section has the least contribution in terms of idea submission by the customer and holds a high degree of firm-led selection in the limited ideas proposed by the customer.
  2. Tinkering – a unique type of co-creation where the customer comes up with a variety of ideas for the organization, whereas the selection is defined by multiple parameters of the firm. In tinkering, the firm usually releases a final product (e.g. Little Big Planet video games by Sony). Although the users create the platform, the firm decides which ones get published and distributed.
  3. Collaborative – a mix of leveraging both the firm and users to conclude with the final idea. The customer has full liberty to suggest and select the idea along with the combined efforts of the firm. E.g. Apache Server is a completely open source tool available on the web for all customers.
  4. Co-designing – the customer approach to select the limited ideas given by the customers. Any community forum where customers have to give ideas into defined areas e.g. for the website of any company etc., whereas the final idea is selected by the community forum by liking/disliking the proposed idea. e.g. Threadless-where customer designs the T-shirt with his own innovation and idea, whereas the firm restricts the customer to design only T-shirts and the final selection is done by the firm itself, but customers have a strong voice in selecting contributions that move forward.

Corporate management

During the mid-2000s, these innovations in customer engagement and collaboration expanded and morphed into global economic trends including the co-created development of products and services. Authors published bestselling books developing theories influenced by "co-creation" and customer collaboration. Major concepts included crowdsourcing, coined by Jeff Howe in a June 2006 Wired magazine article,[24] open innovation, promoted by Henry Chesbrough,[25] a professor and executive director at the Garwood Center for Corporate Innovation at Berkeley, and consultant Don Tapscott's and Anthony D. Williams's Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything,[26] a book that popularized the concept of corporations using mass collaboration and open source innovation.
Of this rapid morphing of co-creation, Ramaswamy and his co-author Francis Gouillart wrote: "Through their interactions with thousands of managers globally who had begun experimenting with co-creation, they discovered that enterprises were building platforms that engaged not only the firm and its customers but also the entire network of suppliers, partners, and employees, in a continuous development of new experiences with individuals."[27]

The rise of customer co-creation

The rise of co-creation could be attributed to three distinct issues as suggested by O'hern & Rindfleisch (2010).[28]
  • The information asymmetry between customer demands and manufacturer capability
  • Customer empowerment
  • The advent and widespread application of digital technology


Successful co-creation requires two key steps.[28]
The contribution of ideas: A firm must convince its customers to submit their ideas (i.e., to contribute). However, receiving contribution is actually quite hard because most customers are quite busy and hardly care about the company's call. Unless customers are incentivized in an attractive way they are reluctant to participate and benefit the company. As a result, most co-creation efforts fail because they don't get many submissions.
Selecting the viable ideas: After receiving the contributions, the firm must then select the most profitable, viable and implementable ones. The challenge of the selection process is that most submissions are not very useful, impractical and difficult to implement. Firms have to deal the submitted ideas in a very subtle way as throughout the process they don't want to reject customer submissions and risk of alienating them which may eventually lead to customer disengagement.


Although co-creation is an excellent activity to gather unique and various ideas from the customers, but it brings a lot of challenges onto the table such as:
  1. Pareto principle-Selection of the ideas from multiple redundant ideas submitted. Only 20% of the submitted ideas out of the all holds value for any firm
  2. Risk in losing out on the brand image – if the ideas highlight more on the negative scenarios of the firm's products or services.

See also


  • Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. (2004) "Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation". Journal of Interactive Marketing. Volume 18, Number 3.
    1. O'hern, M., & Rindfleisch, A. (2010). Customer co-creation. Review of marketing research, 84-116.

    Further reading

    • Aric Rindfleisch ; Matt O'Hearn (2008) ."Customer Co‐creation: A Typology and Research Agenda" Working Paper 4 publications on ResearchGate
    • Andersson, P.; Rosenqvist, C. (2007). "Mobile Innovations in Healthcare: Customer Involvement and the Co-Creation of Value". International Journal of Mobile Communications. Volume 5, No. 4.
    • Auh, S.; et al. (2007). "Co-Production and Customer Loyalty in Financial Services". Journal of Retailing. Volume 83, Issue 3. pp. 359–370.
    • Ballantyne, D. (2004). "Dialogue and Its Role in the Development of Relationship Specific Knowledge". Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. Volume 19, Issue 2. p. 114.
    • Becker, Gary (September 1965). "A Theory of the Allocation of Time". The Economic Journal. Volume LXXV, Issue 299. pp. 493–517.
    • Bilgram, V.; Brem, A.; Voigt, K.I. (2008). "User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development – Systematic Identification of Lead Users Harnessing Interactive and Collaborative Online-Tools". International Journal of Innovation Management. Volume 12, No. 3. pp. 419–458.
    • Diwon, D. (1990). "Marketing as Production: The Development of a Concept". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Volume 18, Number 4. pp. 337–343.
    • Edvardsson, B.; Enquist B.; Johnston, R. (2005). "Cocreating Customer Value through Hyperreality in the Prepurchase Service Experience". Journal of Service Research. Volume X, Number X, Month 2003 1-.
    • Firat, F.A.; Venkatesh, A. (December 1995) "Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption". Journal of Consumer Research. Volume 22, Number 3. pp. 239–267.
    • Fodness, Dale; Pitegoftf, Barry E.; Sautter, Elise Truly (1993), "From Customer to Competitor: Consumer Co-Option in the Service". The Journal of Services Marketing. 7 (3). pp. 18–25.
    • Forsström, F. (September 2003). "A Conceptual Exploration into 'Value Co-Creation' in the Context of Industrial Buyer-Seller Relationships, Work-in-Progress Paper". 19th Annual IMP Conference; September 4–6, 2003; Lugano, Switzerland (International Marketing and Purchasing Group)
    • Füller, J.; Mühlbacher, H.; Matzler, K.; Jawecki, G. (Winter 2009–10). "Consumer Empowerment through Internet-Based Co-Creation". Journal of Management Information Systems. Volume 26, Number 3. pp. 71–102.
    • Füller, J. (Winter 2010). "Refining Virtual Co-Creation from a Consumer Perspective". California Management Review. Volume 52, Number 2. pp. 98–122.
    • Grönroos, C.; Ravald, A. (2009) "Marketing and the Logic of Service: Value Facilitation, Value Creation and Co-Creation, and Their Marketing Implications – Working Paper". Hanken School of Economics.
    • Gummesson, E. (2004) "Return on Relationships (ROR): The Value of Relationship Marketing and CRM in Business-to-Business Contexts". Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 19, 2. p. 136.
    • Holbrook, M.B. (June 1987). "What Is Consumer Research?". Journal of Consumer Research. Volume 14, Number 1. pp. 128–132.
    • Lindsay, K. (July 28, 2009). "The Power of Collaboration". Computer Weekly. pp. 14–15.
    • Nambisan, S.; Baron, R.A. (July 2009). "Virtual Customer Environments: Testing a Model of Voluntary Participation in Value Co-Creation Activities". Journal of Product Innovation Management. Volume 26, Issue 4. pp. 388–406.
    • Ordanini, A.; Pasini, P. (2008). "Service Co-Production and Value Co-Creation: The Case for a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)". European Management Journal. 26, pp. 289–297.
    • Payne, A.; Holt., S. (2001). "Diagnosing Customer Value: Integrating the Value Process and Relationship Marketing". British Journal of Management. Volume 12. pp. 159–182.
    • Payne, A.F.; Storbacka, K.; Frow, P.; Knox, S. (2009). "Co-Creating Brands: Diagnosing and Designing the Relationship Experience". Journal of Business Research. 62. pp. 379–389.
    • Potts, J.; et al. (October 2008) "Consumer Co-creation and Situated Creativity" Industry and Innovation. Volume 15, Number 5. pp. 459–474.
    • Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. (2004) "Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation". Journal of Interactive Marketing. Volume 18, Number 3.
    • Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. (2009) "Co-Creation Connection".
    • Ramaswamy, V. (2009) "Leading the Transformation to Co-Creation of Value. Strategy and Leadership. Volume 37, Number 2. pp. 32–37.
    • Roseira, C.; Brito, C. (2009) "Value Co-Creation With Suppliers, FEP working papers, n°342".
    • Shah, D.; Rust, R.; Parasuraman, A.; Staelin, R.; Day, G. (November 2006). "The Path to Customer Centricity". Journal of Service Research. 9, 2.
    • Simonson, A.; Schmitt, B. (1997). Marketing Aesthetics – Identity and Image. New York: Free Press.
    • Spohrer, J.; Maglio, P.P. (2008). "The Emergence of Service Science: Toward Systematic Service Innovations To Accelerate Co-Creation of Value".
    • Tanev, S.; Seppä, M.; Chowaniec, A. (2013). "Value Co-Creation". Best of TIM Review. Book 3. Talent First Network.
    • Tynan, C.; McKechnie, S.; Chhuon, C. (2009). "Co-Creating Value for Luxury Brands". Journal of Business Research. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.012.
    • Vandermerwe, S. (Summer 1993). "Jumping into the Customer's Activity Cycle – A New Role for Customer Services in the 1990s". Columbia Journal of World Business. pp. 46–65.
    • Weigand, H. (2009). "Value Encounters – Modeling and Analyzing Co-creation of Value – Working Paper".
    • Wind, J.; Rangaswamy, A. (2000). "Customerization: The Next Revolution in Mass Customization – Marketing Science Institute Working Paper No. 00-108". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science Institute
    • Wong, V. (2010). "Co-Creation: Not Just Another Focus Group". BusinessWeek. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
    • Xiang, Z.; Rongqiu, C. (2008). "Examining the Mechanism of the Value Co-Creation with Customers". International Journal of Production Economics. 116. pp. 242–250.
    • Zwass, V. (Fall 2010). "Co-Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective". International Journal of Electronic Commerce. pp. 11–48.

    External links

    Navigation menu

  • Wim Rampen - My Personal Definition of Business with Customer Value Co-Creation and comments by Chris Lawer.

  • Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. (January–February 2000) "Co-Opting Customer Competence". Harvard Business Review.

  • Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, Venkat (2004) The Future of Competition. Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 1-57851-953-5.

  • Prahalad, C. K (2004). "The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value With Customers". Harvard business school press.

  • Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. (2009) "Co-Creation Connection".

  • Prahalad, K. C.; Ramaswamy, V (2004). The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Ramaswamy, Venkat; Ozcan, Kerimcan (2014). "The co-creation paradigm". Stanford University Press. Retrieved 28 May 2017.

  • Bendapudi, Neeli; Leone, Robert P. (January 2003). "Psychological Implications of Customer Participation in Co-Production" Journal of Marketing. Vol. 67, No. 1.

  • Czepiel, John A. (1990), "Service Encounters and Service Relationships: Implications for Research". Journal of Business Research. 20 (1), 13-21.

  • Kelley, Scott W.; Donnelly Jr., James H.; Skinner, Steven J. (1990), "Customer Participation in Service Production and Delivery". Journal of Retailing. 66 (3), 315–35.

  • Normann, R.; Ramirez, R. (July–August 1993) "From Value Chain to Value Constellation: Designing Interactive Strategy". Harvard Business Review. pp. 65–77.

  • Michel, S.; Vargo, S. L.; Lusch, R. F. (2008). "Reconfiguration of the Conceptual Landscape: A Tribute to the Service Logic of Richard Normann". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 36:152–155.

  • Schrage, M. (July–August 1995). "Customer Relations". Harvard Business Review. pp. 154–156.

  • Wikström, S. (1996). "Value Creation by Company-Consumer Interaction". Journal of Marketing Management. 12, 359–374.

  • Firat, A. Fuat; Dholakia, Nikhilesh; Venkatesh, Alladi (1995). "Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption". Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 239–67.

  • Zwass, V. (Fall 2010). "Co-Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective". International Journal of Electronic Commerce. pp. 11–48.

  • Kambil, A.; Ginsberg, A.; and Bloch, M. Re-inventing value propositions. Stern Working Paper IS-96–21, New York University, 1996.

  • Kambil, A; Friesen G.B; and Sundaram A. Co-creation: A New Source of Value. Accenture Outlook, 2 (1999) at

  • Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. (2004) "Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice In Value Creation". Journal of Interactive Marketing. Volume 18; Number 3.

  • Prahalad, C.K. (January 2004). "The Cocreation of Value in 'Invited Commentaries' on 'Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing'". Journal of Marketing. Vol. 68. pp. 18–27.

  • "Nussbaum on Design". BusinessWeek.

  • Chaney, D. (2012). The Music Industry in the Digital Age: Consumer Participation in Value Creation. International Journal of Arts Management, 15(1), 42-52.

  • Howe, Jeff (June 2006). "The Rise of Crowdsourcing". Wired . Retrieved March 17, 2007.

  • Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Tapscott, Don; Williams, Anthony D. (2006, 2008). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Portfolio.

  • Ramaswamy, Venkat; Gouillart, Francis (2010). The Power of Co-Creation: Build It with Them To Boost Growth, Productivity, and Profits. Free Press.


    begin quote from:

    Open innovation - Wikipedia
    Open innovation is a term used to promote an information age mindset toward innovation that runs counter to the secrecy and silo mentality of traditional corporate research labs. The benefits and driving forces behind increased openness have been noted and discussed as far back as the 1960s, especially as it pertains to ...

    Everything You Need to Know About Open Innovation - Forbes
    Mar 21, 2011 - Open innovation is “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively.”

    Open Innovation :: Open Innovation Community
    Open Innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology.
    What is Open Innovation? Recently, growing attention has been devoted to the concept of “Open Innovation”, both in academia as well as in practice. Chesbrough, who coined the term “Open Innovation” describes in his book “Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology” (2003) how ...

    Open innovation

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Open innovation is a term used to promote an information age mindset toward innovation that runs counter to the secrecy and silo mentality of traditional corporate research labs. The benefits and driving forces behind increased openness have been noted and discussed as far back as the 1960s, especially as it pertains to interfirm cooperation in R&D.[1] Use of the term 'open innovation' in reference to the increasing embrace of external cooperation in a complex world has been promoted in particular by Henry Chesbrough, adjunct professor and faculty director of the Center for Open Innovation of the Haas School of Business at the University of California,[2] who articulated a modern perspective in his book Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology (2003).[3]
    The term was originally referred to as "a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology".[3] More recently, it is defined as "a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization's business model".[4] This more recent definition acknowledges that open innovation is not solely firm-centric: it also includes creative consumers[5] and communities of user innovators.[6] The boundaries between a firm and its environment have become more permeable; innovations can easily transfer inward and outward between firms and other firms and between firms and creative consumers, resulting in impacts at the level of the consumer, the firm, an industry, and society.[7]
    The central idea behind open innovation is that, in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions (i.e. patents) from other companies. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm's business should be taken outside the company (e.g. through licensing, joint ventures or spin-offs).[8]
    The open innovation paradigm can be interpreted to go beyond just using external sources of innovation such as customers, rival companies, and academic institutions, and can be as much a change in the use, management, and employment of intellectual property as it is in the technical and research driven generation of intellectual property. In this sense, it is understood as the systematic encouragement and exploration of a wide range of internal and external sources for innovative opportunities, the integration of this exploration with firm capabilities and resources, and the exploitation of these opportunities through multiple channels.[9]



    Open innovation offers several benefits to companies operating on a program of global collaboration:
    • Reduced cost of conducting research and development
    • Potential for improvement in development productivity
    • Incorporation of customers early in the development process
    • Increase in accuracy for market research and customer targeting
    • Potential for synergism between internal and external innovations
    • Potential for viral marketing[10]


    Implementing a model of open innovation is naturally associated with a number of risks and challenges, including:
    • Possibility of revealing information not intended for sharing
    • Potential for the hosting organization to lose their competitive advantage as a consequence of revealing intellectual property
    • Increased complexity of controlling innovation and regulating how contributors affect a project
    • Devising a means to properly identify and incorporate external innovation
    • Realigning innovation strategies to extend beyond the firm in order to maximize the return from external innovation[9][10]


    Government Driven

    In the UK the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) is a funding mechanism encouraging the partnership between a firm and a knowledge-based partner.[11] A KTP is a collaboration program between a knowledge-based partner (i.e. a research institution), a company partner and one or more associates (i.e. recently qualified persons such as graduates). KTP initiatives aim to deliver significant improvement in business partners’ profitability as a direct result of the partnership through enhanced quality and operations, increased sales and access to new markets. At the end of their KTP project, the three actors involved have to prepare a final report that describes KTP initiative supported the achievement of the project’s innovation goals.[11]

    Product platforming

    This approach involves developing and introducing a partially completed product, for the purpose of providing a framework or tool-kit for contributors to access, customize, and exploit. The goal is for the contributors to extend the platform product's functionality while increasing the overall value of the product for everyone involved.
    Readily available software frameworks such as a software development kit (SDK), or an application programming interface (API) are common examples of product platforms. This approach is common in markets with strong network effects where demand for the product implementing the framework (such as a mobile phone, or an online application) increases with the number of developers that are attracted to use the platform tool-kit. The high scalability of platforming often results in an increased complexity of administration and quality assurance.[10]

    Idea competitions

    This model entails implementing a system that encourages competitiveness among contributors by rewarding successful submissions. Developer competitions such as hackathon events fall under this category of open innovation. This method provides organizations with inexpensive access to a large quantity of innovative ideas, while also providing a deeper insight into the needs of their customers and contributors.[10]

    Customer immersion

    While mostly oriented toward the end of the product development cycle, this technique involves extensive customer interaction through employees of the host organization. Companies are thus able to accurately incorporate customer input, while also allowing them to be more closely involved in the design process and product management cycle.[10]

    Collaborative product design and development

    Similarly to product platforming, an organization incorporates their contributors into the development of the product. This differs from platforming in the sense that, in addition to the provision of the framework on which contributors develop, the hosting organization still controls and maintains the eventual products developed in collaboration with their contributors. This method gives organizations more control by ensuring that the correct product is developed as fast as possible, while reducing the overall cost of development.[10] Dr. Henry Chesbrough recently supported this model for open innovation in the optics and photonics industry.[12]

    Innovation networks

    Similarly to idea competitions, an organization leverages a network of contributors in the design process by offering a reward in the form of an incentive. The difference relates to the fact that the network of contributors are used to develop solutions to identified problems within the development process, as opposed to new products.[10] Emphasis needs to be placed on assessing organisational capabilities to ensure value creation in open innovation.[13][14]

    In science

    In Austria the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft started a project named "Tell us!" about mental health issues and used the concept of open innovation to crowdsource research questions.[15][16] The institute also launched the first "Lab for Open Innovation in Science" to teach 20 selected scientists the concept of open innovation over the course of one year. On Facebook the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft informs about the lab, the participants and teachers and on news on open innovation in science.

    Versus closed innovation

    The paradigm of closed innovation holds that successful innovation requires control. Particularly, a company should control the generation of their own ideas, as well as production, marketing, distribution, servicing, financing, and supporting. What drove this idea is that, in the early twentieth century, academic and government institutions were not involved in the commercial application of science. As a result, it was left up to other corporations to take the new product development cycle into their own hands. There just was not the time to wait for the scientific community to become more involved in the practical application of science. There also was not enough time to wait for other companies to start producing some of the components that were required in their final product. These companies became relatively self-sufficient, with little communication directed outwards to other companies or universities.
    Throughout the years several factors emerged that paved the way for open innovation paradigms:
    • The increasing availability and mobility of skilled workers
    • The growth of the venture capital market
    • External options for ideas sitting on the shelf
    • The increasing capability of external suppliers
    These four factors have resulted in a new market of knowledge. Knowledge is not anymore proprietary to the company. It resides in employees, suppliers, customers, competitors and universities. If companies do not use the knowledge they have inside, someone else will. Innovation can be generated either by means of closed innovation or by open innovation paradigms.[3][8] There is an ongoing debate on which paradigm will dominate in the future.

    Open innovation tools

    According to a case study conducted by Sony Mobile, a stable and flexible way to realize open innovation is by using a tool that is dedicated for said purpose.[17] One key reason, other than commits from communities, regards the possibility of tailoring the tool to internal needs. Such tools can be found as open source or proprietary software.

    Open innovation tool comparison

    Known open innovation tools compared regarding relevant features.


    • Open source: Is the tool open source?
    • Accessibility: Can ideas be added by anyone?
    • Sharing: Can ideas be shared and on what channels?
    • Vote: Can votes be placed on ideas by anyone?
    • Comment: Can ideas be commented on by anyone?
    • Analysis: Can you track the origin of the idea's comments or votes?
    • Language: What languages are supported?
    • Export: Can idea related data be exported?
    • Sorted: Can ideas be sorted and categorized for more effective analysis?
    Name Open source Accessibility Sharing Vote Comment Analysis Language Export Sorting
    CogniStreamer No Yes No Yes Yes No English, French, German, Spanish Yes No
    Ezassi No Yes Twitter Yes No No English No No
    CrowdWorx No Yes No Yes Yes No English, German No Yes
    Viima No Yes Facebook, LinkediIn, Twitter, Google+, Yammer Yes Yes Yes English, Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, Spanish, French Yes Yes
    Ideation360 No Yes Facebook, Twitter Yes No No English, Swedish Yes No
    GroupMap No Yes No Yes No Yes English No Yes
    Bubbl No Yes Twitter No Yes Yes English No No


    Modern research of open innovation is divided into two groups, which have several names, but are similar in their essence (discovery and exploitation; outside-in and inside-out; inbound and outbound). The common factor for different names is the direction of innovation, whether from outside the company in, or from inside the company out:[18]
    Revealing (non-pecuniary outbound innovation)
    This type of open innovation is when a company freely shares its resources with other partners, without an instant financial reward. The source of profit has an indirect nature and is manifested as a new type of business model.
    Selling (pecuniary outbound innovation)
    In this type of open innovation a company commercialises its inventions and technology through selling or licensing technology to a third party.
    Sourcing (non-pecuniary inbound innovation)
    This type of open innovation is when companies use freely available external knowledge, as a source of internal innovation. Before starting any internal R&D project a company should monitor the external environment in search for existing solutions, thus, in this case, internal R&D become tools to absorb external ideas for internal needs.
    Acquiring (pecuniary inbound innovation)
    In this type of open innovation a company is buying innovation from its partners through licensing, or other procedures, involving monetary reward for external knowledge

    Versus open source

    Open source and open innovation might conflict on patent issues. This conflict is particularly apparent when considering technologies that may save lives, or other open-source-appropriate technologies that may assist in poverty reduction or sustainable development.[19] However, open source and open innovation are not mutually exclusive, because participating companies can donate their patents to an independent organization, put them in a common pool, or grant unlimited license use to anybody. Hence some open-source initiatives can merge these two concepts: this is the case for instance for IBM with its Eclipse platform, which the company presents as a case of open innovation, where competing companies are invited to cooperate inside an open-innovation network.[20]
    In 1997, Eric Raymond, writing about the open-source software movement, coined the term the cathedral and the bazaar. The cathedral represented the conventional method of employing a group of experts to design and develop software (though it could apply to any large-scale creative or innovative work). The bazaar represented the open-source approach. This idea has been amplified by a lot of people, notably Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams in their book Wikinomics. Eric Raymond himself is also quoted as saying that 'one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug, and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode'. In the same vein, Raymond is also quoted as saying 'The individual wizard is where successful bazaar projects generally start'.[21]
    Open-source specialist François Letellier advocates that open source (or free software) is a natural way of innovation in the software industry and that it is an exemplary and very effective form of open innovation, with open-source projects/communities act as innovation intermediaries.

    See also


  • HARTMANN, DAP; TROTT, PAUL (Dec 2009). "WHY 'OPEN INNOVATION' IS OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES" (PDF). International Journal of Innovation Management. 13 (4): 715–736. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
    1. Carr, Nicholas G. (29 May 2007). "The Ignorance of Crowds". Strategy+Business (47).
    • West, J.; Gallagher, S. (2006). "Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software". R and D Management. 36 (3): 319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00436.x.
    • Chesbrough, H.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; West, J., eds. (15 April 2008). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199226467.
    • Penin, Julien; Hussler, Caroline; Burger-Helmchen, Thierry (2011). "New shapes and new stakes: a portrait of open innovation as a promising phenomenon". Journal of Innovation Economics (7): 11–29.
    • Vemuri, V. K.; Bertone, V. (2004). "Will the Open Source Movement Survive a Litigious Society?". Electronic Markets. 14 (2): 114. doi:10.1080/10196780410001675068.
    • Zhao, L.; Deek, F. P. (2004). "User Collaboration in Open Source Software Development". Electronic Markets. 14 (2): 89. doi:10.1080/10196780410001675040.
    • Schutte, Corne; Marais, Stephan (2010). "The Development of Open Innovation Models to Assist the Innovation Process". University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

    External links

    Navigation menu


  • Chesbrough, Henry William (1 March 2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 978-1578518371.

  • Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. 2014. Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation: 3-28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 17.

  • Berthon, Pierre R.; Pitt, Leyland F.; McCarthy, Ian; Kates, Steven M. (2007-01-01). "When customers get clever: Managerial approaches to dealing with creative consumers". Business Horizons. 50 (1): 39–47. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.05.005.

  • West, Joel; Lakhani, Karim R. (2008-04-01). "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation". Industry and Innovation. 15 (2): 223–231. doi:10.1080/13662710802033734. ISSN 1366-2716.

  • Bogers, Marcel; Zobel, Ann-Kristin; Afuah, Allan; Almirall, Esteve; Brunswicker, Sabine; Dahlander, Linus; Frederiksen, Lars; Gawer, Annabelle; Gruber, Marc (2017-01-01). "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis". Industry and Innovation. 24 (1): 8–40. doi:10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068. ISSN 1366-2716.

  • Chesbrough, Henry William (2003). "The era of open innovation". MIT Sloan Management Review. 44 (3): 35–41.

  • West, J.; Gallagher, S. (2006). "Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software". R and D Management. 36 (3): 319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00436.x.

  • Schutte, Corne; Marais, Stephan (2010). "The Development of Open Innovation Models to Assist the Innovation Process". University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

  • Greco, Marco; Locatelli, Giorgio; Lisi, Stefano (2017-05-01). "Open innovation in the power & energy sector: Bringing together government policies, companies' interests, and academic essence". Energy Policy. 104: 316–324. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.049.

  • Chesbrough, Henry; Eichenholz, Jason (January 2013). "Open Innovation in Photonics". SPIE Professional. 8: 24–25. doi:10.1117/2.4201301.15. Retrieved 21 February 2013.

  • Carroll, N., & Helfert, M. (2015). Service capabilities within open innovation: Revisiting the applicability of capability maturity models. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(2), 275-303.


  • "Open Innovation: Ausbildungsprogramm gestartet". Retrieved 2016-06-19.

  • ""Lab for Open Innovation"-Lehrgang der Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft |". 2016-03-17. Retrieved 2016-06-19.

  • Hussan Munir; Johan Linåker; Krzysztof Wnuk; Per Runeson; Björn Regnell (2017). "Open innovation using open source tools: a case study at Sony Mobile".

  • Busarovs, Aleksejs (2013). "OPEN INNOVATION: CURRENT TRENDS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES" (PDF). Humanities and Social Sciences: Latvia. 21 (2): 103–119. Retrieved 26 November 2014.

  • Pearce, J. M. (2012). "The case for open source appropriate technology". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 14 (3): 425–431. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9337-9.

  • "Eclipse and Open innovation" (pdf). 12 September 2007.

  • begin quote from:

    Collaboration - Wikipedia
    Collaboration is where two or more people or organizations work together to realize or achieve a goal or project successfully. Collaboration is very similar to, but more closely aligned than, cooperation.


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Catalan castellers collaborate, working together with a shared goal
    Collaboration is where two or more people or organizations work together to realize or achieve a goal or project successfully.[1] Collaboration is very similar to, but more closely aligned than, cooperation. Most collaboration requires leadership, although the form of leadership can be social within a decentralized and egalitarian group.[2] Teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.[3]
    Structured methods of collaboration encourage introspection of behavior and communication.[2] These methods specifically aim to increase the success of teams as they engage in collaborative problem solving.
    Forms, rubrics, charts and graphs are useful in these situations to objectively document personal traits with the goal of improving performance in current and future projects. Collaboration is also present in opposing goals exhibiting the notion of adversarial collaboration, though this is not a common case for using the word.


    Classical examples of collaboration


    The trade of goods is an economic activity providing mutual benefit
    Trade originated with the start of communication in prehistoric times. Trading was the main facility of prehistoric people, who bartered goods and services from each other when there was no such thing as the modern day currency. Peter Watson dates the history of long-distance commerce from circa 150,000 years ago.[4] Trade exists for many reasons. Due to specialisation and division of labor, most people concentrate on a small aspect of production, trading for other products. Trade exists between regions because different regions have a comparative advantage in the production of some tradable commodity, or because different regions' size allows for the benefits of mass production. As such, trade at market prices between locations benefits both locations.

    Community organization: Intentional Community

    Organization and cooperation between community members provides economic and social benefits
    The members of an intentional community typically hold a common social, political or spiritual vision. They also share responsibilities and resources. Intentional communities include cohousing, residential land trusts, ecovillages, communes, kibbutzim, ashrams, and housing cooperatives. Typically, new members of an intentional community are selected by the community's existing membership, rather than by real-estate agents or land owners (if the land is not owned by the community).
    Hutterite, Austria (16th century)
    Housing units are built and assigned to individual families but belong to the colony and there is very little personal property. Meals are taken by the entire colony in a common long room.
    Oneida Community, Oneida, New York (1848)
    The Oneida Community practiced Communalism (in the sense of communal property and possessions) and Mutual Criticism, where every member of the community was subject to criticism by committee or the community as a whole, during a general meeting. The goal was to eliminate bad character traits.
    Early Kibbutz settlements founded near Jerusalem (1890)
    A Kibbutz is an Israeli collective community. The movement combines socialism and Zionism in a form of practical Labor Zionism, founded at a time when independent farming was not practical or perhaps more correctly—not practicable. Forced by necessity into communal life, and inspired by their own ideology, the kibbutz members developed a pure communal mode of living that attracted interest from the entire world. While the kibbutzim lasted for several generations as utopian communities, most of today's kibbutzim are scarcely different from the capitalist enterprises and regular towns to which the kibbutzim were originally supposed to be alternatives.[citation needed]

    Indigenous Collaboration

    Collaboration in indigenous communities, particularly in the Americas, often includes the entire community working toward a common goal in a horizontal structure with flexible leadership.[5] Children in some Indigenous American communities work fluidly to collaborate with the rest of the community. They are allowed and want to participate freely with the adults. Children can be contributors in the process of meeting objectives by taking on tasks that suit their skills.[6]
    Indigenous learning techniques comprise Learning by Observing and Pitching In. For example, a study of Mayan fathers and children with traditional Indigenous ways of learning worked together in collaboration more frequently when building a 3D model puzzle then Mayan fathers with western schooling.[6] Also, Chillihuani people of the Andes value work and form work parties in which members of each household in the community participate.[7] Children from indigenous-heritage communities want to help around the house voluntarily.[8]
    In the Mazahua Indigenous community of Mexico, school children show initiative and autonomy by contributing in their classroom, completing activities as a whole, assisting and correcting their teacher during lectures when a mistake is made.[9] Fifth and sixth graders in the community work with the teacher installing a classroom window; the installation becomes a class project in which the students participate in the process alongside the teacher. They all work together without needing leadership, and their movements are all in sync and flowing. It is not a process of instruction, but rather a hands-on experience in which students work together as a synchronous group with the teacher, switching roles and sharing tasks. In these communities, collaboration is emphasized, and learners are trusted to take initiative. While one works, the other watches intently and all are allowed to attempt tasks with the more experienced stepping in to complete more complex parts, while others pay close attention.[10]

    Collaboration under capitalism

    Ayn Rand utterly rejected the notion that one should live an isolated life. She recognized that a crucial way we “develop ourselves” and pursue our rational self-interest is by building strong relationships with other people, whether in business, friendship, romance, or any other kind of life-serving relationship. Rand wrote hundreds of pages about the virtues and benefits of collaborating with others to mutual advantage. She also recognized that, as participants in capitalism, “we’re all connected” through the voluntary division of labor in the free market, where value is exchanged always for value. In presenting her theory of rational egoism, Rand explained why acting in one’s self-interests often entails “looking out” for others to protect the innocent from injustice, to aid our friends and allies, and to protect and support our friends and loved ones.[11]

    Game theory

    Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics,computer science and economics that looks at situations where multiple players make decisions in an attempt to maximize their returns. The first documented discussion of it is a letter written by James Waldegrave, 1st Earl Waldegrave in 1713. Antoine Augustin Cournot's Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth in 1838 provided the first general theory. It was not until 1928 that this became a recognized, unique field when John von Neumann published a series of papers. Von Neumann's work in game theory culminated in the 1944 book The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern.

    Military-industrial complex

    The term military-industrial complex refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for revenue.
    Skunk Works
    Skunk Works is a term used in engineering and technical fields to describe a group within an organization given a high degree of autonomy and unhampered by bureaucracy, tasked with working on advanced or secret projects. Founded at Lockheed in 1943, the team developed highly innovative aircraft in short time frames, even beating its first deadline by 37 days.[12] Creator of the organization, Kelly Johnson is said to have been an 'organizing genius' and had fourteen basic operating rules.[12]
    Manhattan Project
    The Manhattan Project was the project to develop the first nuclear weapon (atomic bomb) during World War II by the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District, it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1941–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.
    While the aforementioned persons were influential in the project itself, the value of this project as an influence on organized collaboration is better attributed to Vannevar Bush.[12] In early 1940, Bush lobbied for the creation of the National Defense Research Committee. Frustrated by previous bureaucratic failures in implementing technology in World War I, Bush sought to organize the scientific power of the United States for greater success.[12]
    The project succeeded in developing and detonating three nuclear weapons in 1945: a test detonation of a plutonium implosion bomb on July 16 (the Trinity test) near Alamogordo, New Mexico; an enriched uranium bomb code-named "Little Boy" on August 6 over Hiroshima, Japan; and a second plutonium bomb, code-named "Fat Man" on August 9 over Nagasaki, Japan.

    Project management

    The 2,751 Liberty ships built in four years by the United States during World War II required new approaches in organization and manufacturing
    As a discipline, Project Management developed from different fields of application including construction, engineering, and defense. In the United States, the forefather of project management is Henry Gantt, called the father of planning and control techniques, who is famously known for his use of the "bar" chart as a project management tool, for being an associate of Frederick Winslow Taylor's theories of scientific management, and for his study of the work and management of Navy ship building. His work is the forerunner to many modern project management tools including the work breakdown structure (WBS) and resource allocation.
    The 1950s marked the beginning of the modern project management era. Again, in the United States, prior to the 1950s, projects were managed on an ad hoc basis using mostly Gantt charts, and informal techniques and tools. At that time, two mathematical project scheduling models were developed: (1) the "Program Evaluation and Review Technique" or PERT, developed as part of the United States Navy's (in conjunction with the Lockheed Corporation) Polaris missile submarine program;[13] and (2) the "Critical Path Method" (CPM) developed in a joint venture by both DuPont Corporation and Remington Rand Corporation for managing plant maintenance projects. These mathematical techniques quickly spread into many private enterprises.
    In 1969, the Project Management Institute (PMI) was formed to serve the interest of the project management industry. The premise of PMI is that the tools and techniques of project management are common even among the widespread application of projects from the software industry to the construction industry. In 1981, the PMI Board of Directors authorized the development of what has become A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), standards and guidelines of practice that are widely used throughout the profession. The International Project Management Association (IPMA), founded in Europe in 1967, has undergone a similar development and instituted the IPMA Project Baseline. Both organizations are now participating in the development of a global project management standard.


    Black Mountain College
               :Founded in 1933 by John Andrew Rice, Theodore Dreier and other former faculty of Rollins College,  Black Mountain was experimental by nature and committed to an interdisciplinary approach, attracting a faculty which included many of America's leading visual artists, poets, and designers.
               :Operating in a relatively isolated rural location with little budget, Black Mountain College inculcated an informal and collaborative spirit, and over its lifetime attracted a venerable roster of instructors.  Some of the innovations, relationships and unexpected connections formed at Black Mountain would prove to have a lasting influence on the postwar American art scene, high culture, and eventually pop culture.  Buckminster Fuller met student Kenneth Snelson at Black Mountain, and the result was the first geodesic dome (improvised out of slats in the school's back yard); Merce Cunningham formed his dance company; and John Cage staged his first happening.
    Not a haphazardly conceived venture, Black Mountain College was a consciously directed liberal arts school that grew out of the progressive education movement. In its day it was a unique educational experiment for the artists and writers who conducted it, and as such an important incubator for the American avant garde. Black Mountain proved to be an important precursor to and prototype for many of the alternative colleges of today ranging from the University of California, Santa Cruz to Hampshire College and Evergreen State College, among others.
    Learning Community
    The Evergreen signature clock tower
    Dr. Wolff-Michael Roth and Stuart Lee of the University of Victoria assert[14] that until the early 1990s the individual was the 'unit of instruction' and the focus of research. The two observed that researchers and practitioners switched[15][16] to the idea that knowing is 'better' thought of as a cultural practice.[17][18][19][20] Roth and Lee also claim[14] that this led to changes in learning and teaching design in which students were encouraged to share their ways of doing mathematics, history, science, with each other. In other words, that children take part in the construction of consensual domains, and 'participate in the negotiation and institutionalisation of … meaning'. In effect, they are participating in learning communities.
    This analysis does not take account of the appearance of Learning communities in the United States in the early 1980s. For example, The Evergreen State College, which is widely considered a pioneer in this area, established an intercollegiate learning community in 1984. In 1985, this same college established The Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, which focuses on collaborative education approaches, including learning communities as one of its centerpieces.

    Classical music

    Although relatively rare compared with collaboration in popular music, there have been some notable examples of music written in collaboration between classical composers. Perhaps the best-known examples are:

    Occupational examples


    The romanticized notion of a lone, genius artist has existed since the time of Giorgio Vasari’s Lives of the Artists, published in 1568. Vasari promulgated the idea that artistic skill was endowed upon chosen individuals by gods, which created an enduring and largely false popular misunderstanding of many artistic processes. Artists have used collaboration to complete large scale works for centuries, but the myth of the lone artist was not questioned by the public consciousness until the 1960s and 1970s.[21]

    Collaborative art groups


    Ballet is, almost always, by nature a collaborative art form. Ballet needs music, it needs dancers, it needs costumes, a venue, lighting, etc. Hypothetically, one person could control all of this. But most often, every work of ballet is the by product of collaboration. From the earliest formal works of ballet, to the great 19th century masterpieces of Pyotr Tchaikovsky and Marius Petipa, to the 20th century masterworks of George Balanchine and Igor Stravinsky, to today’s ballet companies, feature strong collaborative connections between choreographers, composers and costume designers are essential. Within dance as an art form, there is also the collaboration between choreographer and dancer. The choreographer creates a movement in her/his head and then physically demonstrates the movement to the dancer, which the dancer sees and attempts to either mimic or interpret - two or more people striving for a connected goal.


    Collaboration in business can be found both inter- and intra-organization[22] and ranges from the simplicity of a partnership and crowd funding to the complexity of a multinational corporation. Inter-organizational collaboration depicts relationship between two or several organizations in which the participating parties agree to invest resources, mutually achieve goals, share information, resources, rewards and responsibilities, as well as jointly make decisions and solve problems.[23] Collaboration between public, private and voluntary sectors can be effective in tackling complex policy problems, but may be handled more effectively by committed boundary-spanning teams and networks than by formal organizational structures.[24] Collaboration between team members allows for better communication within the organization and throughout the supply chains. It is a way of coordinating different ideas from numerous people to generate a wide variety of knowledge. Collaboration with a selected few firms as opposed to collaboration with a large number of different firms has been shown to positively impact firm performance and innovation outcomes.[25] The recent improvement in technology has provided the world with high speed internet, wireless connection, and web-based collaboration tools like blogs, and wikis, and has as such created a "mass collaboration." People from all over the world are efficiently able to communicate and share ideas through the internet, or even conferences, without any geographical barriers. The power of social networks is beginning to permeate into business culture where many collaborative uses are being found including file sharing and knowledge transfer. Evan Rosen, the author of The Culture of Collaboration, defines collaboration as "working together to create value while sharing virtual or physical space."[26] According to Rosen, command-and-control organizational structures inhibit collaboration and replacing these obsolete structures allows collaboration to flourish.[27]
    See also : Management cybernetics
    A plethora of studies have shown that collaboration can be a powerful tool towards higher achievement and increased productivity since collective efficacy can significantly boost groups’ aspirations, motivational investment, morale, and resilience to challenges.[28] However, a four-year study of interorganizational collaboration found that successful collaboration can be rapidly derailed through external policy steering, particularly where it undermines relations built on trust.[29][30]
    On a more specific level, coworking spaces are businesses dedicated to providing a space for freelancers to work with others in a collaborative environment. Collaboration is one of the five coworking core values: Collaboration, openness, community, accessibility and sustainability.


    Visualization of the collaborative work in the German textbook project Mathe für Nicht-Freaks
    In recent years, co-teaching has become one of the most widely used models of collaboration, found in classrooms across all grade levels and content areas.[31] Once only regarded as collaboration between special education and general education teachers, it is now more generally defined as “…two professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse group of students in a single physical space."[32]
    As classrooms have become increasingly diverse, so too have the challenges for educators. Due to the diverse needs of students with designated special needs, English languages learners (ELL), and students of varied academic levels, teachers have been led to develop new approaches that provide additional support for their students.[33] In practice, this is an inclusive model where students are not removed from the classroom to receive separate instruction, but rather they remain and receive collaborative instruction by both their general teacher and special education teachers.[34]
    Societal changes that have taken place over the past few decades allows new ways of conceptualizing collaboration, and to understand the evolution and expansion of these types of relationships. For example, economic changes that have taken place domestically and internationally have resulted in the transformation from an industry-dependent economy to an information-centered economy that is dependent on new technologies and expansion of industries that provide services.[35] From an educational standpoint, such transformations were projected through federal reports, such as A Nation at Risk in 1983 and What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future in 1996. In these reports, economic success could be assured if students developed the capacity to learn how to “manage teams… and…work together successfully in teams”.[36]
    The continuing development of Web 2.0 technologies, such as wikis, blogs, multiplayer games, online communities, and Twitter, among others, has changed the manner in which students communicate and collaborate. Teachers are increasingly using collaborative software to establish virtual learning environments (VLEs). This allows them to share learning materials and feedback with both students and in some cases, parents.[citation needed] See also:


    Musical collaboration occurs when musicians in different places or groups work on the same album or song. Typically, in today's music word, multiple parties are involved (singers, songwriters, lyrisits, composers, and producers) come together to create one song. For example, one specific collaboration from recent times (2015) was the song "FourFiveSeconds". This single represents a type of collaboration because it is a form of art that was developed by multiple artists with the inclusion of Rihanna (a recent pop idol), Paul McCartney (former guitarist and vocalist for the Beatles), and Kanye West (a currently popular rapper). Collaboration between musicians, especially with regards to jazz, is often heralded as the epitome of complex collaborative practice. Special websites as well as software have been created to facilitate musical collaboration over the Internet resulting in the emergence of Online Bands.
    Several awards exist specifically for collaboration in music:
    Collaboration has been a constant feature of Electroacoustic Music, due to the complexity of the technology. Since the beginning, all laboratories and electronic music studios have involved the presence of different individuals with diverse but intertwined competencies. In particular, the embedding of technological tools into the process of musical creation resulted in the emergence of a new agent with new expertise: the musical assistant, the technician, the tutor, the computer music designer, the music mediator (a profession that has been described and defined in different ways over the years) – who can work in the phase of writing, creating new instruments, recording and/or performance. He or she explains the possibilities of the various instruments and applications, as well as the potential sound effects to the composer (when the latter did not have sufficient knowledge of the programme or a clear idea of what he or she could obtain from it). The musical assistant also explains the most recent results in musical research and translates artistic ideas into programming languages. Finally, he or she transforms those ideas into a score or a computer program and often performs the musical piece during the concerts.[37] Examples of collaboration are numerous: Pierre Boulez and Andrew Gerzso, Alvise Vidolin and Luigi Nono, Jonathan Harvey and Gilbert Nouno, among others.


    Collaboration in entertainment is a relatively new phenomenon brought on with the advent of social media, reality TV, and video sharing sites such as YouTube and Vimeo. Collaboration occurs when writers, directors, actors, producers and other individuals or groups work on the same television show, short film, or feature-length film. A revolutionary system has been developed by Will Wright for the production of the TV series title Bar Karma on CurrentTV. Special web-based software, titled Storymaker, has been written to facilitate plot collaboration over the Internet. Screenwriters' organizations bring together professional and amateur writers and filmmakers in a collaborative manner for entertainment development.


    Collaboration in publishing can be as simple as dual-authorship or as complex as commons-based peer production. Technological examples include Usenet, e-mail lists, blogs and Wikis while 'brick and mortar' examples include monographs (books) and periodicals such as newspapers, journals and magazines.


    Though there is no political institution organizing the sciences on an international level, a self-organized, global network had formed in the late 20th century.[3] Observed by the rise in co-authorships in published papers, Wagner and Leydesdorff found international collaborations to have doubled from 1990 to 2005.[3] While collaborative authorships within nations has also risen, this has done so at a slower rate and is not cited as frequently.[3]


    In medicine the physician assistant - physician relationship involves a collaborative plan to be on file with each state board of medicine where the PA works. This plan formally delineates the scope of practice approved by the physician.


    Trilateral agreement between ESO, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Natural Sciences for the operation of ALMA.[38]
    Due to the complexity of today's business environment, collaboration in technology encompasses a broad range of tools that enable groups of people to work together including social networking, instant messaging, team spaces, web sharing, audio conferencing, video, and telephony. Broadly defined, any technology that facilitates linking of two or more humans to work together can be considered a collaborative tool. Wikipedia, Blogs, even Twitter are collaborative tools. Many large companies are developing enterprise collaboration strategies and standardizing on a collaboration platform to allow their employees, customers and partners to intelligently connect and interact.
    Enterprise collaboration tools are centered on attaining collective intelligence and staff collaboration at the organization level, or with partners. These include features such as staff networking, expert recommendations, information sharing, expertise location, peer feedback, and real-time collaboration. At the personal level, this enables employees to enhance social awareness and their profiles and interactions Collaboration encompasses both asynchronous and synchronous methods of communication and serves as an umbrella term for a wide variety of software packages. Perhaps the most commonly associated form of synchronous collaboration are web conferencing using tools, but the term can easily be applied to IP telephony, instant messaging, and rich video interaction with telepresence, as well.
    The effectiveness of a collaborative effort is driven by three critical factors: - Communication - Content Management - Workflow control
    The Internet
    The low cost and nearly instantaneous sharing of ideas, knowledge, and skills has made collaborative work dramatically easier. Not only can a group cheaply communicate and test, but the wide reach of the Internet allows such groups to easily form in the first place, even among niche interests. An example of this is the free software movement in software development which produced GNU and Linux from scratch and has taken over development of Mozilla and (formerly known as Netscape Communicator and StarOffice).
    Commons-based peer production
    Commons-based peer production is a term coined by Yale's Law professor Yochai Benkler to describe a new model of economic production in which the creative energy of large numbers of people is coordinated (usually with the aid of the internet) into large, meaningful projects, mostly without traditional hierarchical organization or financial compensation. He compares this to firm production (where a centralized decision process decides what has to be done and by whom) and market-based production (when tagging different prices to different jobs serves as an attractor to anyone interested in doing the job).
    Examples of products created by means of commons-based peer production include Linux, a computer operating system; Slashdot, a news and announcements website; Kuro5hin, a discussion site for technology and culture; Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia; and Clickworkers, a collaborative scientific work. Another example is Socialtext which is a software that uses tools such as wikis and weblogs and helps companies to create a collaborative work environment.
    Massively distributed collaboration
    The term massively distributed collaboration was coined by Mitchell Kapor, in a presentation at UC Berkeley on 2005-11-09, to describe an emerging activity of wikis and electronic mailing lists and blogs and other content-creating virtual communities online.

    Wartime collaboration

    Since World War II the term "collaboration" acquired a negative meaning as referring to persons and groups which help a foreign occupier of their country—due to actual use by people in European countries who worked with and for the Nazi German occupiers. Linguistically, "collaboration" implies more or less equal partners who work together—which was the meaning the Nazi German occupiers were suggesting for ideological reasons but was obviously not the case as one party was an army of occupation and the other were people of the occupied country living under the power of this army. Thus, the term "collaboration" acquired during World War II the additional sense of criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government.
    The use of "collaboration" to mean "traitorous cooperation with the enemy," dates from 1940, originally in reference to the Vichy Regime in France, the French civilians who sympathised with Nazi Germany's doctrine, and voluntary troops (LVF) who fought against the Free French and later De Gaulle's French Force. Since then, the words collaboration and collaborateur may have this very pejorative meaning in French (and the abbreviation collabo has only this pejorative and insulting meaning). Nonetheless, collaboration and collaborateur have kept in French their original positive acceptations –with, for example, collaborateur still commonly used in referring to co-workers.
    In order to make a distinction, the more specific term Collaborationism is often used for this phenomenon of collaboration with an occupying army. However, there is no water-tight distinction; "Collaboration" and "Collaborator", as well as "Collaborationism" and "Collaborationist", are often used in this pejorative sense—and even more so, the equivalent terms in French and other languages spoken in countries which experienced direct Nazi occupation.

    See also


  • Marinez-Moyano, I. J. Exploring the Dynamics of Collaboration in Interorganizational Settings, Ch. 4, p. 83, in Schuman (Editor). Creating a Culture of Collaboration. Jossey-bass, 2006. ISBN 0-7879-8116-8.
    1. "ALMA Trilateral Agreement Signed". Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 21 December 2015.

    Further reading

    Navigation menu

  • Spence, Muneera U. "Graphic Design: Collaborative Processes = Understanding Self and Others." (lecture) Art 325: Collaborative Processes. Fairbanks Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 13 April 2006. See also.
  • Caroline S. Wagner and Loet Leydesdorff. Globalisation in the network of science in 2005: The diffusion of international collaboration and the formation of a core group Archived 2007-08-25 at the Wayback Machine..
  • Watson, Peter (2005). Ideas : A History of Thought and Invention from Fire to Freud. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-621064-X. Introduction.
  • Rogoff, Barbara. "Learning by Observing and Pitching In to Family and Community Endeavors: An Orientation". Human Development. 57 (2-3): 69–81. doi:10.1159/000356757.
  • Chavajay, Pablo; Rogoff, Barbara. "Schooling and traditional collaborative social organization of problem solving by Mayan mothers and children". Developmental Psychology. 38 (1): 55–66. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.38.1.55.
  • Bolin, Inge (2006). Growing up in a culture of respect: Childrearing in highland Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 72–3.
  • Mejía-Arauz, Rebeca; Rogoff, Barbara; Dexter, Amy; Najafi, Behnosh (2007-05-01). "Cultural Variation in Children's Social Organization". Child Development. 78 (3): 1001–1014. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01046.x. ISSN 1467-8624. Archived from the original on 2010-12-25.
  • Paradise, Ruth (1994-06-01). "Interactional Style and Nonverbal Meaning: Mazahua Children Learning How to Be Separate-But-Together". Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 25 (2): 156–172. doi:10.1525/aeq.1994.25.2.05x0907w. ISSN 1548-1492. Archived from the original on 2015-11-10.
  • Paradise, Ruth; De Haan, Mariëtte (2009-06-01). "Responsibility and Reciprocity: Social Organization of Mazahua Learning Practices". Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 40 (2): 187–204. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01035.x. ISSN 1548-1492. Archived from the original on 2017-09-05.
  • Ayn Rand (1966). "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".
  • Bennis, Warren and Patricia :Ward Biederman. Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration. Perseus Books, 1997.
  • Booz Allen Hamilton - History of Booz Allen 1950s Archived 2007-06-07 at the Wayback Machine.
  • Roth, W-M. and Lee, Y-J. (2006) Contradictions in theorising and implementing communities in education. Educational Research Review, 1, (1), pp27–40.
  • Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), pp32–42.
  • Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (1995) Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 73–128.
  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, pp265–283.
  • The Cognition and Technology Group (1994). From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 157–200). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Stein, Judith. "Collaboration." The Power of Feminist Art. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard. London: Thames and Hudson, 1994. 226-245. Print.
  • Eisingerich, Andreas B.; Bell, Simon J. (2008). "Managing Networks of Interorganizational Linkages and Sustainable Firm Performance in Business-to-Business Service Contexts". Journal of Services Marketing. 22: 494–504. doi:10.1108/08876040810909631.
  • Chan, Felix T. S.; Prakash, Anuj (2012-08-15). "Inventory management in a lateral collaborative manufacturing supply chain: a simulation study". International Journal of Production Research. 50 (16): 4670–4685. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.628709. ISSN 0020-7543.
  • Fischer, Michael Daniel. "An ethnographic study of turbulence in the management of personality disorders: an interorganisational perspective". 2008, PhD Thesis. Imperial College London, University of London. Retrieved 22 February 2013.[permanent dead link]
  • Eisingerich, Andreas B.; Rubera, Gaia; Seifert, Matthias (May 2009). "Managing Service Innovation and Interorganizational Relationships for Firm Performance: To Commit or Diversify?". Journal of Service Research. 11: 344–356. doi:10.1177/1094670508329223. Archived from the original on 2012-05-10.
  • Lai, Eric. "Socrates Would Have Found Little Truth in Email: Q & A With Collaboration Guru Evan Rosen". Archived 2015-12-08 at the Wayback Machine. Avaya Innovations. December 2013. p. 26.
  • Voyles, Bennett “Firing the Annual Performance Review,” Archived 2015-12-08 at the Wayback Machine. September 14, 2015, CKGSB Knowledge.
  • Poquérusse, Jessie. "The Neuroscience of Sharing". Archived from the original on 8 May 2013. Retrieved 16 August 2012.
  • Fischer, Michael D (28 September 2012). "Organizational Turbulence, Trouble and Trauma: Theorizing the Collapse of a Mental Health Setting". Organization Studies. 33 (9): 1153–1173. doi:10.1177/0170840612448155.
  • Fischer, Michael Daniel; Ferlie, Ewan (1 January 2013). "Resisting hybridisation between modes of clinical risk management: Contradiction, contest, and the production of intractable conflict". Accounting, Organizations and Society. 38 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2012.11.002.
  • Rytivaara, A., & Kershner, R. (2012). Co-teaching as a context for teachers' professional learning and joint knowledge construction. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 28(7), 999-1008, p.85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.006
  • Cook, L., & Friend. M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16 ; McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student- teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 495.
  • Kevin J Graziano, & Lori A Navarrete. (2012). Co-teaching in a teacher education classroom: Collaboration, compromise, and creativity. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1), 112 ; Rytivaara, A. (2012). Collaborative classroom management in a co-taught primary school classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 182. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.03.008
  • Rytivaara, A., & Kershner, R. (2012). Co-teaching as a context for teachers' professional learning and joint knowledge construction. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 28(7), 999-1008. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.006
  • Gee, J. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, Second Edition, Falmer, 1996.
  • What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Students, National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996
  • L. Zattra, N. Donin (2016) "A questionnaire-based investigation of the skills and roles of Computer Music Designers" Musicae Scientiae, September 2016 20: 436–456, doi:10.1177/1029864915624136. (referenced 12/13/16).
  • No comments: